Document

Fuels Regulatory Streamlining

This action proposes to update the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) existing gasoline, diesel, and other fuels programs to improve overall compliance assurance and mainta...

Environmental Protection Agency
  1. 40 CFR Parts 79, 80, 86, 1037, and 1090
  2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0227; FRL-10007-52-OAR]
  3. RIN 2060-AT31

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

This action proposes to update the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) existing gasoline, diesel, and other fuels programs to improve overall compliance assurance and maintain environmental performance, while reducing compliance costs for industry and EPA. EPA is proposing to streamline its existing fuel quality regulations by removing expired provisions, eliminating redundant compliance provisions ( e.g., duplicative registration requirements that are required by every EPA fuels program), removing unnecessary and out-of-date requirements, and replacing them with a single set of provisions and definitions that will apply across all gasoline, diesel, and other fuels programs that EPA currently regulates. This action does not propose to change the stringency of the existing fuel quality standards.

DATES:

Comments. Comments must be received on or before June 29, 2020. 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 June 15, 2020.

Public Hearing. EPA will announce the public hearing date and location for this proposal in a supplemental Federal Register document.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0227, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission ( i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/​dockets/​commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nick Parsons, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: 734-214-4479; email address: . Comments on this proposal should not be submitted to this email address, but rather through http://www.regulations.gov as discussed in the ADDRESSES section.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Does this action apply to me?

Entities potentially affected by this proposed rule are those involved with the production, distribution, and sale of transportation fuels, including gasoline and diesel fuel. Potentially affected categories include:

Category NAICS 1 Code Examples of potentially affected entities
Industry 211130 Natural gas liquids extraction and fractionation.
Industry 221210 Natural gas production and distribution.
Industry 324110 Petroleum refineries (including importers).
Industry 325110 Butane and pentane manufacturers.
Industry 325193 Ethyl alcohol manufacturing.
Industry 325199 Manufacturers of gasoline additives.
Industry 424710 Petroleum bulk stations and terminals.
Industry 424720 Petroleum and petroleum products wholesalers.
Industry 447110, 447190 Fuel retailers.
Industry 454310 Other fuel dealers.
Industry 486910 Natural gas liquids pipelines, refined petroleum products pipelines.
Industry 493190 Other warehousing and storage—bulk petroleum storage.
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.

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary

A. Overview of Fuels Regulatory Streamlining

B. Summary of Stakeholder Involvement and Rule Development

C. Timing

D. Costs and Benefits

II. Changes to Part 80

III. Structure of Proposed Regulations and General Provisions

A. Structure of the Regulations

B. Implementation Dates

C. Prior Approvals

D. Definitions

IV. General Requirements for Regulated Parties

V. Standards

A. Gasoline Standards

B. Diesel Fuel

VI. Exemptions, Hardships, and Special Provisions

A. Exemptions

B. Exports

C. Hardships

VII. Averaging, Banking, and Trading Provisions

A. Overview

B. Compliance on Average

C. Deficit Carryforward

D. Credit Generation, Use, and Transfer

E. Invalid Credits

F. Downstream Oxygenate Accounting ( printed page 29035)

G. Downstream Oxygenate Recertification

VIII. Registration, Reporting, Product Transfer Document, and Recordkeeping Requirements

A. Overview

B. Registration

C. Reporting

D. Product Transfer Documents (PTDs)

E. Recordkeeping

F. Rounding

G. Certification and Designation of Batches

IX. Sampling, Testing, and Retention Requirements

A. Overview and Scope of Testing

B. Handling and Testing Samples

C. Measurement Procedures

X. Proposed Third-Party Survey Provisions

A. National Survey Program

B. National Sampling and Testing Oversight Program

XI. Import of Fuels, Fuel Additives, and Blendstocks

A. Importation

B. Special Provisions for Importation by Rail or Truck

C. Special Provisions for Importation by Marine Vessel

D. Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Treated as Blendstocks

XII. Compliance and Enforcement Provisions and Attest Engagements

A. Compliance and Enforcement Provisions

B. Attest Engagements

C. RVP Test Enforcement Tolerance

XIII. Other Requirements and Provisions

A. Requirements for Independent Parties

B. Labeling

C. Refueling Hardware Requirements for Dispensing Facilities and Motor Vehicles

D. Previously Certified Gasoline (PCG)

E. Transmix and Pipeline Interface Provisions

F. Gasoline Deposit Control

G. In-Line Blending

H. Confidential Business Information

XIV. Costs and Benefits

A. Overview

B. Reduced Fuel Costs to Consumers From Improved Fuel Fungibility

C. Costs and Benefits for Regulated Parties

D. Environmental Impacts

XV. 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

XVI. Statutory Authority

I. Executive Summary

A. Overview of Fuels Regulatory Streamlining

1. Why EPA Is Taking This Action

As part of our continual effort to update our regulations to ensure that fuel quality standards established under the Clean Air Act (CAA) continue to be met in-use, while minimizing the burden associated with doing so, we are proposing to streamline and modernize our existing 40 CFR part 80 (“part 80”) fuel quality regulations by transferring them into a new proposed set of regulations in 40 CFR part 1090 (“part 1090”). In this action, we are taking a wholistic look at the existing part 80 regulations in an attempt to consolidate the many different and overlapping regulations into the proposed part 1090 regulations that will also better reflect how fuels, fuel additives, and regulated blendstocks are produced, distributed, and sold in today's marketplace.

2. What Is and Is Not Covered in This Action

This action focuses primarily on streamlining and consolidating our existing gasoline and diesel fuel programs that currently reside in part 80.[1] To accomplish this, we are proposing to remove expired provisions and consolidate the remaining provisions from multiple fuel quality programs into a single set of requirements. This action covers almost all fuel programs and related provisions currently in part 80. These programs include, but are not limited to, the reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, the anti-dumping program, the diesel sulfur program, the gasoline benzene program, the gasoline sulfur programs, the E15 misfueling mitigation program, and the national fuel detergent program. This proposed streamlining effort aims to combine these separate, now fully-implemented programs, all of which affect the same regulated parties, into a single, national fuel quality program.

While this action proposes changes to many aspects of our fuel quality programs, there are several areas of the existing part 80 regulations that would remain unchanged. Most importantly, this action does not change the stringency of the existing fuel quality standards. We are simply proposing to streamline and consolidate the existing part 80 fuel quality programs into a single streamlined fuel quality program that would make compliance with the existing fuel quality standards under part 80 more straightforward, and as a result potentially improve fuel quality through increased compliance with our fuel quality standards. This action proposes to transfer the part 80 fuel quality standards mostly unchanged to part 1090, though in some cases we are proposing to modify the form of the standards to translate them into a format more conducive to streamlining the regulations and ensuring in-use compliance.

We recognize that while we are not proposing changes to the standards, in some cases, the proposed consolidation of certain provisions may slightly, indirectly affect in-use fuel quality. For example, proposed changes to how parties record and report test results that fall below the test method's lower limits of detection might cause parties to have to report slightly higher sulfur and benzene levels in gasoline, effectively improving in-use fuel quality by slightly decreasing the sulfur national annual average. On the other hand, the proposal to make it easier for fuel manufacturers of conventional gasoline (CG) to account for oxygenates ( e.g., ethanol) added downstream of the manufacturing facility, thereby allowing for a slightly lower reported level of gasoline benzene and sulfur levels, might be perceived as slightly decreasing in-use fuel quality. There are many such minor impacts of changes in part 1090 and we believe that on balance the proposed program would maintain the same overall level of fuel quality as the current part 80 standards. Throughout this preamble, we have tried to identify such cases and we discuss the cumulative costs and benefits of these changes in more detail in Section XIV.

We are also proposing some slight modifications to the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program in subpart M of part 80, primarily for administrative purposes that follow from the proposed changes to our other fuel programs. These subpart M regulations are mostly unique to the RFS program, and ( printed page 29036) therefore do not need to be consolidated with the other part 80 fuel standard regulations. One of the goals of this action is to help ensure consistency in how parties comply with our regulatory requirements and report information to EPA. Since the RFS program uses similar, if not the same, reporting systems and compliance mechanisms for parties to demonstrate compliance, we are proposing changes to help ensure that this consistency is maintained or enhanced as a result of this action. We will treat public comments received suggesting substantive changes to the RFS program as outside the scope of this rulemaking.

Finally, this action does not propose to remove any statutory requirement for fuels specified by the CAA. For example, this action does not propose to remove limits on lead levels in gasoline under CAA section 211(n), remove the requirement that all gasoline be additized with detergents under CAA section 211(l), or cetane index limits for diesel fuel under CAA section 211(g) and (i). While this action does update some of the provisions put in place to implement many provisions of the CAA, and in some cases substantially streamline the implementing regulations ( e.g., for the gasoline detergents program), we are not proposing to eliminate any requirement under the CAA for fuels and parties that make, distribute, and sell such fuels.

The majority of this action's proposed changes relative to part 80 focus on consolidating and streamlining compliance provisions currently in part 80, not on adding new compliance requirements for regulated parties. This action also does not propose to impose new standards on fuels. As such, this action is mostly a compilation of numerous, relatively minor proposed changes to the existing provisions under part 80. Many of these proposed changes may appear disconnected from one another, as they are addressing a specific technical area that needs consolidation, streamlining, and/or updating. Together, however, these proposed changes will lead to a more effective, efficient EPA fuels program.

3. Program Design

The new part 1090 is designed to reduce compliance burdens for both industry and EPA, potentially lower fuel costs for consumers, and maintain fuel quality. To accomplish these goals, we have identified three key elements that are included in part 1090:

First, we are proposing to simplify the RFG standards by translating the current summer RFG VOC standard into an RVP per-gallon cap of 7.4 psi. This proposed change would allow us to remove the use of the Complex Model [2] as a requirement to certify batches of gasoline and remove all the provisions associated with demonstrating compliance on average. This proposed change would also allow for us to minimize the restrictions on the commingling of RFG and CG, allowing for a more fungible and efficient gasoline distribution system.

The main remaining difference between RFG and CG is that in the summer, RFG's volatility is functionally controlled through a summer VOC performance standard determined with the Complex Model instead of through the RVP per-gallon maximum standards established for CG under CAA section 211(h). EPA has previously aligned the treatment RFG and CG for NOX performance through the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur program and toxics performance through the national gasoline benzene program.[3] This action would align treatment for RFG and CG by translating the existing RFG VOC performance standard into an RVP per-gallon cap standard, as is the case for CG in the summer. In Section V.A.2, we describe how the proposed summer RVP per-gallon cap of 7.4 psi equates to the existing RFG summer VOC standards. This change alone allows for the removal of the sampling, testing, and reporting requirements associated with several Complex Model parameters, greatly simplifying compliance with our fuel standards. With this proposed translation of the RFG summer VOC performance standards into a summer RFG RVP per-gallon maximum standard, the required controls on fuel properties for RFG would be identical to the control of fuel properties for CG, even though the standards would remain different.

Second, since the standards for volatility, benzene, and sulfur would be treated similarly between RFG and CG, this would allow for the streamlining and consolidation of the compliance and enforcement provisions of the various part 80 fuel quality programs into a single fuel quality program. This consolidation would improve consistency, remove duplication, and ultimately reduce compliance burden on regulated parties and EPA. For example, we are proposing to consolidate the various gasoline reporting requirements into a single, unified annual reporting requirement. Under part 80, we require quarterly batch reports for RFG, versus annual reports for CG. We also require separate batch reports for the gasoline benzene and gasoline sulfur programs.

Third, the proposed streamlined fuel quality program aims to improve oversight of our fuel quality programs. We hope to accomplish this by updating and improving the third-party oversight programs we already use in part 80. We are proposing to consolidate the existing three in-use survey programs into a single national in-use fuel quality survey. This proposed program would help ensure that all fuels nationwide continue to meet EPA fuel quality standards when dispensed into vehicles and engines, not just at the refinery gate. We are also proposing to replace the RFG independent lab testing requirement with a voluntary national oversight program. This proposed sampling oversight program would impose substantially lower costs across industry than the current regulations while helping to ensure the consistency of sampling and testing across industry. Finally, we are proposing to update and modernize the annual attest engagement program. These updated procedures will help ensure that the quality and consistency of reported information. Taken together, we believe these proposals will help improve oversight of our fuel quality programs.

B. Summary of Stakeholder Involvement and Rule Development

We have actively engaged stakeholders throughout the development of this action to help maximize its potential effectiveness. Due to the number of affected stakeholders, the complexity surrounding the production and distribution of fuels, and the broad scope of this action, active stakeholder involvement was necessary to help ensure that the proposed fuels regulatory streamlining program achieved its goals. ( printed page 29037)

As part of the proposal development process, we provided advance notice through four discussion drafts of the proposed regulations.[4] In doing so, we solicited feedback from stakeholders to: (1) Help ensure that any gaps in our regulatory requirements were filled prior to proposal; and (2) identify potential issues with the streamlined regulations. We also held a three-day public workshop on a variety of topics in Chicago on May 21-23, 2018.[5] During this workshop, EPA staff discussed a variety of issues related to the development of this action to an audience of over 120 affected stakeholders. We also reached out on at least two separate occasions to a broad spectrum of interested stakeholders, including parties that make and distribute fuels, states, environmental non-governmental organizations, and other affected stakeholders. The proposed streamlined fuel quality program in this action is intended to reflect the input of all of those who participated in these activities and events.

C. Timing

As discussed in more detail in Section III.B, we are proposing that the part 1090 regulations would mostly replace the existing part 80 regulations on January 1, 2021. We believe that having an implementation date at the beginning of a new compliance period would provide for a smooth transition to new regulatory requirements.

D. Costs and Benefits

We do not anticipate much, if any, change in air quality as a result of this action. This is largely due to the fact that we are not proposing changes to the existing fuel quality standards. As such, we do not expect that regulated parties would need to make significant changes to how fuels are made, distributed, and sold, which are the factors EPA typically considers when determining the costs associated with imposing or changing fuel quality standards.

However, we do believe that this proposal could result in savings to regulated parties and EPA by simplifying compliance with our fuel quality standards and by allowing greater flexibility in the manufacture and distribution of fuels. These savings would largely arise from the reduction of the administrative costs on regulated parties and EPA in complying with and implementing the existing fuel quality standards. We estimate the annualized total costs savings in administrative cost savings to industry to be $32.9 million per year. Other savings associated with improving the fungibility of fuel and providing greater flexibility could potentially be even more significant but are much more difficult to quantify. Section XIV of the preamble discusses in more detail the potential costs and benefits of this action.

II. Changes to Part 80

We are transferring several provisions in part 80 that are currently in effect to part 1090.[6] These provisions are all discussed in the subsequent sections of this preamble and are now drafted in a manner that makes them easier to understand. We are also proposing to remove subparts B, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, N, and O and appendices A and B to part 80. Some of these subparts have either expired ( e.g., designate and track provisions for diesel fuel) or have been replaced by newer subparts ( e.g., subpart K (RFS1) was superseded by subpart M (RFS2), subpart H (Tier 2 Sulfur) was supplanted by subpart O (Tier 3 Sulfur), and subpart J (MSAT1) was supplanted by subpart L (MSAT2)).

We are not transferring some provisions from part 80 to part 1090. First, we are retaining the existing Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) provisions in subpart M. We are proposing minor edits to subpart M that are intended to ensure consistency with the new language used in part 1090. These edits will not affect any of the actual requirements in subpart M, but rather will homogenize the language used across all of our fuels programs.

Second, because we are retaining the RFS program in part 80, we need to maintain certain general provisions contained in subpart A that will continue to apply to the RFS program. We are also revising several sections within subpart A to remove requirements, such as definitions that would no longer be applicable to part 80. In addition, we are reorganizing and consolidating the definitions in 40 CFR 80.2 to place them in alphabetical order, as this would make it consistent with part 1090 and much easier to find terms.

Finally, we are also retaining the Oxygenated Gasoline provisions in subpart C in part 80. This subpart contains a single section related to a requirement for labeling of oxygenated gasoline at retail pumps, as mandated by CAA section 211(m)(4). We are maintaining this requirement in part 80 because some state oxygenated fuel programs may reference the labeling requirements in part 80 and we want to minimize the amount of changes needed by states to revise regulations and update state implementation plans.

III. Structure of Proposed Regulations and General Provisions

This section describes the general structure of the proposed part 1090 regulations ( i.e., how we propose to structure the regulations to make them more accessible to users and readers of the regulations). This section also describes the proposed implementation dates, how we intend to deal with prior approvals made under part 80, and our proposed approach to consolidating the hundreds of definitions in the part 80 regulations. Finally, this section discusses key proposed provisions ( e.g., the definition of gasoline) in more detail to solicit public feedback on terms fundamental to the proposed streamlined fuel quality program.

A. Structure of the Regulations

We are proposing a structure for part 1090 that differs from the structure of our current part 80 regulations. Part 80 includes a variety of fuel quality programs that, while designed to operate together, appear as distinct programs in the regulations. Historically, we have codified new fuel quality programs by adding a new subpart at the end of part 80. This was often done because each new fuel quality program implemented new regulatory requirements that augmented the prior fuel quality programs. These new additions also helped provide interim requirements needed to implement the new program. As a result, part 80 includes numerous similar sections that either create multiple methods of complying with certain regulatory requirements ( e.g., submitting multiple gasoline batch reports for the RFG, antidumping, gasoline benzene, and Tier 2/3 gasoline sulfur programs) or create what might appear to be contradictions in the regulations. Rather than have subparts with all the provisions associated with a given fuel standard ( e.g., a subpart that contains all provisions related to gasoline benzene and a separate subpart that contains all provisions related to gasoline sulfur), part 1090 contains dedicated subparts according to the various functional elements of our fuel regulations ( e.g., subparts that contain all gasoline standards or contain all reporting requirements).

As proposed, subpart A contains general requirements that apply ( printed page 29038) throughout the rest of part 1090. Subpart A includes regulatory language that generally outlines the applicability and scope of the regulation, defines key terms, and outlines when the part 1090 requirements come into effect. Subpart A also describes how requirements under part 1090 interact with other parts of the regulations that affect fuels—parts 79 and 80. Many of these sections are described elsewhere; for example, rounding of data is discussed in the reporting section (see Section VIII), and batch numbering is discussed in the designation and product transfer document section (see Section VIII).

We are also proposing to include a list of general regulatory requirements for parties in subpart B. This subpart would lay out the general regulatory requirements for regulated parties. This helps inform the regulated community of what is generally expected of them in a succinct manner and provides references to the specific requirements in the appropriate places in the regulations. While the roadmap in subpart B does not remove or modify any of the regulatory obligations required throughout the rest of part 1090, we believe it will serve as a helpful guide. During the development of this proposed rule, we received feedback from several stakeholders that such a roadmap would not only be helpful for them to follow the part 1090 regulations, but would especially help those new to the regulations more easily identify general regulatory requirements.

We are also proposing to keep the standards for different fuels in separate subparts so as to make it easier for parties to identify the specific standards that apply to fuels, regulated blendstocks, and additives. For part 1090, we have put the gasoline-related standards and the diesel-related (plus IMO marine fuel) standards in their own individual subparts. We are also leaving a subpart reserved after the gasoline and diesel standards, as we may need to use that subpart for future standards and this would enable us to not have to move subsequent subparts in a manner that would cause unnecessary confusion on the part of the regulated community.

The next block of subparts (E through P) involve the provisions and requirements that regulated parties are expected to follow to demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards. We have consolidated the specific types of compliance activities where possible. For example, we have consolidated all the registration sections of part 80 into a single registration subpart in part 1090 (subpart I). For these subparts, we have included general provisions that apply to all regulated parties, with sections devoted to specific requirements for individual groups of regulated parties ( e.g., gasoline refiners or oxygenate blenders).

