14760 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 41 / Thursday, February 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

(F) The permit conditions and 

systems to receive special protection 

will be determined by the local Federal 

fisheries manager in consultation with 

ADF&G. 

(xix) The Klawock River drainage is 

closed to the use of seines and gillnets 

during July and August. 

(xx) The Federal public waters in the 

Makhnati Island area, as defined in 

§ ll.3(b)(5) are closed to the harvest of 

herring and herring spawn, except by 

federally qualified users. 

(xxi) Only federally qualified 

subsistence users may harvest sockeye 

salmon in Neva Lake, Neva Creek, and 

South Creek. 

(xxii) The Federal public waters of 

Kah Sheets Creek are closed from July 

1 to July 31, except by federally 

qualified users. 

Amee Howard, 

Acting Assistant Regional Director, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

Gregory Risdahl, 

Subsistence Program Leader, USDA–Forest 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–04056 Filed 2–28–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P; 3411–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 1090 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2022–0513; FRL–9845–02– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AV73 

Request From States for Removal of 

Gasoline Volatility Waiver 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to provisions 

specified by the Clean Air Act (CAA), 

the Governors of Illinois, Iowa, 

Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, 

South Dakota, and Wisconsin submitted 

petitions requesting that EPA remove 

the 1-pound per square inch (psi) Reid 

vapor pressure (RVP) waiver for summer 

gasoline-ethanol blended fuels 

containing 10 percent ethanol (E10). 

EPA is acting on those petitions by 

removing the 1-psi waiver in those 

States effective April 28, 2025. This 

action also finalizes regulatory 

amendments to implement the removal 

of the 1-psi waiver for E10 in those 

States, as well as a regulatory process by 

which a State may request to reinstate 

the 1-psi waiver. Finally, consistent 

with a decision issued by the United 

States Court of Appeals for the D.C. 

Circuit on July 2, 2021, this action 

removes regulations that extended the 1- 

psi waiver to gasoline-ethanol blends 

between 10 and 15 percent ethanol 

(E15). 

DATES: This rule is effective on April 29, 

2024. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2022–0513. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material is not available 

on the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available electronically through https:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions regarding this action, contact 

Lauren Michaels, Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality, 

Compliance Division, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood 

Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone 

number: (734) 214–4640; email address: 

michaels.lauren@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Does this action apply to me? 

Entities potentially affected by this 

final rule are those involved with the 

production, distribution, and sale of 

transportation fuels, including gasoline 

and diesel fuel. Potentially affected 

categories include: 

Category NAICS1 code Examples of potentially affected entities 

Industry ......................... 211130 Natural gas liquids extraction and fractionation. 

Industry ......................... 221210 Natural gas production and distribution. 

Industry ......................... 324110 Petroleum refineries (including importers). 

Industry ......................... 325110 Butane and pentane manufacturers. 

Industry ......................... 325193 Ethyl alcohol manufacturing. 

Industry ......................... 325199 Manufacturers of gasoline additives. 

Industry ......................... 424710 Petroleum bulk stations and terminals. 

Industry ......................... 424720 Petroleum and petroleum products wholesalers. 

Industry ......................... 447110, 447190 Fuel retailers. 

Industry ......................... 454310 Other fuel dealers. 

Industry ......................... 486910 Natural gas liquids pipelines, refined petroleum products pipelines. 

Industry ......................... 493190 Other warehousing and storage—bulk petroleum storage. 

1 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. This table lists 

the types of entities that EPA is now 

aware could potentially be affected by 

this action. Other types of entities not 

listed in the table could also be affected. 

To determine whether your entity 

would be affected by this action, you 

should carefully examine the 

applicability criteria in 40 CFR part 

1090. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

II. Volatility Control Background and History 

III. Statutory Authority and Provisions To 

Remove the 1-psi Waiver 

IV. Petitions for Removal of the 1-psi Waiver 

and Supporting Documentation 

A. Petition Background and History 

B. Evaluation of Petitions for Removal of 

the 1-psi Waiver 

V. Fuel System Impacts 

A. Production 

B. Distribution 

C. Retail Operations 

VI. Implementation and Effective Date 

A. Statutory Provisions 

B. Finding of Insufficient Supply for 2024 

and Renewal of Extension of Effective 

Date 

VII. Cost and Price Impacts 

VIII. Associated Regulatory Provisions 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 41 / Thursday, February 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 14761 

1 88 FR 13758. 

2We refer to these petitions as ‘‘extension 

petitions’’ throughout this preamble. 

3 ‘‘Request From States for Removal of Gasoline 

Volatility Waiver: Technical Support Document and 

Cost Analysis,’’ available in the docket for this 

action. 

4See 52 FR 31274 (August 19, 1987); Subsequent 

regulatory actions occurred in 1989 and 1990. 54 FR 

11868 (March 22, 1989); 55 FR 23658 (June 11, 

1990). 

5 Gasoline must have volatility in the proper 

range to prevent driveability, performance, and 

emissions problems. If the volatility is too low, the 

gasoline will not ignite properly; if the volatility is 

too high, the vehicle may experience vapor lock. 

Importantly for this action, excessively high 

volatility also leads to increased evaporative 

emissions from the vehicle. Vehicle evaporative 

emission control systems are designed and certified 

on gasoline with a volatility of 9.0 psi RVP. Higher 

volatility gasoline may overwhelm the vehicle’s 

evaporative control system, leading to a condition 

described as ‘‘breakthrough’’ of the cannister and 

mostly uncontrolled evaporative emissions. 

6CAA section 211(h)(1). CAA section 211(h)(1) 

requires EPA to establish volatility requirements— 

that is, a restriction on RVP—during the high ozone 

season. To implement these requirements, EPA 

defines ‘‘high ozone season’’ or ‘‘summer season’’ 

at 40 CFR 1090.80 as ‘‘the period from June 1 

through September 15 for retailers and wholesale 

purchaser consumers, and May 1 through 

September 15 for all other persons, or an RVP 

control period specified in a state implementation 

plan if it is longer.’’ In general practice by industry 

and for purposes of this preamble, the high ozone 

season is referred to as the ‘‘summer’’ or ‘‘summer 

season’’ and gasoline produced to be used during 

the high ozone season is called ‘‘summer gasoline.’’ 

EPA’s regulations do not impose any volatility 

requirements on any type of blend of gasoline 

outside of the summer season. 

7CAA section 211(h)(4). 

8The statutory 1-psi waiver is codified at 40 CFR 

1090.215(a). 

9 ‘‘April 28, 2022 Letter from Eight States,’’ 

available in the docket for this action. 

10 ‘‘June 10, 2022 Letter from Ohio,’’ available in 

the docket for this action. 

11 ‘‘July 21, 2022 Letter from Kansas,’’ available in 

the docket for this action. 

12 ‘‘October 12, 2022 Letter from North Dakota,’’ 

available in the docket for this action. 

13 ‘‘December 21, 2022 Letter from Missouri,’’ 

available in the docket for this action. 

A. New Designation and Associated PTD 

Language 

B. Regulatory Reinstatement Mechanism 

IX. Removal of the 1-psi Waiver for E15 

A. Background 

B. Affected Provisions 

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory 

Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 

Part 51 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

I. Executive Summary 

In this action, EPA is responding to 

petitions from eight State Governors to 

remove the 1-psi (pound per square 

inch) waiver for gasoline-ethanol blends 

containing 10 percent ethanol (E10). 

The Governors made their requests 

pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) section 

211(h)(5), which provides that EPA 

shall remove the 1-psi waiver by 

regulation upon a demonstration by a 

Governor that the 1-psi waiver increases 

emissions in their State. 

After review of the modeling results 

presented by the Governors in their 

petitions, on March 6, 2023, EPA 

proposed to remove the 1-psi waiver 

with an effective date of April 28, 

2024—and sought comment on delaying 

the effective date to April 28, 2025—in 

the following eight States: Illinois, Iowa, 

Nebraska, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, 

South Dakota, and Wisconsin.1 On 

March 21, 2023, EPA held a public 

hearing on the proposal, at which 

various perspectives on the proposed 

action were presented, and 

subsequently many comments were 

submitted to EPA on the proposed 

action. After the close of the public 

comment period, EPA also received 

numerous petitions to delay the 

proposed effective date of the removal 

of the 1-psi waiver.2 Following review 

of public comments on the proposal and 

the extension petitions received, in this 

action EPA is removing the 1-psi waiver 

and instead applying the 9.0 psi RVP 

(Reid Vapor Pressure) standard under 

CAA section 211(h)(1) effective April 

28, 2025, in the following eight States: 

Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, 

Missouri, Ohio, South Dakota, and 

Wisconsin. 

Throughout this document we discuss 

key comments provided by stakeholders 

on the proposal and provide our 

response. Additional detail is provided 

in the Response to Comments (RTC) 

document and Technical Support 

Document (TSD) 3 for this action. 

II. Volatility Control Background and 

History 

EPA first took regulatory action to 

control the volatility of gasoline in 

1987.4 Because higher gasoline volatility 

leads to higher evaporative emissions, 

EPA regulates the RVP—a measure of 

fuel volatility—of gasoline during 

summer months in order to reduce 

volatile organic compound (VOC) 

emissions that contribute to the 

formation of smog (ground-level 

ozone).5 The volatility of fuel depends 

on the refinery’s decisions in 

formulating its gasoline. Subsequent to 

EPA’s actions, Congress enacted the 

CAA Amendments of 1990, which 

included statutory volatility provisions 

for summer gasoline. These provisions 

largely codified EPA’s regulatory 

approach, including establishing a 9.0 

psi RVP standard for gasoline volatility 

in the summer.6 Because blending 

ethanol into gasoline increases the 

volatility of the resulting fuel blend due 

to chemical differences between ethanol 

and gasoline, Congress also codified a 1- 

psi waiver for E10, allowing such blends 

to have a 1.0-psi higher RVP than 

otherwise allowed for gasoline, 

consistent with EPA’s prior regulatory 

approach.7 This allowance only applies 

to gasoline-ethanol blends containing 

between 9 and 10 percent ethanol, and 

does not extend to gasoline-ethanol 

blends containing greater than 10 

percent ethanol.8 The 1-psi waiver also 

does not apply to reformulated gasoline 

(RFG). 

At the time the provision was 

enacted, the 1-psi waiver applied to a 

relatively small portion of the gasoline 

sold in the United States. Today, 

however, almost all gasoline sold is E10, 

and thus the 1-psi waiver increases the 

volatility of most gasoline. 

On April 28, 2022, the Governors of 

Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, 

Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, 

and Wisconsin submitted a petition for 

the removal of the 1-psi waiver for E10 

in their States beginning in the summer 

of 2023, pursuant to CAA section 

211(h)(5).9 On June 10, 2022, the 

Governor of Ohio also submitted a 

petition requesting the removal of the 

1-psi waiver in that State.10 On July 21, 

2022, the Governor of Kansas notified 

EPA that they were rescinding their 

petition for removal of the 1-psi waiver 

in Kansas.11 On October 13, 2022, the 

Governor of North Dakota notified EPA 

that they were rescinding their petition 

for removal of the 1-psi waiver in North 

Dakota.12 On December 21, 2022, the 

Governor of Missouri submitted a 

petition requesting the removal of the 

1-psi waiver in that State.13 This action 

refers to the eight remaining States of 

Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, 

Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, and 

Wisconsin as the ‘‘petitioning states.’’ 

The petitions included modeling results 

indicating reductions in VOCs, nitrogen 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
14762 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 41 / Thursday, February 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

14Considerations like this were cited by the 

Governors of Kansas and North Dakota in 

rescinding their petitions. 

15Legislative history suggests that the supporting 

documentation need not be as stringent as that 

called for under CAA section 211(c)(4)(C). See 

Senate Report 106–426 at 12 (September 28, 2000). 

Under CAA section 211(c)(4)(C) a state must make 

a ‘‘necessity’’ showing prior to EPA approval of a 

fuel measure into the state implementation plan. 

The ‘‘Guidance on Use of Opt-in to RFG and Low 

RVP Requirements in Ozone SIPs,’’ August 1997, 

gives further guidance on factors EPA is likely to 

consider in making a finding of ‘‘necessity’’ under 

CAA section 211(c)(4)(C). 

16This reading is like, for example, our reading 

of ‘‘will’’ in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). (The term 

‘‘will’’ in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) means that State 

implementation plans are required to eliminate the 

appropriate amounts of emissions that presently, or 

that are expected in the future, contribute 

significantly to nonattainment downwind. 63 FR 

57375 (October 27, 1998)). 

17 40 CFR 1090.80. 

18For an example of analysis and modeling of 

emission impacts available at the time CAA section 

211(h)(5) was enacted, see ‘‘User’s Guide to 

MOBILE6.1 and MOBILE6.2: Mobile Source 

Emission Factor Model,’’ EPA–420–R–02–028, 

October 2002. 

19See, e.g., 52 FR 31274 at 31292 (August 19, 

1987). 

oxides (NOX), and carbon monoxide 

(CO). 

III. Statutory Authority and Provisions 

To Remove the 1-psi Waiver 

This rulemaking modifies EPA’s fuel 

quality regulations in 40 CFR part 1090 

to remove the 1-psi waiver that is 

applicable to fuel blends containing 

gasoline and 10 percent ethanol for the 

petitioning States. While we proposed 

to make such a change effective for the 

summer of 2024, after further careful 

consideration of comments and 

consultation with various agencies we 

are instead finalizing removal of the 

1-psi waiver in these States beginning 

April 28, 2025. 

CAA section 211(h)(1) requires EPA to 

‘‘promulgate regulations making it 

unlawful . . . during the high ozone 

season . . . to sell . . . or introduce into 

commerce gasoline with a Reid Vapor 

Pressure in excess of 9.0 pounds per 

square inch (psi).’’ For nonattainment 

areas, CAA section 211(h)(1) also allows 

EPA to set a lower (i.e., more stringent) 

RVP standard, as well as to define the 

term ‘‘high ozone season.’’ CAA section 

211(h)(4) provides in relevant part that 

‘‘[f]or fuel blends containing gasoline 

and 10 percent denatured anhydrous 

ethanol, the Reid vapor pressure 

limitation under this subsection shall be 

one pound per square inch (psi) greater 

than the applicable Reid vapor pressure 

limitations established under [section 

211(h)(1)].’’ CAA section 211(h)(5), 

which was enacted as part of the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), provides in 

relevant part that ‘‘[u]pon notification, 

accompanied by supporting 

documentation, from the Governor of a 

State that the [waiver in section 

211(h)(4)], will increase emissions that 

contribute to air pollution in any area of 

the State, the Administrator shall, by 

regulation, apply, [the volatility limit 

under section 211(h)(1)].’’ Thus, 

regulatory action under CAA section 

211(h)(5) would remove the 1-psi 

waiver for E10 and generally apply the 

RVP standard under CAA section 

211(h)(1). 

Prior to the April 28, 2022 petition, no 

Governor had ever submitted a petition 

under CAA section 211(h)(5) to EPA, 

and thus we are interpreting this 

statutory provision for the first time in 

this action. In this context, we find that 

the use of the prescriptive statutory 

language ‘‘shall’’ provides limited, if 

any, discretion for EPA to consider 

other issues such as economic impacts 

of removing the 1-psi waiver. Such 

impacts may instead be taken into 

consideration by a Governor when 

deciding whether to submit a petition to 

EPA.14 Here, EPA’s role is only to 

evaluate the supporting documentation 

provided by the Governors.15 If EPA 

concludes that the supporting 

documentation, as required by the 

statute, demonstrates emissions 

increases with the 1-psi waiver in place, 

then CAA section 211(h)(5) requires 

EPA to promulgate regulations to 

remove the 1-psi waiver as requested. 

In response to the proposal, we 

received comments suggesting that the 

Governors cannot meet the statutory 

criteria in CAA section 211(h)(5) 

because E10 is now the dominant fuel 

in the marketplace. Commenters 

suggested that the statutory language 

that the 1-psi waiver ‘‘will increase 

emissions’’ cannot be satisfied, because 

any emissions impacts from the 1-psi 

waiver have already occurred. We 

disagree with the comment. CAA 

section 211(h)(5)(A)—which was 

promulgated in 2005—requires EPA to 

remove the 1-psi waiver if it ‘‘will 

increase emissions that contribute to air 

pollution . . . during the high ozone 

season.’’ The term ‘‘will’’ connotes 

consideration of emissions that are 

expected in the future and as relevant 

here during the ‘‘high ozone season.’’ 16

Further, as instructed in CAA section 

211(h)(1), we have defined ‘‘high ozone 

season’’ as the period from ‘‘June 1 

through September 15 for retailers and 

[whole purchaser consumers], and May 

1 through September 15 for all other 

persons.’’ 17 We therefore read the 

phrase as calling for the consideration of 

emissions that are expected in the 

petitioning States during future high 

ozone seasons and conclude that 

because the Governors have 

demonstrated that the 1-psi waiver will 

increase VOC emissions during the high 

ozone season, the statutory criteria for 

removal of the 1-psi waiver has been 

met. We further address this comment 

in the RTC document. 

Additionally, as we posited in the 

proposal, we do not interpret this 

provision as requiring a demonstration 

of a reduction in emissions of all 

pollutants that contribute to air 

pollution in the petitioning States, as 

advocated for by some commenters. 

Such a demonstration could not have 

been contemplated by Congress, as 

lowering the volatility of fuel was 

specifically the intent set out in CAA 

section 211(h)(1), which calls for EPA to 

set RVP standards to address 

‘‘evaporative emissions.’’ As such, 

reducing the volatility of gasoline would 

be expected to have differing impacts on 

emissions of different pollutants.18

Further, Congress was silent on the air 

pollutants that EPA should consider in 

responding to petitions for removal of 

the 1-psi waiver. Specifically, under 

CAA section 211(h)(5), EPA is to remove 

the 1-psi waiver if it ‘‘increase[s] 

emissions that contribute to air 

pollution.’’ This contrasts with, for 

example, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), 

which prohibits sources in a State from 

emitting ‘‘any air pollutant which will 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment’’ in another State. Air 

pollution could result from a myriad of 

sources, including listed hazardous air 

pollutants, criteria pollutants, and 

greenhouse gases, and thus would 

appear to be a rather expansive term. 

Reducing RVP, however, is a volatility 

control measure as explained earlier in 

Section II. In short, CAA section 

211(h)(1) requires EPA to set RVP 

standards to address ‘‘evaporative 

emissions.’’ Additionally, EPA has 

consistently explained that adding 10 

percent ethanol to gasoline causes 

roughly a 1.0 psi RVP increase in the 

blend’s volatility, which is the premise 

for the 1-psi waiver contained in CAA 

section 211(h)(4) and the subject of this 

action.19 EPA is of the view, therefore, 

that it is reasonable to consider ‘‘air 

pollution’’ emanating from emissions of 

such gasoline and thus, that it may be 

most appropriate to evaluate the impact 

of the 1-psi waiver for E10 on VOC 

emissions in addressing petitions to 

remove the 1-psi waiver under CAA 

section 211(h)(5). We thus find that 

demonstration of increased VOC 

emissions with the 1-psi waiver in place 

is sufficient to grant the petitions for 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 41 / Thursday, February 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 14763 

20For example, on June 7, 2017, EPA published 

a final rule to relax the federal 7.8 psi RVP standard 

in the Nashville, TN area (82 FR 26354) and on 

March 12, 2021, EPA published two final rules that 

removed approved regulations from the Kansas and 

Missouri SIPs that required the sale of 7.0 psi RVP 

gasoline in the Kansas City, KS–MO area (86 FR 

14000 and 86 FR 14007). 

21See ‘‘October 13, 2021 Letter from Kansas,’’ and 

‘‘November 4, 2021 Letter from Seven States,’’ 

available in the docket for this action. 

22See ‘‘July 21, 2022 Letter from Kansas,’’ and 

‘‘October 12, 2022 Letter from North Dakota,’’ 

available in the docket for this action. 

23See ‘‘Emissions Impacts of the Elimination of 

the 1-psi RVP Waiver for E10,’’ May 9, 2022; and 

‘‘Emissions Impacts of the Elimination of the 1-psi 

RVP Waiver for E10 in Ohio,’’ June 10, 2022, 

available in the docket for this action. While we did 

not receive additional information from Missouri 

about other pollutants as we received from the other 

petitioning states, we anticipate directionally 

similar trends as shown in the information from the 

other states. RVP reduction is a volatility control 

measure and EPA has consistently explained that 

adding 10 percent ethanol to gasoline causes 

roughly a 1.0 psi RVP increase in the blend’s 

volatility. As EPA explained in its rulemakings to 

regulate volatility of fuel that preceded enactment 

of CAA section 211(h), evaporative hydrocarbon 

emissions are VOCs and contribute to the formation 

of ozone in the atmosphere, particularly in the 

summer months due to direct sunlight and high 

ambient temperatures. EPA regulated the volatility 

of gasoline to control the emissions of VOCs. 

Congress, in enacting CAA section 211(h), which 

largely codified EPA’s volatility regulations, thus 

also logically intended to address VOCs by 

requiring volatility controls. It is therefore 

reasonable and most appropriate to evaluate the 

impact of the 1-psi volatility waiver for E10 on VOC 

emissions in addressing petitions to remove the 1- 

psi waiver under CAA section 211(h)(5). See also 

52 FR 31274 (August 19, 1987); 54 FR 11868 (March 

22, 1989); and 55 FR 23658 (June 11, 1990). 

24EPA developed MOVES to estimate air 

pollution emissions from on-road and nonroad 

mobile sources. 

25Further information about the MOVES runs, 

including inputs and nonroad data, is available in 

the docket for this action. 

26EPA’s evaluation of the MOVES model input 

data and assumptions, and results, can be found in 

the TSD. 

removal of the waiver. Even were EPA 

to look at the modeled emissions 

impacts on several other pollutants (e.g., 

CO and NOX), those reductions, in 

addition to the reduction in VOCs, also 

satisfy the requirements of the statute 

and justify granting the petitions. 

Further, EPA views the Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Simulator (MOVES) as an 

appropriate tool for use in modeling the 

emission impacts required by CAA 

section 211(h)(5). The MOVES runs 

performed by the petitioning States 

compared emissions from motor 

vehicles and nonroad vehicles and 

equipment with and without the 1-psi 

waiver for E10 in each State in the 

summer. In the past, similar analyses 

have been used to support prior EPA 

actions for Federal and State fuel 

programs.20

IV. Petitions for Removal of the 1-psi 

Waiver and Supporting Documentation 

A. Petition Background and History 

During the fall of 2021, EPA received 

several letters from States requesting 

that EPA engage in a dialogue about 

mechanisms to provide parity between 

E10 and E15 with respect to gasoline 

volatility standards.21 Specifically, the 

letters referred to CAA section 211(h)(5) 

and inquired about as to what type of 

‘‘supporting documentation’’ should 

accompany such a request. EPA 

organized and participated in a series of 

meetings with representatives from 

various Midwestern States that had 

expressed interest in removing the 1-psi 

waiver. In those meetings, EPA 

indicated that MOVES modeling would 

be an appropriate tool to use for this 

purpose given its ability to model the 

emissions impacts of changes in 

gasoline volatility and given our past 

reliance on MOVES modeling runs in 

similar contexts. 

On April 28, 2022, the Governors of 

Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, 

Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, 

and Wisconsin submitted a joint 

petition to EPA for the removal of the 

1-psi waiver for E10 in their respective 

States. The petition specifically 

requested the removal of the 1-psi 

waiver for E10 as a permanent solution 

for providing year-round E15 in those 

States beginning in the summer of 2023. 

As accompanying documentation, the 

petition provided quantified reductions 

in VOC, NOX, and CO emissions as a 

result of removing the 1-psi waiver in 

each State based on MOVES modeling. 

Subsequent to this submittal, the 

Governors of Kansas and North Dakota 

rescinded their petitions to remove the 

1-psi waiver for E10 in those States.22

Therefore, we are not taking any action 

on the 1-psi waiver for E10 in Kansas 

and North Dakota in this action. 

On June 10, 2022, the Governor of 

Ohio also submitted a petition 

requesting the removal of the 1-psi 

waiver for E10 beginning in the summer 

of 2023. The petition provided 

quantified reductions in VOC, NOX, and 

CO emissions in Ohio based on MOVES 

modeling. 

On December 21, 2022, the Governor 

of Missouri also submitted a petition 

requesting the removal of the 1-psi 

waiver for E10 beginning in the summer 

of 2023. The petition provided 

quantified reductions in VOC, NOX, and 

CO emissions in Missouri based on 

MOVES modeling. 

Subsequent to submission of the 

petitions, all petitioning States except 

Missouri provided EPA with additional 

emissions modeling documentation, 

including for particulate matter (PM) 

and benzene.23 The original data 

submitted showed a decrease in VOC, 

NOX, and CO emissions with removal of 

the 1-psi waiver for E10, while the 

additional data demonstrated an 

increase in PM for both nonroad and onroad emissions with removal of the 1- 

psi waiver. The benzene results 

demonstrated an increase in benzene 

on-road emissions and a decrease in 

benzene nonroad emissions. While the 

additional data on modeled emissions 

impacts on other pollutants may not be 

necessary to make the statutory 

demonstration, it does provide 

additional information about the 

potential emissions impacts of this 

action. 

All the petitioning States requested 

removal of the 1-psi waiver in all areas 

within their State where the limitation 

under CAA section 211(h)(4) applies. 

Therefore, the requests did not include 

areas within the States where RFG is 

required because the 1-psi waiver does 

not apply to RFG. The petitioning States 

also requested that the removal of the 1- 

psi waiver should take effect for the 

2023 high ozone season, without further 

discussion. The States noted that 

rescinding the 1-psi waiver for E10 

would support year-round sales of E15. 

B. Evaluation of Petitions for Removal of 

the 1-psi Waiver 

The petitioning States provided 

technical documentation with their 

petitions to demonstrate the reduction 

of emissions with the removal of the 1- 

psi waiver as required by CAA section 

211(h)(5) in the form of MOVES 

modeling results.24 The results for each 

State were based on a single day in July 

2023, which is during the high ozone 

season. Comparative results 

demonstrate the change in emissions 

from the current 10.0 psi RVP standard 

to the alternative 9.0 psi RVP standard 

as contemplated by the statute.25 A 

summary of the emissions impacts of 

removing the 1-psi waiver for E10 for 

each State is provided in Table V–1.26


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
14764 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 41 / Thursday, February 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

27Evaporative emissions from gasoline— 

specifically VOCs—are precursors to the formation 

of tropospheric ozone and contribute to the nation’s 

ground-level ozone problem. NOX and CO can also 

be ozone precursors. Exposure to ground level 

ozone can reduce lung function (thereby 

aggravating asthma or other respiratory conditions), 

increase susceptibility to respiratory infection, and 

may contribute to premature death in people with 

heart and lung disease. 

28Further detail on this topic is available in the 

TSD. 

29 Gasoline before oxygenate blending (BOB) 

means gasoline for which a gasoline manufacturer 

has accounted for oxygenate (e.g., denatured fuel 

ethanol) added downstream. See 40 CFR 1090.90. 

BOB is subject to all requirements and standards 

that apply to gasoline under EPA’s fuel quality 

regulations, and refineries typically formulate their 

BOBs with the intent that it will be blended 

downstream with ten percent ethanol content to 

maintain compliance with EPA and industry 

specifications. Conventional BOB (CBOB) is BOB 

produced or imported for areas outside of RFG areas 

otherwise known as conventional areas. 

30Because the gasoline distribution system has 

been configured to utilize 10 percent ethanol and 

optimized to utilize the octane value of ethanol, we 

expect ethanol will be blended at least at the same 

levels it is blended today. Thus, we anticipate that 

E10 will continue to be the dominant form of 

gasoline supplied to the region, but will now be 

blended into a lower-volatility blendstock produced 

by refineries. 

31 40 CFR 1090.215(a)(2) and (b)(1). 

32Of particular note for this action, seven 

counties in southeast Michigan that border Ohio 

have an RVP standard of 7.0 psi in the summer, 

with a 1-psi waiver for E10. 

33See https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/ 

state-fuels. 

34 40 CFR 1090.215(b)(3). See also https://

www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/state-fuels. 

TABLE V–1—CHANGE OF MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS IN 2023 MOVES3.01 SOURCES FROM 10.0 psi TO 9.0 psi RVP 

State 

Pollutant/precursor 

VOCs 

(percent) 

CO 

(percent) 

NOX

(percent) 

PM2.5

(percent) 

PM10

(percent) 

Benzene 

(percent) 

Toluene 

(percent) 

Ethylbenzene 

(percent) 

Xylene 

(percent) 

Illinois .................................................................... ¥0.9 ¥0.19 ¥0.05 0.09 0.10 ¥0.2 ¥1.5 ¥0.9 ¥0.9 

Iowa ....................................................................... ¥1.8 ¥0.44 ¥0.09 0.14 0.15 ¥0.1 ¥3.3 ¥2.1 ¥2.1 

Minnesota .............................................................. ¥2.7 ¥0.52 ¥0.09 0.15 0.16 ¥1.3 ¥4.2 ¥3.0 ¥3.1 

Missouri ................................................................. ¥0.66 ¥0.41 ¥0.14 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Nebraska ............................................................... ¥2.6 ¥0.48 ¥0.09 0.17 0.18 ¥0.6 ¥4.4 ¥2.9 ¥3.0 

Ohio ....................................................................... ¥1.6 ¥0.45 ¥0.13 0.30 0.32 0.08 ¥2.8 ¥2.0 ¥2.0 

South Dakota ........................................................ ¥2.9 ¥0.53 ¥0.06 0.08 0.08 ¥1.1 ¥4.8 ¥3.4 ¥3.3 

Wisconsin .............................................................. ¥1.7 ¥0.44 ¥0.10 0.21 0.22 ¥0.3 ¥2.7 ¥1.8 ¥1.8 

As with the proposal, we have 

assessed the supporting documentation 

provided by the petitioning States and 

find that the MOVES modeling results 

submitted to EPA demonstrate a 

reduction in emissions of multiple 

pollutants (e.g., VOCs, CO, and NOX) 

that contribute to air pollution within 

each State upon removal of the 1-psi 

waiver for E10, as required under CAA 

section 211(h)(5).27 We note that the 

same documentation also shows an 

increase in emissions of other pollutants 

such as PM. As discussed in Section III, 

we do not interpret the statute as 

requiring reductions in all pollutants. 

Documentation of air pollutant 

emissions reductions—particularly 

VOCs—is sufficient. While some 

commenters suggested that EPA should 

not focus on particular pollutants and 

ignore others, we instead conclude that 

demonstration of a decrease in VOC 

emissions is sufficient to satisfy the 

statutory requirements and justify 

granting the petitions. 

Therefore, based on the Governors’ 

petitions and the supporting 

documentation provided, we are 

removing the 1-psi waiver for E10 sold 

in the petitioning States and, as required 

by CAA section 211(h)(5), promulgating 

the 9.0 psi RVP standard contained in 

CAA section 211(h)(1) for the 

petitioning States. For the reasons 

discussed in Section VIII., such a 

change will be effective on April 28, 

2025, given our determination of 

insufficient supply in 2023 and the 

renewal of that extension for one year 

based on a determination of insufficient 

supply in 2024. 

V. Fuel System Impacts 

In this section, we discuss the 

potential impacts of removing the 1-psi 

waiver in the petitioning States on the 

fuel production and distribution system, 

including impacts that would 

potentially affect gasoline refineries, 

pipelines, fuel terminals, retail outlets, 

and, ultimately, consumers.28

Significant portions of this discussion 

were provided in the proposal, and have 

now been updated based on additional 

information provided from commenters 

and discussions with industry. We 

received comment from ethanol 

interests suggesting that gasoline supply 

concerns were overstated and 

manageable, even for 2023. We also 

received comment and supporting 

analysis from refining and pipeline 

stakeholders expressing concern over 

the gasoline supply and resulting cost 

and price impacts in support of their 

requests to further delay 

implementation of the 1-psi waiver 

removal, as well as additional petitions 

requesting delay to 2025 or later. The 

discussion in this section is not specific 

to a particular year or determination of 

sufficiency of supply. Section VI 

provides our determination of 

insufficient supply for 2024. 

In short, this action will require a 

lower-volatility conventional gasoline 

before oxygenate blending (CBOB) 29 to 

be produced by refineries and 

distributed by pipelines and terminals, 

resulting in a lower-volatility blended 

fuel ultimately sold at retail outlets in 

the petitioning States.30

We first note that volatility controls 

for gasoline differ across various States 

and regions within States. Summer 

gasoline for use in the continental U.S. 

must comply with either the Federal 

RVP standard of 9.0 psi or the more 

stringent RVP standard of 7.8 psi, unless 

the summer gasoline is either for use in 

an RFG covered area, is subject to 

California’s gasoline regulations, or EPA 

has waived preemption and approved a 

State request to adopt a more stringent 

RVP standard into a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). Most of the 

U.S. utilizes ‘‘conventional gasoline,’’ 

for which the Federal RVP standard is 

9.0 psi, with a 1.0 psi waiver for 

gasoline blended with 10 percent 

ethanol. There are also areas that utilize 

conventional gasoline for which the 

Federal RVP standard is 7.8 psi, and in 

such regions, the 1.0 psi waiver also 

applies for gasoline blended with 10 

percent ethanol.31 Several States have 

‘‘boutique’’ low-RVP fuel programs or 

SIP programs 32 that allow the 1-psi 

waiver for gasoline blended with 10 

percent ethanol.33 Some boutique fuel 

programs, or SIP-approved fuel 

programs, however, disallow the 1-psi 

waiver for gasoline blended with 10 

percent ethanol and in those areas, such 

gasoline must meet the applicable State 

RVP standard of either 9.0 psi, 7.8 psi, 

or 7.0 psi.34 Additionally, 

approximately 30 percent of the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 41 / Thursday, February 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 14765 

35 40 CFR 1090.215(a)(3). The Chicago and St. 

Louis areas are such RFG areas. 

36We refer to this new lower-volatility gasoline 

as ‘‘low-RVP gasoline’’ throughout this preamble. 

37 If all gasoline in the country was required to 

shift to low-RVP gasoline, the impacts would be 

limited to just refineries. The rest of the fuel 

distribution system would merely distribute the 

replacement low-RVP gasoline instead. However, 

since this action only applies to the eight 

petitioning states, a new additional type of gasoline 

is required for the distribution system to also 

handle. 

38According to the Energy Information 

Administration (EIA), 64 million barrels of gasoline 

were shipped from Petroleum Administration for 

Defense District (PADD) 3 (Gulf Coast) into PADD 

2 (Midwest), which corresponds to about 8 percent 

of the volume of gasoline consumed in PADD 2. 

EIA, ‘‘Petroleum & Other Liquids; Movements by 

Pipeline, Tanker, Barge and Rail between PAD 

Districts; PADD 3 to PADD 2,’’ https://www.eia.gov/ 

dnav/pet/pet_move_ptb_dc_R20-R30_mbbl_m.htm. 

39We refer to this new lower-volatility CBOB as 

‘‘low-RVP CBOB’’ throughout this preamble. 

40Certain areas within the petitioning states and 

other states already have more stringent RVP 

standards during the summer. Gasoline that 

refineries produce for these areas would be 

unaffected by this final rule. Refineries that produce 

6.8 psi RVP CBOB for 7.8 psi RVP areas, or 6.4 psi 

RVP RBOB for RFG areas, could expand production 

of these gasoline types for use in the petitioning 

states rather than create a new gasoline type at 8.0 

psi RVP. This may reduce distribution cost 

complexity, but in exchange increase refinery 

production cost and lower gasoline production 

volume. 

41Comment submitted by the American Fuel and 

Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), Docket Item 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2022–0513–0077. 

gasoline sold in the U.S. is RFG, which 

must meet a 7.4 psi RVP standard.35 The 

1-psi waiver does not apply to RFG, and 

thus E10 that is sold in RFG areas must 

meet the 7.4 psi RVP standard. This 

action removes the 1-psi waiver only for 

conventional gasoline that is sold in the 

petitioning States and does not apply to 

gasoline sold in RFG or SIP program 

areas. However, due to the 

interconnected nature of gasoline 

distribution, and the changes required 

for a new fuel type, impacts on gasoline 

quality and supply are expected to 

extend beyond the petitioning States, as 

further described below. 

Before discussing the various steps 

required to produce and distribute the 

new lower-volatility gasoline,36 it is 

useful to describe the gasoline fuel 

supply system that is interdependent on 

its different parts to bring a fuel to 

market. The first step is fuel production, 

in which refineries refine crude oil 

using various processing units and then 

blend the various blendstocks together 

in finished gasoline tanks. The next step 

is fuel distribution, in which the 

gasoline in these tanks is transported 

through the fuel distribution system to 

the final market, mostly by pipelines.37

These pipelines transport a wide variety 

of fuels and other products (e.g., 

gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, heating oil, 

petroleum blendstocks, etc.), including 

an array of different grades and types of 

gasoline (e.g., conventional gasoline, 

RFG, boutique fuels, and regular and 

premium grades of each). Each grade 

and type of gasoline must be segregated 

from other grades and types to preserve 

the physical properties of each product. 

When a pipeline reaches a juncture 

where it branches out to two different 

pipelines serving different gasoline 

markets, a set of short-term storage tanks 

(‘‘breakout tanks’’) are necessary to 

offload the fuel from the upstream 

pipeline to enable scheduling the 

various fuels through the two 

downstream pipelines. Pipeline systems 

often have many branches from 

upstream to downstream pipelines to 

enable moving the fuel to the 

downstream markets, and breakout 

tanks serve an important function in the 

fuel distribution system. For example, 

there are approximately 110 breakout 

tank locations within the petitioning 

States alone. Pipeline transportation of 

gasoline to market also involves 

downstream product terminals and bulk 

plants, which accumulate gasoline from 

pipelines and other bulk distribution 

systems and distribute the gasoline to 

retail outlets via tank trucks loaded at 

terminal racks. Each rack can load a 

premium grade and regular grade 

gasoline, but some racks can load 

additional grades and types of gasoline. 

To minimize other impacts and 

enable production and distribution of 

low-RVP gasoline, refiners and fuel 

distributors will need time to make 

capital investments to optimize the fuel 

production and distribution system to 

replace the gasoline solely in the 

petitioning States with low-RVP 

gasoline. Without capital investments, 

which can take two years or more to 

complete, the limited availability of 

additional storage tanks for the new 

low-RVP gasoline grades—particularly 

at pipeline breakout tank locations, but 

also at refineries and downstream 

terminals—may result in low-RVP 

gasoline being sold within both the 

petitioning States and the immediately 

adjacent non-petitioning States. This 

would increase the volume of low-RVP 

gasoline needed to be produced and 

distributed to satisfy demand. Over 

time, we expect refiners and fuel 

distributors to invest in and optimize 

the fuel production and distribution 

system to more efficiently target lowRVP gasoline solely to the petitioning 

States. 

A. Production 

Refiners will need to make 

modifications to their refinery 

operations to supply low-RVP gasoline. 

There are 11 petroleum refineries 

located within the petitioning States; 

that number increases to 40 when 

refineries located in States that border 

the petitioning States are included. 

Further, additional refineries outside of 

the immediate region may also modify 

their operations to provide low-RVP 

gasoline, as some of the gasoline supply 

for the petitioning States also 

historically comes from refineries 

located further west, east, and south, 

such as refineries in the Gulf Coast.38

For example, gasoline sold in Iowa is 

often produced by refineries located in 

Texas and distributed via pipeline. 

Therefore, this action could result in 

changes in refinery operations both 

within and outside of the petitioning 

States and extend to refineries in the 

Gulf Coast. Prior to the implementation 

of this rule, most refineries producing 

gasoline for use in the petitioning States 

produce a CBOB with an RVP of 9.0 psi 

during the summer season, with the 1- 

psi waiver allowing the final gasolineethanol blend to meet an RVP standard 

of 10.0 psi when 10 percent ethanol is 

added to the CBOB downstream. With 

the removal of the 1-psi waiver and to 

enable the final gasoline-ethanol blend 

to comply with the resulting 9.0 psi RVP 

standard, refineries that choose to 

continue producing CBOB for use 

within the petitioning States will need 

to make changes to their operations to 

reduce the volatility of the CBOB 

distributed to these States to ∼8.0 psi.39

For most refineries operating within and 

near the petitioning States, removal of 

the 1-psi waiver will likely result in the 

refinery choosing to only produce lowRVP CBOB. Refineries operating outside 

the petitioning States will choose to 

either produce only low-RVP CBOB for 

distribution to the petitioning and 

adjacent States, continue to produce 

only the current ∼9.0 psi RVP CBOB for 

distribution to areas outside the 

petitioning States, or both. The limited 

availability of existing blending/storage 

tanks at a refinery to handle both 

gasoline types may prevent the refinery 

from producing both blendstocks 

without further capital investment.40

One commenter submitted a survey 

with data from refiners in and around 

petitioning States, which provided 

information regarding what refiners may 

have to do to meet the 9.0 psi RVP 

standard and is further discussed 

below.41 Nevertheless, at this time, we 

cannot predict which of the refineries 

that currently produce fuel for use in 

the petitioning States will choose to 

produce low-RVP CBOB for use in the 

petitioning States and potentially the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
14766 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 41 / Thursday, February 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

42Further discussion of the changes we expect 

from refineries associated with removal of the 1-psi 

waiver is available in the TSD. 

43Alternatively, some refineries may shift all 

premium grade fuel to low-RVP CBOB, while 

producing both 9.0 psi and low-RVP CBOBs for 

regular grade fuel. 

surrounding States. Unlike a nationwide 

change to the RVP of CBOB, the regional 

nature of this action means that not all 

refineries must adjust their refining 

processes to reduce the RVP of their 

CBOB. While it is highly likely that 

refineries that supply gasoline only to 

the petitioning States will adjust their 

refinery processes to reduce the RVP of 

their CBOB, these refineries could 

choose to avoid the necessary 

investments and provide 9.0 psi RVP 

CBOB to non-petitioning States instead 

if they are able to reach those markets. 

Throughout the year, refineries must 

adjust the volatility of their gasoline— 

typically lowering the volatility of the 

gasoline in the summer and increasing 

the volatility in the winter by adjusting 

the quantity of light hydrocarbons in 

their gasoline. Refineries typically 

control gasoline volatility by adjusting 

the amount of butane in gasoline, but 

sometimes they need to also modify the 

amount of pentane or natural gas liquids 

(NGLs). Refineries providing fuel to the 

petitioning States will have to modify 

their summer gasoline production 

operations and potentially add capital 

equipment to accommodate the 9.0 psi 

RVP standard. A refinery’s ability to 

adapt to the 9.0 psi RVP standard and 

the time that it takes to do so depends 

on the refinery’s structure, operations, 

and the mix of crude oil types that it 

processes.42

In addition to contributing to 

gasoline’s volatility, butane also 

contributes to gasoline’s octane and 

volume. Thus, when removing butane, 

refineries must also make other changes 

to replace the lost octane to keep the 

gasoline consistent and in compliance 

with EPA regulations and industry 

specifications. Refineries could produce 

more alkylate or reformate, which are 

two high octane gasoline blendstocks, to 

make up the lost octane. We estimate 

that the amount of butane that would 

have to be removed to produce a 

gasoline 1-psi lower in RVP amounts to 

about two volume percent of the volume 

of gasoline. However, comments from 

the refining industry described how at 

least some refineries would need to not 

only remove butane, but some lessvolatile hydrocarbons as well (e.g., light 

straight run naphtha (LSR) or NGLs). 

Since LSR and NGLs are less volatile 

than butane, refineries would need to 

remove significantly more of those 

hydrocarbons to realize the same 1-psi 

reduction in RVP, perhaps up to 10 

volume percent. Such a change would 

have a smaller reduction in octane, 

however. Removing butane and these 

other light hydrocarbons from the 

summer gasoline sold in the petitioning 

States would reduce the supply of 

gasoline in those States. 

Regardless of how a refinery is 

modified to reduce the RVP of its 

gasoline, it will result in additional 

output of the removed butane or other 

light hydrocarbons. If excess onsite 

butane storage capacity is available, the 

refinery has the option of saving excess 

butane on-site for use in winter gasoline 

production, which would minimize the 

cost impact of producing low-RVP 

CBOB. However, if excess butane 

storage is not available, the refinery 

would then need to store it offsite (e.g., 

in caverns), sell it, or export it. This may 

require additional butane railcars and 

refinery upgrades for handling railcars 

to transport the butane. Refineries may 

also utilize some portion of the butane 

as a feedstock to their alkylation unit. In 

the near term, the large influx of excess 

butane may exceed the existing storage 

capacity, transport capacity, amount 

desired in the markets, or alkylation 

unit capacity. Without an outlet for the 

excess butane, this could then limit the 

refinery’s ability to produce low-RVP 

CBOB, further reducing the supply of 

low-RVP gasoline. If a refinery is 

removing LSR or NGLs from its 

gasoline, these gasoline blendstocks 

could be sold to another refinery that 

could blend them into its gasoline, but 

the purchasing refinery would then 

need to remove butane to compensate 

for the RVP impact of the LSR or NGLs. 

This gasoline blendstock switching 

would help to offset the volume 

reductions associated with producing 

low-RVP CBOB. 

Given the high demand for gasoline in 

the summer months, refineries often 

begin producing summer gasoline for 

storage well ahead of the upcoming high 

ozone season. This process can begin as 

early as December of the year prior to 

the applicable high ozone season, and 

thus storage of a differing volatility of 

fuel could impact the refinery’s ability 

to utilize the fuel the next summer 

without further modification. 

B. Distribution 

As discussed above, removal of the 1- 

psi waiver will require refineries that 

distribute gasoline to the petitioning 

States to produce low-RVP CBOB. There 

are three primary groups within the 

distribution chain that will be impacted: 

refineries, pipelines (with their breakout 

terminals), and downstream product 

terminals. 

1. Refinery Distribution 

Most refineries have an onsite 

terminal with numerous product storage 

tanks wherein they accumulate and 

store the range of products that they 

produce prior to placing the products 

into the distribution system. Once a 

refinery accumulates a sufficient 

volume of a gasoline type and confirms 

that it meets the applicable gasoline 

specifications, the refinery then 

schedules the shipment of that batch of 

gasoline to downstream markets. 

Shipment can occur via an onsite 

product terminal analogous to that 

discussed in Section V.B.3 where trucks 

load product and deliver to retail 

outlets. However, most gasoline 

produced by refineries is loaded onto 

product pipelines for delivery to 

downstream product terminals. In some 

cases, refineries also distribute product 

by rail or barge. For those refineries that 

distribute most or all of their gasoline to 

the petitioning States, removal of the 1- 

psi waiver will have little impact on 

their distribution operations. They can 

switch over their existing product tanks 

to hold only low-RVP CBOB. Instead of 

transitioning from winter CBOB RVP 

levels (up to 15 psi) to a 9.0 psi RVP 

CBOB in the summer, they would 

instead transition to low-RVP CBOB. 

However, refineries that produce 

gasoline for both petitioning and nonpetitioning States will likely need 

additional tanks, pipes, manifolds, and 

control systems to store the additional 

grades of gasoline. The time needed to 

plan, design, permit, and construct 

additional tankage is typically on the 

order of two or more years. Until this 

can be accomplished, a refinery that 

lacks the additional tankage will likely 

need to shift all its production to lowRVP CBOB. However, this can be 

avoided if unused systems already exist 

or other products are discontinued.43

The market may go through a ‘‘sorting 

out’’ process, wherein some refineries 

shift their historic markets, with some 

changing to producing only low-RVP 

CBOB and others continuing to produce 

only 9.0 psi RVP CBOB. This could 

result in some low-RVP CBOB flowing 

in from outside the petitioning States 

(e.g., from Gulf Coast refineries). Due to 

tankage and logistical limitations, some 

refineries serving both markets may 

initially shift all their production to 

low-RVP CBOB. This would result in 

low-RVP CBOB being distributed to the 

surrounding States, which would ease 

gasoline supply availability concerns, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 41 / Thursday, February 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 14767 

but at the same time add to the overall 

reduction of gasoline supply due to 

butane and other light hydrocarbon 

removal. Terminals servicing low-RVP 

CBOB outside the petitioning States that 

have butane blending facilities could 

purchase some of the excess butane 

being removed by refineries and inject 

it into their CBOB to bring the fuel up 

to 9.0 psi RVP since the gasoline in their 

area would not require the low-RVP 

fuel. 

For those refineries that have excess 

tankage or invest in new tankage to 

allow the production of both 9.0 psi and 

low-RVP CBOB, they would also need to 

adjust their operations and schedules 

for loading gasoline blendstock onto 

pipelines, barges, or rail to split their 

production into separate product 

streams. These logistical changes would 

initially take some period of time in 

order to occur smoothly and safely, but 

should streamline over time. 

2. Pipelines and Pipeline Breakout 

Terminals 

Most fuel in the U.S. flows from 

refineries to consumer markets via 

pipeline systems. As described in the 

TSD, there are several pipeline systems 

serving the petitioning States, the vast 

majority of which serve both petitioning 

and non-petitioning States. 

Consequently, the addition of the lowRVP CBOB in the petitioning States will 

require significant changes in the 

operations of the pipeline systems. 

What is currently one large 

conventional fuel market distributing 

primarily 9.0 psi RVP CBOB will also 

need to distribute the new low-RVP 

CBOB. There will thus be a period 

where the pipeline systems go through 

a planning and optimization process to 

assess what gasoline type must be 

supplied to the pipeline to comply with 

the new fuel requirement. If a pipeline 

primarily serving the petitioning States 

is only equipped with breakout tanks 

compatible with a single gasoline type, 

the pipeline company will likely 

mandate that refiners solely provide that 

gasoline type. Decisions from refineries 

on whether they will supply low-RVP 

CBOB, and at what volumes, will be 

necessary to inform the planning and 

optimization process by pipeline 

systems. All of this can have impacts on 

gasoline supply not only to the 

petitioning States, but also to the 

surrounding States in the short term. 

Having the wrong fuel types in the 

wrong volume can result in an inability 

for the pipeline to move fuel in and out 

of tankage as needed, which, in turn, 

can result in significant supply 

disruption not only for the gasoline type 

in question, but also for all the fuels 

shipped on the pipeline. For the longer 

term, due to the market splitting into 

different types, some areas in the 

petitioning States may lose access to 

available markets of supply, which may 

then lead to more frequent shortfalls in 

supply during times of disruption (e.g., 

refinery fire, pipeline outage, hurricane, 

etc.). 

Some pipeline companies operate a 

fungible distribution system. This 

allows them to collect a standard type 

of gasoline from refineries into their 

system, ‘‘transport’’ the barrels virtually, 

and draw out identical barrels at their 

destination. The barrels delivered are 

not actually the purchased barrels from 

the refinery, but rather the same product 

from a different refinery meeting the 

same product specifications. An 

additional type of gasoline would 

disrupt their ability to function as 

efficiently using the fungible system. 

This increases the complexity 

associated with ensuring products can 

be distributed to locations in the 

timeframe needed to ensure supply to 

the market. 

The most significant impact on 

pipeline operations caused by the 

removal of the 1-psi waiver, however, 

will be on pipeline breakout tankage 

operations. Breakout tankage is required 

at junctions where pipelines connect 

with other pipelines that have differing 

schedules and flow rates. Thus, the 

pipelines typically need tankage to store 

every grade and type of product 

distributed on the pipeline, with the 

size and configuration of the tankage 

matched to the product and pipeline 

batch sizes. If new regular and premium 

grades of low-RVP CBOB need to be 

shipped on the pipeline, then it may 

require the addition of new tankage at 

these breakout tank facilities. The 

planning, permitting, and construction 

of such additional tankage would 

require two or more years and is likely 

to be an issue at many breakout tankage 

facilities both inside and outside the 

petitioning States. Until this additional 

breakout tankage can be brought into 

service, an impacted pipeline serving 

the petitioning States may be restricted 

to solely distributing either 9.0 psi or 

low-RVP CBOB, limiting gasoline 

supply to either the petitioning States or 

the surrounding States, and in turn 

restricting what the refineries shipping 

on the pipeline are able to produce if 

the pipeline restrictions do not allow for 

the distribution of a particular type of 

gasoline. Some pipelines may opt to 

carry one fuel type and some the other, 

limiting the product offerings at the 

various downstream product terminals. 

As with the refineries, it may be that 

due to tankage and logistical limitations, 

pipelines currently serving both 

petitioning and non-petitioning States 

will have to initially shift all the 

gasoline they carry to low-RVP CBOB, 

which is fungible in both markets. This 

will result in low-RVP CBOB being 

supplied in the surrounding States and 

additional reduction in supply of 

gasoline due to the necessary removal of 

butane and other light hydrocarbons. 

Pipelines would have the option to 

blend in butane during gasoline 

transport to the States with the 1-psi 

waiver that are located at the end of the 

pipeline systems (e.g., North Dakota and 

Michigan). This would provide a market 

for some of the excess butane from 

refineries producing low-RVP CBOB 

and could reduce consumer costs in the 

border States by blending up to 9.0 psi 

RVP CBOB. It could also allow more 

low-RVP CBOB to be produced if there 

are constraints in the markets for 

butane. However, like refineries, many 

pipeline and terminal facilities do not 

currently have the existing 

infrastructure to utilize butane blending. 

Additional tankage and equipment may 

be needed to maximize the potential of 

this opportunity. 

3. Product Terminals 

The potential impact of the removal of 

the 1-psi waiver on product terminals 

varies depending on whether the 

terminals provide gasoline only to the 

petitioning States, or to non-petitioning 

States as well. Those terminals that only 

provide gasoline to the petitioning 

States will be little impacted, as they 

will simply take delivery of replacement 

grades of low-RVP CBOB beginning in 

the spring leading into the summer 

season. They will not have to contend 

with adding additional fuel grades and 

types and the tankage and logistics 

associated with them. This will most 

likely not be the case for terminals that 

serve areas both within and outside the 

petitioning States. If such terminals do 

not have sufficient onsite tankage 

capacity to handle the additional regular 

and premium grades of low-RVP CBOB, 

then they will need to either add the 

tankage or choose to serve one market 

or the other. The decision to serve a 

particular market or fuel type may also 

be dictated by a fuel marketer on the 

retail side. Both options could have 

gasoline supply, cost, and price impacts 

both within the petitioning States and in 

the surrounding areas the terminals 

serve. Approximately 75 such terminals 

are located close to the borders (i.e., 30 

miles) between petitioning States and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
14768 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 41 / Thursday, February 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

44EIA, U.S. Energy Atlas—Oil and Natural Gas 

Maps, https://www.eia.gov/maps. 

45This phenomenon is observed today in SIP and 

RFG areas. 

46 40 CFR 1090.80. We note that given the current 

definition of ‘‘high ozone season,’’ the later date 

will always be one year after receipt of the request 

from a Governor. 

47We recognize that the Missouri petition 

requested that the removal take effect for the 2023 

high ozone season. However, such an effective date 

was not permissible under CAA section 

211(h)(5)(C). 

48CAA section 211(h)(5)(C)(ii). 

49CAA section 211(h)(5)(C). 

non-petitioning States.44 These 

terminals are more likely to provide 

gasoline to both petitioning and nonpetitioning States and will need to 

change their gasoline distribution 

patterns if they lack extra tankage to 

handle the additional low-RVP CBOB 

grades. Since terminals can serve 

gasoline markets up to 200 miles away, 

the number of terminals impacted could 

be significantly greater. If limitations in 

the fuel distribution system cause lowRVP CBOB to be sold in a significant 

portion of the surrounding States to 

improve fungibility of gasoline near the 

petitioning States, the potential impact 

on terminals will be reduced. 

Regardless of whether a terminal 

serves only the petitioning States, or 

also non-petitioning States, all terminals 

will be impacted to some degree by a 

somewhat more challenging transition 

in the spring from winter to summer 

fuel due to the removal of the 1-psi 

waiver, particularly in the first year. 

While this transition occurs every year 

as the terminals blend down the 

volatility of the CBOB they have in 

storage from the higher RVP of winter 

CBOB to the lower RVP of summer 

CBOB, the change of having to blend 

down an additional 1.0 psi to 

accommodate low-RVP CBOB instead of 

9.0 psi RVP CBOB will require some 

additional time and incur additional 

cost. In order to achieve the volatility of 

low-RVP CBOB, pipelines and terminals 

will likely need to blend down their 

winter CBOB with a summer CBOB that 

has an RVP as low as 6.0 psi during this 

transition period. Additionally, 

terminals will likely take steps to ensure 

their tanks are drained as low as 

possible prior to receiving a low-RVP 

CBOB to ensure the finished gasoline 

will comply with the 9.0 psi RVP 

standard, which could result in 

additional delays before the low-RVP 

CBOB begins moving to markets. This 

will likely occur more frequently at 

terminals located within and near the 

border of the petitioning States. 

4. Tank Trucks 

Moving gasoline to market also 

involves tank trucks that deliver the 

gasoline to retail outlets. For terminals 

located within the petitioning States, 

their operations should be little 

impacted by the removal of the 1-psi 

waiver; they will simply pick up a 

different type of gasoline from the 

product terminal than they did before 

and can transport it to market, even 

outside the petitioning States if the 

terminal normally covers the area. 

However, depending on the changes in 

product offering at the terminals, there 

may still be considerable stress on their 

operations. If some refineries, pipelines, 

or terminals limit their product offering 

to either 9.0 psi or low-RVP CBOB, 

especially in the near term, then the 

tank trucks would need to shift their 

operations accordingly. In some cases 

where there is a loss of fuel fungibility, 

this is expected to increase the distances 

traveled, which may in turn require the 

purchase of additional tank trucks and 

hiring of additional drivers. As with the 

rest of the fuel distribution system, this 

can all be accomplished, but will take 

some time for the market to respond and 

optimize around the new norms. 

C. Retail Operations 

The removal of the 1-psi waiver and 

resulting transition from 10.0 psi RVP 

gasoline to 9.0 psi RVP gasoline 

received from the terminal should be 

minor for retail outlets—they will 

simply take delivery of the lowervolatility gasoline from the terminal. 

The most noticeable effects will be seen 

at retail outlets near the borders of 

States maintaining the 1-psi waiver, as 

the cost of 9.0 psi RVP gasoline within 

the petitioning States is likely to be 

higher than that of 10.0 psi RVP 

gasoline across the border in nonpetitioning States. Retailers within the 

petitioning States may have to charge 

higher prices to recoup this cost, which 

could result in consumers preferentially 

choosing to refill at stations across the 

border when possible.45 Retail 

operations located near State lines on 

the border of petitioning and nonpetitioning States may have issues 

scheduling gasoline shipments to their 

retail outlets if tank trucks are shipping 

their gasoline from terminals located 

further away and if there is an initial 

shortage of tank truck operators, 

particularly at the beginning of the 

transition to the new 9.0 psi RVP 

gasoline. As with the rest of the 

distribution system, this can all be 

accomplished, but will take some time 

for the market to respond and optimize 

around the new norms. 

VI. Implementation and Effective Date 

A. Statutory Provisions 

Under CAA section 211(h)(5)(C), the 

regulations removing the 1-psi waiver 

shall take effect on the later of: (1) The 

first day of the first high ozone season 

for the area that begins after the date of 

receipt of the notification; or (2) 1 year 

after the date of receipt of the 

notification. The high ozone season is 

defined in EPA’s regulations as ‘‘June 1 

through September 15 for retailers and 

[wholesale purchaser consumers 

(WPCs)], and May 1 through September 

15 for all other persons,’’ which 

includes gasoline distribution 

terminals.46

In applying this provision for the 

petition dated April 28, 2022, the later 

date is April 28, 2023. Therefore, the 

earliest date on which the removal of 

the 1-psi waiver for Illinois, Iowa, 

Nebraska, Minnesota, South Dakota, and 

Wisconsin could have been effective 

was April 28, 2023. This date would 

have been in advance of the high ozone 

season beginning May 1, 2023. For the 

petition from Ohio, dated June 10, 2022, 

the later date is June 10, 2023. This 

would have placed the effective date 

within the 2023 high ozone season (i.e., 

10 days after the beginning of the high 

ozone season for retailers and WPCs, 

and 41 days after the beginning of the 

high ozone season for all other parties). 

Finally, for the petition from Missouri, 

dated December 21, 2022, the later date 

is December 21, 2023.47 This would 

have placed the effective date after the 

2023 high ozone season. 

Further, under CAA section 

211(h)(5)(C), the effective date can be 

extended if EPA, on its own motion or 

on petition from any person, after 

consultation with the Secretary of 

Energy, determines there would be an 

insufficient supply of gasoline in a State 

that has requested the removal of the 1- 

psi waiver for E10.48 Section 

211(h)(5)(C) further provides that the 

effective date can be extended for not 

more than one year, and that EPA may 

renew the extension for two additional 

periods, each of which shall not exceed 

one year. 

As described above, EPA is allowed to 

extend the effective date of the removal 

of the 1-psi waiver upon a finding of 

‘‘insufficient supply of gasoline in the 

[petitioning] state’’ that would result 

from ‘‘the promulgation of the 

regulations [to remove the 1-psi 

waiver].’’ 49 ‘‘Insufficient supply of 

gasoline’’ is not defined in the statute, 

and thus EPA is interpreting and 

applying the phrase in a manner that is 

consistent with the structure of the 

statute, historical application of similar 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 41 / Thursday, February 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 14769 

50 62 FR 30261, 30263 (June 3, 1997) (‘‘Section 

211(k)(6)(A) of the Act gives the Administrator 

discretion to ‘establish an effective date * * * as he 

deems appropriate* * *.’ EPA interprets this 

provision to mean that it has broad discretion to 

consider any factors reasonably relevant to the 

timing of the effective date. This would include 

factors that affect industry and the potential opt-in 

area. The factors that affect industry could include 

productive capacity and capability, other markets 

for RFG, oxygenate supply, cost, lead time, supply 

logistics for the area, potential price spikes, and 

potential disruption to business.’’) 

51CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(iii)(V). 

52CAA sections 211(m)(3)(C) and (o)(7)(A)(ii). 

53Americans for Clean Energy v. EPA, 864 F.3d 

691, 710 (2017). 

54CAA section 211(h)(5)(C) explicitly 

contemplates the ‘‘supply of gasoline in the State.’’ 

55At proposal, we further explained that the 

effective date for Ohio, would have been within the 

2023 high ozone season (i.e., 10 days after the 

beginning of the high ozone season for retailers and 

WPCs, and 41 days after the beginning of the high 

ozone season for all other parties), while the 

effective date for Missouri would have been 

December 21, 2023, or after the 2023 high ozone 

season. 88 FR 13762 (March 6, 2023). 

56 88 FR 13767 (March 6, 2023). 

57Petition from Magellan (September 16, 2022); 

Petition from API (September 23, 2022); Petition 

from Flint Hills Resources (September 29, 2022); 

Petition from Phillips 66 (September 29, 2022); 

Petition from AFPM and other parties (October 14, 

2022); Petition from HF Sinclair (October 17, 2022); 

Continued 

or related provisions, and congressional 

intent. We interpret ‘‘insufficient supply 

of gasoline’’ to require a demonstration 

that gasoline supply disruptions would 

result from removal of the 1-psi waiver, 

such that the necessary quantities of 

gasoline may not be available in the 

States at the time they are required. It 

is particularly appropriate in this case to 

consider the possibility of supply 

disruptions because this action calls for 

a different type of gasoline to be 

physically produced and transported to 

and within the petitioning States. CAA 

section 211(h)(5) also indicates that our 

analysis of ‘‘insufficient supply’’ should 

be ‘‘in the State’’ petitioning for the 

removal of the 1-psi waiver. That is, if 

there was insufficient supply only in a 

single State, we could extend the 

effective date for that State only. This 

contrasts with CAA section 

211(c)(4)(C)(iii)(I), which calls for 

consideration of supply constraints in 

‘‘the smallest geographic area.’’ 

Therefore, our analysis properly 

considers any state-specific factors, and 

examines the supply in the State. 

In considering the likelihood of 

supply disruptions, we look to the 

entire production and distribution 

chain, from the refineries where 

gasoline is produced, through 

distribution systems such as pipelines 

and trucking, and ultimately to the retail 

outlets. This reading is also similar to 

EPA’s interpretation of other provisions 

in CAA section 211 that call for 

consideration of constraints on fuel 

supply when EPA is acting on petitions 

within the fuels program. For instance, 

CAA section 211(k)(6)(A)(ii) allows 

EPA, after consultation with the 

Department of Energy, to extend the 

effective date for a State that has 

petitioned to opt into the RFG program 

for a period that is up to one year from 

the date of receipt of the petition upon 

a finding of insufficient domestic 

capacity to produce RFG. A related 

provision in CAA section 

211(k)(6)(B)(iii) allows EPA to extend 

the effective date for areas within the 

ozone transport region established 

under CAA section 184 that opt into 

RFG, upon a finding of insufficient 

capacity to supply RFG. Like the phrase 

‘‘insufficient supply of gasoline’’ in 

CAA section 211(h)(5)(C), the statute 

does not define either ‘‘insufficient 

domestic capacity’’ or ‘‘insufficient 

capacity to supply RFG.’’ But in acting 

on petitions to opt into the RFG 

program, EPA has explained that setting 

the effective date allows EPA to 

consider any sudden and unexpected 

increases in the demand for RFG on the 

local supply and distribution system 

that is caused by an opt-in.50

EPA’s reading of ‘‘adequate supply’’ 

in CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(ii) comports 

with our interpretation of CAA section 

211(h)(5)(C) given that Congress 

intended for EPA to act in certain 

unique emergency circumstances to 

relieve supply disruptions within the 

‘‘motor fuel distribution system.’’ 51 And 

while ‘‘motor fuel distribution system’’ 

is not defined in the statute, EPA’s 

historical practice in granting waivers 

under CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(ii) has 

been to consider all stages of the 

gasoline production and distribution 

system within States that are 

experiencing emergency circumstances. 

In contrast, the phrase ‘‘insufficient 

supply of gasoline’’ differs from other 

sub-provisions of CAA section 211 

allowing for waivers of applicable 

requirements as well as implementation 

delays that use language such as 

‘‘inadequate domestic supply.’’ 52 The 

D.C. Circuit has provided guidance on 

the meaning of ‘‘inadequate domestic 

supply’’ in CAA section 211(o)(7)(A)(ii), 

finding that EPA may properly consider 

‘‘supply side factors—such as 

production and import capacity,’’ but 

not downstream effects.53 The court, in 

viewing the statutory scheme of the RFS 

program, further specified that the 

supply of renewable fuel to refiners, 

blenders, and importers properly 

considers the factors necessary to get 

renewable fuel to refiners, blenders, and 

importers, but not to market actors 

‘‘downstream from refiners, importers, 

and blenders.’’ We find that the analysis 

under CAA section 211(h)(5) extends to 

include market actors downstream from 

refiners, importers, and blenders, as the 

gasoline distribution system is a key 

component to the availability of 

gasoline in the State.54 The analysis 

properly considers production factors, 

as well as the distribution of fuel from 

the refinery, through the distribution 

chain (including pipelines and 

terminals) to the ultimate endpoint of 

the gasoline distribution chain—the 

retail outlet. Further, CAA section 

211(h)(5) explicitly contemplates the 

‘‘supply of gasoline in the State.’’ 

Finally, we note that consideration of 

the effective date for this action 

properly considers supply to the 

ultimate consumer given the statutory 

language ‘‘in the State.’’ Therefore, our 

analysis of ‘‘insufficient supply of 

gasoline’’ properly considers all stages 

of the gasoline production and 

distribution system, from the refinery to 

the retail outlet. 

B. Finding of Insufficient Supply for 

2024 and Renewal of Extension of 

Effective Date 

CAA section 211(h)(5)(C)(ii)(I) 

requires a determination of insufficient 

supply of gasoline in order to extend the 

effective date of the removal of the 1-psi 

waiver. We determined that a 2023 

implementation date would result in 

insufficient supply of gasoline and 

proposed an effective date of April 28, 

2024, for removal of the 1-psi waiver in 

all petitioning States.55 We also sought 

comment on renewing the extension of 

the effective date for removal of the 1- 

psi waiver for an additional year (i.e., 

until the summer of 2025).56 We 

received comments for and against the 

proposed effective date. Commenters 

against the proposed dates argued that 

we could still implement the rule for the 

2023 summer season, despite the mere 

two weeks between the end of the 

comment period and the beginning of 

the 2023 summer season for terminals 

and refiners. Commenters in support of 

the proposed delay argued that a 2023 

effective date would be either 

‘‘impractical’’ or ‘‘impossible.’’ 

Further, in response to and after the 

proposal, we received petitions from 

numerous stakeholders requesting a 

delay of the proposed effective date 

until either 2025 or 2026. These 

stakeholders posited that the extension 

of the effective date would be supported 

by the Administrator’s finding of 

insufficient supply of gasoline pursuant 

to CAA section 211(h)(5)(C)(ii)(I).57


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
14770 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 41 / Thursday, February 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Petition from Magellan (August 19, 2023); Petition 

from Kevin Stitt, Governor of Oklahoma (August 25, 

2023); Petition from API (September 29, 2023); 

Petition from AFPM (September 29, 2023); Petition 

from Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Governor of 

Arkansas (October 9, 2023); Petition from Superior 

Refining (October 13, 2023); Petition from Phillips 

66 (October 18, 2023); Petition from CountryMark 

(October 25, 2023); Petition from Yesway 

(November 1, 2023); Petition from HF Sinclair 

(November 15, 2023). 

58Our detailed finding of insufficient supply for 

2023 can be found at 88 FR 13767 (March 6, 2023). 

59EPA also received several petitions for further 

delay beyond 2024. See Petition from Magellan 

(August 25, 2023); Petition from Kevin Stitt, 

Governor of Oklahoma (August 25, 2023); Petition 

from API (September 29, 2023); Petition from AFPM 

(September 29, 2023); Petition from Sarah Huckabee 

Sanders, Governor of Arkansas (October 9, 2023); 

Petition from Superior Refining (October 13, 2023); 

Petition from Phillips 66 (October 18, 2023); 

Petition from CountryMark (October 25, 2023); 

Petition from Yesway (November 1, 2023); Petition 

from HF Sinclair (November 15, 2023). 

60 ‘‘Technical Support Document for the Proposed 

Removal of the 1-psi Waiver,’’ available in the 

docket for this action. 

61Baker and O’Brien, ‘‘Midwest States Gasoline 

RVP—1 psi Waiver Study, Report for American 

Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers,’’ February 

24, 2023. Submitted as part of comments from 

AFPM, Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2022– 

0513–0077. 

62Memorandum to the Docket: Meeting Log for 

Requests from States to Remove the Gasoline 

Volatility Waiver. 

63Low gasoline inventories in PADD 2 were an 

additional bases for the emergency fuel waivers 

issued under CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(ii)(I) during 

the summer of 2023. See Letter from EPA 

Administrator to Governors, ‘‘May 1, 2023, E15 

Reid Vapor Pressure Fuel Waiver,’’ April 28, 2023 

(‘‘The Midwest region—the region that has the most 

ability to increase supply with blending an 

increased percentage of ethanol—has gasoline 

stocks below the five-year seasonal average for this 

time of year.’’). 

64Based on our discussions with EIA, gasoline 

supply begins to be a concern when gasoline 

inventories drop below the 5-year minimum for any 

particular PADD. 

65Bloomberg News, ‘‘Nearly 2.5 Million Barrels a 

Day of US Refining Capacity to Shut for Fall 

Maintenance,’’ October 2, 2023, https://www.bnn

bloomberg.ca/nearly-2-5-million-barrels-a-day-ofus-refining-capacity-to-shut-for-fall-maintenance1.1979186. 

66EIA, Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2023, Table 

11, https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo. AEO 2023 

also estimates that gasoline demand will decrease 

by 140 kbpd in 2025 relative to 2024. 

After consideration of comments and 

extension petitions, EPA is acting on its 

own motion to renew the extension of 

the proposed effective date for an 

additional year from April 28, 2024, to 

April 28, 2025. In sum, the 

circumstances that justified a finding of 

insufficient supply of gasoline and 

extension of the effective date for 2023 

have not attenuated. Additionally, we 

have consulted with the Department of 

Energy, consistent with the CAA section 

211(h)(5)(C)(ii)(I). We are not acting on 

petitions that requested a 2026 effective 

date, and these petitions remain 

pending. In this section we discuss our 

finding that there would be an 

insufficient supply of gasoline in 2024. 

At proposal, we provided the 

rationale for our determination of 

insufficient supply for 2023; we 

assessed the following three supply 

constraints: (1) Low gasoline 

inventories; (2) The limited time 

available for coordination between 

various parties to make the necessary 

physical changes to the gasoline 

production and distribution 

infrastructure; and (3) The physical loss 

of supply necessary to produce low-RVP 

CBOB. We determined that these 

constraints would likely have led to 

supply disruptions in the petitioning 

States in 2023.58

We have now assessed gasoline 

supply impacts associated with an 

effective date in 2024 and updated our 

analyses of these supply constraints.59

As discussed further in detail below and 

in the TSD, our updated analyses found: 

(1) Continued low gasoline inventories 

in PADD 2; (2) The limited time 

available after the promulgation of this 

action for coordination between various 

parties to make the necessary physical 

changes to the gasoline production and 

distribution infrastructure; and (3) 

Greater reduction in supply as a result 

of the removal of the 1-psi waiver than 

estimated at the time of the proposal. 

We also considered the following: (1) 

The lack of sufficient time to make the 

capital investments and physical 

changes to refineries and the fuel 

distribution system; and (2) Less 

flexibility within the fuel distribution 

system than had been anticipated to 

adequately mitigate the supply 

reduction until such time as the capital 

and physical changes can be made. We 

are therefore renewing the extension of 

the delay of the effective date for an 

additional year to April 28, 2025. 

Since proposal, we have conducted an 

updated analysis to quantify the 

reduction in gasoline supply that would 

result from the removal of the 1-psi 

waiver. At proposal, we estimated the 

reduction in supply as 20 thousand 

barrels per day (kbpd) based on the 

removal of light hydrocarbons—mostly 

butane—to reduce the volatility of 

CBOB.60 In response to our proposal, 

AFPM commissioned a study of supply 

reductions that quantified the reduction 

in gasoline supply at 88–120 kbpd.61 We 

also conducted a series of meetings with 

refiners regarding the supply impacts 

associated with the removal of the 1-psi 

waiver in the petitioning States.62 As 

further described in the TSD, based on 

our discussions with refiners and our 

review of the comments, we now 

estimate that gasoline production by 

refineries supplying gasoline to the 

petitioning States would likely decrease 

by 30–80 kbpd as a result of the 

transition to low-RVP CBOB. Our 

estimate increased from the proposal 

primarily because a significant number 

of refineries that choose to produce lowRVP CBOB will need to reduce other 

less-volatile hydrocarbons (e.g., NGLs), 

which will have a larger impact on 

gasoline supply. On average, refineries 

producing low-RVP CBOB are estimated 

to produce 3–4 percent less gasoline 

compared to producing 9.0 psi RVP 

CBOB, particularly when removal of the 

1-psi waiver is first implemented. We 

acknowledge that the possibility of 

drawing down gasoline inventories, 

increasing gasoline supply from other 

regions (e.g., Gulf Coast), and reblending 

some higher-volatility gasoline 

blendstocks at terminals in nonpetitioning States could mitigate the 

supply reduction to some extent. 

However, we believe that these 

mitigating actions would fall far short of 

offsetting the projected supply 

reductions for the 2024 summer season. 

Further, at proposal we noted that 

while the gasoline inventories in PADD 

2 (the affected region) was low, we 

believed that it would likely return 

closer to historic levels due to the 

previously shut-down Midwest 

refineries returning to operation. 

However, even though these refineries 

have since come back online— 

increasing gasoline production in the 

region—the gasoline inventories in 

PADD 2 63 have continued to be at levels 

of concern.64 Furthermore, we have 

been made aware of the fact that refiners 

have had a heavy maintenance season at 

their refineries in the fall of 2023 and 

are planning a heavy maintenance 

season for the first quarter of 2024. This 

means that gasoline production capacity 

will be taken offline for several months 

at a key time during the winter season 

when gasoline inventories are typically 

replenished prior to the next summer 

season.65 Additionally, gasoline 

demand is still expected to increase. 

EIA estimates that national gasoline 

demand will increase by 60 kbpd in 

2024 compared to 2023, further 

straining gasoline inventories and 

supply.66 Thus, we anticipate that 

gasoline inventories in PADD 2 will not 

recover sufficiently by the 2024 summer 

season to alleviate the estimated loss of 

gasoline supply that would occur when 

low-RVP CBOB is produced. Further, 

due to a separate and unrelated 

regulatory action, the prohibition on 

sale of conventional gasoline in the 

Denver metropolitan area began on 

November 7, 2023. This means that 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 41 / Thursday, February 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 14771 

67 87 FR 60926, 60932–33 (October 7, 2022). 

68Capital grassroots projects typically require 3– 

4 years to engineer, design, purchase, permit and 

install. Smaller projects that can ‘‘debottleneck’’ 

individual refinery units (e.g., replacing a furnace, 

heat exchanger, or reactor) typically require 2–2.5 

years to complete, while much smaller projects 

(e.g., replacing a valve or pump or adding or 

increasing the size of piping) may be designed and 

completed in a year or less. These types of capital 

investments can help a refinery produce additional 

low-RVP CBOB. Shell, ‘‘Thriving in the new reality: 

Refinery revamp projects FAQ; Shell Catalysts and 

Technologies,’’ https://www.shell.com/businesscustomers/catalysts-technologies/resources-library/ 

refinery-revamp-faq.html. 

69From April 28, 2023, to August 28, 2023, EPA 

issued a waiver under CAA section 

211(c)(4)(C)(ii)(I) that facilitated E15 sales during 

the summer of 2023. 

70See, e.g., comments from Magellan (Docket 

Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2022–0513–0042), API 

(Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2022–0513–0056), 

and HF Sinclair (Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2022–0513–0076). 

71 Discussion of the supply circumstances in the 

summer of 2025 is available in TSD Section 7. 

gasoline sold in that area must comply 

with a 7.4 psi RVP requirement 

beginning with the 2024 summer 

season.67 This is expected to cause an 

additional 5–10 kbpd reduction in 

gasoline supply in the same 2024 

summer season. Although Denver is not 

in a petitioning State, some gasoline is 

currently supplied to this region from 

refineries that also produce gasoline for 

the petitioning States, resulting in 

additional strain on gasoline supply in 

the region. 

As also described in Section V and 

the TSD, capital investments will be 

necessary for some refiners and fuel 

distributors to accommodate a transition 

to low-RVP CBOB in the petitioning 

States. This includes investments for the 

storage of additional gasoline types and 

grades, storage of excess butane and 

LSR, and associated measures for 

piping, pumping, and spill containment. 

We also anticipate that refineries would 

need to debottleneck debutanizers and 

octane-producing units to enable the 

production of low-RVP CBOB.68 These 

capital investments typically require 

time to come online. For example, 

projects to debottleneck existing 

refinery units typically require 2–2.5 

years to engineer, design, purchase, 

permit and install. Under an assumption 

that refiners and fuel distributors could 

have begun the planning process for 

debottlenecking a refinery unit or 

installing a gasoline storage tank after 

the first State filed its petition in April 

2022, or after EPA proposed to remove 

the 1-psi waiver in the petitioning States 

in early 2023, there would be 

insufficient time prior to the summer of 

2024 to complete the desired capital 

additions. However, based on 

discussions with refiners, pipeline 

operators, and terminal operators, as 

well as public comments, many of the 

needed capital investments were not 

initiated in 2022 due in part to: (1) The 

uncertainty created by several States 

rescinding their petitions during 2022; 

(2) The emergency fuel waivers under 

CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(ii)(I) extending 

the 1-psi RVP waiver to E15 during the 

2023 summer season; 69 and (3) 

Potential congressional action that 

would extend the 1-psi waiver to E15 

nationwide.70 Without initiation in 

2022, many of the necessary capital 

investments are unlikely to be 

completed by the summer of 2024. 

In addition, supplying the new lowRVP CBOB will require coordinated 

investments, planning, and actions 

between refineries, pipelines and other 

fuel distribution companies, terminals, 

and retail outlets. Typically, this 

coordination occurs before winter to 

provide the fuel production and 

distribution system a chance to make 

the proper preparations; we are now 

past the point in the calendar when 

such coordination typically occurs. We 

are also entering into the timeframe 

when most refineries have already 

started producing summer gasoline. As 

such, refineries will not have sufficient 

and appropriate notice to begin 

modifying their fuel supply for the 

summer of 2024. 

Finally, we assumed at proposal that 

flexibility within the fuel production 

and distribution system could allow 

refiners and fuel distributors to mitigate 

the projected 2024 summer season 

supply reduction until such time as 

capital and physical changes could be 

completed. However, based on 

subsequent comment and analysis, we 

now believe that the existing flexibility 

would not be sufficient, particularly in 

light of the larger anticipated supply 

reduction and lingering low gasoline 

inventories in PADD 2. 

For the above-mentioned reasons, 

supported by additional detail and 

analysis in the TSD, we are making a 

determination that there will be an 

insufficient supply of gasoline in the 

petitioning States in the 2024 summer 

season and, therefore, are renewing the 

extension of the effective date of the 

removal of the 1-psi waiver by an 

additional year to April 28, 2025.71

VII. Cost and Price Impacts 

There are associated costs with the 

changes to the refining and gasoline 

distribution systems described in 

Sections V and VI. Part of the costs will 

be incurred by the refining sector, while 

another portion will be incurred by the 

gasoline distribution system. Gasoline 

refining costs will increase due to 

several factors, the largest portion of 

which is the lost opportunity cost for 

refiners having to sell the removed light 

hydrocarbon material at lower market 

prices instead of blending this material 

into high value summer gasoline. To the 

extent that refiners and distributers 

install capital equipment, there are also 

additional capital and associated 

operating costs that will need to be 

recouped over time. These costs will be 

passed along to consumers in the 

petitioning and surrounding States in 

the form of higher gasoline prices. 

With respect to consumer fuel prices, 

while fuel prices generally reflect fuel 

costs in the competitive gasoline 

market, this may not be the case when 

removal of the 1-psi waiver is first 

implemented, as gasoline supply will be 

reduced and not yet recovered. Due to 

the reduced supply, there will likely be 

a reduction in PADD 2 gasoline 

inventories, which could further 

increase gasoline prices. Due to the 

challenges that some refiners may have 

in producing low-RVP CBOB and the 

associated impacts on gasoline 

inventories, fuel prices will likely 

exceed fuel costs because the marginal 

cost producer will set the fuel price. 

This will likely affect gasoline prices in 

both petitioning and non-petitioning 

States and result in higher gasoline 

prices at the pump for consumers. The 

potential cost and price impacts due to 

the removal of the 1-psi waiver are 

discussed in more detail in the TSD. 

As discussed above, under the 

relevant CAA provisions, upon 

receiving a petition from a State 

Governor that is accompanied by a 

successful demonstration of emissions 

increases as a result of the 1-psi waiver, 

EPA is required to remove the 1-psi 

waiver in the areas requested by the 

Governor. In deciding whether to grant 

the petition, the statute does not provide 

EPA with the authority to consider fuel 

cost or price impacts and we assume 

that any fuel cost or price impacts to 

consumers were taken into 

consideration by the Governors of the 

petitioning States in submitting their 

petitions. Therefore, regardless of the 

magnitude of the impact of this action 

on fuel costs or prices, EPA has not 

considered them in this action. 

VIII. Associated Regulatory Provisions 

In the NPRM, we proposed changes to 

the fuel quality regulations at 40 CFR 

part 1090 to implement the removal of 

the 1-psi waiver in the petitioning 

States. Specifically, we proposed to 

include new designation and associated 

product transfer document (PTD) 

language requirements and a regulatory 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
14772 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 41 / Thursday, February 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

72The designation and PTD language 

requirements for gasoline are located at 40 CFR 

1090.1010 and 1090.1110, respectively. 

73We are not reopening the regulations associated 

with removal of a federal 7.8 psi low-RVP program 

in a given area (40 CFR 1090.295) or the regulations 

that allow states to opt-out of the federal RFG 

program (40 CFR 1090.290). 

74 85 FR 78412 (December 4, 2020). 

75 84 FR 26980 (June 10, 2019). 

76See 84 FR 26980, 26983 (June 10, 2019) (‘‘In 

sum, all actions we are taking today constitute a 

single, cohesive effort, and as such we do not 

intend for any of these individual actions to be 

severable’’). 

77 56 FR 5352 (February 11, 1991). 

78 73 FR 22277 (April 25, 2008). 

79 84 FR 26980 (June 10, 2019). 

mechanism for States to request the 

reinstatement of the 1-psi waiver under 

CAA section 211(h)(5). We are finalizing 

these changes as proposed, and we 

respond to comments received on the 

proposed regulatory changes in the RTC 

document. 

A. New Designation and Associated 

PTD Language 

We are finalizing as proposed a new 

designation and associated PTD 

language for summer CBOB in States 

where the 1-psi waiver for E10 has been 

removed under CAA section 211(h)(5).72

Designations and PTD language 

requirements help ensure that batches of 

fuel are distributed and used in a 

manner consistent with EPA’s fuel 

quality requirements. Without proper 

designation, summer gasolines with 

different volatilities intended for use in 

different areas may get commingled in 

a fungible system, causing the 

introduction and use of non-compliant 

gasoline in areas that require lowervolatility fuels in the summer. 

Similarly, PTD language serves to 

ensure that parties in the fuel 

distribution chain are aware of the 

designation of the fuel and 

accompanying Federal requirements for 

the distribution and use of the fuel. 

Because we are finalizing requirements 

for a new type of summer CBOB in this 

action, we need to create a new 

designation and accompanying PTD 

language to ensure that the new CBOB 

is distributed and used consistent with 

the RVP requirements. 

In this action, we are requiring 

gasoline manufacturers to designate 

summer CBOB for use in States where 

we have removed the 1-psi waiver as 

‘‘Low-RVP Summer CBOB.’’ We are also 

finalizing as proposed related changes 

to the PTD language requirements so 

that gasoline manufacturers that 

produce Low-RVP Summer CBOB can 

accurately and consistently describe the 

fuel designation. All other designation 

and PTD provisions will still apply (e.g., 

those designations related to the 

blending of ethanol). We believe this 

approach is the most straight-forward 

method for updating the designation 

and PTD requirements for Low-RVP 

Summer CBOB. 

B. Regulatory Reinstatement Mechanism 

We are finalizing as proposed a 

regulatory mechanism for States to 

request the reinstatement of the 1-psi 

waiver under CAA section 211(h)(5). 

This regulatory mechanism will be 

available for the petitioning States, as 

well as any other State for which EPA 

removes the 1-psi waiver under CAA 

section 211(h)(5) in the future. The 

regulations provide all States with 

criteria under which such a request 

could be made and granted. We 

modeled the regulatory mechanism for 

reinstatement of the 1-psi waiver on the 

regulations in 40 CFR 1090.295 that 

allow for the removal of 7.8 psi RVP 

standard.73 Under the reinstatement 

mechanism, we are requiring that the 

State only has to request the 

reinstatement of the 1-psi waiver in 

order for EPA to reinstate it; however, 

if the State has relied on the 1-psi 

waiver removal in a SIP, either pending 

or approved, EPA, in consultation with 

the State, must determine if such a SIP 

must be revised. If a revision is 

necessary, the State must revise the SIP 

and EPA must approve the revision 

prior to the effective date of the 

reinstatement of the 1-psi waiver. Such 

requests must include a requested 

effective date, and any such effective 

date must be at least 90 days after EPA’s 

written notification to the State that 

their request has been approved. 

IX. Removal of the 1-psi Waiver for E15 

This action also amends 40 CFR part 

1090 to reflect the 2021 court decision 

in American Fuel and Petrochemical 

Manufacturers (AFPM) v. EPA, 3 F.4th 

373 (D.C. Cir. 2021), vacating the 1-psi 

volatility waiver for E15 in 40 CFR 

1090.215(b)(2). The Administrative 

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), 

provides that, when an agency for good 

cause finds that notice and public 

procedures are impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest, the agency may issue a rule 

without providing notice and an 

opportunity for public comment. EPA 

has determined that there is good cause 

for amending these provisions without 

prior proposal and opportunity for 

public comment because the correction 

of 40 CFR part 1090 is a ministerial act 

to effectuate the court order and public 

notice and comment is unnecessary and 

would serve no useful purpose. 

Modification of the regulations to 

eliminate the 1-psi waiver for E15 at 40 

CFR 1090.215(b)(2) has no legal effect 

beyond fulfilling the court’s vacatur in 

AFPM v. EPA and is ministerial in 

nature. The court issued its mandate on 

September 17, 2021, at which point the 

vacatur became effective. 

A. Background 

In June 2019, EPA finalized a rule 

modifying volatility regulations for 

gasoline-ethanol blends containing more 

than 10 and up to 15 percent ethanol to 

provide a 1-psi RVP volatility ‘‘waiver.’’ 

The rule was challenged in the D.C. 

Circuit by AFPM and other groups in 

June 2019. The court issued its decision 

on July 2, 2021, vacating the volatility 

rule, and subsequently issued the 

mandate for its decision on September 

17, 2021. 

This action updates our regulations to 

reflect the court’s vacatur of the 

volatility rule. Subsequent to the 

promulgation of the volatility rule and 

the corresponding regulations at 40 CFR 

80.27, in December 2020, EPA finalized 

its fuels regulatory streamlining effort 

and transposed the regulations, with 

minor changes, to 40 CFR 1090.215.74

We are now making the necessary 

amendments to the regulations at 40 

CFR 1090.215 to be consistent with the 

court’s vacatur. 

We are also clarifying the status of the 

‘‘substantially similar’’ determination 

for gasoline made in the same action. 

Because the 2019 interpretative rule 75

was promulgated solely for the purpose 

of providing the 1-psi waiver to E15, 

and because the court vacated the entire 

volatility rule, the 2019 interpretative 

rule is rescinded.76 Thus, the only 

‘‘substantially similar’’ determinations 

for gasoline are: (1) The 1991 

interpretative rule,77 and (2) The 2008 

interpretative rule.78

Finally, in the same rulemaking 

action, EPA promulgated regulations 

related to the RFS credit or ‘‘RIN’’ 

market.79 These regulations were not 

challenged, were severable from the 

action to extend the 1-psi waiver to E15, 

and remain in place. EPA is noting this 

for informational purposes only; we are 

not reopening these RFS regulations 

here. 

B. Affected Provisions 

This final rule amends the fuel quality 

regulations at 40 CFR part 1090, 

subparts C and R, to remove the 1-psi 

waiver for E15 contained in 40 CFR 

1090.215(b)(2) and 1090.1720(e) by 

replacing the phrases ‘‘15 volume 

percent’’ and ‘‘15 percent’’ with ‘‘10 

volume percent’’ and ‘‘10 percent,’’ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 41 / Thursday, February 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 14773 

80See TSD Section 8. 

respectively. As explained above, 

removal of the 1-psi waiver for E15 

corrects the CFR to conform to the 

court’s order in AFPM v. EPA, has no 

legal effect beyond fulfilling the court’s 

vacatur, and is ministerial in nature. 

The court issued the mandate for its 

decision on September 17, 2021, at 

which point the vacatur became 

effective. 

X. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

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

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory 

Review 

This action is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action,’’ as defined under section 3(f)(1) 

of Executive Order 12866, as amended 

by Executive Order 14094. Accordingly, 

EPA submitted this action to the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) for 

Executive Order 12866 review. 

Documentation of any changes made in 

response to the Executive Order 12866 

review is available in the docket. EPA 

prepared an analysis of the potential 

costs and benefits associated with this 

action. This analysis is presented in the 

TSD, available in the docket for this 

action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden under the 

PRA. OMB has previously approved the 

information collection activities 

contained in the existing regulations 

and has assigned OMB control number 

2060–0731. This action removes the 1- 

psi waiver in eight States. It does not 

alter practices used by the existing 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements, nor does it change the 

number or type of respondents and the 

manner in which they satisfy the fuel 

designation and PTD requirements. 

C. 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 small refiners (which are 

defined at 13 CFR 121.201) that produce 

or distribute gasoline in Illinois, Iowa, 

Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, 

South Dakota, or Wisconsin. This action 

removes the 1-psi waiver for E10 in 

these States. EPA is not aware of any 

small refiner that operates in these 

States. However, EPA is aware of at least 

one small refiner that distributes a 

portion of the gasoline it produces to 

some of the petitioning States, and thus 

will be affected this action. Therefore, to 

evaluate the impacts of this action on 

small entities, we have conducted a 

screening analysis to assess whether we 

should make a finding that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities.80 Currently available 

information shows that the impact on 

small entities from implementation of 

this rule will not be significant. As 

discussed in Section VII and the TSD, 

we expect that refiners, including small 

refiners, will be able to recover the cost 

associated with the removal of the 1-psi 

waiver through higher gasoline prices in 

the petitioning and surrounding States. 

Even if we were to assume that the cost 

of producing low-RVP CBOB was not 

recovered by refiners, a cost-to-sales 

ratio test shows that the costs to small 

refiners of the removal of the 1-psi 

waiver are far less than 1 percent of the 

value of their sales. Furthermore, the 

removal of the 1-psi waiver in these 

States does not substantively alter the 

regulatory requirements on parties that 

make and distribute gasoline. We have 

therefore concluded that this action will 

not have any significant adverse 

economic impact on directly regulated 

small entities. 

D. 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 implements mandates 

specifically and explicitly set forth in 

CAA section 211(h)(5) and we believe 

that this action represents the least 

costly, most cost-effective approach to 

achieve the statutory requirements. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It 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. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have Tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. This action will be 

implemented at the State level and 

would affect gasoline refiners, blenders, 

marketers, distributors, and importers. 

Tribal governments would be affected 

only to the extent they produce, 

purchase, and use gasoline. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

G. 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. Therefore, this action 

is not subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it implements specific 

standards established by Congress in 

statutes. 

H. 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 removes the 1-psi waiver for 

eight States. As discussed in Section V, 

it will require changes to the production 

and distribution of gasoline, which is 

expected to have some short- and longterm impacts on gasoline supply and 

cost in the affected areas, but we believe 

the market will be able to accommodate 

the change without any significant 

disruption. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 

Part 51 

This action does not involve technical 

standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

EPA believes that the human health 

and environmental conditions that exist 

prior to this action do not result in 

disproportionate and adverse effects on 

communities with environmental justice 

concerns. Numerous studies have found 

that environmental hazards such as air 

pollution are more prevalent in areas 

where people of color and low-income 

populations represent a higher fraction 

of the population compared to the 

general population. In addition, there is 

ample evidence that people who reside 

in close proximity to major roadways 

are disproportionately represented by 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
14774 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 41 / Thursday, February 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

people of color and people with low 

income. 

EPA believes that this action is not 

likely to result in new disproportionate 

and adverse effects on communities 

with environmental justice concerns. 

This is because any emissions impacts 

of this action are small. As described in 

Section IV.B, MOVES modeling 

performed by the States in support of 

their petitions demonstrated a reduction 

in VOCs, CO, and NOX, as well as 

potential increases in emissions of 

pollutants such as PM. This action is 

being implemented at the request of the 

Governors of the petitioning States and 

EPA lacks discretion to deny such 

requests as described in Section III. 

EPA additionally identified and 

addressed EJ concerns by providing the 

relevant emissions information in this 

rulemaking action and providing an 

opportunity for public comment on this 

rule. We received no comments related 

to EJ concerns. 

The information supporting this 

Executive Order review is contained in 

this preamble and the ‘‘Evaluation of 

MOVES Modeling and Results,’’ 

available in the docket for this action. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. This action meets the criteria set 

forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 1090 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Fuel additives, 

Gasoline, Petroleum, Renewable fuel. 

Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 

1090 as follows: 

PART 1090—REGULATION OF FUELS, 

FUEL ADDITIVES, AND REGULATED 

BLENDSTOCKS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1090 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7521, 7522– 

7525, 7541, 7542, 7543, 7545, 7547, 7550, 

and 7601. 

Subpart C—Gasoline Standards 

■ 2. Amend § 1090.215 by: 

■ a. In paragraph (b)(2), removing the 

text ‘‘than 15’’ and adding in its place 

the text ‘‘than 10’’; and 

■ b. Revising paragraph (b)(3). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 1090.215 Gasoline RVP Standards. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3)(i) RFG and SIP-controlled gasoline 

that does not allow for the ethanol 1.0 

psi waiver does not qualify for the 

special regulatory treatment specified in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section. 

(ii) Gasoline subject to the 9.0 psi 

maximum RVP per-gallon standard in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section in the 

following areas is excluded from the 

special regulatory treatment specified in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section: 

TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (b)(3)(ii)— 

AREAS EXCLUDED FROM THE ETHANOL 1.0 psi WAIVER

State Counties Effective date 

Illinois .............. All ......... April 28, 2025. 

Iowa ................. All ......... April 28, 2025. 

Minnesota ........ All ......... April 28, 2025. 

Missouri ........... All ......... April 28, 2025. 

Nebraska ......... All ......... April 28, 2025. 

Ohio ................. All ......... April 28, 2025. 

South Dakota .. All ......... April 28, 2025. 

Wisconsin ........ All ......... April 28, 2025. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Add § 1090.297 to read as follows: 

§ 1090.297 Procedures for reinstating the 

1.0 psi RVP allowance for E10. 

(a) EPA may approve a request from 

a State asking to reinstate the ethanol 

1.0 psi waiver specified in 

§ 1090.215(b)(1) for any area (or portion 

of an area) specified in 

§ 1090.215(b)(3)(ii) if it meets the 

requirements of paragraph (b) of this 

section. If EPA approves such a request, 

an effective date will be set as specified 

in paragraph (c) of this section. EPA will 

notify the State in writing of EPA’s 

action on the request and the effective 

date of the reinstatement upon approval 

of the request. 

(b) The request must be signed by the 

Governor of the State, or the Governor’s 

authorized representative, and must 

include all the following: 

(1) A geographic description of each 

area (or portion of such area) that is 

covered by the request. 

(2) A description of all the means in 

which emissions reduction from the 

removal of the ethanol 1.0 psi waiver 

are relied upon in any approved SIP or 

in any submitted SIP that has not yet 

been approved by EPA, if applicable. 

(3) For any area covered by the 

request where emissions reductions 

from the removal of the ethanol 1.0 psi 

waiver are relied upon as specified in 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the 

request must include the following 

information: 

(i) Identify whether the State is 

withdrawing any submitted SIP that has 

not yet been approved. 

(ii)(A) Identify whether the State 

intends to submit a SIP revision to any 

approved SIP or any submitted SIP that 

has not yet been approved, which relies 

on emissions reductions from the 

removal of the ethanol 1.0 psi waiver, 

and describe any control measures that 

the State plans to submit to EPA for 

approval to replace the emissions 

reductions from the removal of the 

ethanol 1.0 psi waiver. 

(B) A description of the State’s plans 

and schedule for adopting and 

submitting any revision to any approved 

SIP or any submitted SIP that has not 

yet been approved. 

(iii) If the State is not withdrawing 

any submitted SIP that has not yet been 

approved and does not intend to submit 

a revision to any approved SIP or any 

submitted SIP that has not yet been 

approved, describe why no revision is 

necessary. 

(4) A requested effective date of the 

reinstatement of the ethanol 1.0 psi 

waiver. 

(5) The Governor of a State, or the 

Governor’s authorized representative, 

must submit additional information 

needed to administer the reinstatement 

of the ethanol 1.0 psi waiver upon 

request by EPA. 

(c)(1) Except as specified in paragraph 

(c)(2) of this section, EPA will set an 

effective date of the reinstatement of the 

ethanol 1.0 psi waiver as requested by 

the Governor, or the Governor’s 

authorized representative, but no less 

than 90 days from EPA’s written 

notification to the State approving the 

reinstatement request. 

(2) Where emissions reductions from 

the removal of the ethanol 1.0 psi 

waiver are included in an approved SIP 

or any submitted SIP that has not yet 

been approved, EPA will set an effective 

date of the reinstatement of the ethanol 

1.0 psi waiver as requested by the 

Governor, or the Governor’s authorized 

representative, but no less than 90 days 

from the effective date of EPA approval 

of the SIP revision that removes the 

emissions reductions from the ethanol 

1.0 psi waiver, and, if necessary, 

provides emissions reductions to make 

up for those from the ethanol 1.0 psi 

waiver reinstatement. 

(d) EPA will publish a document in 

the Federal Register announcing the 

approval of any ethanol 1.0 psi waiver 

reinstatement request and its effective 

date. 

(e) Upon the effective date for the 

reinstatement of the ethanol 1.0 psi 

waiver in a subject area (or portion of 

a subject area) included in an approved 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 41 / Thursday, February 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 14775 

request, the ethanol 1.0 psi waiver will 

apply in such subject area. 

Subpart K—Batch Certification and 

Designation 

■ 4. Amend § 1090.1010 by 

redesignating paragraph (a)(2)(iii) as 

(a)(2)(iv) and adding a new paragraph 

(a)(2)(iii) to read as follows: 

§ 1090.1010 Designation requirements for 

gasoline and regulated blendstocks. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) If the CBOB is excluded from the 

special regulatory treatment for ethanol 

under § 1090.215(b)(3)(ii), Low-RVP 

Summer CBOB. 

* * * * * 

Subpart L—Product Transfer 

Documents 

■ 5. Amend § 1090.1110 by 

redesignating paragraph (b)(2)(i)(C) as 

(b)(2)(i)(D) and adding a new paragraph 

(b)(2)(i)(C) to read as follows: 

§ 1090.1110 PTD requirements for 

gasoline, gasoline additives, and gasoline 

regulated blendstocks. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(C) ‘‘Low-RVP CBOB. This product 

does not meet the requirements for 

summer reformulated gasoline.’’ 

* * * * * 

Subpart R—Compliance and 

Enforcement Provisions 

§ 1090.1720 [Amended] 

■ 6. Amend § 1090.1720, in paragraphs 

(e) introductory text and (e)(2), by 

removing the text ‘‘15 percent’’ and 

adding in its place the text ‘‘10 

percent’’. 

[FR Doc. 2024–04023 Filed 2–28–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 22–227; FCC 23–72; FR ID 

203619] 

Establishing Rules for Full Power 

Television and Class A Television 

Stations 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; announcement of 

effective date. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission announces that the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) has 

approved the information collection 

requirements under OMB Control 

Numbers 3060–1121, 3060–1320, 3060– 

0009, 3060–0386, 3060–0175, 3060– 

0178, 3060–0182, 3060–0190, 3060– 

0320, 3060–0113, and 3060–1321 

associated with the rules adopted in the 

Report and Order, FCC 23–72, adopting 

several rule updates for full power and 

Class A television stations that no 

longer have any practical effect given 

the completion of the transition from 

analog to digital-only operations and the 

post incentive auction transition to a 

smaller television band with fewer 

channels. This document is consistent 

with the Report and Order, which states 

that the Media Bureau will publish a 

document in the Federal Register 

announcing the effective date for these 

revised rule sections and revising the 

rules accordingly. 

DATES: The amendments to 47 CFR 

73.619; 73.625; 73.1250; 73.1350; 

73.1560; 73.1615; 73.1620; 73.1635; 

73.1675; 73.1690; 73.1740; 73.1750; 

73.2080; 73.3540; 73.3544; 73.3549; 

73.3550; 73.3598; 73.5006; 73.6024; 

73.6025, published at 89 FR 7224 on 

February 1, 2024, are effective March 4, 

2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cathy Williams, Office of the Managing 

Director, Federal Communications 

Commission, at (202) 418–2918 or 

Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document announces that OMB 

approved the information collection 

requirements in 47 CFR 73.619; 73.625; 

73.1250; 73.1350; 73.1560; 73.1615; 

73.1620; 73.1635; 73.1675; 73.1690; 

73.1740; 73.1750; 73.2080; 73.3540; 

73.3544; 73.3549; 73.3550; 73.3598; 

73.5006; 73.6024; 73.6025 on February 

2, 2024, and February 14, 2024, 

respectively. These rule sections were 

adopted in the Report and Order, FCC 

23–72, published at 89 FR 7224 on 

February 1, 2024. The Commission 

publishes this document as an 

announcement of the immediate 

effective date for these revised rules. 

Synopsis 

As required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), 

the Commission is notifying the public 

that it received final OMB approvals on 

February 2, 2024 and February 14, 2024, 

respectively, for the information 

collection requirements contained in 47 

CFR 73.619; 73.625; 73.1250; 73.1350; 

73.1560; 73.1615; 73.1620; 73.1635; 

73.1675; 73.1690; 73.1740; 73.1750; 

73.2080; 73.3540; 73.3544; 73.3549; 

73.3550; 73.3598; 73.5006; 73.6024; 

73.6025. Under 5 CFR part 1320, an 

agency may not conduct or sponsor a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a current, valid OMB Control 

Number. 

No person shall be subject to any 

penalty for failing to comply with a 

collection of information subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act that does not 

display a current, valid OMB Control 

Number. The OMB Control Numbers for 

the information collection requirements 

in 47 CFR 73.619; 73.625; 73.1250; 

73.1350; 73.1560; 73.1615; 73.1620; 

73.1635; 73.1675; 73.1690; 73.1740; 

73.1750; 73.2080; 73.3540; 73.3544; 

73.3549; 73.3550; 73.3598; 73.5006; 

73.6024; 73.6025 are 3060–1121, 3060– 

1320, 3060–0009, 3060–0386, 3060– 

0175, 3060–0178, 3060–0182, 3060– 

0190, 3060–0320, 3060–0113, and 3060– 

1321. 

The foregoing notice is required by 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13, October 1, 1995, 

and 44 U.S.C. 3507. 

The total annual reporting burdens 

and costs for the respondents are as 

follows: 

OMB Control Number: 3060–1320. 

OMB Approval Date: February 2, 

2024. 

OMB Expiration Date: February 28, 

2027. 

Title: Section 73.1750, 

Discontinuance of operation; Section 

73.3549, Request for extension of time 

to operate without required monitors, 

indicating instruments, and EAS 

encoders and decoders; § 73.3550, 

Requests for new or modified call sign 

assignments. 

Form Number: N/A. 

Respondents: Business or other forprofit entities; not for-profit institutions. 

Estimated Number of Respondents 

and Responses: 300 respondents and 

300 responses. 

Estimated Time per Response: 0.50 

hours. 

Frequency of Response: 

Recordkeeping requirement; on 

occasion reporting requirement. 

Obligation to Respond: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits. The statutory 

authority for this information collection 

is contained in Sections 154(i) and 

325(a) of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 150 

hours. 

Total Annual Cost: No cost. 

Needs and Uses: The Commission 

adopted on September 18, 2023, the 

Report and Order (R&O), Amendment of 

Part 73 of the Commission’s Rules to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES