5094 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

The https://www.regulations.gov/ 

website allows you to submit your 

comment anonymously, which means 

the EPA will not know your identity or 

contact information unless you provide 

it in the body of your comment. If you 

send an email comment directly to the 

EPA without going through https://

www.regulations.gov/, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

digital storage media you submit. If the 

EPA cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should not include 

special characters or any form of 

encryption and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about the EPA’s public docket, visit the 

EPA’s Docket Center homepage at 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

Out of an abundance of caution for 

members of the public and our staff, the 

EPA Docket Center and Reading Room 

are closed to the public, with limited 

exceptions, to reduce the risk of 

transmitting COVID–19. Our Docket 

Center staff will continue to provide 

remote customer service via email, 

phone, and webform. We encourage the 

public to submit comments via https:// 

www.regulations.gov/ or email, as there 

may be a delay in processing mail and 

faxes. For further information on EPA 

Docket Center services and the current 

status, please visit us online at https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. Hand deliveries 

or couriers will be received by 

scheduled appointment only. For 

further information and updates on EPA 

Docket Center services, please visit us 

online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

The EPA continues to carefully and 

continuously monitor information from 

the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, local area health 

departments, and our federal partners so 

that we can respond rapidly as 

conditions change regarding COVID–19. 

Submitting CBI. Do not submit 

information containing CBI to the EPA 

through https://www.regulations.gov/ or 

email. Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information on any digital 

storage media that you mail to the EPA, 

mark the outside of the digital storage 

media as CBI and then identify 

electronically within the digital storage 

media the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comments that 

includes information claimed as CBI, 

you must submit a copy of the 

comments that does not contain the 

information claimed as CBI directly to 

the public docket through the 

procedures outlined in Instructions 

above. If you submit any digital storage 

media that does not contain CBI, mark 

the outside of the digital storage media 

clearly that it does not contain CBI. 

Information not marked as CBI will be 

included in the public docket and the 

EPA’s electronic public docket without 

prior notice. Information marked as CBI 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 Code of Federal Regulations part 2. 

Send or deliver information identified 

as CBI only to the following address: 

OAQPS Document Control Officer 

(C404–02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002– 

0037. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this proposed action, 

contact Ms. Jennifer Caparoso, Sector 

Policies and Programs Division (E143– 

01), Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone 

number: (919) 541–4063; fax number: 

(919) 541–0516; and email address:

caparoso.jennifer@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To allow

for additional time for stakeholders to

provide comments, the EPA has decided

to reopen the public comment period

until February 8, 2021.

Dated: December 16, 2020. 

Panagiotis Tsirigotis, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards. 

[FR Doc. 2021–00355 Filed 1–15–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 80, 280, and 281 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2020–0448; FRL–10015–80– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AU92 

E15 Fuel Dispenser Labeling and 

Compatibility With Underground 

Storage Tanks 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA currently requires fuel 

dispenser labels for gasoline-ethanol 

blends of greater than 10 volume 

percent (vol%) ethanol and up to 15 

vol% ethanol (E15). The label was 

designed to alert consumers to the 

appropriate and lawful use of the fuel. 

EPA is co-proposing to either modify 

the E15 label or remove the label 

requirement entirely and seeking 

comment on whether state and local 

governments may be preempted from 

requiring different labels on fuel 

dispensers. To facilitate the proper 

storage of E15 in underground storage 

tank systems (USTs), EPA is proposing 

to modify the UST regulations to grant 

certain allowances for compatibility 

demonstration for storage of ethanol 

blends. EPA is also proposing 

compatibility requirements for future 

UST installations or component 

replacements that would ensure 

compatibility with higher blends of 

ethanol. 

DATES: 

Comments: Comments must be 

received on or before April 19, 2021. 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA), comments on the information 

collection provisions are best assured of 

consideration if the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

receives a copy of your comments on or 

before February 18, 2021. 

Public Hearing: EPA will announce 

the public hearing information for this 

proposal in a supplemental Federal 

Register document. 

ADDRESSES: You may send your 

comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2020–0448, by any of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov (our preferred 

method). Follow the online instructions 

for submitting comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov.

Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2020–0448 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Mail: U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 

Air Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier (by

scheduled appointment only): EPA 

Docket Center, WJC West Building, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket 

Center’s hours of operations are 8:30 

a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday–Friday (except

Federal Holidays).

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. for this 

rulemaking. Comments received may be 

posted without change to https:// 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 5095 

1For purposes of this preamble, E15 refers to 

gasoline-ethanol blended fuels that contain greater 

than 10 vol% and no more than 15 vol% ethanol 

content. 

2These partial waivers are collectively referred to 

as ‘‘the E15 partial waivers.’’ 75 FR 68094 

(November 4, 2010), 76 FR 4662 (January 26, 2011). 

The 2010 waiver applied to MY2007 and newer 

light duty motor vehicles. The 2011 waiver applied 

to MY2001–2006 light duty motor vehicles. 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

Out of an abundance of caution for 

members of the public and our staff, the 

EPA Docket Center and Reading Room 

are closed to the public, with limited 

exceptions, to reduce the risk of 

transmitting COVID–19. Our Docket 

Center staff will continue to provide 

remote customer service via email, 

phone, and webform. We encourage the 

public to submit comments via https:// 

www.regulations.gov or email, as there 

may be a delay in processing mail and 

faxes. Hand deliveries and couriers may 

be received by scheduled appointment 

only. For further information on EPA 

Docket Center services and the current 

status, please visit us online at https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

EPA continues to carefully and 

continuously monitor information from 

the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC), local area health 

departments, and our Federal partners 

so that we can respond rapidly as 

conditions change regarding COVID–19. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions regarding the E15 fuel 

dispenser labeling provisions of this 

proposed action, contact Lauren 

Michaels, Office of Transportation and 

Air Quality, Assessment and Standards 

Division, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann 

Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: 

(734) 214–4640; email address: 

michaels.lauren@epa.gov. For questions 

regarding the E15 compatibility with 

underground storage tanks provisions of 

this proposed action, contact Elizabeth 

McDermott, Office of Underground 

Storage Tanks, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; 

telephone number: (202) 564–0646; 

email address: mcdermott.elizabeth@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Does this action apply to me? 

Entities potentially affected by this 

proposed rule are those involved with 

the sale of gasoline. Potentially affected 

categories include: 

Category NAICS1 code Examples of potentially affected entities 

Industry .............. 111, 112 .................................. Agriculture (crop and animal production). 

Industry .............. 31–33 ...................................... Manufacturing. 

Industry .............. 42, 44–45, 72 (excluding 447) Commercial (wholesale trade, retail trade, accommodation, and food services). 

Industry .............. 447 .......................................... Retail motor fuel sales. 

Industry .............. 481, 483–486, 48811 .............. Transportation (air, water, truck, transit, pipeline, and airport operations). 

Industry .............. 5171, 2211 .............................. Communications and Utilities (wired telecommunications carriers, electric power generation, 

transmission, and distribution). 

