[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 111 (Monday, June 10, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26980-27025]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11653]



[[Page 26979]]

Vol. 84

Monday,

No. 111

June 10, 2019

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 80





Modifications to Fuel Regulations To Provide Flexibility for E15; 
Modifications to RFS RIN Market Regulations; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 26980]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0775; FRL-9994-87-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU34


Modifications to Fuel Regulations To Provide Flexibility for E15; 
Modifications to RFS RIN Market Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is adopting a new 
statutory interpretation and making corresponding regulatory changes to 
allow gasoline blended with up to 15 percent ethanol to take advantage 
of the 1-pound per square inch (psi) Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) waiver 
afforded under the Clean Air Act (CAA). In doing so, EPA is finalizing 
an interpretive rulemaking which defines gasoline blended with up to 15 
percent ethanol as ``substantially similar'' to the fuel used to 
certify Tier 3 motor vehicles. Finally, EPA is making regulatory 
changes to modify certain elements of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) 
compliance system, in order to improve functioning of the renewable 
identification number (RIN) market and prevent market manipulation.

DATES: Amendatory instructions 4-10 are effective July 10, 2019. 
Amendatory instructions 1-3 and 11-12 are effective June 5, 2019.
    Operational dates: For operational purposes under the Clean Air 
Act, the amendments to 40 CFR part 80, subpart M and corresponding 
portions of the preamble are effective as of July 10, 2019, and the 
amendments to 40 CFR part 80, subparts B and N; corresponding portions 
of the preamble; and the interpretation of ``substantially similar'' in 
the appendix to this Federal Register document are effective as of May 
30, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0775. All documents in the docket are listed on the 
https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material is 
not available on the internet and will be publicly available only in 
hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available 
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia MacAllister, Office of 
Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 
48105; telephone number: 734-214-4131; email address: 
macallister.julia@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Effective date. Section 553(d)(1) of the Administrative Procedure 
Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), provides that final rules shall not become 
effective until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register 
``except . . . a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an 
exemption or relieves a restriction.'' The purpose of this provision is 
to ``give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior 
before the final rule takes effect.'' Omnipoint Corp. v. Fed. Commc'n 
Comm'n, 78 F.3d 620, 630 (D.C. Cir. 1996); see also United States v. 
Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099, 1104 (8th Cir. 1977) (quoting legislative 
history). However, when the agency grants or recognizes an exemption or 
relieves a restriction, affected parties do not need a reasonable time 
to adjust because the effect is not adverse. EPA is issuing this final 
rule under CAA sec. 307(d), which states ``The provisions of section 
553 through 557 . . . of Title 5 shall not, except as expressly 
provided in this section, apply to actions to which this subsection 
applies.'' CAA sec. 307(d)(1). Thus, APA sec. 553(d) does not apply to 
this rule. EPA is nevertheless acting consistently with the policies 
underlying APA sec. 553(d) in making a portion of this rule effective 
immediately. The regulatory amendments to 40 CFR part 80, subparts B 
and N, relieve a restriction on the sale of E15 during the period of 
May 1 through September 15, which the 40 CFR part 80 regulations define 
as the ``regulatory control period.'' This action will enable E15 to 
take advantage of the 1-pound per square inch Reid Vapor Pressure 
waiver that currently applies to E10 during the summer months. 
Accordingly, it is in keeping with the policy underlying the APA for 
the regulatory amendments to 40 CFR part 80, subparts B and N, to take 
effect immediately. In addition, APA sec. 553(d) contains an exception 
for interpretive rules; thus, it is consistent with the APA to make the 
interpretation of ``substantially similar'' in the appendix to this 
Federal Register notice effective immediately. Finally, this CAA sec. 
307(d) rule is promulgated upon signature. For operational purposes 
under the CAA, EPA is making the amendments to 40 CFR part 80, subparts 
B and N; corresponding portions of the preamble; and the interpretation 
of ``substantially similar'' in the appendix to this Federal Register 
notice effective as of May 30, 2019, which is the date of signature.
    Potentially affected entities. Entities potentially affected by 
this final rule include those involved with the production, 
importation, distribution, marketing, and retailing of transportation 
fuels, including gasoline and diesel fuel or renewable fuels such as 
ethanol, biodiesel, and renewable diesel. Potentially affected 
categories include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                NAICS \1\                      Examples of potentially affected
                  Category                        codes       SIC \2\ codes                entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...................................          324110            2911  Petroleum refineries.
Industry...................................          325193            2869  Ethyl alcohol manufacturing.
Industry...................................          325199            2869  Other basic organic chemical
                                                                              manufacturing.
Industry...................................          424690            5169  Chemical and allied products
                                                                              merchant wholesalers.
Industry...................................          424710            5171  Petroleum bulk stations and
                                                                              terminals.
Industry...................................          424720            5172  Petroleum and petroleum products
                                                                              merchant wholesalers.
Industry...................................          454319            5989  Gasoline service stations.
Industry...................................          447190            5541  Marine service stations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
\2\ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC).

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this 
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware 
could potentially be affected by

[[Page 26981]]

this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also 
be affected. To determine whether your entity will be affected by this 
action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 
CFR part 80. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of 
this proposed action to a particular entity, consult the person listed 
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Outline of This Preamble

I. Executive Summary
    A. Purpose of This Action
    B. Summary of the Major Provisions of This Action
    1. E15 Reid Vapor Pressure
    2. RIN Market Reform
    C. Severability
II. Application of the 1-psi Waiver to E15
    A. Background
    1. Summary of Statutory Framework
    2. Background on Ethanol Use Over Time
    3. Background on CAA Sec. 211(h)
    4. Background of E10 and E15 CAA Sec. 211(f)(4) Waivers
    B. Interpretation of CAA Sec. 211(h)(4)
    C. Interpretation of ``Substantially Similar'' for Gasoline
    1. Certification Fuels
    2. History of ``Substantially Similar'' Interpretations
    3. Interpretation of CAA Sec. 211(f)(1)
    4. Criteria for Determining Whether a Fuel Is ``Substantially 
Similar''
    5. Impact of Volatility on ``Substantially Similar''
    6. Technical Rationale and Discussion for Tier 3 Vehicles 
(MY2020 and Newer)
    7. Technical Rationale for MY2001-2019 Light-Duty Motor Vehicles
    8. Technical Rationale for Other Vehicles, Engines, and 
Equipment
    9. Limitations of ``Substantially Similar'' Interpretative 
Rulemaking
    10. Implications of ``Substantially Similar'' Interpretation
    D. Regulatory Amendments
    1. Modification of Regulations
    2. Status of Misfueling Mitigation Rule Regulations
    3. Waiver Applicability
    E. Expected Impact of This Rule on E15 Use
    F. E15 Criteria Pollutant and Air Toxics Emission Impacts
    G. E15 Economic Impacts
    1. Potential Benefits of This Action
    2. Costs of This Action
III. RIN Market Reforms
    A. Background
    B. Market Manipulation
    C. Reform 1: Public Disclosure if RIN Holdings Exceed Certain 
Threshold
    D. Reform 5: Enhancing EPA's Market Monitoring Capabilities
    E. Other Reforms Proposed But Not Finalized at This Time
    F. RIN Market Reform Economic Impacts
    1. Benefits of RIN Market Reform
    2. Costs of RIN Market Reform
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
V. Statutory Authority

I. Executive Summary

    On October 11, 2018, the President directed \1\ EPA to initiate a 
Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) rulemaking to extend to gasoline blends 
containing 15 percent ethanol by volume, commonly referred to as E15, 
the 1-psi (pound per square inch) Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) waiver that 
currently applies to E10 (gasoline containing up to 10 percent ethanol 
by volume) during the summer ozone control season. The President also 
directed EPA to consider four reforms to the Renewable Fuel Standard 
(RFS) compliance system: (1) Prohibiting entities other than obligated 
parties from purchasing separated Renewable Identification Numbers 
(RINs); (2) requiring public disclosure when RIN holdings held by an 
individual actor exceed specified limits; (3) limiting the length of 
time a non-obligated party can hold RINs; and (4) requiring the 
retirement of RINs for the purpose of compliance be made in real time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See President Donald J. Trump Is Expanding Waivers for E15 
and Increasing Transparency in the RIN Market: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-expanding-waivers-e15-increasing-transparency-rin-market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Purpose of This Action

    The objectives of this action are twofold. First, this rulemaking 
will take steps intended to create parity in the way the RVP of both 
E10 and E15 fuels is treated under EPA regulations. Second, this action 
finalizes reforms to RIN regulations intended to increase transparency 
and deter potential manipulative and anti-competitive behaviors in the 
RIN market.
    Further, in promulgating this rule, EPA is seeking to take 
justified actions to remove barriers which unnecessarily limit the 
potential growth in biofuel consumption, much as it did in 1987 for the 
original 1-psi waiver as markets were evolving. As is also clear from 
the text of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, and the 
associated 36 billion gallon mandate by 2022, that Congress intended to 
promote and accommodate expanded biofuel use and outlined greenhouse 
gas savings. While this rule alone is not expected to increase the 
availability of E15, it removes one barrier to such an outcome.

B. Summary of the Major Provisions of This Action

1. E15 Reid Vapor Pressure
    We are modifying the volatility requirements for E15 during the 
summer season or the period of May 1 through September 
15.2 3 The changed volatility provisions for these blends 
will allow E15 to receive the benefit of the

[[Page 26982]]

provision at CAA sec. 211(h)(4), commonly referred to as ``the 1-psi 
waiver.'' The 1-psi waiver allows gasoline-ethanol blends to have a 
higher RVP \4\ than would be allowed under CAA sec. 211(h)(1) and the 
corresponding volatility provisions, which prohibit the RVP of gasoline 
from exceeding 9.0 psi during the summer.\5\ Under EPA's previous 
interpretation of CAA sec. 211(h)(4), and corresponding regulations, 
only blends of ethanol and gasoline containing at least 9 percent and 
no more than 10 percent ethanol by volume (E10) were granted the 1-psi 
waiver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For purposes of this preamble, E15 refers to gasoline-
ethanol blended fuels that contain greater than 10 volume percent 
and no more than 15 volume percent ethanol content. Under EPA 
regulations at 40 CFR part 80, we broadly define gasoline as ``any 
fuel sold in any State for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle 
engines, and commonly or commercially known or sold as gasoline.'' 
We have also clearly stated that any fuel that is predominantly 
gasoline is considered gasoline for purposes complying with EPA's 
fuels regulations at 40 CFR parts 79 and 80 and relevant provisions 
under the CAA (see 79 FR 23557 (April 28, 2014) and 81 FR 80841-
80843 (November 16, 2016)). Gasoline-ethanol blended fuels (referred 
to as ``gasoline-ethanol blends'' in this action) are fuels under 
the CAA and gasoline-ethanol blended fuels containing no more than 
50 volume percent ethanol are defined as gasoline under EPA's 
regulations. This preamble sometimes refers to gasoline or to 
gasoline-ethanol blended fuels in terms of the ethanol content of 
the fuel (e.g., ``E10'' or ``E15''). At other times, this preamble 
uses the term gasoline to be inclusive of all fuels that are 
predominantly composed of gasoline, which would include, but is not 
limited to, all gasoline-ethanol blended fuels containing no more 
than 50 volume percent ethanol.
    \3\ CAA sec. 211(h)(1) requires EPA to establish volatility 
requirements--that is, a restriction on Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP)--
during the high ozone season. To implement these requirements, EPA 
defines ``high ozone season'' at 40 CFR 80.27 as the period from 
June 1 to September 15. The regulations at 40 CFR 80.27 also specify 
that all parties except for retailers must make and distribute 
gasoline meeting the RVP standards at 40 CFR 80.27 from May 1 
through September 15 and calls this period the ``regulatory control 
period.'' The E15 partial waivers impose the 9.0 psi RVP limit on 
E15 from May 1 through September 15. See 75 FR 68094 (November 4, 
2010) and 76 FR 4662 (January 26, 2011). In general practice by 
industry and for purposes of this preamble, the high ozone season 
and regulatory control period is referred to as the ``summer'' or 
``summer season'' and gasoline produced to be used during the 
regulatory control period and high ozone season is called ``summer 
gasoline.'' EPA's regulations do not impose any volatility 
requirements on any type of blend of gasoline outside of the summer 
season.
    \4\ RVP is a measure of the volatility of gasoline. Gasoline 
must have volatility in the proper range to prevent driveability, 
performance, and emissions problems. If the volatility is too low, 
the gasoline will not ignite properly; if the volatility is too 
high, the vehicle may experience vapor lock. Importantly for this 
rule, excessively high volatility also leads to increased 
evaporative emissions from the vehicle. Vehicle evaporative emission 
control systems are designed and certified on gasoline with a 
volatility of 9.0 psi RVP. Higher volatility gasoline may overwhelm 
the vehicle's evaporative control system, leading to a condition 
described as ``breakthrough'' of the cannister and mostly 
uncontrolled evaporative emissions. The regulations at 40 CFR part 
86 defines evaporative emissions as ``hydrocarbons emitted into the 
atmosphere from a motor vehicle, other than exhaust and crankcase 
emissions.'' For purposes of this preamble, evaporative emissions 
are generally referring to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) present 
in gasoline that evaporate within the fuel system. This differs from 
tailpipe or exhaust emissions which are defined under the 
regulations at 40 CFR part 86 as ``substances emitted to the 
atmosphere from any opening downstream from the exhaust port of a 
motor vehicle engine.'' For purposes of this preamble, when we refer 
to exhaust emissions, we are generally referring to exhaust 
emissions that are controlled in motor vehicles under Title II of 
the Clean Air Act.
    \5\ In a few areas, specified at 40 CFR 80.27, the RVP standard 
is 7.8 psi. In these areas, after application of the 1-psi waiver, 
gasoline-ethanol blended fuels covered by the 1-psi waiver could 
have an RVP of up to 8.8 psi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is finalizing three steps to accomplish this change. First, we 
are adopting a new interpretation of CAA sec. 211(h)(4). Second, we are 
finalizing two approaches to address CAA sec. 211(f). In the first of 
these approaches, we find that E15 is ``substantially similar'' (sub 
sim) to Tier 3 E10 certification fuel for use in MY2001 and newer 
light-duty vehicles.\6\ In the second of these approaches, we maintain 
our interpretation of CAA sec. 211(f), making it clear that the 
conditions on the CAA sec. 211(f)(4) waivers granted to E15 in 2010 and 
2011 do not restrict the application of the 1-psi waiver to downstream 
oxygenate blenders in most circumstances. Third and finally, we are 
modifying our regulations to effect two changes: (1) Remove limitations 
in our regulations on the volatility of E15 promulgated in the E15 
Misfueling Mitigation Rule (``MMR'') that were put in place in keeping 
with the prior interpretation of CAA sec. 211(h)(4); \7\ and (2) modify 
the associated product transfer document (PTD) requirements also 
promulgated in the MMR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ EPA last issued an interpretative rulemaking for what it 
considers sub sim for gasoline in 2008. See 73 FR 22281 (April 25, 
2008).
    \7\ See 76 FR 44406 (July 25, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of this action, parties will be able to make, 
distribute, and sell E15 made with the same conventional blendstock for 
oxygenate blending (CBOB) \8\ that is used to make E10 by oxygenate 
blenders during the summer.\9\ E15 will be held to the same gasoline 
volatility standards that currently apply to E10, maintaining 
substantially the same level of emissions performance as E10 since E15 
made from the same CBOB as is used to make E10 during the summer would 
have slightly lower RVP than E10 and would be expected to have similar 
emissions performance as discussed in Sections II.C and II.E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ CBOB is the base gasoline typically made for blending with 
10 percent ethanol in conventional gasoline areas of the country.
    \9\ As previously noted, EPA's regulations do not impose any 
volatility requirements on any type of blend of gasoline outside of 
the summer season. EPA does not have volatility limitations on 
gasoline outside of the summer season. Therefore, E15 can already be 
made from the same CBOB used to produce E10 outside of the summer 
season. The rest of the year (outside of the summer season) is 
commonly referred to as the ``winter season'' or ``winter.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. RIN Market Reform
    EPA takes claims of RIN market manipulation seriously. Though, as 
stated in the proposal and reaffirmed in this action, we have yet to 
see data-based evidence of such behavior, the potential for 
manipulation is a concern. Accordingly, we are finalizing two reforms 
to increase our market monitoring capabilities, bring more transparency 
to the RIN market, and discourage RIN holdings in excess of normal 
business practices. Specifically, we are finalizing the following RIN 
market reforms:
     Requiring public disclosure when RIN holdings held by an 
individual actor exceed specified limits.
     Requiring the reporting of additional price and affiliate 
data to EPA.
    First, we are finalizing two RIN holding thresholds that will work 
in tandem to discourage potential accumulation of market power. These 
thresholds will apply to holdings of separated D6 RINs only.\10\ If a 
non-obligated party's end-of-day separated D6 RIN holdings exceed three 
percent of the total implied conventional biofuel volume requirement, 
it has triggered the primary threshold. If an obligated party's end-of-
day separated D6 RIN holdings exceed three percent of the total implied 
conventional biofuel volume requirement and exceed 130 percent of its 
individual implied conventional renewable volume obligation (RVO), it 
has triggered the secondary threshold. We are requiring that parties 
make calculations of daily RIN holdings and report new information in a 
quarterly report, including a yes/no certification statement about 
exceeding the threshold and a list of all RIN-holding corporate 
affiliates and all contractual affiliates. We will publish on our 
website the names of any parties that report exceeding the thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ RINs specify a ``D-code'' corresponding to the renewable 
fuel category applicable to the fuel, as determined by the feedstock 
used, fuel type produced and GHG emissions of the fuel, among other 
characteristics. There are five different D-Codes for RINs in the 
RFS program. D3 RINs are cellulosic biofuel RINs. D4 RINs are 
biomass-based diesel (including both biodiesel and renewable diesel) 
RINs. D5 RINs are advanced biofuel RINs. D6 RINs are conventional 
biofuel RINs (primarily corn ethanol). D7 RINs are cellulosic diesel 
RINs which meet the requirements for both cellulosic biofuel and 
biomass-based diesel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, we are finalizing additional reporting requirements that 
will enhance EPA's oversight capabilities of RIN market behavior. We 
are finalizing requirements for parties to follow certain conventions 
when reporting RIN prices to EPA and to report whether the RIN 
transaction was on the spot market or as a result of a term contract.
    Third, we are confirming our intention to take non-regulatory steps 
after promulgation of this action to update business rules in EMTS to 
require that both parties in a RIN transaction enter the same RIN price 
and to employ a third-party market monitor to conduct analysis of the 
RIN market, including screening for potential anti-competitive 
behavior. We intend to incorporate new information reported to EPA as a 
result of this rulemaking into such RIN market analysis.
    Finally, we are not taking final action on three of the reforms 
that were proposed. These reforms are related to RIN retirement 
frequency, limitations on the parties that can purchase a D6 RIN, and 
the duration parties can hold D6 RINs. We have decided to defer the 
decision on whether or not to finalize these three proposed reforms as 
we conduct more thorough analyses of the RIN market and of the 
manipulation concerns presented by some stakeholders, with help from a 
third party. If, after reviewing that data and

[[Page 26983]]

conducting additional market analysis, we determine that it would be 
prudent to finalize one or more of these proposed reforms in the 
future, we will share the analysis that has led us to believe it could 
be appropriate and will allow time for parties to comment before we 
proceed with a final rule.

C. Severability

    The actions we are taking with regard to Section II are made 
pursuant to our authority under CAA secs. 211(c), 211(f), and 211(h). 
The actions we are taking with regard to Section III are made pursuant 
to our authority under Clean Air Act sec. 211(o). We consider Section 
II and the regulatory provisions we are finalizing under 40 CFR part 
80, subparts B and N, to be severable from Section III and the 
regulatory provisions we are finalizing under 40 CFR part 80, subpart 
M, as these are two separate actions, each of which operates 
independently from the other.

II. Application of the 1-psi Waiver to E15

    In this action, we are finalizing changes to the volatility 
provisions for E15 during the summer season based on revised 
interpretations of CAA sec. 211(h)(4) and CAA sec. 211(f). The changed 
volatility provisions for E15 will apply the 1-psi waiver to E15 
pursuant to CAA sec. 211(h)(4). This provision allows certain gasoline-
ethanol blends to have a higher RVP than would otherwise be allowed 
under CAA sec. 211(h)(1) and the corresponding volatility regulations 
that prohibit the RVP of gasoline from exceeding 9.0 psi during the 
summer. Prior to this rulemaking, EPA's interpretation of the statute 
and the corresponding regulations only applied the 1-psi waiver to 
gasoline-ethanol blends containing at least 9 percent and no more than 
10 volume percent ethanol. The interpretation in this action represents 
a change in EPA's prior interpretation and, as explained in more detail 
below, is appropriate in light of the increased presence of E15 in the 
gasoline marketplace. This interpretation is further supported by the 
fact that the conditions that led us to provide the original 1-psi 
waiver for E10 in 1990 are equally applicable to E15 today.
    The volatility of E15 is also limited by CAA sec. 211(f). CAA sec. 
211(f) prohibits the introduction into commerce of fuels and fuel 
additives unless they either: (1) Are substantially similar to fuels or 
fuel additives utilized in the certification of motor vehicles, or (2) 
receive a waiver from the sub sim requirement in accordance with CAA 
sec. 211(f)(4). EPA granted E15 CAA sec. 211(f)(4) waivers in 2010 and 
2011, subject to certain conditions. Under the waiver conditions, the 
RVP limit for E15 is 9.0 psi from May 1 through September 15. In order 
to effectuate the 1-psi waiver under CAA sec. 211(h)(4) and permit the 
introduction of E15 at the higher RVP level into commerce, we are 
addressing the statutory provisions under both CAA sec. 211(f) and (h).
    As discussed in Section I, we are taking this action in response to 
the Presidential Directive to provide E15 the 1-psi waiver. All actions 
we are taking under both CAA sec. 211(h) and CAA sec. 211(f)(1) are in 
furtherance of that goal. EPA is taking several steps to provide E15 
the 1-psi waiver. First, we are finalizing our proposed interpretation 
of CAA sec. 211(h)(4). Under this new interpretation, gasoline-ethanol 
blends containing at least 10 percent ethanol that are either 
substantially similar under CAA sec. 211(f)(1) or that have been 
granted a waiver under CAA sec. 211(f)(4) would receive the 1-psi 
waiver, including E15.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ While any gasoline-ethanol blend containing at least 10 
percent ethanol would receive the 1-psi waiver, that does not mean 
that gasoline-ethanol blends higher than E15 can be introduced into 
commerce at 10.0 psi. As discussed further below, in order for these 
fuels to be introduced into commerce, they must be substantially 
similar to certification fuel or obtain a waiver from the 
substantially similar requirement. Therefore, once this action is 
finalized, only E10 and E15 may be introduced into commerce at 10.0 
psi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, we are finalizing an interpretative rulemaking that defines 
E15 with an RVP of 9.0 psi RVP in the summer as sub sim to the fuel 
utilized to certify Tier 3 vehicles when used in model year (MY) 2001 
and newer light-duty motor vehicles, subject to certain criteria. After 
application of the CAA sec. 211(h)(4) 1-psi waiver, this new definition 
of sub sim will allow E15 to be introduced into commerce with an RVP of 
10.0 psi during the summer. Additionally, we maintain our 
interpretation of CAA sec. 211(f), making it clear that the conditions 
on the CAA sec. 211(f)(4) waivers granted to E15 in 2010 and 2011 do 
not restrict the application of the 1-psi waiver to downstream 
oxygenate blenders in most circumstances.
    Third, to effectuate our new interpretations under CAA sec. 211(h) 
and 211(f)(1), we are finalizing the following changes to EPA's fuels 
regulations: (1) Removing limitations on the volatility of E15 in our 
regulations, that were put in place to implement the prior 
interpretation of CAA sec. 211(h)(4); and (2) modifying the associated 
Product Transfer Document (``PTD'') requirements.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ We also find that our existing understanding of the statute 
that CAA sec. 211(f), generally, and any waiver conditions imposed 
under CAA sec. 211(f)(4) more specifically, only apply to fuel and 
fuel additive manufacturers and thus provide an additional basis for 
the regulatory changes we are making in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The actions we are taking, including those pursuant to our 
authorities under CAA secs. 211(f) 211(h), are all taken to establish a 
single, unified program that allows the introduction into commerce of 
E15 at 10.0 psi RVP during the summer driving season. For example, the 
actions we are taking under CAA sec. 211(f) are directly related to our 
new interpretation of CAA sec. 211(h)(4), and in the absence of this 
new CAA sec. 211(h)(4) interpretation, we would not be taking these 
actions. Additionally, the restrictions adopted as part of the E15 sub 
sim determination under CAA sec. 211(f)(1) are necessary to prevent the 
use of E15 in vehicles, engines, and equipment other than MY2001 and 
newer light-duty vehicles, and absent those restrictions and the 
limited nature of the sub sim determination, we would not consider E15 
to be sub sim to Tier 3 certification fuel. Finally, our amendments to 
40 CFR part 80 subparts B and N are pursuant to our actions under CAA 
secs. 211(f) and (h)(4). In sum, all actions we are taking today 
constitute a single, cohesive effort, and as such we do not intend for 
any of these individual actions to be severable. In the event it is 
determined we lack authority to adopt any element of this program, EPA 
believes the other elements of the program cannot be justified in 
isolation.
    The following subsections provide further details on these changes, 
as well as discussions on the potential effects of this action on 
emissions and the economy. First, we provide background on both the 
relevant statutory provisions and the history of gasoline-ethanol 
blends in the fuel marketplace. We then discuss our new interpretation 
of CAA sec. 211(h), under which the 1-psi waiver applies to blends up 
to E15. Third, we provide a discussion of our new definition of 
``substantially similar'' under CAA sec. 211(f)(1) and its application 
to E15. Finally, we provide discussion of the potential economic and 
environmental impacts of this action.

A. Background

    The discussion below provides general background explaining the CAA 
provisions that are relevant to this action, as well as a description 
of prior EPA actions taken under those

[[Page 26984]]

provisions. It also provides background on the presence of ethanol in 
the fuels marketplace.
1. Summary of Statutory Framework
    The Air Quality Act of 1967 and the CAA of 1970 established the 
basic framework for EPA's fuels regulations. CAA sec. 211(a) allows EPA 
to designate fuels and fuel additives for registration. CAA sec. 211(b) 
sets forth registration requirements for fuels and fuel additives and 
authorizes EPA to require health and environmental effects testing for 
the registration of fuels and fuel additives. CAA sec. 211(c) 
authorizes EPA to regulate or prohibit fuels or additives for use in 
motor (or nonroad) vehicles or engines if: (A) ``any fuel or fuel 
additive or any emission product of such fuel or fuel additive causes, 
or contributes, to air pollution . . . that may reasonably be 
anticipated to endanger the public health or welfare,'' or (B) ``if 
emission products of such fuel or fuel additive will impair to a 
significant degree the performance of any emission control device or 
system.'' CAA sec. 211(c) also provides that in order to place a 
control or prohibition on a fuel or fuel additive under clause (A), EPA 
must consider ``all relevant medical and scientific evidence available 
. . . including consideration of other technologically or economically 
feasible means of achieving emission standards.'' In order to place a 
control or prohibition on a fuel or fuel additive under clause (B), EPA 
must consider ``available scientific and economic data, including a 
cost benefit analysis comparing emission control devices or systems 
which are or will be in general use and require the proposed control'' 
and those that do not require the proposed control.
    In the CAA Amendments of 1977, Congress established CAA sec. 
211(f)(1), which prohibits manufacturers from first introducing into 
commerce any fuel or fuel additive for general use in light-duty 
vehicles that is not ``substantially similar to any fuel or fuel 
additive utilized in the certification of any model year 1975, or 
subsequent model year, vehicle.'' In a report accompanying the 
enactment of this provision in addition to 211(c), Congress explained 
that ``the intention of this [section] is to prevent the use of any new 
or recently introduced additive in those unleaded grades of gasoline . 
. . which may impair emission performance of vehicles.'' \13\ The 
Senate Report also states that the sub sim provision was enacted in 
recognition that ``due to the delay associated with statutory 
procedural safeguards of [CAA sec. 211(c)]'' parties could introduce 
fuel with negative impacts on emission controls before a CAA sec. 
211(c) action could be completed.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See S. Rep. 95-127 (95th Congress, 1st Session) at 90-91. 
See also Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the U.S., Inc. 
v. EPA, 768 F.2d 385, 390 n.7 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a fuel or fuel additive is not sub sim, a fuel or fuel additive 
manufacturer may obtain a waiver under CAA sec. 211(f)(4) \15\ if the 
manufacturer can demonstrate that the new fuel or fuel additive ``will 
not cause or contribute to a failure of any emission control device or 
system (over the useful life of the motor vehicle, motor vehicle 
engine, nonroad engine, or nonroad vehicle in which such device or 
system is used) to achieve compliance by the vehicle or engine with the 
emission standards with respect to which it has been certified.'' 
Together, CAA sec. 211(f)(1) and (f)(4) prevent fuels and fuel 
additives from being introduced into commerce that would degrade the 
emission performance of the existing fleet and protect vehicle 
manufacturers from their vehicles consequently failing emission 
standards in use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Quoted above is the current formulation of CAA sec. 
211(f)(4). When enacted in 1977, the waiver provision stated a 
waiver could be granted ``if [the administrator] determines that the 
applicant has established that such fuel or fuel additive or a 
specified concentration thereof, and the emission products of such 
fuel or fuel additive or specified concentration thereof, will not 
cause or contribute to a failure of any emission control device or 
system (over the useful life of any vehicle in which such device or 
system is used) to achieve compliance by the vehicle with the 
emission standards with respect to which it has been certified 
pursuant to section 206.'' See CAA Amendments of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the CAA Amendments of 1990, Congress added CAA sec. 
211(f)(1)(B), which extends the prohibition from first introduction 
into commerce to ``any fuel or fuel additive for use by any person in 
motor vehicles manufactured after model year 1974 which is not 
substantially similar to any fuel or fuel additive utilized in the 
certification of any model year 1975, or subsequent model year vehicle, 
or engine.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 75 FR 68094, 68145 (Nov. 4, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, in the CAA Amendments of 1990, Congress added CAA sec. 211(h) 
to address the volatility of gasoline, which largely codified EPA's 
then-new RVP regulations.\17\ Accordingly, entirely separate from CAA 
sec. 211(f), CAA sec. 211(h)(1) prohibits the sale of gasoline with an 
RVP in excess of 9.0 psi during the high ozone season (while allowing 
EPA to promulgate more stringent RVP requirements for nonattainment 
areas),\18\ and CAA sec. 211(h)(4) provides a 1.0 psi RVP allowance for 
``fuel blends containing gasoline and 10 percent'' ethanol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 54 FR 11868 (March 22, 1989) (Phase I) and 55 FR 23658 
(June 11, 1990) (Phase II).
    \18\ A ``nonattainment area'' is an area designated as not 
meeting a National Ambient Air Quality Standard, or as contributing 
to another, nearby area's failure to meet such standard. See 
generally CAA sec. 107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Relevant to our discussion of CAA sec. 211(f)(1) are CAA sec. 206 
and 213. These provisions provide EPA with authority to establish 
vehicle and engine certification procedures; CAA sec. 213 also provides 
EPA with authority to establish emissions standards. CAA sec. 206, 
``Motor vehicle and motor vehicle engine compliance testing and 
certification,'' authorizes EPA to established methods and procedures 
for testing whether a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine conforms 
with our motor vehicle emissions standards promulgated under CAA sec. 
202. CAA sec. 213, enacted in the CAA Amendments of 1990, authorizes 
EPA to promulgate regulations containing emissions standards for 
nonroad engines and nonroad vehicles.
    In the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (``EPAct'') Congress added sec. 
211(o) to the CAA creating the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), and then 
in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (``EISA'') modified 
and greatly expanded the program. The RFS program places obligations on 
refiners and importers to expand the use of renewable fuels such as 
ethanol in the nation's fuel supply.
2. Background on Ethanol Use Over Time
    Prompted by concerns about reliance on foreign sources of oil and a 
desire to support domestic agriculture, several corn-based ethanol 
plants were constructed in the 1970s. In 1978, after a CAA sec. 
211(f)(4) waiver application was submitted for E10, E10 was granted a 
CAA sec. 211(f)(4) waiver by operation of law.\19\ The CAA sec. 
211(f)(4) waiver along with an excise tax exemption for gasoline 
containing ethanol resulted in the growth in the production of ethanol 
through the mid-1980s at the rate of about 100 million gallons per 
year. In the years following, ethanol use in gasoline continued to grow 
as a result of a combination of state and federal programs and 
policies, as well as

[[Page 26985]]

favorable market conditions, until essentially all gasoline contained 
10% ethanol by around 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See 44 FR 20777 (April 6, 1979). Under the CAA as it 
existed in 1978, unless EPA acted to deny a waiver application 
within 270 days, the waiver was deemed granted by operation of law. 
See 42 U.S.C. 7545(f)(4) (1978). In EISA, Congress revised this 
provision; under the statute as it now exists, EPA shall take final 
action to grant or deny an application after public notice and 
comment within 270 days of receipt, but does not automatically grant 
applications upon agency inaction.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JN19.004

    In the 1980s, to make E10, or ``gasohol'' as it was known at the 
time, ethanol was ``splash blended'' into previously certified 
gasoline. ``Splash blending'' occurred when tanker trucks were filled 
up to 90 volume percent with gasoline at a gasoline terminal and then 
driven to an ethanol tank (at the gasoline terminal or at another 
location) to be filled with 10 volume percent ethanol. Mixing was 
assumed to take place as the truck drove to the retail station.\20\ In 
1987, when EPA first proposed the 1-psi RVP waiver for E10, just over 
800 million gallons of ethanol was blended into gasoline. Assuming it 
was all blended at 10 percent, E10 represented just over 7 percent of 
the gasoline consumed in the U.S. This limited the impact of the 1-psi 
RVP waiver to a small portion of the fuel pool. Growth in ethanol use 
slowed between 1988 and 1990 as the volume of methyl tertiary butyl 
ether (MTBE) as a gasoline additive rose to provide octane and oxygen 
content to gasoline in lieu of ethanol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 52 FR 31292 (August 19, 1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1989, the first phase of the federal volatility standards went 
into effect.\21\ Gasoline containing about 10% ethanol was 
simultaneously granted a 1-psi RVP waiver, such that continued use of 
E10 did not require the production and distribution of a special low-
RVP gasoline blendstock for subsequent blending with ethanol. This 
allowed the practice of splash blending of ethanol to continue. At the 
time, gasohol also had a tax credit through which Congress intended to 
encourage the use of ethanol as a means of reducing dependence on 
foreign oil and making use of excess agricultural production.\22\ 
Neither the Phase I (1989) nor the Phase II (1990 and thereafter) 
volatility standards appeared to have any direct impact on the 
magnitude of ethanol use. In 1991, we promulgated regulations in 
response to the CAA Amendments of 1990 that implemented the statutory 
1-psi waiver. We again did not see significant impacts on ethanol use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See 54 FR 11868 (March 22, 1989).
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1992, the winter oxygenated fuels (``oxyfuels'') program for 
carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment areas began as mandated by the CAA 
Amendments of 1990.\23\ This program required the use of at least 2.7 
percent by weight oxygen in gasoline, equivalent to about 15 volume 
percent MTBE or 7.8 volume percent ethanol in those areas.\24\ The use 
of both ethanol and MTBE as gasoline additives grew over the next 
several years under the influence of the oxyfuels program, with ethanol 
reaching 1.3 billion gallons and E10 representing approximately 11 
percent of all gasoline in 1994 (assuming all the ethanol was blended 
to make E10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ CAA sec. 211(m).
    \24\ Where allowed, ethanol was typically blended at 10 percent 
to take advantage of the 1-psi waiver, in both nonattainment and 
attainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, also enacted under the CAA 
Amendments of 1990, began in 1995 and applied to severe and extreme 
ozone nonattainment areas.\25\ It required the use of at least 2.1 
weight percent oxygen on average, equivalent to 11.6 volume percent 
MTBE or 6.0 volume percent ethanol.\26\ Due to the summer volatile 
organic compounds (VOC) emissions standards for RFG, the 1-psi waiver 
for ethanol blends was effectively not applicable. This is because the 
gasoline-ethanol blends would not meet the summer VOC emission 
standards at the higher RVP. Thus ethanol blending into RFG required 
the production and distribution of a special low-RVP gasoline 
blendstock, referred to as reformulated blendstock for oxygenate 
blending (RBOB), into which ethanol could be blended at the 
terminal.\27\ Perhaps due to this, and the relative ease of blending 
MTBE, ethanol's use in RFG was limited, and growth in the use of 
ethanol as a gasoline additive was more limited in the years after 1995 
than it would have been if MTBE had not been available as an 
alternative to

[[Page 26986]]

ethanol. By the year 2000, ethanol use had grown to 1.7 billion 
gallons, with E10 representing about 13% of all gasoline (assuming all 
ethanol was blended to make E10). The practice of blending ethanol had 
also evolved from simple splash blending, to ethanol being metered into 
transport trucks at the 10% rate along with gasoline at the gasoline 
terminal; into RBOB in RFG areas; and into conventional gasoline 
(``CG'') in other areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See, generally, CAA sec. 211(k).
    \26\ Again, ethanol was typically blended at 10 percent where 
allowed to take advantage of the 1-psi waiver.
    \27\ Because ethanol was high in octane, RBOB was also made to a 
lower octane specification in order to reduce costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Beginning in the early 2000s, concerns about leaking underground 
storage tanks and groundwater contamination led several states to ban 
the use of MTBE as a gasoline additive. The use of MTBE as a gasoline 
additive began falling in 2002, with its volume being replaced 
essentially 1:1 with ethanol in RFG areas. EPAct in 2005 removed the 
oxygenate mandate for RFG and replaced it with the Renewable Fuel 
Standard (RFS). By this time, refiners had already removed essentially 
all MTBE from RFG and replaced it with ethanol. This initially involved 
shifting much of the existing discretionary blending of ethanol in CG 
areas to RFG, until ethanol production and distribution capacity could 
increase to supply both the CG and RFG markets. By 2007, MTBE was 
rarely used, and coupled with the ongoing excise tax credit for 
ethanol, and the certainty of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) 
mandate, ethanol's use rose significantly to 6.9 billion gallons by 
2007, with E10 representing nearly half of all gasoline (assuming that 
all of the ethanol was blended to make E10).
    In the following years, a combination of factors continued to 
create ongoing incentives for the rapid growth of E10, including rising 
crude oil prices, the expansion of the RFS program with the passage of 
EISA, and California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). With E10 
comprising the majority of gasoline produced and distributed 
nationwide, refiners began producing not only low RVP/low octane RBOB 
for blending with ethanol in RFG areas at downstream terminals, but 
also a low octane conventional blendstock for oxygenate blending (CBOB) 
for blending CG with ethanol. By 2013, the pipeline distribution 
systems had switched over to transporting only CBOB for the production 
of conventional gasoline, forcing all refiners to harmonize around 
their production, and necessitating that 10 percent ethanol be added at 
downstream terminals in order for conventional gasoline to meet its 
octane and other specifications at retail. Essentially all gasoline, 
both reformulated and conventional, was E10 by this time, and total 
ethanol consumption was 13.2 billion gallons.
    Similar to E10 in the 1970's, E15 has begun to slowly enter the 
marketplace. In October 2010, EPA partially approved a waiver request 
from Growth Energy allowing the introduction of E15 into commerce for 
use in model year 2007 and newer light-duty motor vehicles, subject to 
several conditions.\28\ In January 2011, EPA extended this partial 
waiver to include model year 2001-2006 light-duty vehicles, allowing 
the use of E15 in model year 2001 and newer light-duty motor 
vehicles.\29\ Since these partial waivers required E15 to meet a 9.0 
psi RVP standard, in contrast to the 10.0 psi RVP standard E10 had to 
meet in the summer, introduction into commerce of E15 into CG areas 
required that CBOB for use to make E15 have a lower RVP than typically 
available.\30\ This is similar to the situation faced by E10 in 1987. 
In the years since the E15 waivers were granted, the number of retail 
stations offering E15 has grown slowly, reaching 1,293 registered 
stations \31\ (less than 1 percent of all retail stations) in May 
2019.\32\ Figure II.A-2 shows the growth of E15 stations since 
2012.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 75 FR 68094 (November 4, 2010).
    \29\ 76 FR 4662 (January 26, 2011).
    \30\ Since RBOB was already sub-RVP, E15 could use the same RBOB 
already produced and distributed for E10 in RFG areas.
    \31\ The regulations at 40 CFR 80.1502 require that parties that 
produce E15 and ethanol for use in the production of E15 to 
participate in a survey of retail stations to ensure compliance with 
E15 misfueling mitigation requirements. As part of this process, 
these parties register with the RFG survey association, the 
independent surveyor that currently conducts the E15 survey. This 
registration with RFGSA includes information related to the number 
of E15 stations at which E15 is going to be sold. More information 
on RFGSA is available at: http://rfgsa.org. Growth Energy in comment 
also estimates this number at nearly 1,800 stations in 31 states. 
See Comments from Growth Energy, pg. 1. See also ``New Mexico 
Becomes 31st State to Add E15 Choice at the Pump,'' available at: 
https://growthenergy.org/2019/05/01/growth-energy-new-mexico-becomes-31st-state-to-add-e15-choice-at-the-pump.
    \32\ Much of this growth has been driven by USDA's Biofuel 
Infrastructure Program (BIP). In October 2015, USDA announced that 
the BIP was investing a total of $210 million, including money from 
USDA and matching commitments from states and private entities, to 
increase the number of retail stations offering E15 and other higher 
level gasoline-ethanol blends. These grants were intended to result 
in an additional 1,486 stations selling E15. In addition to BIP, 
Prime the Pump, a nonprofit organization supporting the expanded 
availability of E15, has provided funds to retail stations to add 
the necessary infrastructure to offer E15. This data demonstrates 
that a very high proportion of the stations currently offering E15 
have received funding from federal, state, and/or industry sources. 
It also suggests that increasing the rate of growth of E15 stations 
in the future may require the availability of funds from such 
sources.
    \33\ See ``Data for Growth in E15 Retail Stations over Time from 
Growth Energy'' in the docket. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0775.

