Report to the President 

Task Force on Boutique Fuels 

Convened by Administrator Johnson, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

June 2006 

United States Environmental Protection Agency
2

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

II. The Task Force 

III. Current Understanding of Use and Utility of Boutique Fuels 

IV. Highlights of EPA’s 2001 Boutique Fuels Study 

V. Relevant Fuel Actions Taken Since 2001 

VI. Boutique Fuel and Related Provisions Required by EPAct 

VII. Stakeholder Reports/Summaries 

VIII. EPA Recommendations and Observations 

IX. Summary Comments and Additional Opinions 

X. Appendices 
3

I. Executive Summary 

As part of a broad initiative to respond to high fuel prices, on April 25, 2006, 

President Bush directed Administrator Johnson to convene a Task Force of States to review 

the variety of requirements related to fuels. The Task Force was charged with identifying 

opportunities to increase cooperation among federal government and states on gasoline 

supply decisions and to reduce the number of boutique fuels. Administrator Johnson invited 

all 50 Governors, or their designated representatives, to participate in a Task Force on 

Boutique Fuels (Task Force) which was composed exclusively of representatives from the 

States, EPA, and the Departments of Energy and Agriculture. 

The Task Force, as part of this effort, discussed the Agency’s findings from The 

Study on Unique Fuel Blends (Boutique Fuels) conducted in 2001 by EPA as directed by 

the President’s National Energy Policy Report. Since that time, a number of activities in the 

fuels arena have occurred that directly and indirectly impact the findings of the 2001 study. 

Of greatest significance was the enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) which 

contains provisions directly and indirectly affecting state boutique fuel programs.

 The Task Force gathered relevant information related to boutique fuels from 

numerous stakeholders. To facilitate this exchange of information, a forum was provided for 

stakeholders, from refiners to public health groups to automakers, to express their 

understanding of the issues related to the use of boutique fuels. Their views and concerns are 

provided in summary in this report. 

 After carefully evaluating comments from the Task Force participants and 

stakeholders, EPA submits to the President this report of findings, actions and 

recommendations for consideration in addressing boutique fuels: 

 The Task Force participants agreed, in general, that the U.S. gasoline production and 

distribution system is able to provide adequate quantities of boutique fuels, as long as 

there are no disruptions in the supply chain. If a disruption occurs (such as a 

hurricane or pipeline break) it becomes more difficult to move gasoline supplies 

around the country because of the limitations imposed by the boutique fuel 

requirements. Existing authorities have been used to temporarily waive boutique fuel 

requirements during times of supply disruption. 

 It is clear that state fuel programs have provided significant, cost-effective air quality 

improvements. Any actions to modify the slate of existing boutique fuels or limit a 

state’s ability to adopt fuel specifications should be done in a manner that at least 

maintains these air quality gains and avoids unnecessarily restricting state authority. 

 EPA has and will continue to expeditiously implement the requirements of the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) as they relate to boutique fuels. These actions will limit 

the growth of new boutique fuel requirements. 
4

 The participants emphasized that any future analysis of potential changes to the 

number and types of fuels must utilize the most up-to-date data and analytical tools. 

The 2008 EPA/DOE Fuel System Requirements Harmonization Study should ensure 

that all aspects, including impacts changes to fuel requirements may have on air 

quality, as well as the new generation of vehicles, fuel fungibility, supply and cost, 

are appropriately addressed. 

 As part of the analyses of future fuel options, careful consideration should be given to 

the possibility of new legislative authority which would allow for the adoption of 

regional clean fuel programs. Cleaner burning fuels used in the broader geographic 

areas merit further study as an additional option for addressing fuel supply and 

fungibility concerns.

 Renewable fuels are an important part of the nation’s plan to reduce our dependence 

on foreign oil. States are undertaking a number of actions to promote the use of such 

fuels and the federal government is implementing programs, notably the Renewable 

Fuels Program established by EPAct, to do the same. It will be beneficial to 

undertake additional study to ensure these programs are working together and will not 

create undue impacts on air quality, fuel fungibility, supply and cost considerations. 

II. The Task Force 

The Administrator established a process and set forth several key elements the Task 

Force should address, culminating with a report to the President. The Task Force meetings 

provided the opportunity for all participants to share information, present their views, 

positions and recommendations, and provide input and comment on this report1. Also, the 

critical stakeholders, including those in the refining, marketing and fuel distribution sectors, 

as well as others, were provided the opportunity to present their views and opinions before 

the Task Force for evaluation and consideration. 

Specifically, the Task Force was asked to review the current boutique fuels situation 

in the United States (US), review any actions taken since EPA last investigated and reported2

on the boutique fuels situation, review the relevant provisions in EPAct, provide for 

stakeholder input, and then assess and report on any options, recommendations or further 

informational needs to effectively address the impact boutique fuels have on the US fuels 

market. 

 There has been some issue raised over the abbreviated timeframe set for the Task 

Force to complete its work. While the two month period is an abbreviated time in which to 

address such a complicated issue, the Administrator wanted to complete this report as quickly 

as possible for two main reasons. First, as there continues to be ongoing public discussion 

and Congressional interest in this issue, it is important that the Task Force’s very useful work 

be included in this debate in order to help inform policy makers. Second, the Task Force 

 

1

 Materials distributed at Task Force meetings have been posted on the Boutique Fuels Task Force website 

(http://www.epa.gov/otaq/boutique-task-force.htm) 2

 “Study of Gasoline Fuel Blends (“Boutique Fuels”). Effects on Supply and Distribution and Potential 

Improvements” (October 2001). 
5

report should be construed as the first step in a comprehensive effort to address issues related 

to the nation’s fuel supply. It is a key part of the broader process in which EPA, working in 

conjunction with the Department of Energy, will be analyzing both boutique fuel issues and 

the broader issue of the nation’s fuel system. The observations and recommendations in this 

report will help guide these later efforts. 

This report provides guidance to the President on potential actions and next steps 

toward meeting the goal of simplifying and increasing the supply and fungibility of the US 

fuel system, and to encourage cooperation among the states on fuel supply decisions. 

III. Current Understanding of Use and Utility of Boutique Fuels 

Boutique fuels are used primarily in urban areas to address specific air quality 

problems, most particularly ozone. The control of certain fuel properties, such as fuel 

volatility, helps reduce exhaust and evaporative emissions from motor vehicles that cause or 

contribute to air pollution. Boutique fuels typically account for between 10 to 15 percent of 

the nation’s summertime gasoline supply. Where implemented, these fuels are an important 

and powerful tool for combating local air pollution problems. 

