[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5094-5104]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00203]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 80, 280, and 281

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0448; FRL-10015-80-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU92

E15 Fuel Dispenser Labeling and Compatibility With Underground
Storage Tanks

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA currently requires fuel dispenser labels for gasoline-
ethanol blends of greater than 10 volume percent (vol%) ethanol and up
to 15 vol% ethanol (E15). The label was designed to alert consumers to
the appropriate and lawful use of the fuel. EPA is co-proposing to
either modify the E15 label or remove the label requirement entirely
and seeking comment on whether state and local governments may be
preempted from requiring different labels on fuel dispensers. To
facilitate the proper storage of E15 in underground storage tank
systems (USTs), EPA is proposing to modify the UST regulations to grant
certain allowances for compatibility demonstration for storage of
ethanol blends. EPA is also proposing compatibility requirements for
future UST installations or component replacements that would ensure
compatibility with higher blends of ethanol.

DATES:
    Comments: Comments must be received on or before April 19, 2021.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information
collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or
before February 18, 2021.
    Public Hearing: EPA will announce the public hearing information
for this proposal in a supplemental Federal Register document.

ADDRESSES: You may send your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2020-0448, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2020-0448 in the subject line of the message.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Air Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery or Courier (by scheduled appointment only):
EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center's hours of
operations are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-Friday (except Federal
Holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For
the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our
staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are closed to the public,
with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19.
Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. We encourage the public to
submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov or email, as there may
be a delay in processing mail and faxes. Hand deliveries and couriers
may be received by scheduled appointment only. For further information
on EPA Docket Center services and the current status, please visit us
online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local area
health departments, and our Federal partners so that we can respond
rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions regarding the E15 fuel
dispenser labeling provisions of this proposed action, contact Lauren
Michaels, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and
Standards Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood
Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For questions regarding the E15
compatibility with underground storage tanks provisions of this
proposed action, contact Elizabeth McDermott, Office of Underground
Storage Tanks, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this proposed rule are those
involved with the sale of gasoline. Potentially affected categories
include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Examples of potentially
       Category         NAICS \1\ code          affected entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.............  111, 112........  Agriculture (crop and animal
                                          production).
Industry.............  31-33...........  Manufacturing.
Industry.............  42, 44-45, 72     Commercial (wholesale trade,
                        (excluding 447).  retail trade, accommodation,
                                          and food services).
Industry.............  447.............  Retail motor fuel sales.
Industry.............  481, 483-486,     Transportation (air, water,
                        48811.            truck, transit, pipeline, and
                                          airport operations).
Industry.............  5171, 2211......  Communications and Utilities
                                          (wired telecommunications
                                          carriers, electric power
                                          generation, transmission, and
                                          distribution).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
proposed action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now
aware could potentially be affected by this proposed action. Other
types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. To
determine whether your entity would be affected by this proposed
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. Purpose of This Action
II. E15 Fuel Dispenser Labeling Revisions
    A. Background on the E15 Label
    B. E15 in the Market
    C. Proposed Changes to the E15 Labeling Requirement
    D. Request for Public Comment on E15 Labeling Preemption
Considerations
III. E15 Compatibility With Underground Storage Tanks
    A. Background on Underground Storage Tank Compatibility
    B. Proposed Changes to the UST Compatibility Requirements
    C. Updates to State Program Approval Requirements
    D. Overview of Estimated Costs
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) and
1 CFR part 51
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
V. Statutory Authority

I. Purpose of This Action

    This action proposes modifications to EPA regulations under the
Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) relating to the sale and distribution of gasoline-ethanol blends
containing greater than 10 volume percent (vol%) ethanol and up to 15
vol% ethanol (E15). Recently, EPA has taken actions to provide
additional opportunity for E15 within the fuels marketplace. We are
proposing two sets of regulatory changes to further that end. The first
proposes modifications to EPA's E15 fuel dispenser labeling
requirement. The second proposes changes to EPA's Underground Storage
Tank (UST) regulations regarding compatibility with gasoline-ethanol
blends.

II. E15 Fuel Dispenser Labeling Revisions

    This section discusses our proposed revisions to the E15 label,
under the CAA.

A . Background on the E15 Label

    In 2010 and 2011, in response to requests for a waiver from CAA
section 211(f)(1), EPA granted two partial waivers for use of E15 \1\
under CAA section 211(f)(4).\2\ These waivers were