1 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this proposed action. This 

table lists the types of entities that EPA 

is now aware could potentially be 

affected by this proposed action. Other 

types of entities not listed in the table 

could also be affected. To determine 

whether your entity would be affected 

by this proposed action, you should 

carefully examine the applicability 

criteria in 40 CFR part 80. If you have 

any questions regarding the 

applicability of this proposed action to 

a particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

Outline of This Preamble 

I. Purpose of This Action 

II. E15 Fuel Dispenser Labeling Revisions 

A. Background on the E15 Label 

B. E15 in the Market 

C. Proposed Changes to the E15 Labeling 

Requirement 

D. Request for Public Comment on E15 

Labeling Preemption Considerations 

III. E15 Compatibility With Underground 

Storage Tanks 

A. Background on Underground Storage 

Tank Compatibility 

B. Proposed Changes to the UST 

Compatibility Requirements 

C. Updates to State Program Approval 

Requirements 

D. Overview of Estimated Costs 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 

part 51 

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

V. Statutory Authority 

I. Purpose of This Action 

This action proposes modifications to 

EPA regulations under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) and the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act (RCRA) relating to the 

sale and distribution of gasoline-ethanol 

blends containing greater than 10 

volume percent (vol%) ethanol and up 

to 15 vol% ethanol (E15). Recently, EPA 

has taken actions to provide additional 

opportunity for E15 within the fuels 

marketplace. We are proposing two sets 

of regulatory changes to further that 

end. The first proposes modifications to 

EPA’s E15 fuel dispenser labeling 

requirement. The second proposes 

changes to EPA’s Underground Storage 

Tank (UST) regulations regarding 

compatibility with gasoline-ethanol 

blends. 

II. E15 Fuel Dispenser Labeling 

Revisions 

This section discusses our proposed 

revisions to the E15 label, under the 

CAA. 

A . Background on the E15 Label 

In 2010 and 2011, in response to 

requests for a waiver from CAA section 

211(f)(1), EPA granted two partial 

waivers for use of E15 1 under CAA 

section 211(f)(4).2 These waivers were 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
5096 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

3 76 FR 44406 (July 25, 2011). 

4FTC’s regulations found at 16 CFR 306.10 

(Automotive Fuel Rating Posting) require fuel 

dispenser labels for gasoline-ethanol fuel blends 

containing greater than 10 percent ethanol. The FTC 

regulations provide for an exemption for retailers 

that utilize EPA’s label under 40 CFR 80.1501. See 

16 CFR 306.10(a). 

5As described later in this proposal, if we were 

to remove our label requirement under 40 CFR 

80.1501, absent additional action from FTC, 

retailers would be required to use FTC’s label for 

ethanol blends containing between 10 and 15 

percent ethanol, per 16 CFR part 306. 

6 75 FR 68094 (November 4, 2010), 76 FR 4662 

(January 26, 2011). 

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

8See Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership, https://

www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/energyprograms/bip/index; Prime the Pump press release, 

https://growthenergy.org/2018/06/20/growthenergy-prime-the-pump-success-driving-ethanoldemand. 

9Email from Growth Energy to EPA, October 9, 

2019, ‘‘Growth Energy Higher Blend Infrastructure.’’ 

Available in the docket for this action. 

partial in that they apply to model year 

(MY) 2001 and newer light-duty motor 

vehicles and do not apply to MY2000 

and older light-duty motor vehicles, all 

heavy-duty gasoline engines and 

vehicles, all highway and off-highway 

motorcycles, and all nonroad products. 

Per CAA section 211(f)(4), EPA 

evaluated whether the use of E15 would 

cause or contribute to emissions failures 

over the useful life of all vehicles, 

engines, and nonroad equipment, and 

determined that the use of E15 in 

MY2000 and older vehicles, heavy-duty 

gasoline engines and vehicles, and 

highway and off-highway motorcycles 

could cause these motor vehicles to 

exceed their emissions standards. EPA 

also found that the use of E15 in 

nonroad products could cause 

emissions exceedances as well as 

durability and materials compatibility 

issues. 

Because the partial waivers apply 

only to MY2001 and newer light-duty 

motor vehicles, EPA promulgated 

regulations under CAA section 211(c) 

(referred to as the Misfueling Mitigation 

Rule or MMR) to mitigate the potential 

for E15 to be used to fuel vehicles, 

engines, and equipment for which E15 

has not been approved for introduction 

into commerce.3 Those regulations were 

needed to implement EPA’s affirmative 

determinations that the use of E15 in 

MY2000 and older light-duty motor 

vehicles, all heavy-duty gasoline 

engines and vehicles, all on- and offhighway motorcycles, and all nonroad 

products would cause or contribute to 

the impairment of those vehicles’ and 

engines’ emission controls and harm 

public health from increases in 

regulated emissions. The regulations 

include a prohibition on the use of E15 

in MY2000 and older light-duty motor 

vehicles, all heavy-duty gasoline 

engines and vehicles, all on- and offhighway motorcycles, and all nonroad 

products. To implement this 

prohibition, EPA promulgated several 

misfueling mitigation requirements in 

the MMR, a key aspect being that E15 

fuel dispensers must have a specific 

label when a retail station or wholesalepurchaser consumer chooses to sell E15. 

The label was designed to alert 

consumers to the appropriate and lawful 

use of the fuel. 

The E15 label was designed in 

coordination with consumer labeling 

experts at the Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC); FTC also requires 

the labeling of fuel dispensers in certain 

circumstances.4 EPA worked with FTC 

to develop the E15 label and to ensure 

consistency between EPA’s and FTC’s 

labels for higher level gasoline-ethanol 

blends such as E85 (gasoline ethanol 

blends containing up to 83 percent 

ethanol). By regulation, EPA’s current 

E15 label can be used in lieu of FTC’s 

label for E15.5

The E15 label requirement was 

implemented as an integral component 

of EPA’s misfueling mitigation program. 

First, the E15 partial waivers include a 

waiver condition that fuel and fuel 

additive manufacturers must submit a 

misfueling mitigation plan (MMP) with 

provisions to implement all reasonable 

precautions to address potential 

misfueling, including ensuring the use 

of a fuel dispenser label.6 The waiver 

conditions articulated in the E15 partial 

waivers provide that the label must 

convey the following information: 

• The fuel being dispensed contains 

15% ethanol maximum; 

• The fuel is for use in only MY2001 

and newer gasoline cars, MY2001 and 

newer light-duty trucks, and all flex-fuel 

vehicles; 

• Federal law prohibits the use of the 

fuel in other vehicles and engines; and 

• Using E15 in vehicles and engines 

not approved for use might damage 

those vehicles and engines. 

As discussed above, the MMR also 

implements a label requirement for 

retailers and wholesale purchaserconsumers, in addition to the 

requirements under the waiver 

conditions for fuel and fuel additive 

manufacturers. The MMR label 

requirement is specified in 40 CFR 

80.1501 and requires the same basic 

elements as required under the E15 

partial waivers’ label requirement. Most 

recently, the 2019 E15 ‘‘substantially 

similar’’ definition for E15 requires that 

fuel and fuel additive manufacturers 

must submit a misfueling mitigation 

plan with provisions to implement all 

reasonable precautions to address 

potential misfueling.7 Thus, the E15 

label is currently incorporated and 

required under 40 CFR 80.1501, our 

CAA section 211(f)(1) ‘‘substantially 

similar’’ definition for E15, and the CAA 

section 211(f)(4) E15 partial waivers. 

B. E15 in the Market 

In 2019, EPA extended the CAA 

section 211(h)(4) 1-psi volatility waiver 

to gasoline-ethanol blends containing 

between 9 and 15 percent ethanol. This 

has expanded the opportunity for E15 to 

be sold during the summer season. 

In the years since the 2010 and 2011 

E15 partial CAA section 211(f)(4) 

waivers were granted, the number of 

retail stations offering E15 has grown, 

spurred in part by the United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

biofuel infrastructure partnership (BIP) 

program in 2016–18 8 and the industrysponsored Prime the Pump program, 

that helped provide funding for retail 

station upgrades. As of October 2019, 

there are an estimated 1,809 stations 

registered as selling E15 (representing 

only about one percent of all retail 

stations).9 Figure III–1 shows the growth 

of E15 stations since 2012, as well as the 

percentage of E15 stations of all retail 

stations in the United States. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 5097 

10We received comments in rulemakings 

suggesting that there are still vehicles newer than 

MY2000 for which manufacturers’ owner’s manuals 

continue to include warnings against E15 use 

despite E15 being allowable for introduction into 

commerce in those vehicles under EPA’s 

regulations. See discussion at 84 FR 26980, 27010 

(June 10, 2019). 

11See, e.g., Comments from Growth Energy 

(Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0227–0053) 

and Renewable Fuels Association (Docket Item No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0227–0037). While these 

represent the most recent comments received on 

this issue, we have included all relevant comments 

in the docket for this action. While these comments 

often include many aspects of E15 use, only 

comments relating to the label are considered 

relevant for this NPRM. 

12See, e.g., Comments from National Marine 

Manufacturers Association (Docket Item No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2018–0775–0534) and Petroleum 

Marketers Association of America (Docket Item No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0227–0083). While these 

represent the most recent comments received on 

this issue, we have included all relevant comments 

in the docket for this action. While the comments 

often address many aspects of E15 use, only those 

comments related to the label requirement are 

considered relevant for this NPRM. 

13See, e.g., Comments from National Marine 

Manufacturers Association (Docket Item No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2018–0775–0534). 

The opportunities for misfueling have 

changed since 2011 as well. Over time, 

the number of light-duty vehicles on the 

road that are older than MY2001 have 

decreased due to normal fleet turnover, 

resulting in a corresponding decrease in 

the number of miles traveled by those 

light-duty vehicles.10 At the same time, 

we have no indication that anything has 

changed for the other sectors (i.e., 

nonroad vehicles, engines, and 

equipment, motorcycles, and heavyduty vehicles). We continue to believe 

there are millions of such products in 

use that could potentially be misfueled 

on E15. 

C. Proposed Changes to the E15 

Labeling Requirement 

EPA has received comments from 

some stakeholders on other actions 

suggesting that the existing E15 label is 

no longer necessary and simply 

interferes with additional growth of E15 

in the marketplace.11 These commenters 

suggest that removal of the label or 

changes to the color of the label or 

language used on the label would 

increase lawful use of E15 in MY2001 

and newer light-duty vehicles. Other 

stakeholders have suggested that the 

growth in E15 at retail stations 

exacerbates concerns over misfueling of 

vehicles and equipment not designed 

for it, and suggest that the current label 

is no longer explicit enough about what 

vehicles and engines cannot use E15 

making it insufficient to protect against 

misfueling.12 These commenters 

suggested that EPA should solicit input 

on the size, design, and placement of 

the label on the dispenser, and other 

characteristics of the label to more 

clearly communicate the fuel’s ethanol 

content to consumers.13

Our proposed action to modify or 

eliminate the E15 label requirement 

would rely on our CAA section 211(c) 

authority to control or prohibit fuel. 

Under CAA section 211(c)(1), EPA may 

issue regulations to ‘‘control or prohibit 

the manufacture, introduction into 

commerce, offering for sale, or sale’’ of 

any fuel or fuel additive whose 

emissions products may cause or 

contribute to air pollution ‘‘which may 

be reasonably anticipated to endanger 

public health or welfare,’’ or whose 

emissions products ‘‘will impair to a 

significant degree the performance of 

any emission control device or system 

which is in general use.’’ In the MMR, 

we found that E15 would significantly 

impair the emission control systems 

used in MY2000 and older light-duty 

motor vehicles, all heavy-duty gasoline 

engines and vehicles, all highway and 

off-highway motorcycles, and all 

nonroad products. This misfueling 

could result in increases in 

hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, nitrous 

oxide, particulate matter, and air toxics 

emissions. Any action EPA takes to 

modify or remove the label would need 

to consider this finding. 

We currently have no information 

before us that would indicate that E15, 

if used in MY2000 and older light-duty 

motor vehicles, all heavy-duty gasoline 

engines and vehicles, all highway and 

off-highway motorcycles, and all 

nonroad products, would no longer 

cause such damage to emission control 

systems. However, in the intervening 

years since the promulgation of the 

MMR and the label requirement, the 

vehicle fleet turnover toward newer 

light-duty vehicles, and the feedback 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALSEP19JA21.029</GPH>
5098 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

14An image of the existing label is available in 

the memorandum ‘‘Potential Label Changes,’’ 

available in the docket for this action. 

15See, e.g., Comments from Growth Energy 

(Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0448–0083). 

16We have provided mock-ups showing potential 

modifications to the label that might result from 

this proposal in the memorandum, ‘‘E15 Label 

Revisions,’’ available in the docket for this action. 

17 If we do remove the E15 label, we are not 

proposing to remove the Product Transfer 

Document (PTD) language requirements around 

ethanol content in gasoline-ethanol blended fuels. 

In addition to informing retailers of ethanol content 

for purposes of labeling E15 fuel dispensers, the 

PTD language requirements for ethanol are also 

necessary to identify which gasoline-ethanol blends 

can take advantage of the 1-psi waiver for RVP 

compliance. 

18See Comments from Growth Energy (Docket 

Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0202–0129). 

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

from stakeholders have led us to 

reevaluate the E15 label at this time. 

The current label is 3 inches by 5 

inches in black text on an orange 

background and includes the following 

language: 

• The word ‘‘ATTENTION,’’ 

diagonally across the upper right corner 

of the label; 

• The word ‘‘E15’’ at the top of the 

label; 

• The ethanol content: ‘‘Up to 15% 

ethanol’’ below the word E15; 

• The words and symbols ‘‘Use only 

in • 2001 and newer passenger vehicles 

• Flex-fuel vehicles’’; and 

• The final two sentences: ‘‘Don’t use 

in other vehicles, boats, or gasolinepowered equipment. It may cause 

damage and is prohibited by Federal 

law.’’ 14

In this action, we are co-proposing 

two options with respect to the E15 

label. Under the first option, we are 

proposing modifications to the label 

intended to provide additional clarity to 

consumers and decrease confusion. 

Under the second option, we are 

proposing to remove the label entirely. 

1. Potential Modifications to the E15 

Label 

Our first co-proposal is to modify the 

existing E15 label, including: 

• Removing the ‘‘Attention’’ stripe 

along the upper right corner of the label. 

• Removing the phrase ‘‘E15’’ from 

the label, while including the language 

‘‘contains up to 15% percent ethanol’’. 

• Revising the language ‘‘Use only in’’ 

to ‘‘Safe for use in’’. 

• Revising the language ‘‘Don’t use 

in’’ to ‘‘Avoid use in’’. 

• Revising the format of the word 

‘‘prohibited’’ such that it is not in bold 

and italicized type. 

We additionally propose 

modifications to the label in accordance 

with our existing alternative labels. At 

this time, there are two approved 

alternative labels for E15. One label 

includes the term ‘‘or’’ in between 

‘‘2001 and newer passenger vehicles’’ 

and ‘‘flex fuel vehicles.’’ We believe the 

inclusion of ‘‘or’’ clarifies that both 

MY2001 and newer light-duty motor 

vehicles and flex fuel vehicles can 

permissibly use E15. The other 

approved alternative label includes 

‘‘motorcycles’’ in the list of vehicles and 

engines in which E15 use is prohibited. 