Boutique fuels3

 as defined in this report are: 

• Any clean fuel program designed and enforced under state authority to reduce motor 

vehicle emissions and improve air quality; and, 

• Approved by the Agency under the authority of Section 211 (c)(4)(c) of CAA 

Amendments of 1990; and, 

• Included in an EPA-approved state [clean air] Implementation Plan (SIP). 

In the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Congress established a number of clean 

fuel programs to reduce harmful emissions from our nation’s vehicles. Following 

implementation of these new clean fuel programs, it became more evident that controlling 

fuel quality presented another opportunity to support timely attainment of the air quality 

standards. One of the primary programs available was the federal reformulated gasoline 

program (RFG)4

. The RFG program was implemented in two phases, beginning in 1995, 

followed by the application of more stringent controls in 2000. RFG has been demonstrated 

to be highly cost effective and has provided significant reductions in air pollution levels in 

cities throughout the nation. Some states had the authority to opt into the federal RFG 

program. However, the Clean Air Act did provide certain restrictions, which were based on 

the severity of the air quality for these areas. Further, beyond these restrictions, concerns 

over RFG production costs, the oxygenate requirement5

 and the use of MTBE (methyl 

tertiary-butyl ether) pushed states, both with and without authority to opt-in to the RFG 

program, to consider alternative options. Some states, working with local fuel providers, 

chose to implement their own unique or “boutique” fuel program. These programs were 

specifically designed to address and support timely attainment of the air quality standards. 

 

3

 Fuel programs not included under this definition include state or area specific fuels required by law but not 

requiring a Clean Air Act Section 211(c)(4)(c) waiver. 

4

 For information on RFG go to: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfg.htm#Fact 

5

 The Clean Air Act required federal Reformulated Gasoline to contain a minimum of 2 weight percent oxygen. 
6

In order for states to adopt a fuel control different from the federal requirements, 

states must satisfy certain criteria. Specifically, the Clean Air Act (both prior to and 

following amendments made by EPAct that impose additional requirements discussed below) 

imposes strict limitations on EPA’s authority to approve boutique fuels by pre-empting states 

from adopting unique specifications for the purposes of controlling air quality unless EPA 

authorizes waiver of the pre-emption provisions. A state is allowed to prescribe and enforce 

a fuel quality control if the Administrator finds that the state control or prohibition is 

necessary to achieve a national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard and that no 

other reasonable measures are available to bring about timely attainment. 

In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the federally-enforceable SIP, 

states must formally adopt regulations and control strategies consistent with state and federal 

requirements. This state process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public 

comment period, and a formal adoption by an authorized rulemaking body. Once a state rule, 

regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the state submits it to the Agency for inclusion into 

the SIP. EPA must also provide public notice and seek additional public comment regarding 

the proposed federal action on the state submission. If adverse comments are received, they 

must be addressed prior to any final federal action. In determining the approvability of a SIP 

revision, EPA must evaluate the proposed revision for consistency with the requirements of 

the CAA and the applicable regulations, as found in section 110 and part D of Title I of the 

CAA amendments and 40 CFR Part 51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and 

Submittal of Implementation Plans). 

In all cases, SIP approved clean fuel programs were designed by states in conjunction 

with industry stakeholders. In the process that has been utilized, state authorities evaluate the 

affected industry’s ability to produce and distribute these fuels, as well as make a 

determination of the cost and effectiveness of the program. State submittals must include the 

necessary elements described above in order to obtain EPA approval. 

Historically, implementing a localized fuel quality control strategy can generally 

occur in a shorter period of time, as compared to other control strategies, and provide 

immediate environmental benefits. These programs have proven to be very successful in 

providing significant reductions in targeted emissions at a very low cost. State controls on 

RVP have been estimated to cost as little as 0.3 cents per gallon to about 3 cents per gallon. 

Currently, 12 states have established state specific SIP-approved controls on fuels. 

The following table lists the areas with boutique fuels as identified and recently published by 

the Agency. A map is also provided to graphically illustrate the location of the state 

programs. 
7

BOUTIQUE FUEL PROGRAMS INCLUDED IN 

STATE [CLEAN AIR] IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIPs) (As of May 4, 2006) 

Type of Fuel Control* PADD** Area/state

RVP*** of 7.0 psi 2 Kansas City, MO (3 counties) 

RVP of 7.0 psi 2 Kansas City, KS (2 counties) 

RVP of 7.0 psi 3 El Paso, TX (El Paso county) 

RVP of 7.0; extended summer season from 

June 1 to September 30 

5 Phoenix, AZ (Maricopa County) 

RVP of 7.0 psi; includes a provision 

addressing sulfur content 

1 Atlanta, GA (45 county area) 

RVP of 7.0 psi 3 Birmingham, AL (2 counties) 

RVP of 7.2 psi 2 E. St. Louis, IL (3 counties near St. Louis, 

MO) 

RVP of 7.8 psi 1 Pittsburgh, PA (7 county area) 

RVP of 7.8 psi 2 Clark & Floyd, IN (2 counties near 

Louisville, KY) 

RVP of 7.8 psi 2 Detroit, MI (7 counties) 

RVP of 7.8 psi; extended summer season 

from May 1 to September 15 

1 Southern, ME (7 county area) 

RVP of 7.8; extended summer season from 

May 1 to October 1 

3 Central & Eastern, TX (95-county area) 

Low emission diesel fuel with maximum 

10% volume aromatic hydrocarbon content 

and minimum cetane of 48 required. 

(Allows substitute Plans w/equivalent NOx 

reductions) 

3 110 counties in eastern Texas, including 

Houston & Dallas Areas 

Cleaner Burning Gasoline; similar to 

federal RFG or California RFG in summer; 

in winter similar only to California RFG. 

5 Phoenix, AZ 

(Maricopa County) 

Winter gasoline controls on aromatic 

hydrocarbons and sulfur. 

5 Las Vegas, NV 

* Unless otherwise specified, RVP control is in effect June 1 to September 15. 