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

[[Page 26987]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JN19.005

    While there are no reliable statistics on the volume of E15 
produced and distributed from these stations, it has remained small, 
with little overall impact on ethanol use. In coming years, if gasoline 
demand falls as projected by the U.S. Energy Information Administration 
(EIA),\34\ growth in E15 would help offset a portion of the drop in 
ethanol use from declining E10 gasoline sales. The extension of the 1-
psi RVP waiver to E15 in this action may help this, although there 
remain considerable other barriers as discussed in Section II.E, such 
that we do not project this action alone will meaningfully impact E15 
sales in the coming years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See ``Updated market impacts of biofuels in 2019,'' Docket 
Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0167-1330.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For reasons expanded upon in Section II.E (e.g., consumer 
acceptance of E15 and demand for E10 in vehicles and engines not 
permitted to use E15), we believe marketers and retailers of gasoline 
will not be able to exclusively market E15 and will continue to offer 
E10 as the predominant fuel for the foreseeable future.
3. Background on CAA Sec. 211(h)
    To properly understand this action, it is important to review the 
history of EPA's volatility controls both leading up to and after the 
enactment of CAA sec. 211(h). As mentioned above, Congress enacted CAA 
sec. 211(h) as part of the CAA Amendments of 1990 to address the 
volatility of gasoline. Congress did so in the context of EPA's prior 
regulatory actions, under CAA sec. 211(c), which aimed to control the 
RVP of gasoline. EPA has historically viewed Congress's enactment of 
211(h), therefore, as a codification of EPA's regulatory actions 
regarding RVP up to that point.\35\ Accordingly, CAA sec. 211(h)(1) 
prohibits the sale of gasoline with an RVP in excess of 9.0 psi \36\ 
during the high ozone season while CAA sec. 211(h)(2) allows EPA to 
promulgate more stringent RVP requirements for nonattainment areas. CAA 
sec. 211(h)(4) provides a 1.0 psi RVP allowance for ``fuel blends 
containing gasoline and 10 percent'' ethanol and recognizes the 
existence of the 1979 CAA sec. 211(f)(4) waiver for E10--the only 
ethanol blend which had received such a waiver at that time--in the 
``deemed to comply'' provisions contained in CAA sec. 211(h)(4)(A)-(C), 
which are discussed in more detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See 76 FR 44433 (July 25, 2011).
    \36\ 9.0 psi RVP was and continues to be the level of RVP for 
gasoline certification fuel used to certify motor vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Pre-Enactment Volatility Regulations
    In 1987, prior to the CAA Amendments of 1990, EPA for the first 
time proposed limitations on the volatility of gasoline under CAA sec. 
211(c), which provides EPA with general authority to regulate fuels and 
fuel additives. These limitations on gasoline volatility were proposed 
to address evaporative emissions from gasoline-fueled vehicles due to 
their contribution to ozone formation. The volatility of gasoline had 
begun rising significantly above the 9.0 psi RVP vehicle certification 
fuel level in the years preceding EPA's action, due to a strong 
economic incentive to add butane \37\ to fuel due to favorable blending 
economics.\38\ This led to very high evaporative VOC emissions from the 
in-use fleet of gasoline vehicles. EPA believed that matching the 
volatility of in-use gasoline to that of certification fuel would 
reduce evaporative emissions and would help ensure that the vehicles 
continued to have the same evaporative emissions levels in-use to the 
levels on which the vehicles were certified. In particular, limiting 
the volatility of gasoline to 9.0 psi RVP in the summer, which is the 
level in the indolene, a gasoline containing no ethanol, on which 
vehicles were certified under CAA sec. 206 at that time, would reduce 
emissions from all gasoline-related sources, enabling additional VOC 
emission reductions.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Butane, in this context, refers to a high-volatility, 
relatively inexpensive gasoline blendstock that gasoline refiners 
typically add to or remove from gasoline to control RVP.
    \38\ 52 FR 31279 (August 19, 1987).
    \39\ See 52 FR 31274 at 31278-31287 (August 19, 1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the time of the 1987 proposal, parties were primarily making E10 
through ``splash blending,'' as described above. Adding 10 percent 
ethanol to gasoline, however, causes roughly a 1.0 psi RVP increase in 
the blend's volatility.\40\ At the time, due to the limited amount of 
ethanol blended into gasoline, almost no low-RVP gasoline was available 
into which 10 percent ethanol could be splash-blended without the 
blended fuel exceeding the proposed RVP limit. Thus, even though the 
CAA sec. 211(f)(4) waiver allowed E10 to be lawfully introduced into

[[Page 26988]]

commerce, the lowered RVP standards had the potential to shut down the 
nascent ethanol blending industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address this potential hurdle to continued ethanol blending, in 
the 1987 proposal, EPA included interim regulations for gasohol that 
allowed it to be 1.0 psi RVP higher than otherwise required for 
gasoline.\41\ In describing our regulatory action to provide this 
flexibility, we refer to it as the 1-psi RVP allowance.\42\ As a 
result, downstream blenders could add 10 percent ethanol into the 
gasoline that refineries had already produced without violating the 
proposed RVP regulations. The Agency, therefore, designed the 1-psi RVP 
allowance as a means to ensure that the effect of the CAA sec. 
211(f)(4) waiver that was then applicable to E10 would not be 
nullified, as well as to address other public policy concerns, such as 
reducing dependence on foreign oil and making use of excess 
agricultural production, as referenced above. The Agency proposed that 
the 1-psi RVP allowance be conditioned on sampling and testing the 
final blend of gasoline and ethanol for RVP by all regulated parties, 
including downstream blenders, that elected to use the waiver.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See 52 FR 31274, 31316 (August 19, 1987).
    \42\ See 52 FR 31316 (August 19, 1987).
    \43\ See 52 FR 31274, proposed 40 CFR 80.27(d)(1) (August 19, 
1987). See also 54 FR 11872-73 (March 22, 1989), where we declined 
to finalize this approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1989, EPA finalized regulations that imposed limits on the 
volatility of gasoline and ethanol blends as ``Phase I'' of a two-phase 
regulation under CAA sec. 211(c). EPA's regulation established a 
maximum RVP standard of 10.5 psi for gasoline during the high ozone 
season.\44\ In that action, EPA also provided an RVP allowance ``for 
gasoline-ethanol blends commonly known as gasohol'' that was 1.0 psi 
higher than for gasoline.\45\ This was finalized as an interim measure 
with the intent to revisit the issue in ``Phase II'' of the volatility 
regulations.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See 54 FR 11879 (March 22, 1989).
    \45\ Id.
    \46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's final regulations in ``Phase I'' provided that in order to 
receive the 1-psi RVP allowance, ``gasoline must contain at least 9% 
ethanol (by volume),'' and that ``the ethanol content of gasoline shall 
be determined by use of one of the testing methodologies specified in 
Appendix F to this part.'' The regulations also provided that ``the 
maximum ethanol content of gasoline shall not exceed any applicable 
waiver conditions under section 211(f)(4) of the Clean Air Act.'' \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 54 FR 11872-73 (March 22, 1989) (codified at 40 CFR 
80.27(d)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In ``Phase I,'' EPA did not place limits on the upper bound of the 
ethanol content, other than by providing, as quoted above, that the 
ethanol content shall not exceed any applicable waiver conditions under 
CAA sec. 211(f)(4) (and thereby implicitly incorporating any upper-
bound limit imposed as a condition on any future applicable waiver). At 
the time, the highest permissible ethanol content under a CAA sec. 
211(f)(4) waiver was 10 percent ethanol, and thus, this provision could 
only apply to blends containing 9-10 percent ethanol. In other words, 
EPA designed the 1-psi RVP allowance to allow for the continued lawful 
introduction into commerce of E10 and the Phase I RVP regulatory 
language would have automatically accommodated future increases in 
allowable ethanol concentration in gasoline under a CAA sec. 211(f)(4) 
waiver.
    In June 1990, in ``Phase II'' of the volatility regulations, EPA 
established a maximum RVP standard of 9.0 psi for gasoline during the 
high ozone season. The regulations also established an RVP standard of 
7.8 psi for gasoline during the high ozone season in both ozone 
attainment and nonattainment areas in the southern states of the 
country. EPA further maintained the 1-psi RVP allowance for blends of 
10 percent ethanol and gasoline and did not modify the regulations at 
40 CFR 80.27(d).\48\ Thus, both the language stating that the gasoline 
must contain at least 9 percent ethanol, and the language stating that 
the maximum ethanol content of gasoline shall not exceed any applicable 
waiver conditions under CAA sec. 211(f)(4), remained in the 
regulations, effectively allowing for automatic accommodation of the 1-
psi RVP allowance for increases in allowable ethanol concentration in 
gasoline under future CAA sec. 211(f)(4) waivers.\49\ In doing so, the 
Agency reiterated that these regulatory provisions are intended to 
accommodate the importance of ethanol to the nation's energy security 
as well as the agricultural economy sector. The Agency also addressed 
air quality impacts of allowing the 1-psi RVP allowance given that a 
higher RVP limit for blends of 10 percent ethanol and gasoline would 
result in increased evaporative VOC emissions in the small part of the 
gasoline market attributable at that time to blended. EPA explained 
that the 1 psi RVP allowance ``reflects the moderation in EPA's concern 
about negative air quality impact as well as a reluctance to threaten 
the motor fuel ethanol production and blending industries with 
collapse.'' \50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See 55 FR 23658, 23660 (June 11, 1990).
    \49\ Id.
    \50\ ``While some believe the industry should not exist . . . 
[o]ther agencies and Congress will continue to address related 
agricultural, trade and energy issues which have led to federal 
support for the existence of the gasohol industry.'' 55 FR 23666 
(June 11, 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Enactment of CAA Sec. 211(h)
    In November 1990, Congress enacted the CAA Amendments of 1990, 
including CAA sec. 211(h), the first statutory provision specifically 
addressing the volatility of gasoline. CAA sec. 211(h)(1) required EPA 
``to promulgate regulations making it unlawful . . . during the high 
ozone season to sell . . . or introduce into commerce gasoline with a 
Reid Vapor Pressure in excess of 9.0 pounds per square inch.'' Further 
in CAA sec. 211(h)(4), Congress, following EPA's lead in the 1989 and 
1990 volatility regulations, also allowed fuel blends containing 
gasoline and 10 percent ethanol to have 1 psi higher RVP than the RVP 
standard otherwise established in CAA sec. 211(h)(1). This statutory 
provision is referred to as the 1-psi RVP waiver.\51\ CAA sec. 
211(h)(4) provides the following ethanol waiver: ``for fuel blends 
containing gasoline and 10 percent denatured anhydrous ethanol, the 
Reid vapor pressure limitation under this subsection shall be one pound 
per square inch (psi) greater than the applicable Reid vapor pressure 
limitations established under [CAA sec. 211(h)(1)].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ We also refer to the regulations at 40 CFR 80.27 as the 
``1-psi RVP waiver'' as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to legislative history, ``[t]his provision was included 
in recognition that gasoline and ethanol are mixed after the refining 
process has been completed. It was recognized that to require ethanol 
to meet a nine pound RVP would require the creation of a production and 
distribution network for sub-nine pound RVP gasoline. The cost of 
producing and distributing this type of fuel would be prohibitive to 
the petroleum industry and would likely result in the termination of 
the availability of ethanol in the marketplace.'' \52\ EPA has 
interpreted CAA sec. 211(h) as largely a codification of our prior RVP 
regulations and the 1-psi RVP allowance.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 110 (1989) (Conf. Rep.); reprinted 
at 5 Leg. Hist. at 8450 (1993).
    \53\ See 76 FR 44433 (July 25, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, Congress enacted a conditional defense against liability 
for violations of the RVP level allowed

[[Page 26989]]

under the 1-psi waiver by providing that full compliance ``shall be 
deemed'' with a demonstration that (A) ``the gasoline portion of the 
blend complies with the Reid vapor pressure limitations promulgated 
pursuant to this subsection;'' (B) ``the ethanol portion of the blend 
does not exceed its waiver condition under subsection (f)(4) of this 
section;'' and (C) ``no additional alcohol or other additive has been 
added to increase the Reid Vapor Pressure of the ethanol portion of 
this blend.'' (CAA sec. 211(h)(4)). This is referred to as the ``deemed 
to comply'' provision, or the alternative compliance mechanism for the 
1-psi waiver. It is considered a statutorily mandated defense that 
allows regulated parties, such as downstream oxygenate blenders,\54\ to 
demonstrate compliance with the RVP standard while taking advantage of 
the 1-psi waiver by meeting the specified conditions in CAA sec. 
211(h)(4) in lieu of complying with the testing provisions in 40 CFR 
80.27(d)(2) (1987). It also reflects Congressional response to EPA's 
proposed compliance testing provisions for the 1-psi RVP allowance in 
the 1987 proposed rulemaking, which Congress viewed as complicated and 
burdensome given the industry practices at the time used to produce 
gasohol: ``the enforcement strategy recently proposed by the Agency . . 
. would be totally unworkable for those motor vehicle fuels which are a 
blend of gasoline and ethanol and which are allowed a higher RVP limit 
under the reported bill.'' \55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ ``Oxygenate blenders'' are defined in our regulations as 
``any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises an 
oxygenate blending facility, or who owns or controls the blendstock 
or gasoline used or the gasoline produced at an oxygenate blending 
facility.'' An oxygenate blending facility is defined as ``any 
facility (including a truck) at which oxygenate is added to gasoline 
or blendstock, and at which the quality or quantity of gasoline is 
not altered in any other manner except for the addition of deposit 
control additives.'' See 40 CFR 80.2(mm) and (ll).
    \55\ S. Rep. No. 100-231, 100th Cong. 1st Sess. at 149 (1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Implementation of CAA Sec. 211(h)(4)
    Subsequent to Congress's enactment of CAA sec. 211(h)(4), EPA 
modified our volatility regulations to more explicitly align with the 
new statutory provisions, but ``did not propos[e] any change to the 
current requirement that the blend contain between 9 and 10 percent 
ethanol (by volume) to obtain the one psi allowance.'' \56\ However, 
EPA did modify its regulations at 40 CFR 80.27 to clarify that 
``gasoline must contain denatured, anhydrous ethanol,'' and that 
``[t]he concentration of the ethanol, excluding the required denaturing 
agent, must be at least 9% and no more than 10% (by volume) of the 
gasoline'' (where, as quoted above, the previous version of the 
regulations provided that gasoline ``must contain at least 9% ethanol'' 
to qualify for the 1-psi RVP allowance and thus did not set an upper 
limit on ethanol content). At that time, we read both the statutory 1-
psi waiver provision and the ``deemed to comply'' provision in CAA sec. 
211(h)(4) together to limit the volume concentration of ethanol subject 
to the CAA sec. 211(h)(4) waiver to between 9 and 10 percent, as only 
blends of gasoline and up to 10 percent ethanol had a waiver under CAA 
sec. 211(f)(4) at the time EPA promulgated the RVP requirements.\57\ We 
further stated that ``this is consistent with Congressional intent 
[because] the nature of the blending process . . . further complicates 
a requirement that the ethanol portion of the blend be exactly 10 
percent ethanol.'' \58\ For these reasons, the 1-psi waiver reflected 
Congressional recognition of the existing CAA sec. 211(f)(4) waiver for 
E10; Congress intended that the 1-psi waiver from the 9.0 psi RVP 
requirement in CAA sec. 211(h)(1) would allow for E10's continued 
lawful introduction into commerce.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See 56 FR 64708 (December 12, 1991).
    \57\ Id.
    \58\ Id.
    \59\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In issuing implementing regulations at 40 CFR 80.28(g)(8) related 
to the ``deemed to comply'' provision in CAA sec. 211(h)(4), EPA 
allowed parties to demonstrate a defense against liability by making 
the showings provided in CAA sec. 211(h)(4), stating that ``EPA 
believes this defense is limited to ethanol blends which meet the 
minimum 9 percent requirement in the regulations and the maximum 10 
percent requirement in the waivers under section 211(f)(4).'' \60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Id. and 40 CFR 80.28(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Background of E10 and E15 CAA Sec. 211(f)(4) Waivers
    CAA sec. 211(f)(1) makes it unlawful for ``any manufacturer of any 
fuel or fuel additive'' to first introduce into commerce, or to 
increase the concentration in use of, any fuel or fuel additive for use 
by any person in motor vehicles manufactured after MY1974, which is not 
substantially similar (commonly referred to as ``sub sim'') to any fuel 
or fuel additive used in the certification of any MY1975, or subsequent 
model year, vehicle or engine under CAA sec. 206. Fuels or fuel 
additives that are not sub sim to a fuel or fuel additive used in 
certification cannot be introduced into commerce unless EPA has granted 
a waiver under CAA sec. 211(f)(4). CAA sec. 211(f)(4) provides that 
upon application of any fuel or fuel additive manufacturer, the 
Administrator may waive the prohibitions of CAA sec. 211(f)(1) if the 
Administrator determines that the applicant has established that such 
fuel or fuel additive, or a specified concentration thereof, will not 
cause or contribute to a failure of any emission control device or 
system (over the useful life of the motor vehicle, motor vehicle 
engine, nonroad engine, or nonroad vehicle in which such device or 
system is used) to achieve compliance by the vehicle or engine with the 
emission standards to which it has been certified pursuant to CAA sec. 
206 and 213(a).
    In 1978, a waiver application was submitted for gasoline containing 
ethanol at 10 percent by volume. EPA did not act to grant or deny the 
application for a waiver for E10, and consequently, under the statutory 
scheme as it existed at that time, the waiver was deemed granted by 
operation of law.\61\ Thus, E10 was granted a waiver under CAA sec. 
211(f)(4) without any conditions, in contrast to other CAA sec. 
211(f)(4) waivers, which included, for example, conditions on fuel 
characteristics such as RVP.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See 44 FR 20777 (April 6, 1979).
    \62\ See, e.g., ``Fuels and Fuel Additives; Waiver 
Application,'' Octamix Waiver, 53 FR 3636 (February 8, 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For E15, EPA granted partial waivers under CAA sec. 211(f)(4) in 
2010 and 2011.\63\ In March 2009, Growth Energy and 54 ethanol 
manufacturers submitted an application to EPA to grant a waiver under 
CAA sec. 211(f)(4) to allow E15 for use in all vehicles, engines, and 
equipment (``the E15 waiver request''). On October 13, 2010, EPA 
partially approved the E15 waiver request to allow the introduction of 
E15 into commerce for use in MY2007 and newer light-duty motor vehicles 
subject to certain waiver conditions.\64\ Subsequently, on January 21, 
2011, EPA extended this partial waiver to include MY2001-2006 light-
duty motor vehicles after receiving and analyzing additional U.S. 
Department of Energy (``DOE'') test data and finding that E15 will not 
cause or contribute to a failure to achieve compliance with the 
emissions standards to which these vehicles were certified over their 
useful lives.\65\ EPA also denied the waiver request for MY2000 and 
older light-duty motor

[[Page 26990]]

vehicles, as well as all model year heavy-duty gasoline engines and 
vehicles, highway and off-highway motorcycles, and nonroad engines, 
vehicles, and equipment. This denial was based on EPA's engineering 
analysis that E15 could adversely affect the emissions and emissions 
controls of vehicles, engines, and equipment not covered by the partial 
waivers and that the applicants had not provided sufficient data or 
other information to demonstrate that E15 would not cause or contribute 
to a failure to achieve compliance with the emissions standards to 
which these vehicles, engines, and equipment were certified over their 
full useful lives, as required by CAA sec. 211(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See 75 FR 68094 (November 4, 2010) and 76 FR 4662 (January 
26, 2011), respectively.
    \64\ See 75 FR 68094 (November 4, 2010).
    \65\ See 76 FR 4662 (January 26, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the October 2010 waiver, for MY2007 and newer motor vehicles, 
EPA also concluded that the data and information show that E15 will not 
lead to violations of evaporative emissions standards, so long as the 
fuel does not exceed an RVP of 9.0 psi in the summer.\66\ EPA imposed a 
condition that allows fuel manufacturers to introduce E15 into commerce 
so long as the E15 does not have an RVP ``in excess of 9.0 psi during 
the time period from May 1 to September 15.'' \67\ Subsequently, in the 
January 2011 waiver, EPA imposed identical waiver conditions for 
MY2001-2006 motor vehicles, including the requirement that the fuel not 
exceed an RVP of 9.0 psi in the summer, based on the same 
conclusion.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See 75 FR 68149-68150 (November 4, 2010).
    \67\ See 75 FR 68149 (November 4, 2010).
    \68\ See 76 FR 4682-4683 (January 26, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Taken together, these partial waivers allow E15 to be used in 
MY2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles subject to particular waiver 
conditions, including fuel quality conditions and conditions on the 
sale and use of E15. These waiver conditions include the prohibition on 
the use of E15 in pre-MY2001 motor vehicles, in addition to all model 
year heavy-duty gasoline engines or vehicles, or motorcycles, as well 
as any nonroad engines or nonroad vehicles. The waiver conditions also 
place limitations on the ethanol that can be added (both the 
concentration and quality),\69\ as well as a condition that the RVP of 
the final fuel not exceed 9.0 psi.\70\ The waiver conditions also 
require fuel and fuel additive manufacturers to submit to EPA a 
misfueling mitigation plan describing all reasonable precautions for 
ensuring E15 is only used in MY2001 and newer motor vehicles, as 
described in the waiver conditions.\71\ To help facilitate the 
implementation of the waiver conditions and place requirements on 
parties other than fuel and fuel additive manufacturers, EPA 
promulgated the Misfueling Mitigation Rule in 2011, under CAA sec. 
211(c), subsequent to the E15 partial waiver decisions.\72\ The MMR 
imposed fuel dispenser labeling, PTD, and compliance survey 
requirements on parties that make and distribute E15. EPA promulgated 
the MMR ``to mitigate misfueling with E15 that lawfully has been 
introduced into commerce under the terms of the waiver[s]. The waiver 
conditions, and implementation of the waiver conditions, address a 
closely related but different issue--when, how and by whom E15 can be 
introduced into commerce under the partial waiver decisions. This rule 
only addresses the issue of mitigating misfueling in the event E15 is 
lawfully introduced into commerce under the partial waivers, and is 
issued under EPA's authority under section 211(c).'' \73\ The MMR also 
applied EPA's prior interpretation of the 1-psi waiver in CAA sec. 
211(h)(4) as not applying to E15 and adopted certain regulations 
designed to effectuate that interpretation.\74\ In this action, EPA is 
interpreting CAA sec. 211(h)(4) and also amending the regulations to 
implement that interpretation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ For example, the ethanol used to make E15 must meet ASTM 
D4806-10 specifications for ethanol quality. See ASTM D4806-10, 
``Standard Specification for Denatured Fuel Ethanol for Blending 
with Gasolines for Use as Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel,'' 
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2010.
    \70\ See 75 FR 68094 (November 4, 2010) and 76 FR 4662 (January 
26, 2011). This RVP limit is identical to the limitation under CAA 
sec. 211(h)(1) of 9.0 psi RVP during the high ozone season. The high 
ozone season was defined by the Administrator via regulation to mean 
the period from June 1 to September 15 of any calendar year.
    \71\ See 76 FR 4662, 4582 (January 26, 2011).
    \72\ See 76 FR 44406 (July 25, 2011).
    \73\ See 76 FR 44406, 44440 (July 25, 2011).
    \74\ As discussed further in Section II.B, in promulgating 
regulations following the enactment of CAA sec. 211(h)(4), EPA 
interpreted 211(h)(4) to apply to gasoline-ethanol blends containing 
between 9 and 10 percent ethanol. See 56 FR 64708 (December 12, 
1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Interpretation of CAA Sec. 211(h)(4)

    In this action, we are finalizing our proposed change in 
interpretation of CAA sec. 211(h)(4). We find that the statutory 
language at CAA sec. 211(h)(4) is ambiguous. We last interpreted this 
section in 2011, and in this action we are changing our interpretation. 
Our new interpretation is consistent with the text of the provision, 
its context within CAA sec. 211(h), and Congressional intent. It is 
also reasonable in light of the changed circumstances since we last 
interpreted this provision in 2011, and in light of EPA's determination 
that it is appropriate to provide E15 the 1-psi waiver.
    As discussed in Section II.A.2, gasoline-ethanol blends in the 
marketplace have increased such that the in-use gasoline supply is now 
almost entirely E10. E15 is now present in the marketplace, but the 
current limitation of the applicability of the 1-psi waiver to only E10 
in most CG areas is one of several hurdles to the continued entry of 
E15 into the marketplace (discussed in more detail in Section 
II.E).\75\ The same market limitation that prompted EPA to provide the 
1-psi waiver for E10 nationwide in 1989 currently exists for E15 in 
most CG areas. Namely, in order for E15 to be distributed in most CG 
areas, it requires the production and distribution of a higher cost 
low-RVP CBOB into which 15 percent ethanol could be blended while still 
meeting the 9.0 psi RVP standard for gasoline during the high ozone 
season.\76\ This is because E10 currently receives the benefit of the 
1-psi waiver, but E15 does not. As a result, some parties for which 
other constraints (e.g., compatible service station equipment) are not 
of concern might still not be able to produce and distribute E15, given 
the difficulty and cost associated with obtaining CBOB that when 
blended to produce E15 would meet the 9.0 psi RVP during the summer. 
With the 1-psi waiver, 15 percent ethanol could be blended using the 
same CBOBs currently being distributed for use with 10 percent ethanol, 
year-round.\77\ This action, therefore, is a response to changed 
circumstances since the Agency's promulgation of RVP regulations in 
1990, which pre-dates EPAct in 2005 and EISA in 2007, and since we last 
interpreted CAA sec. 211(h)(4) in 2011. Further, because blending 15 
volume percent ethanol into gasoline would result in an approximate 1.0 
psi RVP increase, similar to E10, the resultant RVP for any blended 
fuel would be no higher than the RVP standard plus the 1-psi waiver, 
which is currently 10.0 psi for a gasoline-ethanol blended fuel

[[Page 26991]]

containing 10 percent ethanol.\78\ This interpretation is consistent 
with the plain language of CAA sec. 211(h) and with Congress' intent to 
promote ethanol blending into gasoline, and is not expected to cause 
significant increases in emissions as compared to the current market 
situation with E10 as discussed in Section II.F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See, e.g., Prime the Pump: Driving Ethanol Gallons, 
available at: https://growthenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/MDEV-19022-PTP-Overview-2019-01-25.pdf.
    \76\ Some parties have access to low RVP blendstocks created for 
low-RVP areas and RFG areas. However, these blendstocks are not 
widely distributed in all areas. For a list of state low-RVP areas, 
see EPA's ``State Fuels'' website available at: https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/state-fuels.
    \77\ In reformulated gasoline areas (approximately one-third of 
gasoline nationwide) and certain other areas that do not provide a 
1-psi waiver for E10, E15 can already be blended using the same 
blendstocks used for E10.
    \78\ This is true for E15 made from blends of certified gasoline 
or BOB and ethanol. This volatility relationship is not maintained 
when other products (e.g., natural gas liquids) are blended to make 
E15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the MMR, we interpreted CAA sec. 211(h)(4) (which affords a 1-
psi waiver to ``fuel blends containing gasoline and 10 percent 
denatured anhydrous ethanol'') as providing a 1-psi waiver for fuel 
blends of gasoline and at least 9 volume percent ethanol and not more 
than 10 volume percent ethanol despite having given E15 a partial CAA 
sec. 211(f)(4) waiver from sub sim. As previously explained, this 
interpretation was premised on a reading of regulations and statutory 
provisions that reflected the existence of a CAA sec. 211(f)(4) waiver 
for E10, which was the highest available ethanol content in the 
gasoline marketplace at the time of the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, and 
we did not alter this interpretation based on the existence of the E15 
CAA sec. 211(f)(4) partial waivers. In that action, we read CAA secs. 
211(h)(4), including the ``deemed to comply'' provision, and 211(h)(5) 
together to only apply the 1-psi waiver for E10. In this action, we are 
adopting a new interpretation of CAA sec. 211(h)(4), under which the 
provision specifies the minimum ethanol content that fuel blends 
containing ethanol and gasoline must contain in order to qualify for 
the 1-psi waiver. We are finalizing a new interpretation of this 
statutory provision that would allow the 1-psi waiver for gasoline 
containing at least 10 percent ethanol. This reading, which harmonizes 
all relevant provisions, removes the current, anomalous result whereby 
a sole ethanol blend (E10) receives the 1-psi waiver, when market 
conditions have changed over time such that E15 is an increased 
presence in the marketplace. Specifically, it would mean that the 1-psi 
waiver is equally applicable to gasoline-ethanol blends the agency 
finds are sub sim under CAA sec. 211(f)(1) and those gasoline-ethanol 
blends that receive or have received a CAA sec. 211(f)(4) waiver. At 
present, these are blends up to 15 percent ethanol, based on: (1) EPA's 
prior issuance of partial waivers in 2010 and 2011 under CAA sec. 
211(f)(4) for E15; and (2) the finding in this rulemaking that E15 is 
sub sim to Tier 3 E10 certification fuel.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ See discussion at Section II.D.1, infra, for further 
discussion of the regulatory changes associated with this changed 
interpretation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, it is well settled that EPA has inherent authority to 
reconsider, revise, or repeal past decisions to the extent permitted by 
law so long as we provide a reasoned explanation. Many commenters 
pointed to EPA's previous interpretation of CAA sec. 211(h)(4) in the 
volatility regulations promulgated after the CAA Amendments of 1990, 
and the MMR as reasons why EPA's new interpretation is flawed. We do 
not find these arguments persuasive because of EPA's inherent authority 
to reconsider, revise, or repeal past decisions to the extent permitted 
by law. This authority exists in part because EPA's interpretations of 
the statutes we administer ``are not carved in stone.'' \80\ An agency 
``must consider varying interpretations and the wisdom of its policy on 
a continuing basis.'' \81\ This is true when, as is the case here, 
review is undertaken ``in response to changed factual circumstances or 
a change in administration.'' \82\ EPA must also be cognizant where we 
are changing a prior position that the revised position is permissible 
under the statute and must articulate a reasoned basis for the 
change.\83\ In this case, EPA's interpretation of the text of CAA sec. 
211(h)(4) is a reasonable one, and takes into account changed 
circumstances that have arisen since we issued the partial waivers for 
E15 in 2010 and 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 863 
(1984).
    \81\ Id. at 863-64.
    \82\ Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. Ass'n v. Brand X internet Servs., 
545 U.S. 967, 981 (2005). See also Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. 
EPA, 682 F.3d 1032, 1043 (DC Cir., 2012) (change in administration 
is a ``perfectly reasonable basis'' for an agency's reappraisal of 
its regulations and programs).
    \83\ FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Clean Air Act does not define the term ``containing'' in the 
phrase ``containing gasoline and 10 percent denatured anhydrous 
ethanol,'' and at proposal, therefore, EPA relied on the dictionary 
meaning that is reasonable, sensible and provides meaning to the 
reading of CAA sec. 211(h)(4). As explained in more detail below and in 
the response to comments (RTC) document accompanying this action, we 
are interpreting this term to establish a lower limit on the minimum 
ethanol content required for the 1-psi waiver in CAA sec. 211(h)(4). 
This interpretation applies to 211(h)(4) in its entirety, and 
211(h)(5). Most of the commenters that argued for limiting the 1-psi 
waiver only selected their preferred meaning of ``containing'' without 
addressing whether that definition fit within the statutory scheme of 
CAA sec. 211(h)(4) or makes sense in this context and we have addressed 
these comments in Section 1.2.2.1 of the RTC document. Even when other 
potential meanings of the term are considered, EPA's interpretation and 
definition are eminently reasonable, make the most sense and provide 
meaning to the reading of CAA sec. 211(h)(4) in light of the current 
circumstances with respect to E15.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ See General Dynamics Land Systems v. Cline, 540 U.S. 581, 
596 (2004) (finding that ``age'' has several commonly understood 
meanings which should be interpreted in the context used).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained at proposal, Congress enacted CAA sec. 211(h)(4) when 
10 percent ethanol was the highest permissible ethanol content in 
gasoline under the 1978 CAA sec. 211(f)(4) waiver that allowed for its 
introduction into commerce. At that time, there were no other CAA sec. 
211(f)(4) waivers for gasoline-ethanol blends. As also explained at 
proposal, Congress promulgated the ``deemed to comply'' provision as an 
enforcement mechanism for the 1-psi waiver. Of relevance is the 
criterion that ``the ethanol portion of the blend does not exceed its 
waiver condition under subsection (f)(4).'' \85\ In 2011, when EPA 
declined to extend the 1-psi waiver to E15, the agency's interpretation 
was premised largely on this additional criterion for the 1-psi 
waiver.\86\ Nothing in these prior agency interpretations, however, 
sheds light on how to read ``containing,'' at the current time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ CAA sec. 211(h)(4)(B).
    \86\ See 76 FR 44406, 44433-35 (July 25, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At proposal, we also explained that lack of modifiers in the phrase 
``fuel blends containing gasoline and ten percent ethanol,'' supports 
our reading that Congress established a lower limit on the minimum 
ethanol content for the 1-psi waiver rather than an upper limit on the 
ethanol content. We then explained that Congress could legislate and 
would have likely employed terms connoting a maximum ethanol content 
limit in CAA sec. 211(h)(4) similar to, for example, CAA secs. 211(k) 
and (m) had Congress intended for the ethanol content to be an upper 
bound. CAA secs. 211(k) and (m) are mandatory gasoline content 
provisions that also employ specific units of measurement as an 
indication of measurement precision. CAA sec. 211(m)(2) provides that 
``gasoline is to be blended to contain not less than 2.7 percent oxygen 
by weight.'' Section 211(k)(3)(A)(1)