Our first co-proposal proposes these 

modifications to the E15 label as well 

since we believe they more clearly 

convey which vehicles and engines can 

lawfully use E15. 

We believe these modifications to the 

label would reduce confusion about the 

vehicles in which E15 can be used 

while also alerting consumers to the 

vehicles and engines in which E15 

should not be used. We note that these 

modifications would also continue to 

comply with the requirements under the 

existing E15 partial waivers and thus 

would not require modifications to 

them. 

Finally, we propose a modification to 

the colors utilized on the label. 

Consistent with the FTC fuel labels, we 

selected the orange color for our E15 

label requirement in 2011; however, we 

recognize that another color may be 

better suited for the label. Some 

stakeholders 15 have suggested a blue 

and white label, instead of the orange 

label we currently use. The proposed 

regulatory text modifies the color of the 

label to a blue header, with white text, 

and white body with black text.16 We 

alternatively propose to maintain the 

current orange and black label color 

design. 

We seek comment on the proposed 

changes to the label, and specifically 

request input on what combination of 

modifications to the label would 

improve clarity regarding which 

vehicles can use E15 while protecting 

vehicles and engines for which E15 use 

is inappropriate. We recognize that the 

modifications proposed may be best 

implemented together, or in some 

alternative combination that does not 

include all of the proposed 

modifications. We specifically request 

information on any studies (e.g., public 

survey or focus group studies) or 

information on consumer interaction 

with the label. 

2. Potential Removal of the E15 Label 

Requirement 

In the alternative, our second coproposal is to remove the E15 label 

entirely. Selection of this option could 

also result in the elimination of the E15 

survey requirement because it is 

currently required in order to verify that 

E15 fuel dispensers are labeled 

consistent with EPA’s regulatory 

requirements, and would arguably no 

longer be necessary if the labeling 

requirement were removed.17 Some 

stakeholders have suggested that 

removing the label would encourage the 

use of E15 by consumers who can 

lawfully use E15 but who do not do so 

because they are confused by the 

label.18

We note that, regardless of our 

proposal to remove the E15 label, the 

prohibition on the use of E15 in 

MY2000 and older light duty vehicles 

and all nonroad engines and equipment 

as codified at 40 CFR 80.1504 would 

remain in place. We continue to believe 

that E15, when used in those vehicles or 

engines, would cause or contribute to 

the impairment of emission control 

systems which would, in turn, result in 

negative effects on human health and 

welfare. 

Were EPA’s E15 label requirement to 

be removed, we believe that FTC’s 

regulations would require that E15 

dispensers be labeled according to 

FTC’s label requirements.19 We seek 

comment on the interaction between 

EPA and FTC’s labels, recognizing that 

we cannot modify FTC’s regulations in 

this action. 

In order to completely remove the E15 

label, we would need to also remove it 

from the requirements under the CAA 

section 211(f)(4) waiver, and likely 

clarify under the CAA section 211(f)(1) 

‘‘substantially similar’’ determination 

that the fuel dispenser label would no 

longer be required. We seek comment 

on how to address the requirements 

under the CAA section 211(f) 

provisions. 

3. Modification to Regulations 

We note that we intend to finalize the 

proposed Fuels Regulatory Streamlining 

Rule (‘‘Streamlining Rule’’) with an 

implementation date of January 1, 2021, 

for most provisions, including the E15 

label requirement. Under the 

Streamlining Rule, we proposed to 

transpose unchanged the current E15 

misfueling mitigation measures from 40 

CFR part 80, subpart N, into the new 40 

CFR part 1090. Since the effective date 

of any final rulemaking for this action 

would likely be after January 1, 2021, 

we would effectuate the proposed E15 

label modifications or removal of the 

E15 labeling requirement in 40 CFR part 

1090. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 5099 

20See 74 FR 44406, 44431–32 (July 25, 2011). 

21Except that under CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(i), 

states other than California may prescribe and 

enforce non-identical measures if they seek and 

obtain EPA approval of State Implementation Plan 

revisions containing such control measures. 

22See 74 FR 44432 (July 25, 2011). 23See 80 FR 41566 (July 15, 2015). 

D. Request for Public Comment on E15 

Labeling Preemption Considerations 

Since promulgation of the MMR in 

2011, EPA has also received information 

from some stakeholders that confusion 

is caused when there is more than one 

label displayed on some fuel dispensers. 

For this reason, EPA additionally seeks 

comment regarding the ability of state or 

local governments to require labeling of 

E15 pump dispensers. 

As stated in the MMR,20 EPA’s 

authority to ‘‘control or prohibit’’ 

specifications for E15 pump dispenser 

labels is provided by CAA section 

211(c)(1). Under CAA section 

211(c)(4)(A), a state or local government 

may not adopt or enforce differing 

controls or prohibitions respecting 

labeling of E15 fuel dispensers if ‘‘for 

purposes of motor vehicle emission 

control.’’ 21 In the MMR, we also stated 

that we would evaluate questions 

regarding potential E15 pump dispenser 

labels preemption matters on a casespecific basis.22

Aside from the express preemption 

provided by CAA section 211(c)(4)(A), a 

state or local control for fuels or fuel 

additives may be implicitly preempted 

under the supremacy clause of the U.S. 

Constitution where the state 

requirement conflicts with Federal law 

by preventing compliance with the 

federal requirement, or by standing as 

an obstacle to accomplishment of the 

Federal objectives. Therefore, a state or 

local requirement respecting E15 pump 

label dispensers that is not expressly 

preempted under CAA section 

211(c)(4)(A) nevertheless may be 

preempted if it meets the criteria for this 

constitutional conflict preemption. 

In this action, we seek comment on 

whether there are certain types of labels 

that may be conflict-preempted from 

use. We encourage commenters to 

include examples of other labels they 

have observed that may raise such 

preemption questions and legal analysis 

to support their positions, to the extent 

feasible. 

III. E15 Compatibility With 

Underground Storage Tanks 

This section discusses our proposed 

revisions regarding compatibility with 

USTs. 

A. Background on Underground Storage 

Tank Compatibility 

As of 2020, EPA regulates over halfa-million UST systems that contain 

petroleum or hazardous substances. 

EPA’s Office of Underground Storage 

Tanks was formed in response to the 

discovery in the early 1980s that 

thousands of USTs had leaked and 

contaminated groundwater supplies in 

the U.S. USTs form a crucial part of our 

country’s fueling infrastructure. It is 

important for USTs to be constructed, 

maintained, and operated in a manner 

so that petroleum and other regulated 

substances are stored safely. We 

developed the UST regulation in 1988 to 

help owners and operators meet those 

goals, and a critical part of the 

regulation included the requirement for 

UST systems to be compatible with the 

substance stored. Incompatibility 

between fuels stored and UST system 

materials can result in equipment or 

components such as tanks, piping, 

gaskets, or seals becoming brittle, 

elongated, thinner, or swollen when 

compared with their condition when 

first installed. When this occurs, the 

UST system may fail to contain the 

regulated substance resulting in a 

release to the environment and possibly 

a failure to detect the release. 

The U.S. fuel supply has changed 

significantly since 1988 and use of 

biofuels has grown rapidly. We 

understand that the chemical and 

physical properties of biobased fuels, 

such as ethanol and biodiesel, can be 

more degrading to certain UST system 

materials than petroleum alone. 