** PADD: Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts. 

*** RVP: Reid Vapor Pressure is a measure of gasoline’s evaporation rate. Higher RVP gasoline 

evaporates more easily at summer temperatures. 
PADD 1: East CoastPADD 2: MidwestPADD 3: Gulf CoastPADD 4: RockiesPADD 5: West Coast

RVP of 7.0psiRVP of 7.0psi w/Sulfur ContentRVP of 7.2psiRVP of 7.8psi

Texas Low Emission 

State RVP Contro

Texas Low Emission 

Federal RFG or R

Cleaner Burning GasoWinter Gasoline

State Boutique Fuel Programs – May 
9

IV. Highlights of EPA’s 2001 Boutique Fuels Study 

 The President’s National Energy Policy Report issued on May 17, 2001, included 

a directive to EPA to study the opportunities to maintain or improve the environmental 

benefits of state and local “boutique” clean fuel programs while exploring ways to 

increase the flexibility of the fuels distribution infrastructure, improve fungibility, and 

provide added gasoline market liquidity. On October 23, 2001, EPA issued a “Study of 

Unique Gasoline Fuel Blends (“Boutique Fuels”), Effects on Fuel Supply and 

Distribution and Potential Improvements.” In this study, EPA concluded that, in 2001, 

the gasoline production and distribution system was able to provide adequate quantities 

of boutique fuels, as long as there were no disruptions in the supply chain. If a disruption 

occurs (such as a pipeline break or refinery fire) it becomes more difficult to move 

gasoline supplies around the country because of the limitations imposed by the boutique 

fuel requirements. 

Within this study, EPA reviewed state and local boutique fuel programs, federal 

fuel programs, as well as the motivation and causes for state boutique fuels, and assessed 

the impact these fuels have on fuel production and the distribution system. EPA then 

analyzed potential ways to mitigate the impact of disruptions (i.e. refinery fires, pipeline 

shutdowns) by allowing for a more fungible system. In preparing the 2001 study, the 

Agency sought input from the U.S. Departments of Energy6

 and Agriculture, and more 

than 40 stakeholders.

 

EPA developed a preliminary analysis of four fuel program options that could 

reduce the total number of fuels. The fuel options that EPA analyzed were: 1) a threefuel option (federal RFG, Low RVP (7.0), and conventional gasoline); 2) a two-fuel 

option (federal RFG and conventional gasoline); 3) a 49-state federal nationwide clean 

burning gasoline (CBG): and, 4) California fuel (California CBG) nationwide (A 

detailed summary is included in Appendix 2). These options were analyzed under the 

following principles: 

 Improve the fungibility and movement of gasoline across the country; 

 Maintain or improve emission performance for each area of the country that was 

covered by a fuel program; 

 Maintain or improve the ability of fuel producers to produce sufficient gasoline to 

meet demand; and, 

 Minimize the net cost when considering both production and distribution. 

All of the fuel options were evaluated in four ways: with and without a national benzene 

standard, with the RFG oxygen mandate in place and with the RFG oxygen standard 

replaced by a national renewable fuels content requirement. 

 

6

 The Department of Energy provided comments regarding the analytical approach to the 2001 Study. 

Their comments, as well as others, are available for review in EPA docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-202-0003. 
10

 In assessing the options, certain assumptions were made regarding states’ choices 

when a menu of fuels is offered, as under the 2-fuel and 3-fuel options. An underlying 

assumption was that states would retain the statutory right to receive a waiver of 

preemption under certain conditions, to regulate fuel characteristics. Rather than states 

exercising this right, they would limit their choices to the fuels contained in the options. 

For example, a state may have designed its own fuel program instead of opting into the 

federal RFG program because of the RFG oxygenate mandate. This same state might opt 

into either the 2-fuel or 3-fuel option without the RFG oxygen mandate with resulting 

fuel distribution benefits. 

 EPA’s analysis of the fuel options concluded that there are trade-offs when 

attempting to simplify gasoline distribution and reduce market volatility. The fuel 

options identified to produce the greatest benefits under these goals would also entail the 

greatest production costs and reductions in gasoline production capacity. The fuel option 

scenarios analyzed in the report would extend cleaner gasoline throughout the country 

and therefore would result in varying levels of benefits. However, all four scenarios 

resulted in positive air quality benefits, although with varying levels of results. The 

following table summarizes the impact each analyzed option would have on these factors. 

Impact of Fuel Options on Gasoline Supply, Distribution, Cost and Air Quality 

[From 2001 EPA Study] 

Option 

RFG / 

Renewable 

Fuel Mandate 

Ease of 

Distribution 

Gasoline 

Production 

Capacity 

Long Term 

Cost 

Air Quality 

Impact 

Yes/No ↑ -- -- ↑ 3-Fuel No/Yes ↑↑ ↑ -- ↑

Yes/No ↑ ↑ ↓ (higher cost) ↑↑ 2-Fuel No/Yes ↑↑ ↑ -- ↑↑

Federal CBG No/Yes ↑↑↑ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↑↑

California 

CBG No/Yes ↑↑↑ ↓↓↓ ↓↓↓ ↑↑↑

Seasonal Fuel Transition Issues 

 

In a separate study,7

 EPA also investigated seasonal transition concerns that arise 

when higher RVP gasoline must be replaced with lower RVP summer grade gasoline. 

Winter grade conventional gasoline and winter grade reformulated gasoline have a higher 

Reid Vapor Pressure, or RVP, than corresponding summer grades. Gasoline RVP is 

permitted to be relatively high during colder months because the colder temperatures 

reduce the tendency of gasoline to evaporate and to produce emissions of volatile vapors. 

Also, higher volatility gasoline is generally necessary to support proper cold weather 

operation of vehicles. Conversely, lower RVP in gasoline is beneficial because warmer 

 

7 Study of Boutique Fuels and Issues Relating to Transition from Winter to Summer Gasoline (October 

2001) http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/r01051.pdf 

Key: ↑ Indicates Positive Impact ↓ Indicates Negative Impact
11

weather has the tendency to cause gasoline to evaporate more easily, releasing volatile 

organic compounds into the atmosphere. It is important to note that industry will make 

this seasonal transition to support vehicle performance and operational issues, regardless 

of whether any environmental regulations are in place. 

In this study, EPA identified a set of administrative and regulatory options as near 

term actions that could better facilitate seasonal gasoline transition and reduce the 

incentives for low inventories. 