Subpart Q includes the liability, compliance, and violation provisions that EPA enforcement staff would use to enforce the program. This subpart consolidates the similar sections from across part 80 into a single streamlined subpart.

Finally, subpart R includes the attest engagement procedures that independent auditors would need to use to conduct annual auditing of reports and records for gasoline refiners. These procedures are updated versions of the those already included in part 80.

We believe that this new structure would make the fuel quality regulations more accessible to all stakeholders, help ensure compliance by making requirements more easily identifiable by activity, and help future participants in this regulated space understand our fuel quality regulations in the future. We seek comment on this proposed structure of the regulations.

B. Implementation Dates

We are proposing that regulated parties would begin complying with most provisions of part 1090 on January 1, 2021. This proposed date would result in the first compliance reports for the 2021 compliance period being due March 31, 2022, and the first attest engagement reports for the 2021 compliance period being due June 1, 2022.

We believe that this action minimizes the need for immediate changes to how regulated parties comply with our fuel quality regulations, and therefore, this proposed implementation schedule will allow sufficient time for regulated parties to modify their current business practices whenever it makes the most business sense for the individual regulated party's situation. In general, we have tried to minimize changes to existing requirements for regulated parties so as to avoid unnecessary burden. However, to consolidate the RFG program with the other fuel quality programs and maximize fuel fungibility, some changes to the program design would result from consolidating the programs into a single national program. Where possible, we wrote the proposed requirements to allow flexibility for regulated parties to adjust as needed.

While we believe a January 1, 2021, implementation date provides regulated parties enough time to come into compliance since we are not requiring changes that would necessitate substantive investments to meet new or modified fuel quality standards, we received feedback during the rule development process that we may need to provide regulated more time to implement some of the proposed provisions. In particular, some stakeholders noted that modifying product transfer document (PTD) language and adjusting to some of the proposed changes for sampling and testing may not be possible by January 1, 2021. One potential solution is to allow more time for these specific provisions to phase in. For example, we could allow regulated parties to continue to use the part 80 PTD requirements until the beginning or end of the high ozone season (June 1 and September 15, respectively). A similar approach could be allowed for other provisions that potentially need more lead time. We seek comment specifically on what provisions may require additional lead time to implement.

C. Prior Approvals

We are proposing to allow regulated parties with existing approvals under part 80 to maintain those approvals under part 1090. For example, parties registered under part 80 would not need to reregister under part 1090. We believe that making regulated parties resubmit information already reviewed and approved by EPA would be duplicative and burdensome on both the regulated parties and EPA staff. However, this action would require that any new requests or updates to approvals currently necessary under part 80 would have to meet the new proposed regulatory requirements of part 1090.

For existing approvals under part 80, regulated parties would not need to update a previously approved submission under part 1090. For example, we have approved alternative E15 labels under part 80. Parties would not need to have these labels reapproved in order to use them under part 1090. One notable exception is for in-line blending waivers. As discussed more in Section XIII.G, we are proposing significant changes to the in-line blending waiver provisions for RFG (mostly to remove provisions related to parameters that would no longer need to be reported) and for CG, which are designed to make consistent with the proposed RFG in-line blending waiver provisions. As such, we are proposing to require resubmission of all in-line blending waiver requests to ensure that they meet the new requirements.

D. Definitions

We are proposing to streamline and update the definitions contained ( printed page 29039) throughout part 80, as well as add and remove terms as needed to write the proposed part 1090 regulations. How we define key terms in the regulations has a significant effect on how regulated parties comply with the regulations. As our fuel quality programs have expanded in scope, definitions in part 80 have expanded as well. Additionally, as we added new subparts to the part 80 regulations for each program, we have added subpart specific definitions. We have also defined terms in the context of specific sections of the regulations. This has created situations where sometimes there are differences in definitions for the different standards, which makes it more difficult for parties to comprehend and comply with the regulations. In part 1090, we have consolidated all the applicable definitions into a single section. We have tried to avoid having a definition section in individual subparts; however, some infrequently-used terms may still be defined in the context of the regulatory text. We believe this approach would help the regulated community and the public at large to more easily comprehend the regulations.

For the most part, we are proposing to transfer the existing part 80 definitions into part 1090 with minor proposed changes to specific terms for consistency. However, in some cases, we are proposing to redefine or reclassify key terms as part of part 1090. Specifically, these areas include the defined terms for the types of regulated products (discussed in Section III.D.1) and the descriptions of regulated parties (discussed in Section III.D.2). We are also proposing revisions to the definition of “gasoline” and “diesel fuel” (discussed in Section III.D.3). While we believe these three areas of the proposed definitions warrant significant discussion, we seek comment on all of the proposed definitions.

1. Fuels, Fuel Additives, and Regulated Blendstocks

In order to improve the clarity and consistency of our regulations, we are proposing changes regarding how to classify products regulated under our fuel quality regulations. In part 80, most fuel programs were written as a separate fuel program rather than a single, consolidated fuel quality program. For example, 40 CFR part 80, subpart I, almost exclusively deals with distillate fuels and 40 CFR par 80, subpart N, deals with gasoline-ethanol blended fuels. Since part 1090 would attempt to consolidate all fuel quality programs under part 80 into a single, consolidated fuel quality program, a consistent nomenclature for regulated products is needed.

This action describes requirements for fuel quality on three categories of products: Fuels, regulated blendstocks, and fuel additives. We further classify these products into bins based on the type of vehicle or engine that the fuel is used ( i.e., gasoline-fueled, diesel fueled, or in a vessel subject to MARPOL Annex VI requirements ( e.g., vessels that must use ECA or IMO marine fuel)). For gasoline-fueled engines, we not only define the term gasoline (discussed in detail in Section III.D.2), but we also define and place requirements on specific types of gasoline based on its ethanol content ( e.g., E0, E10, and E15), whether the gasoline is intended for use or used as summer or winter gasoline, and in the summer, what RVP standard the fuel is subject to ( i.e., 9.0 psi, 7.8 psi, or the proposed RFG 7.4 psi standard). For diesel-fueled engines, since the requirement to use 15 ppm diesel fuel (or ultra-low-sulfur diesel (ULSD)) is now required in almost all motor vehicle, non-road, locomotive, and marine applications (called MVNRLM diesel fuel in part 80), we are defining this fuel simply as ULSD, as it is more commonly known in the market. 500 ppm diesel fuel continues to be allowed for certain locomotive and marine applications.

Regarding regulated blendstocks, we have historically not imposed quality specifications on blendstocks, choosing instead to focus compliance requirements on finished fuels that are ultimately used in vehicles and engines. However, as the fuels marketplace has continued to evolve, this structure has become increasingly difficult to accommodate the complexity of manufacturing and distributing fuels practices today. Therefore, we are proposing alternative provisions, which are all currently permissible under part 80, for gasoline manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with our fuel quality requirements by imposing requirements on certain blendstocks that are added to previously certified gasoline (PCG) if certain conditions are met. We are referring to blendstocks for which we have proposed standards collectively as “regulated blendstocks.” For example, under both part 80 and the proposed part 1090 regulations, we allow gasoline refiners to blend butane into gasoline and to rely on test results from the producers of the butane if the butane meets more stringent sulfur and benzene per-gallon standards.[7] These butane blenders can use these provisions in lieu of certifying the finished gasoline and having to meet sulfur and benzene annual standards as these provisions are designed to ensure that the national sulfur and benzene pool do not increase as a result of blending these feedstocks. Under part 1090, we are proposing the same flexibilities as under part 80 for gasoline manufacturers that wish to blend butane that has been certified to meet specifications (differences between parts 80 and 1090 are discussed in Section V.A.3). We believe that this will also allow more opportunities for parties to make cost-effective compliant fuels in the future.

This action also includes the current part 80 specifications for gasoline and diesel additives, mostly unchanged. Except for oxygenates in gasoline, additives are added to fuels in low amounts (less than 1.0 volume percent of the fuel total) and often serve to help improve fuel performance ( e.g., to control deposits on intake valves). All diesel fuel additives are subject to sulfur limitations. Under both part 80 and part 1090, gasoline additives are also subject to sulfur limitations, but the term “gasoline additives” also includes gasoline detergents and oxygenates. Also under both part 80 and part 1090, gasoline detergents and oxygenates (including denatured fuel ethanol or DFE) have specific requirements that apply in addition to the sulfur requirements that apply for all gasoline additives.

2. Fuel Manufacturers, Regulated Blendstock Producers, and Fuel Additive Manufacturers

In part 80, a refinery is defined as ” any facility, including but not limited to, a plant, tanker truck, or vessel where gasoline or diesel fuel is produced, including any facility at which blendstocks are combined to produce gasoline or diesel fuel, or at which blendstock is added to gasoline or diesel fuel,” [8] while a refiner is “any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises a refinery.” [9] When these terms were first defined, virtually all finished fuels were produced at a crude oil refinery. As we have permitted greater flexibility in the production of fuels through the blending of regulated blendstocks to make new fuels and the market has moved to allowing fuels to be produced downstream of crude oil ( printed page 29040) refineries, the use of the term “refiner” to encompass all parties that make fuels has become less appropriate. Additionally, the differences in terminology between part 79 and part 80 have caused confusion among those required to or potentially required to comply with the requirements of both parts. Refiners and importers of on-highway motor vehicle gasoline and diesel fuel are fuel manufacturers under part 79 and required to register under EPA's fuel and fuel additive registration (FFARs) requirements. Under part 79, parties that make gasoline or diesel fuel through the blending of blendstocks or blending of blendstocks into PCG are also considered fuel manufacturers and must registered under part 79. Part 79 also includes importers of on-highway motor vehicle gasoline and diesel fuel as fuel manufacturers for purposes of FFARs. Part 80 generally requires that importers of gasoline and diesel fuel meet the same requirements as refiners, with some additional requirements on importers depending on the situation.

This action uses the term fuel manufacturer to describe any party that owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises a facility where fuel is produced, imported, or recertified, whether through a refining process ( e.g., through the distillation of crude oil), through blending of blendstocks or blending blendstocks into a previously certified fuel to make fuel, or through the recertification of products not subject to our fuel quality standards to fuels that are subject to our fuel quality standards ( e.g., redesignating heating oil to ULSD). Importers of fuels would continue to be fuel manufacturers consistent with parts 79 and the CAA. We are also proposing to further distinguish between parties that refine feedstocks to make fuels (more commonly known as “crude refiners”) and blending manufacturers who make fuels through blending blendstocks together to make a fuel or into an existing fuel to make a new fuel.[10] This action includes requirements specific to the type of fuel manufacturer, and the proposed nomenclature makes it easier for us to describe the proposed requirements for the types of fuel manufacturers and for parties to understand what requirements apply specifically to whom. However, while we are proposing to modify the terminology used in part 1090 for these parties, generally, these parties would have the same obligations and responsibilities under the regulations.

We are proposing to define producers of regulated blendstocks as regulated blendstock producers. For example, these parties would include certified butane/pentane producers and oxygenate producers (including DFE producers).

As is the case currently under parts 79 and 80, parties that only blend fuel additives into fuels are not fuel manufacturers. Any party that adds a compound (other than oxygenate or transmix) that is 1.0 percent or more of the finished fuel would be a blending manufacturer, as the compound added would be considered a blendstock and parties that add blendstocks into fuel are considered fuel manufacturers and would need to meet all the applicable regulatory requirements. Consistent with part 79, oxygenate blenders that only add oxygenates at levels permissible under the CAA section 211(f) continue to be considered additive blenders and not fuel manufacturers.

3. Definition of Gasoline

This action includes a new definition of gasoline. When we define what constitutes a fuel, this determines which fuels are subject to our fuel quality standards. The goal of our fuel quality programs is to ensure that compliant fuel is ultimately used in vehicles, engines, and equipment. To achieve this goal, we believe that the definition of gasoline needs to reflect changes in the fuels marketplace that have occurred over the last 40 years, as well as potential changes on the horizon. While petroleum refineries still have the most direct impact on gasoline fuel quality by volume, every party downstream of the refinery can affect fuel quality, and in today's marketplace many of these downstream parties are now the determinant of the quality of the fuel that actually goes into the vehicle. For example, these parties may add oxygenates (primarily ethanol) or augment the volume of gasoline through the blending of various blendstocks into PCG to produce new fuels.

To ensure that gasoline meets fuel quality standards from the petroleum refinery until it is dispensed into a gasoline-fueled vehicle or engine, in light of the changing fuels marketplace, we believe that the definition of gasoline should contain three elements. First, when a party represents a fuel as meeting our fuel quality standards, such fuel is subject to our standards regardless of whether the fuel meets the standard. Were this not the case, then anytime a fuel failed to meet our standards, we could not hold anyone accountable for failing to meet the standards. In the proposed definition of gasoline, we define gasoline as anything commonly and commercially known as gasoline. This portion of the proposed definition is consistent with the existing parts 79 and 80 definitions of gasoline.

The second element of the definition of gasoline is whether the product is made available for use or used in a gasoline-fueled vehicle or engine. Since the ultimate purpose of our fuel standards is to ensure that compliant fuel is used in vehicles and engines, if a person makes a product available for use by designating it as gasoline or placing it in the fuel distribution system, or if the product is used in a gasoline-fueled vehicle or engine, the product should be subject to EPA standards. We have used this terminology when describing other fuels under part 80, notably in definitions related to motor vehicle diesel fuel [11] and ECA marine fuel.[12]

The third element of the definition of gasoline is the product's physical and chemical characteristics. Whether a fuel is subject to our standards cannot be solely based on whether a regulated party calls or labels a product it produces as gasoline. This would create an incentive for parties to simply label fuel intended for use as gasoline by another name to avoid having to meet our fuel standards. Therefore, when a manufacturer produces a fuel that is chemically and physically similar to gasoline, the fuel should be subject to our gasoline fuel standards. To address this element, we are proposing that gasoline is any product that meets the voluntary consensus standards body (VCSB) industry specifications for gasoline (ASTM D4814).

For the discussion drafts of the regulations,[13] we presented definitions of gasoline that attempted to conservatively capture any product that could be used in vehicles and engines designed to operate on gasoline. We received feedback from stakeholders suggesting that this definition of gasoline was too broad, especially concerning the third element, which would have resulted in blendstocks that are never intended to be sold in their pure form as gasoline being subject to our fuel quality standards. These stakeholders argued that some higher quality blendstocks ( e.g., alkylates) used to make gasoline would meet the ASTM D4814 specifications for gasoline and may therefore be subject to EPA ( printed page 29041) standards. To address this feedback, we have excluded those blendstocks of concern that are not made available as gasoline but may otherwise meet the definition of gasoline by meeting ASTM D4814 specifications. Since there is an economic incentive for parties to keep these high value blendstocks segregated from gasoline in the fuel distribution system, these products will not generally be made available for use in gasoline-fueled vehicles and engines and would not, therefore, be considered gasoline. We seek comment on this approach.

We have taken a similar approach in the part 80 definitions for diesel fuel and largely mirror the three elements proposed for the definition of gasoline in the definition of diesel fuel. We seek comment on these definitions.

IV. General Requirements for Regulated Parties

As part of the streamlined fuel quality program, we are proposing a subpart dedicated to outlining the general regulatory requirements for each regulated party (subpart B). We received feedback during the rule development process that due to the layout of the regulations in part 80, parties need to read the entire subpart to make sure they have identified all applicable regulatory requirements. The current regulations in part 80 are almost 1,000 pages long, and many regulated parties spend a substantial amount of resources to comprehend and interpret them or ask EPA staff through the help desk to identify applicable regulatory requirements.

To make the streamlined regulations more accessible, we are proposing to make subpart B a roadmap for regulated parties, directing them to those subparts that are most likely to affect them and their business. We first outline the general requirements applicable to all parties that make and distribute fuels, fuel additives, and regulated blendstocks. These requirements include keeping records and being subject to regulatory requirements under the proposed subpart if a party makes and distributes fuels, fuel additives, and regulated blendstocks.

We then describe the requirements that apply to each group of regulated parties based on their business activities. Examples of these categories are fuel manufacturers, detergent blenders, oxygenate blenders, and retailers. We believe this would help these parties more easily identify regulatory provisions that apply to their specific activities. For example, retailers are typically small businesses that have greater difficulty affording consultants to help them understand their regulatory requirements. Retailers also have a relatively small number of regulatory requirements under the part 80 and part 1090 regulations. By identifying the generally applicable requirements that apply to all retailers, these small businesses could more easily identify those regulatory requirements that apply to them, helping them to more easily comply with our fuel quality regulations.

It is important to note that parties may have more than one regulated activity, and, as is the case today, these parties would be required to satisfy all regulatory requirements for each regulated activity. Regulated parties would still need to comply with all applicable requirements contained in part 1090, regardless of whether they are identified for them in subpart B. EPA cannot predict every possible situation a party may be in within the market place now or in the future. Accordingly, regulated parties, as always, should pay careful attention to all the applicable regulatory requirements to ensure compliance.

We request comment on the proposed structure of subpart B, as well as whether the subpart would be helpful to regulated parties in general. We also request comment on how we can improve the streamlined regulations to further improve the understandability and navigation of part 1090.

V. Standards

A. Gasoline Standards

1. Overview and Streamlining of Gasoline Program

We are proposing to consolidate the various gasoline-related standards into a single subpart in part 1090 (subpart C). We are not proposing to change the lead, phosphorous, sulfur, benzene standards or the RVP gasoline standards in the summer, nor are we proposing to change the standards for oxygenates (including denatured fuel ethanol), certified ethanol denaturant, gasoline additives, and standards for certified butane and pentane. These standards are simply being moved and consolidated into subpart C. Any comments on these standards will be treated as beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

However, to streamline the gasoline program, we are proposing some changes in the form of the RFG VOC performance standards. These changes are not expected to change the stringency of the gasoline standards. We do, however, expect that these changes would greatly simplify the gasoline program, resulting in: (1) Reduced burden associated with demonstrating compliance with the gasoline standards; (2) improved fungibility of gasoline, allowing the market to operate more efficiently; and (3) reduced costs to consumers. First, we are proposing to translate the RFG standard from the demonstration of the VOC performance standard via the complex model into an equivalent maximum RVP per-gallon standard, which would allow us to greatly simplify the compliance demonstration requirements for RFG. Of all the provisions being proposed, this is the key provision enabling considerable streamlining of our existing gasoline regulations.

Second, we are also proposing to consolidate the two grades of butane and the two grades of pentane specified in part 80 for use by butane and pentane blenders into a single grade each of certified butane and certified pentane. This would greatly simplify the registration and reporting of activities related to blending certified butane and certified pentane.

Finally, we are proposing certain regulations related to summer gasoline, as well as procedures for states to relax the federal 7.8 psi RVP standard. These changes are discussed more thoroughly in the following sections.[14]

2. Reformulated Gasoline Volatility Standard

The RFG program was created by EPA in the 1990s in response to a directive from Congress in the CAA Amendments of 1990 with the express purpose of providing cleaner burning gasoline to the most polluted metropolitan areas of the country. The program was very successful in that regard. However, since that time, a series of additional fuel quality standards and other market changes have resulted in CG meeting or exceeding most of the performance requirements for RFG, with the primary difference between CG and RFG now being only the lower RVP of the RFG during the summer months. At the same time, the extensive RFG regulations remain, constraining gasoline fungibility, increasing costs, complicating compliance oversight, and limiting the sale of certain biofuel blends. Consequently, we are proposing to: (1) Replace the existing compliance mechanism used for RFG batch certification—the Complex Model—with a summer RVP maximum per-gallon standard; (2) apply that same single RVP standard to all RFG nationwide; (3) provide greater ( printed page 29042) flexibility for blending of oxygenates (ethanol and biobutanol) and E0 in RFG areas; and (4) remove a number of other restrictions that now create a distinction without a difference between RFG and CG.

