Natio nal Petrochemical & Refiners Association 1667 K Street, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20006 202.457.0480 voice 202.457.0486 fax cdrevna@npra.org Charles T. Drevna President

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS AND ELECTRONIC MAIL

September 15, 2011

Administrator Lisa P. Jackson U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Room 300, Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 (jackson.lisa@epa.gov)

Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation Ariel Rios Building, Mail Code 6101A 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 (mccarthy.gina@epa.gov)

RE: Request for Partial Reconsideration of EPA’s “Misfueling Rule” 76 Fed. Reg. 44,406 (July 25, 2011)

Dear Administrator Jackson and A ssistant Administrator McCarthy:

The National Petrochemical & Refiners Associati on (“NPRA”) requests that the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) reconsider certai n provisions of the July 25, 2011 final rule regarding the misfueling of vehicl es and engines with gasoline-eth anol blends (“Final Misfueling Rule”) 1 . NPRA requests that EPA reconsider re gulatory requirements and implementation policies affecting 10 percent ga soline-ethanol blends (“E10” ), including product transfer document requirements applicable to E10, a nd labeling, survey and product transfer requirements that apply to gasoline -ethanol blends that will be cons idered to contain greater than 10 and less than 15 volume pe rcent ethanol (“E15”).

This petition is in addition to the petition for reconsideration sent to you on August 17, 2011. That petition involved parts of the Final Misfue ling Rule that were subject to implementation

1 Regulation To Mitigate the Misfueling of Vehicles and Engines With Gasoline Containing Greater Than Ten Volume Percent Ethanol a nd Modifications to the Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline Program, 76 Fed. Reg. 44,406 (July 25, 2011).Page 2
concurrent with the effective date of August 24, 2011. Therefore, in our first petition NPRA requested that you stay and toll the effective date and complianc e obligations for new labeling, survey and product transfer requirements containe d in the Final Misfueling Rule. While that date has now passed, we would reiterate the urgenc y of your review of th e matters addressed in our first petition.

With regard to this petition, NPRA is concerned th at the product transfer regulations at 40 C.F.R. 80.1503 (the “PTD regulations”) are not comprehensiv e and do not address a ll situations. Since these requirements will be effective after Oct ober 31, 2011, NPRA requests that you take action well before that date to stay or otherwise delay the effectiveness of the provisions in order to allow time for an additional rulemaking process under which corrections could be finalized by the agency.

I. EPA Did Not Address the Situation for Wint er Conventional Gasoline Containing 10 vol% Ethanol.

Under the structure of the regul atory text found at 40 C.F.R. § 80.1503, it is not clear what the PTDs should include for winter gasoline contai ning 10 vol% ethanol. While certain information is specified with respect to th e name and address of the transferor, transferee, volume amounts, location of the conventional blendstock and date of the transfer ( see 40 C.F.R. 1503(a)(1)(i)-(v)), information regarding ethanol content and other matters is not specifie d. This is opposed to EPA’s treatment of information provisions contained in 40 C.F. R. §1503(a)(1)(vi)(A) and (B), which is applicable to summer gasoline.

NPRA’s concern is that those who need to comply with the rule are uncertain as to how to create an appropriate product transfer doc ument for winter gasoline. In this regard, NPRA suggests that EPA work with stakeholders in order to create a new 40 C.F.R. §1503(a)(1)(vii) by moving §1503(a)(1)(vi)(C) to cover information requirements for winter gasoline. This new or moved paragraph should have two subsections, one fo r gasoline containing up to 10 vol% ethanol and one for gasoline containing up to 15 vol% ethano l. When §1503(a)(1)(vi)(C) is moved, this provision should also replace “gas oline” with “gasoline or blendstock/gasoline for oxygenate blending.”

NPRA believes that this is a matter which requi res the agency’s prompt attention. Although the requirements will not be effective until October 31, 2011, parties affected by these regulatory requirements will be moving to prepare for s upplying winter E10 conventional gasoline and conventional blendstock for oxygenate blending we ll ahead of that date. Thus, providing for a period where the regulations are no t effective, in order to prom ulgate more understandable and clear requirements, is justified.

II. Final Regulations Do Not Address the Situation Where the One PSI RVP Waiver Is Not Permitted by State Regulations for Summer Conventional Gasoline.

There are areas in the United States where the one pound square inch (“psi”) Reid Vapor Pressure waiver is not permitted for summer c onventional gasoline. These areas include New York, Maine, the city of Pittsburgh, and eastern Texas. This summer conventional gasoline is not clearly addressed in the PTD regulations. First, this gasoline is not designed for gasoline-Page 3

ethanol blends in 40 C.F.R. §80.27(d)(2) because th e one psi RVP waiver is not applicable. Do all of these areas have approved SIPs? 40 C. F.R. §1503(a)(1)(vi)(B) applies when 40 C.F.R. §80.27(d)(2) applies. Does §80.27(d)(2) cover ar eas where the one psi RVP waiver is not applicable? Second, this gasolin e is intended for blending with 10 vol% ethanol and 40 C.F.R. §1503(a)(1)(vi)(C) requires insertion of the following forma t: “Suitable for blending with ethanol at a concentration of no mo re than 15 vol % ethanol.” Is this an example or is this a required statement? This text does not clearl y state that this conve ntional blendstock for oxygenate blending should only be blended with 10 vol% ethanol at the terminal.

This could result in an anomalous situation. It would be confusing for a refiner to place two statements on the product transfer document. That is, in order to comply with 40 C.F.R. §1503(a)(1)(vi)(C), the refiner w ould include the information: “Suitable for blending with ethanol at a concentration of no more than 15 volume percent ethanol.” But, in addition, to attempt to notify the terminal, the following st atement would be appropriate: “Suitable for blending with ethanol at a concen tration of no more than 10 volume percent ethanol.” Therefore, the Agency should clarify the PTD regulations to address this situation, or otherwise supplement the current provisions contained at 40 C.F.R. §1503(a)(1).