[[Page 26992]]

provides that ``[t]he benzene content of reformulated gasoline shall 
not exceed 1.0 per cent by volume;'' section 211(k)(3)(A)(ii) provides 
that ``[t]he aromatics hydrocarbon content of the reformulated gasoline 
shall not exceed 25 percent by volume.'' We further noted that CAA sec. 
211(h)(1) employs the modifier ``in excess'' as compared to CAA sec. 
211(h)(4). But Congress notably did not use any modifier in CAA sec. 
211(h)(4), which sets out a relaxation of a mandatory provision. It, 
therefore, appears that Congress made a deliberate choice--where 
Congress sought to impose mandatory fuel content requirements, such as 
in CAA secs. 211(k) and (m), it utilized modifiers as compared to where 
it set out an allowance or relaxation of a mandatory requirement such 
as CAA sec. 211(h)(4) for RVP, where it did not utilize modifiers. In 
other words, where Congress intended to impose a ``no greater than'' 
requirement addressing fuel properties, it explicitly did so. In 
contrast, in CAA sec. 211(h)(4), Congress included no such language.
    Additionally, Congress employed modifiers where fuel content or 
properties were of a nature subject to precise determination, but as 
also shown elsewhere in this preamble, Congress promulgated the deemed 
to comply provision in response to measurement imprecision resulting 
from splash blending ethanol into gasoline. These provisions thus 
reflect a deliberate and intentional scheme and confirm our view that 
Congress legislates and the omission of modifiers in CAA sec. 211(h)(4) 
was also deliberate and intentional.
    Given that this provision lacks modifiers for the term 
``containing,'' in contrast to the other statutory provisions 
referenced above, there is support for our reading that this term as 
employed in the phrase ``fuel blends containing gasoline and ten 
percent ethanol'' is ambiguous and provides room for EPA to make 
interpretive and policy choices.
    It is therefore permissible, and supported by the text of the 
statute, where Congress has used only the ambiguous term ``containing'' 
in CAA sec. 211(h)(4), for EPA to interpret ``containing'' to mean 
``containing at least.'' Given this ambiguity, EPA's construct only 
needs to be a reasonable one and neither the best nor only reading of 
``containing.'' (``Even if the statute does not compel EPA's reading, 
and indeed even if EPA's reading is not the better reading, the statute 
at a minimum is sufficiently ambiguous on this point to permit EPA's 
reading.'') \87\ Where, as in this instance, EPA is confronted with a 
reading of a provision that was enacted at the time the highest 
permissible ethanol content under EPA's then-current regulations was 
E10, this connotation of ``containing'' as specifying a minimum limit 
or floor on the ethanol content for fuel blends to qualify for the 1-
psi waiver in CAA sec. 211(h)(4) is a permissible reading that gives 
meaning to the phrase ``fuel blends containing gasoline and 10 percent 
denatured anhydrous ethanol.'' It is neither strained nor contrived but 
rather allows EPA as the agency tasked with administering the Clean Air 
Act to give effect and meaning to the terms of a relevant provision. 
(``The power of an administrative agency to administer a 
congressionally created . . . program necessarily requires the 
formulation of policy and the making of rules to fill any gap left, 
implicitly or explicitly, by Congress.'') \88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2014)
    \88\ Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843 
(1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are interpreting this language as establishing a lower limit, or 
floor, on the minimum ethanol content for a 1-psi waiver from the 
volatility requirements expressed in CAA sec. 211(h)(1), rather than an 
upper limit on the ethanol content. As explained at proposal, we can 
look to the use of the term ``containing'' in its ordinary sense, given 
the purpose and context of CAA sec. 211(h)(4) described above. 
``Containing'' is defined as ``to have within: hold.'' \89\ Under this 
interpretation, the statute sets the minimum ethanol content, such that 
all fuels which contain at least 10 percent ethanol may receive the 1-
psi waiver, including blends that contain more than 10 percent 
ethanol.\90\ Therefore, E15, which has within it 10 percent denatured 
anhydrous ethanol, meets this definition, and should receive the 1-psi 
waiver specified in CAA sec. 211(h)(4).\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ Webster's Third New International Dictionary 491 
(unabridged ed. 1981). See also American Heritage Dictionary online 
2019, defining ``containing'' as ``to have within; hold.''
    \90\ We are not changing our interpretation of the term 10 
volume percent, which includes as little as 9 volume percent, to 
continue to provide the necessary blending flexibility for E10. 
Comments requesting that EPA revise its interpretation to exclude 
ethanol blends containing between 9 and 10 volume percent ethanol 
are outside the scope of this action, since EPA proposed only to 
interpret CAA sec. 211(h)(4) to apply to blends higher than 10 
volume percent ethanol, and did not propose to revise its 
interpretation that blends containing 9 volume percent ethanol also 
receive the 1-psi waiver. Moreover, the text of CAA sec. 211(h)(4) 
encompasses E10, and, as explained in regulations implementing CAA 
sec. 211(h)(4), we stated that requiring exactly 10 volume percent 
ethanol ``would place a next to impossible burden on ethanol 
blenders,'' and that ``[t]he nature of the blending process itself . 
. . further complicates a requirement that the ethanol portion of 
the blend be exactly 10 percent ethanol.'' See 56 FR 24245 (May 29, 
1991).
    \91\ CAA sec. 211(h)(5) also contains the language ``fuel blends 
containing gasoline and ten percent denatured anhydrous ethanol.'' 
Our changed interpretation of CAA sec. 211(h)(4) also has 
implications for CAA sec. 211(h)(5), which allows states to opt out 
of the 1-psi wavier provided by CAA sec. 211(h)(4) for particular 
areas upon a showing that the 1-psi waiver will increase emissions 
that contribute to air pollution. Because the language in CAA sec. 
211(h)(5) pertaining to the 1-psi waiver is identical to the 
language in CAA sec. 211(h)(4), and both refer to the 1-psi waiver, 
we believe that both sections should be read together to apply the 
1-psi waiver to E10 and E15. Accordingly, we interpret CAA sec. 
211(h)(5) to allow states to opt out of the 1-psi waiver provided by 
CAA sec. 211(h)(4) for fuel blends containing gasoline and 9-15 
percent denatured anhydrous ethanol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When EPA issued implementing regulations under both CAA sec. 211(c) 
prior to the enactment of CAA sec. 211(h), and under CAA sec. 211(h), 
once that provision was enacted, those regulations reflected the 
highest permissible ethanol content at the time they were issued, which 
was 10 percent ethanol under a CAA sec. 211(f)(4) waiver. In describing 
the volatility regulations promulgated under CAA sec. 211(c), we stated 
that the 1-psi waiver is ``for blends of gasoline with about 10 percent 
ethanol, or gasohol.'' \92\ In regulations, we codified the CAA sec. 
211(f)(4) waiver, providing that ``[t]he maximum ethanol content . . . 
in gasoline shall not exceed any applicable waiver conditions under CAA 
sec. 211(f)(4) waiver.'' \93\ Thus, EPA's actions merely reflected the 
situation at the time the regulations were promulgated. Additionally, 
prior EPA statements on the imprecise nature of gasoline-ethanol 
blending also support the view that neither Congress nor EPA intended 
to limit ethanol content for the 1-psi waiver. ``The nature of the 
blending process . . . complicates a requirement that the ethanol 
portion of the blend be exactly 10 percent ethanol.'' \94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ 55 FR 23660 (June 11, 1990).
    \93\ 55 FR 23660 (June 11, 1990) and 40 CFR 80.27(d)(2) (1987).
    \94\ 56 FR 24245 (May 29, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The phrase ``fuel blends containing gasoline and ten percent 
ethanol'' is ambiguous, but as previously discussed, EPA as the agency 
tasked with implementing CAA sec. 211(h)(4) is interpreting this 
provision in a reasonable manner, which is consistent with the reading 
articulated in the House bill, i.e., gasoline that contains at least 10 
percent ethanol receives the 1-psi waiver.\95\ EPA is not aware of any 
conference or committee reports, or

[[Page 26993]]

other legislative history, explaining why Congress ultimately enacted 
the language in the CAA Amendments in lieu of the language in the House 
Bill and commenters have not provided any such explanation. There is no 
discussion, for example, of whether Congress felt that ``containing'' 
was sufficiently specific, or whether, as discussed above, the nature 
of the blending process was likely to make a requirement of ``at 
least'' ten percent difficult to meet in practice. Therefore, we do not 
find the failure to adopt the ``containing at least 10 percent'' 
language in the final bill persuasive as to whether Congress intended 
that meaning to be precluded under the statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ See Edison Electric Inst. v. EPA, 2 F.3d 438, 451 (D.C. 
Cir. 1993) (holding that ``the deletion of a word or phrase in the 
throes of the legislative process does not ordinarily constitute, 
without more, evidence of a specific legislative intent.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our interpretation is also supported by the purpose of the 1-psi 
waiver provision. The Senate Report published along with the enactment 
of the 1990 CAA Amendments and CAA sec. 211(h)(4) also describes both 
the purpose of including CAA sec. 211(h)(4), and general language about 
ethanol use in the fuel supply. The report states that the 1-psi waiver 
was:

included in recognition that gasoline and ethanol are mixed after 
the refining process has been completed. It was recognized that to 
require ethanol to meet a 9 pound RVP would require the creation of 
a production and distribution network for sub-nine pound RVP 
gasoline. The cost of producing and distributing this type of fuel 
would be prohibitive to the petroleum industry and would likely 
result in the termination of the availability of ethanol in the 
marketplace. Under this provision, the RVP limitations promulgated 
pursuant to this subsection for such ethanol/gasoline blends shall 
be one pound per square inch greater than the applicable Reid vapor 
pressure which apply to gasoline. Senate Report 101-228, at 3495.

    Finally, the Senate report states that the 1-psi waiver would 
``allow ethanol blending to continue to be a viable alternative fuel, 
with its beneficial environmental, economic, agricultural, energy 
security and foreign policy implications.'' \96\ Like E10 at the time 
of enactment, E15 currently requires the production and distribution of 
low-RVP blendstock and the cost of producing and distributing this type 
of blendstock has limited the availability of E15. While this 
legislative history does not speak to the meaning of the word 
``containing,'' it does articulate congressional intent in enacting the 
provision, recognizing the role for ethanol in the marketplace. This 
report and other relevant legislative history do not explicitly address 
whether CAA sec. 211(h)(4) should apply to gasoline-ethanol blends that 
contain at least 10 percent ethanol and are sub sim under CAA sec. 
211(f)(1) or have a waiver under CAA sec. 211(f)(4), but, as explained 
at proposal, the reasons it gives for extending the 1-psi waiver to 
gasoline-ethanol blends up to 10 percent ethanol would today similarly 
weigh in favor of interpreting the 1-psi waiver to apply to E15, given 
that Congressional action in CAA sec. 211(h) was largely a ratification 
of agency regulations for RVP (including the 1-psi waiver) that were 
initiated in 1987, under CAA sec. 211(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ See S. Rep. No. 101-228 at 110 (December 20, 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our primary consideration has been to balance the goals of limiting 
gasoline volatility and ensure that the addition of ethanol does not 
cause the exceedance of the maximum RVP standard, while also promoting 
the use of ethanol consistent with the purpose of CAA sec. 211(h)(4). 
As previously explained, blending gasoline with at least 10 percent 
ethanol results in an approximate 1.0 psi RVP increase. It does not 
result in ``different volatility levels than already recognized by EPA 
as adding less than 1.0 psi RVP to gasoline.'' \97\ Similarly, we also 
expect that E15 produced from the same BOB as E10 would have a similar 
(if not slightly lower) RVP than E10 and thus, would not exceed the 
current 10.0 psi RVP limit.\98\ Therefore, we are confident that 
relative evaporative emissions effects for E15 would largely be similar 
or slightly less than those for E10, as discussed in Section II.F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ Clean Air Act Amendments: Hearings on H.R. 2521, H.R. 3054 
and H.R. 3196 Before the Subcommittee on Health and the House 
Committee on Environment and Committee On Energy and Commerce, 100th 
Cong. 1st Sess. (1987) (statement of Eric Vaughn, President and CEO 
of renewable Fuels Association).
    \98\ ``Determination of the Potential Property Ranges of Mid-
Level Ethanol Blends.'' American Petroleum Institute, Washington, 
DC. April 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, the primary consideration underlying the 1-psi waiver is to 
limit gasoline volatility while promoting the use of ethanol due to its 
importance to energy security and the agricultural sector. The 
interpretation in this action will continue to further these policy 
concerns given that agency action will now afford similar treatment to 
all gasoline-ethanol blends.

C. Interpretation of ``Substantially Similar'' for Gasoline

    In this action, we are finalizing an interpretative rule which 
determines that E15 with an RVP of 9.0 psi is substantially similar to 
fuel used to certify Tier 3 light-duty vehicles (i.e., E10 at 9.0 psi 
RVP) under CAA sec. 211(f)(1).\99\ This new interpretation of sub sim 
would allow fuel manufacturers to introduce into commerce under CAA 
sec. 211(f)(1) E15 for use in MY2001 and newer light-duty motor 
vehicles because we find that E15 would have similar effects on the 
emissions (exhaust and evaporative), materials compatibility, and 
driveability when compared to Tier 3 E10 certification fuel when used 
in MY2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles.\100\ We are making this 
determination for E15 solely in order to provide E15 produced by fuel 
and fuel additive manufacturers the CAA sec. 211(h)(4) 1-psi waiver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ EPA does not have volatility standards on gasoline outside 
of the regulatory control period (May 1 through September 15), which 
includes the high ozone season (June 1 through September 15). For 
both the 2008 definition and the new definition, gasoline introduced 
into commerce outside of the regulatory control period is considered 
sub sim if it meets any gasoline volatility class in ASTM D4814. 
Tier 3 vehicles must be certified on fuels described at 40 CFR 
1065.710(b). For purposes of this preamble, we refer to 
certification test fuel used in certification testing for Tier 3 
motor vehicles that contains 10 volume percent ethanol as ``Tier 3 
E10 certification fuel.'' Tier 3 E10 certification fuel has an RVP 
of approximately 9.0 psi.
    \100\ Auto manufacturers certified some light-duty motor 
vehicles using Tier 3 E10 certification fuel as early as MY2017 and 
almost all auto manufacturers must certify their light-duty motor 
vehicles using Tier 3 E10 certification fuel by MY2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, we are not making this determination for E15 for use 
in MY2000 and older motor vehicles, heavy-duty gasoline engines and 
vehicles, on and off-highway motorcycles, and nonroad engines, 
vehicles, and equipment as we have determined that E15 is not 
``substantially similar'' to Tier 3 E10 certification fuel when used in 
these vehicles, engines, and equipment.\101\ Our technical 
justification for doing so is provided in Sections II.C.6-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ For purposes of this preamble, nonroad engines, vehicles, 
and equipment (including motorcycles and marine engines) are 
referred to as ``nonroad products.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This determination would make it lawful for any fuel or fuel 
additive manufacturer to make and introduce into commerce E15 at 10.0 
psi RVP during the summer without the use of the E15 waivers under CAA 
sec. 211(f)(4). In conjunction with our interpretation of CAA sec. 
211(h)(4) described in Section II.B, this would allow all parties the 
ability to lawfully introduce into commerce E15 at 10.0 psi RVP from 
May 1 through September 15 for use in MY2001 and newer light-duty 
vehicles, and is needed to effectuate the 1-psi waiver provided for E15 
under our revised interpretation of CAA sec. 211(h)(4).\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ Without the sub sim determination, only parties who are 
not fuel or fuel additive manufacturers as defined in 40 CFR 79.2, 
as discussed in the NPRM and in Section II.D.3, could introduce E15 
into commerce at 10.0 psi in the summer.

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

[[Page 26994]]

    Prohibitions on the use of E15 in all other on-road and non-road 
products that currently apply through regulations established under CAA 
sec. 211(c) remain in place, and parties that make and distribute E15, 
and ethanol for use in producing E15, would still need to satisfy the 
MMR requirements under 40 CFR part 80, subpart N. However, we are also 
including parameters within our definition of sub sim that fuel and 
fuel additive manufacturers take reasonable precautions to ensure that 
E15 is only used in vehicles, engines, and equipment for which E15 is 
sub sim to Tier 3 E10 certification fuel. This includes submission to 
EPA for approval of a misfueling mitigation plan as previously required 
under the partial waivers and discussed further in Section II.C.9.\103\ 
This section outlines the background and rationale for our proposed 
interpretative rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ Companies that already have an approved misfueling 
mitigation plan under the E15 CAA sec. 211(f)(4) waivers will not 
need to submit for approval a separate plan under the sub sim 
interpretative rule in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Certification Fuels
    Historically, two fuels are utilized in EPA's emissions standards 
certification of gasoline-powered vehicles and engines: (1) 
Standardized gasoline with controlled parameters to ensure consistency 
across vehicle and engine certification used in emissions testing, and 
(2) commercially available mileage accumulation fuels used to ensure 
in-use durability of exhaust and evaporative emissions controls.\104\ 
Historically, the fuel used in emissions testing (``certification test 
fuel'') contained no oxygenates (e.g., ethanol) and was often referred 
to by its brand name, ``indolene.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ See 46 FR 38582 (July 28, 1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2014 Tier 3 rulemaking, we updated the certification test 
fuel for Tier 3 certified motor vehicles and changed the certification 
test fuel from E0 to E10 to reflect the widespread use of E10 in the 
marketplace.\105\ The requirement to use Tier 3 E10 certification fuel 
may have applied as early as MY2015 if a manufacturer elected to comply 
early with the Tier 3 vehicle emissions standards, but the requirement 
to use E10 in at least some vehicles began with MY2017. Almost all 
MY2020 and newer vehicles must be certified for emissions testing with 
Tier 3 E10 certification fuel, with some exceptions for small volume 
vehicle manufacturers, which must use Tier 3 E10 certification fuel by 
MY2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ See 79 FR 23414 (April 28, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Service accumulation fuel for durability must be representative of 
commercially-available gasoline \106\ and evaporative emissions 
durability must ``employ gasoline fuel for the entire mileage 
accumulation period that contains ethanol in, at least, the highest 
concentration permissible in gasoline under federal law and that is 
commercially available in any state in the United States.'' \107\ Since 
MY2004, service accumulation fuel used for evaporative system aging 
must contain the highest concentration of ethanol available in the 
market. After EPA partially granted the waivers for E15 in 2010 and 
2011, we notified manufacturers in early 2012 that new evaporative 
emission families must be aged on E15 under 40 CFR 86.1824-
08(f)(1).\108\ We believe that auto manufacturers began evaporative 
system aging on E15 as early as MY2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ See 40 CFR 86.113-15(a)(5).
    \107\ See 40 CFR 86.1824-08(f)(1).
    \108\ As described in 40 CFR 86.1803-01, an evaporative/
refueling emissions family is ``the basic classification unit of a 
manufacturers' product line used for the purpose of evaporative and 
refueling emissions test fleet selection and determined in 
accordance with Sec.  86.1821-01.'' This allows manufacturers of 
motor vehicles to group models that have similar evaporative 
emission control systems into a single family for purposes of 
certifying all models within the family to applicable evaporative 
emissions standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. History of ``Substantially Similar'' Interpretations
    EPA has issued four interpretative rules that defined 
``substantially similar'' for gasoline used in all gasoline-fueled 
vehicles. These interpretative rules describe the types of unleaded 
gasoline that are considered substantially similar to the unleaded 
gasoline utilized in our vehicle and engine certification programs, and 
place limits on a gasoline's chemical composition and physical 
properties, including the types and amount of alcohols and ethers 
(oxygenates) that may be added to gasoline. Fuels that are found to be 
substantially similar to certification fuels may be introduced into 
commerce. Each of our past interpretative rules provided an allowance 
for oxygenates within the gasoline. We last issued an interpretative 
rule on the phrase ``substantially similar'' for gasoline in 2008.\109\ 
In that rulemaking, we allowed for the introduction into commerce of 
gasoline with modified testing procedures for introduction into 
commerce in Alaska. The current substantially similar interpretative 
rule for unleaded gasoline allows oxygen content up to 2.7 percent by 
weight for certain ethers and alcohols. Despite having changed 
certification test fuel to include 10 volume percent ethanol, prior to 
this proposed action, we have not addressed what should be considered 
substantially similar to Tier 3 E10 certification fuel utilized in Tier 
3 light-duty vehicle certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ See 73 FR 22281 (April 25, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In defining what fuels are sub sim to certification fuels, we have 
listed general physical and chemical characteristics, such as oxygen 
content, after determining that fuels and fuel additives meeting these 
general ``sub sim'' characteristics will not adversely affect 
emissions. In our past interpretations defining what physical and 
chemical characteristics are necessary to make a fuel or fuel additive 
``sub sim'' to certification test fuel, we have taken three primary 
factors into account: (1) Emissions, (2) materials compatibility, and 
(3) driveability.110 111
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ See 56 FR 5352 (February 11, 1991).
    \111\ For example, we have interpreted that only fuels and fuel 
additives with a chemical composition of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, 
nitrogen, and sulfur (CHONS) are sub sim under 211(f)(1). Non-CHONS 
chemical compositions of fuels and fuel additives can impair 
emission controls resulting in increased emissions or ultimately 
failure of the emission controls, especially over time. We have also 
historically been concerned with higher levels of oxygen content as 
increased oxygen content in gasoline can result in enleanment of the 
air-fuel ratio leading to higher emissions as well as higher exhaust 
temperatures that can degrade emission controls over time, 
especially in vehicles and engines that lack adaptive fuel controls 
that adjust to oxygenate levels in fuels (e.g., MY2000 and older 
light-duty motor vehicles).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We initially specified that fuel with oxygen content up to 2.0 
weight percent is sub sim to certification test fuel.\112\ We later 
revised the definition to allow oxygen content up to 2.7 weight percent 
for gasoline containing aliphatic ethers and/or alcohols (excluding 
methanol), finding, based on data and our experience with CAA sec. 
211(f)(4) waiver applications, that such levels would not result in 
emissions, materials compatibility, or drivability problems compared 
with certification test fuel.\113\ Thus, we have a history of 
establishing maximum oxygen content as a criterion, in addition to 
other criteria, for determining whether a fuel or fuel additive is 
substantially similar to a fuel utilized in certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ See 45 FR 6743 (October 10, 1980). 2.0 weight percent 
oxygen equates to approximately 5.7 volume percent ethanol.
    \113\ See 56 FR 5352 (February 11, 1991). 2.7 weight percent 
oxygen equates to approximately 7.7 volume percent ethanol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to fuel volatility, our sub sim interpretations have 
specified that in order to qualify as sub sim to certification test 
fuel, which has

[[Page 26995]]

historically had an RVP of 9.0 psi in light of the vehicle test 
conditions being reflective of summer conditions, fuels need only 
``meet ASTM standards in general, that is, not necessarily for every 
geographic location and time of year.'' \114\ To qualify as sub sim, 
gasoline (whether or not containing ethanol) ``must possess, at time of 
manufacture, all the physical and chemical characteristics of an 
unleaded gasoline as specified in ASTM D4814-88 for at least one of the 
Seasonal and Geographical Volatility Classes specified in the 
standard.'' \115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ See 46 FR 38585 (July 28, 1981).
    \115\ See 73 FR 22281 (April 25, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Interpretation of CAA Sec. 211(f)(1)
    In this action, we are putting forth a new interpretation of CAA 
sec. 211(f)(1). Recognizing the changed gasoline marketplace, and the 
multiple certification fuels used today, as compared to 1981, 1991, and 
even 2008, when the previous definitions of ``substantially similar'' 
were articulated, we are interpreting CAA sec. 211(f)(1) to find that 
E15 is substantially similar to Tier 3 E10 certification fuel for use 
in MY2001 and newer motor vehicles. This finding is consistent with the 
statutory text and purpose of CAA sec. 211(f)(1) and appropriate given 
the changed circumstances since our previous interpretations of what is 
``substantially similar.'' \116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ In this action, we are putting forth a new definition of 
what is ``substantially similar'' to Tier 3 E10 certification fuel. 
We are also operating under a new interpretation of CAA sec. 
211(f)(1) that requires the examination of the entire scope of 
vehicles and engines that could use E15, given that Tier 3 E10 
certification fuel is only utilized in the certification of a subset 
of the vehicle and engine fleet. Our discussion of our changed 
interpretation of CAA sec. 211(f)(1) in this section applies both to 
our general interpretation of the meaning of CAA sec. 211(f)(1) and 
the scope of analysis and to our justification for a new 
substantially similar definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Significant changes have occurred in the time period since CAA sec. 
211(f)(1) was enacted and since we have had cause to interpret 
211(f)(1) and to determine what fuels qualify as sub sim to our 
certification fuels. First, we partially granted a CAA sec. 211(f)(4) 
waiver that created a subset of gasoline fuel, E15 that can only be 
used in MY2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles. We have information 
that the use of E15 in certain light-duty motor vehicles, as well as 
heavy-duty vehicles and nonroad vehicles, engines, and equipment, could 
cause or contribute to emission system failures.\117\ Second, we have 
modified the certification fuel on which light-duty vehicles are 
certified from indolene (gasoline containing no ethanol) to Tier 3 E10 
certification fuel for light-duty vehicles. We have not modified the 
certification fuel for other gasoline-powered vehicles, engines, and 
equipment. This action resulted in a split in the national vehicle and 
engine fleet by the certification fuel used to certify gasoline-powered 
vehicles, engines, and equipment: Tier 3 certified vehicles certified 
on Tier 3 E10 certification fuel and all other vehicles and engines 
certified on indolene. The use of Tier 3 E10 certification fuel also 
provides a new comparison point to determine which fuels would be 
considered substantially similar in all gasoline-powered vehicles, 
engines, and equipment. Additionally, E10, as discussed in Section 
II.A.2, has become the predominant fuel used in gasoline powered motor 
vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ See 76 FR 4662 (January 26, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These two actions have resulted in a gasoline pool that is no 
longer interchangeable in all vehicles and engines. Unleaded gasoline, 
a fuel which we have interpreted CAA sec. 211(f)(1)(B) to apply, can be 
used in light-duty vehicles, as well as heavy-duty vehicles, and 
nonroad engines and equipment, including motorcycles and marine 
engines. However, as a result of the 211(f)(4) waivers for E15, we know 
that fueling a subset of those vehicles and engines with unleaded 
gasoline that is E15 will result in emissions exceedances. Since E15 
has increased in availability in the gasoline marketplace as discussed 
in Section II.A.2 and may increase in the future, as discussed in 
Section II.E, it is important that E15 be introduced into commerce only 
for those vehicles for which it can be used without concerns over 
emissions, materials compatibility, or driveability.
    We find that it would be inappropriate to allow the introduction 
into commerce of E15 for use in all gasoline-powered vehicles and 
engines in light of the demonstrated adverse impacts on emission 
systems due to the use of E15 MY2000 and older motor vehicles, heavy-
duty gasoline engines and vehicles, on and off-highway motorcycles, and 
nonroad engines, vehicles, and equipment. However, we do find that E15 
is substantially similar to E10 when used in MY2001 and newer motor 
vehicles. Therefore, in this action, we are finalizing an 
interpretation of CAA sec. 211(f)(1) that accounts for the changed 
circumstances in both the fuel pool, the certification fuels, and 
vehicle fleet since we last interpreted this section.
    As discussed in Section II.B, EPA has the ability to modify its 
interpretation of statutory provisions. We are doing so for our 
interpretation of CAA sec. 211(f)(1). Our past ``substantially 
similar'' interpretative rules have not attempted to limit the scope of 
the vehicles and engines for which fuels would be considered sub sim to 
our certification fuels. Rather, they put forth an interpretation 
regarding how EPA would determine whether a new fuel or fuel additive 
is ``substantially similar'' for general use in all gasoline powered 
engines, vehicles and equipment. When EPA took those previous actions, 
we had no information before us that indicated that use of those new 
fuels or fuel additives in certain subsets of vehicles or engines may 
be inappropriate. Therefore, there was no need for EPA to consider 
limitations or other criteria to modify the sub sim interpretation to a 
particular subset of vehicles or engines.
    In previous determinations of CAA sec. 211(f), we looked broadly at 
the use of the new fuel or fuel additive in all gasoline-powered 
engines, vehicles, and equipment. This was appropriate at that time 
because all gasoline-powered engines, vehicles and equipment were 
certified using essentially the same fuel and were compatible with any 
gasoline. Now, in light of the CAA sec. 211(f)(4) waivers, and the 
changed certification fuel, E15 can be used in MY2001 and newer motor 
vehicles but its use in other gasoline powered products has 
demonstrated adverse effects on emissions and materials compatibility. 
The legislative history of the 1977 CAA Amendments makes clear that the 
purpose of CAA sec. 211(f) is to ensure that the introduction of new 
fuels and fuel additives into commerce does not adversely impact 
vehicle emissions.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ See S. Rep. 95-127, (95th Cong., 1st Sess.), at 90 (``The 
Administrator may waive the prohibition if the applicant establishes 
that the additive will not impair the emission performance of 
vehicles produced in model year 1975 and subsequent years.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We retain certain aspects of previous interpretations. The first 
E15 sec. 211(f)(4) waiver decision, in 2010, was the last occasion on 
which we articulated our interpretation of CAA sec. 211(f), including 
the relationship between the CAA sec. 211(f)(1) provision and the CAA 
sec. 211(f)(4) waiver provision.\119\ We stated that the CAA sec. 
211(f)(1) ``prohibition has evolved over time,'' but ``the concept of 
applying this prohibition based on the relevant subset of vehicles 
continues.'' \120\ For example, we explained that ``diesel fuel does 
not need to be substantially similar to the fuel used in the 
certification of gasoline vehicles, and E85 does not need to be 
substantially similar to fuel used in the

[[Page 26996]]

certification of diesel vehicles.'' \121\ We also recognized that, in 
approving a fuel as substantially similar, EPA could consider narrow as 
well as broad subsets of motor vehicles when evaluating a fuel or fuel 
additive for introduction into commerce under CAA sec. 211(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ 75 FR 68145 (November 4, 2010).
    \120\ Id.
    \121\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In assessing whether a fuel is substantially similar to a 
certification fuel, we must look only to its use in the engines and 
vehicles within which it can be used, and not its use in vehicles and 
engines which are fueled by other types of fuel. Consistent with our 
past interpretation, we again find that the use of the term ``any'' in 
the prohibition (``any . . . vehicle or engine'') does not mean all 
motor vehicles or 100 percent of the motor vehicle fleet.\122\ This is 
supported by the plain meaning of the term ``any,'' which can mean 
``one, some, or all indiscriminately of whatever quantity.'' \123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ Id.
    \123\ Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1976); see 
Green v. Biddle, 21 U.S. 1, 38 (1823) (``where the words of a law, 
treaty, or contract, have a plain and obvious meaning, all 
construction, in hostility with such meaning, is excluded'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed further in Section 1.3.2.2 of the RTC, the use of the 
phrase ``any fuel utilized in the certification of any model year 1975, 
or subsequent model year, vehicle or engine'' clearly encompasses fuels 
utilized in subsequent model years, such as Tier 3 E10 certification 
fuel. In particular the reference to a certification fuel for a 
``subsequent model year'' permits our comparison of E15 to Tier 3 E10 
certification fuel, a fuel utilized in the certification of MY2020 and 
later light-duty motor vehicles.
    For this CAA sec. 211(f)(1) sub sim interpretation we are faced for 
the first time, however, with a situation where there are different 
gasolines used in the certification of different gasoline vehicles and 
equipment, and a different in-use gasoline (E15) that can only be used 
in a subset of in-use vehicles and engines. Because of this, the 
appropriate scope of review is all of the various vehicles and engines 
within which gasoline can be used, and our assessment under sub sim 
evaluates the appropriateness of fueling those vehicles and engines 
with various gasoline-ethanol blends. In this unique circumstance, we 
have the benefit of the CAA sec. 211(f)(4) waiver analyses that 
supported partial grants of CAA sec. 211(f)(4) waivers for E15 in 2010 
and 2011. These data provide technical information useful to informing 
our sub sim analysis for E15. The use of data collected or analyzed in 
the context of a CAA sec. 211(f)(4) to inform a sub sim determination 
under CAA sec. 211(f)(1) is consistent with our prior practice. For 
example, in making the sub sim determination in our 1991 sub sim 
interpretive rule, we considered evidence that supported the CAA sec. 
211(f)(4) waivers granted to methanol.\124\ Based on the data in those 
waiver analyses, as well as additional data gathered in the eight years 
since that waiver, we have assessed whether E15 is sub sim to the Tier 
3 E10 certification fuel for use in all of the vehicles and engines 
that could be exposed to fueling on E15 in-use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ 56 FR 5352, 5353 (February 11, 1991). We explained that 
``although methanol is not included in the group of aliphatic 
alcohols and ethers covered by today's [sub sim interpretive rule] 
revision, the evidence in these fuel waiver dockets involving 
methanol supports the conclusion that unleaded gasolines containing 
aliphatic ethers and/or alcohols (excluding methanol), at up to 2.7 
percent oxygen by weight, are substantially similar to unleaded 
gasoline used in light-duty vehicle emissions certification.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, we are also extending our assessment beyond those 
vehicles and engines certified under CAA sec. 206. We are again in a 
unique circumstance where due to our analysis under the CAA sec. 
211(f)(4) waiver (which covers all motor vehicles, motor vehicle 
engines, nonroad engines, and nonroad vehicles), we have knowledge of 
the use of E15 in particular vehicles and engines causing or 
contributing to emission systems failures.\125\ Because we have the 
benefit of this information, we find it appropriate to assess under 
211(f)(1) whether E15 is sub sim to E10 when used in those vehicles and 
engines. Some of these vehicles and engines are certified under CAA 
sec. 213(a).\126\ Therefore, we are also looking at whether E15 is sub 
sim to Tier 3 E10 certification fuel when used in nonroad products 
certified under CAA sec. 213(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ See 75 FR 68144 (November 4, 2010).
    \126\ CAA sec. 213(a)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the proposal, we suggested that the comparison was relatively 
narrow--comparing the use of E15 to the use of Tier 3 E10 certification 
fuel in Tier 3 vehicles alone; i.e., the fuel utilized in the 
certification of that vehicle or engine. We received many comments 
suggesting this is not an appropriate assessment under CAA sec. 
211(f)(1) and we are not taking this approach in this action. Instead, 
we have concluded that it is appropriate to broaden our analysis to 
consider the use of E15 in all vehicles and engines that could be 
exposed to fueling on E15 in-use to determine whether E15 is 
substantially similar to Tier 3 E10 certification fuel.
    Many commenters suggested that CAA sec. 211(f)(1) should be 
protective of all vehicles and engines in the fleet. We agree, and this 
action protects vehicles and engines by finding that the use of E15 in 
any MY2000 or older light-duty gasoline motor vehicle, any heavy-duty 
gasoline motor vehicle or engine, any highway or off-highway 
motorcycle, or any gasoline-powered nonroad engines, vehicles or 
equipment is not sub sim to Tier 3 E10 certification fuel. We also 
maintain the prohibition on use in these vehicles, engines and 
equipment implemented in the MMR.\127\ These actions are being taken to 
protect the vehicles and engines for which use of E15 would be harmful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ 40 CFR 80.1504(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In past sub sim interpretative rules, we have provided physical and 
chemical characteristics of fuels and fuel additives that would be 
considered sub sim to certification fuel. These interpretative rules 
broadly applied to a variety of fuel and fuel additives. Then, at 
registration, fuel and fuel additive manufacturers must demonstrate 
whether their fuel or fuel additive is sub sim or has a CAA sec. 
211(f)(4) waiver from being sub sim.
    In this interpretative rule we are taking both steps for E15 as 
compared to tier 3 E10 certification fuel--interpreting what is 
``substantially similar'' to tier 3 E10 certification fuel, and 
providing a narrow definition for gasoline-ethanol blends containing 
greater than ten and less than 15 percent ethanol, and fuel additives 
utilized in that fuel that is sub sim to tier 3 E10 certification fuel 
and determining that E15, as a fuel, is sub sim. We are putting forth 
our determination that E15 meeting certain criteria is sub sim when 
used in MY2001 and newer light-duty vehicles.
4. Criteria for Determining Whether a Fuel Is ``Substantially Similar''
    In this action, we are considering whether E15 is sub sim to Tier 3 
E10 certification fuel when used in all motor vehicles and motor 
vehicle engines certified under CAA sec. 206 and nonroad products 
certified under CAA sec. 213(a).
    As discussed in Section II.A.4, CAA sec. 211(f)(1) prohibits fuel 
and fuel additive manufacturers from introducing into commerce fuel or 
fuel additives that are not substantially similar to fuel or fuel 
additives utilized in the certification of motor vehicles. CAA sec. 
211(f)(4) provides a waiver from this prohibition for fuels and fuel 
additives that can be established that such fuel or fuel additive, or a 
specified