We intend these proposed changes to maintain the stringency of all standards associated with RFG while alleviating unnecessary compliance mechanisms by simplifying the recordkeeping and reporting requirements. We acknowledge that the CAA requires the existence of RFG in specified nonattainment areas [15] and certification procedures to certify RFG as complying with the requirements.[16] This action proposes to simplify and translate those requirements while still maintaining the same level of VOC emissions reductions as currently required. This would be accomplished by translating the current VOC emissions reductions demonstrated through the Complex Model into an RVP standard that would be used to demonstrate RFG VOC compliance in lieu of the Complex Model.[17]

CAA section 211(k)(3)(B) provides that during the high ozone season, “the aggregate emissions of ozone forming volatile organic compounds from baseline vehicles when using the reformulated gasoline shall be 15 percent below the aggregate emissions of ozone forming [VOCs] from such vehicles when using baseline gasoline.” This section also provides for increasing stringency beginning in 2000 of at least 25 percent, based on technological feasibility and costs. We are achieving that demonstration through the use of an RVP standard.

The proposed RFG summer RVP standard of 7.4 psi was specifically chosen in order to maintain the summer VOC performance required by the statute,[18] and this RVP is currently observed in the RFG fuel pool; this approach also aligns the RFG compliance provisions with the much simpler and more easily enforced provisions currently in place for CG. In doing so, we are also acting on the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) directive to consolidate the RFG VOC Regions into a single set of RFG standards by applying the southern RFG requirements (VOC control region 1) to all RFG areas, as discussed further in Section V.A.2.d. This consolidation of RFG VOC Regions, along with other proposed changes in this action, would provide greater fungibility in the RFG pool and eliminate antiquated restrictions in order to provide greater flexibility to fuel manufacturers and distributors, reduce cost for those parties, and reduce compliance and enforcement oversight costs.

Additional benefits from this proposed action are potentially wide reaching and could create opportunities for broader availability of fuels and reduced consumer costs. With the introduction of a summer RVP standard for RFG, in situations of fuel shortage in RFG areas, gasoline from other RFG areas or from state low-RVP fuel programs could now be moved to affected areas without recertification so long as the RFG RVP standard is observed. This increase in gasoline fungibility should serve to reduce scarcity and promote lower prices for consumers in affected areas. Additionally, the desire for ethanol-free gasoline for marine use in RFG areas has regularly been expressed by both citizens and elected officials of areas where RFG is required. Under the current RFG compliance provisions in part 80, it is difficult for distributors to provide ethanol-free gasoline to consumers in RFG areas. Under part 1090, it would be easier for distributors to provide ethanol-free gasoline to consumers in these areas.

a. Review of RFG

The definition and use of RFG is stipulated in CAA section 211(k). The RFG program was established in response to exceedances of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone being experienced in many metropolitan areas across the U.S. in the late 1980s.[19] Gasoline motor vehicle emissions were and continue to be a major contributor to the inventory of air pollutants in metropolitan areas. The RFG program is implemented through a set of gasoline standards demonstrated to reduce emissions from vehicles of that era.[20] The demonstration of emissions reductions was predicated on changing fuel properties from a baseline fuel composition used in the baseline vehicle fleet. The 1990 statutory baseline fuel and fleet codified in the RFG regulations in part 80 are presented in Table V.A.2.a-1.

Table—V.A.2. a -1—Statutory Baseline Fuel Composition

Summer Winter
RVP (psi) 8.7 11.5
Benzene (vol%) 1.53 1.64
Aromatics (vol%) 32.0 26.4
Olefins (vol%) 9.2 11.9
Sulfur (ppm) 339 338
E200 (%) 41.0 50.0
E300 (%) 83.0 83.0
Oxygen (wt%) 0.0 0.0
Summer = June 1-September 15.

The compliance of RFG in comparison to the baseline fuel was originally demonstrated by refiners using the Simple Model.[21] An improved version of the compliance model was created and designated the Phase II Complex Model after the initial phase of the RFG program. The Complex Model has been used by refiners to certify RFG ( printed page 29043) under the Phase II RFG program and to meet the emission reduction standards outlined in Table V.A.2.a-2.

Table V.A.2. a -2—Phase II Standards and Requirements for Compliance

Phase II Complex Model Averaged Standards
VOC Emission Performance Reduction (%):
Region 1 standard ≥ 29.0
Region 1 per-gallon standard ≥ 27.5
Region 2 standard ≥ 27.4
Region 2 per-gallon standard ≥ 25.9
Region 2 (Chi/Milw) standard ≥ 25.4
Region 2 (Chi/Milw) per-gallon standard ≥ 23.9
Toxic Air Pollutants Emission Performance Reduction (%) ≥ 21.5
NOX Emission Performance Reduction (%):
Gasoline designated as VOC-controlled ≥ 6.8
Gasoline not designated as VOC-controlled ≥ 1.5
Benzene (vol%):
Standard ≤ 0.95
Per-gallon maximum ≤ 1.30

The Complex Model required refiners to sample and test RFG for 11 parameters that would then be entered into the model. Refiners could either demonstrate compliance on a per-gallon basis or on an average basis across the year. Despite the added flexibility associated with the Complex Model over the Simple Model, refiners tended to focus changes on just a few parameters. To comply with the VOC emissions performance standard, refiners primarily lowered the RVP of their RFG as was anticipated at the time of the rule. For the NOX standard, refiners primarily lowered the sulfur content of RFG, and to comply with the toxics standard, benzene and aromatics content was reduced in their RFG. Additionally, there have been three different RFG VOC regions designated under the Phase II standards; each with slightly different required levels of VOC emissions reduction as compared to the baseline fuel. The RFG program operated under these standards and resulted in a gasoline composition that was vastly different from CG when the program was phased in from 1995 through 2000.

b. Gasoline Regulation Changes

Since 2000, however, through a series of gasoline regulations and marketplace changes, the environmental performance of CG has improved to equal that of RFG in all respects except for summer VOC emission performance (as estimated using the Complex Model).

We established the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur program to limit the average sulfur content in gasoline to 30 ppm beginning in 2004,[22] with an 80 ppm per-gallon maximum standard (95 ppm at any location downstream of a refinery or import facility).[23] A reduction in fuel sulfur would reduce NOX emissions on its own accord (as expressed in the Complex Model), but fuel sulfur reduction was also paramount to protecting the exhaust aftertreatment systems necessitated by the more stringent vehicle emission standards established as part of the same Tier 2 program rulemaking. By the end of 2007, after the conclusion of all early credit, small refinery hardship extensions, and other program flexibilities, the sulfur level of all gasoline was reduced to less than 30 ppm in-use. The Tier 2 gasoline sulfur standards reduced VOC, NOX, and air toxics emissions, and brought down RFG and CG sulfur levels to a low enough level that the NOX emission performance standard determined using the Complex Model were met and exceeded for any compliant RFG. Consequently, the NOX emission performance standard was thereafter deemed met for both RFG and Antidumping ( i.e., CG) if the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur standard was met. This represented the first time that gasoline standard for CG exceeded an RFG performance standard (the NOX performance standard in this case) on average, but it also heralded the convergence in gasoline quality between CG and RFG that would continue to occur over the next decade.

In 2007, EPA revised the original Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) Rule with the MSAT2 Gasoline Benzene Program.[24] This rulemaking established an annual average standard of 0.62 volume-percent benzene on refiners and importers of gasoline.[25] This standard took effect starting January 1, 2011, for non-small refiners and January 1, 2015, for small refiners. The standard was fully phased-in on January 1, 2018. The result was that the air toxics performance standards for RFG were surpassed by the MSAT2 benzene standards for CG. Consequently, fuels that met MSAT2 benzene standards were deemed compliant with the air toxics emission performance standard otherwise calculated using the Complex Model. The rationale held, as with Tier 2, that any fuel meeting the new standard would meet or exceed the reductions required by the statute. The MSAT2 rulemaking also eliminated the NOX emissions performance reduction demonstration in the Complex Model as a result of the gasoline sulfur program.[26]

The combined effect of the sulfur and benzene gasoline standards has been that the use of the Complex Model has been narrowed to only demonstrating compliance with the summer VOC emission performance standard for RFG. While all of the Complex Model fuel parameters (except benzene) play a role in determining VOC emission performance, by far the primary lever for refiners to use to comply with the VOC emission performance standard is RVP.[27] Given that the changes to all the ( printed page 29044) other fuel parameters are dictated by other vehicle standards and market requirements, refiners today primarily only lower RVP to the degree necessary (due to cost reasons) in order to meet the VOC emission performance standard of RFG. However, the degree to which refiners have needed to reduce the RVP of RFG to demonstrate compliance using the Complex Model has relaxed slightly over time with other changes, mandated and market, to gasoline.

In 2014, EPA finalized the Tier 3 gasoline sulfur program to further limit the average sulfur content in gasoline to 10 ppm beginning in 2017.[28] All refineries and importers, including small refiners and small volume refineries, must comply with the 10 ppm Tier 3 sulfur standard starting January 1, 2020. The Tier 3 sulfur standard resulted in further reductions in VOC, NOX, and air toxics emissions predicted by the Complex Model.

Beginning in the early 2000s, the amount of gasoline blended with 10 percent ethanol also increased markedly as a result of MTBE bans, rising crude oil prices, tax incentives, and the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) mandates. The addition of ethanol reduced the aromatic, olefin, T50, and T90 levels of gasoline, which together with the oxygen content reduced the VOC, NOX, and air toxics emissions predicted by the Complex Model. Similarly, since about 2009, reduced natural gas prices brought on by the proliferation of hydraulic fracturing technology has allowed refiners to more economically back off on gasoline reforming, continuing to reduce gasoline aromatic levels and in turn reducing VOC, NOX, and air toxics emissions predicted by the Complex Model.

The progression in gasoline sulfur, benzene, and aromatic content, RVP, distillation, and other Complex Model parameters is documented in the Fuel Trends Report released by EPA in 2017.[29] The evolution of these other Complex Model parameters over the past decade has allowed for a slight increase in RVP, as seen in Figure V.A.2.b-1.

RVP is the only one of the Complex Model parameters that affects evaporative emissions; the other fuel parameters (except benzene and including RVP) impact VOC exhaust emissions under the Complex Model. As a result, there are limits to the extent that these other fuel parameters can impact VOC emissions performance under the Complex Model and corresponding limits to the extent that RVP can be increased within the Complex Model and still result in a compliant RFG.[30] Figure V.A.2.b-2 shows the 95th percentile of RVP levels from the batch compliance data EPA receives.

( printed page 29045)

c. Proposed RVP Standard for VOC Performance Determination

With the importance of RVP in the Complex Model for VOC emissions performance and the combination of MSAT2 and Tier 2/3 for reducing benzene and sulfur, respectively, RFG compliance is now almost completely determined by the RVP of the fuel. Consequently, an opportunity for greatly simplifying the certification process for RFG has presented itself. The 11 parameters required to certify RFG under the Complex Model could be reduced to just three (sulfur, benzene, and RVP) if a summer RVP standard were adopted along with the existing sulfur and benzene content standards.[31] Therefore, we are proposing that any RFG batch meeting a summer RVP standard of 7.4 psi RVP would be deemed in compliance with the RFG VOC emission performance reduction standard. Along with RVP, benzene concentration for MSAT2 compliance, and sulfur content for Tier 3 compliance would also be reported to EPA. Thus, all three of the emission reduction standards for RFG would be covered by just three parameters: RVP, benzene, and sulfur. This would reduce the compliance and reporting burden for fuel manufacturers by reducing the number of parameters they need to test and report from 11 to as few as three in the summer.[32]

In Section V.A.2.e, we lay out the process and rationale for the proposed summer RVP per-gallon standard of 7.4 psi for RFG. The primary intent in proposing to translate the VOC performance standards into an RVP maximum per-gallon standard is to maintain the status quo and to ensure that the emission reduction targets for RFG would continue to be achieved. During the selection process of the proposed summer RVP standard, we operated under the statutory constraints that were, and remain, present for the formulation of the Complex Model—namely, the 1990 baselines for both fuel composition and vehicle technology. Thus, the proposed 7.4 psi RVP standard for RFG would maintain the gasoline quality and its associated emission performance as calculated consistent with the statutory requirements and the Complex Model.

Although it will no longer be required for demonstration of RFG batch compliance, the Complex Model will be retained by EPA for compliance oversite purposes in conjunction with the proposed national fuel survey program. Continued adherence to the VOC emission performance reduction standard will be monitored through samples collected from RFG areas as part of the survey. This oversite function will help ensure that the emission reductions the Complex Model was intended to certify at the refinery gate are being maintained in use.

d. Consolidation of RFG Areas

Translating the VOC emissions performance standard into a summer RVP standard would enable EPA to simplify the RFG program significantly. Additionally, the creation of a single summer RVP standard for all RFG areas would further simplify the RFG program and automatically consolidate the VOC regions as required under section 1504(c) of EPAct.[33] Section 1504(c) directs EPA to revise the RFG regulations to consolidate the regulations for the VOC-Control Regions by eliminating the less stringent requirements.

In practice, there have been three sets of VOC emission performance standards for the VOC Regions of the RFG program: VOC-Control Regions 1 and 2, along with the adjustment to Region 2 provided for the Chicago/Milwaukee areas. To date, EPA has not taken action to consolidate the VOC regions as directed by EPAct. However, the creation of a single summer RVP standard provides both an opportunity and a mechanism by which to act on this requirement. A benefit of this consolidation would be the increased fungibility of RFG amongst historically distinct VOC-control regions.

We find that the EPAct language provides EPA with an additional source of authority to take this action to ( printed page 29046) translate the VOC performance standard into a single RVP standard.

e. Translating the VOC Performance Standard to a Summer RVP Standard

In order to translate the VOC performance standard into an RVP cap, we utilized the Complex Model and the 1990 baseline fuels and vehicles to determine the corresponding RVP. In accordance with EPAct, the VOC-Control Region 1 emission reduction standards were used to establish the consolidated RVP standard. More specifically, the per-gallon reduction requirements for VOC-Control Region 1 from 40 CFR 80.41 were used as the basis for determining the summer RVP standard. Given that we are proposing a per-gallon standard, it was deemed the most appropriate point of reference for determining the required VOC reduction from the statute. We recognize that the current RFG summer VOC performance standards under part 80 allow for refiners and importers to meet either a per-gallon summer VOC performance standard or an annual average summer VOC performance standard. We are proposing to replace all RFG summer VOC performance standards with a maximum RVP per-gallon standard translated from the RFG Region 1 summer VOC performance per-gallon standard. Under this proposal, fuel manufacturers would no longer comply through an annual average standard and must instead demonstrate compliance on a per-gallon basis during the summer.

The intention of this proposed action is to maintain the level of stringency observed in the RFG pool while transitioning away from using the Complex Model to demonstrate compliance to instead demonstrate compliance with a summer RVP standard. To that end, the starting point for our analysis was the batch reports submitted to EPA in the course of certifying batches of RFG. Several years were evaluated, but the most recent full year of data at the time the analysis was carried out was 2018. Summary statistics, based upon volumetrically weighting the batches, for the Complex Model parameters for this data are presented in Table V.A.2.e-1.

Table V.A.2. e -1—Summary Statistics for 2018 RFG

Weighted 5% Weighted 25% Weighted median Weighted 75% Weighted 95% Volume weighted average
Oxygen (wt%) 3.37 3.46 3.51 3.57 3.65 3.52
Sulfur (ppm) 4 10 18 26 42 19.3
Aromatics (vol%) 6.2 12.7 16.3 20 26.6 16.3
Olefins (vol%) 1.5 5.9 10.9 14.3 17.8 10.25
Benzene (vol%) 0.19 0.38 0.5 0.67 0.93 0.53
Ethanol (vol%) 9.23 9.46 9.61 9.77 10 9.62
E200 (%) 41.7 45.7 48.5 50.7 55.4 48.4
E300 (%) 81.4 84.1 86.5 88.9 92.6 86.6

There are only eight fuel parameters reported in Table V.A.2-5 because the remaining three parameters in the Complex Model (MTBE, ETBE, and TAME) have become negligible in the past 15 years, in part due to the removal of the RFG minimum oxygenate content requirement. The reported eight fuel parameters were then used to statistically construct “percentile” fuels based on how each of the eight parameters affected VOC performance in the Complex Model. For instance, the “5th” percentile is comprised of the 5th percentile values of Ethanol, E200, and E300 along with the 95th percentile values for aromatics, olefins, sulfur, and benzene. This combination results in the strictest set of parameters for RVP control and consequently the lowest, or “5th” percentile of allowable RVP. The parameter values for the 5th, 50th, and 95th percentile [34] RFG are reported in Table V.A.2.e-2, along with the volume-weighted average for each of the parameters for 2018 RFG.

Table V.A.2. e -2—Meeting the Phase II VOC Performance Standard for 2018 RFG

Fuel Oxygen (wt%) Sulfur (ppm) Aromatics (vol%) Olefins (vol%) Benzene (vol%) E200 (vol%) E300 (vol%)
5th 3.37 42 26.6 17.8 0.93 41.7 81.4
50th 3.51 18 16.3 10.9 0.5 48.5 86.5
95th 3.65 4 6.2 1.5 0.19 55.4 92.6
Average 3.51 19.3 16.3 10.3 0.53 48.4 86.6

Each of the four fuel compositions in Table V.A.2.e-2 was then exercised in the Complex Model in order to solve for the maximum allowable RVP while still meeting the VOC emissions reduction requirement. The maximum allowable RVP was calculated for both the average and per-gallon standards for VOC-Control Region 1 and are reported for each of the four compositions in Table V.A.2-7. ( printed page 29047)

Table V.A.2. e -3—Maximum Allowable RVP Level in the Complex Model for 2018 RFG Percentile Fuel Compositions

Percentile Volume-weighted average
5th 50th 95th
VOC-Control Region 1 Maximum Allowable RVP Level
Average Standards 6.7 7.14 7.24 7.12
Per-Gallon Standards 6.90 7.30 7.40 7.29

As would be expected, the volume-weighted average allowable RVP of 7.12 is nearly identical to the 7.11-7.14 range that was observed in the 2012-2017 batch report data presented in Figure V.A.2.b-1. This reflects the widespread use of the average standards by most RFG fuel manufacturers under the current program. The per-gallon standards would have theoretically allowed for a ~0.15 psi higher RVP across the average RFG fuel pool, but fuel manufacturers have predominantly used the average standards. The percentile fuel compositions demonstrate that there is the potential for approximately a half-pound variation in RVP for a compliant RFG fuel depending on the balance of the other fuel parameters. However, there are two important results from this analysis: (1) Solving for maximum allowable RVP for the volume-weighted average fuel yields a very similar RVP as observed in the batch reports (~7.1 psi); and (2) the per-gallon standards would have allowed for a pool average RVP of nearly 7.3 psi with no changes to RFG fuel composition.

