Overview
Title
E15 Fuel Dispenser Labeling and Compatibility With Underground Storage Tanks
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants to change some rules about how gas pumps that sell special gas with more ethanol, called E15, are labeled to make sure people use it correctly. They also want to make sure the big tanks underground that store this gas are safe and can hold it properly, and they are asking people to tell them what they think about these changes.
Summary AI
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a new rule focusing on the labeling of E15 fuel dispensers and the compatibility of underground storage tanks (USTs) with ethanol blends. The proposal includes potential changes to or removal of current E15 labels that alert consumers to the appropriate use of the fuel. Additionally, the EPA seeks to ensure that USTs can satisfactorily contain high ethanol blends and proposes rule revisions for future installations or component replacements to meet these compatibility requirements. Public comments on these proposals are invited, emphasizing efforts to adapt fueling infrastructure to evolving fuel standards while maintaining environmental safety.
Abstract
EPA currently requires fuel dispenser labels for gasoline- ethanol blends of greater than 10 volume percent (vol%) ethanol and up to 15 vol% ethanol (E15). The label was designed to alert consumers to the appropriate and lawful use of the fuel. EPA is co-proposing to either modify the E15 label or remove the label requirement entirely and seeking comment on whether state and local governments may be preempted from requiring different labels on fuel dispensers. To facilitate the proper storage of E15 in underground storage tank systems (USTs), EPA is proposing to modify the UST regulations to grant certain allowances for compatibility demonstration for storage of ethanol blends. EPA is also proposing compatibility requirements for future UST installations or component replacements that would ensure compatibility with higher blends of ethanol.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has introduced a proposed rule focused on the labeling of E15 fuel dispensers and the compatibility of underground storage tanks (USTs) with higher ethanol blends. This action, published in the Federal Register, is intended to update regulations related to the use and storage of gasoline-ethanol blends containing between 10 percent and 15 percent ethanol (E15). It touches on two core issues: potential adjustments or removal of E15 labels and the need for USTs to be compatible with these ethanol blends.
General Summary
The proposal aims to potentially change the E15 labeling requirements, considering whether the current labels are still necessary or effective. Additionally, the EPA wants to ensure that underground storage tanks, which store fuels, are compatible with ethanol blends up to 100 percent. The proposed changes are geared towards strengthening the regulations to facilitate broader adoption of E15 fuels while ensuring environmental and safety standards are met.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several significant issues require attention. Firstly, there's concern about the financial impact on small businesses if the E15 label requirements are modified or removed. Secondly, the effects of different color schemes for the E15 labels on consumer understanding and behavior are unclear. This proposal also lacks precise cost implications of the changes for underground storage tanks, particularly concerning new installations or replacements.
Moreover, the potential preemption of state and local E15 labeling laws is an area not fully explored, which could lead to legal ambiguities. There's also a noticeable lack of empirical evidence or studies supporting decisions regarding alternative labeling designs and stakeholder feedback about the consistency of E15 labeling.
Impact on the Public Broadly
For the general public, this proposal could affect consumer access to E15 gasoline, potentially making it more widely available. If labels are removed or altered, consumers may need to be more vigilant about understanding and choosing the correct type of fuel for their vehicles to prevent misfueling and damage.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Small Business Owners: Small retail gas stations might face financial impacts due to changes in labeling requirements or tank compatibility standards. Adapting to these changes could involve cost burdens.
State and Local Governments: The proposal's potential for preemption of state and local labeling laws might limit local governments' ability to regulate in alignment with specific regional needs.
Fuel Industry and Equipment Manufacturers: For stakeholders in the fuel industry and manufacturers of storage and dispensing equipment, the proposed changes could necessitate adjustments to production standards and operational practices, potentially leading to increased costs.
Overall, while the EPA’s proposal is aimed at improving standards for ethanol fuel use and ensuring compatibility with storage infrastructure, it poses several challenges that will need to be addressed to ensure they meet the needs of all affected parties without undue burdens.
Financial Assessment
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes several changes regarding the labeling of E15 fuel and the compatibility of underground storage tanks (USTs). This proposal includes potential modifications to labeling requirements and new regulations on storage tank compatibility. The document makes several references to financial aspects, which have both immediate and broader future cost implications.
Spending and Cost Estimates
The proposal includes a rough estimate of replacement cost avoidance due to potential allowances related to USTs that cannot demonstrate compatibility. It is estimated that replacing tanks could cost approximately $150,000 per tank, and replacing piping at a facility could also amount to $150,000. Additionally, ancillary equipment upgrades, which can vary significantly depending on the configuration, might cost between $1,000 and $10,000 per UST system.
These figures highlight potential cost savings for UST owners and operators who may otherwise have been required to replace equipment. The lack of need for replacement due to the proposed allowances could result in substantial financial benefits. However, these cost savings are based on informal estimates from the industry and regulators, which brings an element of uncertainty about their accuracy and precision.
Total Estimated Costs and Compliance
The document states that the total estimated cost for E15 labeling is $3,785 per year, which includes $2,952 in annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs. Additionally, the cost for UST is projected to be $65,515, but notably, this includes no annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs. These projections indicate that the financial impact, at least in terms of annualized costs, is relatively modest when compared to broader industry standards.
It's also noted under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) that this action does not contain an unfunded mandate exceeding $100 million. It implies that the proposed rules won't impose significant financial burdens on the private sector or small governments. However, without deeper insights into the financial impact on small businesses specifically, there's an apparent need for clearer specification in this regard.
Relation to Identified Issues
The reliance on informal estimates highlights a potential issue where these numbers may not reflect precise costs or savings, thus affecting the accuracy of projected financial implications. Furthermore, while these proposals aim to accommodate varying state regulations, the document does not fully explore the financial implications of potential preemptions of state and local E15 labeling laws.
Interestingly, the estimated percentage of UST systems that could take advantage of these new provisions is derived from limited data from various states, indicating that the national applicability may differ. This variance can influence the financial outcome for UST operators, potentially leading to unforeseen costs should the national conditions be harsher than expected.
Overall, while the EPA provides cost estimates and anticipates potential savings, real-world financial impacts may vary. Therefore, there's a call for more comprehensive and precise data to ensure that financial projections support the decision-making process effectively.
Issues
• The proposal does not clearly specify the financial impact of modifying or removing the E15 label requirement on small businesses.
• There is ambiguity in the effects of different color schemes for the E15 label on consumer understanding and behavior.
• The cost implications for the proposed changes to underground storage tank compatibility are not sufficiently detailed.
• The potential preemption of state and local E15 labeling laws is not fully explored or explained.
• Consideration of alternative labeling design elements lacks sufficient empirical evidence or studies to support decisions.
• The potential interactions between EPA and FTC labeling requirements are not clearly delineated or resolved.
• The estimated percentage of UST systems that could take advantage of secondary containment allowances is based on limited state data and may not reflect national conditions accurately.
• There is a lack of clarity on whether the proposed changes could affect existing contracts or agreements with UST system equipment manufacturers.
• Details on the consequences of stakeholder comments suggesting inconsistency in E15 labeling were not thoroughly explored.
• There is a reliance on informal industry estimates to calculate cost savings, which may lack precision and accuracy.
• The proposal mentions potential exemption categories for certain UST systems but does not clarify the criteria or process for determining these exemptions.