[[Page 26997]]

concentration thereof, will not cause or contribute to a failure of any 
emission control device or system (over the useful life of the motor 
vehicle, motor vehicle engine, nonroad engine, or nonroad vehicle in 
which such device or system is used) to achieve compliance by the 
vehicle or engine with the emission standards to which it has been 
certified pursuant to CAA sec. 206 and 213(a).
    To make this assessment, we have generally considered the effects 
of a fuel or fuel additive on emissions (exhaust and evaporative), 
materials compatibility, and driveability for motor vehicles and motor 
vehicle engines certified under CAA sec. 206.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ See, e.g., 56 FR 5354 (February 11, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The criteria we consider when determining whether a fuel or fuel 
additive is sub sim to certification fuel under CAA sec. 211(f)(1) are 
similar to those criteria we consider when determining whether a new 
fuel or fuel additive should receive a waiver to CAA sec. 211(f)(1) 
under CAA sec. 211(f)(4). When determining whether a fuel or fuel 
additive is sub sim to certification fuel under CAA sec 211(f)(1), we 
have interpreted the criteria of emissions, materials compatibility, 
and driveability as necessary to ensure that any fuel or fuel additive 
determined to be sub sim will not impair the emission controls of 
vehicles, engines, and equipment, as intended by Congress. While the 
areas for consideration under CAA sec. 211(f)(1) and sec. 211(f)(4) are 
similar, the requirements in each provision differ. CAA sec. 211(f)(1) 
only requires that fuels be sub sim to certification fuel, while CAA 
sec. 211(f)(4) requires that the new fuel or fuel additive will not 
cause or contribute to any vehicles or engines exceeding their 
emissions standards over the fuel useful life of the vehicles or 
engines.
    In practice, EPA has implemented CAA secs. 211(f)(1) and 211(f)(4) 
by evaluating similar criteria when defining which fuels are sub sim 
and when evaluating 211(f)(4) waiver requests (i.e., emissions, 
materials compatibility, and driveability).\129\ This is because these 
three areas speak both to whether a fuel or fuel additive is sub sim to 
certification fuel and whether such a fuel will damage a vehicle or 
engine's emission controls. We consider these criteria to be 
intrinsically linked as they are intended to answer the same question: 
Whether a fuels or fuel additive will harm emissions controls on 
vehicles and engines or result in increases in regulated emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ See 75 FR 68144-68145 (November 4, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, we believe that any new fuel or fuel additive that 
would cause or contribute to vehicles and engines exceeding emissions 
standards is, by definition, not substantially similar to certification 
fuel under sub sim. Given the intent of CAA sec. 211(f)(1) to protect 
emission controls, it would be inappropriate to define sub sim in a 
manner that included fuels or fuel additives that caused or contributed 
to vehicles exceeding their emissions standards. As a result, we have 
in the past interpreted sub sim conservatively to help ensure that this 
situation did not arise. We continue to believe that this is 
appropriate to ensure that CAA sec. 211(f)(1) protects the emission 
controls of vehicles and engines certified under CAA secs. 206 and 213. 
We also believe the converse is true for newer light-duty motor 
vehicles (i.e., MY2001 and newer). In older vehicles, especially MY2000 
and older motor vehicles, where certified emission standards were 
relatively less stringent than more modern standards (i.e., National 
Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV), Tier 2, and Tier 3 vehicle emission 
standards), there was a substantial amount of headroom (i.e., the 
amount between the actual level at which a vehicle is certified and the 
standard that the vehicle is subject to, typically around 50 percent of 
the standard,\130\ which allowed for fuels or fuel additives to 
significantly increase emissions in absolute terms without causing 
vehicles to exceed emission standards. In modern vehicles, with more 
stringent emissions standards, it is almost impossible to have large, 
absolute increases in emissions and have a vehicle or engine meet its 
emissions standards. Even small absolute changes in emissions can cause 
vehicles to exceed emission standards. We believe that when a relative 
increase in the emissions profile of a new fuel or fuel additive 
compared to a certification fuel is sufficient to result in vehicles 
and engines exceeding certified emissions standards in use, the new 
fuel or fuel additive is not substantially similar to the certification 
fuel since there is very little room in standards for small absolute 
changes. Thus, while our analysis accompanying the E15 partial waivers 
considered whether E15 caused or contributed to vehicles and engines 
exceeding emissions standards over the full useful lives of the 
vehicles, we believe that the same analysis can inform our 
determination and in what circumstances E15 is sub sim to Tier 3 E10 
certification fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ See 75 FR 68111 (November 4, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to determine whether E15 is sub sim to Tier 3 E10 
certification fuel, we must consider the effects that E15 would have on 
all vehicles, engines, and equipment relative to Tier 3 E10 
certification fuel. For each class of vehicles, engines, and equipment, 
we need to evaluate E15's relative effect on emissions, materials 
compatibility, and driveability. For the most part, we have already 
considered the effects of E15 on all vehicles, engines, and equipment 
certified under CAA secs. 206 and 213 in the E15 partial waivers and 
the MMR. In those actions, we evaluated the effect of E15 use on 
emissions (exhaust and evaporative), materials compatibility, and 
driveability over the full useful lives of MY2000 and older motor 
vehicles, MY2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles, nonroad products 
(including motorcycles and marine engines), and heavy-duty gasoline-
fueled vehicles. While the focus of the analysis for the E15 waiver 
decisions was on E15 relative to indolene (i.e., E0) and this sub sim 
determination is on E15 relative to E10, we generally anticipate that 
there would be less differences when E15 is compared to E10 in the 
national vehicle and engine fleet. A summary of our finding for these 
classes of vehicles and engines is presented below, but the full 
discussion and all data and literature used to support our findings is 
contained in the E15 waivers and the MMR and are incorporated here by 
reference and included in the docket. Although we incorporate the 
discussion and all data and literature in support of the E15 partial 
waivers, we are not reopening those waivers with this action. We 
separately discuss in sections II.C.6-8 the following vehicles and 
classes:

 MY2000 and older motor vehicles
 MY2001 through 2019 light-duty motor vehicles
 MY2020 and newer light-duty motor vehicles (i.e., Tier 3 
vehicles)
 Vehicles, engines, and equipment prohibited from E15 use

    Since Tier 3 certified vehicles did not exist at the time of the 
E15 waivers and the MMR, we consider those vehicles separately from the 
MY2001-2019 light-duty vehicles. As described in Section II.C.9, it is 
appropriate for us to restrict the applicability of this new definition 
of sub sim to only those vehicles, engines, and equipment for which we 
are determining that E15 is sub sim to Tier 3 certification fuel.
5. Impact of Volatility on ``Substantially Similar''
    In determining whether a fuel is substantially similar, our 
analysis compares a fuel (in this case, E15) to a fuel utilized in the 
certification of motor vehicles (in this case, Tier 3 E10 certification 
fuel). Our certification fuel

[[Page 26998]]

regulations specify a volatility limit for Tier 3 E10 certification 
fuel of 9.0 psi.\131\ In this action, we are also considering our sub 
sim interpretation, in the context of our interpretation of CAA sec. 
211(h)(4) described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ See 79 FR 23414, 23526 (April 28, 2014). See also 40 CFR 
1065.710.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposed two alternative analyses for a sub sim interpretation 
for E15. The first analysis compared E15 at 10.0 psi--i.e., after 
application of the CAA sec. 211(h)(4) waiver--to E10 certification fuel 
at 9.0 psi RVP. The second analysis compared E15 at 9.0 psi RVP to E10 
certification fuel at 9.0 psi RVP. For the reasons explained below, we 
have adopted the latter interpretation in this final action--comparing 
E15 at 9.0 psi RVP to E10 certification fuel at 9.0 psi RVP. As stated 
in Section II.A.1, CAA sec. 211(f) exists to protect the emissions 
control systems of vehicles and engines and thus prevent the 
degradation of those systems. The emissions control systems of vehicles 
and engines have become increasingly sensitive to changes in volatility 
as emissions standards have become increasingly stringent over time. 
Therefore, changes in volatility can also affect the efficacy of 
evaporative emissions systems. It would be inappropriate to completely 
ignore the volatility of a fuel in evaluating whether it is sub sim, 
especially as volatility relates to evaporative emissions. We continue 
to believe that the volatility of fuel is important to consider when 
determining whether a fuel or fuel additive is substantially similar to 
fuel utilized in the certification of vehicles and engines under CAA 
sec. 211(f)(1). In particular, the volatility of fuels can have a 
significant impact on the evaporative emissions (as well as exhaust 
emissions) from a vehicle, one of the considerations EPA has analyzed 
under sub sim historically and in this action, as described in this 
section.
    In the proposal, we suggested that it may be appropriate to utilize 
our previous approach to volatility in a sub sim determination. In 
previous sub sim interpretative rules and corresponding definitions, we 
have required gasoline to only meet the volatility requirement of a 
single volatility class defined in ASTM Standard D4814-88, which range 
from 7.0 psi to 15.0 psi over the course of the year. We viewed this as 
appropriate when considering fuels and fuel additives that themselves 
are not impacting the volatility of gasoline during the summer months. 
When volatility impacts do not impair evaporative emissions controls 
that are important to air quality, we only need to consider the 
volatility impacts of the fuel or fuel additive to ensure that the fuel 
still falls within the bounds of what is considered to be gasoline. 
Therefore, we do not find it would be appropriate to compare E15 at 
10.0 psi to E10 at 9.0 psi.
    In this action, we are providing a new interpretation of CAA sec. 
211(h)(4) that applies the 1-psi waiver to ethanol blends greater than 
10 but no more than 15 volume percent ethanol. There, Congress provided 
a 1-psi waiver for the blending of gasoline-ethanol blends in order to 
promote ethanol blending in gasoline and ensure that those gasoline-
ethanol blends could remain in use. CAA sec. 211(h)(4) does not provide 
any additional analysis or consideration for EPA prior to the 
application of the 1-psi waiver, nor does it provide guidance to EPA on 
the operability of the statutory provisions. E15 will be treated 
similarly to E10 under CAA secs. 211(f)(1) and 211(h)(4); blendstocks 
produced by fuel and fuel additive manufacturers typically meet a 
lower-RVP standard, and then, upon addition of ethanol by downstream 
parties, the blended fuel is given an RVP allowance, allowing up to 1.0 
psi higher RVP. The approach we are taking gives meaning to both 
211(f)(1) and its consideration of volatility in determining whether a 
fuel is sub sim, and 211(h)(4) which provides the 1-psi waiver. 
Therefore, the 1-psi waiver operates after other limitations on the 
introduction of E15 into commerce.
    Therefore, the analysis under CAA sec. 211(f) is limited in scope 
in this particular situation. We need not address the 1-psi waiver that 
is expressly provided in another provision of CAA sec. 211 by analyzing 
emission impacts at the volatility level provided through the waiver in 
order to determine whether a fuel is substantially similar to a 
certification fuel. In this case, we need not look at the emissions 
impacts of E15 at 10.0 psi RVP because CAA sec. 211(h)(4), as 
interpreted in this action, will itself allow for the 1-psi waiver for 
E15. It is not the case that volatility is wholly irrelevant to our 
evaluation of what is sub sim, given that the level of RVP for gasoline 
certification fuel used to certify motor vehicles is 9.0 psi, but 
rather in this case, we find it would be inappropriate to limit under 
sub sim the volatility of a fuel that Congress allowed a 1-psi waiver 
from the volatility standard, under CAA sec. 211(h)(4). Our 
determination under sec. 211(f)(1) only allows E15 to be introduced 
into commerce without a CAA sec. 211(f)(4) waiver.\132\ It is the 
operation of CAA sec. 211(h)(4) that allows E15 to receive the 1-psi 
waiver, resulting in E15 having to meet a 10.0 psi RVP limit, rather 
than a 9.0 psi RVP limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ E10 was granted a waiver under CAA sec. 211(f)(4) without 
any conditions, in contrast to other CAA sec. 211(f)(4) waivers, 
which included, for example, conditions on fuel characteristics such 
as RVP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It follows that our point of comparison is E15 at 9.0 psi to Tier 3 
E10 certification fuel (i.e., E10 at 9.0 psi). Additionally, our 
finding in this action that E15 is substantially similar to Tier 3 E10 
certification fuel when used in MY2001 and newer light-duty motor 
vehicles is limited to E15 at 9.0 psi. In considering whether E15 is 
sub sim to tier 3 E10 certification fuel in the areas of materials 
compatibility, emissions, and driveability, we have done so comparing 
E15 at 9.0 psi to Tier 3 E10 certification fuel at 9.0 psi. This 
approach recognizes the importance of volatility on evaporative 
emissions, one of the criteria we have historically considered in 
evaluating whether a fuel is sub sim.
6. Technical Rationale and Discussion for Tier 3 Vehicles (MY2020 and 
Newer)
    As discussed above, we have considered whether a fuel has similar 
effects on emissions, materials compatibility, and driveability when 
defining what fuels are substantially similar to certification fuel. 
Based on existing data and our engineering judgement, we have concluded 
that E15 at 9.0 psi RVP, with its additional oxygen content, would have 
effects on emissions, materials compatibility, and drivability 
substantially similar to Tier 3 E10 certification fuel (also at 9.0 psi 
RVP) in Tier 3 vehicles. While test data is still limited on Tier 3 
vehicles, we have been able to draw upon test data and information on 
prior year motor vehicles (primarily NLEV and Tier 2 certified vehicles 
representative of MY2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles) to 
support this conclusion as the impacts on Tier 3 motor vehicles are 
expected to be of a similar or lesser concern than on prior year motor 
vehicles.
a. Exhaust Emissions
    In the 2010 and 2011 CAA sec. 211(f)(4) partial waivers for E15, we 
concluded from available data that neither the immediate combustion 
effects nor the long-term durability impacts of operating on E15 would 
prevent MY2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles from complying with 
their full useful life emission

[[Page 26999]]

standards.\133\ This decision was supported by a large study conducted 
by DOE that tested 27 high-sales vehicles spanning model years 2000 to 
2007 \134\ using ethanol splash blends made from Tier 2 certification 
gasoline (E0).\135\ Analysis of the resulting data shows that E15 
produced approximately 5 percent higher nitrogen oxides 
(NOX), 4 percent higher non-methane organic gases (NMOG), 
and 4 percent lower CO compared to E10, though none of these 
differences was statistically significant. This work did not measure 
particulate matter (PM) emissions, but the expectation at the time was 
that PM should react to ethanol in a similar way as NMOG emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ See 75 FR 68096 (November 4, 2010).
    \134\ This study was designed to evaluate the long-term exhaust 
emissions effects of E15 on NLEV and Tier 2 light-duty vehicles.
    \135\ Knoll, K., West, B., Huff, S., Thomas, J. et al., 
``Effects of Mid-Level Ethanol Blends on Conventional Vehicle 
Emissions,'' SAE Technical Paper 2009-01-2723, 2009. This preamble 
refers to this study as ``the DOE study''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the time of the 2010 and 2011 waiver decisions, additional 
data have been published on the effects of gasoline-ethanol blends on 
Tier 2 vehicles.\136\ The EPAct/V2/E-89 study (referred to as the 
``EPAct study''), jointly conducted by EPA, DOE/National Renewable 
Energy Laboratory (NREL), and the Coordinating Research Council (CRC) 
in 2009 to 2010, looked at the short-term effects of five fuel 
properties, including ethanol concentration, on emissions from 15 high-
sales light-duty vehicles from MY2008. Measurements included gaseous 
pollutants, and PM, a pollutant whose relationship to fuel properties 
had previously not been examined in much detail for gasoline vehicles. 
The size and scope of this study allowed for statistical models to be 
developed that could be used to correlate the impacts of the five fuel 
properties, including ethanol concentration, on emissions, enabling 
projections to be made of the emission impacts of a wide range of 
fuels, not limited to those tested. Results generally confirmed the 
NOX and CO emission impacts described above from the 
addition of ethanol to gasoline, while indicating that the effects on 
NMOG and PM are more complex and depend on other fuel parameters, such 
as the fuel's distillation profile and aromatics content.\137\ \138\ 
For example, comparing E15 and E10 fuels in the DOE study, the EPAct 
statistical models estimate approximately 2 percent higher 
NOX, 4 percent lower NMOG, 2 percent lower CO, and 2 percent 
higher PM for E15. If we instead assume E10 market fuel as a starting 
point, the EPAct models project splash blending to E15 will produce 2 
percent higher NOX, 2 percent higher NMOG, 2 percent lower 
CO, and 4 percent higher PM.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ Tier 2 vehicles generally include light-duty motor 
vehicles produced between MY2007-2019. Some manufacturers began 
making Tier 2 vehicles as early as MY2004 and some can continue to 
do so as late as MY2021.
    \137\ EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality. ``EPAct/V2/
E-89: Assessing the Effect of Five Gasoline Properties on Exhaust 
Emissions from Light-Duty Vehicles Certified to Tier 2 Standards: 
Final Report on Program Design and Data Collection''. EPA-420-R-13-
004. April 2013. The preamble refers to this as ``the EPAct Study''.
    \138\ Butler, A., Sobotowski, R., Hoffman, G., and Machiele, P., 
``Influence of Fuel PM Index and Ethanol Content on Particulate 
Emissions from Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicles,'' SAE Technical Paper 
2015-01-1072, 2015, doi:10.4271/2015-01-1072.
    \139\ Since these figures represent the output of multivariate 
models whose coefficients survived a process of statistical testing, 
they are interpreted as meaningful despite being small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another observation from this study was that the sensitivity of 
emissions to ethanol blending varied significantly across the test 
vehicles. Because the EPAct test fleet was designed to include a range 
of high-sales vehicles, it is reasonable to expect the average effect 
across the test vehicles to be representative of the in-use fleet of 
Tier 2 vehicles with port-fuel-injection.
    Two studies (projects E-94-2 and E-94-3) published by CRC in 2017 
and 2018, respectively, examined the effects of ethanol and PM Index on 
PM and other emissions from MY2012 to2015 Tier 2 vehicles, all with 
gasoline direct injection (GDI) engines and several with 
turbocharging.\140\ \141\ The E-94-2 study used a parametric design, 
meaning one fuel property was changed at a time while holding others 
constant; so for example, test fuels differing in ethanol content were 
matched in PM Index, T50, RVP, and several other properties.\142\ 
Results for the overall test fleet of 16 vehicles in E-94-2 showed no 
statistically significant effect of E10 relative to E0 for total 
hydrocarbons (THC), NOX, or CO, while PM increased by 19 
percent for the regular-grade (87 anti-knock index or AKI) test fuels. 
The E-94-3 study tested a four-vehicle subset on four E10 splash blends 
made from the E0 fuels in E-94-2, and found a PM increase of 21% on 
average, consistent with the effect found in the larger E94-2 study. 
Assuming this PM effect is linear over small fuel changes, we would 
expect around 10 percent higher PM when moving from E10 to E15. 
Comparing these results to the EPAct study and DOE study above suggests 
that later-technology vehicles with direct injection (though still 
certified to Tier 2 emission standards) have equal or lower sensitivity 
to ethanol for gaseous emissions, but may be more sensitive for PM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ Morgan, Peter; Smith, Ian; Premnath, Vinay; Kroll, 
Svitlana; Crawford, Robert. ``Evaluation and Investigation of Fuel 
Effects on Gaseous and Particulate Emissions on SIDI In-Use 
Vehicles''. SwRI 03.20955. Southwest Research Institute, San 
Antonio, TX. CRC E-94-2. Coordinating Research Council, Alpharetta, 
GA. March 2017.
    \141\ Morgan, Peter; Lobato, Peter; Premnath, Vinay; Kroll, 
Svitlana; Brunner, Kevin; Crawford, Robert. ``Impacts of Splash-
Blending on Particulate Emissions for SIDI Engines''. SwRI 03.20955-
1. Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX. CRC E-94-3. 
Coordinating Research Council, Alpharetta, GA. June 2018.
    \142\ This parametric study design is referred to as ``match 
blending'', where the hydrocarbon components of each test fuel are 
adjusted so that specific properties, such as octane, RVP, and/or 
aromatics content, are matched across different ethanol levels in 
the final blends. This is in contrast to ``splash blending'', where 
no effort is made to control fuel properties as ethanol is added, 
making it impossible to ascertain whether observed impacts are due 
to the presence of ethanol or the other resulting changes in the 
fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another study published in 2018 by the University of California, 
Riverside Center for Environmental Research and Technology (CE-CERT) 
looked at the effects of ethanol and aromatics on emissions from five 
vehicles, model years 2016 or 2017, all with GDI engines and certified 
to Tier 3 and/or LEV III standards.\143\ While this provides a useful 
look at recent-model technology impacts, it should be noted that, 
because this study only employed five test vehicles, we are less 
certain how well this study's average effects represent this technology 
type in the in-use fleet. The test fuels included E0, E10, and E15 that 
were closely aligned on aromatic content (at two levels, 21 percent and 
29 percent by volume) but the mid-point distillation temperature (T40-
T50) was uncontrolled, and declined significantly as the ethanol 
content increased.\144\ Results of this study showed no statistically 
significant difference in NOX, non-methane hydrocarbons 
(NMHC), or PM when comparing E15 to E10 at either aromatics level. 
While not statistically significant, a trend of increasing PM with an 
increase in ethanol content was observed at the higher aromatics level, 
suggestive of a reinforcing interaction between ethanol and aromatics 
that has been described in other published work. At the lower aromatics 
level, the trend

[[Page 27000]]

suggests PM increase from E0 to E10 and then decrease from E10 to E15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ Karavalakis, G; Durbin, T; Yang, J; Roth, P., ``Impacts of 
Aromatics and Ethanol Content on Exhaust Emissions from Gasoline 
Direct Injection (GDI) Vehicles''. University of California, CE-
CERT, April 2018.
    \144\ The EPAct study found T50 to have a meaningful and 
statistically significant impact on NMOG, NMHC, NOX, and 
PM emissions. Consequently, the results of this study are likely 
confounded by changes in mid-point distillation, making it difficult 
to ascertain statistically significant impacts of the ethanol 
content changes and limiting the usefulness of the study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While there are limited data on Tier 3 vehicles, the results of the 
Tier 2 and Tier 3 vehicle studies cited above are nevertheless largely 
consistent with each other given that ethanol blending affects many 
other fuel properties, given that ethanol is blended into gasoline in 
various ways that affect the collateral property changes differently, 
and given the varying impacts from vehicle to vehicle. This makes it 
difficult to interpret trends across the body of literature without 
detailed information on multiple fuel properties. However, since the 
early 1990s, a number of programs have studied the effects of ethanol 
on emissions from earlier vintage vehicles, and based on these studies, 
emissions models have been published, including the Complex Model,\145\ 
Predictive Model,\146\ and MOVES simulator,\147\ and the results from 
the more recent studies are also largely consistent with them given the 
vehicle to vehicle differences, uncontrolled variables, and statistical 
uncertainty. Namely, ethanol blending causes slight increases in 
NOX emissions and slight decreases for CO emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ See ``Complex Model Used to Analyze RFG and Anti-dumping 
Emissions Performance Standards,'' available at https://www.epa.gov/fuels-registration-reporting-and-compliance-help/complex-model-used-analyze-rfg-and-anti-dumping.
    \146\ See ``California Gasoline Predictive Models, and CARBOB 
Model Development,'' available at https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/gasoline/premodel/pmdevelop.htm.
    \147\ See ``Moves and Other Mobile Source Emissions Models,'' 
available at: https://www.epa.gov/moves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Earlier studies did not evaluate PM emission impacts from ethanol 
blending, so we are limited to consideration of only the more recent 
studies. The CRC E-94-3 and CE-CERT studies both tested ethanol splash 
blends in recent model year GDI vehicles, and one found an increase in 
PM with incremental ethanol (E0 to E10) while the other showed no 
significant impact (E10 to E15). Neither study controlled T50 between 
ethanol levels, but a notable difference between them was the range of 
T50 levels in the test fuels. The E10 test fuel in the CE-CERT study 
had lower T50 levels and additional ethanol blending depressed T50 
significantly, more consistent with what we would expect in a median 
market fuel moving to E15, versus the higher T50s in the CRC study 
where E10 was the upper blend limit.148 149 Applying the 
findings of the EPAct study to the CE-CERT study suggests that the PM 
reduction from declining T50 in the low-aromatic CE-CERT E15 would have 
offset a small PM increase caused by ethanol's hindrance of droplet 
evaporation, as described elsewhere in the 
literature.150 151 In the case of the high-aromatics fuels 
in that study, the PM trend suggests this T50 benefit was not 
sufficient to fully overcome the droplet cooling effect. As a general 
conclusion, it seems reasonable to accept the CE-CERT study conclusion 
that moving from E10 to E15 in a T50, aromatics, and PM Index space 
representative of typical market fuels is not expected to produce a 
significant increase in tailpipe PM emissions from Tier 2 and 3 
vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \148\ ``Fuel Trends Report: Gasoline 2006-2016.'' US EPA Office 
of Transportation and Air Quality, Washington, DC. EPA420-R-17-005. 
October, 2017. See Section 6.C.f. on E200 data, which can be 
converted to T50.
    \149\ ``Determination of the Potential Property Ranges of Mid-
Level Ethanol Blends.'' American Petroleum Institute, Washington, 
DC. April 2010. See Figure 7.
    \150\ Butler, A., Sobotowski, R., Hoffman, G., and Machiele, P., 
``Influence of Fuel PM Index and Ethanol Content on Particulate 
Emissions from Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicles,'' SAE Technical Paper 
2015-01-1072, 2015.
    \151\ Burke, S., Rhoads, R., Ratcliff, M., McCormick, R. et al., 
``Measured and Predicted Vapor Liquid Equilibrium of Ethanol-
Gasoline Fuels with Insight on the Influence of Azeotrope 
Interactions on Aromatic Species Enrichment and Particulate Matter 
Formation in Spark Ignition Engines,'' SAE Technical Paper 2018-01-
0361, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While some criteria pollutants would have relative increases 
(NOX) and others have similar decreases (VOC and CO) while 
still others are less certain (PM) on E15 compared to E10, these 
changes are all relatively small. In the E15 CAA sec. 211(f)(4) partial 
waivers, we determined that effects of this magnitude were too small to 
cause or contribute to MY2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles to 
exceed the vehicles' certified exhaust emissions standards and we 
expect that this would also be the case for Tier 3 vehicles. To put 
this into context, Table II.C-1 shows gram-per-mile exhaust emission 
standards (limits) for FTP-cycle certification of new light-duty motor 
vehicles under recent Federal regulatory programs. Vehicle 
manufacturers typically try to calibrate their products to have 
compliance margins of on the order of 50 percent when new to ensure 
they will meet emission requirements over their full useful lives, 
meaning their actual emission level is often about half the standard. 
The Tier 3 standards are still being phased in, but we expect 
compliance margins may be somewhat smaller as the lower emission levels 
such as Tier 3 Bin 30 are more challenging to meet. In any case, these 
margins are significantly larger than even the 10 percent PM effect 
estimated from the CRC E-94-3 study.

                Table II.C-1--FTP-Cycle Exhaust Emission Standards for Recent Light-Duty Programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Certification level/bin                NOX (g/mi)      NMOG (g/mi)      CO (g/mi)      PM (mg/mi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NLEV/TLEV.......................................             0.4           0.125             3.4  ..............
Tier 2/Bin 5....................................            0.05           0.075             3.4              10
                                                 --------------------------------
Tier 3/Bin 30...................................         0.030 NMOG + NOX                    3.4               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While CAA sec. 211(f)(1) does not define the magnitude of 
acceptable emission impacts or other specific criteria for how to 
determine whether a fuel or fuel additive is substantially similar to 
certification fuel, we believe that the small changes in exhaust 
emissions compared to the certification levels for E15 relative to Tier 
3 E10 certification fuel used in Tier 3 vehicles can be considered to 
be within the scope of what we have determined to be sub sim in our 
prior sub sim interpretive rulemakings. For example, if a Tier 3 
vehicle were certified on E10 fuel with PM emissions of 2.0 mg/mi (33% 
compliance margin), a 10% PM increase due to fueling the vehicle with 
E15 would increase its PM emissions to 2.2 mg/mi. This is still 
significantly below its 3 mg/mi compliance limit (26% compliance 
margin).
    Therefore, we believe that E15 is sub sim to Tier 3 E10 
certification fuel from the perspective of exhaust emissions for Tier 3 
light-duty motor vehicles.

[[Page 27001]]

b. Evaporative Emissions
    EPA has set evaporative emission standards for motor vehicles since 
1971. During the ensuing years, these evaporative standards have 
continued to evolve, resulting in additional evaporative emissions 
reductions. Consideration of whether E15 is substantially similar to 
Tier 3 E10 certification fuel for evaporative emissions requires 
consideration of the applicable evaporative emissions standards to 
which the particular motor vehicles were certified, in this case Tier 3 
motor vehicles. There are now six main components to motor vehicle 
evaporative emissions that are important for our standards: (1) Diurnal 
(evaporative emissions that come off the fuel system as a motor vehicle 
heats up during the course of the day); (2) refueling emissions 
(evaporative emissions that come off the fuel system as the vehicle is 
refueled); (3) hot soak (evaporative emissions that come off a hot 
motor vehicle as it cools down after the engine is shut off); (4) 
running loss (evaporative emissions that come off the fuel system 
during motor vehicle operation); (5) permeation (evaporative emissions 
that come through the walls of elastomers in the fuel system and are 
measured as part of the diurnal test); and (6) unintended leaks due to 
deterioration/damage that is now largely monitored through onboard 
diagnostic systems.
    For hot soak, permeation, and unintended leak evaporative 
emissions, we expect that E15 would have a similar effect as Tier 3 E10 
certification fuel. In the E15 partial waivers, we stated that we did 
not expect that E15 would have an effect on hot soak, permeation, and 
unintended leak evaporative emissions based on a review of the data and 
on the fact that auto manufacturers have been required to age vehicles 
on E10 for evaporative emissions durability testing since MY2004. We 
are not aware of any information suggesting that Tier 3 vehicles would 
behave differently since they are aged for evaporative emissions 
durability on E15 and certified on Tier 3 E10 certification fuel. 
Furthermore, in our review of the testing of permeation on pre-Tier 3 
vehicles (i.e., prior to changes made to address permeation) in the E15 
partial waiver decisions, while ethanol was shown to significantly 
worsen permeation emissions, the effect appears to be fully reached at 
E10, as there was no discernable worsening of the impacts at higher 
ethanol concentrations.\152\ Vehicle manufacturers have now redesigned 
their fuel systems to control permeation on E10 sufficiently to meet 
the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards. Consequently, we do not 
anticipate permeation emissions with E15 to be any higher than with 
E10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ See 75 FR 68115-68120 (November 4, 2010) and 76 FR 4675-
4681 (January 26, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Refueling, diurnal, and running loss evaporative emissions are 
mostly a function of volatility of the fuel. As discussed in Section 
II.C.4, to determine whether a fuel is sub sim to Tier 3 E10 
certification fuel, it is necessary to evaluate the volatility of the 
fuel relative to Tier 3 E10 certification fuel. This is because the 
volatility plays a significant role in these evaporative emission 
sources independent of the level of ethanol concentration in the fuel. 
For this sub sim determination, we are evaluating whether E15 at 9.0 
psi is sub sim to Tier 3 E10 certification fuel at 9.0 psi. In general, 
if two fuels have the same RVP, the expected refueling, diurnal, and 
running loss evaporative emissions from the two fuels would be similar 
regardless of the ethanol content. In this situation, since there is no 
difference in RVP, E15 at 9.0 psi RVP would be expected to have 
essentially identical evaporative emissions to E10 at 9.0 psi RVP from 
refueling, diurnal, and running loss emissions sources. We find that 
E15 at 9.0 psi RVP is sub sim to Tier 3 E10 certification fuel at 9.0 
psi RVP for Tier 3 light-duty motor vehicles.
c. Materials Compatibility
    Materials compatibility is a key factor in considering what fuels 
or fuel additives are sub sim to certification fuel, insofar as poor 
materials compatibility can lead to serious exhaust and evaporative 
emission compliance problems not only immediately upon use, but 
especially over the full useful life of vehicles and engines. In the 
E15 partial waivers, we determined that the use of E15 in MY2001 and 
newer light-duty motor vehicles ``will not [result in] materials 
compatibility issues that lead to exhaust or evaporative emissions 
exceedances.'' \153\ We explained that ``[n]ewer motor vehicles, such 
as Tier 2 and NLEV vehicles (MY2001 and newer), on the other hand, were 
designed to encounter more regular ethanol exposure compared to earlier 
model year motor vehicles'' since EPA's in-use verification program 
would require auto manufacturers to place more ``emphasis on real world 
motor vehicle testing'' prompting manufacturers to consider 
commercially available fuels containing ethanol when developing and 
testing their emissions systems.\154\ Based on this assessment, in 
addition to confirmatory data from DOE's extensive test program that 
aged MY2001 and newer motor vehicles up to 120,000 miles on E15, we 
concluded that MY2001 and newer motor vehicles would not have materials 
compatibility issues with E15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ See 75 FR 68122-68123 (November 4, 2010); 76 FR 4681 
(January 26, 2011).
    \154\ See 75 FR 68122 (November 4, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since granting the E15 partial waivers, E15 is now used as an aging 
fuel for service accumulation for evaporative durability testing.\155\ 
Auto manufacturers have used E15 for service accumulation for 
evaporative durability testing since at least MY2014. This means that 
many Tier 2 vehicles since MY2014 and all Tier 3 vehicles have been 
aged on E15 and have been designed with materials capable of handling 
E15 for extended periods of time. As such, we expect that Tier 3 
vehicles would have similar, if not better, materials compatibility 
with E15 compared to MY2001 and newer motor vehicles since Tier 3 
vehicles since manufacturers are required to use E15 as an aging fuel 
for evaporative durability testing and therefore design these motor 
vehicles to encounter E15 in-use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ See 40 CFR 86.1824-08(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, we would not expect any materials compatibility issues 
from E15 in Tier 3 vehicles and we find that E15 would have 
substantially similar materials compatibility effects as Tier 3 E10 
certification fuel.
d. Driveability
    A change in the driveability of a motor vehicle that results in 
significant deviation from normal operation (e.g., stalling, 
hesitation, etc.) would result in increased emissions. These increases 
may not be demonstrated in the emission certification test cycles but 
instead are present during in-use operation. In addition to consumer 
dissatisfaction, a motor vehicle stall and subsequent restart can 
result in significant increases in emissions because emission rates are 
typically highest during vehicle starts, especially cold starts. 
Further, concerns exist if the consumer or operator tampers with the 
motor vehicle in an attempt to correct the driveability issue since 
consumers may attempt to modify a motor vehicle from its original 
certified configuration. Thus, in defining substantially similar we 
have considered whether fuels or fuel additives have an adverse effect 
on driveability relative to certification fuel.
    We concluded in the E15 partial waivers that we did not believe 
that E15 would cause driveability concerns for