Therefore, we believe that the proposed 7.4 psi RVP standard for RFG is appropriate.[35] The proposed standard equates to a 27.5 percent reduction in VOC emissions performance as compared to baseline gasoline used in baseline vehicles ( i.e., 1990 vehicles) using the Complex Model. We seek comment on the proposed 7.4 psi RVP standard.

f. Conventional Gasoline Batch Data Analysis

In order to translate the existing RFG VOC performance standard as an RFG summer RVP maximum per-gallon standard, it is necessary to evaluate how RVP per-gallon maximum standards are treated in practice. In order to evaluate the treatment of an RVP per-gallon maximum standard, we examined the RVP levels in relation to the 9.0 psi standard for CG in 2016.[36] To conduct the analysis, the batch reports were submitted to thorough quality control and assurance in order to ensure that only batches adhering to the 9.0 psi standard (boutique, federal 7.8 psi, etc. were all removed) and that contained less than one percent ethanol were considered.[37] The summary statistics for the 2016 summer CG batches are presented in Table V.A.2.f-1.

Table V.A.2. f -1—CG Summary Statistics From the 2016 Batch Reports

Summer CG
Percentile RVP Volume above Volume below
5th 7.32 27,187,626,247 1,420,043,309
50th 8.67 12,984,692,750 15,622,976,806
95th 8.99 1,194,383,604 27,413,285,952
Mean 8.47 18,762,397,380 9,845,272,176
Standard 9.0 489,040,207 28,118,629,349

The CG batch data is represented in histogram form in Figure V.A.2.f-1. The graduations of 0.1 psi on the x-axis allow for a clearer representation of where the bulk of the fuel resides in relation to the 9.0 psi RVP standard.

( printed page 29048)

The data from the CG batch reports show that the median RVP (8.67 psi) is approximately 0.3 psi below the 9.0 psi RVP standard. As would be expected, there is variability in the fuel batches, but the mode of the data is 0.2 psi below the standard and more than 95% of the CG fuel volume is below the standard. For CG, the mode fell 0.2 psi below the standard and the median fell 0.3 psi below the standard. This information was taken along with the average RVP of 7.12 psi for 2018 RFG discussed in Section V.A.2.e to conclude that a summer RVP standard for RFG of 7.4 psi would meet the goal of preserving the current environmental performance of RFG, while imposing little to no additional industry burden based upon the batch reports for CG. We seek comment on whether there would be additional industry burden associated with the proposed 7.4 psi RVP RFG standard.

g. Additional Changes Related to RFG

We are also proposing regulations intended to allow for greater compliance flexibility and increased gasoline fungibility for the RFG program. Specifically, in Section VIII.G we are proposing to address several provisions regarding fuel certification and recertification that are now commonplace due to the gasoline quality standards implemented since the onset of the RFG program. For instance, RFG is statutorily required to be used in certain ozone nonattainment or maintenance areas in both summer and winter. The differences between RFG and CG that require the respective fuels to be segregated in the summer ( i.e., RFG and CG must meet different standards in the summer) are not present during the winter season, where RFG and CG must meet identical standards under part 80. However, a similar prohibition on co-mingling RFG and CG in the winter exists.

To address this situation, we are proposing to allow all winter gasoline to be used in RFG areas without recertification. Distributors of gasoline would be allowed to designate winter gasolines without recertification as RFG or CG to comport with state or pipeline specifications, which may require those distinctions. We are also proposing provisions to allow California manufacturers and distributors the flexibility to ship California gasoline and diesel fuel to the rest of the U.S. due to their state specifications meeting or exceeding EPA's standards. Lastly, new recertification standards are being proposed to facilitate end-of-season recertification, emergency fuel waivers, and allow greater downstream flexibility. These provisions are discussed in more detail in Section VIII.G. We seek comment on the proposed approach.

3. Certified Butane and Pentane

We are proposing to streamline the provisions for gasoline blending manufacturers that blend butane and pentane of certified quality (certified butane and certified pentane, respectively) into PCG.[38] Under part 80, these flexibilities allow gasoline blending manufacturers to rely on test results by the butane or pentane producer rather than testing each batch of butane or pentane received as would otherwise be required of a gasoline blender manufacturer to demonstrate compliance with EPA standards. This approach would be maintained in part 1090.

We are proposing to combine these grades into single grades of “certified butane” and “certified pentane.” Part 80 currently has two grades of butane and pentane (commercial and noncommercial) that can be used by gasoline blender manufacturers under these provisions. During the rule development process, many stakeholders highlighted the burden of demonstrating compliance with the part 80 butane and pentane blending provisions. We believe that, coupled with other changes to the specifications for certified butane and certified pentane described in this section, there is an opportunity to consolidate the grades of butane and pentane. This would allow for a streamlining of the compliance demonstrations needed for certified butane and certified pentane blenders to produce gasoline using certified butane and certified pentane. ( printed page 29049)

The current standards in part 80 for commercial and noncommercial grades of butane and pentane contain specifications on the maximum sulfur, benzene, olefin, and aromatics content. Consistent with the proposed changes to RFG certification,[39] we are proposing to remove the maximum olefin and aromatics standards from the specifications for certified butane and certified pentane as we are proposing to no longer require those parameters for the certification of gasoline, as discussed in Section V.A.2, and because we do not expect issues to occur with other regulated parameters. Both certified butane and pentane would be subject to a maximum 10 ppm sulfur standard and maximum 0.03 volume percent benzene standard as are the commercial and noncommercial grades of butane and pentane today. The sulfur and benzene specifications are still needed to ensure that certified butane and certified pentane blenders do not increase the amount of sulfur and benzene in the national gasoline pool.

Under part 80, commercial grade pentane is subject to both 95 volume percent pentane purity specification and a maximum 5 volume percent C6 [40] and higher carbon number hydrocarbons specification.[41] Non-commercial grade pentane is subject to 95 volume percent pentane purity specification but is not subject to specifications on the amount of C6 and higher carbon number hydrocarbons that may be present. We are proposing to not include a standard on C6 and higher hydrocarbon content in part 1090 for certified pentane given that compliance with the proposed 95 volume percent pentane purity specification would ensure that no more than 5 volume percent C6 and higher hydrocarbons are present.

Unlike the current standard for non-commercial grade pentane, the current standards for commercial and non-commercial grade butane do not include a specification on minimum butane purity. With the proposed removal of the maximum olefin and aromatics specifications for certified butane, it is appropriate to propose controls on the purity of certified butane that are consistent with the purity specification for certified pentane. During the rule development process, we requested input from industry on applying a 95 volume percent purity specification to certified butane similar to the proposed purity specification for certified pentane. Butane blenders stated that implementing a minimum 95 percent purity specification would cause unnecessary additional processing costs to remove pentane that is often present. They noted that the presence of pentane would not be an environmental concern because of the clean burning properties of pentane and the lower volatility of pentane compare to butane. Butane blenders suggested that implementing a minimum 92 volume percent purity specification for certified butane would accomplish our intended goal of ensuring that undesirable chemical species do not contaminate certified butane while providing the necessary flexibility. We agree that a 92 volume percent purity specification would not result in increased emissions from the use of certified butane compared to a 95 volume percent purity specification and would reduce the burden to industry; therefore, we are proposing a minimum 92 volume percent purity specification for certified butane. We request comment on whether the proposed 92 volume percent purity specification for certified butane would provide sufficient flexibility to allow for the presence of pentane in certified butane while still preserving gasoline quality or whether a more or less stringent purity specification would be appropriate.

We are also proposing to simplify the quality assurance requirements for certified butane and pentane blenders. Under part 80, butane and pentane blenders are required to conduct periodic quality assurance testing of the batches of butane or pentane they receive. For butane, the current frequency of sampling and testing for the butane received from each butane supplier must be one sample for every 500,000 gallons of butane received, or one sample every three months, whichever is more frequent. For commercial-grade pentane, the sampling and testing frequency is once for every 350,000 gallons of pentane, or one sample every three months, whichever is more frequent. Noncommercial-grade pentane is currently subject to a more frequent sampling and testing frequency of once every 250,000 gallons or one sample every three months, whichever is more frequent.

To simplify these quality assurance requirements, we are proposing to require the same sampling and testing frequency for certified butane and pentane of once every 500,000 gallons of butane or pentane received, or one sample every three months, whichever is more frequent. We believe that a more frequent sampling and testing is not needed for certified pentane versus certified butane given that they are subject to similar standards. To the extent that there may be heightened concern with the potential presence of high boiling range hydrocarbons that are typically only found in full boiling range gasoline (such as C7-C20 hydrocarbons) in certified pentane versus certified butane due to difference in manufacturing processes,[42] we believe that such concerns are adequately mitigated by the existing registration requirements for certified pentane producers.

4. State and Local Fuel Standards

a. Overview

We are transferring and consolidating the part 80 regulations that relate to RVP, RFG, and other summer gasoline requirements to part 1090. For example, we are removing outdated provisions and making it easier to identify the RVP standard that applies in a given location. We are also proposing changes that are intended to update and simplify existing regulations and reflect our experience in implementing these provisions in partnership with states and industry. For example, we are proposing procedures for states that request a relaxation of the federal RVP limit of 7.8 psi. This is similar to the existing procedures used for RFG opt-out by states. We are not proposing any regulatory revisions for current fuel programs that apply in several states. The following sections detail the changes we are proposing.

We are also using this action to announce that an updated boutique fuel list is currently posted on our website.[43] Section 1541(b) of EPAct requires EPA to remove any fuel from the published list if the fuel either ceases to be included in a state implementation plan (SIP) or is identical to a federal fuel.[44] Several fuels have ceased to be included in SIPs since the boutique fuel list was originally published in 2006.[45] The boutique fuel list on our website, however, provides up-to-date information on where such fuels are currently used.

b. Consolidating Gasoline Volatility Standards

We are transferring summer gasoline requirements related to RVP limits that ( printed page 29050) are currently in part 80 to part 1090. Summer gasoline for use in the continental U.S. must comply with either the federal maximum RVP limit of 9.0 psi or the more stringent RVP limit of 7.8 psi, unless it is either a federal RFG covered area, is subject to California's RFG regulations, or EPA has waived preemption and approved a state request to adopt a more stringent RVP into a SIP.[46 47 48] The proposed regulatory text would simplify and clarify regulatory text currently in 40 CFR 80.27(a) and 80.70, and would not change the current federal RFG and summer gasoline RVP requirements nationwide.

c. Reformatting the List of Areas Where Federal Low RVP Standard Applies

We are also transferring the current RVP standards in 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2), which sets out the current federal RVP limits to part 1090. Areas subject to the federal 7.8 psi RVP limit are listed in a table in 40 CFR 1090.215(a)(1), describing the geographic areas subject to the 7.8 psi RVP limit. The regulatory text specifies that any gasoline that is not subject to a lower RVP limit is subject to the federal 9.0 psi RVP limit. We are not proposing any changes or revisions to applicable RVP limits. Specifically, we are:

The table in 40 CFR 1090.215(a)(1) includes the name of the area and the county or counties in the area where the federal 7.8 psi RVP limit applies, rather than the current table in part 80 that dates back to the initial one-hour ozone standard, is overly complex and has caused confusion among states and industry. The new table would also include a description of the boundaries for areas that include partial counties where RVP standards are currently in effect. Under the current regulations in part 80, interested parties must search 40 CFR part 81 in order to identify these specific boundaries of the area where the 7.8 psi RVP limit applies. As previously noted, this action does not change any existing requirements.

d. Reformatting Federal RFG Applicability and Covered Areas

As part of transferring part 80 requirements relating to federal RFG to part 1090, we are reformatting how the information on current RFG covered areas is presented. Specifically, in 40 CFR 1090.270 we are presenting the description of RFG covered areas in a table format and grouping the covered areas by the process under which the area became a covered area. There are four ways in which an area could have become an RFG covered area:

The tables in part 1090 list the areas in each of these groups. As previously explained, we are not changing the geographic applicability of federal RFG.

We are also transferring the existing regulatory processes by which an area may become a federal RFG covered area in the future, which are if: (1) An area is reclassified to Severe nonattainment for an ozone NAAQS; (2) a governor requests that a classified ozone nonattainment area become a covered area; or (3) a governor requests that an attainment area in the ozone transport region be included as a federal RFG covered area.

We are also including two California areas on the list of covered areas in part 1090 because the areas became federal RFG covered areas when they were reclassified as Severe ozone nonattainment areas.[49] The two areas are the Sacramento Metro area and the San Joaquin Valley area.[50] We have provided information on these RFG covered areas on our website but had not previously included them in the list of covered areas in 40 CFR 80.70. This does not impact California's regulations that require the sale of California RFG in these areas, but should California's regulations no longer apply in the future, the federal RFG regulations would still apply in keeping with the CAA.

e. Continuation of Federal RFG Requirements in Covered Areas When Revised Ozone NAAQS Are Implemented

In the Phase 2 Implementation Rule for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS, we stated that areas that became RFG covered areas pursuant to CAA section 211(k)(10)(D) would remain RFG covered areas at least until they were redesignated to attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. We also stated that areas that became covered areas because they opted into RFG would remain covered areas until they opt out of RFG pursuant to our opt-out regulations. We also included regulatory text in 40 CFR 80.70(m),[51] parts of which are now outdated and unnecessary because they were specific to the transition from the 1-hour ozone NAAQS to the 1997 ozone NAAQS and to redesignations to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Both the 1-hour and 1997 ozone NAAQS have been revoked.

We are maintaining and clarifying in this action our intention and existing practice with regard to applicable RFG requirements for the implementation of revised ozone NAAQS. Our intention is consistent with our past approach and fuel program implementation to date. Specifically, for purposes of implementing revised ozone NAAQS, RFG will continue to apply in all covered areas ( i.e., both areas that opted into RFG under CAA section 211(k)(6) and covered areas under CAA section 211(k)(10)(D)). As previously explained, this is consistent with how the federal RFG program has been implemented during the transition to the 1997, 2008, and 2015 ozone NAAQS. As also previously explained, part 1090 includes procedures for either removing a prohibition on or opting out of RFG requirements, consistent with CAA requirements; thus, states should be able ( printed page 29051) to change their RFG programs under certain cases.

f. Clarifying When Mandatory RFG Covered Nonattainment Areas Can Be Removed From the List of Covered Areas

In the Phase 2 Implementation Rule for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS, we reserved for future consideration the continued applicability of RFG requirements in mandatory RFG covered areas pursuant to CAA section 211(k)(10)(D) ( i.e., they were among the areas with the nine highest 1-hour ozone design values from 1987-1989 or they have been reclassified to Severe for an ozone NAAQS) in the future.[52]

We are proposing a new provision in part 1090 that would allow mandatory RFG covered area pursuant to CAA section 211(k)(10)(D) to remove the applicability of the RFG program if certain requirements are met. Under this proposed provision, a state could request the removal of its RFG program if the RFG area was either redesignated to attainment for the most stringent ozone NAAQS in effect at the time or initially designated as attainment for the most stringent ozone NAAQS in effect. For example, the 2015 ozone NAAQS of 70 ppb is currently the most stringent ozone NAAQS. Therefore, in order for a mandatory RFG area to remove its RFG program, it would have to be either redesignated to attainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS (if had initially been designated as attainment for that NAAQS) or be initially designated as an attainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. If the area is initially designated as an attainment area for the most stringent ozone NAAQS in effect, under the proposed requirement the area would have to be redesignated to attainment for the prior ozone NAAQS before the RFG program could be removed. For example, under this proposal an area would either have been designated as an attainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS with an approved maintenance plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS or be redesignated to attainment for the 2015 NAAQS to be eligible for consideration for removal of the RFG program. In either case, we are proposing to require that any request to remove the federal RFG requirements must include an approved maintenance plan that demonstrates maintenance of the ozone NAAQS throughout the period of time addressed by the maintenance plan without the emission reductions from the federal RFG program. Additionally, the proposed provision would require a state to also demonstrate that the removal of the requirement for the federal RFG program would not interfere with reasonable further progress requirements or attainment or maintenance of any other NAAQS or interfere with any other CAA requirement.[53] We seek comment on this proposed requirement.

We are proposing to allow states with current mandatory RFG covered areas to remove those programs in the future when all ozone NAAQS are attained and maintained. Although the CAA requires RFG in certain ozone nonattainment areas, it is important that states can use limited resources for programs that are necessary for attainment, rather than require the implementation of RFG indefinitely simply because such a covered area had the highest ozone design values 30 years ago or were reclassified as Severe for a prior ozone NAAQS. This proposal is premised on our view that once a covered area attains the most stringent ozone NAAQS, states should be able to determine whether an emission reduction strategy should either continue or be removed.

We believe that a mandatory RFG covered area should have the ability to determine if it is necessary to continue as an RFG covered area once it has attained the most stringent ozone NAAQS that is in effect and can demonstrate maintenance of the ozone NAAQS without the emissions reductions attributable to RFG in the approved CAA section 175A maintenance plan for the area. Requiring that an area attain the most stringent ozone NAAQS and demonstrate maintenance of the ozone NAAQS without the emissions reductions from RFG provides adequate safeguards with respect to protecting air quality improvements and public health, while providing states with the flexibility to determine the best course for maintaining the ozone NAAQS.

This proposed provision is in addition to the current RFG opt-out procedures that apply to areas that opted-in to RFG under CAA section 211(k)(6)(A) or (B) unless an opt-in area under CAA section 211(k)(6)(A) has been reclassified as a Severe ozone nonattainment area. These procedures, which were established in 1996 and 1997, are currently in 40 CFR 80.72 and are also being transferred to part 1090.[54] We are not changing them except for removing obsolete regulatory text and minor clarifications, such as requirements that applied for specific periods of time that are now in the past.

g. Providing Streamlined Procedures for Areas Relaxing the Federal Low RVP Standard

We are proposing to include a new streamlined process for state requests to relax the federal 7.8 psi RVP standard for gasoline sold between June 1st and September 15th of each year. This action would provide procedures similar to those that are currently used when states opt out of the RFG program.[55]

The current federal 7.8 psi RVP limit took effect in 1992 and was initially required in certain 1-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment areas. We have also allowed for state relaxation requests and since 2014 we have approved relaxations of the federal 7.8 psi RVP standard for 12 areas in the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Tennessee.[56] As discussed in Section V.A.4.c, we are providing a new table in part 1090 that sets out where the federal 7.8 psi RVP standards currently applies.

Under our current regulations, the process for accomplishing low RVP relaxation requires two EPA approval actions before a state's request can be effective. First, the EPA Regional Office needs to approve a state's revision to an area's SIP, such as a maintenance plan, for the relevant ozone NAAQS. After that rulemaking is completed, a second rulemaking by EPA Headquarters is necessary to remove the subject area(s) from the federal low RVP regulations in 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2).[57] The current process of requiring both of these approval actions before a state's request is effective is cumbersome and time consuming given the number of linear steps involved. There is also an element of confusion and uncertainty to states, local businesses, industry, and the ( printed page 29052) public concerning the effective date of an RVP relaxation.