partial in that they apply to model year (MY) 2001 and newer light-duty
motor vehicles and do not apply to MY2000 and older light-duty motor
vehicles, all heavy-duty gasoline engines and vehicles, all highway and
off-highway motorcycles, and all nonroad products. Per CAA section
211(f)(4), EPA evaluated whether the use of E15 would cause or
contribute to emissions failures over the useful life of all vehicles,
engines, and nonroad equipment, and determined that the use of E15 in
MY2000 and older vehicles, heavy-duty gasoline engines and vehicles,
and highway and off-highway motorcycles could cause these motor
vehicles to exceed their emissions standards. EPA also found that the
use of E15 in nonroad products could cause emissions exceedances as
well as durability and materials compatibility issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For purposes of this preamble, E15 refers to gasoline-
ethanol blended fuels that contain greater than 10 vol% and no more
than 15 vol% ethanol content.
    \2\ These partial waivers are collectively referred to as ``the
E15 partial waivers.'' 75 FR 68094 (November 4, 2010), 76 FR 4662
(January 26, 2011). The 2010 waiver applied to MY2007 and newer
light duty motor vehicles. The 2011 waiver applied to MY2001-2006
light duty motor vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the partial waivers apply only to MY2001 and newer light-
duty motor vehicles, EPA promulgated regulations under CAA section
211(c) (referred to as the Misfueling Mitigation Rule or MMR) to
mitigate the potential for E15 to be used to fuel vehicles, engines,
and equipment for which E15 has not been approved for introduction into
commerce.\3\ Those regulations were needed to implement EPA's
affirmative determinations that the use of E15 in MY2000 and older
light-duty motor vehicles, all heavy-duty gasoline engines and
vehicles, all on- and off-highway motorcycles, and all nonroad products
would cause or contribute to the impairment of those vehicles' and
engines' emission controls and harm public health from increases in
regulated emissions. The regulations include a prohibition on the use
of E15 in MY2000 and older light-duty motor vehicles, all heavy-duty
gasoline engines and vehicles, all on- and off-highway motorcycles, and
all nonroad products. To implement this prohibition, EPA promulgated
several misfueling mitigation requirements in the MMR, a key aspect
being that E15 fuel dispensers must have a specific label when a retail
station or wholesale-purchaser consumer chooses to sell E15. The label
was designed to alert consumers to the appropriate and lawful use of
the fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 76 FR 44406 (July 25, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The E15 label was designed in coordination with consumer labeling
experts at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC); FTC also requires the
labeling of fuel dispensers in certain circumstances.\4\ EPA worked
with FTC to develop the E15 label and to ensure consistency between
EPA's and FTC's labels for higher level gasoline-ethanol blends such as
E85 (gasoline ethanol blends containing up to 83 percent ethanol). By
regulation, EPA's current E15 label can be used in lieu of FTC's label
for E15.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ FTC's regulations found at 16 CFR 306.10 (Automotive Fuel
Rating Posting) require fuel dispenser labels for gasoline-ethanol
fuel blends containing greater than 10 percent ethanol. The FTC
regulations provide for an exemption for retailers that utilize
EPA's label under 40 CFR 80.1501. See 16 CFR 306.10(a).
    \5\ As described later in this proposal, if we were to remove
our label requirement under 40 CFR 80.1501, absent additional action
from FTC, retailers would be required to use FTC's label for ethanol
blends containing between 10 and 15 percent ethanol, per 16 CFR part
306.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The E15 label requirement was implemented as an integral component
of EPA's misfueling mitigation program. First, the E15 partial waivers
include a waiver condition that fuel and fuel additive manufacturers
must submit a misfueling mitigation plan (MMP) with provisions to
implement all reasonable precautions to address potential misfueling,
including ensuring the use of a fuel dispenser label.\6\ The waiver
conditions articulated in the E15 partial waivers provide that the
label must convey the following information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 75 FR 68094 (November 4, 2010), 76 FR 4662 (January 26,
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The fuel being dispensed contains 15% ethanol maximum;
     The fuel is for use in only MY2001 and newer gasoline
cars, MY2001 and newer light-duty trucks, and all flex-fuel vehicles;
     Federal law prohibits the use of the fuel in other
vehicles and engines; and
     Using E15 in vehicles and engines not approved for use
might damage those vehicles and engines.
    As discussed above, the MMR also implements a label requirement for
retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers, in addition to the
requirements under the waiver conditions for fuel and fuel additive
manufacturers. The MMR label requirement is specified in 40 CFR 80.1501
and requires the same basic elements as required under the E15 partial
waivers' label requirement. Most recently, the 2019 E15 ``substantially
similar'' definition for E15 requires that fuel and fuel additive
manufacturers must submit a misfueling mitigation plan with provisions
to implement all reasonable precautions to address potential
misfueling.\7\ Thus, the E15 label is currently incorporated and
required under 40 CFR 80.1501, our CAA section 211(f)(1)
``substantially similar'' definition for E15, and the CAA section
211(f)(4) E15 partial waivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 84 FR 26980, 27021 (June 10, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. E15 in the Market

    In 2019, EPA extended the CAA section 211(h)(4) 1-psi volatility
waiver to gasoline-ethanol blends containing between 9 and 15 percent
ethanol. This has expanded the opportunity for E15 to be sold during
the summer season.
    In the years since the 2010 and 2011 E15 partial CAA section
211(f)(4) waivers were granted, the number of retail stations offering
E15 has grown, spurred in part by the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) biofuel infrastructure partnership (BIP) program in
2016-18 \8\ and the industry-sponsored Prime the Pump program, that
helped provide funding for retail station upgrades. As of October 2019,
there are an estimated 1,809 stations registered as selling E15
(representing only about one percent of all retail stations).\9\ Figure
III-1 shows the growth of E15 stations since 2012, as well as the
percentage of E15 stations of all retail stations in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership, https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/energy-programs/bip/index;
Prime the Pump press release, https://growthenergy.org/2018/06/20/growth-energy-prime-the-pump-success-driving-ethanol-demand.
    \9\ Email from Growth Energy to EPA, October 9, 2019, ``Growth
Energy Higher Blend Infrastructure.'' Available in the docket for
this action.

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JA21.029

    The opportunities for misfueling have changed since 2011 as well.
Over time, the number of light-duty vehicles on the road that are older
than MY2001 have decreased due to normal fleet turnover, resulting in a
corresponding decrease in the number of miles traveled by those light-
duty vehicles.\10\ At the same time, we have no indication that
anything has changed for the other sectors (i.e., nonroad vehicles,
engines, and equipment, motorcycles, and heavy-duty vehicles). We
continue to believe there are millions of such products in use that
could potentially be misfueled on E15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ We received comments in rulemakings suggesting that there
are still vehicles newer than MY2000 for which manufacturers'
owner's manuals continue to include warnings against E15 use despite
E15 being allowable for introduction into commerce in those vehicles
under EPA's regulations. See discussion at 84 FR 26980, 27010 (June
10, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Proposed Changes to the E15 Labeling Requirement

    EPA has received comments from some stakeholders on other actions
suggesting that the existing E15 label is no longer necessary and
simply interferes with additional growth of E15 in the marketplace.\11\
These commenters suggest that removal of the label or changes to the
color of the label or language used on the label would increase lawful
use of E15 in MY2001 and newer light-duty vehicles. Other stakeholders
have suggested that the growth in E15 at retail stations exacerbates
concerns over misfueling of vehicles and equipment not designed for it,
and suggest that the current label is no longer explicit enough about
what vehicles and engines cannot use E15 making it insufficient to
protect against misfueling.\12\ These commenters suggested that EPA
should solicit input on the size, design, and placement of the label on
the dispenser, and other characteristics of the label to more clearly
communicate the fuel's ethanol content to consumers.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., Comments from Growth Energy (Docket Item No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0227-0053) and Renewable Fuels Association (Docket
Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0227-0037). While these represent the most
recent comments received on this issue, we have included all
relevant comments in the docket for this action. While these
comments often include many aspects of E15 use, only comments
relating to the label are considered relevant for this NPRM.
    \12\ See, e.g., Comments from National Marine Manufacturers
Association (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0775-0534) and
Petroleum Marketers Association of America (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2018-0227-0083). While these represent the most recent comments
received on this issue, we have included all relevant comments in
the docket for this action. While the comments often address many
aspects of E15 use, only those comments related to the label
requirement are considered relevant for this NPRM.
    \13\ See, e.g., Comments from National Marine Manufacturers
Association (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0775-0534).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our proposed action to modify or eliminate the E15 label
requirement would rely on our CAA section 211(c) authority to control
or prohibit fuel. Under CAA section 211(c)(1), EPA may issue
regulations to ``control or prohibit the manufacture, introduction into
commerce, offering for sale, or sale'' of any fuel or fuel additive
whose emissions products may cause or contribute to air pollution
``which may be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare,'' or whose emissions products ``will impair to a significant
degree the performance of any emission control device or system which
is in general use.'' In the MMR, we found that E15 would significantly
impair the emission control systems used in MY2000 and older light-duty
motor vehicles, all heavy-duty gasoline engines and vehicles, all
highway and off-highway motorcycles, and all nonroad products. This
misfueling could result in increases in hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide,
nitrous oxide, particulate matter, and air toxics emissions. Any action
EPA takes to modify or remove the label would need to consider this
finding.
    We currently have no information before us that would indicate that
E15, if used in MY2000 and older light-duty motor vehicles, all heavy-
duty gasoline engines and vehicles, all highway and off-highway
motorcycles, and all nonroad products, would no longer cause such
damage to emission control systems. However, in the intervening years
since the promulgation of the MMR and the label requirement, the
vehicle fleet turnover toward newer light-duty vehicles, and the
feedback

from stakeholders have led us to reevaluate the E15 label at this time.
    The current label is 3 inches by 5 inches in black text on an
orange background and includes the following language:
     The word ``ATTENTION,'' diagonally across the upper right
corner of the label;
     The word ``E15'' at the top of the label;
     The ethanol content: ``Up to 15% ethanol'' below the word
E15;
     The words and symbols ``Use only in  2001 and
newer passenger vehicles  Flex-fuel vehicles''; and
     The final two sentences: ``Don't use in other vehicles,
boats, or gasoline-powered equipment. It may cause damage and is
prohibited by Federal law.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ An image of the existing label is available in the
memorandum ``Potential Label Changes,'' available in the docket for
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, we are co-proposing two options with respect to the
E15 label. Under the first option, we are proposing modifications to
the label intended to provide additional clarity to consumers and
decrease confusion. Under the second option, we are proposing to remove
the label entirely.
1. Potential Modifications to the E15 Label
    Our first co-proposal is to modify the existing E15 label,
including:
     Removing the ``Attention'' stripe along the upper right
corner of the label.
     Removing the phrase ``E15'' from the label, while
including the language ``contains up to 15% percent ethanol''.
     Revising the language ``Use only in'' to ``Safe for use
in''.
     Revising the language ``Don't use in'' to ``Avoid use
in''.
     Revising the format of the word ``prohibited'' such that
it is not in bold and italicized type.
    We additionally propose modifications to the label in accordance
with our existing alternative labels. At this time, there are two
approved alternative labels for E15. One label includes the term ``or''
in between ``2001 and newer passenger vehicles'' and ``flex fuel
vehicles.'' We believe the inclusion of ``or'' clarifies that both
MY2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles and flex fuel vehicles can
permissibly use E15. The other approved alternative label includes
``motorcycles'' in the list of vehicles and engines in which E15 use is
prohibited. Our first co-proposal proposes these modifications to the
E15 label as well since we believe they more clearly convey which
vehicles and engines can lawfully use E15.
    We believe these modifications to the label would reduce confusion
about the vehicles in which E15 can be used while also alerting
consumers to the vehicles and engines in which E15 should not be used.
We note that these modifications would also continue to comply with the
requirements under the existing E15 partial waivers and thus would not
require modifications to them.
    Finally, we propose a modification to the colors utilized on the
label. Consistent with the FTC fuel labels, we selected the orange
color for our E15 label requirement in 2011; however, we recognize that
another color may be better suited for the label. Some stakeholders
\15\ have suggested a blue and white label, instead of the orange label
we currently use. The proposed regulatory text modifies the color of
the label to a blue header, with white text, and white body with black
text.\16\ We alternatively propose to maintain the current orange and
black label color design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See, e.g., Comments from Growth Energy (Docket Item No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0448-0083).
    \16\ We have provided mock-ups showing potential modifications
to the label that might result from this proposal in the memorandum,
``E15 Label Revisions,'' available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We seek comment on the proposed changes to the label, and
specifically request input on what combination of modifications to the
label would improve clarity regarding which vehicles can use E15 while
protecting vehicles and engines for which E15 use is inappropriate. We
recognize that the modifications proposed may be best implemented
together, or in some alternative combination that does not include all
of the proposed modifications. We specifically request information on
any studies (e.g., public survey or focus group studies) or information
on consumer interaction with the label.
2. Potential Removal of the E15 Label Requirement
    In the alternative, our second co-proposal is to remove the E15
label entirely. Selection of this option could also result in the
elimination of the E15 survey requirement because it is currently
required in order to verify that E15 fuel dispensers are labeled
consistent with EPA's regulatory requirements, and would arguably no
longer be necessary if the labeling requirement were removed.\17\ Some
stakeholders have suggested that removing the label would encourage the
use of E15 by consumers who can lawfully use E15 but who do not do so
because they are confused by the label.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ If we do remove the E15 label, we are not proposing to
remove the Product Transfer Document (PTD) language requirements
around ethanol content in gasoline-ethanol blended fuels. In
addition to informing retailers of ethanol content for purposes of
labeling E15 fuel dispensers, the PTD language requirements for
ethanol are also necessary to identify which gasoline-ethanol blends
can take advantage of the 1-psi waiver for RVP compliance.
    \18\ See Comments from Growth Energy (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2015-0202-0129).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that, regardless of our proposal to remove the E15 label,
the prohibition on the use of E15 in MY2000 and older light duty
vehicles and all nonroad engines and equipment as codified at 40 CFR
80.1504 would remain in place. We continue to believe that E15, when
used in those vehicles or engines, would cause or contribute to the
impairment of emission control systems which would, in turn, result in
negative effects on human health and welfare.
    Were EPA's E15 label requirement to be removed, we believe that
FTC's regulations would require that E15 dispensers be labeled
according to FTC's label requirements.\19\ We seek comment on the
interaction between EPA and FTC's labels, recognizing that we cannot
modify FTC's regulations in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See 16 CFR part 306 and supra notes 4&5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to completely remove the E15 label, we would need to also
remove it from the requirements under the CAA section 211(f)(4) waiver,
and likely clarify under the CAA section 211(f)(1) ``substantially
similar'' determination that the fuel dispenser label would no longer
be required. We seek comment on how to address the requirements under
the CAA section 211(f) provisions.
3. Modification to Regulations
    We note that we intend to finalize the proposed Fuels Regulatory
Streamlining Rule (``Streamlining Rule'') with an implementation date
of January 1, 2021, for most provisions, including the E15 label
requirement. Under the Streamlining Rule, we proposed to transpose
unchanged the current E15 misfueling mitigation measures from 40 CFR
part 80, subpart N, into the new 40 CFR part 1090. Since the effective
date of any final rulemaking for this action would likely be after
January 1, 2021, we would effectuate the proposed E15 label
modifications or removal of the E15 labeling requirement in 40 CFR part
1090.