V. Relevant Fuel Actions Taken Since 2001 

Since the publication of the 2001 EPA studies, several significant changes have 

occurred in the US gasoline market. Seasonal transitional concerns over the switch from 

winter to summer gasoline, as well as other actions taken to lessen stresses on the 

gasoline supply system, have had a direct impact on the positions, options and 

recommendations set forth by the Task Force in this report. A summary of the actions 

and related impacts are provided in Appendix 1. A brief listing of these actions is noted 

below. 

In addition, several significant changes to fuel quality, such as the federal 

requirements to control gasoline and diesel fuel sulfur levels, as well as changes in the 

make up of the refining, marketing and distributions sectors, must be considered in future 

evaluations of fuel options. With demand increases outpacing investments in production 

capacity, stresses on production and distribution systems have resulted in a significantly 

different fuels market landscape than that at the time the 2001 Boutique Fuels study was 

conducted. Evaluation of these conditions, along with several regulatory and policy 

actions made to ease some of the market constraints identified in the study, will require 

further investigation. 

To provide for a more orderly transition from winter-to-summer grade RFG every 

spring, EPA took the following actions: 

• Allowed fuel producers more flexibility in meeting fuel specifications than they 

previously had for their initial transition to summer fuel.

• Allowed certain gasoline types to be reclassified as RFG, thus making it easier to 

address localized issues that arise when there is an unexpected disruption in the 

distribution system

To provide greater flexibility to fuel producers and suppliers, EPA took additional 

actions that: 

• Simplify certain RFG accounting and reporting requirements 

• Allow parties to change the service of a tank where residual amounts of gasoline 

(tank heel) remain in the tank 
12

• Allow butane blenders to blend butane into conventional or RFG under alternative 

sampling and testing options, which has the potential for increasing gasoline 

supplies 

• Allow importers to conduct remedial blending of off-spec imported gasoline by 

treating it as blendstock, ultimately providing additional flexibility to respond to 

market demands 

• Provide a more flexible approach for transmix processors and blenders to comply 

with RFG requirements and Tier 2 gasoline sulfur standards, resulting in potential 

for increases in gasoline supplies 

• Provide renewable blendstock for oxygenate blending (RBOB) refiners an 

alternative method of fulfilling quality assurance requirements, enabling refiners 

to produce RBOB for ethanol blending that results in greater ability to respond to 

market needs 

• Provide alternative sampling and testing approaches allowing truck importers to 

comply based on test results from the loading terminal instead of from the truck, 

making importation of gasoline by truck easier and less costly. 

 

VI. Boutique Fuels and Related Provisions Required by the 

EPAct 

Due to heightened concern over supply and price issues and the potential for 

boutique fuel programs to exacerbate these issues, Congress directly addressed the 

subject of boutique fuels in several sections of the EPAct. Specifically, section 1541(b) 

requires EPA to publish a boutique fuels list based on fuels in the market as of September 

1, 2004. Following careful review and 

consideration of the direction Congress 

provided in this section, on June 6, 2006, 

EPA published a draft listing of boutique 

fuels for public comment (71 FR 32532). 

This list identified 12 states that have 

implemented an EPA-approved boutique 

fuel program to support attainment of the 

air quality standards. This list explicitly 

limits the type, and to some extent 

geographical application (by Petroleum 

Administration for Defense Districts - 

PADDs) of these fuels in the US market. 

Currently, there are 15 different state SIP fuel provisions (in 12 states) in the 

various PADDs. These state regulations cover seven different fuel types, most typically 

based on controlling gasoline volatility. 

Under EPAct, EPA may approve a state fuel program for a SIP only if: 

• That fuel is already approved in a SIP for a state in that PADD, and 
13

• The approval does not increase the total number of state fuels on EPA’s list of 

fuels. 

• If a new fuel is added to the list, EPA with Department of Energy consultation 

must find no adverse impact on supply and distribution. 

The PADD restrictions are a powerful constraint on the expansion of state fuel 

programs. It is important to note that these restrictions apply in addition to the Clean Air 

Act restrictions discussed in the previous sections of this report. 

In addition to the program and regulatory modifications described above, several 

significant changes to the federal gasoline requirements have been, or will be made as a 

result of passage of EPAct 2005. The most significant action is the removal of the 

federal oxygen content requirement for the RFG program. This change allows refiners 

and importers to produce or import RFG with or without oxygen as long as the gasoline 

meets all other RFG requirements. This additional flexibility enables refiners and 

importers to produce and distribute RFG in the most cost-effective manner. Another 

change implemented a provision of the EPAct which allows retail gasoline stations the 

opportunity to commingle ethanol-blended RFG with non-ethanol-blended RFG during 

two ten-day periods of the VOC-control season. The ability to commingle these products 

will provide retailers with additional flexibility to change their tanks from one product to 

the other, which will help to ensure the continued availability of gasoline to retail 

customers in the event that one type of gasoline is in limited supply. 

Studies and Reports 

EPAct also established requirements for further evaluation of the impact boutique 

fuels have in the US. Specifically, Section 1541(c) requires EPA and DOE to join in 

developing a study on the effects of boutique fuels on air quality, fuel blends, fuel 

availability, fungibility and costs. The Agency and DOE are currently in consultation 

and are planning to issue a joint report for submission to Congress in August of 2006. 

EPA plans to use the findings in this Task Force Report to inform the development of the 

plan for the study. 

Further, Section 1509 of EPAct requires the Agency and DOE to prepare a report 

by June 1, 2008, referred to as the Fuel System Requirements Harmonization Study, 

concerning variations in regional, state and local motor vehicle fuel requirements. This 

report must account for recent and anticipated changes in the US gasoline and fuels 

supply and distribution market. 

EPAct Relief for Fuel Supply Interruptions 

To address unusual fuel supply situations, Congress granted EPA new authority to 

grant waivers for federally-enforceable fuel regulations, which includes SIP-approved 

fuel requirements. The source of this authority is found in section 1541 of EPAct. This 

provision authorizes the Administrator of EPA to waive a control or prohibition of the 

use of a fuel or additive if, after consultation with and concurrence by the Secretary of 

Energy, the Administrator determines extreme or unusual fuel or fuel additive “supply” 
14

circumstances exist which prevent the distribution of an adequate “supply” of a fuel or 

fuel additive to consumers. The authority specifically states that the circumstances are to 

be the result of a natural disaster, an Act of God, a pipeline or refinery equipment failure 

or another event that could not reasonably have been foreseen or prevented and not the 

lack of prudent planning. Additionally, any waiver must apply to the smallest geographic 

area necessary to address the unusual circumstances, be effective for 20 days (or less), 

allow for a transitional period, and apply to all parties in the distribution system. 