[[Page 27002]]

MY2001 and newer motor vehicles. We reviewed the data and information 
from the over 30 different test programs evaluated to grant the E15 
partial waivers and we found ``no specific reports of driveability, 
operability or on-board diagnostics (OBD) issues across many different 
vehicles and duty cycles including lab testing and in-use operation.'' 
\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \156\ See 76 FR 4681-82 (January 26, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After granting the partial E15 waivers, we believe that late model 
Tier 2 and Tier 3 vehicles also have better capability of operating on 
E15, since as mentioned above, auto manufacturers have been required to 
use E15 as an aging fuel for evaporative durability aging since at 
least MY2014.
    We also believe that the producers and distributors of gasoline 
adhere to ASTM specifications for gasoline (i.e., ASTM D4814),\157\ 
which helps address the driveability of gasoline that contains up to 15 
volume percent ethanol. As E15 has been in the market since at least 
2012, industry, through ASTM International, has worked to develop 
voluntary consensus-based standards to help ensure the quality of E15 
made and used in the marketplace. For example, ASTM D4814-18c includes 
language to ensure that gasoline-ethanol blends have certain physical 
and chemical characteristics, such as distillation parameters falling 
within specified ranges, to ensure that when the gasoline-ethanol 
blended fuel is used, driveability issues will not arise.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ ASTM Standard D4814, 2019, ``Standard Specification for 
Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel,'' ASTM International, West 
Conshohocken, PA, 2003, DOI: 10.1520/C0033-03, https://www.astm.org.
    \158\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, we find that E15 would have similar driveability 
characteristics to Tier 3 E10 certification fuel for Tier 3 light-duty 
motor vehicles.
e. Conclusion
    For reasons described above, we find that E15 is substantially 
similar to Tier 3 E10 certification fuel when E15 is used in Tier 3 
vehicles (i.e., MY2020 and newer light-duty motor vehicles). As 
discussed above, when interpreting which fuels and fuel additives are 
sub sum to certification fuel under CAA sec. 211(f)(1), we consider the 
potential effects that a new fuel or fuel additive may have on a motor 
vehicle's emissions (exhaust and evaporative), materials compatibility, 
and driveability. Regarding emissions, we expect that E15 would exhibit 
similar exhaust and evaporative emissions for Tier 3 vehicles certified 
on Tier 3 E10 certification fuel. For materials compatibility and 
driveability, we find E15 is sub sim since E15 is being used as a 
service accumulation fuel for evaporative emissions aging and for the 
reasons described in the E15 partial waivers regarding materials 
compatibility and driveability for MY2001 and newer light-duty motor 
vehicles. For all the reasons described above, we find E15 is sub sim 
to Tier 3 E10 certification fuel for Tier 3 light-duty motor vehicles.
7. Technical Rationale for MY2001-2019 Light-Duty Motor Vehicles
    We find that E15 is sub sim to Tier 3 E10 certification fuel in 
MY2001-2019 light-duty motor vehicles. As discussed in Section II.C.4, 
it is necessary to consider how E15 would perform relative to Tier 3 
E10 certification fuel in each class of vehicles, engines, and 
equipment. In the E15 partial waivers, we considered the relative 
effects of E15 to E10 when used in these vehicles as a basis to 
determine that MY2001-2019 light-duty motor vehicles will not 
experience issues with materials compatibility and driveability.\159\ 
Additionally, as described above in the analysis for Tier 3 vehicles, 
much of the emissions testing to date to evaluate the effects of E15 
has been conducted on vehicles representative of MY2001-2019 light-duty 
vehicles. Based on this existing data and our prior engineering 
judgment expressed in the E15 partial waivers, we have concluded that 
E15, with its additional oxygen content and identical RVP relative to 
Tier 3 E10 certification fuel, would have effects on emissions, 
materials compatibility, and drivability substantially similar to E10 
in MY2001-2019 light-duty motor vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ See 75 FR 68124 (November 4, 2010) and 76 FR 4681-4682 
(January 26, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Exhaust Emissions
    In the E15 partial waivers, we argued that auto manufacturers 
developed vehicles around MY2001 to accommodate in-use exposure to E10, 
and that this accommodation would result in similar performance of 
emissions, materials compatibility, and driveability on E15.\160\ We 
also pointed to the large compliance margins in certified exhaust 
emissions for NLEV and Tier 2 vehicles (collectively MY2001-2019 
vehicles) in the E15 waiver decisions.\161\ We contextualized the 
relatively small changes in emissions as a small fraction of the 
compliance margin and argued that these small changes would not cause 
MY2001-2019 motor vehicles to exceed their emissions standards.\162\ We 
continue to believe that our engineering analysis presented in the E15 
waivers is appropriate, and that MY2001-2019 motor vehicles will have 
substantially similar exhaust emissions on E15 when compared to Tier 3 
E10 certification fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ See 75 FR 68125-68126 (November 4, 2010) and 76 FR 4667 
(January 26, 2011).
    \161\ See 75 FR 68111 (November 4, 2010) and 76 FR 4669 (January 
26, 2011).
    \162\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As we stated in the first E15 partial waiver, ``the largest 
improvements to emission controls and hardware durability came after 
2000 with the introduction of several new emission standards and 
durability requirements forcing manufacturers to better account for the 
implications of in use fuels on the evaporative and exhaust emission 
control systems.'' \163\ Overall, the transition from Tier 1 (generally 
pre-MY2000 and older vehicles) to NLEV (generally MY2001-2003) and then 
to Tier 2 (generally MY2004-2019) exhaust standards called for design 
changes that all moved in the same direction of increased control of 
exhaust emissions through increasingly sophisticated emissions control 
systems aimed at reducing the level of emissions created by the 
combustion of the fuel in the engine combined with increased control of 
these emissions by the catalyst system. This increasing sophistication 
was based on better air fuel ratio control, and increased efficiency, 
durability and faster light-off of the catalyst. While Tier 2 standards 
called for the most sophisticated engine and catalyst system designs at 
the time, the NLEV standards prompted major redesign efforts by 
manufacturers that were later expanded and advanced even further to 
meet, and earn credits towards compliance with, Tier 2 standards. From 
an engineering perspective, the emissions control systems of pre-Tier 
2, NLEV vehicles are significantly more robust than those used in 
MY2000 and older motor vehicles and more like those of Tier 2 motor 
vehicles in terms of the degree of sophistication of engine controls 
and catalyst technology. In the second E15 waiver decision, we reviewed 
the available emission control technologies of NLEV vehicles to 
determine that they had adapted most of the control strategies that 
were employed in Tier 2 vehicles.\164\ These control strategies 
involved controlling for oxygen content of fuels to largely reduce the 
risks associated with gasoline-ethanol blended fuel use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ See 75 FR 68125 (November 4, 2010).
    \164\ See 76 FR 4669 (January 26, 2011).

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

[[Page 27003]]

    Furthermore, we highlighted that another important regulatory 
change for improving the exhaust emissions control durability of 
MY2001-2006 light-duty motor vehicles was the Compliance Assurance 
Program (``CAP2000''), which took effect by MY2000 for light-duty motor 
vehicles. CAP2000 placed more emphasis on in-use performance of vehicle 
emission controls, including the potential impacts of operation from 
different available in-use fuels. In particular, the In-use 
Verification Program (IUVP) introduced under CAP2000 requires 
manufacturers to perform exhaust and evaporative emissions tests on 
customer vehicles in the in-use fleet to confirm the durability 
projections that manufacturers make at certification. These motor 
vehicles would now be exposed to gasoline-ethanol blends in use.
    Another consideration in our engineering analysis in the second E15 
waiver decision was the extent to which MY2001-2006 light-duty motor 
vehicles emit at levels below the applicable standards and therefore 
have a compliance margin. Compliance margins are generally designed 
into motor vehicles by manufacturers to account for possible variations 
in production vehicles and changes to vehicle emissions control systems 
from actual field usage, such as how the vehicle is typically operated 
and the type of fuel used. The larger the compliance margin, the more 
likely it is that vehicles would accommodate any emissions increases 
from fueling with E15 and continue to meet emission standards in-use. 
In the second E15 waiver decision, we surveyed the certification data 
for MY2001-2006 motor vehicles and the results showed that the average 
full useful life compliance margin (which accounts for in-use 
deterioration) for the entire MY2001- 2006 light-duty motor vehicle 
fleet was approximately 66 percent.\165\ We also reviewed in-use data 
from the IUVP program, which indicated that motor vehicles actually 
achieved a similar compliance margin when operated in real-world 
conditions.\166\ The size of the compliance margins for MY2001-2006 
light-duty motor vehicles suggests manufacturers were in fact designing 
and building motor vehicles that were significantly cleaner than 
required as part of a planned migration to technologies capable of 
meeting the tighter Tier 2 standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ See 76 FR 4669 (January 26, 2011).
    \166\ See 75 FR 68111-68112 (November 4, 2010) and 76 FR 4669 
(January 26, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We relied on the available literature, primarily the data collected 
from the DOE catalyst study, to confirm our engineering analysis of the 
emissions behavior of NLEV and Tier 2 vehicles. These data showed that 
E15 would not cause NLEV or Tier 2 vehicles to exceed their emissions 
standards both in the short- and long-term. Furthermore, most of the 
data discussed in Sections II.C.6.a and II.F were based on tests 
conducted on MY2001-2019 motor vehicles and we believe that the 
estimated emissions changes from using E15 relative to Tier 3 E10 
certification fuel or E10 market fuel in MY2001-2019 are representative 
of vehicle technologies classes in this time period (i.e., NLEV, Tier 
2, and early Tier 3 vehicles).
    Because of the extensive analysis in the E15 waiver decisions and 
the large compliance margins in the MY2001-2019 light-duty motor 
vehicle fleet, we find that E15 is sub sim to Tier 3 E10 certification 
fuel when used in those vehicles.
b. Evaporative Emissions
    As mentioned in Section II.C.6.b, we evaluate evaporative emissions 
in terms of six sources of evaporative emissions: (1) Diurnal 
emissions, (2) refueling emissions, (3) hot soak, (4) running loss, (5) 
permeation, and (6) emissions from unintended leaks. In the E15 waiver 
decisions,\167\ we explained that as with exhaust emissions, emission 
control improvements adopted in response to applicable regulatory 
requirements are important to the consideration of the potential impact 
of a fuel or fuel additive on evaporative emissions. A number of 
regulatory actions occurred by MY2001 that placed an emphasis on the 
control of evaporative emissions and on real-world testing of motor 
vehicles, which in turn led to changes in evaporative emission control 
systems. These regulatory changes, together with test data reviewed in 
the E15 waivers,\168\ support the conclusion that MY2001-2019 light-
duty motor vehicles operated on E15 at 9 psi RVP would have similar 
evaporative emissions if those vehicles were operated on Tier 3 E10 
certification fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ See 75 FR 68112-68113 (November 4, 2010) and 76 FR 4673-
4674 (January 26, 2011).
    \168\ See 75 FR 68120 (November 4, 2010) and 76 FR 4663-4664 
(January 26, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As mentioned in Section II.C.6.b, we evaluated the effects E15 
would have relative to E10 for hot soak, permeation, and unintended 
leak evaporative emissions in MY2001-2019 motor vehicles in the E15 
waivers. We found that motor vehicles designed and aged on E10 for 
evaporative emissions durability would have similar hot soak, 
permeation, and unintended leak evaporative emissions if operated on 
E15. As explained in the first E15 partial waiver, since these elements 
are largely a function of the materials used to design the evaporative 
emission controls, if an auto manufacturer designed a system to 
encounter a gasoline-ethanol blended fuel in-use, it is likely that the 
vehicle's evaporative emissions control would handle E10 and E15 
similarly. Therefore, we find that E15 is sub sim to Tier 3 E10 
certification fuel for hot soak, permeation, and unintended leak 
evaporative emissions for MY2001-2019 motor vehicles.
    Also, as mentioned in Section II.C.6.b, diurnal, refueling, and 
running loss emissions are mostly a function of the volatility of the 
gasoline used. If two fuels had the same volatility, we would expect 
the same or similar diurnal, refueling, and running loss emissions. As 
we are only considering whether E15 at 9.0 psi RVP is sub sim to Tier 3 
E10 certification fuel with 9.0 psi RVP we can conclude that E15 at 9.0 
psi RVP is sub sim to Tier 3 E10 certification fuel in MY2001-2019 
light-duty motor vehicles. We base this finding on the fact that E15 at 
9.0 psi would have the same volatility as Tier 3 E10 certification 
fuel.
c. Materials Compatibility
    We find that E15 at 9 psi RVP is substantially similar to Tier 3 
E10 certification fuel when used in MY2001-2019 light-duty motor 
vehicles as it relates to materials compatibility. Materials 
compatibility is a factor in considering whether a fuel is sub sim 
since poor materials compatibility can lead to serious exhaust and 
evaporative emissions compliance problems not only immediately upon 
using the new fuel or fuel additive, but especially over time.
    Similar to Tier 3 vehicles, pre-Tier 2 and Tier 2 vehicles (MY2004-
2019) were aged with E10 for evaporative durability beginning with 
MY2004. Due to this long-term exposure of E10, we explained in the 
first E15 waiver decision that these motor vehicles would not have 
materials compatibility issues. For NLEV vehicles, in the second E15 
waiver decision, we argued that ``the CAP2000 in-use testing and 
durability demonstration requirements as well as the introduction of 
OBD leak detection monitors and enhanced evaporative emission test 
procedures have led manufacturers to design vehicles using materials 
that will continue to function properly with respect to evaporative 
emissions when

[[Page 27004]]

gasoline-ethanol blends are used.'' \169\ This includes materials 
compatible with long-term use of gasoline-ethanol blends, as the 
standards apply for the useful life of the vehicle, and the IUVP test 
program and the OBD leak detection requirement monitor compliance 
throughout the useful life. We noted in the second E15 waiver decision 
that data from IUVP, EPA's in-use surveillance program, and 
manufacturer emission defect information reports had not detected any 
failures attributable to ethanol up to E10 in these vehicles.\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ See 76 FR 4681 (January 26, 2011).
    \170\ See 76 FR 4681 (January 26, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our engineering judgment discussed in the E15 waiver 
decisions, we expect that there will not be materials compatibility 
issues with E15 in MY2001-2019 light-duty motor vehicles. Therefore, we 
conclude that E15 at 9.0 RVP is sub sim to Tier 3 E10 certification 
fuel in MY2001-2019 light-duty motor vehicles.
d. Driveability
    We find that E15 at 9.0 psi RVP is substantially similar to Tier 3 
E10 certification fuel when used in MY2001-2019 light-duty motor 
vehicles as it relates to driveability. As mentioned in Section 
II.C.7.a and described in the E15 partial waivers, auto manufacturers 
developed light-duty motor vehicles to use gasoline-ethanol blends that 
were becoming more prevalent in the marketplace by MY2001. This was 
tied to the implementation of new vehicles emission standards that 
focused on in-use performance in fuels; namely, the CAP 2000 program 
and NLEV for exhaust emissions, and the enhanced evaporative emission 
standards.\171\ Additionally, as auto manufacturers began complying 
with the Tier 2 standards (beginning with MY2004), auto manufacturers 
were required to use E10 as an aging fuel for evaporative emission 
durability testing.\172\ Due to this focus on in-use performance for 
MY2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles, which were designed to run 
on E10 in use, we believe E15 would affect driveability similarly to 
Tier 3 E10 certification fuel used in these vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ See 75 FR 68104 (November 4, 2010) and 76 FR 4680 (January 
26, 2011).
    \172\ See 40 CFR 86.113-04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We evaluated driveability of MY2001-2019 vehicles extensively in 
the E15 partial waivers. In the first E15 partial waiver, we found that 
``[t]here is no evidence from any of the test programs cited by Growth 
Energy or in the data from the DOE Catalyst Study of driveability 
issues for Tier 2 motor vehicles fueled with E15 that would indicate 
that use of E15 would lead to increased emissions or that might cause 
motor vehicle owners to want to tamper with the emission control system 
of their motor vehicle.'' \173\ In the second E15 partial waiver, we 
found that ``[t]he Agency's review of the data and information from the 
different test programs finds no specific reports of driveability, 
operability or OBD issues across many different vehicles and duty 
cycles including lab testing and in-use operation [in MY2001-2006 
light-duty motor vehicles].'' \174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ See 75 FR 68097 (November 4, 2010).
    \174\ See 76 FR 4681-4682 (January 26, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on both our engineering rationale that MY2001 and newer 
light-duty motor vehicles were designed by auto manufacturers to 
operate on gasoline-ethanol blends and our thorough review of the 
available literature in the E15 partial waivers, which showed no 
driveability, operability or OBD issues across over 30 reviewed studies 
on E15 covering MY2001 and newer vehicles, we find that E15 at 9.0 psi 
RVP is substantially similar to Tier 3 E10 certification fuel when used 
in MY2001-2019 light-duty motor vehicles as it relates to driveability.
e. Conclusion
    We find that E15 at 9.0 psi RVP is sub sim to Tier 3 E10 
certification fuel when used in MY2001-2019 vehicles. In conjunction 
with our finding that E15 at 9.0 psi RVP is sub sim to Tier 3 E10 
certification fuel when used in MY2020 and newer light-duty motor 
vehicles (i.e., Tier 3 certified light-duty vehicles) as discussed in 
Section II.C.6, these findings collectively mean that we find that E15 
at 9.0 psi RVP is sub sim to Tier 3 E10 certification fuel when used in 
MY2001 and newer light-duty vehicles.
8. Technical Rationale for Other Vehicles, Engines, and Equipment
    We conducted an analysis of whether E15 is substantially similar to 
E10 certification fuel for MY2000 and older light-duty motor vehicles, 
heavy-duty gasoline-fueled motor vehicles, and nonroad vehicles, 
engines, and equipment. For the reasons explained below, we conclude 
that E15 is not sub sim to E10 certification fuel for these types of 
vehicles and engines.
a. MY2000 and Older Light-Duty Motor Vehicles
    We conclude that E15 would not be substantially similar to Tier 3 
E10 certification fuel used in MY2000 and older light-duty motor 
vehicles. As we argued in the first E15 partial waiver decision and in 
the MMR, MY2000 and older light-duty motor vehicles were generally not 
designed to operate on gasoline-ethanol blended fuels.\175\ We 
determined that E15 in these vehicles could lead to increases in 
emissions that result in vehicles exceeding certified emission 
standards and issues with materials compatibility as auto manufacturers 
likely did not use components compatible with ethanol in fuel systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ See 75 FR 68125-68126 (November 4, 2010) and 76 FR 44412 
(July 25, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MY2000 and older light-duty motor vehicles have much less 
sophisticated emissions control systems compared to more modern 
vehicles and, may experience conditions that lead to immediate emission 
increases and may exceed their emission standards if operated on E15. 
Vehicles produced prior to the mid-1980s were equipped primarily with 
carbureted engines. The air/fuel (A/F)ratio of the carburetor is preset 
at the factory based on the expected operating conditions of the engine 
such as ambient temperature, atmospheric pressure, speed, and load. As 
a result, carburetors have ``open loop'' fuel control, which means that 
the air and fuel are provided at a specified, predetermined ratio that 
is not automatically adjusted during vehicle operation. As fuel 
composition can vary, an engine with a carburetor and open loop fuel 
control would never detect whether the desired A/F ratio was achieved. 
Since the vehicles produced prior to the mid-1980s operated ``open 
loop'' all of the time with no ability to react to changes in the A/F 
ratio, the addition of ethanol to the fuel tended to make the A/F ratio 
leaner, typically resulting in an immediate emission impact of reducing 
HC and CO emissions, but increasing NOX emissions. However, 
some of these older open loop systems already operate at the lean edge 
of combustion on current commercial fuels so an increase in ethanol may 
cause them to begin to misfire resulting in HC and CO increases. 
Concerning long-term exhaust emissions, in the first E15 waiver, we 
concluded that for MY2000 and older light-duty motor vehicles, 
enleanment \176\ resulting in higher exhaust temperatures could cause 
accelerated catalyst deterioration which

[[Page 27005]]

would result in higher emissions long-term.\177\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \176\ Enleanment refers to increasing the amount of oxygen in 
the mixture of air and fuel that enters the engine for combustion. 
At any one air to fuel ratio, adding ethanol to the fuel adds 
additional oxygen to the mixture of air and fuel, tending to enlean 
the mixture.
    \177\ See 75 FR 68128 (November 4, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Concerning materials compatibility, in the first E15 partial waiver 
we found that ``a number of pre-Tier 2 motor vehicles, including Tier 0 
motor vehicles (from the 1980s to 1995) and Tier 1 motor vehicles (from 
1996 to 2001), may have been designed for only limited exposure to E10 
and consequently may have the potential for increased material 
degradation with the use of E15 even though they are beyond their 
useful life requirements.'' \178\ We argued further that degredation of 
fuel systems and emission controls from compatibility issues could 
result in higher emissions and emission control failure due to 
corrosion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ See 75 FR 68129 (November 4, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the potential increases in vehicles emissions and issues 
with materials combability, we prohibited MY2000 and older light-duty 
motor vehicles from using E15.\179\ We continue to believe that MY2000 
and older light-duty motor vehicles were not designed to operate on E15 
gasoline-ethanol blends and that E15 would not be sub sim to Tier 3 E10 
certification fuel in those vehicles. As we found in the first E15 
waiver decision, we believe that going from E10 to E15 in these 
vehicles could damage the emission controls and lead to increased 
emissions. Therefore, we conclude that E15 is not sub sim to Tier 3 E10 
certification fuel in MY2000 and older light-duty motor vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \179\ See 76 FR 44448 (July 25, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Heavy-Duty Gasoline-Fueled Motor Vehicles
    As discussed in the first E15 waiver decision and the MMR, we have 
concerns for E15 use in heavy-duty gasoline-fueled motor vehicles that 
are similar to our concerns regarding E15 use MY2000 and older 
vehicles.\180\ We believe that heavy-duty gasoline-fueled motor 
vehicles have historically lagged in adoption of adaptive fuel controls 
similar to MY2000 and older vehicles, and we have no new information to 
cause us to reconsider E15 use in these vehicles. For all of the 
reasons discussed in Section II.C.8.a, we find that E15 is not sub sim 
to Tier 3 E10 certification fuel for heavy-duty gasoline fueled motor 
vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \180\ See 75 FR 68138 (November 4, 2010) and 76 FR 44409 (July 
25, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Nonroad Vehicles, Engines, and Equipment (Including Motorcycles and 
Marine Engines)
    Due to the potential effects on emissions and materials 
compatibility, we cannot determine that E15 is sub sim to Tier 3 E10 
certification fuel when used in nonroad products, motorcycles, or 
marine engines. The sub sim definition in this action for E15 restricts 
the applicability of the sub sim definition from applying to nonroad 
vehicles, engines, and equipment (``nonroad products''), highway and 
off-highway motorcycles (collectively called ``motorcycles''), and 
marine engines. As discussed in Section II.C.9, we believe it 
appropriate to limit the applicability of a sub sim definition to those 
vehicles, engines, and equipment for which EPA is able to determine 
that the fuel or fuel additive is suitable for use.
    In the first E15 partial waiver, we denied the E15 waiver request 
for all nonroad vehicles, engines, and equipment (``nonroad 
products''). As described in detail in the first E15 partial waiver, 
nonroad products typically have less complex engine designs, fuel 
systems, and controls than light-duty motor vehicles.\181\ We also 
expressed concerns with the use of E15 in nonroad products, 
particularly with respect to long-term exhaust and evaporative 
emissions and materials compatibility.\182\ The limited information 
available in the public domain at the time of the first E15 waiver 
decision, supported our decision to not grant the E15 waiver request 
for nonroad products.\183\ Additionally, we used our engineering 
rationale and the data evaluated from the first E15 waiver decision to 
prohibit the use of E15 in nonroad products under CAA sec. 211(c) in 
the MMR.\184\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \181\ See 75 FR 68098 (November 4, 2010).
    \182\ See 75 FR 68134-68137 (November 4, 2010).
    \183\ See 75 FR 68137 (November 4, 2010).
    \184\ See 76 FR 44448 (July 25, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have similar concerns with E15 use in motorcycles and marine 
engines as these vehicles and engines have similar emission controls to 
other classes of nonroad products. These concerns were the basis for 
the denial of the E15 waiver request for all motorcycles and marine 
engines and extending the prohibition on E15 use in motorcycles and 
marine engines.
    Since the E15 waivers and the MMR, little has changed with respect 
to ability of nonroad products to utilize E15. They continue to be 
certified on E0 and designed to run on gasoline-ethanol blends only up 
to E10. As highlighted in their public comments, the manufacturers of 
such engines continue to press for the need for greater outreach, 
education, and misfueling mitigation efforts beyond those already in 
place to protect their customers from E15, and the marine manufacturers 
have been actively testing isobutanol in concert with butanol coalition 
members to gain approval for its use in lieu of ethanol entirely due to 
their ongoing concerns with the use of ethanol at all in the marine 
environment. For these reasons, the sub sim determination in this 
action excludes from its scope these vehicles, engines, and equipment. 
This exclusion in conjunction with the prohibition on E15 use in these 
products promulgated under CAA sec. 211(c) in the MMR will continue to 
preclude the use of E15 in these products.
9. Limitations of ``Substantially Similar'' Interpretative Rulemaking
    CAA sec. 211(f)(1)(B) prohibits fuel or fuel additive manufacturers 
from first introducing into commerce, or increasing the concentration 
in use of, any fuel or fuel additive for use by any person in motor 
vehicles which is not substantially similar to any fuel or fuel 
additive utilized in the certification of motor vehicles or engines 
under CAA sec. 206. As explained above, we have interpreted the 
``substantially similar'' provision several times to allow the 
introduction into commerce of certain fuel blends. The language of CAA 
sec. 211(f)(1) does not address whether and how EPA can restrict its 
determination that a particular fuel is ``substantially similar'' to a 
certification fuel. Given the fact that there have now been multiple 
certification fuels since 1977, when CAA sec. 211(f)(1) was first 
enacted, we believe it is reasonable to interpret this provision as 
allowing EPA to make a sub sim determination with respect to the use of 
the new fuel within certain parameters, where the parameters are 
intended to avoid the kinds of problems that prompted Congress to enact 
the general prohibition against introduction into commerce of fuels 
that are neither substantially similar nor have a CAA sec. 211(f)(4) 
waiver. Additionally, as discussed in Sections II.C.6-8, despite being 
sub sim for certain light-duty vehicles, E15 is inappropriate for use 
in vehicles, engines, and equipment other than MY2001 and newer light-
duty vehicles. Therefore, without the sub sim determination being 
limited to the parameters described in this section, there would be no 
basis for a conclusion that E15 is ``substantially similar'' to Tier 3 
certification fuel.
    Congress did not speak directly to the question of whether CAA sec. 
211(f)(1) provides EPA with authority to make a sub sim determination 
that is subject to appropriate parameters, and we believe that a sub 
sim determination within reasonable parameters intended to

[[Page 27006]]

ensure that the fuel at issue is in fact ``substantially similar'' to 
the relevant certification fuel is appropriate. Here, where EPA's sub 
sim determination for E15 is based on a determination that E15 is 
substantially similar to a certification fuel that is used to certify 
only a subset of the vehicle fleet, and the Agency has already 
determined that E15 cannot be used in certain vehicles and engines, it 
is necessary for EPA's sub sim determination to acknowledge certain 
parameters in order to ensure that the purpose of CAA sec. 211(f)(1) is 
maintained. As explained in Section II.A.1, the intent behind the 
enactment of CAA sec. 211(f)(1) was to prevent of the use of any new or 
recently introduced additive to unleaded gasoline that could impair the 
emission performance of vehicles \185\--as explained above, this is the 
same rationale underpinning the parameters within which we make this 
final sub sim determination. Congress recognized that the analysis 
required to control or prohibit the manufacture or introduction into 
commerce of a fuel or fuel additive under CAA sec. 211(c) may be a 
lengthy process.\186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \185\ S. Rep. No. 95-127, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 90 (1977).
    \186\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given this context and the legislative history leading to the 
enactment of CAA sec. 211(f)(1), the parameters within which we make 
our sub sim determination today represent a reasonable exercise of our 
CAA sec. 211(f)(1) authority.
    As discussed below, in this action we are establishing criteria on 
our E15 sub sim finding consistent with the rationale underpinning the 
enactment of CAA sec. 211(f)(1), and our prior interpretation of our 
authority to make a sub sim finding within certain parameters under CAA 
sec. 211(f)(1) or to place certain conditions on a CAA sec. 211(f)(4) 
waiver from sub sim. Given the direct impact on emissions and the 
indirect impact on emission through impacts on materials compatibility, 
and driveability, the parameters within which we are making our E15 sub 
sim finding address these three areas.
    One implication of a sub sim interpretation that includes E15 under 
CAA sec. 211(f)(1) would be that a waiver under CAA sec. 211(f)(4) will 
no longer be necessary for E15 to be introduced into commerce. This 
would in effect remove the conditions of the E15 partial waivers 
imposed on fuel and fuel additive manufacturers, in the absence of any 
limitations on the sub sim interpretation. This would mean that the 
conditions in the E15 partial waivers designed to limit the 
introduction into commerce of E15 to only MY2001 and newer light-duty 
motor vehicles would not apply. We have already promulgated parallel 
restrictions in our regulations in the E15 MMR rulemaking at 40 CFR 
part 80, subpart N.\187\ However, some conditions in the E15 partial 
waivers are not part of the MMR. One such condition is the requirement 
that fuel and fuel additive manufacturers have an EPA-approved 
misfueling mitigation plan (MMP) prior to introducing E15 into 
commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \187\ See 75 FR 68127-68138 (November 4, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While MMPs generally commit fuel and fuel additive manufacturers to 
adhere to regulatory requirements of the MMR, MMPs also commit these 
manufacturers to participate in public outreach on the appropriate use 
of E15 and allow for specific, additional misfueling mitigation 
measures that may apply in a manufacturer's specific situation. We 
believe that the continued existence of MMPs is important when finding 
that E15 is sub sim. The MMPs help prevent the use of E15 in MY2000 and 
older motor vehicles, nonroad vehicles, engines, and equipment 
(including motorcycles, and heavy-duty motor vehicles). Without the 
MMPs, there is an increased risk of misfueling which would directly 
impact the effects of the E15 on emissions, materials compatibility and 
drivability in MY2000 and older motor vehicles and nonroad, heavy-duty, 
and motorcycle vehicles and engines. We denied the E15 waiver request 
for MY2000 and older motor vehicles, nonroad vehicles, engines, and 
equipment (including motorcycles, and heavy-duty motor vehicles) due to 
our engineering assessment that these vehicles, engines, and equipment 
may experience emissions failures over these vehicles, engines, and 
equipments' full useful lives.
    Also, as discussed above, in the MMR we concluded that under CAA 
sec. 211(c)(1)(A), the likely result would be increased VOC, CO, and 
NOX emissions were these particular engines, vehicles, and 
equipment to use E15. The prohibitions and regulatory requirements were 
designed to help mitigate the misfueling of E15 in these vehicles. 
There are still millions of MY2000 and older motor vehicles on the road 
(although they will over time make a smaller contribution to vehicle 
miles travelled) and hundreds of millions of pieces of nonroad 
equipment not designed for and prohibited from E15 use. The existing 
conditions on the E15 partial waivers under CAA sec. 211(f)(4) help 
ensure E15 fuel quality and mitigate the misfueling of vehicles, 
engines, and equipment and we believe it is appropriate to continue to 
limit our sub sim determination to a determination that E15 is sub sim 
to Tier 3 E10 certification fuel only under parameters that reflect the 
existing conditions on the E15 partial waivers.
    We also sought comment on whether this proposed sub sim 
interpretation for E15 should be limited to the subset of the national 
vehicle and engine fleet to which the current E15 waivers apply (MY2001 
and newer light-duty motor vehicles) or on which our assessment in 
Section II.C.5 of the NPRM is based (i.e., only to vehicles and engines 
certified using Tier 3 E10 certification fuel). After considering these 
comments, we find it appropriate to limit the applicability of our 
substantially similar determination in this case to certain classes of 
vehicles, engines, and equipment. The record has not changed with 
respect to the inability of older vehicles, nonroad equipment, 
motorcycles, or heavy-duty trucks to use E15, which formed the basis of 
our denial of the E15 waiver request for such vehicles, engines, and 
equipment. Furthermore, our assessment in Section II.C.5 of the NPRM 
found that the use of E15 in MY2000 or older light-duty gasoline motor 
vehicle, any heavy-duty gasoline motor vehicle or engine, any highway 
or off-highway motorcycle, or any gasoline-powered nonroad engines, 
vehicles or equipment is not substantially similar to Tier 3 E10 
certification fuel. Such a limitation would be in recognition of the 
fact that, in contrast to the state of affairs at the time when CAA 
sec. 211(f)(1) was enacted, not all gasoline vehicles and equipment are 
certified on the same gasoline. All other vehicles, engines, and 
equipment prior to Tier 3 used certification fuel without ethanol, and 
some nonroad vehicles, engines, and equipment are still certified using 
E0. Another condition in the E15 partial waivers is that ethanol 
producers must manufacture denatured fuel ethanol that meets industry 
established quality standards if used to make E15. This requirement is 
not currently part of EPA's fuels regulations. For the new definition 
of sub sim for E15 in this action, we are updating criteria that 
establishes the physical and chemical parameters for the new definition 
of sub sim. We are making these changes largely to ensure that E15 that 
is introduced into commerce will continue to be sub sim to Tier 3 E10 
certification fuel. We also do not believe that it would make sense to 
duplicate the criteria from the 2008 sub sim