Changes in the fuel supply have caused 

unintended consequences to UST 

systems, including equipment failure 

and releases to the environment. As a 

result, in 2015 we revised the UST 

regulation and required owners and 

operators to provide additional 

notification, demonstration, and 

recordkeeping when storing fuel blends, 

such as those with more than 10 percent 

ethanol or more than 20 percent 

biodiesel.23

The use of biofuels has continued to 

grow since 2015. As described in 

Section II.B, in June 2019, we modified 

fuel regulations that allow E15 to utilize 

the 1-psi volatility waiver, which allows 

for increased E15 sale in the summer. 

That final rule means more UST owners 

and operators may opt to store and sell 

E15 at gas stations and other fueling 

facilities. E15 is now used in 30 states 

at 1,809 stations. Because of this 

continued growth of biofuels in the 

U.S., this action proposes to revise the 

2015 UST regulation to grant certain 

allowances for compatibility 

demonstration and make it less 

burdensome for UST owners and 

operators to meet the current 

requirements. In addition, this action 

proposes a requirement that UST 

systems installed, or UST equipment 

and components replaced, must be 

constructed with equipment and 

components compatible with ethanol 

blends up to 100 percent. This 

requirement would become effective 

one year after the effective date of the 

final rule. 

This proposal will make it easier for 

owners and operators to meet 

compatibility requirements with their 

current infrastructure, if unable to 

demonstrate compatibility. The 

proposal will also help ensure the future 

national UST infrastructure is 

compatible with a broad range of 

biofuels that come to market so service 

station owners can offer more choices to 

consumers. The fuel supply in the U.S. 

is constantly evolving; because future 

needs are somewhat unknown, we see 

value in promoting UST systems that 

can safely store a broad range of 

potential emerging fuels such as higherlevel ethanol blends. 

B. Proposed Changes to the UST 

Compatibility Requirements 

1. Allowance—For Secondary 

Containment When Unableo To 

Demonstrate Compatibility 

In the preamble to the 2015 UST 

regulation, we clarified that 

implementing agencies could allow use 

of secondary containment in lieu of 

being able to demonstrate compatibility 

of all UST system equipment and 

components required by the regulation. 

EPA had not previously allowed this but 

is proposing to do so now in this action. 

Owners and operators of UST systems 

already in existence one year after the 

effective date of this rule who cannot 

determine compatibility (e.g., cannot 

find installation documentation) for all 

equipment and components are not 

required to demonstrate compatibility if 

the UST systems have secondarily 

contained tanks and piping (including 

safe suction piping) and use interstitial 

monitoring. This will still sufficiently 

protect the environment because 

secondary containment will contain a 

leak from the primary containment of 

the tank and piping, and interstitial 

monitoring will likely detect a leak 

before regulated substances reach the 

environment. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
5100 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

24States includes all 50 states, 5 territories, and 

the District of Columbia. 25See https://flexfuelforward.com/flexcheck. 

As of 2020, all states 24 require 

secondary containment for new and 

replaced UST systems, along with the 

requirement for interstitial monitoring 

to detect potential releases. Most states’ 

requirements target new and replaced 

UST systems, which avoids added 

expenses for owners and operators to 

retrofit or replace existing systems to 

meet the requirements. Many states, 

including those in New England, New 

York, California, and Florida, required 

full or partial secondary containment 

prior to Congress passing Title XV, 

Section B of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005 (EPAct). This act required states 

receiving Federal money under Subtitle 

I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act to 

require either secondary containment 

and under-dispenser containment for 

new and replaced underground storage 

tank systems or evidence of 

manufacturer and installer financial 

responsibility and installer certification. 

By 2008, 31 states had adopted the 

EPAct requirement. However, states’ 

requirements for secondary containment 

and interstitial monitoring can differ, 

including when required and 

allowances for use of other release 

detection options when owners and 

operators chose to install secondary 

containment prior to it being required. 

EPA’s database, populated with 

publicly available information gathered 

from the individual state UST programs, 

helped us understand the number of 

UST systems nationally that are 

secondarily contained and where 

owners and operators are using 

interstitial monitoring to detect releases 

from their UST systems. Using statesupplied data, we identified 23 states 

that provide data on the number of UST 

systems with both double-wall tanks 

and double-wall piping. These 

secondarily contained systems should 

generally be capable of using interstitial 

monitoring for release detection, 

although some may currently use 

another method. This means that 

approximately 24 percent of the 225,000 

USTs in these 23 states should be able 

to use secondary containment with 

interstitial monitoring, if they have 

compatible equipment but are currently 

unable to demonstrate it. The 

percentage is likely similar across the 

nation, but we seek comment on this 

issue. 

Owners and operators should be 

aware that only leaks from equipment or 

components inside secondary 

containment will be contained. Fuel 

spills may still occur if other UST 

system components become nonfunctioning due to incompatibility since 

the equipment or component is not 

inside secondary containment. For 

example, if spill prevention equipment 

(i.e., spill bucket) fails due to 

incompatibility, small spills from the 

delivery hose will not be contained by 

the tank and piping secondary 

containment. We encourage owners and 

operators to replace equipment that they 

cannot demonstrate as compatible if the 

equipment is accessible from ground 

level and replaceable with minimal 

investment. 

2. Allowance—For Already Compatible 

Tanks and Piping 

We identified equipment for which 

UST owners and operators would not 

need to demonstrate compatibility. 

Based on manufacturer statements and 

certification by independent testing 

laboratories, certain categories of 

equipment are known to be compatible 

with higher blends of ethanol. We 

believe that steel and fiberglass tanks 

manufactured after July 2005 are 

compatible with higher blends of 

ethanol fuels. This means that owners 

and operators will not need to 

demonstrate compatibility for these 

tanks. Likewise, we understand that all 

fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) 

piping is compatible with higher blends 

of ethanol fuel, so owners will not need 

to demonstrate compatibility for any 

FRP piping. 

For other equipment, we are unaware 

of a fixed date or fixed category in 

which all equipment by any 

manufacturer is known to be 

compatible. As such, other than for the 

tank and piping items identified earlier 

in this section, owners and operators 

must adhere to the requirement in 40 

CFR 280.32 to demonstrate 

compatibility. 

However, we understand that some 

models of many equipment and 

components that must be demonstrated 

compatible were already compatible 

with higher blends of ethanol decades 

before these blends became common. 

UST owners and operators may already 

have this equipment installed. If they 

can demonstrate compatibility of certain 

existing equipment, they will not need 

to replace all of their equipment to 

demonstrate compatibility with higher 

blends of ethanol.25

For example, we understand that the 

following UST system equipment and 

components were available after the 

1988 UST regulation and are compatible 

with higher blends of ethanol: 

• Unlined steel single-wall tanks 

• Unlined steel double-wall tanks 

In addition, we understand that the 

following UST system equipment and 

components were available in a higher 

ethanol compatible version from at least 

one manufacturer as early as the years 

listed below. Many owners and 

operators might have a compatible piece 

of equipment, which can be confirmed 

and demonstrated as compatible by 

verifying documentation associated 

with the equipment manufacturer and 

installation. 

• Single-wall fiberglass tanks: 1995 

• Double-wall fiberglass tanks: 1990 

• Flexible piping: 2011 

• Fiberglass containment sumps: 1995 

• Pumping equipment: 2010 

• Spill equipment: 2015 

• Release detection equipment: 2006 

• Overfill equipment: 2006 

We are requesting comment on the 

accuracy of this information and seek 

additional information on this matter. 