Recent use of this authority occurred as a result of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, in 

the late summer and early fall of 2005 when EPA, in consultation with DOE, successfully 

issued a series of limited fuel waivers for specific gasoline and diesel quality standards. 

These waivers were authorized and approved based on supply concerns. EPA’s waiver 

authority and decisions were universally supported by the affected stakeholders. 

Additionally, states use their individual authorities to waive their state boutique fuel 

requirements. 

VII. Stakeholder Reports/Summaries 

In an effort to obtain current and fully representative views and perspectives from 

affected industry and public sector stakeholders, EPA invited representatives of 

associations and public interests groups to provide input into this process. 

Representatives from 20 organizations were invited to respond to targeted questions and 

to participate in a meeting convened by EPA in Washington, DC on May 18th. Nineteen 

organizations, representing the refining, distribution, marketing and user groups, as well 

as state and public interest sector and the automotive industry provided responses and/or 

delivered presentations at this meeting. 

A range of opinions and perspectives were provided by the stakeholders. The 

following characterizes the more critical messages presented by the stakeholder 

representatives: 

PRODUCERS 

(Petroleum Refiners and Renewable Fuel Producers) 

There were several consistent recommendations offered by both the petroleum refiners 

and renewable fuel providers: 

• Market conditions have changed significantly since the release of EPA’s 2001 

Boutique Fuels Study and the assertions, assumptions and scenarios are dated and 

therefore recommend updating the report. 

• Federal fuels are moving in the right direction and implementing and understanding 

the impact EPAct provisions will have on the fuels market should occur prior to 

taking further action. Congress specifically set forth a plan for how to address and 

further evaluate boutique fuels, and included specific provisions to relieve fuel market 

supply and fungibility pressures. 
15

Petroleum Refiners 

• No change in boutique fuel requirements will affect the supply situation this summer. 

Failure to consider and balance supply implications, air quality and fuel choices could 

have unintended consequences. 

• There have been several significant changes made under EPAct that would limit the 

need for additional unique fuel blends. 

• Believe the scope of the how boutique fuels are defined in this process is too narrow 

and should be expanded to include other state (non-211(c) (4) (c)) programs – such as 

state biofuel mandates. They expressed significant concern with the potential for 

market segmentation resulting from the escalation of state renewable fuel programs, 

and the potential complexity these will add to the entire production and distribution 

system and indicated support for legislation granting the Agency authority to preempt or limit the proliferation of these state mandates. 

Renewable Fuel Producers 

• Supportive of the national renewable fuel provisions. 

• Do not favor limiting state authority to implement individual renewable fuel incentive 

requirements or standards. 

DISTRIBUTION AND MARKETING 

(Pipelines, Terminals, Marketers) 

Stakeholders from the distribution and marketing sector expressed several unified 

messages: 

• The distribution and marketing sector strongly contends that any decision for change 

must fully consider the entire system, including pipelines, terminals and the 

wholesale and retail sectors. 

• Boutique fuels impact supply and price even in normal market situations. 

• Encourage restrictions that will mitigate the proliferation of boutique fuels and 

support a gradual reduction in boutique fuels through a measured approach. 

• Strongly caution against any regulatory changes that might result in a loss of supply. 

• Support implementation of the provisions of EPAct that serve to address fuel 

fungibility and supply issues. 

• The definition of boutique fuels should be expanded to include state renewable fuel 

programs. State biofuel mandates are of great concern and must be considered in 

evaluating boutique fuels impact on the US market. 

STATE AND PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS 

(Associations Representing State Agencies and Environmental 

Organizations) 

State and public interest stakeholders were aligned in a number of areas: 

• Boutique fuel programs have provided positive results, and they oppose consideration 

of any changes that have the potential for negative effects on air quality. 

• States should retain the ability and flexibility to choose fuel programs, regional or 

otherwise, to support their air quality needs. 
16

• EPAct provisions related to boutique fuels should be implemented prior to making 

any changes. The market has experienced a lot of change since EPA released the 

2001 Boutique Fuels Study and further evaluation is necessary. 

Environmental and Public Health Interests 

• Prior to making any changes, a comprehensive, balanced examination of fuel issues, 

including effects on environment, health, supply and costs, should be conducted. 

• A more comprehensive understanding of the impact renewable fuel standards have on 

public health and the environment is necessary. 

State Associations 

• General support for exploring the ability for states to adopt a regional approach to 

fuel quality controls. 

• Opposed to any limitations on adopting state bio or renewable fuel standards. 

• Indicated EPA and state authority is adequate to address supply disruptions. 

• Oppose further restrictions on state authority to adopt fuels necessary to protect air 

quality and public health. 

• No evidence that boutique fuels have caused any problems and waiver authority 

exists to address short term supply issues. 

AUTOMAKERS AND ENGINE MANUFACTURERS 

(Associations Representing National and International Light-duty Vehicle 

and Heavy-duty Engine Manufacturers) 

There were several general messages presented by the automotive and engine 

manufacturing sector: 

• Support a more harmonized approach to controlling fuel quality.8

 Specifically, they 

support single national clean gasoline and clean diesel fuel standards. Unification of 

fuel quality standards supports more stringent calibration of engines and vehicles, 

ultimately resulting in optimization of emissions control and vehicle performance. 

Optimization can have positive effects on both air quality and vehicle efficiency. 

• The 2001 Boutique Fuels Study should be updated. 

• Expressed concerns over the lack of fuel specifications that would ensure that biofuel 

and renewable fuel standards would meet manufacturer recommended quality 

specifications, and thereby avoid the potential to negatively impact both emissions 

and performance. 

Light-duty Vehicle Manufacturers 

• Support further controls on sulfur and establishing a distillation index cap on 

gasoline. 

• Support the national ultra low sulfur diesel program and diesel fuel quality controls. 

 

8

 Refer to the World Wide Fuel Charter - August 2005 
17

Engine Manufacturers 

• Supported ultra low sulfur diesel program and emphasized their support for one 

national diesel fuel standard. 

USER GROUPS 

(Associations Representing the Trucking Industry and the Driving Public) 

Representatives from user and consumer groups were primarily concerned over product 

availability and price: 

• Interests focused on ensuring an uninterrupted availability of reasonably priced fuel. 