Based on our experience since 2014, we have concluded that the current RFG opt-out regulatory procedures provide a better model for considering state requests to relax the federal 7.8 psi RVP standard. Our proposed regulations for relaxing the federal 7.8 psi RVP standard in part 1090 mirrors the current part 80 RFG opt-out procedures, and are as follows:

Use of this proposed process would eliminate the need for EPA to complete a notice-and-comment rulemaking each time EPA acts on a request to relax a low volatility gasoline standard to remove the subject area from the list of areas subject to that standard. Under this proposed process, similar to the current RFG opt-out procedures, the effective date of the federal low RVP relaxation would be known shortly after the EPA Regional Office's rulemaking on the state's SIP revision becomes effective. We believe that using similar procedures for acting on state requests to change either federal low RVP or RFG programs would avoid unnecessary confusion and still continue to provide the same level of environmental protection. Under both the current regulations in part 80 and the proposed regulations in part 1090, the state's SIP revision must include revisions to the on-road and nonroad mobile source NOX and VOC inventories to reflect the removal of the federal low RVP fuel. The SIP must also demonstrate that the area would continue to maintain the relevant ozone NAAQS and that the change would not negatively impact the area's compliance with other CAA requirements.[58] Further, we would continue to act on such a SIP revision and CAA section 110(l) non-interference demonstration through notice-and-comment rulemaking. Finally, this proposed process, which streamlines the RVP relaxation program, would result in the conservation of limited government resources and bring certainty for states, the public and gasoline suppliers as to when a state's request to relax RVP would take effect.

h. Transitioning From Federal RFG or a Boutique Fuel Program to the Federal RVP Standard in Certain States

We are providing information to states that decide to either opt out of federal RFG or remove a state SIP fuel rule that regulates gasoline RVP ( i.e., a boutique fuel) that the state in its SIP revision ( e.g., maintenance plan revision) may request that EPA apply the 9.0 psi RVP standard rather than the federal 7.8 psi RVP standard.[59] The SIP revision will have to document that increasing the summer RVP standard to 9.0 psi will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the relevant ozone NAAQS or with requirements for reasonable further progress, attainment, or maintenance of any other NAAQS.[60] This reflects our experience in working with states that have decided to change their fuel programs in areas where the federal 9.0 psi RVP standard could be applied.

In such cases, the ultimate goal of these states has been to allow the sale of gasoline that meets the federal 9.0 psi RVP standard. States have previously accomplished this goal by first submitting a SIP revision ( e.g., a maintenance plan revision) based on the application of the federal 7.8 psi standard and then later submitting a second SIP revision to initiate the process to relax the federal 7.8 psi RVP standard to 9.0 psi. We are providing this information to ensure that the relevant states are aware that they can accomplish the goal of relaxing the federal RVP standard to 9.0 psi as long as the associated SIP revision meet the CAA section 110(l) non-interference requirements for the relevant ozone NAAQS and all other pollutants. Accomplishing the goal of allowing the sale of gasoline that meets the federal 9.0 psi RVP standard with one SIP revision, EPA approval of one SIP revision, and one EPA action to update the lists areas subject to the specific gasoline standards will conserve state and federal resources.

This proposal allowing the transition to the federal RVP standard of 9.0 psi through one SIP revision continues to protect air quality and public health because the state must demonstrate through its SIP revision and CAA section 110(l) non-interference demonstration that air quality goals are met as required by the CAA when gasoline that complies with the federal RVP standard of 9.0 psi is sold in the area. In addition, EPA must then approve that SIP revision and CAA section 110(l) demonstration through notice-and-comment rulemaking. This approach also provides fuel suppliers with certainty and stability. Under part 1090, fuel suppliers in such areas would not be required to switch from supplying federal RFG or a state fuel to federal 7.8 psi RVP gasoline for a short period of time only to ultimately switch to supplying gasoline that meets the federal 9.0 psi RVP standard.

We note, however, that if such a state wants EPA to apply the federal 7.8 psi RVP limit, that state could document this intention in its SIP revision, and the associated emissions modeling should be based on application of the federal 7.8 psi RVP limit. In such a case, EPA Headquarters would also complete a rulemaking to revise the list of areas where the federal 7.8 psi RVP standard applies ( i.e., add such an area to the list in part 1090).

i. Announcing Updates to the Boutique Fuels List

We are also using this action to announce that an updated boutique fuel list is currently posted on our website. Section 1541(b) of EPAct required EPA, in consultation with the Department of Energy (DOE), to determine the total number of fuels approved into all SIPs ( printed page 29053) as of September 1, 2004, under section 211(c)(4)(C), and publish a list of such fuels, including the state and Petroleum Administration for Defense District (PADD) in which they are used for public review and comment. EPA originally published the required list on 2006.[61]

Additionally, we are required to remove any fuels from the published list if the fuel either ceases to be included in a SIP or is identical to a federal fuel.[62] Since the original list was published, a number of fuels have been removed from approved SIPs and have thus ceased to exist in SIPs.[63] In Table V.5.h-1 we are providing an updated list of boutique fuels that includes all of the boutique fuels that are currently in approved SIPs. We also maintain a current list of boutique fuels on our State Fuels website.[64] We will continue to update that website as changes to boutique fuels occur and periodically announce updates in the Federal Register for fuels that are either removed or added.

Table V.5. h -1—Total Number of Fuels Approved in SIPs Under CAA Section 211(c)(4)(C)

Type of fuel control PADD Region-state
RVP of 7.8 psi 2 5—Indiana.
3 6—Texas (May 1-October 1).*
RVP of 7.0 psi 2 7—Kansas.
2 5—Michigan.
2 7—Missouri.
3 4—Alabama.65
3 6—Texas.
Low Emission Diesel 3 6—Texas.
Cleaner Burning Gasoline (Summer) 5 9—Arizona (May 1-September 30).*
Cleaner Burning Gasoline (Non-Summer) 5 9—Arizona (October 1-April 30).
Winter Gasoline (aromatics & sulfur) 5 9—Nevada.66
* Dates refer to summer gasoline programs with different RVP control periods from the federal RVP control period, which runs from May 1st through September 15th for fuel manufacturers and June 1st through September 15th for downstream parties.

5. Substantially Similar

CAA section 211(f)(1)(B) prohibits the introduction into commerce of “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.” While this provision has always applied to fuel and fuel additive manufacturers by virtue of it being a statutory requirement, we did not listed it in our part 80 regulations among the requirements for fuel.[67] We are proposing to address the substantially similar requirements of the CAA in part 1090 for gasoline and gasoline fuel additives as part of our effort to consolidate fuels compliance requirements and make it easier for regulated parties to understand their obligations.[68] We are proposing to include a requirement in the regulation that that all gasoline, BOBs, and gasoline fuel additives must be substantially similar under CAA section 211(f)(1)(B) or have a waiver under CAA section 211(f)(4). We seek comment on this approach.

EPA has issued two coexisting definitions of substantially similar for gasoline, one in 2008 [69] and one in 2019,[70] and several CAA section 211(f)(4) waivers. The regulations proposed today refer to the statutory provisions (CAA section 211(f)(1)(B) and (4)), and the conditions associated with CAA section 211(f)(4) waivers and the parameters associated with the 2019 definition of substantially similar.

B. Diesel Fuel

1. Overview and Streamlining of Diesel Fuel Program

Similar to our approach for the gasoline standards, we are proposing to consolidate the diesel fuel standards into a single subpart in part 1090 (subpart D). We are not proposing any changes to the sulfur or cetane/aromatics standards for diesel fuel, the sulfur standards for diesel fuel additives, or the ECA marine fuel standards. We are removing expired provisions that were needed to support the phase-in of the diesel fuel sulfur program. The phase-in period was completed in 2014; however, these now expired phase-in provisions are imbedded throughout the diesel program regulations, adding burden to regulated parties in identifying their compliance duties and confusing other stakeholders. As part of the transfer of current part 80 regulations to part 1090, we are also consolidating identical provisions for highway and other diesel fuels into a single regulatory requirement to improve clarity.

We are proposing the following revisions to existing part 80 regulations in the following sections. First, we are proposing to remove the requirement that motor vehicle diesel fuel be free of red dye because we believe this requirement no longer provides an effective means of evaluating compliance with the diesel sulfur standards. Second, we are proposing to streamline the requirements that pertain to importation of diesel fuel that does not meet EPA standards. Third, we are proposing to remove the registration requirement for ECA marine fuel distributors and associated requirements to include a registration number on PTDs. Finally, we are proposing ( printed page 29054) streamlined means for downstream parties to redesignate heating oil, kerosene, and jet fuel as ULSD that would require specific documentation from the original fuel manufacturer.

We expect that these proposed changes, when finalized, would simplify the diesel fuel programs, resulting in reduced burden associated with demonstrating compliance with the applicable sulfur standards and maximize the fungibility of diesel fuel, allowing the market to operate more efficiently. These changes are not expected to change the stringency of the diesel fuel and IMO marine fuel standards.

2. Removing the Red Dye Requirement

Part 80 currently requires that motor vehicle diesel fuel must be free of visible evidence of dye solvent red 164 (which has a characteristic red color in diesel fuel), except for motor vehicle diesel fuel that is used in a manner that is tax exempt under section 4082 of the Internal Revenue Code.[71] This EPA requirement is consistent with a parallel requirement in the Internal Revenue Code that is intended to support compliance with diesel fuel tax requirements. Under the Internal Revenue Code, NRLM diesel fuel, heating oil, and exempt highway diesel fuel [72] must contain red dye before leaving a fuel distribution terminal to indicate its tax-exempt status.

When the sulfur standards for off-highway diesel fuel were less stringent than those for motor vehicle diesel fuel, the presence of red dye was a useful screening tool for EPA to identify potential noncompliance with the sulfur standards for highway diesel fuel. However, the presence of red dye has become a much less useful indicator of sulfur noncompliance as other distillate fuels have become subject to the same 15 ppm sulfur standard that applies to highway diesel fuel. With the completion of the phase-in of our diesel fuel sulfur program in 2014, all highway, nonroad, locomotive, and marine diesel fuel must meet a 15 ppm sulfur standard except for a limited volume of locomotive and marine (LM) diesel fuel produced by transmix processors, which is subject to a 500 ppm sulfur standard. The distribution of 500 ppm LM diesel fuel is subject to separate compliance provisions to ensure that is not misdirected for use in highway, nonroad, locomotive, or marine engines that require the use of 15 ppm diesel fuel (ULSD).

The other potential source of red-dyed high-sulfur diesel fuel that might inappropriately be diverted as highway diesel has been heating oil. However, the vast majority of heating is currently subject to a 15 ppm standard.[73] Therefore, we believe that the requirement that red dye should not be present in motor vehicle diesel fuel no longer provides meaningful added assurance of compliance with highway diesel ULSD standards. Rather, the existence of this requirement complicates the process of providing alternate sources of diesel fuel when supplies of highway diesel fuel are constricted due to extreme and unusual supply circumstances. State authorities are currently required to request a waiver from EPA and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) from the respective agency's red dye requirements to enable the use of 15 ppm NRLM diesel fuel on highway during such circumstances. Eliminating our red dye requirement would reduce state officials' waiver requests to just an IRS waiver during such events without substantially affecting the ability of EPA to enforce highway ULSD standards. Therefore, we are proposing to remove the EPA requirement that motor vehicle diesel fuel must be free from visual evidence of red dye.[74] This proposed change would not alter the Internal Revenue Code requirement that NRLM diesel fuel, heating oil, and exempt motor vehicle diesel fuel must contain red dye before leaving a fuel distribution terminal to indicate its tax-exempt status.

3. Importation of Off Spec Diesel Fuel

We are proposing to replace the provisions for the importation of diesel fuel treated as blendstock (DTAB) [75] with a streamlined procedure to handle imported off-spec diesel fuel. Under part 80, most of the DTAB provisions are designed to account for the DTAB in compliance calculations that have not been used since 2010. The part 80 provisions require importers to include DTAB in compliance calculations that are no longer applicable, to keep DTAB segregated from other diesel fuel, and limit the importer's ability to transfer title of DTAB. Under part 1090, importers could import diesel fuel that does not comply with EPA standards if certain provisions (which are a subset of those currently required under part 80) are met. Under the proposed provisions, the importer would be required to offload the imported diesel fuel into one or more shore tanks containing diesel, sample and test the blended fuel to confirm that it meets all applicable per-gallon standards before introduction into commerce, and keep all applicable records. We believe that this simplification provides the needed flexibility for importers while providing improved clarity.

4. Annex VI Marine Fuel Standards

In this action, we are mostly proposing to transpose without change the regulations in subpart I of part 80 for distillate diesel fuel that complies with the 0.10 percent (1,000 ppm) and 0.50 percent (5,000 ppm) sulfur standards contained in Annex VI to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL Annex VI). The U.S. ratified MARPOL Annex VI and became a Party to this Protocol on October 8, 2009. MARPOL Annex VI requires marine vessels operating globally to use fuel that meets the 0.50 percent sulfur standard starting January 1, 2020, rather than the current standard of 3.50 percent (35,000 ppm) sulfur (“global marine fuel”). The MARPOL Annex VI standard is 0.10 percent sulfur for fuel used in vessels operating in designated Emission Control Areas (ECAs).[76]

In a separate action, we modified our diesel fuel regulations in part 80 to allow fuel manufacturers and distributors to sell distillate diesel fuel meeting the 2020 global marine fuel standard instead of the ULSD or ECA marine standards.[77] We are incorporating those provisions into part 1090 with minor changes to be consistent with the proposed part 1090 structure.

Regarding ECA marine fuel, we are including the provisions from part 80 in part 1090 without change save one major exception. Under part 80, distributors of ECA marine fuel from the refiner to the point of transfer to a vessel are currently required to register with EPA and must include this registration number on PTDs.[78] Distributors of other ( printed page 29055) distillate and residual fuels had similar “designate and track” requirements during the phase-in of the ULSD standards for highway and nonroad diesel fuel to allow the temporary use of limited volumes of 500 ppm highway and nonroad diesel fuel under the program's small refiner and credit provisions.[79] The majority of these requirements gradually expired with the phase-out of the ULSD program's small refiner and credit provisions that ended in 2014, which allowed the production of limited volumes of 500 ppm highway diesel fuel. Beginning in 2014, the only fuel distributors that must register with EPA are those that handle ECA marine fuel and 500 ppm LM diesel fuel produced by transmix processors.[80]

We believe that the benefit associated with having ECA marine fuel distributors register with EPA may not outweigh the burdens associated with this requirement. Like distributors of other regulated fuels, distributors of ECA marine fuel would be required to identify themselves on the PTD. This information could be used by EPA to help determine what parties in the ECA marine fuel distribution chain may be responsible for fuel represented as ECA marine fuel in the distribution system that does not meet the requisite fuel quality standards. While having a registration number on the ECA marine fuel PTD facilitates this process, we do not believe that it is necessary. Therefore, we are proposing to remove the requirement that distributors of ECA marine fuel must register with EPA and include this registration number on ECA marine fuel PTDs. We believe that this would meaningfully reduce the burden to fuel distributors and would avoid potential delays in the transportation of ECA marine fuel due to potential distributors not being registered with EPA, while not diminishing the air quality benefits of the ECA marine fuel program. Any person who produces diesel fuel, including ECA marine fuel, by mixing blendstocks is a blender manufacturer and must continue to register and comply with all applicable requirements; this is consistent with the current regulatory under part 80 and would be unchanged in part 1090. We request comment on the benefits and costs of the current registration requirement for ECA marine fuel distributors.

5. Heating Oil, Kerosene, and Jet Fuel

Under part 80, we first established the diesel sulfur program that required only on-highway or motor vehicle diesel to meet the 15 ppm sulfur standard. We designed most of the provisions related to designating, segregating, and labeling distillate fuels to avoid the contamination of ULSD with higher sulfur distillate fuels, which at the time were non-road diesel, heating oil, kerosene, and jet fuel. Now a federal 15 ppm standard applies for motor vehicle, non-road, locomotive, and marine diesel fuel, and, as discussed in Section V.B.2, a state or local 15 ppm sulfur standard applies to most of the heating oil used in the U.S. The provisions designed to avoid contamination of ULSD with higher sulfur distillate fuels now exist where there is no difference between most distillate fuels; however, the provisions have remained in place despite this change in the distillate fuel market. These obsolete provisions contribute to inefficiency in the distribution system leading to higher costs, and barriers to the free movement of fuel during times of unforeseen supply disruptions ( e.g., refinery fires, hurricanes, etc.). Therefore, we are proposing to allow heating oil, kerosene, and jet fuel certified to ULSD standards to be redesignated downstream as ULSD for use in motor vehicles and NRLM engines without recertification by the downstream party if certain conditions are met.

Under these proposed provisions, downstream parties could rely upon documentation from pipelines or fuel manufacturers that the heating oil, kerosene, or jet fuel was certified to meet the 15 ppm ULSD sulfur standard and cetane/aromatics specifications to fungibly transport, store, and dispense all 15 ppm sulfur distillate fuels downstream. We are also proposing provisions in part 1090 that would also allow ULSD to be used as heating oil, kerosene, jet fuel, or ECA marine fuel without recertification as long as records are kept demonstrating that the ULSD had been redesignated. We believe that these provisions would maximize the fungibility of distillate fuels, resulting in substantially reduced distributional costs and greater efficiency in the fuels market.

During the rule development process, several stakeholders asked that we address issues regarding accounting for distillate fuels under the RFS program. We believe that this is outside the scope of this action. We recognize that this proposal could impact RFS compliance and have finalized provisions to help clarify how obligated parties ( i.e., refiners and importers of gasoline and diesel fuel) account for distillate fuels under the RFS program in a separate action.[81]

We believe these proposed changes could help increase the efficiency with which distillate fuels are distributed, resulting in significant cost savings to stakeholders and consumers. We seek comment on whether this is the case and on how to quantify the associated cost savings.

VI. Exemptions, Hardships, and Special Provisions

A. Exemptions

We are also transferring provisions that exempt fuels from applicable standards that are currently contained in part 80 to part 1090. We are proposing minor revisions for purposes of modernizing these exemptions as well as removing obsolete exemption provisions, and any exemptions that were granted under part 80 will remain in effect with their original conditions as applicable under part 1090. As a result, instead of being scattered through various subparts as is the current practice in part 80, these provisions would be consolidated into a single subpart in part 1090 (subpart G) for all exemptions. This includes those exemptions that require a petition such as the hardship exemption and those that do not such as the for export exemption. This structure is designed to increase their accessibility and usability. Consistent with current provisions, exempted fuels, fuel additives, and regulated blendstocks do not need to comply with the standards of part 1090, but remain subject to other requirements ( e.g., registration, reporting, and recordkeeping) that are now also proposed to be moved to part 1090.

We are not proposing any revisions to exemptions nor the related requirements that apply to fuels used for national security and military purposes, temporary research and development (R&D), racing, and aviation. Similarly, we are not proposing to change the exemption that applies to fuel in Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Summer gasoline in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands would also continue to be exempt from the federal volatility regulations.

We are, however, proposing minor revisions to these exemptions for consistency and as a result of consolidating the various part 80 ( printed page 29056) exemptions. We are proposing that exemptions granted under part 80 would remain in effect under part 1090, and as previously explained removing exemption provisions that are no longer active.

We are proposing some changes to modernize the exemption provisions. First, we are proposing to include language that would impose conditions on parties operating under a research and development (“R&D”) test program to prevent the inadvertent use of test fuels exempted under a temporary R&D exemption by participants not included in the test program. Recently, we have received requests for R&D exemptions that focus on the effects of a certain fuel's use in more real world operation conditions (as opposed to a contained laboratory type situation). This often requires the test fuel be made available in a way that could result in vehicles or engines not included as part of the R&D program inappropriately using the test fuel. We believe it is appropriate for applicants requesting such an R&D exemption to take reasonable precautions to prevent consumers not participating in the test program from fueling with the test fuel. We are requesting comment on procedures that could be applied to fuels being tested under an R&D exemption when the test includes consumer participation that could result in the aforementioned misfueling.

Second, we are proposing to allow certain exemptions for fuel additives and regulated blendstocks. Under part 80, it was unclear whether some exemptions applied to fuel additives and regulated blendstocks under certain programs, such as the gasoline sulfur program. Under 1090, fuel additives and regulated blendstocks would now be exempt from applicable requirements if certain conditions are met. For example, the military use exemption would now explicitly exempt fuels, fuel additives and regulated blendstocks used in either military vehicles or in support of military operations.

Third, we are proposing that parties that transport and store exempt aviation and racing fuel take reasonable precautions to avoid the contamination of exempt fuels when using the same tanker trucks and tanks to transport and store exempt and non-exempt fuels. Aviation and racing gasoline can often contain lead additives that can harm emission controls on vehicles and engines designed to operate on unleaded gasoline. For example, when a tanker truck carrying exempt racing gasoline is later used to transport non-exempt gasoline, residual exempt racing gasoline could remain in the tanker truck and contaminate the non-exempt gasoline. We believe it is prudent for parties to follow established voluntary consensus-based standards for the cleaning out of tanker trucks. As such, part 1090 lists two such examples for cleaning tanker trucks to avoid contamination.[82] We seek comment on this proposed requirement and whether there are other voluntary consensus-based standards we should reference.

California gasoline and diesel fuel are currently exempt from the part 80 standards in separate provisions under the various subparts. We are consolidating these existing exemptions for California fuels into a single comprehensive section. This reorganization eliminates the redundancy that resulted as new programs were implemented with California exemptions and old programs sunset but remained in the regulations with their original California fuels exemption. Additionally, housing all the provisions for the California fuels exemption in one section facilitates compliance with its requirements, as regulated parties need not scour part 1090 for hidden exemption provisions. We are also proposing provisions that clarify how California gasoline and diesel fuels may be used in states other than California in the consolidated California exemption section that explains the provisions. Under the current part 80 regulations, fuel manufacturers that make California gasoline and California diesel fuel must recertify those fuels in order to sell them outside the state of California. We are retaining this recertification requirement in part 1090. Fuel manufacturers of California gasoline may recertify their fuels under the applicable standards of this part in order to sell such gasoline outside California. When manufacturers of California gasoline recertify their gasoline, they may participate in the Federal Averaging, Banking, and Trading (“ABT”) programs for gasoline sulfur and benzene. In addition to maintaining the option of recertifying, we are proposing to allow California gasoline manufacturers or distributors of California gasoline to simply redesignate the fuel as CG or RFG, so long as the California gasoline meets all the requirements for California reformulated gasoline under Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations and the manufacturer or distributor meets applicable designation and recordkeeping requirements.[83] Under this proposal, parties that redesignate California gasoline for use outside of California would not be permitted to generate sulfur or benzene credits from the redesignated fuel. Similarly, California diesel fuel used outside of California would be deemed in compliance with the standards of this part if it meets all the requirements Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations and the manufacturer or distributor meets applicable designation and recordkeeping requirements.[84]

B. Exports

We are transferring the current part 80 exemption from applicable standards for fuels, fuel additives, and regulated blendstocks that are designated for export to part 1090. Additionally, we are transferring requirements for designation, product transfer documents, and gasoline segregation for fuels designated for export that currently apply under part 80 to part 1090. Diesel fuels not designated for export could be exported without restriction as long as those fuels meet the applicable fuel quality standards. However, the fuel remains subject to the provisions of this part while in the U.S. For example, fuel designated as ULSD must meet the applicable sulfur standards even if it will later be exported. Such diesel fuel that meets ULSD standards would not need to be segregated and may be redesignated for export by a distributor. On the other hand, diesel fuel that does not meet the ULSD standards would need to be designated for export and segregated from the point of production until the diesel fuel was exported, as currently required under part 80. We are also not proposing to require segregation of fuel additives and regulated blendstocks designated for export. However, some regulated parties have suggested applying the segregation requirement to those products, and we are seeking comment on whether to impose such a requirement as well as the impacts of imposing such a requirement.

Under part 80, gasoline manufacturers are required to segregate gasoline designated for export. In this action, we are not proposing to change this ( printed page 29057) segregation requirement for gasoline exports. The only modification from part 80 is that these provisions, instead of being included in each gasoline program subpart, will be consolidated into a single subpart for exports under part 1090.

C. Hardships

Under part 80, various subparts include separate provisions for receiving an exemption from that subpart's fuel quality standards due to unforeseeable hardship. We are proposing to consolidate these exemptions into one general hardship provision for unforeseeable circumstances ( e.g., a natural disaster or refinery fire) that a refinery cannot avoid with prudent planning (excluding financial and supply chain hardship). The proposed reorganization is intended to make the hardship provision easier to find and does not change either the opportunity for a hardship or the regulated party's burden to demonstrate that its circumstances satisfy the requirements for applicable hardship exemptions. This change would not affect the RFS program, however, given that we are retaining the program in part 80. Accordingly, any exemptions available under that program would similarly remain unaffected.

VII. Averaging, Banking, and Trading Provisions

A. Overview

We are transferring the part 80 averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) provisions for compliance with the sulfur and benzene average standards for gasoline to part 1090.[85] We are proposing modifications that will facilitate consolidation of these various ABT regulatory provisions in part 80 into a single set of ABT provisions in part 1090. We are not transferring part 80 regulations that established separate ABT provisions for small refiners and small volume refineries given that they expired at the end of 2019. We have used ABT provisions to as a means to both meet our environmental objectives and provide regulated parties with the ability to comply with our fuel standards in the most efficient and lowest cost manner. This section also includes changes to how gasoline manufacturers could account for oxygenate added to gasoline downstream of fuel manufacturing facilities in compliance calculations. This section further describes a new proposed mechanism that would allow downstream parties that recertify batches of gasoline to use different types and amounts of oxygenate downstream of a manufacturing facility.

B. Compliance on Average

We are proposing some minor changes to the format of the average compliance calculations to align the sulfur and benzene compliance calculations more closely to accommodate consolidating annual compliance reporting into a single reporting format. Under part 80, compliance with the benzene and sulfur average standards is demonstrated in separate forms and use a slightly different nomenclature. The proposed changes to the compliance calculations would not affect how gasoline manufacturers currently comply with the average standards or their stringency; however, the proposed equations appear slightly different compared to the similar equations in part 80. We are also proposing to add deficits incurred on an annual basis due to the recertification of BOBs downstream to use different types and amounts of oxygenates. This proposed change is discussed in detail in section VII.G.

As previously noted, all part 80 regulations that had separate ABT provisions for small refiners and small volume refineries have expired or will by the time this proposed rule is implemented. The last such provisions are those related to the Tier 3 gasoline sulfur program, which will expire on December 31, 2019, resulting in small refiners and small volume refineries being required to be in compliance with the same part 80 fuel quality standards as other refiners. Since the proposed streamlined fuel quality regulations would take effect January 1, 2021, part 1090 does not include separate ABT provisions for small refiners and small volume refineries. If in the future we propose new fuel standards, we would likely consider flexibilities for small refiners and small volume refineries as part of that future action.

C. Deficit Carryforward

Under the Tier 3 sulfur and MSAT2 gasoline programs, we allow gasoline manufacturers to carryforward deficits, whereby an individual fuel manufacturing facility that does not meet either the sulfur or benzene standard in each compliance period may carry a credit deficit forward into the next compliance period. Under this deficit carryforward allowance, the manufacturer for the facility must make up the credit deficit and come into compliance with the applicable standard(s) in the next compliance period. We are proposing to consolidate the deficit carryforward provisions and we have proposed language that differs from the part 80 deficit carryforward provisions because the proposed language accommodates the consolidation of the gasoline sulfur and benzene deficit carryforward provisions into a single carryforward provision.

D. Credit Generation, Use, and Transfer

We are also transferring the part 80 credit generation, use, and transfer provisions for gasoline manufacturers to part 1090. We are proposing minor changes to the language largely to ensure consistency between the sulfur and benzene credit trading programs.

We are not proposing any changes to the lifespan of generated credits ( i.e., credits generated under part 1090 would have the same lifespan as afforded them under part 80). Additionally, credits generated under part 80 would still be usable to comply with average standards under part 1090. To facilitate the use of part 80 credits under part 1090, we are including language to make it clear that credits generated under part 80 would still be valid for compliance under part 1090 for the specified life of the credits under part 80. For example, for credits generated for the 2020 compliance period, gasoline manufacturers could use those credits through the 2025 compliance period.

E. Invalid Credits

We are transferring the part 80 provisions for treatment of invalid credits to part 1090 without any modifications. Since the establishment of the sulfur and benzene ABT programs, we migrated tracking of credit transactions into EMTS. During the rule development process, we received feedback from stakeholders suggesting that the process for remediating invalid credits was onerous due to the administrative process associated with modifying credits in EMTS. Stakeholders also suggested that we rearrange the compliance deadlines to have annual compliance reports due after annual audits have occurred. Some stakeholders suggested that since the annual audit process identifies several issues after annual compliance reports have been submitted ( i.e., after credits have been traded and retired for compliance), this switch would then allow for fewer resubmissions of reports and fewer remedial actions for invalid credits. Responsible parties would not need to amend reports since they would have been able to correct the original compliance reports based on an audit. We are not proposing to change the compliance deadlines. We believe ( printed page 29058) changing the compliance deadlines would disrupt a relatively well functioning compliance program and we believe other actions proposed as part of the streamlined fuel quality regulations would reduce the frequency of resubmissions and remedial actions. For example, we believe by allowing less precision in the rounding of gallons, responsible parties would have fewer remedial actions if audits identify that a party was off by a single gallon on their annual reports. We also believe that by streamlining the regulatory and reporting requirements, compliance demonstrations would be less prone to the types of errors that often require resubmissions. We also note that companies always have the option of performing their own audits internally. However, we seek comment on whether we should rearrange the compliance deadlines as a means to reduce resubmissions and remedial actions.

F. Downstream Oxygenate Accounting

We are proposing a single method for gasoline manufacturers to account for oxygenate added downstream of a fuel manufacturing facility. Oxygenate accounting provides the flexibility for fuel manufacturers to ensure that average standards are met. Under part 80, we have provided several mechanisms, depending on the gasoline program, for refiners and importers to account for oxygenate added downstream. Under the current part 80 RFG provisions for oxygenate blending and accounting, refiners and importers create a hand blend and test the hand blend for reported parameters and include these values in their compliance calculations to demonstrate compliance with sulfur and benzene average standards and the RFG performance standards. The refiner or importer then specifies the type(s) and amount(s) of oxygenates on PTDs to be added by the oxygenate blender, who must then follow the blending instructions by the refiner or importer. Further, refiners and importers must contract with an independent surveyor to verify that an oxygenate is added downstream at levels reported to EPA in batch reports.

Due to the fungible nature of most CG and CBOB, it is difficult for many CG/CBOB refiners or importers to account for oxygenate that is added downstream. Under part 80, CG/CBOB refiners and importers can only account for oxygenate if the refiner or importer can establish that the oxygenate was in fact added to the CG or CBOB. The CG/CBOB refiner or importer can establish that the oxygenate was blended by either: (1) Blending the oxygenate themselves; or (2) having a contract with an oxygenate blender specifying procedures the oxygenate blender will follow to add the amount of oxygenate claimed by the CG/CBOB refiner or importer and the refiner or importer has an oversight program to ensure that the oxygenate blending takes place. Under Tier 3, CG/CBOB refiners and importers may assume 10 percent ethanol containing 5 ppm sulfur in compliance calculations to account for oxygenate added downstream. Further, part 80 does not contain any allowance provisions to assume dilution of benzene from oxygenate added downstream. Based on information gleaned during the rule development process, it appears the average sulfur levels for DFE are lower (2-3 ppm) than the assumed value of 5 ppm allowed under Tier 3. This regulatory disparate treatment of CG/CBOB compared to RFG/RBOB has created a scenario where it is more difficult for CG/CBOB refiners and importers to account for the benefits of the addition of downstream oxygenates.

In part 1090, we are proposing to require gasoline manufacturers to use “hand blends” when accounting for oxygenate added downstream. We are also proposing to require that oxygenate blenders follow instructions for the type(s) and amount(s) of oxygenated from the BOB manufacturer. The proposed requirements for gasoline manufacturers and oxygenate blenders largely mirror the requirements for oxygenate blending and accounting found in the RFG program.

The main differences between the proposed hand blend approach and the current RFG program is that the accompanying in-use survey would be national in scope (instead of just a survey of RFG areas), and the BOB manufacturer would need to participate in the proposed national sampling oversight program. The accompanying in-use survey requirements are discussed in more detail in Section X. Additionally, since we are broadening the scope of the oxygenate accounting process from RBOB to all BOB, we are also proposing that gasoline manufacturers prepare samples using the hand blend procedures in ASTM D7717 and that commercially available oxygenate ( e.g., denatured fuel ethanol) be used to make hand blends. The oxygenate used should reflect the anticipated sulfur and benzene levels of the oxygenate that will ultimately be blended with the BOB. All other proposed requirements would be the same as currently specified for the RFG program.

During the rule development process, we received feedback from some stakeholders requesting that we allow multiple different options for gasoline manufacturers to account for oxygenate added downstream. These stakeholders argued that the use of assumptions in compliance calculations, as currently allowed under Tier 3 for sulfur, could be easier for some manufacturers to adopt. As discussed earlier, we currently allow for many different methods for accounting for oxygenate added downstream. While this has allowed some gasoline manufacturers (primarily manufacturers of RFG) to benefit from this ability, it has practically precluded other gasoline manufacturers (primarily manufacturers of CG) from enjoying the same flexibility, creating an unlevel playing field. We believe that providing a single method of accounting for oxygenate added downstream ensures a level playing field for all gasoline manufacturers and allows us to better assure that appropriate levels of oxygenate are accounted for through in-use verification in the downstream survey. Additionally, setting assumptions for manufacturers to use in compliance calculations would require information on what those assumptions should be for all regulated parameters ( i.e., benzene, sulfur, and RVP). The validity of such assumptions could change over time as new oxygenates or, in the case of DFE, new sources of denaturant are established over time. Changing such assumptions would require EPA to amend its regulations, potentially resulting in an inadvertent change in in-use fuel quality. On the other hand, by utilizing the proposed hand blend approach, we would allow gasoline manufacturers to adjust hand blends to adapt to market changes almost immediately ( e.g., if there was an increased demand for E0 or E15). This would ensure that what is reported is ultimately reflective of what is happening in the market, thereby maintaining the stringency of the fuel quality standards over time. However, we seek comment on allowing parties to use assumptions and if so, appropriate assumed values for oxygenates added downstream. In particular, we seek specific data supporting the use of assumed values.

Also, during the rule development process, some stakeholders highlighted that allowing CG manufacturers that are not currently accounting for oxygenate added downstream may result in a change in in-use fuel quality. These stakeholders pointed out that if CG manufacturers are not currently taking advantage of oxygenate accounting due to the difficultly of ensuring that ( printed page 29059) oxygenate is added downstream, these manufacturers would be slightly over-complying with the required sulfur and benzene average standards. We expect any such effects to be minimal, and we discuss these potential effects in more detail in Section XIV.[86]

G. Downstream Oxygenate Recertification

Under the part 80 RFG program, oxygenate blenders must add the type(s) and amount(s) of oxygenate(s) to RBOB as specified by refiners under 40 CFR 80.69. Refiners must specify blending instructions for all RBOB, most of which is to be made into E10. An oxygenate blender that recertifies a batch of RBOB under part 80 is a gasoline refiner and must comply with all the applicable requirements for a gasoline refiner. These requirements include registration under part 79 as a fuel manufacturer, registering under part 80 as a refiner, complying with sulfur and benzene average standards, and batch sampling and testing. As a result of these requirements and the relatively low volume of E0 needed, oxygenate blenders do not typically opt to assume the role of a gasoline refiner, reducing the availability of E0 in RFG areas. Similarly, the RFG regulations under part 80 practically preclude the use of isobutanol in RBOBs since the regulations require that oxygenate blenders add the type and amount of oxygenate specified by the RFG refiner or importer (which is predominately E10). Under part 80, parties may recertify the batch of RFG; however, the high cost associated with recertifying batches of RBOB downstream essentially precludes oxygenate blenders from blending isobutanol in RFG areas since the batch sizes are relatively small (typically the volume of a single tanker truck).

These restrictions, currently limited to RFG areas, could be compounded by the proposed downstream oxygenate provisions discussed in Section VII.F. Consequently, we are proposing a provision in part 1090 that would allow parties downstream of gasoline manufacturing facilities to more easily recertify BOBs for different types and amounts of oxygenates. Specifically, we are proposing a downstream certification mechanism to allow for oxygenate blenders to recertify batches of BOB for different types and amounts of oxygenates as the market demands to make sure that consumers can still have E0, E15, or isobutanol-blended gasoline available as needed. In other words, under part 1090, oxygenate blenders must follow the blending instructions on PTDs by gasoline manufacturers unless they recertify the batch for a different type and/or amount of oxygenate.

We are proposing to require that parties that wish to recertify BOBs must determine the number of sulfur and benzene credits lost by any lack of downstream oxygenate dilution in cases where the party added less oxygenate than was specified by the gasoline manufacturer. For example, if a party takes a premium BOB intended for blending with ethanol at 10 volume percent and wishes to use it as E0 for recreational vehicles, this party would need to make up for the lost dilution of the sulfur and benzene in the national fuel pool. We have included additional compliance calculations that such parties would need to use to determine the number of sulfur and benzene credits needed. In this calculation, we are proposing default assumed values for the amount of sulfur and benzene from the BOB. We are proposing default values of 11 ppm sulfur and 0.68 volume percent benzene. These proposed values are reflective of the national sulfur and benzene average values adjusted for the absence of denatured fuel ethanol added at 10 volume percent ethanol.[87] The goal of these proposed values is to avoid requiring additional sampling and testing from the recertifying party. We believe that due to the small batch volume for recertified product, typically the size of a tanker truck, the amount of credits needed for any given batch of recertified gasoline would be low and small changes from actual benzene and sulfur content would be in the noise of the proposed compliance calculation and washed out in the marketplace. However, we seek comment on whether different default values would be appropriate.

In cases where a party adds the same volume of oxygenate or more, these credit makeup regulations would not apply, as more than enough sulfur and benzene dilution would have occurred. For example, adding 15 volume percent ethanol into a BOB intended for the addition of 10 volume percent ethanol or adding 12 volume percent isobutanol to a batch of BOB intended for the addition of 10 volume percent ethanol. All other applicable requirements under the CAA and parts 79, 80 and 1090 would apply to the recertified fuel. For example, the recertified gasoline would need to meet RVP requirements in the summer, meet per-gallon sulfur requirements, and be substantially similar under CAA section 211(f). Part 80 currently does not allow oxygenate blenders to generate credits in cases where additional oxygenate is added to RBOB or CBOB and part 1090 would not change this. The challenges associated with implementing and enforcing such a credit provision with so many entities on such small volumes has historically created considerable difficulties, and there does not appear to be any compelling reason here to change from the current regulations.

In order to ensure that parties that recertify BOBs downstream adhere to the proposed provisions for downstream oxygenate recertification, we are proposing that these parties would need to register with EPA, transact any needed sulfur and benzene credits, submit annual compliance reports, and keep records documenting the blending activities and reports submitted to EPA. In lieu of requiring the burden of sampling and testing each batch, we are also proposing that these parties simply undergo an annual attest engagement audit and submit an attest report similar to the report required for gasoline manufacturers. The proposed requirements would only apply to parties that incur a deficit by recertifying BOBs with less oxygenate than specified on the PTD. If a party is already registered with EPA and complies with sulfur and benzene averaging requirements, the party would include the total number of credits needed as a result of downstream oxygenate recertification in their annual compliance calculations as a deficit.