3. Compatibility Requirements for New 

Installations and Replacements 

We are proposing that owners and 

operators storing motor fuel used in 

over-the-road vehicles must ensure that 

new or replaced UST system equipment 

and components, including pipe dopes 

and sealants, are compatible with 

ethanol blends up to 100 percent. This 

applies regardless of whether the UST 

system currently stores or will store 

ethanol blends. This includes UST 

systems storing over-the-road diesel 

because service stations may in the 

future change to storing gasoline with 

higher blends of ethanol. However, we 

believe USTs storing fuel for emergency 

power generators and other off-road fuel 

used (such as fuel for construction 

equipment) should be exempt from this 

requirement. We seek comment on other 

potentially applicable exemptions. If an 

owner or operator is replacing specific 

equipment or components, such as a 

submersible turbine pump or 

containment sump, then only that 

replacement must be compatible with 

ethanol blends up to 100 percent. For 

entirely new UST system installations 

or replacements, the entire system must 

be compatible with ethanol blends up to 

100 percent. We would require UST 

owners and operators to retain 

compatibility documentation for all new 

system equipment and components, 

including pipe dope, sealants, and 

gaskets, which are a common source of 

incompatibility. 

This proposed requirement would 

become effective one year after the 

effective date of the final regulation. 

Since UST systems typically stay in the 

ground for decades—40 percent of 

active USTs are more than 30 years 

old—transitioning to compatible UST 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 5101 

26States and territories without SPA—AK, AZ, 

CA, FL, IL, MI, NJ, NY, OH, WI, WY and AS, GU, 

CNMI, VI. 

systems for emerging fuels can be very 

difficult. Implementing this requirement 

now will help ensure future fuel storage 

infrastructure can reliably store a larger 

variety of fuels. One hundred percent 

ethanol compatible material is readily 

available on the market today for all 

UST system equipment and 

components. The additional cost of a 

fully ethanol compatible system would 

be relatively minimal as a percentage of 

total cost of installation. This additional 

up-front investment would also avoid 

potentially significant upgrade costs, if 

future fuels contain greater volumes of 

ethanol or other alcohols. 

C. Updates to State Program Approval 

Requirements 

EPA has long recognized that, because 

of the size and diversity of the regulated 

community, state and local governments 

are in the best position to oversee USTs. 

State and local authorities are closer to 

the situation in their domain and are in 

the best position to set priorities. The 

2015 state program approval (SPA) 

regulation in 40 CFR part 281 sets 

criteria state UST programs must meet 

to receive EPA’s approval to operate in 

lieu of the Federal UST program. The 

SPA regulation sets performance criteria 

states must meet to be considered no 

less stringent than the Federal UST 

regulation and provides requirements 

for states to have adequate enforcement. 

Much of the responsibility for 

implementing these proposed changes 

falls to state agencies. EPA will work 

with states to update their UST 

regulations and will support them in 

achieving state program approval. These 

proposed changes to the 2015 UST 

regulation, when final, will initially 

only apply to UST facilities in Indian 

country and in states that do not have 

SPA (owners and operators in states that 

do not have SPA must comply with the 

Federal UST regulation and their state 

regulations). For states that do have SPA 

these proposed changes will not apply 

until each state undertakes its own 

rulemaking. As of the date of 

publication of this notice, 15 26 states do 

not have state program approval. For a 

list of states with state program 

approval, see www.epa.gov/ust/stateunderground-storage-tank-ust-programs. 

EPA is proposing to change the 2015 

SPA regulation (40 CFR part 281) and 

make it consistent with these proposed 

revisions of the compatibility 

requirements of the 2015 UST 

regulation (40 CFR part 280). 

Specifically, EPA proposes that states 

require UST systems that store motor 

fuel for use in over-the-road vehicles be 

compatible with ethanol blends up to 

100 percent when a new system is 

installed or when equipment and 

components are replaced. Since this is 

a more stringent requirement than what 

EPA required in its 2015 UST 

regulation, states would need to have or 

adopt this additional provision to be 

considered no less stringent than the 

corresponding Federal requirements. 

States will have three years from the 

effective date of a final rule to submit to 

EPA a revised SPA application, 

including this change to their states’ 

UST regulations. Since many states have 

recently been through this SPA 

application approval process for the 

2015 UST regulation, EPA intends to 

make this additional modification to 

SPA an expedited process. EPA 

welcomes additional feedback on this. 

D. Overview of Estimated Costs 

The regulatory changes proposed 

today would provide cost savings to 

UST owners and operators as well as 

impose costs, and EPA is seeking 

comments on both. 

1. Allowances—For Secondary 

Containment When Unable To 

Demonstrate Compatibility and for 

Already Compatible Tanks and Piping 

The allowance described in this 

proposal for UST systems with 

secondary containment using interstitial 

monitoring when unable to demonstrate 

compatibility will provide owners and 

operators cost savings. Under this 

allowance, UST system owners and 

operators seeking to store ethanol 

blends up to 100 percent will not have 

to upgrade certain equipment and 

components simply because they are 

unable to demonstrate compatibility for 

that equipment and those components. 

As described in this preamble it is 

EPA’s understanding that approximately 

24 percent of all UST systems should be 

able to use secondary containment with 

interstitial monitoring, if they have 

compatible equipment but are currently 

unable to demonstrate it. This could 

mean that a significant portion of all 

facilities that seek to store higher blends 

of ethanol but are unable to demonstrate 

may not have to replace certain 

equipment. A rough estimate of 

replacement cost avoidance from this 

allowance can be made from informal 

estimates EPA has gathered from 

industry and regulators: 

• Replacing tanks: $150,000 per tank. 

• Replacing piping: $150,000 per 

facility. 

• Ancillary equipment upgrades 

(most variable and configuration 

dependent): $1,000 $10,000 per UST 

system. 

In addition, the other allowance 

proposed in this regulation to eliminate 

the requirement to demonstrate 

compatibility for all steel and fiberglass 

tanks manufactured after July 2005, and 

all FRP piping should provide some 

additional cost savings. EPA is seeking 

to verify this understanding and is 

looking for additional information or 

data to better understand the cost 

implications of today’s proposal. 

2. Compatibility Requirements for New 

Installations and Replacements 

This proposal imposes compatibility 

requirements for up to 100 percent 

ethanol for certain (i.e., storing motor 

fuel used in over-the road-vehicles) new 

installations and replacements of UST 

system equipment and components 

regardless of whether the UST system 

currently stores or will store ethanol 

blends. This means, for example that an 

UST owner and operator needing to 

replace equipment such as a 

containment sump or spill bucket must 

make that replacement with equipment 

that is compatible with up to 100 

percent ethanol. EPA understands that 

the marginal cost for any new UST 

system equipment or components 

compatible with up to 100 percent 

ethanol is minimal compared with the 

overall project costs (i.e., design, 

construction, installation etc). EPA 

estimates the additional costs for 

purchasing up to 100 percent 

compatible equipment or components 

could be significantly less than 5% of 

the overall project costs and is seeking 

comment on this estimate. Some major 

UST components and equipment 

manufactured today (e.g., tanks, piping) 

are all already compatible with up to 

100 percent ethanol so there is no cost 

increase to accommodate the higher 

blends for those purchases. However, 

there is certain equipment where the 

cost of the up to 100 percent ethanol 

compatible model may be higher (e.g., 

overfill device). 

EPA is seeking to verify this 

understanding and is looking for 

additional information or data to better 

understand the cost implications of this 

action. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
5102 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

27See 80 FR 41620–21 (July 15, 2015) and Section 

5.4 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for that 

action, ‘‘Assessment Of The Potential Costs, 

Benefits, And Other Impacts Of The Final Revisions 

To EPA’s Underground Storage Tank Regulations.’’ 