• Contend that the existing patchwork of specialty fuel blends seems to have 

exacerbated fuel price volatility and contributed to regional disruptions in fuel supply. 

• Concerns were expressed over state renewable fuel mandates and their potential 

impact on supply, price and product quality. 

• The trucking industry supports uniform national diesel fuel requirements, and 

believes boutique fuels should be defined more broadly as a state fuel specification 

that limits fuel fungibility. 

Stakeholder Materials 

A complete set of materials submitted by the stakeholder participants is available 

on the EPA Boutique Fuels Task Force website. Interested parties may access this 

information at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/boutique-task-force.htm. This material, as well as 

that provided directly by the Task Force representatives has been accounted for in 

developing the statements, positions and recommendations and in making a 

determination on suggestions for additional informational needs. 

VIII. EPA Recommendations and Observations 

Boutique fuel programs are cost effective strategies that provide important 

environmental and public health benefits. However, EPA recognizes that a number of 

actions in the fuels area since 2001 have changed the boutique fuel landscape. These 

changes include the implementation of ultra-low sulfur fuel requirements across the 

country, EPAct provisions requiring removal of the oxygenate mandate and 

implementation of the federal renewable fuels standards, and other administrative actions 

EPA has taken to provide additional flexibility to the fuels system. At the same time, 

states are developing plans to demonstrate compliance with new air quality requirements. 

Following careful review and consideration of available information and input 

from both the Task Force participants and stakeholders, EPA is submitting the following 

items for consideration by the President: 

• Complete a comprehensive analytical assessment as required by EPAct to better 

define how boutique fuels impact air quality, cost, fungibility, and fuel supply. 
18

• Implement, on a timely basis, the provisions in EPAct which address boutique fuels 

specifically, or could impact conditions concerning their use, including the state 

boutique fuel list, the renewable fuels program. 

• Ensure that changes to the nation’s suite of boutique fuels maintain or improve the air 

quality benefits the current programs provide to states. 

• Analyze the potential for and possible impact of regional fuel programs including any 

need for new authority necessary to establish or approve such programs. 

• Any changes in the boutique fuel requirements must maintain current air quality 

benefits and effectuate a positive net result, balancing consideration of product 

fungibility, overall supply, distribution, and cost. Supportable modifications should 

look to enhance product fungibility, overall supply (volume of available product), 

ease of distribution (access to and delivery of compliant product), and cost 

(maintaining or reducing the cost to produce and supply the product to market). 

It should also be noted with reference to these items that Task Force participants 

commented that the boutique fuel in their market areas not only provided valuable air 

quality benefits, but generally had positive economic effects compared to products 

outside the boutique area. Thus there are varying views on the impact, if any, that 

reducing the number of boutique fuels may have on the nation’s fuel situation. Any 

action taken has to be done in a thoughtful manner. 

Additionally it should be reiterated that Task Force participants expressed concern 

over the statements made by industry stakeholders and strongly oppose any review and 

limitations on state renewable fuel requirements. State renewable fuel programs are not 

required to be approved under Clean Air Act Section 211(c)(4)(c) and therefore do not 

fall within EPA’s definition of boutique fuels. Because of the varying stakeholder and 

participant views on the potential impact these programs may have on the national fuel 

supply and distribution system, EPA recommends that further evaluation be conducted as 

part of the EPA/DOE broader analysis. 

The Task Force participants also recognize that market conditions have changed 

since EPA released the Study of Unique Gasoline Fuel Blends “Boutique Fuels” in 

October of 2001. A general recommendation from the Task Force participants, as 

supported by stakeholder participant comments, is to update the 2001 study or to prepare 

a new report, fully reflecting today’s market situation and in consideration of planned and 

expected future changes. The Task Force encouraged the Agency to complete these 

evaluations as part of the studies required by EPAct. 

The Agency and the Department of Energy will be jointly preparing and 

submitting to Congress a more comprehensive needs assessment. This assessment will 

be included in an August 2006 report to Congress. The report will include details 

assessing future analytical work required to accurately determine how best to address the 

requirements set forth in Section 1509 of EPAct 2005, whereby the Agency and DOE 

must prepare and submit a report by June 1, 2008, referred to as the Fuel System 

Requirements Harmonization Study. The importance of this work should not be 

underestimated, so completion of this work before 2008 is highly desirable. As part of 
19

this effort, EPA and DOE shall actively engage Task Force participants and other 

interested stakeholders. 

Changes and modifications to existing federal program requirements, as well as 

application of restrictions on allowable state fuel programs that have not been fully 

implemented will change the fuel market dynamics in the United States. Many Task 

Force participants and stakeholders urged that recently enacted changes, such as removal 

of the reformulated gasoline oxygenate mandate, implementation of the national 

renewable fuel standard, as well as future requirements, including new mobile source air 

toxic standards should be implemented as provided for in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

Many Task Force participants also advocated that a careful assessment be completed 

concerning such changes and their projected impact on the US fuel market. In addition, 

many Task Force participants argued for flexibility in fuel choices in different states and 

areas of the country. 

A critical issue for the states is that any change in the boutique fuel slate or 

applicable authorities must be done in a manner that air quality benefits resulting from 

boutique fuel programs will, at a minimum, at least be maintained. Benefits from these 

programs have served an important role in the states’ efforts at meeting national air 

quality standards, and these benefits are expected to be as important to future attainment 

strategies. Further, while the task force received some general input from industry 

stakeholders with some suggesting a potential connection between boutique fuels and 

supply and price concerns, this input was not supported by any documentation in this 

process. EPA's assessments focus on the cost to produce fuels. These assessments 

indicate that boutique fuels have a very small impact on production costs. EPA does not 

conduct market price analysis of boutique fuels. There are many factors and variables 

that affect the price of fuel with the production cost being one of those. 

It is also noted that further opportunities to reduce the actual number of boutique 

fuel programs may exist. Specifically, the EPA heard from a number of participants and 

other stakeholders that one area for additional study is the ability of states to adopt 

regional fuel programs. Currently, the Clean Air Act and EPAct limit options related to 

the creation of regional fuels. States within the Ozone Transport Region have the ability, 

under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, to adopt Reformulated Gasoline as a regional fuel 

and are deliberating this action now. We understand other states are also reviewing the 

costs and benefits of such action. Providing one fuel across a broader region could help 

address fungibility issues, though there could be other concerns that would need to be 

addressed. Task Force participants encouraged the Agency to evaluate in the 

forthcoming studies how the application of regional strategies could address existing and 

future air quality concerns, as well as provide an avenue to alleviate concerns over 

product fungibility, supply, distribution and costs. Task Force participants expressed 

opposition to limitations on their authority to adopt provisions that are vital to meeting 

their air quality standards. 