D. Request for Public Comment on E15 Labeling Preemption Considerations

    Since promulgation of the MMR in 2011, EPA has also received
information from some stakeholders that confusion is caused when there
is more than one label displayed on some fuel dispensers. For this
reason, EPA additionally seeks comment regarding the ability of state
or local governments to require labeling of E15 pump dispensers.
    As stated in the MMR,\20\ EPA's authority to ``control or
prohibit'' specifications for E15 pump dispenser labels is provided by
CAA section 211(c)(1). Under CAA section 211(c)(4)(A), a state or local
government may not adopt or enforce differing controls or prohibitions
respecting labeling of E15 fuel dispensers if ``for purposes of motor
vehicle emission control.'' \21\ In the MMR, we also stated that we
would evaluate questions regarding potential E15 pump dispenser labels
preemption matters on a case-specific basis.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See 74 FR 44406, 44431-32 (July 25, 2011).
    \21\ Except that under CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(i), states other
than California may prescribe and enforce non-identical measures if
they seek and obtain EPA approval of State Implementation Plan
revisions containing such control measures.
    \22\ See 74 FR 44432 (July 25, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Aside from the express preemption provided by CAA section
211(c)(4)(A), a state or local control for fuels or fuel additives may
be implicitly preempted under the supremacy clause of the U.S.
Constitution where the state requirement conflicts with Federal law by
preventing compliance with the federal requirement, or by standing as
an obstacle to accomplishment of the Federal objectives. Therefore, a
state or local requirement respecting E15 pump label dispensers that is
not expressly preempted under CAA section 211(c)(4)(A) nevertheless may
be preempted if it meets the criteria for this constitutional conflict
preemption.
    In this action, we seek comment on whether there are certain types
of labels that may be conflict-preempted from use. We encourage
commenters to include examples of other labels they have observed that
may raise such preemption questions and legal analysis to support their
positions, to the extent feasible.

III. E15 Compatibility With Underground Storage Tanks

    This section discusses our proposed revisions regarding
compatibility with USTs.

A. Background on Underground Storage Tank Compatibility

    As of 2020, EPA regulates over half-a-million UST systems that
contain petroleum or hazardous substances. EPA's Office of Underground
Storage Tanks was formed in response to the discovery in the early
1980s that thousands of USTs had leaked and contaminated groundwater
supplies in the U.S. USTs form a crucial part of our country's fueling
infrastructure. It is important for USTs to be constructed, maintained,
and operated in a manner so that petroleum and other regulated
substances are stored safely. We developed the UST regulation in 1988
to help owners and operators meet those goals, and a critical part of
the regulation included the requirement for UST systems to be
compatible with the substance stored. Incompatibility between fuels
stored and UST system materials can result in equipment or components
such as tanks, piping, gaskets, or seals becoming brittle, elongated,
thinner, or swollen when compared with their condition when first
installed. When this occurs, the UST system may fail to contain the
regulated substance resulting in a release to the environment and
possibly a failure to detect the release.
    The U.S. fuel supply has changed significantly since 1988 and use
of biofuels has grown rapidly. We understand that the chemical and
physical properties of biobased fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel,
can be more degrading to certain UST system materials than petroleum
alone. Changes in the fuel supply have caused unintended consequences
to UST systems, including equipment failure and releases to the
environment. As a result, in 2015 we revised the UST regulation and
required owners and operators to provide additional notification,
demonstration, and recordkeeping when storing fuel blends, such as
those with more than 10 percent ethanol or more than 20 percent
biodiesel.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See 80 FR 41566 (July 15, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The use of biofuels has continued to grow since 2015. As described
in Section II.B, in June 2019, we modified fuel regulations that allow
E15 to utilize the 1-psi volatility waiver, which allows for increased
E15 sale in the summer. That final rule means more UST owners and
operators may opt to store and sell E15 at gas stations and other
fueling facilities. E15 is now used in 30 states at 1,809 stations.
Because of this continued growth of biofuels in the U.S., this action
proposes to revise the 2015 UST regulation to grant certain allowances
for compatibility demonstration and make it less burdensome for UST
owners and operators to meet the current requirements. In addition,
this action proposes a requirement that UST systems installed, or UST
equipment and components replaced, must be constructed with equipment
and components compatible with ethanol blends up to 100 percent. This
requirement would become effective one year after the effective date of
the final rule.
    This proposal will make it easier for owners and operators to meet
compatibility requirements with their current infrastructure, if unable
to demonstrate compatibility. The proposal will also help ensure the
future national UST infrastructure is compatible with a broad range of
biofuels that come to market so service station owners can offer more
choices to consumers. The fuel supply in the U.S. is constantly
evolving; because future needs are somewhat unknown, we see value in
promoting UST systems that can safely store a broad range of potential
emerging fuels such as higher-level ethanol blends.