During the rule development process, we solicited feedback on whether parties that recertify BOBs downstream should undergo an annual audit to help ensure that the party complied with the proposed requirements correctly. We received feedback from stakeholders stating that while many of the parties that would elect to use this flexibility are already registered with EPA under part 80, these parties often do not have an annual attest engagement as they do not manufacture gasoline. Therefore, these stakeholders argued that having an attest engagement, which costs tens of thousands of dollars per year, for a small volume of fuel (one tanker truck of approximately 8,000 gallons) is unreasonably burdensome and would significantly increase the costs of recertified fuels. We agree with this feedback; however, we believe that parties that recertify a significant ( printed page 29060) amount of gasoline for different types and amounts of oxygenates should undergo an annual audit as these parties could have a greater effect on the larger sulfur and benzene pools. Therefore, we are proposing that parties that recertify less than 200,000 total gallons of gasoline for different types and amounts of oxygenate during a compliance period would be exempt from the annual attest audit and report.[88] We believe this proposed flexibility would allow small blenders to avoid a substantial amount of compliance costs associated with recertification of batches of gasoline for different types and amounts of oxygenates while ensuring integrity in the sulfur and benzene credit markets. We seek comment on whether this allowance is appropriate.

Also, during the rule development process we received feedback asking for alternatives to the proposed downstream oxygenate recertification approach. Stakeholders suggested potentially developing a factor that would go into a gasoline manufacturer's compliance calculations that estimated the nationwide level of oxygenate blended into gasoline. While we believe this measure could effectively capture the amount of oxygenate added downstream, it creates level-playing field concerns by effectively increasing the standard for gasoline manufacturers that certify 100 percent of their batches with oxygenates and decreasing the standards for parties that certify less than 100 percent. Additionally, we believe that setting the factor creates challenges. For example, if we set a level consistent with today's oxygenate blending levels and the market changes the amount of oxygenate added to the fuel pool in the future, we would have to undertake a future rulemaking to accommodate the new amount of oxygenate blended into gasoline. If we put in place an administrative process to adjust the factor on a periodic basis ( e.g., annually), we believe it would be challenging to continually monitor and track the appropriate number without imposing significant additional reporting and tracking burdens on the part of industry. Failure to provide a new reporting and tracking mechanism would result in delays in establishing the factor on a periodic basis providing uncertainty for gasoline manufacturers in determining sulfur and benzene average standards. We believe the proposed approach provides the desired marketplace flexibility, puts in place appropriate and manageable measures to ensure environmental performance, and allows for flexibility both now and into the future without the need for additional regulatory action. However, we seek comment on other approaches to allow parties to recertify batches of BOB for different types and amounts of oxygenates downstream.

Finally, during the rule development process, we received feedback asking for an allowance to carry forward a deficit related to downstream oxygenate recertification. Stakeholders suggested that it would take time for the sulfur and benzene credit markets and regulated parties to adjust to this proposed flexibility. They suggested that allowing a limited time deficit carry-forward would allow for this proposed flexibility to be implemented more smoothly. We believe that the amount of credits needed to satisfy deficits incurred related to downstream oxygenate recertification is relatively small and that allowing parties to carry-forward deficits related to this proposed provision would result in some parties failing to satisfy those deficits. Therefore, we are not proposing to allow deficit carry-forwards for deficits created by downstream oxygenate recertification. However, we seek comment on whether providing such a deficit carry-forward is needed to help implement the proposed downstream oxygenate recertification provisions. Comments on this subject should include a reasonable period of time for consideration.

VIII. Registration, Reporting, Product Transfer Document, and Recordkeeping Requirements

A. Overview

We are mostly transferring the existing part 80 registration, reporting, PTD, and recordkeeping provisions that are distributed among various subparts in part 80 to part 1090. We also intend to reconcile, simplify, and logically organize those provisions. The resulting registration, reporting, product transfer document (PTD), and recordkeeping requirements proposed for part 1090 are like those already in place under part 80. Where possible we have sought to reduce the impacts upon regulated parties and reduce the burden associated with maintaining and submitting information. In certain cases, we have proposed regulations to simplify or better align reporting requirements with current industry practice, which is particularly true of the batch reporting requirements described in greater detail below.

Information submitted under part 1090 may be claimed as confidential business information (CBI) by the submitter, including certain information submitted via registration and reporting systems. EPA will protect such information from public release in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 2 and in a manner consistent with EPA rules and guidelines related to CBI. Our public release of EPA enforcement-related determinations and EPA actions, together with basic information regarding the party or parties involved and the parameter(s) or credits affected, does not involve the release of information that is entitled to treatment as CBI. Such information may include the company name and company identification number, the facility name and facility identification number, the total quantity of fuel and parameter, and the time period when the violation occurred. Enforcement-related determinations and actions within the scope of this release of information include notices of violation, administrative complaints, civil complaints, criminal information, and criminal indictments. Although we are not proposing a comprehensive CBI determination at this time, we may undertake that activity in a future rulemaking.

B. Registration

1. Purpose of Registration

Registration is necessary to: (1) Identify which parties engage in regulated activities under our regulations; (2) allow regulated parties access to systems to submit information required under our fuel quality regulations; and (3) provide regulated parties with company and compliance-level identification numbers for producing PTDs and other records. This action would make modest changes to the existing registration system including modernizing certain terminology and making updates that make registration easier to understand and implement.

2. Who Must Register

The proposed registration requirements are designed to update terminology to better reflect current roles and activities in the fuel production and distribution system. We are proposing registration requirements for certain third parties, such as independent auditors. These are explained in greater detail below. The following parties would have to register ( printed page 29061) with EPA prior to engaging in any activity under part 1090:

Nearly all parties who would be subject to registration under part 1090 are already registered under part 80. We are not requiring parties who are already registered under part 80 to go through the effort to re-register their company or their facilities under part 1090. We are proposing to include specific provisions in part 1090 that would ensure such parties do not need to re-register. For example, although we do not currently register parties under part 80 as “gasoline manufacturers,” parties who are currently registered as “refiners” would be understood to fall under this new term and would not have to re-register. We do not believe that this action will result in a significant number of new registrants, and existing registrants would only need to make the type of routine registration updates they already are required to make ( e.g., to add or delete activities they engage in or to change an address).

We are also proposing to remove an existing registration requirement under part 80. Although independent laboratories are required to register under part 80, we are proposing to remove this registration requirement and are not transferring this requirement from part 80 to part 1090. As a result, independent laboratories would no longer be required to register unless they submit information directly on behalf of another party, such as a gasoline manufacturer. In such cases, they would need to update their registration to reflect that they are submitting reports on behalf of a regulated party and would have to associate with the company or companies for which they will submit reports. Association is a step within the existing registration system and is designed to ensure that the company for which the reports are submitted by the “agent” agrees to that arrangement. Association is designed to be a simple step that would still prevent an unauthorized party from submitting reports on another's behalf without their consent or knowledge.[89]

We are also proposing new registration requirements for independent surveyors and independent auditors under part 1090. These parties are not subject to registration requirements under part 80 but either submit survey plans and periodic reports to EPA under various provisions or perform attest engagements for regulated parties under part 80. We thus believe that requiring them to register would allow them to submit reports directly to EPA and thereby further streamline the process of getting the information to EPA.

Independent surveyors perform the compliance surveys and the proposed voluntary sampling oversight program (discussed in more detail in Section X). At present, there is only one known independent surveyor, performing four types of surveys under part 80. As previously noted, independent surveyors already submit survey reports to EPA, in a variety of ways. As discussed in Section VIII.C.8, we are proposing to have them register so that they may submit reports via EPA's reporting systems. Although this would create a small, new class of registrants (currently only one new submitter), we believe the burden of registering is outweighed by the simplicity and reliability of having surveyors utilizing the electronic reporting system to submit their information. This proposed change would allow us to more quickly publicly post in-use survey results.

As also previously noted, independent auditors already perform attest engagements on behalf of parties who are required to demonstrate compliance via reporting. Under part 80, the regulated party ( e.g., a gasoline manufacturer) is required to hire an auditor to perform the attest engagement, and the auditor gives the attest engagement to the party who then must submit it to EPA. In order to streamline the reporting process, we are proposing to require auditors to submit the attest engagement directly to EPA in a manner that ensures that the party for whom it was prepared is aware of the submission to EPA. To implement this change, auditors would register and associate with the party to submit reports directly to EPA. Association will ensure that the regulated party knows and agrees that the auditor is submitting their report.

3. What Is Included in Registration

Similar to existing provisions in part 80, registration under part 1090 would entail submitting general information about the company and its compliance-level activities ( e.g., facilities), including the address, activities engaged in, name of a responsible corporate officer (RCO), contact information, and location of records. Parties who submit reports to EPA must complete the steps required to set up an account with EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) and/or with OTAQ Registration (OTAQReg). Most regulated parties affected by this action have already registered and have already set up the necessary accounts.

4. Deadlines for Registration

We are proposing that registration must occur prior to a party engaging in any activity that requires registration, but we are not specifying a firm deadline for registration as we have in the past. Under part 80, new registrants had to register 60 days prior to engaging in activity. This timeframe remains a useful guideline, however, as we must be allowed an appropriate amount of time to process and activate registration-related requests. We are retaining the requirements from part 80 that updates to existing registration must occur within 30 days of the event requiring the change. We do not expect many new registrants and existing registrants would continue to be registered under part 1090. However, we do anticipate registering up to 100 attest auditors, one surveyor, and 50 third parties. We have docketed a detailed ICR supporting statement that describes the recordkeeping and reporting (including registration) burden in terms of number of parties, hours, and dollars.

Company and compliance-level ( e.g., facility) identification numbers already in use will remain valid under part 1090.

5. Proposed Approach to Changes in Ownership

In part 1090 we have sought to address some on-going issues and concerns regarding registration updates. For example, we have received feedback over the years from registrants that changes in ownership should be addressed more clearly in the registration section. Consequently, we ( printed page 29062) are proposing provisions to clarify how a company may initiate a change in ownership for registration purposes. The proposed provisions on updating registrations for ownership change largely codify existing guidance provided to companies under part 80.

Proposed provisions in part 1090 clarify that companies would have to notify EPA of a change in ownership and, in cases requiring registration of a new company, complete registration prior to engaging in any activity requiring registration under part 1090. In the case of a change in ownership requiring an update to an existing registration, the company would need to complete the registration update within 30 days of the change. For any party that is a fuel or fuel additive manufacturer, the new owner would need to be in full compliance with any applicable part 79 registration requirements. Since part 1090 registration is needed in order to report and engage in credit transactions and comply with the fuel quality regulations, parties have great incentive to submit ownership change information to EPA as soon as it is available. We have received feedback from stakeholders who have told us that having a requirement that they submit ownership change information by a specific, advance deadline ( e.g., 60 days before the change in ownership occurs) is not workable due to how ownership changes are effectuated in the business world. Although we are not proposing a specific, advance deadline, we note that it typically takes some time for EPA to process a new registration and urge companies to attempt to submit materials as soon as possible and to consider that 60 days prior is a good guideline. Based on our experience with ownership changes under part 80, companies want EPA to activate registration changes for ownership changes in a timely manner to ensure that registrations are up-to-date and that the company can engage in credit generation, trading, and use as soon as practical. Often, these companies request a specific date for the ownership change to be reflected with respect to their registration. Because many ownership changes in the fuel quality programs are quite complicated and involve many facilities, in order for EPA to reasonably act on this type of registration update, we need adequate time to process registration changes.

We believe common ownership changes may include: Companies and/or facilities that are bought in their entirety by another party; companies and/or facilities whose majority owner changes; or a merger resulting in creation of a new company and/or facility. We are not proposing a specific list of documentation that parties may have to submit to support a change in ownership affecting their registration. What documentation, if any, is needed is highly situational. However, we do have experience with typical documentation submitted by parties that may be appropriate, and that may include: sale documentation or contract (portions may be claimed as CBI and redacted); Articles of Incorporation, Certificate of Incorporation, or Corporate Charter issued by a state; and/or other legal documents showing ownership ( e.g., deeds). Parties anticipating the need to update registration due to a change in ownership should contact EPA as soon as possible in order to discuss their unique situation.

6. Proposed Approach to Cancellation of Registration

We are proposing provisions regarding voluntary and involuntary cancellation of registration. Similar provisions exist for the RFS program in 40 CFR part 80, subpart M, and we believe they work well for both compliance and compliance assistance purposes; therefore, we are proposing to adopt them for part 1090.

Voluntary cancellation would be initiated by the registered party ( e.g., if the party's business changes and it no longer engages in an activity that requires registration).

Involuntary cancellation would be initiated by EPA, typically in cases where the party has failed to submit required reports or attest engagements, or for a prolonged period of inactivity. Specifically, involuntary cancellation may occur where:

We would provide notification of our intention to cancel the party's registration and the registrant would have an opportunity to address any deficiencies identified in the notice ( e.g., to submit required reports) or to explain why no deficiency exists. If we do not receive missing reports within 14 days of notification, then the registration may be canceled without further notice. We believe it is important to have a procedure to keep registrations up-to-date and to ensure that parties perform activities required to maintain active registration.

We are proposing that in instances of willfulness or those in which public health, interest, or safety requires otherwise, EPA may deactivate the registration of the party without any notice to the party. In such cases, we will provide written notification to the RCO identifying the reason(s) EPA deactivated the registration of the party. We expect such situations to be extreme and rare and intend to follow the notice and response provisions described above in nearly all cases.

C. Reporting

1. Purpose of Reporting

We require reports from regulated parties for the following reasons: (1) To monitor compliance with standards necessary to protect human health and the environment; (2) to allow regulated parties to comply with average standards via the use of credits and credit trading systems; (3) to have accurate information to inform EPA decisions; and (4) to promote public transparency. Regulated parties submit various reports to EPA under both parts 79 and 80. Part 1090 updates and, in many cases simplifies, what must already be reported to EPA under part 80. As described further in this section, we are proposing to reduce the number of parameters to be tested and reported and, in some cases, to reduce the required frequency of reporting.

2. Who Must Report

The following parties would have to report under part 1090:

As discussed earlier in this section, certain parties are required to register to receive company and compliance-level identification numbers for use on PTDs and for recordkeeping, although they would not have reporting requirements under part 1090. For example, parties involved in the manufacture and distribution of 500 ppm LM diesel fuel would register and receive company and compliance-level identification numbers to use on PTDs and records but would not submit reports under this part 1090.

3. What Is New With This Proposal

We are proposing to eliminate reporting of the following gasoline parameters that are currently collected under part 80 and no longer necessary under part 1090 to certify batches and demonstrate compliance with the RFG standards (discussed in more detail in Section V.A.2):

Footnotes

1.  Under the current regulations, EPA's fuels regulations are in 40 CFR parts 79 and 80. Part 79 contains provisions related to the registration of fuel and fuel additives under CAA sections 211(a), (b), (e), and (f), while Part 80 contains provisions for fuel quality ( e.g., fuel controls and prohibitions established under CAA section 211(c) and the RFG program requirements promulgated under CAA section 211(k)) and the RFS program. This action is limited to the provisions related to EPA's fuel quality standards in part 80, as the registration requirements in part 79 and the RFS program in part 80 are significantly different in scope and would involve different considerations to update those regulatory requirements.

Back to Citation

2.  The Complex Model is a predictive model that estimates emissions performance of gasoline based on measured fuel parameters against a statutory baseline in model year 1990 vehicles (see 40 CFR 80.45 and CAA section 211(k)(10)). Under part 80, refiners and importers are required to use the Complex Model to demonstrate compliance with RFG standards. The Complex Model is available at: https://www.epa.gov/​fuels-registration-reporting-and-compliance-help/​complex-model-used-analyze-rfg-and-anti-dumping.

Back to Citation

3.  See 72 FR 8428 (February 26, 2007).

Back to Citation

4.  The four discussion drafts are available in the docket for this action and on our website at: https://www.epa.gov/​diesel-fuel-standards/​fuels-regulatory-streamlining.

Back to Citation

5.  See 83 FR 20812 (May 8, 2018).

Back to Citation

6.  Note that if we update these provisions in part 80 as part of a separate EPA action after this proposal, we plan to incorporate those updated provisions to part 1090 in the final rule.

Back to Citation

7.  Under part 80, for summer CG, a butane blender must test the finished gasoline ( i.e., the resultant fuel from the combined PCG and added butane) for the RVP; for RFG, butane blenders cannot blend butane into summer RFG. This provision is not changing in part 1090.

Back to Citation

10.  Under this approach, transmix processors are also considered fuel manufacturers.

Back to Citation

13.  EPA-420-D-18-001, EPA-420-D-18-002, and EPA-420-D-19-001, available in the docket for this action.

Back to Citation

14.  The proposed changes to the transmix provisions for gasoline and diesel fuel are addressed in Section XIII.E.

Back to Citation

15.  CAA section 211(k)(1).

Back to Citation

16.  CAA section 211(k)(4)(A).

Back to Citation

17.  Currently, refiners use the Complex Model to demonstrate compliance with the RFG provisions. We are proposing that refiners instead could demonstrate compliance by testing the RVP of the fuel, along with benzene and sulfur as currently required.

Back to Citation

18.  The VOC performance standard specifies that reductions are as compared to baseline vehicles using baseline gasoline. CAA section 211(k)(10) defines “baseline vehicles” as representative of 1990 vehicles and “baseline gasoline” as those with parameters specified in Table V.A.2.a-1. Our proposed translation of the VOC performance standard uses the statutorily specified points of comparison ( i.e., 1990 vehicle technology using baseline gasoline as specified in the CAA).

Back to Citation

19.  See “National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1988,” EPA-450/4-90-002, March 1990.

Back to Citation

20.  Gorse, R.A. et al. (1997). Auto/Oil Air Quality Improvement Research Program Final Report. 10.13140/RG.2.2.20882.35521.

Back to Citation

22.  See 65 FR 6698 (February 10, 2000).

Back to Citation

23.  See 40 CFR 80.195 and 40 CFR 80.210, respectively.

Back to Citation

24.  See 72 FR 8428 (February 26, 2007).

Back to Citation

26.  See 40 CFR 80.41(e)(2) and 72 FR 8428, 8498 (February 26, 2007).

Back to Citation

27.  The VOC performance standard is made up of two components: Non-exhaust and exhaust VOCs. Under the Complex Model, 100 percent of the non-exhaust VOCs are calculated using RVP, which also plays a significant role in determining exhaust VOC reductions under the Complex Model. In both non-exhaust and exhaust VOCs, the Complex Model estimates an increase in performance of the fuel on 1990 vehicle technology relative to the 1990 baseline gasoline specifications.

Back to Citation

29.  See “Fuel Trends Report: Gasoline 2006—2016,” EPA-420-R-17-005, October 2017.

Back to Citation

30.  In the RFG final rule, we found that a fuel with an RVP of 7.2 would meet the Region 1 VOC performance standards. See 59 FR 7716, 7721 (February 16, 1994).

Back to Citation

31.  As discussed in Section IX, manufacturers that certify batches of oxygenated gasoline would need to test for oxygenates, while manufacturers of BOBs would need to follow hand blending procedures for batch certification.

Back to Citation

32.  As discussed in sections VIII and IX, manufacturers would need to sample, test, and report for additional fuel.

Back to Citation

33.  EPA “shall . . . revise the [RFG] regulations . . . to consolidate the regulations applicable to VOC-Control Regions 1 and 2 . . . by eliminating the less stringent requirements applicable to gasoline designated for VOC-Control Region 2 and instead applying the more stringent requirements applicable to gasoline designated for VOC-Control Region 1.” See Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58, 119 Stat. 1079. See also USEPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality. 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. EPA-420-R-13-002. Assessment and Standards Division, Ann Arbor, MI. April 2013.

Back to Citation

34.  We chose the 5th and 95th percentile to exclude cases of misreporting or reported non-compliance from affecting the analysis.