Some industry stakeholders raised the question about how state requirements for 

renewable fuel provisions should be addressed in the future. After conducting analyses, 

on the potential impacts and benefits, many states are actively engaged in promoting 
20

greater use of renewable fuels through minimum volume requirements, tax incentives, 

and other mechanisms. There was concern that some of these programs could have an 

impact on fuel fungibility in light of the development of the national renewable fuels 

program currently being developed. While this particular issue is outside the scope of 

this Task Force, we believe it is an important question and recommend the EPA/DOE 

Fuel System Requirements Harmonization Study as the most appropriate mechanism to 

take such action to evaluate such issues. Additional stakeholder involvement, 

particularly from the states, on this issue will also be critical. In the course of the study, 

EPA and DOE will actively engage and seek input from interested state participants from 

the Task Force as well as other interested stakeholders. 

IX. Summary of Comments and Additional Opinions 

Upon completion of the Task Force meetings, a draft Report to the President was 

prepared by EPA staff and presented to Task Force participants for review. Responses 

included general observations, recommendations, and editorial suggestions to improve 

the Report, and suggestions regarding further actions, additional information needs, and 

further points for analysis. 

 A complete set of materials submitted by state participants is available on the 

EPA Boutique Fuel Task Force website at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/boutique-taskforce.htm. The table below provides a brief summary of the comments. These comments 

were considered by EPA in preparation of the final version of this Report to the 

President.

Summary of State Comments on Draft Boutique Fuels Task Force Report 

State Comments 

Arizona • Supports a far more deliberative and rigorous review process with 

detailed evaluations, such as the EPAct reports call for. 

• Supports consideration of regional fuels. 

• Opposes limits on state authority to adopt fuel programs to meet air 

quality needs. 

• Opposes interference in state renewable fuel requirements. 

• Report does not mention factors that impact gas prices more than 

boutique fuels, such as erosion of vertical integration due to mergers 

or delivery infrastructure problems. 

Connecticut • As a strategy to achieve cleaner air, supports RFG as a regional fuel 

for OTC states. 

• While the RFG oxygen mandate is gone, energy providers have 

invested in the infrastructure to supply ethanol in the state. 

Oxygenates would be required by state regulations if the carbon 

monoxide standard was violated. 

• State fuel programs are critical to reducing air pollution 

• Regional strategies are important because local control measures 

don’t adequately address transport. 

• Clean fuel programs are not a major cause of increased prices, and 

may be equate to less than a fraction of 1% of the cost of production. 
21

State Comments - Continued

Georgia • Protect state authority to implement fuel programs to address air 

quality needs. 

• Convene a state/EPA workgroup to update the 2001 boutique fuels 

report. 

• Convene a state/EPA workgroup to develop fuel options, including 

regional fuel options, which states could implement. 

• Fuel options should maintain or improve air quality, increase 

fungibility, and reduce costs. 

Kansas • The boutique fuel used in Kansas City is a critical part of the effort to 

maintain ozone compliance. Any action that eliminates this emission 

reduction strategy would be harmful to the air quality and public 

health of the Kansas City area. 

• Any review of renewable fuels should be performed in a deliberate, 

thoughtful manner, because these programs are an important 

economic and environmental issue in a number of states. 

Louisiana • States should have flexibility with fuel choices to attain air quality 

benefits. 

• Regional fuels seem supportable, and may offer broader 

environmental benefits with less disruption to fuel suppliers and the 

distribution network. 

• Supports clean renewable fuels. 

• Believes EPAct studies will support the need for flexibility in the fuel 

system and greater use of renewables. 

Maine • Supports long-term strategy to adopt regional Northeastern fuel. 

• Concerned that measures to limit boutique fuels could jeopardize 

Maine’s ozone strategy, disrupt fuel supplies and cause price 

instability. 

• Does not agree their fuel is a boutique. 

Michigan • No evidence low RVP gas has contributed to high gas prices in 

southeast Michigan. 

• States should retain authority to use boutique fuels as needed to meet 

and maintain NAAQSs. 

• Any decisions regarding changes to EPA boutique fuel requirements 

should only be made following an updated comprehensive fuels 

study. 

Missouri • Renewable fuels are outside the scope of this report. 

• Does not agree that renewable fuels are a growing concern. except to 

certain members of the petroleum industry. 

New 

Hampshire 

• Data and analysis, not just observations, should support assertions 

that differ from the 2001 report. 

• Supports statutory/regulatory changes necessary to establish regional 

fuel programs. 
22

State Comments - Continued

New Jersey • Expand list of state clean fuels available under EPAct to include 

California Cleaner Burning Gasoline and authorize all states to 

adopt fuel. 

• Allow all areas – attainment and nonattainment to opt-in-to federal 

RFG 

• Facilitate ability of states and localities to adopt cleaner regional 

fuels allowing attainment areas to participate. 

Oklahoma • Supports state authority to choose fuel programs to support air 

quality needs. 

• Supports in-depth analysis of boutique fuels with more current 

data. 

Oregon • Opposes restricting state authority to adopt biofuel standards. 

• Opposes attempts to limit state fuel options. 

• More national and regional options for clean fuels are acceptable 

for consideration., however this should not limit state authority to 

consider other fuels 

Pennsylvania • Report should result only in actions that maintain or improve air 

quality. 

• Do not interfere with state development of renewable fuel 

standards. 

• Do not restrict state authority to implement fuel programs. 
23

X. Appendices 

Appendix 1 

Relevant Fuel Actions Taken Since 2001 

Since the publication of the 2001 EPA Boutique Fuels Report, several significant 

changes have occurred in the US gasoline market. These changes have and will continue 

to change the landscape of the fuel production and distribution system in the US. These 

actions, along with actions to ease the seasonal switch from winter to summer gasoline 

and to lessen stresses on the gasoline supply system, will impact the positions, options 

and recommendations set forth by the Task Force in this report. A summary of these 

actions are listed below. 