[[Page 27007]]

interpretation, especially since many of these updates are focused on 
accommodating a marketplace where E10 is predominant and E10 is now a 
certification fuel. For the new definition of sub sim for E15 in this 
action, we are updating the ASTM International specification references 
for volatility and driveability for the gasoline-ethanol blended fuels. 
We are also including a reference to the latest ASTM International 
denatured fuel ethanol (DFE) quality specification. Finally, we are 
updating the criteria for the use of additional fuel additives to be 
consistent with the Tier 3 gasoline sulfur requirements.
    We received public comments suggesting that we update the reference 
to the ASTM standards for sub sim to the latest version of ASTM 
International standard D4814. One commenter noted that since E15 has a 
large effect on middle distillation (T50 in particular), EPA should 
reference the latest ASTM D4814 standard for gasoline as this standard 
helps ensure that gasoline-ethanol blends continue to meet the 
driveability index. The driveability index is a measure in the ASTM 
D4814 standard based primarily on the distillation characteristics of a 
fuel that helps ensures that spark-ignition engines operate correctly 
on gasoline. As discussed in Section II.C.6.d, fuels that cause issues 
with driveability can either directly increase emissions or result in 
consumers tampering with certified emissions configurations, which can 
result in increases in emissions. We agree with commenters that we 
should reference the latest version of ASTM D4814 as it relates to 
ensuring that the driveability index is met for gasoline-ethanol blends 
containing up to 15 volume percent. Therefore, we are specifying that 
only gasoline-ethanol blends that meet the applicable vapor pressure 
and distillation class requirements as specified in ASTM International 
Standard D4814-19 are considered physically and chemically 
substantially similar to Tier 3 E10 certification fuel.
    Additionally, we believe it is appropriate that DFE used to produce 
E15 also needs to meet the latest ASTM International specifications for 
DFE, ASTM D4806-19. In the E15 partial waiver decisions, we imposed the 
condition that DFE used to make E15 under the waivers needed to meet a 
prior version of the ASTM ethanol specification. This condition was 
imposed in the E15 waivers under CAA sec. 211(f)(4) to help ensure that 
certain impurities in ethanol were limited to avoid issues with 
materials compatibility and help ensure quality of the gasoline-ethanol 
blended fuel when used in a vehicle or engine.\188\ We believe it is 
still important to make sure that DFE used to make E15 meets ASTM D4806 
specifications to ensure the quality of the E15. This will help ensure 
that materials compatibility and driveability are not adversely 
affected when E15 is used in 2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles. 
Therefore, we are defining that only E15 made with DFE that meets ASTM 
D4806-19 is sub sim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ See 75 FR 68127-68138 (November 4, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, we are updating the criteria for additional fuel additives 
added to E15 that are introduced into commerce under the sub sim 
interpretation in this action to be consistent with fuel additive 
requirements for gasoline promulgated in the Tier 3 rule. In prior sub 
sim interpretations,\189\ we limited additives under sub sim to a 
concentration of no more than 0.25 percent by weight of the finished 
fuel and to contribute no more than 15 parts per million (ppm) sulfur 
by weight to the finished fuel. In the sub sim interpretation for E15 
in this action, we limit additional fuel additive(s) to a concentration 
of no more than 1.0 volume percent of the finished fuel and the 
additional fuel additive(s) must contribute no more than 3 ppm sulfur 
by weight to the finished fuel. Since we are defining E15 as sub sim to 
Tier 3 certification fuel when used in MY2001 and newer light-duty 
vehicles, we need to consider whether additional additives added to E15 
would adversely affect emission controls in MY2001 and newer light-duty 
vehicles. We cannot find that an additive that is five times the 
specified applicable standard for sulfur content is sub sim to Tier 3 
certification fuel, especially in Tier 3 vehicles. The Tier 3 rule set 
sulfur standards that would expose light-duty motor vehicles on average 
to sulfur levels of 10 ppm. If we issued the prior parameters for fuel 
additives under the sub sim interpretation in this action as the prior 
sub sim interpretations, this would allow the finished fuel to have a 
sulfur level of 25 ppm, or almost equal to the Tier 2 average sulfur 
standard of 30 ppm. This could largely negate the purpose of setting 
more stringent sulfur specification for Tier 3 certification fuel and 
imposing the Tier 3 gasoline sulfur standard. Therefore, we find that 
it would be inappropriate to adopt the criteria used in prior sub sim 
interpretations. We find that it is more appropriate to adopt the Tier 
3 provisions for gasoline additives in the regulations at 40 CFR 
80.1613 as these were specifically designed to ensure that Tier 3 
light-duty vehicles emissions controls are protected from large 
increases in sulfur from gasoline additives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \189\ See 46 FR 38586 (July 28, 1981), 56 FR 5356 (February 11, 
1991), and 73 FR 22281 (April 25, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. Implications of ``Substantially Similar'' Interpretation
    The new interpretation of ``substantially similar'' that E15 is sub 
sim to Tier 3 E10 certification fuel discussed in this section would 
make it lawful for refiners and importers to make and introduce into 
commerce E15 without the use of the CAA sec. 211(f)(4) E15 partial 
waivers.\190\ This interpretation of ``substantially similar'' in 
conjunction with the interpretation of CAA sec. 211(h)(4) would extend 
the waiver from the CAA sec. 211(h)(1) upper RVP limit from 9.0 psi to 
10.0 psi to fuels containing 9-15 percent ethanol during the high ozone 
season.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \190\ We are not asking fuel and fuel additive manufacturers who 
have existing E15 registrations under the CAA sec. 211(f)(4) waiver 
to submit new registrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We intend for this definition to coexist with the existing 
definition of ``substantially similar'' (hereinafter ``the 2008 
definition''). This is appropriate because the 2008 definition is in 
comparison to indolene, and the new interpretation is in comparison to 
Tier 3 E10 certification fuel. However, because there are now two 
certification fuels to which we can draw comparisons, and two 
definitions of sub sim relating to each fuel, we think it is important 
to describe how fuel and fuel additive manufacturers will continue to 
introduce into commerce their fuels and fuel additives and maintain 
their registrations under 40 CFR part 79. We intend for the existing 
CAA sec. 211(f)(4) waivers promulgated relative to ``indolene'' to 
remain available as an option for introduction into commerce for fuels 
that are nonetheless sub sim to Tier 3 E10 certification fuel. We have 
taken this approach recognizing that removing existing waivers has the 
potential to create confusion about the validity of historical 
introduction into commerce under these waivers and the continued 
validity of existing registrations for fuels and fuel additives under 
40 CFR part 79. For the E15, after the sub sim definition in this 
action goes into effect, we will presume that fuel and fuel additive 
manufacturers that have already registered E15 or ethanol for use in 
the production of E15 under 40 CFR part 79 will introduce E15 into 
commerce under our new definition of sub sim (as opposed to the

[[Page 27008]]

211(f)(4) waiver for E15), unless we are told otherwise through an 
update to the fuel or fuel additive manufacturer's registration under 
40 CFR part 79. This will allow fuel and fuel additive manufacturers 
and downstream parties to introduce E15 with the 1-psi waiver and not 
run afoul of the 9.0 psi waiver condition under the CAA sec. 211(f)(4) 
waivers without having to update their registrations under 40 CFR part 
79.\191\ We believe it would be unnecessarily burdensome to require the 
hundreds of registrants of E15 or ethanol for use in the production of 
E15 to update their registrations under 40 CFR part 79 to demonstrate 
that their E15 or ethanol for use in the production of E15 is sub sim 
in light of our finding that E15 is sub sim to E10 certification fuel 
in MY2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \191\ Downstream parties who are not fuel or fuel additive 
manufacturers could also introduce E15 into commerce at 10.0 psi 
under the waiver conditions, even with today's sub sim 
determination, because those conditions only apply to fuel and fuel 
additive manufacturers, as discussed in Section II.D.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the CAA sec. 211(f)(4) waiver is a waiver from being 
``substantially similar,'' once E15 is found to be sub sim the waiver 
is no longer needed in order to introduce E15 into commerce. However, 
as discussed previously, we intend for the CAA sec. 211(f)(4) waiver to 
remain available for the introduction of E15 into commerce. Therefore, 
as previously explained in Section II.A.3, the deemed to comply 
provision in CAA sec. 211(h)(4)(B), which was promulgated at the 
inception of the RVP program when industry had just begun blending 
ethanol in gasoline and requires that the ethanol portion of the blend 
not exceed the highest permissible ethanol content under the CAA sec. 
211(f)(4) waiver, would remain effective with respect to E15. The CAA 
sec. 211(f)(4) waiver for E15 remains available for the introduction 
into commerce of E15, and therefore the statutory ``deemed to comply'' 
criterion that ``the ethanol portion of the blend does not exceed its 
waiver condition under subsection (f)(4) of this section'' can still be 
satisfied both by parties that introduce E15 into commerce under the 
CAA sec. 211(f)(4) waiver or the CAA sec. 211(f)(1) sub sim finding 
because the ethanol content under either is identical. Our regulations 
at 40 CFR 80.28, as modified in this action, condition the ``deemed to 
comply'' provision on specific ethanol content between 9 and 15 percent 
by volume. For reasons discussed in Section II.D.1, we are not 
modifying this provision, other than by increasing the maximum 
allowable ethanol percent from 10 to 15 to reflect our revised 
interpretation of the CAA sec. 211(h)(4), and thus this regulatory 
provision would still allow downstream parties to be deemed in 
compliance and ease the demonstration burdens for gasoline-ethanol 
blends that can be introduced into commerce under a CAA sec. 211(f)(4) 
waiver or a substantially similar determination. We are updating our 
existing regulations at 40 CFR 80.28 to allow for ethanol content up to 
15 volume percent to utilize the ``deemed to comply'' provision. We 
find this treatment appropriate because CAA sec. 211(h)(4) in its 
entirety should be read to apply to gasoline-ethanol blends containing 
at least 10 percent ethanol.
    The 1-psi waiver would be available to all fuel manufacturers 
(i.e., refiners and importers) and downstream parties that produce, 
distribute and sell E15 due to the sub sim determination in this 
action. However, retailers that produce E15 via a blender pump would 
still not comply with EPA fuels regulations at 40 CFR parts 79 and 80 
unless they make the E15 solely from DFE and certified gasoline (or 
CBOB). E15 produced at blender pumps could also continue to exceed even 
an increased RVP limit of 10.0 psi.\192\ For further discussion of our 
fuels' regulations and blender pumps, see the RTC document, available 
in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \192\ We note that for E15 produced at blender pumps using E85 
made with natural gas liquids, use of the deemed to comply provision 
to demonstrate compliance would not be available. This is because 
the RVP of natural gas liquids can be as high as 15.0 psi and even a 
small amount of natural gas liquids could cause the gasoline portion 
of the blend to not comply with the applicable RVP limitations 
established under CAA sec. 211(h), which is required under CAA sec. 
211(h)(4)(A) to be deemed in compliance. Parties that make E15 at a 
blender pump using E85 made with previously certified gasoline can 
take advantage of the ``deemed to comply'' provision and associated 
affirmative defense at 40 CFR 80.28 if all applicable requirements 
in 80.28 are met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Regulatory Amendments

    This action finalizes technical amendments that would effectuate 
our interpretation to allow the 1-psi waiver for E15 during the summer 
under CAA sec. 211(h)(4) and our interpretation that E15 is sub sim 
under CAA sec. 211(f) for MY2001 and newer light-duty vehicles. We are 
therefore taking these actions under both CAA sec. 211(f) and 211(h).
1. Modification of Regulations
    First, we are modifying and removing volatility controls associated 
with our prior interpretation of CAA sec. 211(h)(4). These controls, 
found in 40 CFR 80.27, place limitations on the RVP of gasoline-ethanol 
blends at specific concentrations. Given that the primary effect of our 
proposed interpretation of CAA sec. 211(h)(4) would expand the 
``special treatment for gasoline-ethanol blends'' to fuel blends 
containing 9-15 percent ethanol, we are modifying both: (1) Regulations 
extending the 1-psi waiver from gasoline containing 9-10 percent 
ethanol to gasoline containing 9-15 percent ethanol at 40 CFR 80.27; 
and (2) related defense provisions in 40 CFR 80.28.
    In public comments, some commenters suggested that EPA remove the 
upper bound for ethanol content in 40 CFR 80.27 to be consistent with 
our new interpretation of CAA sec. 211(h)(4). In particular, they 
suggested that the regulation should provide the 1-psi waiver for any 
gasoline-ethanol blend containing at least 10 percent ethanol, or for 
any gasoline-ethanol blend containing at least 10 percent ethanol that 
has a waiver under 211(f)(4) or is ``substantially similar.'' In 
promulgating these regulations, we have determined that CAA sec. 
211(h)(4) provides the lower bound for ethanol content, and CAA sec. 
211(f) provides the upper bound. We do not find that it would be 
appropriate to codify in our regulations no upper bound, as the 
limitations on introduction into commerce under CAA sec. 211(f) are an 
important mechanism to protect the emissions controls of motor vehicles 
and nonroad products. Additionally, it would be inappropriate to allow 
any gasoline-ethanol blend that contains ten volume percent ethanol the 
1-psi waiver without consideration in a rulemaking process.
    Second, we are removing and modifying provisions in the MMR that 
were imposed to effectuate the prior 1-psi waiver interpretation under 
CAA sec. 211(h)(4). Subsequent to the grant of the CAA sec. 211(f)(4) 
partial waivers for E15, we adopted regulations under CAA sec. 211(c) 
to ensure that E15 would not be used in certain vehicles and engines 
for which the waivers did not apply and to effectuate our 
interpretation of 211(h)(4) at that time. To do so, in addition to the 
conditions on the waivers that applied to fuel manufacturers, we 
promulgated regulations to ensure that those same conditions were 
enforceable on downstream parties. No changes were made to the RVP 
regulations at 40 CFR 80.27 as a direct result of our interpretation 
under CAA sec. 211(h)(4) that the 1-psi waiver did not extend to 
gasoline-ethanol blends with an ethanol concentration greater than 10 
percent. Additional regulations on parties that distribute E15 were put 
in place at 40 CFR 80.1504(f) and (g) (placing prohibitions on the 
commingling of E10

[[Page 27009]]

and E15), and 40 CFR 80.1503 (placing PTD requirements on E15). These 
regulations were put in place in order to ensure that the RVP of E15 
did not exceed 9.0 psi in accordance with our interpretation of CAA 
sec. 211(h)(4) at the time. However, since our new interpretation of 
CAA sec. 211(h)(4) increases the RVP allowance to 10.0 psi, these 
provisions are no longer necessary. Additionally, because the RVP of 
E15 will be approximately the same as E10 if produced from the same 
blendstock, we do not anticipate adverse emissions impacts from 
providing E15 the 1-psi waiver. Given that we are interpreting CAA sec. 
211(h)(4) to extend to gasoline-ethanol blends of up to 15 percent 
ethanol, the prohibition on the commingling of E15 and E10 is no longer 
necessary.
    Finally, we are removing the PTD requirements related to the 1-psi 
waiver at 40 CFR 80.1503. In 40 CFR part 80, subpart N, we included PTD 
language designed to help ensure that E15 that did not receive the 1-
psi waiver would be segregated from E10 that did receive the 1-psi 
waiver. Since we are allowing the 1-psi waiver for E15, we no longer 
need these PTD requirements. However, parties that produce and 
distribute gasoline-ethanol blended fuels would still be required to 
identify ethanol concentrations on PTDs as specified in 40 CFR 80.27 
and 40 CFR 80.1503.
2. Status of Misfueling Mitigation Rule Regulations
    All other E15 misfueling mitigation provisions in 40 CFR part 80, 
subpart N, remain unchanged. In the MMR, we promulgated regulations 
under CAA sec. 211(c)(1), which prohibit the use of E15 in MY2000 and 
older motor vehicles, nonroad vehicles, engines, and equipment 
(including motorcycles, and heavy-duty motor vehicles). CAA sec. 
211(c)(1) gives EPA authority to ``control or prohibit the manufacture, 
introduction into commerce, offering for sale, or sale'' of any fuel or 
fuel additive (A) whose emission products, in the judgment of the 
Administrator, cause or contribute to air pollution ``which may be 
reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare'' or (B) 
whose emission products ``will impair to a significant degree the 
performance of any emission control device or system which is in 
general use, or which the Administrator finds has been developed to a 
point where in a reasonable time it would be in general use'' were the 
fuel control or prohibition adopted. We promulgated the MMR based on 
our assessment that E15 would significantly impair the emission control 
systems used in MY2000 and older light-duty motor vehicles, heavy-duty 
gasoline engines and vehicles, highway and off-highway motorcycles, and 
all nonroad products supporting our action under CAA sec. 211(c)(1)(B). 
This led to our conclusion that under CAA sec. 211(c)(1)(A), E15 use in 
these particular vehicles, engines, and non-road products would likely 
result in increased VOC, CO, and NOX emissions.\193\ The 
regulatory changes to 40 CFR part 80, subparts B and N in this action 
are solely related to our proposed interpretation to allow the 1-psi 
waiver for E15 under CAA sec. 211(h)(4) and CAA sec. 211(f). This 
action does not change the basis of our CAA sec. 211(c)(1)(A) and (B) 
finding in the MMR that prohibits E15 from use in MY2000 and older 
light-duty motor vehicles, heavy-duty gasoline engines and vehicles, 
highway and off-highway motorcycles, and all nonroad products. This 
action also does not modify the misfueling mitigation measures 
promulgated in the MMR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \193\ 76 FR 44422 (July 25, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Waiver Applicability
    As discussed in the proposal, we interpret CAA sec. 211(f) as 
applying the waiver conditions to fuel and fuel additive manufacturers 
as defined in 40 CFR 79.2. Therefore, the regulatory amendments 
promulgated in this rulemaking apply to downstream parties, such as 
oxygenate blenders, who are not fuel or fuel additive 
manufacturers.\194\ Accordingly, so long as downstream parties, such as 
oxygenate blenders, are only utilizing CBOB and denatured fuel ethanol 
to create E15, these parties can apply the 1-psi waiver and thus can 
blend and sell E15 at 10.0 psi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \194\ Those fuel and fuel additive manufacturers would continue 
to be subject to the CAA sec. 211(f)(4) E15 partial waivers 
conditions, including the 9.0 psi RVP limitation. Therefore, in the 
absence of a sub sim interpretative rule finding that E15 is sub 
sim, we intend for the CAA sec. 211(f)(4) waiver to remain in 
effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We received comment on this mechanism for providing E15 the 1-psi 
waiver, and respond to those comments in the RTC document, available in 
the docket for this action. This interpretation of the applicability of 
the CAA sec. 211(f)(4) waiver conditions, in conjunction with our new 
interpretation of CAA sec. 211(h)(4), is an independent basis from the 
CAA sec. 211(f)(1) sub sim interpretation for the regulatory amendments 
finalized in this rulemaking.
    We also find that, should fuel and fuel and additive manufacturers 
choose to introduce E15 into commerce under the CAA sec. 211(f)(4) 
waiver, these parties would continue to be subject to the 9.0 psi RVP 
limit in the waiver conditions for E15. Downstream parties that only 
add oxygenate in an allowable amount (i.e., as allowed under the CAA 
sec. 211(f)(4) waivers) are not fuel and fuel additive manufacturers, 
and thus would not need to meet the 9.0 psi waiver condition.

E. Expected Impact of This Rule on E15 Use

    We do not believe that providing E15 with the 1-psi waiver will 
substantially change the current trend in E15 use. E15 can currently be 
sold legally for use in MY2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles in 
the United States under the 211(f)(4) waivers. It has been 9 years 
since EPA first granted the E15 211(f)(4) partial waivers; retailers 
currently offer E15 at roughly just 1 percent of retail stations as 
discussed in Section II.A.2. We expect that this slow adoption of E15 
would continue even if we did not provide E15 the 1-psi waiver. 
However, we also do not expect this action to change the rate of growth 
appreciably. We believe that providing E15 with the 1-psi waiver will 
not result in a significant expansion of E15 offered at retail 
stations. This is due to the fact there are several hurdles, 
independent of EPA's fuels regulations, that inhibit the expansion of 
E15 into retail markets.
    The chief hurdle to the introduction of E15 at additional retail 
stations is the requirement under 40 CFR 280.32 that retailers must 
demonstrate that underground storage tank (UST) systems are compatible 
with fuels stored at retail stations. Several commenters from the 
gasoline marketing and retail industry highlighted concerns over 
demonstrating compatibility of E15 with UST systems that have slowed 
the adoption of E15. Demonstrating compatibility can be especially 
difficult for some retailers as the full useful life of some UST system 
components can be up to 30 years and documentation of all of the 
various components often no longer exists, particularly when retail 
stations often change ownership several times during this time period.
    Commenters also noted that a majority of retailers are small 
businesses that would need to make substantial investments to ensure 
the compatibility of UST systems and fuel dispensers with E15, which 
can cost up to hundreds of thousands of dollars per station depending 
on station configuration and what part of the UST system needs 
upgrading.\195\ As

[[Page 27010]]

commenters noted, the best opportunity to upgrade retail infrastructure 
is when it is time to turn over the UST system or fuel dispensers. As 
commenters noted, since less than 3 percent of retail stations turn 
over UST systems per year, this limits the opportunities for new E15 
offerings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \195\ See ``Analysis of the Potential Use of Biofuels toward the 
Renewable Fuel Standard in 2014,'' available at https://ethanolrfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Informa_Potential_Use_of_Biofuels_toward_RFS_20141.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, not all retail stations that turn over their UST 
systems are going to offer E15. Much of the introduction of E15 to date 
has been in the Midwestern states, where blending incentives and 
investments in retail infrastructure have been present.\196\ While some 
retailers in states outside the Midwest have begun offering E15, it has 
mainly been limited to retail stations with blender pumps. Therefore, 
we would expect far fewer than 3 percent of retail stations nationwide 
to turn over to E15 compatible UST systems annually. Historically, as 
there are less than 2,000 stations offering E15 nationwide and E15 has 
been a legal fuel for nine years, this translates to about a 0.1 
percent increase in the number of retail stations offering E15 each 
year. We expect a comparable trend to continue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ For example, the State of Iowa provides biofuels tax 
credits for E15, see https://www.agmrc.org/renewable-energy/renewable-energy-climate-change-report/renewable-energy-climate-change-report/may-2017-report/overview-of-iowa-biofuel-tax-credits-and-ethanol-blends-sales-e10-e15-e20-and-e85. Additionally, USDA 
provided grants under its Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership 
program; see https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/energy-programs/bip/index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another hurdle to E15 market penetration highlighted by some 
commenters is a lack of consumer demand or consumer acceptance. These 
commenters noted that retailers will not limit their customer base and 
therefore will continue to make E10 available for vehicles, engines, 
and equipment that are not allowed to use E15.\197\ For the foreseeable 
future, millions of MY2000 and older light-duty vehicles and hundreds 
of millions of nonroad vehicles, engines, and equipment will continue 
to be in use, and retailers will need to provide consumers with 
suitable fuels for these products. Given this continued demand for E10 
and the practicality of offering fuels that are only usable in certain 
segments of the national fleet, many retailers have decided to offer 
E10 which is usable in the entire fleet rather than offering both E10 
and E15. Additionally, as several commenters noted, consumers are not 
requesting that stations offer E15 instead of E10 and some consumers 
have questions over the use of E15 in their vehicles and engines (even 
when allowed to use E15 under the CAA). Some commenters noted that it 
has only been in the last few years (not 2001) that most automakers 
have begun to state in owner's manuals that E15 use is acceptable, and 
several large auto manufacturers still include language in their 
owner's manuals warning against E15 use; almost all owner's manuals for 
nonroad products warn against E15 use.\198\ While we have evaluated 
whether E15 is sub sim to Tier 3 E10 certification fuel, we do not have 
authority under the CAA to impact what manufacturers put in their 
owner's manuals or how they implement their general warranties. The 
disparity between what vehicles and engines we have approved for E15 
use under our 211(f) authority and which fuels manufacturers 
recommended using in owner's manuals can lead to confusion and lack of 
consumer acceptance of E15. This lack of consumer acceptance and demand 
has resulted in E15 stations being primarily located in the Midwestern 
states. As long as there is some uncertainty over whether vehicles, 
engines, and equipment can and should use E15, these commenters argue, 
retailers will be hesitant to offer E15. We believe that these 
comments, primarily submitted by marketers and retailers of gasoline, 
are accurate and we believe these hurdles all factor into our 
projection that this action is unlikely to appreciably impact E15 
market penetration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \197\ In certain situations, such as limited USTs or pump 
infrastructure, retailers are unable to make both E10 and E15 
available. In these situations, commenters suggested that retailers 
would chose to make E10 available rather than E15.
    \198\ See ``Head Like a Hole,'' available at http://www.fuelsinstitute.org/Media/The-Commute/Head-Like-a-Hole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    E15 also faces an economic challenge to market growth, even with 
the 1-psi RVP waiver. Since the fuel distribution system will for the 
foreseeable future only be capable of distributing BOBs designed for 
E10, refiners will be unable to take advantage of the increased octane 
value offered by 5 percent more ethanol in the gasoline they produce. 
It is this octane value of ethanol that in recent years has been a key 
factor in enabling ethanol to compete favorably with gasoline. Rarely 
has ethanol been cheaper than gasoline on an energy equivalent 
basis.\199\ As a consequence, there is seldom a meaningful economic 
driver to produce and distribute E15 compared to E10, especially given 
the service station upgrade costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \199\ Ethanol price data from USDA is available at https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/us-bioenergy-statistics/us-bioenergy-statistics/#Prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A final factor that presents a hurdle to E15 expansion is that E15 
made at blender pumps often is done so inconsistently with EPA's 
regulatory requirements. As discussed in the proposal, E15 made at 
blender pumps is often made with certified E10 (or CBOB) and E85 (made 
with denatured fuel ethanol and uncertified hydrocarbon blendstocks, 
i.e., natural gas liquids).\200\ While data is limited, we believe that 
approximately 50 percent of stations offering E15 make E15 in this 
manner. The potential to violate EPA's regulatory requirements has 
resulted in many parties choosing not to offer E15 until EPA provides a 
legal pathway to make E15 at blender pumps. As mentioned in the 
proposal, we had previously proposed requirements on E85 used to make 
E15 at blender pumps that would both assure that the E15 met EPA's fuel 
quality standards and provide a cost-effective compliance mechanism for 
the retailers operating blender pumps to demonstrate compliance.\201\ 
Since we have not finalized those requirements or addressed the 
technical challenges raised in public comments, we expect regulatory 
uncertainty regarding E15 made at blender pumps to further inhibit E15 
expansion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \200\ See 84 FR 10595 (March 21, 2019).
    \201\ See 81 FR 80862-80864 (November 16, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As another example of these hurdles, E15 has not expanded 
significantly into RFG areas, where the RVP of E15 has not been limited 
by the 1-psi waiver. RFG represents over 30 percent of the gasoline in 
the United States and refiners of RFG must comply with the summertime 
RFG VOC performance standards, which effectively require refiners to 
account for the increase in RVP that results from adding ethanol into 
RFG. The result of this is that oxygenate blenders have been able to 
produce E15 using the same RBOB as E10 in the summer since EPA granted 
the first E15 waiver 9 years ago. However, according to the E15 
compliance and RFG surveys, only five RFG areas (Chicago, Milwaukee, 
St. Louis, Washington DC, and Dallas) out of 26 RFG areas have had any 
E15 marketed in those areas and even in those areas, E15 has only been 
offered in a limited number of stations.\202\ We

[[Page 27011]]

believe this lack of expansion of E15 in RFG areas is primarily a 
result of the various hurdles discussed in this section, and we expect 
similar results in conventional areas as a response to this action to 
allow the 1-psi waiver for E15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \202\ According to the RFG and E15 surveys, only 78 retail 
stations in RFG areas are registered to sell E15. This is out of 
22,287 retail stations in all RFG areas or 0.35 percent of RFG 
stations. This is substantially lower than the national rate of 
around 1.13 percent of retail stations nationally. This difference 
in number, despite E15 not being limited by the 1-psi waiver in RFG 
areas in the summer, is likely a result of the factors discussed in 
this section. RFG areas tend to be in major metropolitan areas which 
may have higher costs to install retail infrastructure compatible 
with E15. This further illustrates how some of the hurdles to E15 
introduction will not be addressed by providing E15 with the 1-psi 
waiver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because this action does not change the rate of UST system and fuel 
dispenser turnover, increase consumer demand or acceptance for E15, 
ensure greater economic value for E15, or resolve the regulatory issues 
associated with producing E15 at blender pumps; we do not believe 
providing E15 the 1-psi waiver will result in a substantial expansion 
of E15 being offered at new retail locations.
    Several commenters suggested that this action would result in 
significant impacts on air quality or have a significant economic 
impact. These commenters typically assume that every vehicle, engine, 
and piece of equipment in country will begin using E15 and that if the 
entire national fleet moved from E10 to E15 use substantial increases 
in regulated pollutants, widespread degradation of air quality, or 
necessitate billions of dollars of investments on the part of small 
businesses to offer E15 as a result. As previously mentioned, we do not 
expect that allowing E15 to receive the 1-psi waiver would result in 
widespread E15 use. This action does not require that any party make, 
distribute, sell, or use E15. As such, this action also does not 
address the hurdles to entry of E15. Based on the experience of E15 in 
areas that can already use E15 year-round (i.e., RFG areas), it is 
unlikely that providing the 1-psi waiver to E15 would lead to a 
substantial increase in E15 use as a result of this action.

F. E15 Criteria Pollutant and Air Toxics Emission Impacts

    As discussed above, we expect the emissions of E15 at 9 psi RVP to 
be substantially similar to those of E10 Tier 3 certification fuel when 
used in Tier 3 light-duty vehicles. This section describes the expected 
change in in-use emissions resulting from this action, assessing the 
evaporative and exhaust emissions of E15 with the 1-psi RVP waiver 
relative to the E10 with the 1-psi RVP waiver already available in the 
marketplace nationwide. While we attempt to estimate the emissions 
effects of E15 relative to E10 on a per-vehicle basis, we do not 
attempt to quantify what these changes mean for air quality in any 
specific area or the nation as a whole. We do not believe that as a 
result of this rulemaking a significant number of additional retail 
stations will offer E15, due to several hurdles described in Section 
II.E. As such, it would be difficult to quantify any effects (positive 
or negative) with confidence associated with providing E15 the 1-psi 
waiver. Such effects, if quantified, are unlikely to affect ambient air 
quality beyond the margin of error in air quality modeling. In Section 
II.C.6 we present estimated changes in emissions on a per-vehicle basis 
for illustrative purposes.
    Evaporative emissions from vehicles comprise approximately 60 
percent of the VOC emissions during summertime conditions from the 
current vehicle fleet based on results produced by MOVES2014b, and such 
VOC emissions contribute to ambient levels of ozone, PM, and air 
toxics, all of which adversely affect public health and welfare. 
Today's vehicles are equipped with charcoal cannisters to capture 
vapors generated during refueling as well as daily diurnal temperature 
fluctuations. This stored vapor is then drawn into the engine and 
combusted during vehicle operation.
    Currently and historically, vehicle manufacturers have been 
required to certify their vehicles on test gasoline with a volatility 
of 9.0 psi RVP under severe operating conditions similar to what might 
be expected on days with high ozone concentration. The evaporative 
emission standards have been made more stringent over time, such that 
the Tier 3 standards require essentially zero vapor loss during normal 
operation on 9.0-psi fuel. Increasing fuel RVP from 9.0 psi to 10.0 psi 
increases fuel vapor generation significantly under summertime 
conditions, which can overwhelm a vehicle's evaporative control system 
and push it out of compliance. Consequently, controlling the volatility 
of gasoline during the summer is important in order to control the 
evaporative VOC emissions from vehicles and engines in-use.
    This action extends the 1-psi RVP waiver to E15, allowing its in-
use volatility to go from 9.0 psi to 10.0 psi RVP. Viewing this change 
in isolation, one might expect a significant increase in in-use 
evaporative emissions, and some public comments raised this concern. To 
accurately assess emission impacts in this case, however, we need to 
examine current real-world circumstances. Namely, we expect any 
additional E15 introduced into the market to displace E10 that is being 
sold and that already carries the 1-psi waiver in CG areas (E10 has 
nearly 100 percent market share for gasoline sold in the U.S.). Thus, 
any increase in in-use emissions that might have resulted from the 1-
psi waiver applying to E15 is already occurring with E10. Rather, 
displacement of E10 with E15 is expected to lower the RVP of in-use 
gasoline by as much as 0.1 psi when made from the same RBOB or 
CBOB.\203\ We believe this will continue to be the case until E15 use 
becomes widespread.\204\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \203\ ``Determination of the Potential Property Ranges of Mid-
Level Ethanol Blends.'' American Petroleum Institute, Washington, 
DC. April 2010.
    \204\ We believe it would be unlikely for refiners to produce an 
E15 CBOB for such a small difference in RVP (i.e., 0.1 psi RVP). 
However, refiners may want to create a CBOB with a slightly lower 
octane level to account for the increased octane from the additional 
ethanol in E15 versus E10. We believe this would only occur if E15 
comprised a large part of a conventional gasoline area's market; 
something that took decades to happen with E10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Use of E15 will also have other criteria pollutant emission impacts 
beyond those related to volatility as described above. Assuming E15 is 
made from the same RBOB or CBOB as E10, we expect the additional 5 
volume percent ethanol to further dilute hydrocarbon fuel components 
such as aromatics, producing changes in several exhaust emissions such 
as NOX, NMOG, and benzene.205 206 Ethanol also 
causes changes in the volatility profile of the blended fuel, typically 
lowering the mid-point distillation temperature (T50) significantly, 
and the 90 percent temperature (T90) slightly.\207\ Table II.F-1 shows 
predicted fuel property and exhaust emission changes for Tier 2 
vehicles using both E10 certification gasoline and a typical market E10 
as baselines for comparison. Results using the EPAct model developed 
from the EPAct/V2/E-89 study described in Section II.C.6.a suggest E15 
are expected to produce slightly lower CO and benzene, and slightly 
higher NOX and PM compared to their E10 blending base. 
Changes in total NMOG (or VOC) vary in direction depending on the T50 
of the blending base.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \205\ For the effects of sulfur on emissions see Table ES-3 in 
``The Effects of Ultra-Low Sulfur Gasoline on Emissions from Tier 2 
Vehicles in the In-Use Fleet.'' US EPA Office of Transportation and 
Air Quality, Ann Arbor MI. EPA-420-R-14-002, March 2014.
    \206\ For the effects of ethanol and aromatics on emissions see 
Tables ES-1 through ES-4 in ``Assessing the Effect of Five Gasoline 
Properties on Exhaust Emissions from Light-Duty Vehicles Certified 
to Tier 2 Standards: Analysis of Data from EPAct Phase 3 (EPAct/V2/
E-89): Final Report.'' US EPA Office of Transportation and Air 
Quality, Ann Arbor MI. EPA-420-R-13-002, March 2013.
    \207\ ``Determination of the Potential Property Ranges of Mid-
Level Ethanol Blends.'' American Petroleum Institute, Washington, 
DC. April 2010.

[[Page 27012]]



                                                           Table II.F-1--Example Exhaust Emission Impacts of E15 Based on EPAct Model
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Fuel properties used in analysis                    E15 emissions impact relative to shaded baseline row above
                                                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Arom.                      T50          T90           CO          NMOG         NOX           PM      Benzene \b\
                                                                Eth. (vol%)     (vol%)     RVP (psi)     ([deg]F)     ([deg]F)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline: E10 certification fuel at 9 psi.....................         10.0         23.0          9.0          200          325                      Baseline for comparison
                                                                                                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
E15 at 9 psi (splash blend with baseline).....................         15.0         21.9          9.0          163          321         -2.4         -5.5          1.9          2.8        -10.9
E15 at 10 psi (splash blend with baseline)....................         15.0         21.9         10.0          163          321         -1.3         -8.0          1.9          2.8        -10.9
                                                                                                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline: E10 market fuel at 10 psi...........................         10.0         23.0         10.0          180          320                      Baseline for comparison
                                                                                                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
E15 at 10 psi (splash blend with baseline)....................         15.0         21.9         10.0          160          316         -1.9          2.2          2.5          4.1         -8.2
E15 at 10 psi (match blend per MOVES Fuel Wizard) \a\.........         15.0         21.7         10.0          167          318         -2.6          1.4          2.7          4.1         -7.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The MOVES Fuel Wizard attempts to estimate how properties would change in a widespread blending scenario.
\b\ The benzene effect shown is for a cold-start driving mode representing the first few minutes of vehicle operation. Other emission effects shown represent a typical mix of cold-start and
  warmed-up driving.

    If E15 use becomes widespread in the longer term, refiners may 
adjust the base blendstock to accommodate the additional ethanol. 
During the rapid expansion of E10 blending between 2007-2012, aromatics 
levels were observed to decline by a few volume percent while pump 
octane levels stayed constant, and octane match-blending is understood 
to have been a contributing factor.208 209 For other fuel 
properties, such as sulfur and benzene content, refiner control could 
be relaxed slightly for E15 blendstocks with the finished market E15 
still meeting with the regulatory limits. E15 made with such match 
blends would then have slightly different emission impacts compared to 
the splash blends made with E10 blendstocks expected for the near term 
as shown in Table II.F-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \208\ See Figure 3-4 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis for 
``Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle 
Emission and Fuel Standards.'' EPA-420-R-14-005, February 2014.
    \209\ See Figure 65 of ``Fuel Trends Report: Gasoline 2006-
2016.'' EPA-420-R-17-005. October 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters highlighted the alleged benefits or disbenefits 
of E15 use on regulated emissions and air quality. These commenters 
often assumed that entire areas or the entire national fleet of 
vehicles and engines would switch from using E10 to E15 as a result of 
this action. While it is possible that measurable emissions and air 
quality effects could occur due to the small estimated per vehicle 
changes in exhaust and evaporative emission if the entire vehicle and 
engine fleet of an area or the nation went from using E10 to E15, such 
an analysis is inappropriate for this rulemaking. As discussed in 
Section II.E, we do not believe that E15 use will expand more quickly 
than it currently is expanding as a result of this rulemaking. E15 has 
been a legal fuel for use in the marketplace since 2010, and as 
discussed in Section II.A.2, it is still sold in limited quantities at 
only about one percent of retail stations nationwide. This rulemaking 
does not address the other hurdles to E15 entering the marketplace and 
does not provide additional incentives to parties that wish to make, 
distribute, or sell E15 to accelerate E15 use. As discussed in Section 
II.A.2, this situation is analogous to the situation when E10 was 
granted the 1-psi waiver in 1990, and the market saw little response in 
ethanol use until the mid-2000s when MTBE was banned, the price of 
crude oil rose making ethanol cost competitive with gasoline, and the 
RFS was created by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. As such, we believe 
that it would be inappropriate to attribute any meaningful 
environmental impacts (positive or negative) to increased E15 use as a 
result of this rulemaking.

G. E15 Economic Impacts

    Due to the barriers to market entry discussed in Section II.E, we 
anticipate that the economic impacts of providing E15 with the 1-psi 
waiver will be small. This section briefly describes the potential 
benefits and costs of providing E15 with the 1-psi waiver. To the 
extent there would be small impacts from this rulemaking on the volume 
of ethanol use, the appropriate place to reflect those impacts would be 
in rulemaking actions associated with implementation of the renewable 
fuels program, where EPA considers the impacts of changes in biofuel 
volumes.
1. Potential Benefits of This Action
    We anticipate that providing the flexibility to use E15 at 10.0 psi 
RVP in the summer could help incentivize some retailers to introduce 
E15 into the marketplace, but that such incentives may be outweighed by 
the other hurdles to widespread E15 use. In situations where denatured 
fuel ethanol might be cheaper than gasoline, such as in the Midwest 
where distribution costs are low, parties may elect to make E15 more 
widely available, which may result in a modest decrease in fuel prices 
at the pump. However, even then this may not be sufficient to overcome 
the significant investment needed to upgrade an existing retail station 
to be compatible with E15 if consumer demand for E15 remains low. Any 
additional ethanol that is blended as a result of this action could 
help to offset a portion of the projected decline in U.S. ethanol use 
due to projected declining gasoline consumption. This in turn could 
provide energy security benefits.
2. Costs of This Action
    Finalizing the 1-psi waiver for E15 in the summer may help open new 
market opportunities for E15. However, fuel manufacturers and 
distributors of E15 would not be compelled to make or offer

[[Page 27013]]

E15 and could choose to offer E15 as dictated by market demands and 
individual business decisions.
    Overall, we anticipate very little change in costs regarding the 
proposed regulatory provisions to allow E15 to receive the 1-psi waiver 
in the summer. This action places no new regulatory burdens on any 
party in the gasoline or denatured fuel ethanol distribution system and 
modifies, but does not remove, PTD requirements for E15. Hence, we 
expect that these proposed provisions would not substantially alter the 
cost of compliance for parties that produce and distribute E15.