Back to Citation

35.  The data used for this analysis was based on the most current information available to EPA at the time ( i.e., the 2018 gasoline batch information). Should new information become available, we intend to perform the same analysis using the updated information, which may result in a small change in the standard.

Back to Citation

36.  2016 was the most recent year for which clean, batch report data was available at the time of analysis. We intend to update this analysis with the most recent data available for the final rule.

Back to Citation

37.  The presence of ethanol can result in an increase in the RVP of the gasoline-ethanol blended fuel. The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate how refiners make fuels relative to the 9.0 psi RVP maximum per-gallon standard without the addition of ethanol.

Back to Citation

38.  See 40 CFR 80.82 and 80.85, respectively.

Back to Citation

39.  See Section V.A.2.

Back to Citation

40.  C6 refers to a hydrocarbon molecule that contains six carbon atoms.

Back to Citation

41.  Pentane has 5 hydrocarbons ( i.e., it is C5).

Back to Citation

42.  Pentane that is produced from NGLs historically has been the bottom distillation cut from the NGL fractionation process, and hence contains all heavier hydrocarbons as well as pentane. Since butane is more volatile than pentane, butane produced by distillation from NGLs is unlikely to contain heavy hydrocarbons that may be a concern with respect to increased emissions.

Back to Citation

44.  See CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(III).

Back to Citation

45.  See 71 FR 78195 (December 28, 2006).

Back to Citation

46.  Some states where the federal low RVP standard is required have chosen instead to apply federal RFG or another state fuel regulation that limits RVP to less than 7.8 psi. Such a practice is consistent with the CAA. If a state with such an area decided to remove its fuel program, the state should work closely with EPA to ensure that the state's SIP demonstration also supports removal of multiple fuel programs, if desired. See Section V.A.4.g for more information.

47.  California has set requirements for gasoline sold throughout the entire state, and these requirements include limits on the gasoline RVP. See Title 13, sections 2250-2273.5 of the California Code of Regulations. These standards apply in lieu of federal RVP standards.

48.  In the absence of California's RFG regulation, either federal RVP standards or federal RFG would apply in California. Some areas would be federal RFG covered areas because either they were among the original nine RFG covered areas or they were reclassified to Severe nonattainment for an ozone NAAQS. See CAA section 211(k)(10)(D).

Back to Citation

49.  See CAA section 211(k)(10)(D).

Back to Citation

50.  The Sacramento Metro area was reclassified as a severe ozone nonattainment area on June 1, 1995 and became a federal RFG covered area on June 1, 1996. See 60 FR 20237 (April 25, 1995). The San Joaquin Valley area was reclassified as a severe ozone nonattainment area on December 10, 2001 and became a federal RFG covered area on December 10, 2002. See 66 FR 56476 (November 8, 2001).

Back to Citation

51.  See 70 FR 71684-9 (November 29, 2005).

Back to Citation

52.  See 70 FR 71687 (November 29, 2005).

Back to Citation

53.  See CAA section 110(l).

Back to Citation

54.  See 61 FR 35673 (July 8, 1996) and 62 FR 54552 (October 20, 1997).

Back to Citation

55.  The current RFG opt-out procedures apply to areas that opted into RFG under CAA section 211(k)(6)(A) or (B) unless an area that opted in under CAA section 211(k)(6)(A) has been reclassified as Severe. These procedures are currently in 40 CFR 80.72 and were established in 1996 and 1997. See 61 FR 35673 (July 8, 1996) and 62 FR 54552 (October 20, 1997). We are not changing these RFG opt-out procedures except for removing obsolete regulatory text and minor clarifications.

Back to Citation

57.  In some circumstances, a revision to an approved maintenance plan has not been necessary because the subject area was beyond the period of time covered by any approved ozone maintenance plan under either CAA section 110(a) or 175A. For an example, refer to the RVP relaxation for several parishes in Louisiana (82 FR 60886, December 26, 2017).

Back to Citation

58.  See CAA section 110(l).

Back to Citation

59.  In rulemakings on June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658) and December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), EPA promulgated regulations that established a gasoline RVP standard of 7.8 psi from June 1st to September 15th in nonattainment areas for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the following states: Alabama; Arizona; Arkansas; California; Colorado; Florida; Georgia; Kansas; Louisiana; Maryland; Mississippi; Missouri; Nevada; New Mexico; North Carolina; Oklahoma; Oregon; South Carolina; Tennessee; Texas; Utah and Virginia; and the District of Columbia. The federal 9.0 psi RVP standard applies in the remaining states in the continental U.S.

Back to Citation

60.  See CAA section 110(l).

Back to Citation

61.  See 71 FR 78192 (December 28, 2006).

Back to Citation

62.  See CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(III).

Back to Citation

63.  Since December 2006, the following fuels have been removed from approved SIPs: Pennsylvania—7.8 psi RVP; Maine—7.8 psi RVP; Illinois—7.2 psi RVP; and Georgia—7.0 psi RVP with sulfur provisions.

Back to Citation

65.  EPA has approved Alabama's request to move its SIP approved 7.0 psi RVP program to the contingency measure portion of the SIP for the Birmingham area. Because the fuel rule was retained as a contingency measure it remains on the boutique fuel list (see 77 FR 23619, April 20, 2012).

66.  Nevada's winter gasoline (aromatics and sulfur) fuel rule was retained as a contingency measure and therefore remains on the boutique fuel list (see 75 FR 59090, September 27, 2010).

Back to Citation

67.  The fuel and fuel additive registration requirements do, however, require that manufacturers of fuels and fuel additives demonstrate that fuels and fuel additives are either substantially similar under CAA section 211(f)(1) or have a waiver under CAA section 211(f)(4). See 40 CFR 79.11(i) and 79.21(h).

Back to Citation

68.  See 81 FR 80877-8 (November 16, 2016).

Back to Citation

69.  See 73 FR 22277 (April 25, 2008).

Back to Citation

70.  See 84 FR 26980 (June 10, 2019).

Back to Citation

72.  Such as diesel fuel used in school buses.

Back to Citation

73.  The vast majority of heating oil is used in the Northeast where states require that heating oil meet a 15 ppm sulfur standard. See “Guidance, Exemptions And Enforcement Discretion For New England's ULSHO Transition,” New England Fuel Institute (NEFI), available at https://nefi.com/​regulatory-compliance/​new-englands-ulsho-transition.

Back to Citation

76.  Designated Emission Control Areas for the U.S. include the North American ECA and the U.S. Caribbean Sea ECA. More specific descriptions may be found in EPA fact sheets: “Designation of North American Emission Control Area to Reduce Emissions from Ships,” EPA-420-F-10-015, March 2010; and “Designation of Emission Control Area to Reduce Emissions from Ships in the U.S. Caribbean,” EPA-420-F-11-024, July 2011.

Back to Citation

77.  See 84 FR 69335 (December 18, 2019).

Back to Citation

79.  See 40 CFR 80.597 regarding the distributor registration requirements and 40 CFR 80.590(a)(6)(i) for the associated PTD requirements.

Back to Citation

80.  The production of 500 ppm LM diesel fuel is discussed in Section XIII.E.4.

Back to Citation

81.  See 85 FR 7054-57 (February 6, 2020).

Back to Citation

82.  API Recommended Practice 1595 and Energy Institute & Joint Inspection Group Standard 1530.

Back to Citation

83.  The explanation for the analysis we performed to determine the equivalency of the California fuel standards can be found in the technical memorandum, “The California Fuel Equivalency Memorandum,” available in the docket for this action.

Back to Citation

84.  The California reformulated gasoline and diesel fuel standards are at least as stringent as the standards under this part, therefore, these fuels should be allowed to be used throughout the country. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 13, §§ 2281-2282 (2019).

Back to Citation

85.  We do not have ABT provisions for diesel fuel, so this section is only applicable to gasoline.

Back to Citation

86.  We discuss these effects in more detail in the technical memorandum, “Estimated Effects of Proposed Downstream Oxygenate Accounting Provisions,” available in the docket for this action.

Back to Citation

87.  We took the national average values for sulfur (10 ppm) and benzene (0.62 volume percent) and multiplied them by 110 percent.

Back to Citation

88.  We estimated this value based on the 1st percentile of credit transaction sizes for benzene credits in 2018. Our analysis for calculating the 200,000 gallon number is included in the technical memorandum, “Estimated Effects of Proposed Downstream Oxygenate Accounting Provisions,” available in the docket for this action.

Back to Citation

89.  During the rule development process, we received feedback suggesting that we should maintain the registration requirement and the itinerant RFG independent laboratory testing program; this issue is discussed in more detail in Section X.B.

Back to Citation

90.  For batches that are certified using the hand blend approach (discussed in more detail in Section VII.F), oxygenates typically would not be tested; however, gasoline manufacturers would report the type and amount of each oxygenate blended to make the hand blend. Manufacturers that certify batches of gasoline using a different approach would still need to test and report oxygenate content unless they know that the gasoline contains no oxygenate ( i.e., the gasoline is E0). Furthermore, in all cases, we would only require that gasoline manufacturers report the oxygenates added or tested for instead of reporting information for all potential oxygenates. We believe this would greatly simplify oxygenate reporting requirements compared to part 80.

Back to Citation

91.  Parties that add more of the same type of oxygenate would not be expected to submit reports for those volumes. For example, under part 1090, if a party only blended 15 volume percent ethanol into a BOB that was specified for blending up to 10 volume percent ethanol, the blender would not submit reports.

Back to Citation

92.  This action does not address how these fuels are accounted for inclusion in obligated parties' RVO calculations under the RFS program. We recently finalized changes to part 80 to account for the redesignation of distillate fuels meeting the ULSD standards (see 85 FR 7054-7057, February 6, 2020).

Back to Citation

93.  The updated procedures are described in greater detail in the technical memorandum, “Technical Issues Related to Streamlining Measurement Procedures for 40 CFR part 1090,” available in the docket for this action.

Back to Citation

94.  See “Consolidated List of Reformulated Gasoline and Anti-Dumping Questions and Answers: July 1, 1994 through November 10, 1997,” EPA-420-R-03-009, July 2003.

Back to Citation

95.  The regulations at 40 CFR 80.69 and 80.101 practically limits this practice to RBOB. As discussed in Section VII, we are proposing to make it more practical for all fuel manufacturers of BOB to account for the addition of oxygenate added downstream. Part 80 does not currently specify preparation procedures for hand blends.

Back to Citation

96.  See Section VII.F.

Back to Citation

97.  See 75 FR 68094 (November 4, 2010), 76 FR 4662 (January 26, 2011), and 84 FR 26980 (June 10, 2019).

Back to Citation

98.  See “Consolidated List of Reformulated Gasoline and Anti-Dumping Questions and Answers: July 1, 1994 through November 10, 1997,” EPA-420-R-03-009, July 2003.

Back to Citation

100.  See EPA-420-D-19-001, available in the docket for this action.

Back to Citation

101.  See “Consolidated List of Reformulated Gasoline and Anti-Dumping Questions and Answers: July 1, 1994 through November 10, 1997,” EPA-420-R-03-009, July 2003.

Back to Citation

102.  See Section IX.C, “Consolidated List of Reformulated Gasoline and Anti-Dumping Questions and Answers: July 1, 1994 through November 10, 1997,” EPA-420-R-03-009, July 2003.

Back to Citation

104.  See “Consolidated List of Reformulated Gasoline and Anti-Dumping Questions and Answers: July 1, 1994 through November 10, 1997,” EPA-420-R-03-009, July 2003.

Back to Citation

105.  See 40 CFR 80.5 (penalties for fuels violations); 80.23 (liability for lead violations); 80.28 (liability for volatility violations); 80.30 (liability for diesel violations); 80.79 (liability for violation of RFG prohibited acts); 80.80 (penalties for RFG/CG violations); 80.610-615 (violation provisions for diesel sulfur program); 80.1504-80.1508 (violation provisions for gasoline ethanol blends); and 80.1660-80.1666 (violation provisions liability for Tier III gasoline sulfur program).

Back to Citation

107.  See “Improved Data and EPA Oversight Are Needed to Assure Compliance With the Standards for Benzene Content in Gasoline,” Report No. 17-P-0249, June 2017.

Back to Citation

108.  See “Consolidated List of Reformulated Gasoline and Anti-Dumping Questions and Answers: July 1, 1994 through November 10, 1997,” EPA-420-R-03-009, July 2003.

Back to Citation

109.  See 55 FR 23695 (June 11, 1990), 59 FR 7764 (February 16, 1994), and “Consolidated List of Reformulated Gasoline and Anti-Dumping Questions and Answers: July 1, 1994 through November 10, 1997,” EPA-420-R-03-009, July 2003.

Back to Citation

112.  The purpose of allowing parties to make new batches using PCG is to allow flexibility for parties to make new fuels to accommodate the market demands while ensuring that the fuel quality standards are met. The provisions are designed to ensure that gasoline per-gallon standards are met in the new batch and that the blending manufacturer does not increase the average sulfur and benzene levels in the national gasoline pool.

Back to Citation

113.  See 79 FR 23575-23576 (April 28, 2014).

Back to Citation

114.  In PCG by subtraction, a blending manufacturer determines the regulated fuel parameters of the PCG and the new batch to quantify the sulfur and benzene levels of added blendstocks for making the new fuel. In PCG by addition, a blending manufacturer directly measures the parameters of added blendstocks to quantify the sulfur and benzene levels. In both cases, the new fuel has to meet per-gallon specifications for gasoline and blending manufacturers would need to sample and test for sulfur year-round and for RVP in the summer.

Back to Citation

115.  Refiners that produce gasoline and diesel fuel by processing crude oil may not use the alternative provisions and are subject to all requirements that apply to a fuel manufacturer.

Back to Citation

117.  See 40 CFR 80.84(a)(1). We are proposing to maintain the current definition of pipeline interface.

Back to Citation

120.  Industry minimum flash point specifications in ASTM D975 prevent the blending of transmix into diesel fuel. Hence, there is not a need for regulatory provisions regarding blending transmix into previously certified diesel fuel.

Back to Citation

121.  For example, compliance with the anti-dumping requirements of part 80 would no longer be required.

Back to Citation

123.  See Question 14.4, “Questions and Answers on the Clean Diesel Fuel Rules,” EPA-420-B-06-010, July 2006.

Back to Citation

125.  See 61 FR 35310 (July 5, 1996).

Back to Citation

126.  Under part 80, this period can be up to 30 days. Part 1090 would not change this period.

Back to Citation

127.  Regulatory Impact Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Detergent Certification Program, June 1996. Regulatory Impact Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Interim Detergent Registration Program and Expected Detergent Certification Program, August 1995.

Back to Citation

128.  Coordinating Research Council (CRC) Annual Report, September 2018. The CRC Gasoline Engine Deposit Task Group, CRC Project No. CM-136, consists of members of the auto, oil, and additive industries. The objectives of this group include developing test procedures to evaluate fuel and fuel additive contributions to intake valve deposits, and injector deposits in port fuel injection and direct injection engines.

Back to Citation

129.  The detergent program requires demonstration of no more than 5 percent flow restriction on any one port fuel injector when tested in accordance with ASTM D5598-94.

Back to Citation

130.  CRC Gasoline Engine Deposit Task Group, CRC Project No. CM-136, CRC Annual Report, September 2018.

Back to Citation

131.  Id.

Back to Citation

132.  65th percentile concentrations are specified for sulfur, aromatics, T90 distillation, and olefins. Under the national generic detergent certification option, 10 volume percent ethanol must be blended into a base fuel meeting 65th percentile concentrations for sulfur, aromatics, T90 distillation, and olefins.

Back to Citation

133.  See 65 FR 6698 (February 10, 2000).

Back to Citation

134.  See 82 FR 23414 (April 28, 2014).

Back to Citation

135.  The approved sulfur doping compound is di-tertiary di-butyl sulfide.

Back to Citation

136.  See Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Section 2257.

Back to Citation

137.  We are also proposing to incorporate by reference the most recent version of the ASTM D5500 procedure.

Back to Citation

138.  We are also proposing to update the detergent deposit control testing provisions that are based on the Top Tier program to reflect current Top Tier test fuel composition specifications.

Back to Citation

139.  The proposed procedures to adopt potential changes to detergent deposit control test procedures as they arise in the future are discussed in Section XIII.F.5. See Section XIII.F.4 regarding the geographic applicability of California detergent certifications.

Back to Citation

140.  This approach is not reflected in the proposed regulatory text but would only require minor changes to allow.

Back to Citation

141.  Id.

Back to Citation

142.  Parts availability is also beginning to be problematic for the engine used in the ASTM D6201 procedure, although difficulties in maintaining the vehicle used in the ASTM D5500 procedure are much more pronounced.

Back to Citation

143.  The California ASTM D5500 procedure differs from the EPA procedure in that it has a more stringent IVD standard (50 versus 100 mg of IVD per valve), while requiring a test fuel that has less deposit forming severity than the test fuel required under the EPA procedure.

Back to Citation

144.  See 61 FR 35326-27 (July 5, 1996).

Back to Citation

147.  See Section XIII.F.4 regarding the proposed expansion to the applicability of California-based detergent certifications.

Back to Citation

149.  See 81 FR 80828 (November 16, 2016).

Back to Citation

150.  See 40 CFR 79.56(e)(1)(i) regarding the gasoline family definition. See ASTM D5798 regarding the ethanol content of E85.

Back to Citation

152.  We note that CAA section 114 explicitly excludes emissions data from treatment as confidential information.

Back to Citation

153.   Argus Leader, 139 S. Ct. at 2366.

Back to Citation

154.  Id. at 2363.

Back to Citation

155.  “Exemption 4 After the Supreme Court's Ruling in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media and Accompanying Step-by-Step Guide,” Office of Information Policy, U.S. DOJ, (October 4, 2019), available at https://www.justice.gov/​oip/​exemption-4-after-supreme-courts-ruling-food-marketing-institutev-argus-leader-media.

Back to Citation

156.  See id.; see also “Step-by-Step Guide for Determining if Commercial or Financial Information Obtained from a Person is Confidential under Exemption 4 of the FOIA,” Office of Information Policy, U.S. DOJ, (updated October 7, 2019), available at https://www.justice.gov/​oip/​step-step-guide-determining-if-commercial-or-financial-information-obtained-person-confidential.

Back to Citation

157.  See “Economic Analysis: Fuels Regulatory Streamlining Proposed Rule,” available in the docket for this action.

Back to Citation

158.  The supporting statement for the proposed ICR and other supporting materials are available in the docket for this action.

Back to Citation

159.  See “Economic Analysis: Fuels Regulatory Streamlining Proposed Rule,” available in the docket for this action.

Back to Citation

160.  Id.

Back to Citation

161.  The ICR supporting statement is available in the docket for this action.

Back to Citation

162.  See “Economic Analysis: Fuels Regulatory Streamlining Proposed Rule,” available in the docket for this action.

Back to Citation

163.  The ICR supporting statement is available in the docket for this action.

Back to Citation

164.  These results are discussed in more detail in the technical memorandum, “Economic Analysis: Fuels Regulatory Streamlining Proposed Rule,” available in the docket for this action.

Back to Citation

165.  See “Estimated Effects of Proposed Downstream Oxygenate Accounting Provisions,” available in the docket for this action.

Back to Citation

1.   State means a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Back to Citation

[FR Doc. 2020-09337 Filed 5-13-20; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Legal Citation

Federal Register Citation

Use this for formal legal and research references to the published document.

85 FR 29034

Web Citation

Suggested Web Citation

Use this when citing the archival web version of the document.

“Fuels Regulatory Streamlining,” thefederalregister.org (May 14, 2020), https://thefederalregister.org/documents/2020-09337/fuels-regulatory-streamlining.