Document 4JR90kM0begzeO2V0nBvJKdeQ

etband products Ex. 6 July 17, 2018 Bill Wehrum Assistant Administrator Office of Air and Radiation Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., 6101A Washington, DC 20460 Dear Assistant Administrator Wehrum: I look forward to seeing you this Friday at your offices. In advance of our meeting, I would like to provide you with more detail on the first regulatory reform recommendation I suggested in my email of June 20th. Specifically, I articulated my belief that EPA should eliminate aspects of the labeling requirements associated with the current partial waiver for El 5 that distinguish between pre-2001 and later passenger vehicles. At present, EPA's El 5 waiver under Clean Air Act 211(f)(4) only applies to 2001 and newer passenger vehicles, to the exclusion of 2000 and older passenger vehicles. Pre2001 passenger vehicles comprise only a small subset of the U.S. fleet - less than 11% of vehicles on the road by number, representing less than 7% of vehicle miles traveled.1 With each passing year there are fewer and fewer MY2000 and older vehicles on the road, and such vehicles are well beyond their useful life as defined by EPA regulations (see, e.g., 40 C.F.R. 86.1805-17). Nonetheless, EPA regulations require that E l5 pumps are labeled to clarify that El 5 cannot be used in this vanishingly small segment of vehicles. Our experience indicates that this same labeling dissuades drivers of even post-2001 vehicles for which EPA has approved E15 from using E15. In others words, legitimate consumers driving approved vehicles are "scared off' by the orange labeling technically relating to vehicles they do not even own. As a result, the very labeling intended to protect consumers and the environment is actually undermining the potential climate and other environmental benefits of E15. Given that pre-2001 vehicles are well-beyond their useful life and continuing to decline in number, EPA should remove the prohibition on use of El 5 in them and revise accordingly the E15 labeling requirements. 1See Air Improvement Resource, Inc., Analysis o fEthanol-Compatible Fleetfo r Calendar Year 2018 at 2 (Aug. 31, 2017), Exhibit 3 to Growth Energy Comments on EPA's Proposed Renewable Fuel Standard Program: Standards for 2018 and Biomass-Based Diesel Volume for 2019, Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0091. When EPA issued the first Notice o f Partial Waiver decision in 2010, EPA granted the waiver with respect to MY2007 and newer light-duty motor vehicles and denied the application for MY2000 and older vehicles. 76 Fed. Reg. at 68,095. EPA deferred a decision on the applicability o f a waiver to MY2001 -2006 light-duty motor vehicles to await additional test data. Id. Later, in 2011, EPA extended the waiver to MY2001 through MY2006 light-duty motor vehicles when additional test data became available for those model years. 76 Fed. Reg. at 4,662. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00183735-00001 esanol products c/ July 17, 2018 Page 2 EPA may accomplish this end by a number of means. For example, in the context of extending the 1 pound RVP waiver to E l5, EPA could determine that E l5 is substantially similar to E10 certification fuel, thus obviating the need for an E l5 waiver under the statute. In conjunction with such a determination, EPA could adjust its misfueling regulations to simply prohibit use of E15 in non-passenger vehicles and non-road engines.2 In the alternative, if EPA were to issue a new El 5 waiver without an RVP condition, the new waiver should remove the prohibition on use of El 5 in 2000 and older passenger vehicles because the Section 211(f)(4) waiver analysis only applies "over the useful life of the motor vehicle." 42 U.S.C. 7545(f)(4). EPA could then adjust its misfueling regulations accordingly. Under either scenario, given the small number of 2000 and older passenger vehicles on the road and the fact that they are well-beyond their useful life, it is not necessary for EPA to prohibit El 5 use in such vehicles and to structure labeling and other misfueling requirements around such a small, increasingly obsolete portion of the U.S. vehicle fleet.3 Please let us know if you have any questions on this or other issues prior to our meeting. Sincerely, Bob Casper President POET Ethanol Products 2 There are a number o f regulatory' paths to a determination that E15 is substantially similar to E10, as discussed with the Agency during Growth Energy's January 2018 meeting with Assistant Administrator Wehrum and other EPA and industry representatives. 3 Removal o f the prohibition o f use o f E l 5 in 2000 and older passenger vehicles may necessitate limited revision o f the E15 misfueling regulations to retain labeling relating to non-passenger vehicles, boats, and gasolinepowered equipment, if appropriate. HUMAN + Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00183735-00002