III. RIN Market Reforms

A. Background

    Under CAA sec. 211(o), EPA is required to set renewable fuel 
percentage standards every year.\210\ To comply, obligated parties 
\211\ can purchase and blend the requisite volumes of renewable fuels 
into the petroleum-derived transportation fuels they produce or import. 
However, to allow the market to function more efficiently, to avoid 
market disruption, and to assist obligated parties in meeting their 
individual RVOs, Congress directed EPA to establish, through a 
transparent public rulemaking process, a system for the generation and 
use of renewable fuel program credits.\212\ The credits created under 
this program are known as RINs. RINs are credits that are generated 
upon production of qualifying renewable fuel and ultimately used by 
obligated parties to demonstrate compliance with their RVOs.\213\ 
Renewable fuel producers and importers generate and assign RINs to the 
renewable fuel they produce or import. These RINs are then transferred 
with the renewable fuel to the downstream parties that blend the 
renewable fuel into transportation fuel. In lieu of blending the 
renewable fuel themselves to demonstrate compliance, obligated parties 
have the option to instead purchase RINs from other parties that blend 
renewable fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \210\ See, e.g., 2019 RVO final rule (83 FR 63704, December 11, 
2018).
    \211\ Obligated parties are refiners and importers of gasoline 
and diesel fuel. See 40 CFR 80.1406.
    \212\ See CAA sec. 211(o)(5).
    \213\ D3 and D7 RINs are used for the cellulosic biofuel RVO, D4 
RINs are used for the biomass-based diesel RVO, D5 RINs are used for 
the advanced biofuel RVO, and D6 RINs are used for conventional 
renewable fuel RVO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RIN prices are a function of multiple factors, including but not 
limited to changes in petroleum prices, agricultural feedstock (e.g., 
corn, soy) prices, and expectations of future market shifts and 
standards. RIN prices may also fluctuate as the market responds to RFS 
standards and expectations of future EPA policy decisions. While there 
are many different factors that affect RIN prices, a review of the 
historical RIN price data demonstrates that RIN prices generally follow 
expected market principles.\214\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \214\ For a thorough review of historical RIN price data, see 
Section III.B of the NPRM preamble (84 FR 10605-10607, March 21, 
2019) and the memorandum, ``RIN Market Assessment,'' available in 
the docket for this action. Our assessment of RIN price behavior and 
the rationale behind it remains the same. See also the RTC document 
for a response to comment related to RIN price behavior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Obligated parties that purchased RINs on the market for compliance 
in 2013 saw their D6 RIN prices substantially increase from the year 
prior.\215\ Though this increase in D6 RIN prices was the result of 
changes in the market, the most significant of which was reaching the 
E10 blendwall,\216\ increasing D6 RIN prices did raise concerns 
regarding whether market manipulation played some role in elevated 
prices. In comments to proposed EPA rulemakings (such as the 2018 and 
2019 RVO proposals) and via other communication with EPA staff, some 
stakeholders described conditions that they believed make the RIN 
market vulnerable to anti-competitive behavior. For example, commenters 
described a thin market volume, opaque price signals, and inelastic 
demand and supply curves and provided specific examples of behavior 
they believed to be manipulative, such as phantom RIN offers that 
suddenly vanish and reappear at higher prices after a party attempts to 
buy them at the purported asking price.\217\ These stakeholders also 
believed that, as a result of market conditions and price volatility, 
anti-competitive behavior is taking place. For example, commenters 
argued that a small number of sophisticated market participants control 
a large number of ``surplus'' RINs that they hoard to drive up prices, 
at which point they can sell the RINs to realize a higher profit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \215\ See the memorandum, ``RIN Market Assessment,'' available 
in the docket for this action.
    \216\ The E10 blendwall occurred when the implied conventional 
biofuel volume of ethanol established by the RFS program exceeded 
the volume of ethanol that could be blended into gasoline at a rate 
of up to 10 percent.
    \217\ See, e.g., comments from Monroe Energy (Docket Item No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0167-0622).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We take these claims of market manipulation seriously and took 
formal action prior to the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to 
investigate claims of manipulation. In March 2016, EPA entered into a 
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission (CFTC).\218\ Under the MOU, we provided CFTC with certain 
RIN data for analysis in order to facilitate an EPA investigation. We 
still have not seen data-based evidence of RIN market manipulation, but 
the potential for such behavior remains a concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \218\ See ``Memorandum of Understanding Between the 
Environmental Protection Agency and the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission on the Sharing of Information Available to EPA Related to 
the Functioning of Renewable Fuel and Related Markets'' (2016), 
available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-cftc-mou-2016-03-16.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2018 and 2019 RVO NPRMs, we broadly sought input on 
potential regulatory changes related to RIN trading as well as on ways 
to increase program transparency.\219\ We received many comments to the 
2019 RVO NPRM in support of publicly posting more RFS program data. In 
response, in September 2018, we began publishing weekly aggregated RIN 
prices and transaction volumes. We also received a wide variety of 
comments regarding the other ideas we put forward, including requiring 
public disclosure if a party holds a certain percentage of the RIN 
market and prohibiting non-obligated parties from purchasing separated 
RINs. Some comments expressed support for these ideas and offered other 
ideas. Other comments opposed both the specific reform proposals and 
the general concept of interfering with the open RIN market in any way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \219\ See 82 FR 34206 (July 21, 2017) and 83 FR 32024 (July 10, 
2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 11, 2018, the President issued a White House statement 
directing EPA to initiate a rulemaking to address RIN price 
manipulation claims and increase transparency in the RIN market. 
Specifically, the memorandum directed EPA to consider potential reforms 
to the RIN regulations, including but not limited to the following 
proposals:
     Prohibiting entities other than obligated parties from 
purchasing separated RINs.
     Requiring public disclosure when RIN holdings held by an 
individual actor exceed specified limits.
     Limiting the length of time a non-obligated party can hold 
RINs.
     Requiring the retirement of RINs for the purpose of 
compliance be made in real time.
    Pursuant to this directive, we proposed regulatory changes 
reflecting all four reforms identified in the President's Directive and 
requested comments on both the positive and negative consequences of 
each reform. For each reform proposal, we evaluated

[[Page 27014]]

comments already submitted to EPA describing its advantages and 
disadvantages. We also evaluated how a reform could be designed and 
implemented, whether a reform could be gamed or have unintended 
consequences, and what potential burden and cost it could place on 
regulated parties and on EPA. In the same action, we also proposed a 
fifth reform of enhancing EPA's market monitoring capabilities by 
imposing new recordkeeping and reporting requirements to collect more 
comprehensive data on RIN market transactions and participants and by 
hiring a third party with market monitoring expertise to conduct market 
analysis.
    When we originally contemplated the reforms, we understood that 
restrictions could affect the flexibility and liquidity that the RIN 
system and regulations were designed to maximize. For example, numerous 
comments received on the 2019 RVO NPRM stated that changes to the RIN 
market structure could reduce liquidity, increase volatility, and make 
the RIN market function less efficiently, increasing costs to obligated 
parties and consumers. Interested stakeholders also suggested that some 
reforms could affect the ability of small, less recognized, or new 
renewable fuel producers and blenders to enter the market. Finally, we 
understood that some reforms could inadvertently affect otherwise 
legitimate market behavior. For example, parties that purchase RINs on 
the expectation that RIN prices will increase may provide an important 
price signal and increase market liquidity with their actions. 
Therefore, when we proposed the reforms, we took into consideration the 
potential for the reforms to harm the RIN market and communicated our 
intent to finalize the reforms that we concluded most likely to be 
beneficial for the RFS program, the RIN market, and the RFS 
stakeholders, and that do not impose unnecessary burden or cause 
unintended consequences.
    After evaluating the comments received on the proposal, we have 
decided to finalize two of the proposed five reforms: Public disclosure 
requirements when a party's separated D6 RIN holdings exceed specified 
thresholds (Reform 1) and reporting and recordkeeping requirements to 
enhance EPA's market monitoring capabilities (Reform 5). We have 
decided to continue to collect and evaluate data and not to take final 
action at this time with regard to the other three of the five reforms 
that we proposed related to: RIN retirement compliance frequency 
(Reform 2), which parties can purchase RINs (Reform 3), and how long 
non-obligated parties can hold D6 RINs (Reform 4). In Section III.B, we 
discuss our overall rationale for finalizing only a subset of proposed 
reforms and our general response to market manipulation concerns. In 
Section III.C, we discuss the elements we are finalizing related to 
Reform 1. In Section III.D, we discuss the elements we are finalized 
related to Reform 5. In Section III.E, we discuss the rationale behind 
not taking final action at this time with respect to proposed Reforms 
2, 3, and 4, and the steps we intend to pursue related to these reforms 
in the future.

B. Market Manipulation

    Price manipulation through anti-competitive behavior, similar to 
what is referred to as cornering or squeezing the market, and false or 
misleading representations in transactions, is antithetical to 
effective market operation.\220\ Were such anti-competitive behavior to 
occur, it could undermine the confidence of market participants in the 
RIN market and undermine the RFS program itself. However, as stated in 
the proposal and reaffirmed in this action, we have conducted and 
reviewed analyses using non-public, individual-level data and have 
found no data-based evidence such anti-competitive behavior occurring 
between market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \220\ Such behaviors may also violate the anti-fraud and anti-
manipulation provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act. See, e.g., 
Section 9(a)(2) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. 13(a)(2) (2012), which states 
that it is a felony for ``Any person to manipulate or attempt to 
manipulate the price of any commodity in interstate commerce . . . 
or to corner or attempt to corner any such commodity or knowingly to 
deliver or cause to be delivered for transmission through the mails 
or interstate commerce by telegraph, telephone, wireless, or other 
means of communication false or misleading or knowingly inaccurate 
reports concerning crop or market information or conditions that 
affect or tend to affect the price of any commodity in interstate 
commerce.'' Section 6(c)(1) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. 9(1) (2012), titled 
Prohibition against manipulation, states that ``it shall be unlawful 
for any person, directly or indirectly, to use or employ, or attempt 
to use or employ, in connection with . . . a contract of sale of any 
commodity in interstate commerce . . . any manipulative or deceptive 
device or contrivance. . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, prior to the NPRM, we took formal action to investigate 
claims of manipulation by entering into an MOU with CFTC and providing 
them with certain RIN data for analysis in order to facilitate an EPA 
investigation.
    Second, during the development of the NPRM, we conducted a 
screening analysis using individual-level RIN holding data to evaluate 
historical market shares. We found that the maximum level of D6 RINs 
that any one party held at a time was between 10 and 14 percent of all 
D6 RINs.\221\ These figures are commensurate with the gasoline and 
diesel production market share of the largest refiners, which suggested 
to us that they were likely appropriate holding levels. We also 
compared each obligated party's D6 RIN holdings to 130 percent of their 
implied conventional biofuel RVO.\222\ We chose 130 percent because it 
allows for holdings of 100 percent of their implied conventional 
biofuel RVO, 20 percent for banking toward the next year's RVO, and 10 
percent for additional flexibility and uncertainty. We found that only 
three obligated parties would have exceeded the 130-percent value at 
least once in the 2018 compliance year.\223\ We were unable to fully 
aggregate holdings and RVOs by corporate affiliates or account for RINs 
that an obligated party was holding for a small refinery with an 
exemption approval from EPA. We were also unable to account for 
refinery sales, acquisitions, or shutdowns in the year used to 
calculate RVOs. After reviewing these three companies more closely, 
taking into consideration the information we were unable to account for 
in the original screening analysis, we did not identify any instances 
of excessive holdings or manipulative behavior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \221\ The full analysis is detailed in the memorandum, ``Daily 
Comparison of Individual RIN Holdings to Total Available RINs,'' 
available in the docket for this action.
    \222\ We only looked at obligated parties whose separated D6 RIN 
holdings exceeded 450 million at least once in compliance year 2017.
    \223\ We aggregated all facilities by their company ID in EMTS 
to get a company total for both RIN holdings and thresholds. See 
calculations in the memorandum, ``Threshold Calculations for D6 RIN 
Holding Parties,'' available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, since publishing the NPRM, we conducted additional analysis 
on the distribution of D6 RIN holdings across the marketplace. On three 
dates in the 2017 compliance year, chosen because they are 
representative of seasonal RIN market activity, we evaluated each 
company's separated D6 RIN holdings beyond what was needed for 
compliance with the next RVO in the case of obligated parties.\224\ On 
the three dates we examined, we found that ``excess'' D6 RINs (those 
RINs in excess of individual RVOs) were available from between 114 and 
145 parties, with no single party holding more than 14

[[Page 27015]]

percent of all ``excess'' D6 RINs. See Table III.B-1 for the results of 
this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \224\ The full analysis is detailed in the memorandum, 
``Percentage of D6 RINs Held by a Single Party,'' available in the 
docket for this action.

                         Table III.B-1--Percentage of all D6 RINs Held by a Single Party
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Number of parties in the range
              Range of ``Excess'' D6 RINs (percent)              -----------------------------------------------
                                                                      10/1/17         12/1/17         3/1/18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8-14............................................................               2               3               2
5-8.............................................................               3               1               4
3-5.............................................................               3               4               1
2-3.............................................................               5               4               6
1-2.............................................................              11              10              10
<1..............................................................             119             123              91
<14.............................................................             143             145             114
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From this analysis, we conclude that ``excess'' RIN holdings are 
spread across a large number of parties and that no single party 
controls an excessive share of the market. In addition, many commenters 
stated that they have never encountered manipulative behavior in the 
RIN market and disagree with the concerns that manipulation is 
occurring or has occurred. For example, a group of associations whose 
members represent approximately 90 percent of retail sales of motor 
fuel in the U.S. indicated that none of its constituent associations' 
members have seen any transactional problems with the current RIN 
trading structure. Several commenters stated that the reforms EPA 
proposed are, effectively, a ``solution in search of a problem.''
    We understand that some parties remain concerned about potential 
market manipulation. Among the comments received on this action, some 
describe scenarios that appear to the commenter to have been driven by 
manipulative behavior. Upon examination, however, at least some of 
these scenarios could be caused by legitimate, non-manipulative market 
behavior. For example, one commenter describes entering into a forward 
purchase contract with a counterparty at a price indexed to the future 
RIN price. The commenter observes the counterparty purchase RINs on the 
spot market at what they believe are artificially high prices to 
``drive up'' the future index price. We note, however, that a party 
would need to control an excessive share of the RIN market in order to 
exercise such undue influence on the spot price, and we have found 
through our analysis that no party has such market share. We find that 
the RIN spot price in this case could be rising naturally, consistent 
with market fundamentals. Furthermore, these comments do not contain 
details of any dates, prices, transaction volumes, or parties involved, 
so we cannot evaluate them further.
    Another commenter compares RIN market data with data from the 
ethanol, oil, and natural gas markets and presents analytic findings 
about market inefficiency, such as price volatility, and claim that the 
results correlate to market manipulation. As explained further in the 
Response to Comments (RTC) document,\225\ these market analyses 
identify no actual instances of manipulative behavior and merely 
suggest that market manipulation is a risk because of how the market is 
designed and functions. On the whole, we do not find these comments or 
analytic findings to be compelling evidence demonstrating that market 
manipulation has occurred. We believe that other factors unrelated to 
market manipulation are more likely to have caused the market dynamics 
observed by the commenter. For example, as explained in detail in the 
NPRM, our analysis indicates that RIN price volatility can be largely 
attributed to market responses to RFS standards and expectations of 
future EPA policy decisions.\226\ Several commenters provided evidence 
in support of this conclusion. In addition, we do not believe that 
comparing the liquidity of the RIN market to the liquidity of the 
ethanol, oil, and natural gas markets is appropriate. As one commenter 
notes, the RIN market is significantly smaller in size than those 
markets, which would naturally make it less liquid than a larger market 
because of the fewer number of parties available to transact with one 
another. We also note that traditional liquidity measures do not 
account for the fact that obligated parties must accumulate RINs to 
comply with regulatory requirements, which is not true in other 
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \225\ The RTC document is available in the docket for this 
action.
    \226\ For a thorough review of historical RIN price data, see 
Section III.B of the NPRM preamble (84 FR 10605-10607, March 21, 
2019) and the memorandum, ``RIN Market Assessment,'' available in 
the docket for this action. Our assessment of RIN price behavior and 
the rationale behind it remains the same. See also the RTC document 
for a response to comment related to RIN price behavior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given all of these factors, we have decided that the most 
appropriate action at this time is to collect more data and conduct 
additional, enhanced market monitoring and analysis. We do not find 
that the concerns and analytic findings raised to EPA to date warrant 
restructuring the RIN market at this time. We do not agree with 
comments that we should at this time restrict elements of the RIN 
market, such as who can participate in the market and how long parties 
can hold RINs, since we have seen no data-based evidence that anti-
competitive behavior has occurred. We conclude that such restrictions 
could adversely impact liquidity and other market functions and would 
only be warranted if additional monitoring identified anti-competitive 
behavior that could be managed with such market-wide restrictions. As 
such, we agree with comments that the RIN market should be allowed to 
continue operating at this time without additional restrictions while 
concerns related to anti-competitive behavior should be studied more 
closely.
    Therefore, in this action, we are only finalizing the two reforms 
(i.e., Reforms 1 and 5) that we believe will enhance our data 
collection and market monitoring capabilities. We are not taking final 
action at this time with regard to the other three proposed reforms. We 
intend to continue to study whether such reforms could benefit the 
market or, conversely, could have unintended negative consequences.

C. Reform 1: Public Disclosure If RIN Holdings Exceed Certain Threshold

    We proposed a requirement for public disclosure when a party's RIN 
holdings

[[Page 27016]]

exceed a certain threshold. The fundamental concept underpinning this 
reform is that increased transparency can help deter market actors from 
amassing an excess of separated RINs, which due to the concentration in 
ownership of available supplies could result in undue influence or 
market power. This reform could also provide information to market 
participants about the underlying status of the market. A concentration 
of separated RINs, if sufficiently large in scope, could be used by a 
party to manipulate the market by artificially affecting prices in any 
direction. The most extreme examples of market power are monopolies, 
but concentration can be a concern even for markets with many 
participants when only a few control the majority of available supply 
at any given point in time.
    In this action, we are largely finalizing what we proposed for 
Reform 1, of which public comment was broadly supportive. We are 
finalizing two thresholds that work in tandem to identify parties that 
have amassed RINs in excess of normal business practices, which could 
indicate an intent to assert an inappropriate influence on the market. 
Under the threshold reform finalized in this action, a RIN-holding 
party must aggregate its end-of-day separated D6 RIN holdings with 
those of its corporate affiliates. If the group of affiliates holds 
aggregated separated D6 RINs on any day in excess of the primary 
threshold and contains no obligated party, then the group triggers the 
primary threshold, and each party in the affiliate group must notify 
EPA of a threshold exceedance at the end of the quarter. If the group 
of affiliates holds separated D6 RINs in excess of the primary 
threshold on any day and contains at least one obligated party, then 
the aggregated RIN holdings are compared to the secondary threshold. If 
they exceed both the primary and the secondary thresholds, each member 
in the affiliate group must notify EPA of a threshold exceedance at the 
end of the quarter. For an affiliated group containing an obligated 
party that triggers the primary but not the secondary threshold, no 
notification to EPA is required by the group members.
    In this action, we are finalizing a requirement for public 
disclosure when parties exceed the EPA-set RIN-holding threshold. We 
are finalizing our proposal in the NPRM that no confidentiality claims 
may be asserted by any person with respect to the name of a party that 
reported exceeding an EPA-set RIN holding threshold. Some commenters 
indicated that releasing a party's name could alert other market 
participants that the party has a large supply of excess RINs, which 
could weaken their ability to negotiate RIN price for a transaction. 
After reviewing these comments and reconsidering the conditions leading 
up to potential public disclosure, we find that a party concerned about 
triggering the reporting threshold can keep its RIN holdings at a level 
such that the public disclosure requirement is not triggered. We 
believe that the thresholds signify an amount of RINs in excess of 
normal business practices and will not interfere with RIN holdings that 
are necessary to reasonably manage compliance with the RFS program. 
Given the amount of notice we are giving parties, we find any party 
that chooses after January 1, 2020, to acquire RINs in excess of the 
thresholds is itself causing an alert to market participants about 
their RIN holdings and is directly responsible itself for any 
competitive harm, such as depressed RIN prices, that results. 
Therefore, no claim of business confidentiality may be asserted by any 
person with respect to the name of a party that exceeds a RIN holding 
threshold.
    We also received comment in support of a prohibitive limit with a 
potential enforcement consequence if the threshold were exceeded rather 
than simply relying on public disclosure as a deterrent to 
inappropriate market behavior. These commenters worried that public 
disclosure would have no effect on RIN holdings and that a prohibition 
would be necessary to affect behavior. We disagree with these comments. 
Furthermore, we decided that a prohibitive limit could have detrimental 
effects, especially if not designed properly. Excess market power is 
very difficult to quantify in any given market, even if regulators have 
perfect knowledge of all market conditions. A real risk exists of 
setting a RIN holding threshold in this rulemaking incorrectly. If a 
threshold is set too low, it could unnecessarily compromise market 
efficiency and liquidity and interfere with obligated parties' ability 
to comply with regulations by disincentivizing them from holding the 
necessary quantity of RINs to meet their RVO. We therefore believe that 
a threshold with a consequence of public disclosure is appropriate 
rather than a holding limit with an enforcement consequence. A 
threshold serves as a deterrent and warning bell without the risk of 
causing unnecessary harm. We also believe that, in the face of 
insufficient evidence of any identified parties currently exhibiting 
what might be considered excessive market power, public disclosure is 
an appropriate first action.
    Under this reform, we are applying the thresholds to D6 RIN 
holdings only. After considering comments, we conclude that we can 
limit the scope of this reform to D6 RINs without compromising its 
intended effect. First, D6 RINs raise the most stakeholder concern 
because the price of D6 RINs is expected to vary greatly with very low 
prices for D6 RINs when the implied RFS requirement for conventional 
biofuel is below the blendwall to the high prices seen in previous 
years when the implied RFS requirement for conventional biofuel is 
above the blendwall. Under this unique set of conditions, the D6 RIN 
market would present a better opportunity than other D-codes were a 
party to attempt to drive up RIN prices by withholding large amounts of 
RINs. Conversely, were a party to withhold a large volume of D4 RINs, 
additional supplies of D4 RINs could enter the market to meet demand at 
a marginal increase in price. Second, the nested nature of the RVOs and 
the unique characteristics of other RIN markets (e.g., D3) would make 
covering all RIN categories considerably more complicated. We are 
further limiting this measure to separated RINs because we believe the 
physical storage limitations faced by renewable fuel already reduce the 
opportunity for price manipulation of assigned RINs and that the 
existing regulations at 40 CFR 80.1428 already include anti-hoarding 
provisions for RINs attached to renewable fuel.
    We are finalizing a primary threshold of three percent of the total 
implied conventional biofuel volume requirement set for that year by 
EPA in the RVO rule, which is the total renewable fuel volume 
requirement minus the advanced fuel volume requirement (e.g., the 
primary threshold would have been three percent of 15 billion gallons 
for compliance year 2018). When we were contemplating this reform for 
the NPRM, we looked at the linked cap-and-trade programs implemented by 
California and Quebec as examples. They use a formula that calculates a 
holding limit of about three percent of their combined annual allowance 
budgets every year. We received comments that a three percent threshold 
is appropriate, and several commenters stated that it is too low. We 
continue to believe that it is low enough to identify parties that have 
acquired RIN holdings larger than necessary for normal business 
operations and that may indicate an effort to assert inappropriate 
market power. On the other hand, given the comments that a

[[Page 27017]]

RIN holding threshold set too low could discourage blending and cause 
harm to parties, we continue to believe that going any lower than three 
percent would be unwarranted.
    We are finalizing a secondary threshold for obligated parties of 
130 percent of the individual implied conventional RVOs of all 
obligated parties in the affiliate group. As stated in comments, we 
recognize that larger obligated parties with large RVOs have valid 
reasons to accumulate and hold a volume of RINs that might exceed the 
primary threshold, not only to meet their next annual compliance 
obligation but also to bank additional RINs for compliance with the 
following year's obligation. Therefore, we recognize that the secondary 
threshold has to account for and allow RINs held to meet compliance 
obligations. We chose 130 percent because it allows for holdings of 100 
percent of their implied conventional biofuel RVO, 20 percent for 
banking, and 10 percent for additional flexibility and uncertainty. 
After considering comments, we believe that this 10 percent flexibility 
is important because it could, for example, cover potentially invalid 
D6 RINs that may not be sold or retired according to the existing RFS 
regulations or small changes to gasoline and diesel production and 
import volumes from one year to another that affect the RIN holding 
calculations.
    We are finalizing an approach to calculating the primary and 
secondary thresholds that adjusts depending on how many RVOs are in 
effect.\227\ For anytime between April 1 and December 31, when only one 
set of annual RVOs is in effect, the primary threshold will equal three 
percent of the annual implied conventional biofuel volume requirement 
established by EPA in a rule promulgated each year to set the annual 
renewable fuel standards. In a hypothetical example, this would amount 
to three percent of 15 billion D6 RINs, or 450 million D6 RINs. In that 
same period, an obligated party would calculate its secondary threshold 
by multiplying its gasoline and diesel production and import volume 
from the prior year by the difference between the obligated party's 
renewable fuel percentage standard from the prior year and the advanced 
fuel percentage standard from the prior year and account for any 
deficit volume it carried over from the prior year. For anytime between 
January 1 and March 31, when two sets of annual RVOs are in effect, the 
primary threshold will be three percent of 125 percent of the annual 
implied conventional biofuel volume requirement. In our hypothetical 
example, this would amount to three percent of 18.75 billion D6 RINs, 
or 562.5 million D6 RINs. In that same period, the secondary threshold 
would be calculated using the obligated party's gasoline and diesel 
production and import volume from the prior year multiplied by 125 
percent of the obligated party's difference between the renewable fuel 
percentage standard from the prior year and the advanced fuel 
percentage standard from the prior year and account for any deficit 
volume it carried over from the prior year. The threshold in the first 
quarter of the year is 125 percent of the other months because parties 
may need to hold RINs for two overlapping RVOs in that quarter rather 
than just one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \227\ RFS regulations set the compliance deadline for each year 
at March 31 of the subsequent year. For example, the 2017 compliance 
deadline (i.e., the deadline for retiring RINs based on 2017 
volumes) was March 31, 2018. To continue with the example, in the 
period between January 1 and March 31, 2018, obligated parties were 
likely holding 2016 and/or 2017 RINs toward compliance with their 
2017 obligations (on or before March 31, 2018) and were also 
beginning to collect and hold 2018 years toward comply with their 
2018 obligations (on or before March 31, 2019). Therefore, during 
that three-month period, two RVOs are in place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under this reform, two parties are corporate affiliates if one 
party has more than 20-percent ownership in the other or if both 
parties are owned more than 20 percent by the same parent company. We 
chose this ``more than 20'' percent ownership level because it is 
consistent with the value that the California Cap-and-Trade Program 
\228\ uses to define indirect corporate association and with the value 
that the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) program \229\ uses 
to define corporate association. Those programs are useful points of 
comparison because they also implement environmental credit programs 
and monitor their credit markets for anti-competitive behavior. We 
received no comments on the 20 percent value or providing suggestions 
for a different value. Only corporate affiliates registered to own RINs 
in the EPA Moderated Transaction System (EMTS) \230\ are included in 
the RIN holding aggregation. Corporate affiliates that are not 
registered in EMTS do not need to be included in the threshold 
calculations as these affiliates cannot hold RINs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \228\ More information on California's Cap and Trade program can 
be found at https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/capandtrade.htm.
    \229\ The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is a 
cooperative effort among the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, 
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and 
Vermont to cap and reduce CO2 emissions from the power 
sector. More information on RGGI can be found at https://www.rggi.org.
    \230\ EMTS was designed to allow companies to report and track 
RIN transactions under the RFS program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are finalizing the requirement that each RIN-holding party 
compare the daily aggregated RIN holdings of its affiliate group with 
the primary threshold and, if applicable, the secondary threshold. If 
the relevant threshold is exceeded on any day in the quarter, the 
affiliate group parties must report the exceedance in their next RIN 
Activity Report. To be clear, the parties may conduct the required 
comparison of daily RIN holdings to the thresholds as infrequently as 
quarterly to comply with the requirements. For example, a party may 
proceed by noting its separated D6 RIN holdings at the beginning of the 
quarter then keeping track throughout the quarter of the volume and 
date of every RIN purchase and sale, as already required under the RFS 
recordkeeping provisions at 40 CFR 80.1454(i). At the end of the 
quarter, the party would then compute what the RIN holdings were on 
each day of the quarter and aggregate those daily numbers with those of 
its affiliates. On the other hand, parties may choose to conduct the 
comparison more frequently, such as monthly, weekly, or daily. For 
example, a party with large RIN holdings that conducts transactions 
often throughout the month may wish to aggregate its daily RIN holdings 
with those of its affiliate group members frequently to know when 
aggregated levels are approaching the relevant threshold and when 
action might be needed to avoid exceeding the threshold on an upcoming 
day. After considering comments, we believe that quarterly reporting is 
an adequate frequency for EPA and public notification of potentially-
concerning market power while also appropriately minimizing the 
calculation burden on parties that feel they are at very low risk of 
exceeding the relevant threshold.
    We are adding a yes/no reporting requirement on exceeding the 
thresholds to the RIN Activity Report that all RIN-holding parties are 
already required to submit to EPA quarterly. A party will select ``no'' 
if the threshold is not exceeded during the given quarter or ``yes'' if 
it is exceeded at least once in the quarter. We will publish on a 
quarterly basis only the names of the parties that reported ``yes''. We 
are also adding a reporting requirement to the RIN Activity Report that 
RIN-holding parties submit to EPA on RIN-holding corporate affiliates 
and all contractual

[[Page 27018]]

affiliates.\231\ This affiliate information will not be published by 
EPA. We proposed that the names of these affiliates be reported in a 
list submitted to EPA by the attest auditor in June following the 
affected compliance year. Based on comments that annual reporting of 
affiliates is insufficient and should be required more frequently and 
on a more thorough assessment of our data system capabilities, we are 
putting the reporting requirements in the RIN Activity Report rather 
than the attest engagement report. We believe that RIN-holding 
corporate affiliate and all contractual affiliate names can help EPA 
confirm RIN holding calculations, compare aggregated RIN holdings to 
other threshold levels beyond those finalized in this action, and 
conduct market oversight. Therefore, we prefer to collect this 
affiliate information in a more useful format than a hard-coded list 
attached to an attest report. Furthermore, we want to collect this 
information as soon as possible while providing parties adequate time 
to prepare. Since the calculations and recordkeeping requirements will 
take effect on January 1, 2020, the first yes/no report on exceeding 
the threshold will be submitted by June 1, 2020, and the auditor 
findings of that report will be submitted to EPA by June 1, 2021. We 
prefer to receive the affiliate information by June 1, 2020, rather 
than in 2021. Therefore, for each quarterly RIN Activity Report 
submitted after January 1, 2020, each party must enter the names and 
EPA company IDs of each RIN-holding corporate affiliate and each 
contractual affiliate from that quarter, regardless of whether they 
also report exceeding the RIN holding threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \231\ As defined in both the proposal and this action, 
contractual affiliation relates only to contracts for purchasing or 
holdings RINs and is not factored into the threshold analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are requiring that the reported contractual affiliates include 
those that do not own RINs and that are not registered with EPA to own 
RINs. For example, a party with a contract in place to purchase or hold 
RINs for a company not registered in EMTS would report that company's 
name to EPA. Based on comments received, we continue to believe we need 
a wider picture of contractual affiliations than those in EMTS so that 
we can maintain some insight into any additional market share over 
which parties might have control. For example, we will monitor for a 
non-registered party that has established contracts with multiple 
parties to purchase and hold a large number of aggregated RINs on its 
behalf. We will treat these lists as potential CBI and will treat them 
according to 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, until determined otherwise.
    A designated company official will be required to certify the 
completeness and accuracy of the threshold and affiliate answers upon 
report submission. In addition, the independent auditor must review 
threshold calculations during the attest engagement process and include 
in their attest engagement report to EPA any findings. This includes 
confirmation that the D6 RIN holdings and RVOs, if applicable, of all 
corporate affiliates were fully and properly accounted for in the 
calculations. Therefore, we are requiring that parties registered to 
hold RINs keep as records all threshold calculations, including 
corporate affiliate values, and provide those records to the auditor 
for review.
    The calculation finalized in this action uses gasoline and diesel 
production and import volumes from the prior compliance year as a proxy 
for volumes in the current year. After considering comments, we 
recognize that the calculations can be an inaccurate representation of 
current year volumes in some cases, such as mergers or big changes in 
import volumes from year to year. Therefore, in response to comments, 
we are adding alternative provisions to the regulation that obligated 
parties can use, if specific criteria are met, to account for such 
discrepancies in their volume calculations. Any party that uses the 
alternative provisions is required to report the volume it calculated 
in its RIN Activity Report alongside the other required threshold 
information.

D. Reform 5: Enhancing EPA's Market Monitoring Capabilities

    In this action, we are taking additional steps to enhance our 
market monitoring capabilities in order to better detect potential 
market manipulation. Monitoring the RIN market requires a substantial 
amount of market data. Prior to this action, we have required parties 
to report RIN trade prices, RIN trade volumes, and the parties involved 
in the RIN transaction. With this action, we are adding new reporting 
requirements.
    As described in Section III.C, we are requiring parties to report 
the names of RIN-holding corporate affiliates and all contractual 
affiliates in their RIN Activity Reports. Since it will be collected in 
that form, we are not requiring that auditors include affiliate lists 
in their annual attest engagements submitted to EPA. We are only 
requiring attest auditors to review the RIN Activity Reports and 
confirm that the information reported about the threshold analysis and 
the affiliates was reported correctly. The auditor's findings will be 
reported to EPA as usual in the findings report.
    We are requiring that a per-gallon RIN price be reported for a 
separated RIN transaction and that a price of $0.00 only be allowed for 
certain types of transactions. Prior to this action, we have allowed 
intracompany and tolling agreement transactions to report a RIN price 
of $0.00. In the proposal, we requested comment on any other legitimate 
reasons for reporting a $0.00 RIN price. Given the comments received, 
we are adding consignment transactions and RIN pass-back transactions 
to the list of transactions allowed to report a RIN price of $0.00.
    We are requiring that transactions at a price other than $0.00 be 
reported as either a spot type or a term type.\232\ We believe that 
collecting this additional information will improve our understanding 
of the RIN price reported and will allow us to filter term type prices 
out of the RIN price dataset that we publish and analyze internally for 
compliance oversight. Thus, the published price will be a better 
reflection of market prices on a given day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \232\ EPA considers a spot type to be a transaction at fixed 
price, fixed quantity, and single delivery. EPA considers a term 
type as a transaction that isn't fixed price, fixed quantity, or 
single delivery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also confirm our intention to take non-regulatory steps after 
promulgation of this action to update business rules in EMTS such that 
both parties in a RIN transaction must enter the same RIN price in EMTS 
for the transaction to clear. Prior to this action, EMTS already had a 
business rule that required both parties in a RIN transaction to enter 
the same RIN volume, and this business rule has been very helpful in 
maintaining high quality volume data that we can reliably publish and 
use for compliance oversight. These and other business rules prevent 
data entry errors and prompt parties that have not properly followed 
the instructions in the regulations to correct their numbers. By adding 
a similar business rule to EMTS on RIN prices, we believe we can 
prevent reporting errors and improve the quality and reliability of our 
price data.
    Finally, we are affirming our intent to employ a third-party 
outside of the regulatory process to monitor of the RIN market. We are 
aware of other environmental commodity markets that employ third-party 
market monitoring services to conduct analysis of the market, including 
screening for potential anti-competitive behavior or

[[Page 27019]]

market manipulation. For example, the Western Climate Initiative, Inc. 
provides administrative services to the linked cap and trade programs 
in Quebec and California, including managing a contract with a company 
that provides independent marketing monitoring for the jurisdictions. 
Quebec and California each maintain market monitoring capabilities to 
oversee the joint market. In addition, RGGI contracts with a third 
party to monitor its carbon dioxide (CO2) allowance trading 
market and produce and publish quarterly and annual reports summarizing 
their findings. Based on comments received, we continue to believe 
additional RIN market oversight and monitoring from an independent 
third party can serve as a deterrent to manipulative behavior and 
increase market transparency, enabling the market to more easily 
function as designed. We intend to access a third-party market monitor 
after promulgation of this action through a standard contract 
mechanism, which requires contractor employees to maintain the same CBI 
safeguards as EPA employees.