B. Proposed Changes to the UST Compatibility Requirements

1. Allowance--For Secondary Containment When Unableo To Demonstrate
Compatibility
    In the preamble to the 2015 UST regulation, we clarified that
implementing agencies could allow use of secondary containment in lieu
of being able to demonstrate compatibility of all UST system equipment
and components required by the regulation. EPA had not previously
allowed this but is proposing to do so now in this action. Owners and
operators of UST systems already in existence one year after the
effective date of this rule who cannot determine compatibility (e.g.,
cannot find installation documentation) for all equipment and
components are not required to demonstrate compatibility if the UST
systems have secondarily contained tanks and piping (including safe
suction piping) and use interstitial monitoring. This will still
sufficiently protect the environment because secondary containment will
contain a leak from the primary containment of the tank and piping, and
interstitial monitoring will likely detect a leak before regulated
substances reach the environment.

    As of 2020, all states \24\ require secondary containment for new
and replaced UST systems, along with the requirement for interstitial
monitoring to detect potential releases. Most states' requirements
target new and replaced UST systems, which avoids added expenses for
owners and operators to retrofit or replace existing systems to meet
the requirements. Many states, including those in New England, New
York, California, and Florida, required full or partial secondary
containment prior to Congress passing Title XV, Section B of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct). This act required states receiving Federal
money under Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act to require
either secondary containment and under-dispenser containment for new
and replaced underground storage tank systems or evidence of
manufacturer and installer financial responsibility and installer
certification. By 2008, 31 states had adopted the EPAct requirement.
However, states' requirements for secondary containment and
interstitial monitoring can differ, including when required and
allowances for use of other release detection options when owners and
operators chose to install secondary containment prior to it being
required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ States includes all 50 states, 5 territories, and the
District of Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's database, populated with publicly available information
gathered from the individual state UST programs, helped us understand
the number of UST systems nationally that are secondarily contained and
where owners and operators are using interstitial monitoring to detect
releases from their UST systems. Using state-supplied data, we
identified 23 states that provide data on the number of UST systems
with both double-wall tanks and double-wall piping. These secondarily
contained systems should generally be capable of using interstitial
monitoring for release detection, although some may currently use
another method. This means that approximately 24 percent of the 225,000
USTs in these 23 states should be able to use secondary containment
with interstitial monitoring, if they have compatible equipment but are
currently unable to demonstrate it. The percentage is likely similar
across the nation, but we seek comment on this issue.
    Owners and operators should be aware that only leaks from equipment
or components inside secondary containment will be contained. Fuel
spills may still occur if other UST system components become non-
functioning due to incompatibility since the equipment or component is
not inside secondary containment. For example, if spill prevention
equipment (i.e., spill bucket) fails due to incompatibility, small
spills from the delivery hose will not be contained by the tank and
piping secondary containment. We encourage owners and operators to
replace equipment that they cannot demonstrate as compatible if the
equipment is accessible from ground level and replaceable with minimal
investment.
2. Allowance--For Already Compatible Tanks and Piping
    We identified equipment for which UST owners and operators would
not need to demonstrate compatibility. Based on manufacturer statements
and certification by independent testing laboratories, certain
categories of equipment are known to be compatible with higher blends
of ethanol. We believe that steel and fiberglass tanks manufactured
after July 2005 are compatible with higher blends of ethanol fuels.
This means that owners and operators will not need to demonstrate
compatibility for these tanks. Likewise, we understand that all
fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) piping is compatible with higher
blends of ethanol fuel, so owners will not need to demonstrate
compatibility for any FRP piping.
    For other equipment, we are unaware of a fixed date or fixed
category in which all equipment by any manufacturer is known to be
compatible. As such, other than for the tank and piping items
identified earlier in this section, owners and operators must adhere to
the requirement in 40 CFR 280.32 to demonstrate compatibility.
    However, we understand that some models of many equipment and
components that must be demonstrated compatible were already compatible
with higher blends of ethanol decades before these blends became
common. UST owners and operators may already have this equipment
installed. If they can demonstrate compatibility of certain existing
equipment, they will not need to replace all of their equipment to
demonstrate compatibility with higher blends of ethanol.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See https://flexfuelforward.com/flexcheck.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, we understand that the following UST system equipment
and components were available after the 1988 UST regulation and are
compatible with higher blends of ethanol:

 Unlined steel single-wall tanks
 Unlined steel double-wall tanks

    In addition, we understand that the following UST system equipment
and components were available in a higher ethanol compatible version
from at least one manufacturer as early as the years listed below. Many
owners and operators might have a compatible piece of equipment, which
can be confirmed and demonstrated as compatible by verifying
documentation associated with the equipment manufacturer and
installation.

 Single-wall fiberglass tanks: 1995
 Double-wall fiberglass tanks: 1990
 Flexible piping: 2011
 Fiberglass containment sumps: 1995
 Pumping equipment: 2010
 Spill equipment: 2015
 Release detection equipment: 2006
 Overfill equipment: 2006
    We are requesting comment on the accuracy of this information and
seek additional information on this matter.
3. Compatibility Requirements for New Installations and Replacements
    We are proposing that owners and operators storing motor fuel used
in over-the-road vehicles must ensure that new or replaced UST system
equipment and components, including pipe dopes and sealants, are
compatible with ethanol blends up to 100 percent. This applies
regardless of whether the UST system currently stores or will store
ethanol blends. This includes UST systems storing over-the-road diesel
because service stations may in the future change to storing gasoline
with higher blends of ethanol. However, we believe USTs storing fuel
for emergency power generators and other off-road fuel used (such as
fuel for construction equipment) should be exempt from this
requirement. We seek comment on other potentially applicable
exemptions. If an owner or operator is replacing specific equipment or
components, such as a submersible turbine pump or containment sump,
then only that replacement must be compatible with ethanol blends up to
100 percent. For entirely new UST system installations or replacements,
the entire system must be compatible with ethanol blends up to 100
percent. We would require UST owners and operators to retain
compatibility documentation for all new system equipment and
components, including pipe dope, sealants, and gaskets, which are a
common source of incompatibility.
    This proposed requirement would become effective one year after the
effective date of the final regulation. Since UST systems typically
stay in the ground for decades--40 percent of active USTs are more than
30 years old--transitioning to compatible UST

systems for emerging fuels can be very difficult. Implementing this
requirement now will help ensure future fuel storage infrastructure can
reliably store a larger variety of fuels. One hundred percent ethanol
compatible material is readily available on the market today for all
UST system equipment and components. The additional cost of a fully
ethanol compatible system would be relatively minimal as a percentage
of total cost of installation. This additional up-front investment
would also avoid potentially significant upgrade costs, if future fuels
contain greater volumes of ethanol or other alcohols.