Seasonal Transition Actions 

The Agency’s 2001 study specifically outlined actions that EPA would take in the 

near-term to provide for a more orderly transition from winter-to-summer grade RFG 

every spring. In summary, EPA:

 Allowed fuel producers more flexibility in meeting fuel specifications than they 

previously had for their initial transition to summer fuel.

 Allowed certain gasoline types to be reclassified as RFG, thus making it easier to 

address localized issues that arise when there is an unexpected disruption in the 

distribution system

 Simplified certain RFG accounting and reporting requirements. 

Tank Turnovers 

On December 28, 2001, the Agency published provisions to allow parties to 

change the service of a tank where residual amounts (gasoline heel) of gasoline remain in 

the tank, subject to certain conditions and constraints. The Agency also published 

provisions to provide an additional option for oxygenate blenders who change the service 

of a tank before or after the VOC season, where the oxygenate blender is unable to meet 

the conditions and constraints of the new tank turnover provisions without taking the tank 

out of service. Loosening the constraints on tank turnovers has provided parties with 

greater flexibility to change from one type of gasoline to another in response to available 

gasoline supplies. 

Procedures for Blending Butane into RFG and Conventional Gasoline

 On December 15, 2005, EPA published a rule to allow butane blenders to blend 

butane into conventional or RFG under an alternative sampling and testing option subject 

to certain specified conditions. This alternative approach provides an easier way for 
24

parties to blend butane into gasoline, which has the potential for increasing gasoline 

supplies. 

Procedures for Using Imported Gasoline as a Blendstock 

 On December 15, 2005, EPA published a rule to allow importers to conduct 

remedial blending of off-spec imported gasoline by treating the imported gasoline as a 

blendstock, subject to certain requirements and limitations. These provisions will 

provide importers with additional flexibility to respond to market demands upon 

finalization later this year. 

Provisions for Transmix Processors and Blenders

 In a rule published in June 2006, the Agency provides a more flexible approach 

for transmix processors and blenders to comply with requirements under the RFG rule as 

well as the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur standards. This will enable parties to more readily use 

transmix to produce gasoline which has the potential to increase gasoline supplies. 

Alternative Quality Assurance Procedures for Refiners of RBOB

 Reformulated gasoline blendstock for oxygenate blending, or RBOB, is a product 

that becomes RFG upon the addition of an oxygenate which is added downstream from 

the refiner of the RBOB. Under the current regulations, RBOB refiners are required to 

conduct quality assurance sampling and testing at the downstream oxygenate facility to 

ensure that the proper amount of oxygenate is added by the oxygenate blender. This 

requirement is difficult, if not impossible, for many refiners to fulfill, especially where 

the gasoline is shipped through a pipeline and the oxygenate blender who ultimately 

blends the oxygenate into the RBOB is unknown to the refiner. To address this situation, 

EPA published a rule in June 2006 which provides RBOB refiners with an alternative 

method of fulfilling the quality assurance requirement. Providing this alternative means 

of complying with quality assurance requirement enables more refiners to produce RBOB 

for ethanol blending, which should have a positive effect on refiners’ ability to respond to 

market needs. 

Requirements for Importing Conventional Gasoline by Truck 

On December 15, 2005, the Agency published a rule which provides an 

alternative sampling and testing approach which allows truck importers to demonstrate 

compliance with the conventional gasoline standards based on test results from the truck 

loading terminal instead of the truck or truck compartments, subject to certain 

requirements and limitations. This flexibility makes importation of conventional gasoline 

into the United States by truck easier and less costly, resulting in increased access to 

imported conventional gasoline. 
25

Appendix 2 

Summary of Fuel Options from 2001 EPA Study of Unique Gasoline Fuel Blends 

(Boutique Fuels) 

 3-Fuel Option 

The first option identified consisted of a menu for States and localities to choose 

from of 9.0 psi RVP conventional gasoline, 7.8 psi RVP conventional gasoline, and either 

RFG or Federal CBG. Because this would be a 49 State program, California CBG would 

remain an option for California.9

 It did not preclude fuel programs that are put in place 

for reasons other than air quality, and as a result programs like the oxygenated 

fuel/ethanol requirement in Minnesota and other states would remain options as well. 

Under this option, in order to ensure no emission backsliding, it was assumed that States 

and localities would choose a fuel type from the menu with the same or better emission 

performance compared to the fuel they receive today. Consequently, the 7.2 and 7.0 RVP 

areas would be consolidated into RFG or CBG as applicable. It is important to note, 

however, that while this option was referred to as the 3-fuel option due to its 3 basic fuel 

requirements for the 49 states, due to variations in oxygenate requirements and use there 

were at that time still as many as 8 different fuel program requirements and 12 different 

fuel grades distributed nationwide under this option. Not all regions would see all of the 

fuels, and it still represented a large reduction in the number of fuel grades nationwide 

compared to the 2006 reference case. 

 2-Fuel Option 

The second option identified would reduce the menu for States and localities to 

just conventional gasoline and either RFG or CBG. As with the 3-fuel option, this would 

be a 49 State program and California CBG would remain an option for California and 

programs like state oxygenated fuel/ethanol requirement would remain options for States 

as well. Consistent with the environmental goals, all current RVP control areas were 

assumed to be consolidated into RFG or CBG as applicable. Setting aside a possible 

benzene standard for conventional gasoline, less than 13 percent of the gasoline pool 

would be impacted by these changes. While this option was referred to as the 2-fuel 

option, due to differences in oxygenate requirements and use nationwide at that time, 

there would still be as many as 6 different fuel program requirements with 9 different fuel 

grades distributed nationwide. 

 Federal Cleaner Burning Gasoline 

The third option required Federal cleaner burning gasoline (CBG) across 49 

States. All conventional gasoline as well as State RVP control programs would be 

replaced with Federal CBG. California CBG would remain in place in California. This 

option would impact in excess of 70 percent of the gasoline pool. This option was not 

 

9 California has its own waiver of preemption for fuel controls under the CAA, and further has its own refining system 

which is mostly separate from the rest of the U.S.
26

evaluated with RFG retaining the oxygen requirement. Such a large increase in the 

amount of oxygenate required across the country would have been difficult to analyze. 

 California Cleaner Burning Gasoline 

The fourth option required California CBG Nationwide. As there is no oxygen 

requirement as part of the California CBG program, this option assumed that a renewable 

fuel requirement was put in place as part of a national program. This option would 

impact approximately 89 percent of the gasoline pool.