E. Other Reforms Proposed But Not Finalized at This Time

    In the NPRM, we proposed regulations related to three other reforms 
that were included in the President's Directive. Under Reform 2, we 
proposed that obligated parties would be required to retire 80 percent 
of their renewable fuel RVO after the first three quarters of the 
reporting year. Under Reform 3, we proposed that only certain non-
obligated parties would be allowed to purchase separated D6 RINs, 
including exporters and those with a contract in place to supply 
obligated parties with RINs. Under Reform 4, we proposed that the 
number of D6 RINs a non-obligated party separated or purchased in a 
quarter would need to equal the number of D6 RINs it sold or retired in 
that same quarter. We sought comment on the potential benefits as well 
as potential downsides of these three reforms.
    After reviewing the comments received, we have decided not to take 
final action with respect to the proposed regulatory amendments. In the 
NPRM, we explained that we have not seen any data-based evidence that 
market manipulation is occurring and that we were proposing the reforms 
to prevent market manipulation from possibly taking root in the future. 
We also emphasized that we were proceeding carefully because of the 
potential for these reforms to cause harm to the RIN market. Nothing in 
the comments received provides any additional data-based evidence or 
compelling information that alters the assessment of market 
manipulation we presented in the NPRM. Therefore, we are finalizing 
Reforms 1 and 5, which will provide additional data for EPA to analyze 
and discourage excessive RIN holdings. If, after reviewing that data 
and conducting additional market analysis, we determine that it would 
be prudent to finalize Reform 2, 3, or 4 in the future, we will share 
the analysis that has led us to believe it could be appropriate and 
will allow time for parties to respond, through a separate notice to 
the public and an additional period provided for public comment, before 
we proceed with a final rule codifying one or more of these proposed 
reforms. To that end, we have not further summarized or responded to 
comments on these three reforms in this action.

F. RIN Market Reform Economic Impacts

    As EPA is finalizing just Reforms 1 and 5 in this action, the 
impacts of this action are expected to be increased transparency and 
minor costs associated with recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 
If EPA were to proceed further and finalize Reforms 2, 3, or 4, the 
agency would evaluate those impacts in the associated regulatory 
action(s).
1. Benefits of RIN Market Reform
    The goals of the reforms finalized in this action are to increase 
our capability to monitor the market for anti-competitive behavior as 
well as to discourage RIN holding levels in excess of normal business 
practices. Therefore, we believe the net benefit of this action will be 
to support increased confidence in the RIN market and reduce perceived 
market risk. These reforms also provide the added benefit of increasing 
transparency into the RIN market. In general, commodities markets 
function optimally when all participants have access to as much 
information as possible, and this information is disseminated or shared 
with all parties at the same time. This helps create a level playing 
field and minimize any potential advantage one party may have over 
another. The net benefit of greater transparency helps market 
participants, such as obligated parties, plan short- and long-term 
strategies to manage their compliance costs.
2. Costs of RIN Market Reform
    As detailed in Sections III.C and D, we are requiring additional 
reporting and recordkeeping for obligated parties under the RFS program 
and non-obligated parties that participate in the RIN market. As 
detailed in Section III.E, because we are not finalizing Reforms 2, 3, 
and 4 at this time, including the reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements proposed in association with those reforms, we expect 
modest costs to regulated entities associated with this final 
rule.\233\ Specifically, we only anticipate minimal costs associated 
with reporting and recordkeeping requirements related to RIN holdings, 
affiliated parties, and any other data elements EPA collects as 
informed by Reforms 1 and 5. Therefore, we believe this action will not 
significantly affect RIN prices or market participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \233\ For a quantitative breakdown of new recordkeeping and 
reporting burden imposed by this action, see ``Final Rule ICR 
Detailed Burden Tables'' and ``Final Rule ICR Supporting Statement'' 
materials in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted 
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes 
made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the 
docket.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs

    This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 regulatory 
action. Details on the estimated costs of this final rule can be found 
in Sections II.G.2 and III.F.2.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    With respect to the E15 1-psi waiver portion of this action, no new 
information collection burden is imposed under the PRA. OMB has 
previously approved the information collection activities contained in 
the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0675. 
The changes to the regulations will remove a small segment of language 
on PTDs required to be generated and kept as records by parties that 
make and distribute gasoline under the regulations at 40 CFR part 80, 
subpart N. These changes will not require any additional information 
from regulated parties nor do we believe that these changes will 
substantively alter practices used by regulated parties to satisfy the 
PTD regulatory requirements.
    The information collection activities related to the RIN market 
reform portion of this rule have been submitted for

[[Page 27020]]

approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) 
document that EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2592.01. 
You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is 
briefly summarized here.
    This ICR includes all additional RFS related information collection 
activities resulting from the Modifications to Fuel Regulations to 
Provide Flexibility for E15; Modifications to RFS RIN Market 
Regulations final rulemaking. These information collection activities 
include new recordkeeping and reporting requirements finalized under 40 
CFR part 80, subpart M.
    Respondents/affected entities: The respondents to this information 
collection fall into the following general industry categories: 
Petroleum refineries, ethyl alcohol manufacturers, other basic organic 
chemical manufacturing, chemical and allied products merchant 
wholesalers, petroleum bulk stations and terminals, petroleum and 
petroleum products merchant wholesalers, gasoline service stations, and 
marine service stations.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory.
    Estimated number of respondents: 22,119.
    Frequency of response: Quarterly, annually.
    Total estimated burden: 240,375 hours (per year). Burden is defined 
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $22,652,928 (per year).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. Small 
entities that will be subject to the final rulemaking include domestic 
refiners that produce gasoline and/or diesel. In addition to domestic 
refiners, EPA believes the final rulemaking will also apply to other 
small entities. These entities include: Non-obligated parties under the 
RFS program that transact RINs; blenders that separate RINs from 
assigned volumes of renewable fuel; and brokers that facilitate 
transactions of RINs between parties. With respect to the E15 1-psi 
waiver portion of this action, the regulatory changes do not 
substantively alter the regulatory requirements on parties that make 
and distribute gasoline. Additionally, the interpretation to allow E15 
to receive the 1-psi waiver will allow parties that make and distribute 
E15, including small entities, more flexibility in the summer to 
satisfy market demands. With respect to the RIN market reform 
provisions of this action, we have conducted a screening analysis to 
assess whether we should make a finding that this action will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.\234\ As detailed in that analysis, the administrative 
recordkeeping and reporting burden imposed by the final rulemaking 
suggests minimal impacts to all entities, including non-obligated 
parties under the RFS program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \234\ See ``Screening Analysis for the Final Modifications to 
RFS RIN Market Regulations,'' available in the docket for this 
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action 
implements mandates specifically and explicitly set forth in CAA sec. 
211 and we believe that this action represents the least costly, most 
cost-effective approach to achieve the statutory requirements.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation 
and Coordination with Indian Tribes, EPA consulted with tribal 
officials during the development of this action. On February 28, 2019, 
EPA met with the National Tribal Air Association to highlight the 
upcoming proposed rulemaking. EPA did not receive any feedback at this 
consultation meeting or in subsequent comments.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks 
that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, 
per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of 
the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 
13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or 
safety risk.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is 
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution or use of energy. The flexibility provided to E15 by this 
action will enable additional supply of energy but are not expected to 
have an immediate significant effect on supply, distribution, or use of 
energy. The modifications to the RFS compliance system are not expected 
to have a significant effect on supply, distribution, or use of energy.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). As 
discussed in Section II.F, we do not believe that this action will have 
any meaningful environmental impacts (positive or negative).

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and EPA will submit a rule 
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of 
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

V. Statutory Authority

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

[[Page 27021]]

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Labeling, Motor 
vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 30, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.

    Note: The following Appendix will not appear in the Code of 
Federal Regulations.

Appendix--Definition: Substantially Similar

    EPA will treat any gasoline-ethanol blend containing more than 
10 but no more than 15 volume percent ethanol (``E15''), and 
denatured fuel ethanol used to make such a gasoline-ethanol blended 
fuel for use by any person in light-duty vehicles manufactured after 
model year 2001 \1\ as substantially similar to any unleaded 
gasoline or gasoline additive utilized in the certification of any 
light-duty motor vehicle under sections 206 and 213(a) of the Clean 
Air Act with certification fuel in accordance with 40 CFR 86.113-15 
if the following criteria are met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This definition does not apply to model year 2000 and older 
light-duty motor vehicles, heavy-duty gasoline engines and vehicles, 
on and off-highway motorcycles, and nonroad engines, vehicles, and 
equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Fuel composition criteria. The E15 must contain carbon, 
hydrogen, and oxygen, nitrogen, and/or sulfur, exclusively,\2\ in 
the form of some combination of the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Impurities that produce gaseous combustion products (i.e., 
products which exist as a gas at Standard Temperature and Pressure) 
may be present in the fuel at trace levels. An impurity is a 
substance that is present through unintentional contamination, or 
remains naturally, after normal processing of the fuel is completed, 
including where applicable processing that attempted to remove such 
impurities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) Hydrocarbons;
    (b) Denatured fuel ethanol that meets the specifications of ASTM 
International Standard D4806-19;
    (c) Additional fuel additive(s) \3\ at a concentration of no 
more than 1.0 percent by volume which contributes no more than 3 ppm 
sulfur by weight to the finished fuel; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For the purposes of this interpretative rule, the term 
``fuel additive'' refers only to that part of the additive package 
that is not hydrocarbon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) The gasoline-ethanol blended fuel, denatured fuel ethanol, 
and any additives blended into the fuel must contain only carbon, 
hydrogen, and any one or all of the following elements: Oxygen, 
nitrogen, and/or sulfur.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Impurities which produce gaseous combustion products may be 
present in the fuel additive at trace levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Physical and chemical characteristics criteria. The 
gasoline-ethanol blended fuel must possess all of the following:
    (a) The physical and chemical characteristics of an unleaded 
automotive spark-ignition engine fuel (i.e., unleaded gasoline) as 
specified in ASTM International Standard D4814-19 for at least one 
of the United States Seasonal and Geographical Volatility Classes 
specified in the standard;
    (b) The applicable distillation temperature limitations listed 
in the Vapor Pressure and Distillation Class Requirements as 
specified in ASTM International Standard D4814-19; and
    (c) The gasoline-ethanol blended fuel does not exceed 9.0 pounds 
per square inch (psi) RVP during the time period from May 1 to 
September 15.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Gasoline-ethanol blended fuels containing more than 10 and 
no more than 15 volume percent ethanol may have an RVP of 1.0 psi 
greater than the applicable RVP limitations set under section 
211(h)(1) of the Act as allowed under section 211(h)(4) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Misfueling mitigation criteria. Fuel and fuel additive 
manufacturers that introduce E15 or ethanol for use in the 
manufacture of E15 must take reasonable precautions to mitigate the 
misfueling of vehicles, engines, and equipment not covered by this 
definition (i.e., anything other than a model year 2001 and newer 
light-duty vehicle). Fuel and fuel additive manufacturers must 
submit to EPA a plan, for EPA's approval, and must fully implement 
that EPA-approved plan, prior to introduction of E15 or ethanol for 
use in the manufacture of E15 into commerce. The plan must include 
provisions that will implement all reasonable precautions for 
ensuring that the E15 is only introduced into commerce for use in 
model year 2001 and newer light-duty vehicles. The plan must be sent 
to the following address: Director, Compliance Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Mail 
Code 6405J, Washington, DC 20460.
    (4) Failure to fully fulfill any criteria of this definition 
means the fuel or fuel additive introduced into commerce is not 
covered by this definition.

Amendments to Regulations

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 
80 as follows:

PART 80--REGULATION OF FUEL AND FUEL ADDITIVES

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

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

Subpart B--Controls and Prohibitions

0
2. Section 80.27 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(2) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  80.27  Controls and prohibitions on gasoline volatility.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) In order to qualify for the special regulatory treatment 
specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, gasoline must contain 
denatured, anhydrous ethanol. The concentration of the ethanol, 
excluding the required denaturing agent, must be at least 9% and no 
more than 15% (by volume) of the gasoline. The ethanol content of the 
gasoline shall be determined by the use of one of the testing 
methodologies specified in Sec.  80.47. The maximum ethanol content 
shall not exceed any applicable waiver conditions under section 211(f) 
of the Clean Air Act.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 80.28 is amended by revising paragraphs (g)(6)(iii), (g)(8) 
introductory text, and (g)(8)(ii) as follows:


Sec.  80.28   Liability for violations of gasoline volatility controls 
and prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (6) * * *
    (iii) That the gasoline determined to be in violation contained no 
more than 15% ethanol (by volume) when it was delivered to the next 
party in the distribution system.
* * * * *
    (8) In addition to the defenses provided in paragraphs (g)(1) 
through (6) of this section, in any case in which an ethanol blender, 
distributor, reseller, carrier, retailer, or wholesale purchaser-
consumer would be in violation under paragraph (b), (c), (d), (e), or 
(f) of this section, as a result of gasoline which contains between 9 
and 15 percent ethanol (by volume) but exceeds the applicable standard 
by more than one pound per square inch (1.0 psi), the ethanol blender, 
distributor, reseller, carrier, retailer or wholesale purchaser-
consumer shall not be deemed in violation if such person can 
demonstrate, by showing receipt of a certification from the facility 
from which the gasoline was received or other evidence acceptable to 
the Administrator, that:
* * * * *
    (ii) The ethanol portion of the blend does not exceed 15 percent 
(by volume); and
* * * * *

Subpart M--Renewable Fuel Standard

0
4. Section 80.1401 is amended by adding in alphabetical order 
definitions for ``Contractual affiliate,'' ``Corporate affiliate,'' 
``Corporate affiliate group,'' ``DX RIN,'' and ``End of Day'' to read 
as follows:


Sec.  80.1401   Definitions.

* * * * *
    Contractual affiliate means one of the following:
    (1) Two parties are contractual affiliates if they have an explicit 
or implicit agreement in place for one to

[[Page 27022]]

purchase or hold RINs on behalf of the other or to deliver RINs to the 
other. This other party may or may not be registered under the RFS 
program.
    (2) Two parties are contractual affiliates if one RIN-owning party 
purchases or holds RINs on behalf of the other. This other party may or 
may not be registered under the RFS program.
* * * * *
    Corporate affiliate means one of the following:
    (1) Two RIN-holding parties are corporate affiliates if one owns or 
controls ownership of more than 20 percent of the other.
    (2) Two RIN-holding parties are corporate affiliates if one parent 
company owns or controls ownership of more than 20 percent of both.
    Corporate affiliate group means a group of parties in which each 
party is a corporate affiliate to at least one other party in the 
group.
* * * * *
    DX RIN means a RIN with a D code of X, where X is the D code of the 
renewable fuel as identified under Sec.  80.1425(g), generated under 
Sec.  80.1426, and submitted under Sec.  80.1452. For example, a D6 RIN 
is a RIN with a D code of 6.
* * * * *
    End of day means 7:00 a.m. Coordinated Universal Time (UTC).
* * * * *

0
5. Section 80.1402 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  80.1402  Availability of information; confidentiality of 
information.

    (a) Beginning January 1, 2020, no claim of business confidentiality 
may be asserted by any person with respect to information submitted to 
EPA under Sec.  80.1451(c)(2)(ii)(E), whether submitted electronically 
or in paper format. EPA may make information submitted under Sec.  
80.1451(c)(2)(ii)(E) available to the public.
    (b) [Reserved]

0
6. Section 80.1435 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  80.1435   How are RIN holdings and RIN holding thresholds 
calculated?

    Beginning January 1, 2020, any party that holds RINs must comply 
with the requirements of this section.
    (a) RIN holdings calculation. (1) Each party must calculate daily 
end-of-day separated D6 RIN holdings by aggregating its end-of-day 
separated D6 RIN holdings with the end-of-day separated D6 RIN holdings 
of all corporate affiliates in a corporate affiliate group and use the 
end-of-day separated D6 RIN holdings as specified in paragraph (b) of 
this section.
    (2) Each party must calculate, as applicable, the holdings-to-
market percentage under paragraph (b)(1) of this section and the 
holdings-to-obligation percentage under paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section quarterly in accordance with the schedule specified in Table 1 
to Sec.  80.1451.
    (3) For a corporate affiliate group containing at least one 
obligated party that has a holdings-to-market percentage greater than 
3.00 percent for any calendar day in a compliance period, as determined 
under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, each party must calculate the 
corporate affiliate group's holdings-to-obligation percentage as 
specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
    (4) Each party must individually keep copies of all calculations 
and supporting information for separated D6 RIN holding threshold 
calculations required under this section as specified in Sec.  
80.1454(u).
    (b) RIN holding thresholds calculations. (1) Primary test 
calculations. For each day in a compliance period, each party that owns 
RINs must calculate the holdings-to-market percentage for their 
corporate affiliate group using the method specified in paragraph 
(b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(ii) of this section, as applicable.
    (i) For each day beginning January 1 through March 31, calculate 
the holdings-to-market percentage for a corporate affiliate group as 
follows:

HTMPd = [([Sigma]D6RINd)a/
(CNV_VOLTOT,i * 1.25)] * 100

Where:

HTMPd = The holdings-to-market percentage is the 
percentage of separated D6 RINs a corporate affiliate group holds on 
calendar day d relative to the total expected number of separated D6 
RINs in the market in compliance period i, in percent.
d = A given calendar day.
i = The compliance period, typically expressed as a calendar year.
a = Individual corporate affiliate in a corporate affiliate group.
([Sigma]D6RINd)a = Sum of the number of 
separated D6 RINs each individual corporate affiliate a holds at the 
end of calendar day d, in RIN-gallons.
CNV_VOLTOT,i = The total expected annual volume of 
conventional renewable fuels for the compliance period i, in 
gallons. Unless otherwise specified, this number is 15 billion 
gallons.

    (ii) For each day beginning April 1 through December 31, calculate 
the holdings-to-market percentage for a corporate affiliate group as 
follows:

HTMPd = [([Sigma]D6RINd)a/
(CNV_VOLTOT,i)] * 100

Where:

HTMPd = The holdings-to-market percentage is the 
percentage of separated D6 RINs a corporate affiliate group holds on 
calendar day d relative to the total expected number of separated D6 
RINs in the market in compliance period i, in percent.
d = A given calendar day.
i = The compliance period, typically expressed as a calendar year.
a = Individual corporate affiliate in a corporate affiliate group.
([Sigma]D6RINd)a = Sum of the number of 
separated D6 RINs each individual corporate affiliate a holds at the 
end of calendar day d, in RIN-gallons.
CNV_VOLTOT,i = The total expected annual volume of 
conventional renewable fuels for compliance period i, in gallons. 
Unless otherwise specified, this number is 15 billion gallons.

    (2) Secondary threshold calculations. For each day in a compliance 
period where a corporate affiliate group is required to calculate with 
the secondary threshold requirement under paragraph (a)(3) of this 
section, each party must calculate the holdings-to-obligation 
percentage for their corporate affiliate group using the methods at 
paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (b)(2)(ii) of this section, as applicable.
    (i) For each day beginning January 1 through March 31, calculate 
the holdings-to-obligation percentage as follows:

HTOPd = [([Sigma]D6RINd)a/
{[([Sigma]CNV_RVOi-1)a + 
([Sigma]CNV_DEFi-1)a + 
([Sigma]CNV_DEFi-2)a] * 1.25{time} ] * 100

Where:

HTOPd = The holdings-to-obligation percentage is the 
percentage of separated D6 RINs a corporate affiliate group holds on 
calendar day d relative to their expected separated D6 RIN holdings 
based on the corporate affiliate group's conventional RVO for 
compliance period i-1, in percent.
d = A given calendar day.
i = The compliance period, typically expressed as a calendar year.
a = Individual corporate affiliate in a corporate affiliate group.
([Sigma]D6RINd)a = Sum of the number of 
separated D6 RINs each individual corporate affiliate a holds on 
calendar day d, in RIN-gallons.
([Sigma]CNV_RVOi-1)a = Sum of the conventional 
RVOs for each individual corporate affiliate a for compliance period 
i-1 as calculated in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section, in RIN-
gallons.
([Sigma]CNV_DEFi-1)a = Sum of the conventional 
deficits for each individual corporate affiliate a as calculated in 
paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section for compliance period i-1, in 
RIN-gallons.
([Sigma]CNV_DEFi-2)a = Sum of the conventional 
deficits for each individual corporate affiliate a as calculated in 
paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section for compliance period i-2, in 
RIN-gallons.

    (ii) For each day beginning April 1 through December 31, calculate 
the

[[Page 27023]]

holdings-to-obligation percentage as follows:

HTOPd = {([Sigma]D6RINd)a/
[([Sigma]CNV_RVOi-1)a + 
([Sigma]CNV_DEFi-1)a]{time}  * 100

Where:

HTOPd = The holdings-to-obligation percentage is the 
percentage of separated D6 RINs a corporate affiliate group holds on 
calendar day d relative to their expected separated D6 RIN holdings 
based on the corporate affiliate group's conventional RVO for 
compliance period i-1, in percent.
d = A given calendar day.
i = The compliance period, typically expressed as a calendar year.
a = Individual corporate affiliate in a corporate affiliate group.
([Sigma]D6RINd)a = Sum of the number of 
separated D6 RINs each individual corporate affiliate a holds on 
calendar day d, in RIN gallons.
([Sigma]CNV_RVOi-1)a = Sum of the conventional 
RVOs for each individual corporate affiliate a for compliance period 
i-1 as calculated in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section, in RIN-
gallons.
([Sigma]CNV_DEFi-1)a = Sum of the conventional 
deficits for each individual corporate affiliate a as calculated in 
paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section for compliance period i-1, in 
RIN-gallons.

    (iii) As needed to calculate the holdings-to-obligation percentage 
in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(ii) of this section, calculate the 
conventional RVO for an individual corporate affiliate as follows:

CNV_RVOi = {[RFStdRF,i * (GVi + 
DVi)]--[RFStdAB,i * (GVi + 
DVi)]{time}  + ERVORF,i

Where:

CNV_RVOi = The conventional RVO for an individual 
corporate affiliate for compliance period i without deficits, in 
RIN-gallons.
i = The compliance period, typically expressed as a calendar year.
RFStdRF,i = The standard for renewable fuel for 
compliance period i determined by EPA pursuant to Sec.  80.1405, in 
percent.
RFStdAB,i = The standard for advanced biofuel for 
compliance period i determined by EPA pursuant to Sec.  80.1405, in 
percent.
GVi = The non-renewable gasoline volume, determined in 
accordance with Sec.  80.1407(b), (c), and (f), which is produced in 
or imported into the 48 contiguous states or Hawaii by an obligated 
party for compliance period i, in gallons.
DVi = The non-renewable diesel volume, determined in 
accordance with Sec.  80.1407(b), (c), and (f), which is produced in 
or imported into the 48 contiguous states or Hawaii by an obligated 
party for compliance period i, in gallons.
ERVORF,i = The sum of all renewable volume obligations 
from exporting renewable fuels, as calculated under Sec.  80.1430, 
by an obligated party for compliance period i, in RIN-gallons.

(iv) As needed to calculate the holdings-to-obligation percentage in 
paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(ii) of this section, calculate the 
conventional deficit for an individual corporate affiliate as follows:

CNV_DEFi = DRF,i--DAB,i

Where:

CNV_DEFi = The conventional deficit for an individual 
corporate affiliate for compliance period i, in RIN-gallons. If a 
conventional deficit is less than zero, use zero for conventional 
deficits in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(ii) of this section.
i = The compliance period, typically expressed as a calendar year.
DRF,i = Deficit carryover from compliance period i for 
renewable fuel, in RIN-gallons.
DAB,i = Deficit carryover from compliance period i for 
advanced biofuel, in RIN-gallons.

    (c) Exceeding the D6 RIN holding thresholds. (1) Primary threshold 
test. A non-obligated party or corporate affiliate group that does not 
contain an obligated party and that has a holdings-to-market percentage 
greater than 3.00 percent for any calendar day in a compliance period, 
as determined under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, has exceeded the 
primary threshold.
    (2) Secondary threshold test. Any party or corporate affiliate 
group required to calculate a holdings-to-obligation percentage under 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section and that has a holdings-to-obligation 
percentage greater than 130.00 percent for any calendar day in a 
compliance period, as determined under paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section, has exceeded the secondary threshold.
    (d) Alternative gasoline and diesel production volume allowance. 
Parties that must calculate the secondary threshold under paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section may use alternative gasoline and diesel 
production volumes if all the following requirements are met:
    (1) The party must have a reasonable basis for using the 
alternative production numbers (e.g., selling or acquiring a refinery 
or a shutdown of a refinery).
    (2) When substituting the alternative production volume for the 
conventional RVO volume, the party must use actual production numbers 
for any completed quarter in the compliance period and extrapolated 
production numbers for any future quarters.
    (3) The party must meet the applicable recordkeeping requirements 
of Sec.  80.1454.
    (4) The party must retain documentation of the reasonable basis and 
the calculations used and must provide these to the auditor conducting 
the attest engagement under Sec.  80.1464.
    (e) Exemption from aggregation requirements. (1) A party may claim 
exemption from the requirement to aggregate D6 RIN holdings for any 
affiliate where one or more of the following apply:
    (i) There is an absence of common trading-level control and 
information sharing with the affiliate.
    (ii) The sharing of information regarding aggregation with the 
affiliate could lead either party to violate state or Federal law, or 
the law of a foreign jurisdiction.
    (iii) The affiliate is exempt from the regulations regarding 
commodities and securities exchanges under 17 CFR 150.4(b)(7).
    (2) A party must retain detailed, explanatory documentation 
supporting its exemption and must provide this documentation to the 
attest auditor under Sec.  80.1464, and to EPA upon request. Such 
records include, but are not limited to, the following:
    (i) Documents that reflect that the parties do not have knowledge 
of the trading decisions of the other.
    (ii) Documents that demonstrate that there are developed and 
independent trading systems in place.
    (iii) Documents that demonstrate that the parties have and enforce 
written procedures to preclude each from having knowledge of, gaining 
access to, or receiving data about, trades of the other.
    (iv) Documents reflective of the risk management and other systems 
in place.
    (v) Documents that support an exemption under 17 CFR 150.4(b)(7).
    (vi) Any other documents that support the applicability of the 
exemption.

0
7. Section 80.1451 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c)(2) introductory text;
0
d. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (xviii) as paragraphs 
(c)(2)(i)(A) through (R); and
0
e. Adding new paragraphs (c)(2)(i) introductory text and (c)(2)(ii).
    The revision and additions read as follows:


Sec.  80.1451   What are the reporting requirements under the RFS 
program?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) RIN activity reports must be submitted to EPA according to the 
schedule specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this section. Each report 
must summarize RIN activities for the reporting period, separately for 
RINs

[[Page 27024]]

separated from a renewable fuel volume and RINs assigned to a renewable 
fuel volume.
    (i) For compliance periods ending on or before December 31, 2019, 
each report must include all of the following information:
* * * * *
    (ii) For compliance periods starting on or after January 1, 2020, 
each report must include all of the following information:
    (A) The submitting party's name.
    (B) The submitting party's EPA-issued company identification 
number.
    (C) Primary registration designation or compliance level for 
compliance year (e.g., ``Aggregated Refiner,'' ``Exporter,'' 
``Renewable Fuel Producer,'' ``RIN Owner Only,'' etc.).
    (D) All of the following information:
    (1) The number of current-year RINs owned at the start of the 
quarter.
    (2) The number of prior-year RINs owned at the start of the 
quarter.
    (3) The total current-year RINs purchased.
    (4) The total prior-year RINs purchased.
    (5) The total current-year RINs sold.
    (6) The total prior-year RINs sold.
    (7) The total current-year RINs retired.
    (8) The total current-year RINs retired that are invalid as defined 
in Sec.  80.1431(a).
    (9) The total prior-year RINs retired.
    (10) The total prior-year RINs retired that are invalid as defined 
in Sec.  80.1431(a).
    (11) The number of current-year RINs owned at the end of the 
quarter.
    (12) The number of prior-year RINs owned at the end of the quarter.
    (13) The number of RINs generated.
    (14) The volume of renewable fuel (in gallons) owned at the end of 
the quarter.
    (E)(1) Indicate if the submitting party or the submitting party's 
corporate affiliate group exceeded the primary threshold for any day in 
the quarter under Sec.  80.1435(c)(1). If the submitting party is in an 
affiliate group that does not contain an obligated party, and the 
affiliate group has exceeded the primary threshold, then EPA may 
publish the name and EPA-issued company identification number of the 
submitting party.
    (2) Indicate if the submitting party or the submitting party's 
corporate affiliate group exceeded the secondary threshold for any day 
in the quarter under Sec.  80.1435(c)(2). If the submitting party is an 
obligated party and has exceeded the secondary threshold or is in a 
corporate affiliate group containing an obligated party that has 
exceeded the secondary threshold, then EPA may publish the name and 
EPA-issued company identification number of the submitting party.
    (F) A list of all corporate and contractual affiliates during the 
reporting period. For each affiliate, include the identification 
information (including the EPA company ID number, if registered) and 
the affiliate type.
    (G) The RVO used to calculate D6 RIN threshold, if alternative 
gasoline and diesel production volumes were used under Sec.  
80.1435(d).
    (H) A list of contractual affiliates that had a contract with the 
party that did not result in transfer of RINs to the party during the 
reporting period.
    (I) Any additional information that the Administrator may require.
* * * * *

0
8. Section 80.1452 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c)(12); and
0
b. Adding paragraph (c)(15).
    The revision and addition read as follows:


Sec.  80.1452   What are the requirements related to the EPA Moderated 
Transaction System (EMTS)?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (12)(i) For transactions through December 31, 2019, the per gallon 
RIN price or the per-gallon price of renewable fuel with RINs included.
    (ii) For transactions on or after January 1, 2020:
    (A) For RIN buy or sell transaction types including assigned RINs, 
the per-gallon RIN price or the per-gallon price of renewable fuel with 
RINs included.
    (B) For RIN buy or sell transaction types including separated RINs, 
the per-gallon RIN price.
* * * * *
    (15) For buy or sell transactions of separated RINs on or after 
January 1, 2020, the mechanism used to purchase the RINs (e.g., spot 
market or fulfilling a term contract).
* * * * *

0
9. Section 80.1454 is amended by adding paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) and 
(u) and (v) to read as follows:


Sec.  80.1454  What are the recordkeeping requirements under the RFS 
program?

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (1) For buy or sell transactions of separated RINs, parties must 
retain records substantiating the price reported to EPA under Sec.  
80.1452.
    (2) For buy or sell transactions of separated RINs on or after 
January 1, 2020, parties must retain records demonstrating the 
transaction mechanism (e.g., spot market or fulfilling a term 
contract).
* * * * *
    (u) Requirements for recordkeeping of RIN holdings for all parties 
transacting or owning RINs. (1) Starting January 1, 2020, parties must 
retain records related to end-of-day separated D6 RIN holdings, and any 
associated calculations recorded in order to meet the RIN holdings 
requirements described in Sec.  80.1435 for a period of at least five 
years. Such records must include information related to any corporate 
affiliates, contractual affiliates, and their RIN holdings and 
calculations.
    (2) Parties must retain records related to their reports to EPA 
regarding threshold compliance under Sec. Sec.  80.1435 and 80.1451 for 
a period of at least five years.
    (v) Requirements for recordkeeping of contractual and corporate 
affiliates. (1) Parties must retain records including, but not limited 
to, the name, address, business location, contact information, and 
description of relationship, for each RIN-holding corporate affiliate 
for a period of at least five years. For the corporate affiliate group, 
a relational diagram.
    (2) Parties must retain records including, but not limited to, the 
name, address, business location, contact information, and contract or 
other agreement for each contractual affiliate for a period of at least 
five years.
    (3) If a party claims an exemption from aggregation under Sec.  
80.1435(e), the party must retain all records in support of the 
exemption for a period of at least five years and must provide these 
records to the attest auditor under Sec.  80.1464, and to EPA upon 
request.

0
10. Section 80.1464 is amended by adding paragraphs (a)(4) through (6), 
(b)(5) through (7), and (c)(3) through (5) to read as follows:


Sec.  80.1464   What are the attest engagement requirements under the 
RFS program?

    (a) * * *
    (4) RIN holdings. (i) Obtain and read copies of the RIN holdings 
calculations performed under Sec.  80.1435 for the party and any 
corporate affiliates and the applicable database, spreadsheet, or other 
documentation the party maintains.
    (ii) Select sample calculations in accordance with the guidelines 
in Sec.  80.127; compute and report as a finding the results of these 
calculations and verify that the results agree with the values reported 
to EPA.
    (iii) Identify any date(s) where the aggregated calculation 
exceeded the RIN holding threshold(s) specified in

[[Page 27025]]

Sec.  80.1435. Compute and state as a finding whether this information 
agrees with the party's reports (notification of threshold exceedance) 
to EPA.
    (5) Affiliates. Review reports and records related to corporate and 
contractual affiliates and state whether this information agrees with 
the party's reports to EPA, and report as a finding any exceptions.
    (6) Exemption. Review and confirm the existence of records 
supporting an exemption from aggregation claimed by the party under 
Sec.  80.1435(e), and report as a finding any exceptions.
    (b) * * *
    (5) RIN holdings. (i) Obtain and read copies of the RIN holdings 
calculations performed under Sec.  80.1435 for the party and any 
corporate affiliates and the applicable database, spreadsheet, or other 
documentation the party maintains.
    (ii) Select sample calculations in accordance with the guidelines 
in Sec.  80.127; compute and report as a finding the results of these 
calculations and verify that the results agree with the values reported 
to EPA.
    (iii) Identify any date(s) where the aggregated calculation 
exceeded the RIN holding threshold(s) specified in Sec.  80.1435. 
Compute and state as a finding whether this information agrees with the 
party's reports (notification of threshold exceedance) to EPA.
    (6) Affiliates. Review reports and records related to corporate and 
contractual affiliates and state whether this information agrees with 
the party's reports to EPA, and report as a finding any exceptions.
    (7) Exemption. Review and confirm the existence of records 
supporting an exemption from aggregation claimed by the party under 
Sec.  80.1435(e), and report as a finding any exceptions.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) RIN holdings. (i) Obtain and read copies of the RIN holdings 
calculations performed under Sec.  80.1435 for the party and any 
corporate affiliates and the applicable database, spreadsheet, or other 
documentation the party maintains.
    (ii) Select sample calculations in accordance with the guidelines 
in Sec.  80.127; compute and report as a finding the results of these 
calculations and verify that the results agree with the values reported 
to EPA.
    (iii) Identify any date(s) where the aggregated calculation 
exceeded the RIN holding threshold(s) specified in Sec.  80.1435. 
Compute and state as a finding whether this information agrees with the 
party's reports (notification of threshold exceedance) to EPA.
    (4) Affiliates. Review reports and records related to corporate and 
contractual affiliates and state whether this information agrees with 
the party's reports to EPA, and report as a finding any exceptions.
    (5) Exemption. Review and confirm the existence of records 
supporting an exemption from aggregation claimed by the party under 
Sec.  80.1435(e), and report as a finding any exceptions.
* * * * *

Subpart N--Additional Requirements for Gasoline-Ethanol Blends

0
11. Section 80.1503 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(vi)(B);
0
b. Removing paragraph (a)(1)(vi)(C);
0
c. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(vi)(B); and
0
d. Removing paragraphs (b)(1)(vi)(C) through (E).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  80.1503  What are the product transfer document requirements for 
gasoline-ethanol blends, gasolines, and conventional blendstocks for 
oxygenate blending subject to this subpart?

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (vi) * * *
    (B) The conspicuous statement that the gasoline being shipped 
contains ethanol and the percentage concentration of ethanol as 
described in Sec.  80.27(d)(3).
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (vi) * * *
    (B)(1) For gasoline containing less than 9 volume percent ethanol, 
the following statement: ``EX--Contains up to X% ethanol. The RVP does 
not exceed [fill in appropriate value] psi.'' The term X refers to the 
maximum volume percent ethanol present in the gasoline.
    (2) The conspicuous statement that the gasoline being shipped 
contains ethanol and the percentage concentration of ethanol as 
described in Sec.  80.27(d)(3) may be used in lieu of the statement 
required under paragraph (b)(1)(vi)(B)(1) of this section.
* * * * *

Sec.  80.1504  [Amended]

0
12. Section 80.1504 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs (f) 
and (g).

[FR Doc. 2019-11653 Filed 6-5-19; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