C. Updates to State Program Approval Requirements

    EPA has long recognized that, because of the size and diversity of
the regulated community, state and local governments are in the best
position to oversee USTs. State and local authorities are closer to the
situation in their domain and are in the best position to set
priorities. The 2015 state program approval (SPA) regulation in 40 CFR
part 281 sets criteria state UST programs must meet to receive EPA's
approval to operate in lieu of the Federal UST program. The SPA
regulation sets performance criteria states must meet to be considered
no less stringent than the Federal UST regulation and provides
requirements for states to have adequate enforcement.
    Much of the responsibility for implementing these proposed changes
falls to state agencies. EPA will work with states to update their UST
regulations and will support them in achieving state program approval.
These proposed changes to the 2015 UST regulation, when final, will
initially only apply to UST facilities in Indian country and in states
that do not have SPA (owners and operators in states that do not have
SPA must comply with the Federal UST regulation and their state
regulations). For states that do have SPA these proposed changes will
not apply until each state undertakes its own rulemaking. As of the
date of publication of this notice, 15 \26\ states do not have state
program approval. For a list of states with state program approval, see
www.epa.gov/ust/state-underground-storage-tank-ust-programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ States and territories without SPA--AK, AZ, CA, FL, IL, MI,
NJ, NY, OH, WI, WY and AS, GU, CNMI, VI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing to change the 2015 SPA regulation (40 CFR part
281) and make it consistent with these proposed revisions of the
compatibility requirements of the 2015 UST regulation (40 CFR part
280). Specifically, EPA proposes that states require UST systems that
store motor fuel for use in over-the-road vehicles be compatible with
ethanol blends up to 100 percent when a new system is installed or when
equipment and components are replaced. Since this is a more stringent
requirement than what EPA required in its 2015 UST regulation, states
would need to have or adopt this additional provision to be considered
no less stringent than the corresponding Federal requirements.
    States will have three years from the effective date of a final
rule to submit to EPA a revised SPA application, including this change
to their states' UST regulations. Since many states have recently been
through this SPA application approval process for the 2015 UST
regulation, EPA intends to make this additional modification to SPA an
expedited process. EPA welcomes additional feedback on this.

D. Overview of Estimated Costs

    The regulatory changes proposed today would provide cost savings to
UST owners and operators as well as impose costs, and EPA is seeking
comments on both.
1. Allowances--For Secondary Containment When Unable To Demonstrate
Compatibility and for Already Compatible Tanks and Piping
    The allowance described in this proposal for UST systems with
secondary containment using interstitial monitoring when unable to
demonstrate compatibility will provide owners and operators cost
savings. Under this allowance, UST system owners and operators seeking
to store ethanol blends up to 100 percent will not have to upgrade
certain equipment and components simply because they are unable to
demonstrate compatibility for that equipment and those components. As
described in this preamble it is EPA's understanding that approximately
24 percent of all UST systems should be able to use secondary
containment with interstitial monitoring, if they have compatible
equipment but are currently unable to demonstrate it. This could mean
that a significant portion of all facilities that seek to store higher
blends of ethanol but are unable to demonstrate may not have to replace
certain equipment. A rough estimate of replacement cost avoidance from
this allowance can be made from informal estimates EPA has gathered
from industry and regulators:
     Replacing tanks: $150,000 per tank.
     Replacing piping: $150,000 per facility.
     Ancillary equipment upgrades (most variable and
configuration dependent): $1,000 $10,000 per UST system.
    In addition, the other allowance proposed in this regulation to
eliminate the requirement to demonstrate compatibility for all steel
and fiberglass tanks manufactured after July 2005, and all FRP piping
should provide some additional cost savings. EPA is seeking to verify
this understanding and is looking for additional information or data to
better understand the cost implications of today's proposal.
2. Compatibility Requirements for New Installations and Replacements
    This proposal imposes compatibility requirements for up to 100
percent ethanol for certain (i.e., storing motor fuel used in over-the
road-vehicles) new installations and replacements of UST system
equipment and components regardless of whether the UST system currently
stores or will store ethanol blends. This means, for example that an
UST owner and operator needing to replace equipment such as a
containment sump or spill bucket must make that replacement with
equipment that is compatible with up to 100 percent ethanol. EPA
understands that the marginal cost for any new UST system equipment or
components compatible with up to 100 percent ethanol is minimal
compared with the overall project costs (i.e., design, construction,
installation etc). EPA estimates the additional costs for purchasing up
to 100 percent compatible equipment or components could be
significantly less than 5% of the overall project costs and is seeking
comment on this estimate. Some major UST components and equipment
manufactured today (e.g., tanks, piping) are all already compatible
with up to 100 percent ethanol so there is no cost increase to
accommodate the higher blends for those purchases. However, there is
certain equipment where the cost of the up to 100 percent ethanol
compatible model may be higher (e.g., overfill device).
    EPA is seeking to verify this understanding and is looking for
additional information or data to better understand the cost
implications of this action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

    This action is a significant regulatory action because it raises
novel legal or policy issues. Nevertheless, after reviewing information
regarding this action, the Office of Management and Budget waived
review of this action.

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

    This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771
regulatory action. We seek comment on any burdens and costs associated
with this rulemaking.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document
that EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2655.01. You can
find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly
summarized here.
    This proposed regulation would either change the existing, approved
E15 label (approved under OMB Control Number 2060-0675)--or remove it
entirely. Should the E15 label be modified, then there would be a cost
associated with affixing the amended label to pumps from which fuel is
dispensed. We have also allowed that some parties may need to purchase
labels. Parties required to affix labels are typically parties who own
or operate retail stations or wholesale-purchases consumer facilities.
Should the E15 labeling requirement be removed entirely, then there
would no longer be any E15 label required and we would anticipate a
cost savings to industry.
    This proposed regulation would also require owners and operators of
underground storage tanks (UST) to maintain records of compatibility at
new UST installations and replacements storing motor fuels used in over
the road transportation. This new requirement is only intended for UST
systems storing motor fuel used in over-the-road transportation, not
for UST systems fueling emergency power generators nor other UST
systems used for off-road purposes such as construction equipment. In
the existing regulation, owners and operators of USTs storing product
containing more than 10 percent ethanol or more than 20 percent
biodiesel are required to maintain records to demonstrate compatibility
with the product stored. This action proposes to grant certain
allowances for this current UST system compatibility demonstration
requirement, which reduces information collection burden for some UST
systems. The existing requirements for owners and operators of USTs are
under OMB Control Number 2060-0068.
    Respondents/affected entities: Retailers and wholesale purchaser-
consumers who dispense E15; owners and operators of UST systems.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory under 40 CFR part 80,
subpart N, (E15 labeling)--and 40 CFR part 280, subparts B and C; and
40 CFR part 281, subpart C (UST).
    Estimated number of respondents: 1,801 retail and wholesale
purchaser-consumers for the E15 labeling provisions and 10,331 owners
and operators for the UST provisions.
    Frequency of response: Once, as needed and on occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 37 hours (per year) for the E15 labeling
and 2,799 hours (per year) for USTs. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $3,785 (per year) for E15 labeling, which
includes $2,952 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs;
and $65,515 for UST, which includes $0 annualized capital or operation
& maintenance costs.
    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.
    Submit your comments on EPA's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to EPA using the docket for this
action. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting
``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using
the search function. Since OMB is required to make a decision
concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must
receive comments no later than February 18, 2021. EPA will respond to
any ICR-related comments in the final rule.

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. The
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are retail
motor fuels firms and small government jurisdictions.
    With respect to the E15 fuel dispenser label portion of this
action, the proposed changes to the E15 label under option 1 of this
action do not substantively alter the regulatory requirements on
parties that make and distribute E15. The removal of the E15 label
under option 2 of this action would reduce burden on all regulated
parties that sell E15, including small entities, and therefore would
not impose any requirements on small entities.
    With respect to the E15 compatibility with underground storage
tanks provisions of this action, in EPA's 2015 UST rulemaking we
determined that less than 1 percent of potentially affected small firms
in the retail motor sector (NAICS 447) would experience an impact over
1 percent of revenues, but less than 3 percent of revenues and that no
small firms would have impacts above 3 percent of revenues.\27\ In the
2015 rulemaking we also determined that no small government
jurisdictions would be impacted at 1 percent or 3 percent of
revenues.\28\ Since this action proposes a small change to the 2015
regulation, we do not expect any significant impacts to small entities.
EPA seeks comment on any cost impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See 80 FR 41620-21 (July 15, 2015) and Section 5.4 of the
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for that action, ``Assessment Of
The Potential Costs, Benefits, And Other Impacts Of The Final
Revisions To EPA's Underground Storage Tank Regulations.''
    \28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments.
Requirements for the private sector do not exceed $100 million in any
one year.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This proposed action does not have federalism implications. The E15
label portion of this action 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. For the E15 compatibility with
underground storage tanks portion of this action, the total costs of
this proposed rule (direct compliance costs, notification costs and

state program costs) will be small. In our much larger rule in 2015
these total costs were only $9 million which is not considered to be a
substantial compliance costs under Federal requirements. Therefore, we
believe Executive Order 13132 will not apply to this rule which we
expect to have lower costs than the 2015 rule. EPA is requesting
comment on the expected costs of this proposed rule. In the spirit of
Executive Order 13132 and consistent with EPA policy to promote
communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA will
specifically solicit comment from state and local government during the
comment period.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action.

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. This action proposes to either change
EPA's existing E15 label or remove the labeling requirement entirely.
There are no additional costs for sources in the energy supply,
distribution, or use sectors.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51

    This proposed action 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). For
the E15 label portion of this action, this proposed rule maintains the
prohibition on the use of E15 in 2000 and older light duty vehicles, as
well as all motorcycles, and nonroad vehicles, engines, and equipment,
which could result in increases in emissions. For the E15 compatibility
with underground storage tanks portion of this action, EPA has
determined that this action will not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income
populations because it increases the level of environmental protection
for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population,
including any minority or low-income population.

V. Statutory Authority

    Statutory authority for the E15 label portion of this action comes
from section 211 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7545. Statutory
authority for the E15 compatibility with underground storage tanks
section of this action comes from the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act sections 9001 et seq., 42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Labeling, Motor
vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Parts 280 and 281

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Hazardous substances, Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water pollution control, Water supply.

Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR parts 80, 280, and 281 as follows:

PART 80--REGISTRATION OF FUELS 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).

0
2. Revise Sec.  80.1501 to read as follows:

Sec.  80.1501  Labeling requirements that apply to retailers and
wholesale purchaser-consumers of gasoline that contains greater than 10
volume percent ethanol and not more than 15 volume percent ethanol.

    (a) Any retailer or wholesale purchaser-consumer who sells,
dispenses, or offers for sale or dispensing E15 must affix the
following conspicuous and legible label to the fuel dispenser:

Contains up to 15% ethanol
Safe for use in
     2001 and newer passenger vehicles; or
     Flex-fuel vehicles

    Avoid use in other vehicles, motorcycles, boats, or gasoline-
powered equipment. It may cause damage and is prohibited by Federal
law.
    (b) Labels under this section must meet the following requirements
for appearance and placement:
    (1) Dimensions. The label must measure 3 and \5/8\ inches wide by 3
and \1/8\ inches high.
    (2) Placement. The label must be placed on the upper two-thirds of
each fuel dispenser where the consumer will see the label when
selecting a fuel to purchase. For dispensers with one nozzle, the label
must be placed above the button or other control used for selecting
E15, or in any other manner which clearly indicates which control is
used to select E15. For dispensers with multiple nozzles, the label
must be placed in the location that is most likely to be seen by the
consumer at the time of selection of E15.
    (3) Text. The text must be justified and the fonts and backgrounds
must be as described in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (vi) and (b)(4)(i)
through (iv) of this section.
    (i) The ethanol content: ``Contains up to 15% ethanol'' must be in
18-point, center-justified, white, Helvetica Black font in the top 1.25
inches of the label.
    (ii) The words ``Safe for use in'' must be in 20-point, left-
justified, black, Helvetica Bold font in the bottom 1.875 inches of the
label.
    (iii) The words, and symbols `` 2001 and newer passenger
vehicles; or  Flex-fuel vehicles'' must be in 14-point, left-
justified, black, Helvetica Bold font.

    (iv) The remaining two sentences must be in 12-point, left-
justified, Helvetica Bold font.
    (4) Color. (i) The background of the top 1.25 inches of the label
must be blue.
    (ii) The background of the bottom 1.875 inches of the label must be
white.
    (5) Alternative labels. (i) Alternative labels to those specified
in this section may be used if approved by EPA in advance. Such labels
must contain all of the informational elements specified in paragraph
(a) of this section, and must use colors and other design elements
similar in substance and appearance to the label required by this
section. Such labels may differ in size and shape from the label
required by this section only to a small degree, except to the extent a
larger label is necessary to accommodate additional information or
translation of label information.
    (ii) A request for approval of an alternative label must be sent to
the attention of ``E15 Alternative Label Request'' to the address in
Sec.  80.10(a).

PART 280--TECHNICAL STANDARDS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIREMENTS
FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)

0
3. The authority citation for part 280 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6991, 6991(a), 6991(b), 6991(c),
6991(d), 6991(e), 6991(f), 6991(g), 6991(h), 6991(i).

0
4. Amend Sec.  280.20 by adding a sentence after the first sentence in
the introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  280.20  Performance standards for new UST systems.

    * * * Owners and operators must also comply with the requirement of
Sec.  280.32(b) when equipment or components are installed or replaced,
as applicable. * * *
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec.  280.32 by revising paragraph (b) and adding paragraphs
(c) and (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  280.32  Compatibility

* * * * *
    (b) In addition to the requirements at Sec.  280.20, owners and
operators of UST systems which will store motor fuel used in over-the-
road vehicles must ensure that equipment and components, including pipe
dopes and sealants, that are installed or replaced on or after [1 year
after effective date of final regulations] are compatible with ethanol
blends up to 100 percent. Owners and operators must keep documentation
of compatibility in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section
and keep documentation on compatibility of pipe dopes and sealants.
    (c) Owners and operators must notify the implementing agency at
least 30 days prior to switching to a regulated substance containing
greater than 10 percent ethanol, greater than 20 percent biodiesel, or
any other regulated substance identified by the implementing agency. In
addition, owners and operators with UST systems storing these regulated
substances must meet one of the following:
    (1) Demonstrate compatibility of the UST system (including the
tank, piping, containment sumps, pumping equipment, release detection
equipment, spill equipment, and overfill equipment). Owners and
operators may demonstrate compatibility of the UST system by using one
of the following options, though no demonstration is required for tanks
manufactured on or after July 2005 or for any fiberglass piping:
    (i) Certification or listing of UST system equipment or components
by a nationally recognized, independent testing laboratory for use with
the regulated substance stored; or
    (ii) Equipment or component manufacturer approval. The
manufacturer's approval must be in writing, indicate an affirmative
statement of compatibility, specify the range of biofuel blends the
equipment or component is compatible with, and be from the equipment or
component manufacturer.
    (2) All UST systems must be compatible with the substance stored in
accordance with paragraph (a) of this section but for any UST system
installed prior to 1 year after the date of publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register for which compatibility cannot be
demonstrated in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the
regulated substance may be stored if the tank and piping are
secondarily contained and use interstitial monitoring in accordance
with Sec.  280.43(g). Secondary containment must be able to contain
regulated substances leaked from the primary containment until they are
detected and removed and prevent the release of regulated substances to
the environment at any time during the operational life of the UST
system.
    (3) Use another option determined by the implementing agency to be
no less protective of human health and the environment than the options
listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
    (d) Owners and operators must maintain records in accordance with
Sec.  280.34(b) documenting compliance with paragraph (b) of this
section for the life of the UST system and paragraph (c) of this
section for as long as the UST system is used to store the regulated
substance.

Sec.  280.34  [Amended]

0
6. Amend Sec.  280.34 paragraph (a)(2) by removing ``(Sec.
280.32(b))'' and adding ``(Sec.  280.32(c))'' in its place; and in
paragraph (b)(3) by removing ``(Sec.  280.32(c))'' and adding ``(Sec.
280.32(b) and (c))'' in its place.

PART 281--APPROVAL OF STATE UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PROGRAMS

0
7. The authority citation for part 281 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6991(c), 6991(d), 6991(e), 6991(i),
6991(k).

0
8. Amend Sec.  281.32 by revising paragraph (c) and the first sentence
of paragraph (g) to read as follows:

Sec.  281.32  General operating requirements

* * * * *
    (c) Be made of or lined with materials that are compatible with the
substance stored; in order to ensure compatibility, the state
requirements must also include provisions for demonstrating
compatibility with new and innovative regulated substances or other
regulated substances identified by the implementing agency or include
other provisions determined by the implementing agency to be no less
protective of human health and the environment than the provisions for
demonstrating compatibility; for UST systems that will store motor fuel
used in over-the-road vehicles, all newly installed or replaced
equipment or components, including pipe dopes and sealants, must be
compatible with ethanol blends up to 100 percent;
* * * * *
    (g) Have records of monitoring, testing, repairs, compatibility
demonstration, and inspections. * * *

[FR Doc. 2021-00203 Filed 1-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 149 (Friday, August 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46938-46939]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18589]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2558-029]

Green Mountain Power Corporation; Notice of Availability of Final
Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) regulations,
18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy
Projects has reviewed the application for a new license for the 21.814-
megawatt (MW) Otter Creek Hydroelectric Project (Commission Project No.
2558-029) and has prepared a final environmental assessment (final EA).
The project consists of three developments (Proctor, Beldens, and
Huntington Falls) located

on Otter Creek in Addison and Rutland counties, Vermont.
    In the final EA, Commission staff analyzes the potential
environmental effects of relicensing the project and concludes that
issuing a new license for the project, with appropriate environmental
measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the final EA is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
at www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact Commission Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>toll-free at 1-866-208-3676; or for
TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may also register online at www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact
Commission Online Support.
    For further information, contact Aaron Liberty at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: July 26, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-18589 Filed 8-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P