The Agency should clarify the appropriate PTD regulation in this case by creating another regulation, §1503(a)(1)(vi )(D). This new §1503(a)(1)(vi)(D) should have two subsections, one for gasoline containing up to 10 vol% ethanol and one for gasoline c ontaining up to 15 vol% ethanol.

In addition, EPA should revise §150 3(a)(1)(vi)(C) as follows: “For gasoline not described in paragraph s (a) (1) (vi)(B) and (D) of this section, ...” Note that “(a)(vi)(B)” s hould be corrected as “(a)(1)(vi)(B)” in §1503(a)(1)(vi)(C).

The Agency should provide clear guidance on PTD requirements for every scenario. Clarity is necessary to avoid regulated parties using different interpretations. NPRA will work with the Agency to define all of the situations.

III. The regulatory provision for PTD codes should be moved.

The Final Misfueling Rule includes 40 C.F.R. §1503(b)(2): “Except for transfers to truck carriers, retailers, or wholesal e purchaser-consumers, product code s may be used to convey the information required under paragraph (b)(1) of this section if such codes are clearly understood by each transferee.” This should be moved to §1503(a) because §1503(b) onl y applies to parties downstream of an oxygenate blending facility, i.e., truck carriers, re tailers, or wholesale purchaser-consumers. Since thes e codes are permitted only for parties upstream of an oxygenate blending facility, this regulatory provision should be moved ou t of §1503(b) and into §1503(a).

For example, the Agency could create 40 C.F.R. §1503(a)(3): “Except fo r transfers to truck carriers, retailers, or wholesal e purchaser-consumers, product code s may be used to convey the information required under paragraph (a)(1) of this section if such codes are clearly understood by each transferee.”Page 4

IV. The PTD regulatory language does not provi de sufficient flexibility to also comply with state standards.

The PTD regulations require explicit la nguage at 40 C.F.R. §1503(b)(1)(vi):

(B) For gasoline containing less th an 9.0 volume percent ethanol, the following statement: ‘‘EX — Contains up to X% ethanol. The RVP does not exceed [fill in appropriate value] psi.’’ The term X refers to the maximum volume percent ethanol present in the gasoline.

(C) For gasoline containing between 9.0 and 10.0 volume percent ethanol (E10), the following statem ent: ‘‘E10: Contains between 9 and 10 vol % ethanol. The RVP does not exceed [fill in appropriate value] psi. The 1.0 psi RVP waiver applies to this gasoline. Do not mix with gasoline containing anything othe r than between 9 and 10 vol % ethanol.’’

(D) For gasoline containing greate r than 10.0 volume percent and not more than 15.0 volume percent etha nol (E15), the following statement: ‘‘E15: Contains up to 15 vol % ethanol. The RVP does not exceed [fill in appropriate value] psi;’’

The Agency should be open to suggestions for alternative language for compliance with state standards. For example, a state could require a little more precision on the ethanol content and “up to X vol%” (where X is a number between 0 and 9) or “up to 15 vol%” may be too vague. The petroleum industry should have the flexibilit y to meet a state’s precision requirements while complying with the federal Final Misfueling Rule without disrupting the clarity of the PTD.

V. A few other regulatory provision s should be clarified.

The regulation at 40 C.F.R. §1503(a)(1)(vi)(B)(2) re quires the insertion of a psi value for this “blendstock/gasoline for oxygenate blending.” What is required – the RVP of the BOB or the RVP that will not be exceeded by the BOB or th e maximum RVP of the finished E10 gasoline?

The provision at 40 C.F.R. §1503(a)(2) regard ing reformulated blendstock for oxygenate blending (RBOB) should also be included in 40 C.F.R. §1503(b). The requirements in 40 C.F.R. §1503(b)(1) should not apply to RBOB.

The regulation at 40 C.F.R. §1503(b)(1)(vi) states that the information re garding the RVP is only required for summer gasoline. The provision at 40 C.F.R. §1503(b)(1)(vi)(C) states that 9-10 vol% ethanol summer gasoline should only be mixe d with 9-10 vol% ethanol summer gasoline. Does EPA intend that this warning only apply to summer gasoline or shou ld it apply year-round?

The provision at 40 C.F.R. §1503(b)(1)(vi)(C) requires the insertion of a psi va lue. Is this value supposed to include the one psi RVP waiver? Was it your intention that this value be the applicable regulatory limit (including the one psi RVP waiver) or the actual RVP of the shipment?Page 5

VI. Conclusion

NPRA believes that changes are necessary to the current regulatory text for the Misfueling Rule to provide for uniform enforcement, standa rdized communications between refiners and terminals, and the successful implementation of the final rule. In addition, clarifying the requirements identified above and altering the regulations will also help to identify whether or not a refiner will be subject to regulations contained in 40 C.F.R. §1502 regarding survey requirements. Promulgating new regulatory text would serve to make it very clear whether the conventional gasoline blendstock for oxygenate blending was intended to manufacture E10 or E15.

Altogether, NPRA believes that the omissions a nd uncertainty identified in this petition are inadvertent. Therefore, we woul d reiterate that the proper respons e of the Agency in this matter should involve an administrative stay in the effective date of the requirements, followed by actions to promulgate corrections to the regulatory text. In this regard, NPRA stands ready to work with EPA to resolve this matter in an expeditious fashion.

If you have any questions regarding any matter contained in this peti tion, please contact Tim Hogan at 202-552-8462.

Sincerely,

Charles T. Drevna President

cc: Margo Oge Chet France Paul Argyropoulos Jeff Kodish Paul Machiele Karl Simon