28 Id. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is a significant regulatory 

action because it raises novel legal or 

policy issues. Nevertheless, after 

reviewing information regarding this 

action, the Office of Management and 

Budget waived review of this action. 

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

This action is not expected to be an 

Executive Order 13771 regulatory 

action. We seek comment on any 

burdens and costs associated with this 

rulemaking. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection activities 

in this proposed rule have been 

submitted for approval to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the PRA. The Information Collection 

Request (ICR) document that EPA 

prepared has been assigned EPA ICR 

number 2655.01. You can find a copy of 

the ICR in the docket for this rule, and 

it is briefly summarized here. 

This proposed regulation would 

either change the existing, approved E15 

label (approved under OMB Control 

Number 2060–0675)—or remove it 

entirely. Should the E15 label be 

modified, then there would be a cost 

associated with affixing the amended 

label to pumps from which fuel is 

dispensed. We have also allowed that 

some parties may need to purchase 

labels. Parties required to affix labels are 

typically parties who own or operate 

retail stations or wholesale-purchases 

consumer facilities. Should the E15 

labeling requirement be removed 

entirely, then there would no longer be 

any E15 label required and we would 

anticipate a cost savings to industry. 

This proposed regulation would also 

require owners and operators of 

underground storage tanks (UST) to 

maintain records of compatibility at 

new UST installations and replacements 

storing motor fuels used in over the road 

transportation. This new requirement is 

only intended for UST systems storing 

motor fuel used in over-the-road 

transportation, not for UST systems 

fueling emergency power generators nor 

other UST systems used for off-road 

purposes such as construction 

equipment. In the existing regulation, 

owners and operators of USTs storing 

product containing more than 10 

percent ethanol or more than 20 percent 

biodiesel are required to maintain 

records to demonstrate compatibility 

with the product stored. This action 

proposes to grant certain allowances for 

this current UST system compatibility 

demonstration requirement, which 

reduces information collection burden 

for some UST systems. The existing 

requirements for owners and operators 

of USTs are under OMB Control 

Number 2060–0068. 

Respondents/affected entities: 

Retailers and wholesale purchaserconsumers who dispense E15; owners 

and operators of UST systems. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Mandatory under 40 CFR part 80, 

subpart N, (E15 labeling)—and 40 CFR 

part 280, subparts B and C; and 40 CFR 

part 281, subpart C (UST). 

Estimated number of respondents: 

1,801 retail and wholesale purchaserconsumers for the E15 labeling 

provisions and 10,331 owners and 

operators for the UST provisions. 

Frequency of response: Once, as 

needed and on occasion. 

Total estimated burden: 37 hours (per 

year) for the E15 labeling and 2,799 

hours (per year) for USTs. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: $3,785 (per year) 

for E15 labeling, which includes $2,952 

annualized capital or operation & 

maintenance costs; and $65,515 for 

UST, which includes $0 annualized 

capital or operation & maintenance 

costs. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

Submit your comments on EPA’s need 

for this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden to EPA using the 

docket for this action. You may also 

send your ICR-related comments to 

OMB’s Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs at www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/PRAMain. Find this 

particular information collection by 

selecting ‘‘Currently under 30-day 

Review—Open for Public Comments’’ or 

by using the search function. Since 

OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 

days after receipt, OMB must receive 

comments no later than February 18, 

2021. EPA will respond to any ICRrelated comments in the final rule. 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. The small entities 

subject to the requirements of this 

action are retail motor fuels firms and 

small government jurisdictions. 

With respect to the E15 fuel dispenser 

label portion of this action, the 

proposed changes to the E15 label under 

option 1 of this action do not 

substantively alter the regulatory 

requirements on parties that make and 

distribute E15. The removal of the E15 

label under option 2 of this action 

would reduce burden on all regulated 

parties that sell E15, including small 

entities, and therefore would not impose 

any requirements on small entities. 

With respect to the E15 compatibility 

with underground storage tanks 

provisions of this action, in EPA’s 2015 

UST rulemaking we determined that 

less than 1 percent of potentially 

affected small firms in the retail motor 

sector (NAICS 447) would experience an 

impact over 1 percent of revenues, but 

less than 3 percent of revenues and that 

no small firms would have impacts 

above 3 percent of revenues.27 In the 

2015 rulemaking we also determined 

that no small government jurisdictions 

would be impacted at 1 percent or 3 

percent of revenues.28 Since this action 

proposes a small change to the 2015 

regulation, we do not expect any 

significant impacts to small entities. 

EPA seeks comment on any cost 

impacts. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, and does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. This 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any state, local or tribal governments. 

Requirements for the private sector do 

not exceed $100 million in any one 

year. 

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This proposed action does not have 

federalism implications. The E15 label 

portion of this action will not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. For the E15 

compatibility with underground storage 

tanks portion of this action, the total 

costs of this proposed rule (direct 

compliance costs, notification costs and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 5103 

state program costs) will be small. In our 

much larger rule in 2015 these total 

costs were only $9 million which is not 

considered to be a substantial 

compliance costs under Federal 

requirements. Therefore, we believe 

Executive Order 13132 will not apply to 

this rule which we expect to have lower 

costs than the 2015 rule. EPA is 

requesting comment on the expected 

costs of this proposed rule. In the spirit 

of Executive Order 13132 and consistent 

with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and State 

and local governments, EPA will 

specifically solicit comment from state 

and local government during the 

comment period. 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

as applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern environmental 

health or safety risks that EPA has 

reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not concern an 

environmental health risk or safety risk. 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ because it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

This action proposes to either change 

EPA’s existing E15 label or remove the 

labeling requirement entirely. There are 

no additional costs for sources in the 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

sectors. 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 

Part 51 

This proposed action does not involve 

technical standards. 

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

EPA believes that this action does not 

have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority populations, low 

income populations, and/or indigenous 

peoples, as specified in Executive Order 

12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

For the E15 label portion of this action, 

this proposed rule maintains the 

prohibition on the use of E15 in 2000 

and older light duty vehicles, as well as 

all motorcycles, and nonroad vehicles, 

engines, and equipment, which could 

result in increases in emissions. For the 

E15 compatibility with underground 

storage tanks portion of this action, EPA 

has determined that this action will not 

have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority or low-income 

populations because it increases the 

level of environmental protection for all 

affected populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. 

V. Statutory Authority 

Statutory authority for the E15 label 

portion of this action comes from 

section 211 of the Clean Air Act, 42 

U.S.C. 7545. Statutory authority for the 

E15 compatibility with underground 

storage tanks section of this action 

comes from the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act sections 9001 et seq., 

42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 80 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Fuel additives, 

Gasoline, Labeling, Motor vehicle 

pollution, Penalties, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Parts 280 and 281 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Hazardous substances, Petroleum, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Water pollution control, 

Water supply. 

Andrew Wheeler, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 

CFR parts 80, 280, and 281 as follows: 

PART 80—REGISTRATION OF FUELS 

AND FUEL ADDITIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 80 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7521, 7542, 

7545, and 7601(a). 

■ 2. Revise § 80.1501 to read as follows: 

§ 80.1501 Labeling requirements that 

apply to retailers and wholesale purchaserconsumers of gasoline that contains 

greater than 10 volume percent ethanol and 

not more than 15 volume percent ethanol. 

(a) Any retailer or wholesale 

purchaser-consumer who sells, 

dispenses, or offers for sale or 

dispensing E15 must affix the following 

conspicuous and legible label to the fuel 

dispenser: 

Contains up to 15% ethanol 

Safe for use in 

• 2001 and newer passenger vehicles; 

or 

• Flex-fuel vehicles 

Avoid use in other vehicles, 

motorcycles, boats, or gasoline-powered 

equipment. It may cause damage and is 

prohibited by Federal law. 

(b) Labels under this section must 

meet the following requirements for 

appearance and placement: 

(1) Dimensions. The label must 

measure 3 and 5⁄8 inches wide by 3 and 1⁄8 inches high. 

(2) Placement. The label must be 

placed on the upper two-thirds of each 

fuel dispenser where the consumer will 

see the label when selecting a fuel to 

purchase. For dispensers with one 

nozzle, the label must be placed above 

the button or other control used for 

selecting E15, or in any other manner 

which clearly indicates which control is 

used to select E15. For dispensers with 

multiple nozzles, the label must be 

placed in the location that is most likely 

to be seen by the consumer at the time 

of selection of E15. 

(3) Text. The text must be justified 

and the fonts and backgrounds must be 

as described in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) 

through (vi) and (b)(4)(i) through (iv) of 

this section. 

(i) The ethanol content: ‘‘Contains up 

to 15% ethanol’’ must be in 18-point, 

center-justified, white, Helvetica Black 

font in the top 1.25 inches of the label. 

(ii) The words ‘‘Safe for use in’’ must 

be in 20-point, left-justified, black, 

Helvetica Bold font in the bottom 1.875 

inches of the label. 

(iii) The words, and symbols ‘‘• 2001 

and newer passenger vehicles; or 

• Flex-fuel vehicles’’ must be in 14- 

point, left-justified, black, Helvetica 

Bold font. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
5104 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

(iv) The remaining two sentences 

must be in 12-point, left-justified, 

Helvetica Bold font. 

(4) Color. (i) The background of the 

top 1.25 inches of the label must be 

blue. 

(ii) The background of the bottom 

1.875 inches of the label must be white. 

(5) Alternative labels. (i) Alternative 

labels to those specified in this section 

may be used if approved by EPA in 

advance. Such labels must contain all of 

the informational elements specified in 

paragraph (a) of this section, and must 

use colors and other design elements 

similar in substance and appearance to 

the label required by this section. Such 

labels may differ in size and shape from 

the label required by this section only 

to a small degree, except to the extent 

a larger label is necessary to 

accommodate additional information or 

translation of label information. 

(ii) A request for approval of an 

alternative label must be sent to the 

attention of ‘‘E15 Alternative Label 

Request’’ to the address in § 80.10(a). 

PART 280—TECHNICAL STANDARDS 

AND CORRECTIVE ACTION 

REQUIREMENTS FOR OWNERS AND 

OPERATORS OF UNDERGROUND 

STORAGE TANKS (UST) 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 280 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6991, 6991(a), 

6991(b), 6991(c), 6991(d), 6991(e), 6991(f), 

6991(g), 6991(h), 6991(i). 

■ 4. Amend § 280.20 by adding a 

sentence after the first sentence in the 

introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 280.20 Performance standards for new 

UST systems. 

* * * Owners and operators must 

also comply with the requirement of 

§ 280.32(b) when equipment or 

components are installed or replaced, as 

applicable. * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 280.32 by revising 

paragraph (b) and adding paragraphs (c) 

and (d) to read as follows: 

§ 280.32 Compatibility 

* * * * * 

(b) In addition to the requirements at 

§ 280.20, owners and operators of UST 

systems which will store motor fuel 

used in over-the-road vehicles must 

ensure that equipment and components, 

including pipe dopes and sealants, that 

are installed or replaced on or after [1 

year after effective date of final 

regulations] are compatible with ethanol 

blends up to 100 percent. Owners and 

operators must keep documentation of 

compatibility in accordance with 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section and keep 

documentation on compatibility of pipe 

dopes and sealants. 

(c) Owners and operators must notify 

the implementing agency at least 30 

days prior to switching to a regulated 

substance containing greater than 10 

percent ethanol, greater than 20 percent 

biodiesel, or any other regulated 

substance identified by the 

implementing agency. In addition, 

owners and operators with UST systems 

storing these regulated substances must 

meet one of the following: 

(1) Demonstrate compatibility of the 

UST system (including the tank, piping, 

containment sumps, pumping 

equipment, release detection 

equipment, spill equipment, and overfill 

equipment). Owners and operators may 

demonstrate compatibility of the UST 

system by using one of the following 

options, though no demonstration is 

required for tanks manufactured on or 

after July 2005 or for any fiberglass 

piping: 

(i) Certification or listing of UST 

system equipment or components by a 

nationally recognized, independent 

testing laboratory for use with the 

regulated substance stored; or 

(ii) Equipment or component 

manufacturer approval. The 

manufacturer’s approval must be in 

writing, indicate an affirmative 

statement of compatibility, specify the 

range of biofuel blends the equipment or 

component is compatible with, and be 

from the equipment or component 

manufacturer. 

(2) All UST systems must be 

compatible with the substance stored in 

accordance with paragraph (a) of this 

section but for any UST system installed 

prior to 1 year after the date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register for which 

compatibility cannot be demonstrated in 

accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section, the regulated substance may be 

stored if the tank and piping are 

secondarily contained and use 

interstitial monitoring in accordance 

with § 280.43(g). Secondary 

containment must be able to contain 

regulated substances leaked from the 

primary containment until they are 

detected and removed and prevent the 

release of regulated substances to the 

environment at any time during the 

operational life of the UST system. 

(3) Use another option determined by 

the implementing agency to be no less 

protective of human health and the 

environment than the options listed in 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section. 

(d) Owners and operators must 

maintain records in accordance with 

§ 280.34(b) documenting compliance 

with paragraph (b) of this section for the 

life of the UST system and paragraph (c) 

of this section for as long as the UST 

system is used to store the regulated 

substance. 

§ 280.34 [Amended] 

■ 6. Amend § 280.34 paragraph (a)(2) by 

removing ‘‘(§ 280.32(b))’’ and adding 

‘‘(§ 280.32(c))’’ in its place; and in 

paragraph (b)(3) by removing 

‘‘(§ 280.32(c))’’ and adding ‘‘(§ 280.32(b) 

and (c))’’ in its place. 

PART 281—APPROVAL OF STATE 

UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK 

PROGRAMS 

■ 7. The authority citation for part 281 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6991(c), 

6991(d), 6991(e), 6991(i), 6991(k). 

■ 8. Amend § 281.32 by revising 

paragraph (c) and the first sentence of 

paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 281.32 General operating requirements 

* * * * * 

(c) Be made of or lined with materials 

that are compatible with the substance 

stored; in order to ensure compatibility, 

the state requirements must also include 

provisions for demonstrating 

compatibility with new and innovative 

regulated substances or other regulated 

substances identified by the 

implementing agency or include other 

provisions determined by the 

implementing agency to be no less 

protective of human health and the 

environment than the provisions for 

demonstrating compatibility; for UST 

systems that will store motor fuel used 

in over-the-road vehicles, all newly 

installed or replaced equipment or 

components, including pipe dopes and 

sealants, must be compatible with 

ethanol blends up to 100 percent; 

* * * * * 

(g) Have records of monitoring, 

testing, repairs, compatibility 

demonstration, and inspections. * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–00203 Filed 1–15–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS