U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

67–254PDF 2011

HITTING THE ETHANOL BLEND WALL: 

EXAMINING THE SCIENCE ON E15 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

ENVIRONMENT 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

THURSDAY, JULY 7, 2011 

Serial No. 112–28 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DAVID WU, Oregon 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

HON. ANDY HARRIS, Maryland, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Thursday, July 7, 2011 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Chairman Andy Harris, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11 

Statement by Ranking Minority Member Brad Miller, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13 

Witnesses: 

Ms. Margo Oge, Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 15 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 16 

Mr. Bob Greco, Group Director, Downstream and Industry Operations, American Petroleum Institute 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 19 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 20 

Ms. Heather White, Chief of Staff and General Counsel, Environmental Working Group 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 28 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 29 

Mr. Jeff Wasil, Emissions Certification Engineer, Evinrude Outboard Motors 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 48 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 49 

Biography .......................................................................................................... 52 

Mr. Mike Brown, President, National Chicken Council 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 98 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 99 

Biography .......................................................................................................... 101 

Mr. W. Steven Burke, President and Ceo, Biofuels Center of North Carolina 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 102 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 103 

Biography .......................................................................................................... 107 

Dr. Ron Sahu, Technical Consultant, Outdoor Power Equipment Institute 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 108 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 110 

Biography .......................................................................................................... 127 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Ms. Margo Oge, Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency ...................................................................... 150 
Page

IV 

Mr. Bob Greco, Group Director, Downstream and Industry Operations, American Petroleum Institute ...................................................................................... 163 

Ms. Heather White, Chief of Staff and General Counsel, Environmental Working Group .............................................................................................................. 164 

Mr. Jeff Wasil, Emissions Certification Engineer, Evinrude Outboard Motors . 165 

Dr. Ron Sahu, Technical Consultant, Outdoor Power Equipment Institute ...... 166 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Material submitted by Ranking Minority Member Brad Miller .......................... 170 

Material submitted by Chairman Andy Harris ..................................................... 173 

Material submitted by Representative F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. ................. 180 
(1) 

HITTING THE ETHANOL BLEND WALL: 

EXAMINING THE SCIENCE ON E15 

THURSDAY, JULY 7, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:55 p.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Andy Harris 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 

Chairman HARRIS. The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment will come to order. Good afternoon. I want to thank the witnesses and the folks in the audience for your patience. We just finished a round of voting, but the good news is we won’t have another round until well after this hearing is over. 

I am going to start with my opening statement. I want to thank 

our witnesses for being here today to testify on the scientific and 

technical issues associated with the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s decision to grant a partial waiver for the use of fuel 

blends containing up to 15 percent ethanol, known as E15. 

At the outset, I would like to make clear that this hearing is not 

about picking winners and losers among fuels, or whether ethanol 

production is inherently good or bad. This hearing will focus specifically on the question: Did the EPA use the best available science 

when granting a partial waiver for the use of E15, and if not, what 

issues remain unanswered and what are the potential impacts on 

the hundreds of millions of engines that will consume E15 fuel in 

the very near future? 

Due to this technical focus, we have invited witnesses that will 

be directly impacted by this decision to testify on the scientific and 

data quality issues related to mid-level ethanol blends. While the 

details associated with the EPA E15 decisions are complex and esoteric, their impacts are potentially massive. The properties of ethanol are very different from gasoline, and they may result in problems associated with corrosion, engine failure, increased emissions, 

materials incompatibility, infrastructure, warranty coverage and 

the potential for misfueling. 

Every American that uses a car, boat, motorcycle, tractor, lawnmower or other any other gasoline-powered equipment could be 

negatively affected. As we will hear today, a diverse coalition of interest groups have highlighted the need for greater scientific certainty and more testing for E15. And thanks to the effort of ViceChairman Sensenbrenner, we now have most automakers on record 

asserting that EPA testing failed to determine that E15 won’t be 

harmful to car engines, and that warranties may not cover any resulting damages. 

Why, then, did EPA issue enormously impactful rulings largely 

on the basis of a single test program conducted by the Department 

of Energy? We are here today to answer this question, but based 

on available information it appears safe to say it was not a sciencedriven decision that comprehensively addresses the technical concerns identified by stakeholders. 

Meanwhile, the EPA job-killing machine marches on, driven by 

a regulate-at-all-costs mentality and unencumbered by facts. From 

ethanol to climate regulations to agricultural policies, the experience in my district illustrates how EPA is strangling the economy, 

and more often than not it is doing so on the basis of weak science. 

Last month, a nearly 100-year-old poultry company, Allen Family 

Foods, filed for bankruptcy. This company is a major employer on 

the Eastern Shore of Maryland. It is the second-largest employer 

in Talbot County with more than 500 employees at one of its single 

plants in Cordova, Maryland. The combination of skyrocketing feed 

prices driven by our ethanol policy and job-killing regulations by 

EPA has now forced this 100-year-old company to shut its doors. 
11 

Last, I want to emphasize that E15 is not a partisan issue. In 

February, the House voted overwhelmingly in favor of an amendment that would have defunded EPA’s implementation of the E15 

waiver decision for this fiscal year. Although that language did not 

become law, the issue clearly remains unresolved. I believe this 

Subcommittee can play an important role in advancing this debate, 

consistent with past efforts to examine the scientific and technical 

underpinnings of fuel formulations and vehicle and biofuels technologies more generally. 

To that end, we have asked witnesses to comment on very brief 

legislative language that would direct the EPA to contract with the 

National Academy of Sciences for an independent assessment of 

the state of the science regarding E15. 

I look forward to receiving feedback on this preliminary language, and I want to thank the witnesses again for appearing before us today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harris follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ANDY HARRIS

I thank our witnesses for being here today to testify on the scientific and technical 

issues associated with the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to grant a 

partial waiver for the use of fuel blends containing up to 15 percent ethanol, known 

as ‘‘E15.’’ 

At the outset, I’d like to make clear that this hearing is not about picking winners 

and losers among fuels, or whether ethanol production is inherently good or bad. 

This hearing will focus specifically on the question: Did EPA use the best available 

science when granting a partial waiver for the use of E15, and if not, what issues 

remain unanswered and what are the potential impacts on the hundreds of millions 

of engines that will consume E15 fuel in the very near future? 

Due to this technical focus, we have invited witnesses that will be directly impacted by this decision to testify on the scientific and data quality issues related 

to mid-level ethanol blends. 

While the details associated with the EPA E15 decisions are complex and esoteric, 

their impacts are potentially massive. The properties of ethanol are very different 

from gasoline, and they may result in problems associated with corrosion, engine 

failure, increased emissions, materials incompatibility, infrastructure, warranty coverage, and the potential for misfueling. 

Every American that uses a car, boat, motorcycle, tractor, lawnmower or other 

gasoline-powered equipment could be negatively affected. As we will hear today, a 

diverse coalition of interest groups have highlighted the need for greater scientific 

certainty and more testing for E15. And thanks to the efforts of Vice-Chairman Sensenbrenner, we now have most automakers on record asserting that EPA testing 

failed to determine that E15 wouldn’t be harmful to car engines, and that warranties would not cover any resulting damages. 

Why, then, did EPA issue enormously impactful rulings largely on the basis of a 

single test program conducted by the Department of Energy? We are here today to 

answer this question, but based on available information it appears safe to say it 

was not a science-driven decision that comprehensively addresses the technical concerns identified by stakeholders. 

Meanwhile, the EPA job-killing machine marches on, driven by a regulate-at-allcosts mentality and unencumbered by facts. From ethanol to climate regulations to 

agricultural policies, the experience in my District illustrates how EPA is strangling 

the economy, and more often than not it is doing so on the basis of weak science. 

Last month, a nearly-100-year-old poultry company, Allen Family Foods, filed for 

bankruptcy. This company is a major employer on the Eastern Shore; It is the 2ndlargest employer in Talbot County, with more than 500 employees at a single plant 

in Cordova. The combination of skyrocketing feed prices driven by our ethanol policy 

and job-killing regulations by EPA has now forced this company to shutter its doors. 

Last, I want to emphasize that E15 is not a partisan issue. In February, the 

House voted overwhelmingly in favor of an amendment that would have defunded 

EPA’s implementation of the E15 waiver decision for this fiscal year. That language 

did not become law, and the issue clearly remains unresolved. I believe this Subcommittee can play an important role in advancing this debate, consistent with past 
12 

efforts to examine the scientific and technical underpinnings of fuel formulations 

and vehicle and biofuels technologies more generally. To that end, we have asked 

witnesses to comment on very brief legislative language that would direct the EPA 

to contract with the National Academy of Sciences for an independent assessment 

of the state of the science regarding E15. 

I look forward to receiving feedback on this preliminary language, and I want to 

thank the witnesses for appearing before us today. 

Chairman HARRIS. The Chair now recognizes Ranking Member 

Miller for five minutes for an opening statement. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Chairman Harris, for the opportunity to 

hear about current policies regarding renewable fuels and E15. 

Renewable fuel from biomass, specifically corn-based ethanol, is 

a complex and controversial issue, and as the panel before us demonstrates, there are many different interests and opinions regarding the ethanol content of our Nation’s fuel supply. 

I understand this hearing was supposed to examine the science 

and testing EPA used in its decision to allow the introduction of 

E15 to the market, and we may not all agree with the EPA’s decision or about their decision, but we should be interested in learning 

more about the underlying science as well as the positive and negative effects that this decision may have. 

Unfortunately, given the lopsided panel and the sprawling focus 

of this hearing, I am concerned that we will leave here only slightly 

more informed about the science around E15 and no closer to 

agreement on what steps, if any, Congress should take. I agree 

with Chairman Harris’ statement a little moment ago that the EPA 

should not proceed unencumbered by facts. Neither should this 

Subcommittee. 

Just as we demand that the executive branch work in an efficient, transparent manner, we should also have a clear picture of 

what we are trying to accomplish within our Committee. Since 

being notified about this hearing and up until the end of last week, 

again, Monday was a holiday, we have seen everything from the 

purpose and scope of the hearing to the selection of witnesses 

broaden and change. And as a result, I anticipate critical gaps in 

this Committee’s record. 

Much of the science EPA used in making its waiver decision was 

conducted by the Department of Energy. In fact, DOE’s role is the 

only piece of this issue that is firmly within this Committee’s jurisdiction. But the majority did not invite the DOE to the Subcommittee to testify today. It does not inform our understanding of 

the science if we do not have DOE here to discuss the extensive 

testing that they conducted. It also violates pretty basic ideas of 

fairness, that we will have witnesses criticize DOE, and DOE is not 

here to tell their side of the story. 

Just last Thursday the witnesses, along with the minority, received draft legislation on which they were instructed to testify. 

While the draft is neither particularly complex nor ambitious, that 

is hardly time for the witnesses to review the material in advance, 

to submit their testimony, especially again given the holiday Monday. 

Within the last few weeks, the Vice-Chairman of the Full Committee, writing on Committee stationery, Mr. Sensenbrenner, sent 

letters to the automotive and small engine industry from the Committee on the issue of E15. The minority received the response to 
13 

those letters just two days ago, and on Tuesday of this week, the 

day before yesterday, Mr. Sensenbrenner sent a letter to the EPA 

asking several questions about E15 and setting a deadline of July 

22 for the EPA to respond. 

If our task is to conduct oversight, thorough oversight, we should 

have waited to hear back from the EPA before holding this hearing 

and certainly not before we ask witnesses and Members to review 

the legislation. It appears that the majority already has drawn its 

conclusions on the subject without considering EPA’s responses or 

the DOE’s explanation of the research, and this hearing is a formality. To build a legislative record on a bill that may or may not 

be, probably is not in fact within our jurisdiction. 

Mr. Chairman, the EPA should not act half-cocked. We agree on 

that. They should not act on incomplete information without considering the views of the people who are most affected by their actions. Neither should this Subcommittee. Clean and sustainable 

and renewable fuels are already a part of our economy, and we 

need to work together toward realizing future producing homegrown renewable fuels. In this grand challenge, it is this Committee’s task to focus on the science and technology. That is why I 

have invited Mr. Burke from North Carolina today. He will provide 

a different perspective from the rest of the panel on renewable 

fuels and discuss how science and technology will help our country 

get on the road to a sustainable energy future. 

And with that, I look forward to all of our witness’s testimony 

and what I hope will be an honest discussion about the scientific 

and technological implications of our continued migration from oil 

to alternative fuels. Thank you. I yield back my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER BRAD MILLER

Thank you, Chairman Harris, for the opportunity to hear about current policies 

regarding renewable fuels and E15. Renewable fuel from biomass, specifically cornbased ethanol, is a complex and controversial issue. And, as this panel demonstrates, there exists a vast array of interests and opinions regarding the ethanol 

content of our nation’s fuel supply. 

I understand that this hearing was supposed to examine the science and testing 

EPA used in its decision to allow introduction of E15 in the market. We may not 

all agree with the EPA’s decision, but we should be interested in learning more 

about the underlying science as well as the range of positive and negative effects 

this decision may have. Unfortunately, given the lopsided panel and sprawling focus 

of this hearing, I am concerned that we will leave here only slightly more informed 

about the science around E15, and no closer to agreement on what steps, if any, 

the Congress should take. 

Just as we expect the Executive Branch to work in an efficient, transparent, manner, we should also have a clear picture of what we are trying to accomplish with 

our Committee actions. Sadly, since being notified about this hearing, and up until 

the end of last week, we have seen everything from the purpose and scope of the 

hearing to the selection of the witnesses: broaden and change. I anticipate critical 

gaps in the Committee’s record on the subject. 

Much of the science EPA used in making its waiver decision was conducted by 

the Department of Energy. In fact, DOE’s role is the only piece of this issue firmly 

within this Committee’s jurisdiction. But unfortunately the Majority did not invite 

DOE to the Subcommittee today to testify. I do not see how we get a clear picture 

of the science if we do not have DOE here to discuss the extensive testing they conducted. With seven witnesses on one panel—surpassed this Congress only by an 8- 

person panel, half of which were children—I would expect to hear a wide variety 

of perspectives on ethanol. Unfortunately with such a crowded and diverse panel, 

and such little time for discussion, it will be difficult for members and witnesses 

to examine the issue in detail. Furthermore, despite the size of this panel, we are 
14 

still missing some critical stakeholders. The motives for not inviting the ethanol industry are clear, and made even clearer by instead inviting the oil industry to testify. I find it hard to accept that we will get a balanced view on the E15 waiver 

controversy without testimony from either the ethanol industry or the Department 

of Energy. 

Furthermore, just last Thursday the witnesses, along with the Minority, received 

draft legislation on which they were instructed to testify. Granted, the draft is neither particularly complex nor ambitious. But, in my opinion, this was hardly enough 

time for witnesses to thoroughly review the material in advance of their deadlines 

to submit testimony, especially given the holiday. 

Additionally, within the last few weeks the Vice-Chairman of the Full Committee, 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, has sent letters to the automotive and small engine industry 

from the Committee on the issue of El5. The Minority only received the responses 

to these letters two days ago. Then, on Tuesday of this week Mr. Sensenbrenner 

sent a letter to the EPA asking several questions about E15 and setting a deadline 

of July 22nd for EPA to respond. 

Mr. Chairman, if our task is to conduct thorough oversight then I would have expected us to wait to hear back from EPA before holding a hearing, and certainly 

before we ask witnesses and Members to review legislation. 

I fear that the Majority has already drawn its conclusions on the subject without 

considering EPA’s responses, and that this hearing is merely a formality in building 

a legislative record on a bill that may not even be within our jurisdiction. 

If the take-away message from this hearing is that EPA is making policy prematurely, based on incomplete data, and without considering the range of important 

stakeholder perspectives, then I must point out the irony in how this hearing and 

the proposed legislation have been developed. 

Opposition and support of ethanol certainly crosses party lines, but I cannot help 

but see this hearing as part of the coordinated partisan attack on clean energy. 

Clean and sustainable renewable fuels are already a part of our economy; and we 

need to work towards realizing a future of producing home grown renewable fuels. 

In this grand challenge, it is this Committee’s task to focus on the science and technology: That is why I have invited Mr. Burke from North Carolina to testify today. 

He will provide a different perspective from the rest of the panel on renewable fuels 

and discuss how science and technology will help our country get on the road to a 

sustainable energy future. 

With that, I look forward to all of the witness’s testimony, and to what I hope 

will be an extended discussion about the scientific and technological implications of 

our continued migration from oil to alternative fuels. Thank you. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller. If there are 

Members who wish to submit additional opening statements, your 

statements will be added to the record at this point. 

At this time I would like to introduce our witness panel. Ms. 

Margo Oge is the Director of the Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality at the Environmental Protection Agency where she has 

worked since 1980. 

Mr. Bob Greco is the Group Director for Downstream and Industry Operations at the American Petroleum Institute. Prior to his 

21-year career at API, Mr. Greco was an Environmental Engineer 

with EPA. 

Ms. Heather White is the Chief of Staff and General Counsel at 

the Environmental Working Group. She has previously served as 

director of Education Advocacy at the National Wildlife Federation 

and as counsel to U.S. Senator Russ Feingold on energy and environmental issues. 

Mr. Jeff Wasil is Emissions Certification Engineer for BRP 

Evinrude, Marine Engine Division. He is here today to testify on 

behalf of the National Marine Manufacturers Association. 

Mr. Mike Brown is the President of the National Chicken Council, a trade association representing over 95 percent of the chickens 

produced in the United States. Mr. Brown was previously Senior 

Vice President at the American Meat Institute. 
15 

Ranking Miller has asked for the opportunity to introduce our 

next witness, Mr. Steven Burke. I now recognize Mr. Miller for up 

to two minutes for his introduction. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Mr. Burke became the President and 

CEO of the Biofuels Center of North Carolina in March of 2009. He 

served as Founding Board Chair from July of 2007 until that date 

and as Acting President since August 2008. The Biofuels Center is 

a private, non-profit corporation established by the State of North 

Carolina to craft and implement a policy commitment for a sustained state-wide biofuels initiative. Mr. Burke departed the North 

Carolina Biotechnology Center in 2009 as Senior Vice President for 

Corporate Affairs, and for more than 24 years he helped shape the 

approach and strategies of the Biotechnology Center, the world’s 

first targeted initiative for biotechnology development. Before joining the Biotechnology Center in 1985, as its fifth employee, he 

taught instructional design at North Carolina State University in 

Raleigh. I am very happy to have Mr. Burke here from North Carolina. We have met a number of times, and I believe his perspective 

will add to the discussion today. Thank you. 

Chairman HARRIS. I thank you, Mr. Miller. Our final witness is 

Dr. Ron Sahu, an independent technical consultant who has provided consulting services to the EPA and others on a variety of environmental matters. He is here today on behalf of the Outdoor 

Power Equipment Institute, a trade association whose members 

make a wide range of outdoor power equipment including lawn and 

garden equipment. Dr. Sahu holds a Master’s and a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from the California Institute of Technology. 

And I want to thank you all for appearing before the Subcommittee 

today. 

As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited to 

five minutes each, after which the Members of the Committee will 

have five minutes each to ask questions. 

I now recognize our first witness, Margo Oge, from the Environmental Protection Agency. 

STATEMENT OF MS. MARGO OGE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

TRANSPORTATION AND AIR QUALITY, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. OGE. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I really 

appreciate the opportunity to testify on EPA’s response to a request 

by ethanol producers to allow higher levels of ethanol in gasoline 

for use in conventional vehicles. 

Ethanol producers filed a request in March of 2009 that EPA increase the permissible concentration of ethanol in gasoline to 15 

percent which EPA granted in part and denied in part. An EPA decision to grant a waiver by no means requires that E15 must be 

used or sold in the marketplace. 

Now in researching this decision, EPA considered all the available evidence, including extensive test data developed by the Department of Energy and other researchers. In fact, we believe that 

the waiver record is extensive and strong. It includes DOE’s, Department of Energy’s testing of 19 vehicle models to provide statistically sound conclusions about model year 2007 and newer vehicles 

and their ability to meet exhaust emissions standards. It also in-
16 

cludes the Department of Energy’s study for model year 2001— 

2006 vehicles, that tests models that were selected because of their 

sensitivity to high ethanol levels. 

Now, those studies along with other information, several CSE reports, EPA compliance data, manufacturer certification data, in-use 

testing and manufacturers’ defect reports provided the relevant information for the Administrator to make a decision about the potential impacts of E15, not just for the exhaust emissions but also 

for evaporative emissions, material compatibility and drivability. 

We did not wait for the result of several ongoing studies because 

the records in front of us were sufficient without those studies, and 

I must tell you that many of the studies that are still being done, 

they are not designed to answer the specific question before EPA: 

Would E15 cause or contribute to failure of emissions standards 

when the vehicles and engines were designed? In sum, extensive 

testing data and other information before EPA, we believe, 

providesa strong technical basis for the Administrator’s decision to 

allow E15 to be sold on model year 2001 and newer light-duty vehicles. We also found that E15 did not meet the Clean Air Act requirement in the case of vehicles older than 2001 and off-road gasoline-powered equipment. 

In making the waiver decision EPA also fully complied with applicable legal requirements under the Clean Air Act for public notice and comment. Section 211(f) of the Clean Air Act specifically 

requires that we provide public notice and an opportunity to comment on E15 waiver applications. The Agency believes that we 

have met that requirement. 

To reduce the potential for misfueling with E15, we have established several measures that draw on many years of experience 

with fuel transitions. In the waiver decision, EPA required fuel producers that decide to introduce E15 into the marketplace to develop 

and implement a misfueling plan including the labeling of E15 

pumps. Let me make it clear that a number of additional steps are 

needed before E15 can enter the marketplace. 

Many are not under EPA’s control. We have not yet received a 

complete application by the renewable fuel producers that is required under the Clean Air Act to register E15, and only if E15 is 

registered, can be introduced into the commerce. 

In addition, retail stations that want to sell E15 will need to consider the compatibility of their underground storage tanks based on 

recently issued EPA guidance. Stations that want to sell E15 will 

need to consider whether changes are needed to fuel dispensing 

equipment, and many states, as you may know, rely on ASTM procedures before new fuels are introduced into the marketplace. 

As E15 enters the marketplace, EPA is committed to work with 

all stakeholders to monitor the development and help address any 

potential issues that may arise. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity, and I look forward to 

answering any of your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Oge follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MS. MARGO T. OGE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

TRANSPORTATION AND AIR QUALITY, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to 

come before you today to testify on EPA’s response to a request by ethanol pro-
17 

ducers to allow gasoline containing more than 10% ethanol and up to 15% ethanol 

(E15) to enter the marketplace. 

Under the Clean Air Act (the Act), companies cannot increase the concentration 

of ethanol in gasoline unless the Administrator determines that the increased concentration will not cause or contribute to the failure of vehicles or engines to meet 

emissions standards. To date, the Act allows gasoline containing up to 10% ethanol 

to be introduced into commerce for use in conventional-fueled vehicles and fuel containing up to 85% ethanol to be introduced for use in flexible-fueled vehicles. Ethanol producers filed a request that EPA increase the permissible concentration of 

ethanol in gasoline to 15 percent, which EPA granted in part and denied in part. 

In reaching this decision, EPA considered all of the available evidence, including 

extensive test data developed by the Department of Energy (DOE) and other researchers. Based on this evidence, EPA determined that the Clean Air Act criteria 

were met for allowing E15 to be introduced into commerce for use in model year 

(MY) 2001 and newer cars, light trucks and other passenger vehicles. EPA also 

found that the Act’s criteria were not met for older passenger vehicles and other 

types of vehicles and gasoline-powered equipment because there were insufficient 

data to allay engineering concerns that the less sophisticated engines and emission 

controls of these products could accommodate E15. 

As a result, EPA raised the permissible concentration of ethanol in gasoline to 15 

percent for gasoline for use in MY 2001 and later passenger vehicles, but did not 

raise the permissible concentration in gasoline for other uses. To reduce the potential for misfueling with E15, EPA required that fuel producers that decide to introduce E15 into commerce take a number of steps, including labeling E15 pumps. In 

addition, the Agency recently issued national regulations to further reduce the risk 

of misfueling. 

As a new gasoline, E15 must be registered under the Clean Air Act before it may 

be introduced into commerce. Since EPA has yet to receive or act on a complete E15 

registration application, E15 may not yet be lawfully sold. 

The Clean Air Act Fuel Waiver Process 

Under the Clean Air Act, EPA has an important but limited role to play in determining whether a new fuel or fuel additive may enter the market. To protect public 

health and the environment, the Agency sets standards to control air pollution from 

many kinds of sources, including cars, trucks and non-road engines and equipment. 

To protect the ability of mobile sources to meet those standards, the Clean Air Act 

prohibits the introduction into commerce of motor vehicle fuel that is not ‘‘substantially similar’’ to the fuel used to determine whether those sources meet emission 

standards. Manufacturers of cars, trucks and equipment design their products to 

meet standards based on use of the fuel in EPA’s test procedures. 

For fuels like E15 that are not substantially similar to test fuel, the Clean Air 

Act authorizes EPA to grant a waiver of the prohibition against introduction into 

commerce if a demonstration is made that the fuel will not cause or contribute to 

vehicles or engines failing to meet applicable standards over their full useful life. 

The Act requires EPA to respond to a waiver request within 270 days of receipt and 

to provide public notice of, and an opportunity to comment on, the waiver application. 

In acting on waiver requests since the 1970s, EPA has articulated two basic approaches for making the required demonstration of a new fuel’s emissions impact— 

(1) a representative, statistical sampling and testing program, or (2) a reasonable 

engineering theory about emissions effects and data to confirm the theory. Both of 

these approaches reflect that it is not feasible to test every vehicle or piece of equipment to determine how its emissions would respond to a new fuel. Instead, each approach calls for sufficient data to reasonably conclude that the new fuel will not 

cause or contribute to failure to meet emissions standards. The burden is on the 

waiver applicant to make the demonstration, although EPA considers information 

submitted by the public and other available information in making its waiver decisions. An EPA decision to grant a waiver request allows, but does not require, the 

waived fuel to be made or sold. 

The E15 Waiver Request and Decision 

EPA received a waiver request for E15 from Growth Energy and 54 ethanol producers in March 2009. The Agency sought public comment on the application, including the information submitted in support. EPA notified the waiver applicants 

in November 2009 that there was not sufficient data to support granting the waiver 

request at that time. However, in light of an ongoing DOE test program on component durability, the Agency stated that it would wait to make a decision on the 

waiver request until the results of the vehicle test program were available. 
18 

DOE had begun developing the vehicle test program in 2007 to study the potential 

effects of ethanol blends greater than E10 on conventional gasoline-fueled vehicles 

and equipment. This was done in response to both President Bush’s initiative to reduce petroleum consumption by 20% in 10 years and enactment of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). As part of EISA, Congress required a significant 

increase in the amount of biofuels that must be added to transportation fuel under 

the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. DOE developed this test program as 

part of a larger DOE effort to identify different pathways for meeting the ambitious 

RFS2 volume requirements, considering vehicle technology, allowable levels of ethanol in fuel, the fuel distribution network, and other factors. DOE consulted with 

EPA and a wide array of stakeholders in designing its vehicle test program. 

After the E15 waiver request was submitted, DOE modified its test program so 

that it would produce data useful for making a waiver determination. In view of 

EISA’s bipartisan mandate for increasing biofuels as a means of reducing petroleum 

use and emissions, a concerted effort was made to expedite the testing and share 

the results with stakeholders and the public. As EPA indicated in a letter to the 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and on its webpage, DOE’s test data were 

placed in the docket for the waiver request as the data became available and were 

checked for accuracy and completeness. This allowed members of the public to review and comment on it, as many did. EPA also responded to inquiries about the 

test data. 

As DOE testing was completed, first for MY2007 and newer light-duty vehicles 

and later for MY2001–06 light-duty vehicles, EPA considered the test data along 

with other available information to determine whether the statutory test for granting waivers had been met. Based on the sound technical rationale detailed in the 

Agency’s October 2010 and January 2011 waiver decision documents, the Administrator concluded in these decisions that the statutory criteria were met for MY2001 

and newer light-duty vehicles and not for older such vehicles or other types of vehicles, engines and equipment. The Administrator’s decision thus increased the permissible concentration for ethanol to 15 percent, but only for use in MY2001 and 

newer light-duty vehicles. 

To protect other vehicles, engines and equipment from being misfueled, the Administrator’s decision placed conditions on the introduction of E15 into commerce for 

use in MY2001 and newer light-duty vehicles. It also included conditions to ensure 

ethanol quality and volatility control. Rather than attempt to reiterate here EPA’s 

extensive technical basis for granting the waiver in part and denying it in part, I 

refer you to the decision documents and welcome the opportunity to answer any 

questions you may have about the decisions. 

Related Steps 

To further reduce the risk of misfueling, EPA recently issued a final rule establishing national requirements for E15 pump labeling, product transfer documents 

and retail station surveys. We received many suggestions and comments about how 

we could improve our proposed misfueling mitigation program, and we believe the 

final rule is stronger as a result. We worked closely with labeling experts from the 

Federal Trade Commission in designing a label that effectively communicates the 

essential information consumers need to avoid misfueling. We also enhanced the 

ability of product transfer documents to communicate the information fuel blenders, 

distributors and retailers need to properly blend and market E15. It is important 

to note that the misfueling mitigation rule requirements are designed to work in 

tandem with the related conditions of the partial waivers, so that the fuel producers 

benefitting from the waivers continue to have an important role to play in mitigating misfueling. 

A number of additional steps need to be taken before E15 can enter the market, 

and many of those steps are not under EPA’s control. As I indicated previously, we 

have not yet received a complete application to register E15 as required by the 

Clean Air Act. Stations that want to sell E15 will need to consider whether changes 

are needed to fuel dispensing equipment to meet other federal, state and local requirements. Since a number of states restrict the sale of gasoline-ethanol blends, 

law changes may also be needed in those states before E15 may be sold there. EPA 

has a role in setting standards for the compatibility of existing underground storage 

tanks (UST) with E15, and the agency recently issued guidance to help UST owners 

and operators meet existing federal UST compatibility requirements. As E15 enters 

the marketplace, EPA is committed to working with stakeholders to monitor developments and help address any issues within the Agency’s jurisdiction. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. Mr. Greco? 
19 

STATEMENT OF MR. BOB GRECO, GROUP DIRECTOR, DOWNSTREAM AND INDUSTRY OPERATIONS, AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE 

Mr. GRECO. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members 

of the Subcommittee, my name is Bob Greco, and I am Downstream Group Director for the American Petroleum Institute, API. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on EPA’s premature 

decision to grant a partial waiver allowing ethanol blends of up to 

15 percent in gasoline, otherwise known as E15. 

API represents over 470 member companies involved in all aspects of the oil and natural gas industry. API members provide the 

fuels that keep America running. 

API supports the continued, appropriate use of ethanol to help 

meet our Nation’s energy demand. With the Renewable Fuel Standard, or RFS2, biofuels are an increasingly significant part of the 

transportation fuel mix. However, E15 is a new transportation fuel 

that contains 50 percent more oxygen, well outside the range for 

which U.S. vehicles and engines have been designed and warranted. It is thus critically important to evaluate the short- and 

long-term impacts of this new fuel on the environment and on engine and vehicle performance and safety. 

Shortly after the enactment of the Energy Independence and Security Act in 2007, the oil and auto industries and other stakeholders, including EPA and DOE, recognized that substantial research was needed to assess the compatibility of higher ethanol 

blends with the existing vehicles and small engines. Through the 

Coordinating Research Council, or CRC, the oil and auto industries 

developed and funded a comprehensive multi-year test program, 

which was actually initiated prior to the E15 waiver application. 

My written testimony includes additional background on the 

CRC. The oil and auto industries have contributed close to $14 million towards mid-level ethanol blends research over the past several years. Attachment 1 of my written testimony lists the CRC research programs and are scheduled for completion. 

This research examines the following areas: the durability of the 

engine itself, particularly the engine valves and valve seats; the durability of the fuel storage and handling equipment; the computerized on-board diagnostic system, or OBD, which the driver often 

sees as their check engine light; and the vehicle evaporative emissions control system, which minimizes the release of fuel vapors to 

the atmosphere. I disagree with Margo about whether these are 

emissions-related or not, and we can talk about that during the 

comment period. 

Most of this work will be completed by year’s end. However, the 

preliminary test results in which at least two program areas, engine durability and fuel system durability, suggest that further investigation is warranted. 

We shared the schedule and preliminary test results with EPA 

on several occasions, but the agency ignored this research. Instead 

of waiting for the CRC studies to be completed and thoroughly 

evaluated, EPA improperly used the data from the DOE catalyst 

durability program and drew conclusions about E15 effects for 

which this DOE program was not designed to evaluate. 
20 

In addition, research is being conducted on E15’s compatibility 

with gas station pumps, hoses, nozzles, gaskets and underground 

storage equipment. This work is in partnership with EPA and two 

DOE national labs, Oakridge National Lab and the National Renewable Energy Lab, or NREL. 

NREL’s research indicates that 70 percent of the used equipment 

tested and 40 percent of the new equipment tested yielded either 

non-compliant or inconclusive test results. These are potentially serious safety concerns for consumers and gas station attendants 

from dispensing E15 from any equipment that is not specifically 

listed for its use. 

EPA recently released their gasoline pump labeling rule, and API 

has serious concerns with their approach. The rule weakened the 

final label design from what they originally proposed. 

In conclusion, EPA’s desire to allow more ethanol in fuels cannot 

be allowed to harm our customers investments in safe, reliable and 

economical transportation. If consumer satisfaction and safety are 

compromised, the credibility of not only future biofuels but the entire RFS2 program will be questioned and challenged. That is why 

the oil and auto industries are supporting a comprehensive test 

program through the CRC, and testing has revealed reasons for 

concern. 

The E15 waiver controversy, however, points to the larger problem with the RFS2 mandates. The amount of biofuels required is 

fast approaching the limit of the vehicle fleet to safely utilize them. 

Within the next year or so, this blend wall will likely be exceeded, 

and refiners are greatly concerned about complying with an unworkable mandate. 

API urges Congress to seriously examine this looming issue and 

realign the biofuels mandates to fit the capabilities of the vehicle 

fleet. A premature E15 waiver is not the solution. 

Thank you for your time today, and I look forward to answering 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Greco follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. BOB GRECO, GROUP DIRECTOR, DOWNSTREAM AND

INDUSTRY OPERATIONS, AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE

Good afternoon, my name is Bob Greco and I am Group Director of Downstream 

and Industry Operations for the American Petroleum Institute (API). Thank you for 

the opportunity to testify today on the decision by EPA to prematurely grant waivers that allow ethanol blends of up to 15% (E15) in gasoline for a subset of the U.S. 

light duty vehicle population. API is a national trade association representing over 

470 member companies involved in all aspects of the oil and natural gas industry. 

API members provide the fuels that keep America running. 

API supports the continued, appropriate use of ethanol and other renewable fuels 

to help meet our nation’s energy demand. With implementation of the Renewable 

Fuel Standard (RFS2), biofuels are becoming an increasingly significant part of the 

transportation fuel mix. E15 constitutes a new transportation fuel. E15 blends increase the oxygen content of gasoline by 50%, well outside the range for which US 

vehicles and engines have been designed and warranted. E15 also dramatically impacts gasoline service station infrastructure as it is incompatible with most fuel filling equipment. This makes E15 a fuel outside the range for which such equipment 

has been listed and proven to be safe and compatible and results in conflict with 

existing worker and public safety laws outlined in OSHA and Fire Codes. For these 

reasons, it is critically important to evaluate the full range of short- and long-term 

impacts of increasing the amount of ethanol in gasoline blends on the environment 

and also on engine and vehicle performance and safety to protect consumers. 

In response to the passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), 

the oil and natural gas industry, the auto industry, and other stakeholders, includ-
21 

ing EPA and DOE, recognized in early 2008 that substantial research was needed 

in order to assess the impact of higher ethanol blends including the compatibility 

of ethanol blends above 10% (E10+) with the existing fleet of vehicles and small engines. Through the Coordinating Research Council (CRC), the oil and auto industries developed and funded a comprehensive multi-year testing program, prior to the 

E15 waiver application. API worked closely with the auto and off-road engine industries and with EPA and DOE to share and coordinate research plans. API is committed to continuing this research into the E10+ issue until sufficient research has 

been completed to assess the impact of introducing a new fuel in order to protect 

and consumers and the environment. We believe that EPA prematurely approved 

the E15 waiver request, and did not wait until this research effort was finished and 

the results were thoroughly evaluated. 

About the Coordinating Research Council 

The Coordinating Research Council (CRC) is a non-profit organization, established 

in 1942, that directs, through committee action, engineering and environmental 

studies on the interactions of transportation fuels with vehicles and engines. The 

objective of CRC is to encourage and promote the arts and sciences by directing scientific cooperative research to develop the best possible combinations of fuels, lubricants, and the equipment in which they are used, and to afford a means of cooperation with the government on matters of national or international interest. Through 

CRC, professionals in the automotive and in the energy industries collaborate in research and often coordinate with government agencies such as DOE, EPA and others. 

Scope of the CRC E10+ Research 

As mentioned earlier, key concerns of the auto and oil industries regarding the 

E15 waivers are fuel compatibility with infrastructure and engines, vehicle performance, and the overriding need for consumer satisfaction and safety. The EPA’s desire to prematurely permit more ethanol to be used in conventional vehicles cannot 

be allowed to harm the investments made by our common customers in safe, reliable 

and economical vehicular transportation. The oil and auto industries cannot support 

a premature action that could put consumer satisfaction, safety and the environment at risk. If consumer satisfaction, safety and the environment are compromised, 

the credibility of future ethanol products and the RFS2 program will be questioned 

and challenged. The CRC research has revealed reasons for concern with the use of 

mid-level blends in gasoline-powered vehicles. Although several important and fundamental parts of this comprehensive research program remain incomplete to-date, 

the program is on track and is producing results needed to understand the impacts 

of E15. As a result, we continue to support the CRC auto/oil industry testing program and have committed funds through its completion. 

Attachment 1 shows our anticipated schedule for completion which goes through 

the end of 2011 and into 2012. We shared this schedule as well as on-going research 

progress and results with EPA on several occasions prior to EPA making a decision 

to issue the partial waivers; EPA chose to ignore the CRC research. 

The auto and oil industries have contributed close to $14 million towards midlevel blends research over the past several years targeted specifically at fuel compatibility and engine performance issues that could impact consumers. This funding 

commitment demonstrates our concern and the seriousness with which we view the 

potential for vehicle and equipment performance issues that could have a negative 

impact on customer acceptance and, potentially, the environment. DOE funded a 

Catalyst Durability Study which was targeted at determining effects of mid-level 

ethanol blends on catalytic converters. 

Automakers upgrade their engine designs, fuel systems, and emissions control 

systems for E85 flex-fuel vehicles in the US. We need to know whether similar upgrades might be needed for mid-level ethanol blends. Accordingly, we are continuing 

to do research in the following areas: 

Evaluation of Engine Durability 

This program looks at the effects of mid-level ethanol blends on vehicle engine durability. A key engine part that may be adversely affected by increased ethanol levels is the cylinder head, a part that costs about $3,500 to replace and many engines 

have two. 

Attachment 2 shows preliminary test results. To date, 3 out of 8 vehicles tested 

failed on E20 and E15. One vehicle that failed on E20 and E15 passed on E0. Additional testing is underway and should be completed in late 2011. 
22 

Evaluation of Vehicle Fuel Storage and Handling Equipment Durability 

This program studies the effect of mid-level ethanol blends on the durability of 

parts that come into contact with the liquid fuel. An example is a fuel pump that 

can cost $500 to replace. Recent recalls of late model vehicles that have experienced 

issues with 10% ethanol blends highlight concerns with these components. Attachment 3 shows an example of a problem that can occur with fuel level sensors when 

exposed to high levels of ethanol. In this particular example, the fuel level sensor 

experienced a significant open circuit near the ‘‘full tank’’ position. This would result 

in erratic/false fuel gauge readings for the consumer and could create potential safety problems. This program should be completed by the end of 2011. 

On-Board Diagnostics Evaluation 

This program looks at the effect of mid-level ethanol blends on the vehicle’s OnBoard Diagnostic (OBD) system. This computerized system checks the vehicle emission control system to ensure it is working properly. Many states use OBD as part 

of their in-use monitoring programs to maintain local air quality. 

Increased ethanol levels in fuel could trigger MILs (malfunction indicator or 

‘‘check engine’’ lights) when no problem exists. Whether the MIL is false or not cannot be determined until the vehicle is checked by a trained mechanic. Conversely, 

increased ethanol levels in the fuel could prevent MILs from activating when real 

problems exist. 

A report examining the effects of E10 versus E0 and extrapolating the data to E15 

& E20 is complete and published. A subsequent assessment using state inspection 

and maintenance data to determine the potential for mid-level ethanol blends to 

trigger false MILs also is complete and published. Both reports are publicly available from CRC. These studies showed the need for additional work, and a program 

to look at individual vehicles is underway and should be completed in 2011. 

Evaporative Emissions 

This program studies the effects of mid-level ethanol blends on evaporative emissions control system durability. The program is underway and will be completed in 

2012. The evaporative emissions system keeps fuel in the car from evaporating into 

the atmosphere and negatively impacting air quality. A previous test program found 

that ethanol affected fuel vapor migration through system components. The 2007 

Energy Independence and Security Act required this kind of evaporative emissions 

durability study as a condition for issuing a waiver. We believe EPA did not fulfill 

this requirement. 

As mentioned earlier, the DOE Catalyst Durability Study was designed to determine E15 effects on catalytic converters. Instead of waiting for the CRC test results 

from the above programs, EPA improperly used data from the DOE Catalyst Durability program to draw conclusions about E15 related to certain effects for which the 

DOE Catalyst Durability program clearly was not designed to evaluate. These include, for example, engine durability, vehicle fuel system compatibility and durability, On-Board Diagnostics impacts, and evaporative emissions durability—all 

areas for which the DOE testing was not designed to provide meaningful results. 

The CRC research programs in these areas use test procedures that are more realistic for determining the long-term effects of mid-level ethanol blends. 

In addition, EPA granted ‘‘partial’’ waivers where some of the vehicles in the fleet 

can use the higher ethanol blend but not other highway vehicles, motorcycles, larger 

trucks, or non-road engines. Specifically, only 2001 and newer model year vehicles 

are eligible to use E15. Therefore, 2000 and older model year vehicles and other 

highway vehicles, motorcycles, larger trucks, or non-road engines cannot use E15. 

By granting ‘‘partial’’ waivers, EPA recognized the issues related to using this fuel. 

API has serious concerns that EPA’s label and misfueling mitigation strategy is premature and should not have been finalized until all vehicle and infrastructure research and testing was completed. While API agrees with EPA that fuel dispensing 

facilities should be prohibited from selling E15 unless the dispensers at those locations are properly labeled, API continues to have concerns with EPA’s final label. 

Because EPA weakened the final label design from what it originally proposed, the 

final design is more likely to confuse consumers about which fuels are appropriate 

for their vehicles and non-road equipment. 

Infrastructure Research—Overview: 

US worker and public safety laws require critical safety devices used at retail stations to be proven safe via a certification process by a Nationally Recognized Testing 

Laboratory and proven compatible via the material compatibility requirements of 

EPA OUST rules. In 2009, to address the potential need to raise the level of ethanol 

in gasoline, DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and Oak Ridge 
23 

National Laboratory (ORNL) began testing fuel retail station equipment and materials to determine how the most common equipment sold and used in the existing 

infrastructure would perform with E15. API also undertook research to test other 

equipment not covered by the DOE study. NREL contracted with Underwriters Laboratories (UL) to perform functionality testing on legacy and new fuel dispensers 

(i.e., the gas pump), Stage II vapor recovery systems that recover the gasoline fumes 

during a vehicles’ refueling, and the pumps that are submerged in the underground 

storage tank. ORNL concentrated on the compatibility of E15 with various materials 

used to build the pumps (e.g., elastomers, metals and sealant materials). Late in 

2010, UL released the results of their work for NREL and, in March 2011, ORNL 

released their report. 

The results of NREL’s research indicated that 70% of the used equipment tested 

and 40% of the new equipment tested yielded non-compliant or inconclusive test results. For example, the meters that measure the amount of fuel being pumped 

leaked and some of the safety devices that prevent refueling accidents didn’t work. 

API concluded that these results show that there are potentially serious safety concerns for consumers and fuel dispensing facility attendants from dispensing E15 

from any equipment that is not specifically listed for its use. 

ORNL’s testing showed that seals and gaskets will be impacted the most by the 

switch to E15 and may eventually develop leaks. However, since ORNL did not 

identify manufacturers with its results, it will be difficult for owners/operators of 

fuel dispensing facilities to determine if replacement is necessary. This is compounded by the long life of dispenser systems and the wide variety of seals and gaskets used by manufacturers. Therefore, the results of the ORNL report are of use 

to owner/operators of fuel dispensing facilities only to the extent that manufacturers 

will advise owners/operators of necessary replacements and make materials decisions in the future. ORNL’s testing results did confirm those of NREL that it is not 

appropriate to assume that E10 equipment is safe to use with E15. 

EPA’s Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) is focusing on developing protocols to test automatic tank gauges, which are used as the most common method 

of leak detection, with E10+ and is in the final stages of this development. Future 

OUST testing and test protocol development for other leak detection systems are 

contingent on future funding. Without the use of these test protocols and confirmation that any new equipment works with E15, retail station operators will not know 

if UST’s storing E15 are leaking. API has completed two projects (misfueling mitigation measures to address consumer misfueling and a literature review to determine 

the ability of flame arresters to work with ethanol) and continues a third 

(functionality testing of Stage I Vapor Recovery equipment and overfill prevention 

equipment). The Stage I equipment captures the gasoline fumes that would come 

out of the tank during a delivery of gasoline to the station thus protecting the air 

and the overfill prevention equipment keeps the tank from being overfilled during 

the delivery protecting the delivery driver and the underground water sources. API’s 

testing is due to be completed in second quarter of this year. The results will provide data on how well the Stage I and overfill prevention equipment function with 

E15. 

EPA recently released their final guidance on how to determine the compatibility 

of an underground storage tank (UST) system with the fuel placed in it. The guidelines were intended to provide an alternative approach to prove that an installed 

UST system is compatible with a fuel that it was not originally certified to store 

or dispense. However, EPA’s new approach does not provide equivalent safety and 

environmental protection to the original certification because EPA has equated an 

individual manufacturer’s mere claim of compatibility with the certification that is 

granted from a nationally recognized testing laboratory (NRTL), like UL. If EPA 

had required manufacturers to provide empirical data on the compatibility of their 

systems that is substantially similar to the NRTL data, then EPA would have provided equivalent safety and environmental protection. 

The following next steps need to be undertaken to fully assess E15 compatibility 

with fueling infrastructure: 

• NREL’s testing revealed significant problems with dispenser meter systems 

leaking at the seals. Retrofit kits for meter systems need to be developed and 

listed by UL in order to avoid complete dispenser system replacement. Listed 

kits or replacement dispensers are required by OSHA and Fire Codes. 

• A NREL report identifies concerns that the vapor space above the unblended 

ethanol (E97) stored in underground storage tanks is flammable. By contrast, 

the vapor space above gasoline is not flammable. These concerns must be addressed before E97 can be stored as a component for blending dispensers. Ad-
24 

ditionally, no dispensing equipment (for example, blender pumps) is listed for 

E97. 

• Copper piping/tubing was not included in ORNL’s testing. Copper is included 

in many legacy dispenser systems (i.e., gas pumps) and some leak detection 

equipment. Its compatibility with E15 is unknown and untested. 

The EPA should implement final guidance on UST system compatibility through 

notice and comment rulemaking which would offer much-needed security to UST 

owners and better achieve Agency objectives. The EPA should acknowledge that a 

certification by a NRTL is the best indicator of compatibility and safety, is required 

by federal and state worker and public safety laws, and an NRTL listing should be 

required for new equipment. However, in the case of ‘‘legacy UST system equipment,’’ if there is no such NRTL listing available, then there should be an alternative that is equivalent to the new equipment NRTL listing. Equivalency means 

that the testing is sufficiently stringent to provide proof of compatibility, and a 

method to demonstrate safety as required by worker and public safety rules using 

an independent thirdparty testing lab or a manufacturer’s self-certification of compatibility that is substantiated with appropriate data similar to that used by an 

NRTL to make such a finding. ‘‘Legacy UST system equipment’’ is defined as retail 

gasoline station UST system equipment that has been manufactured, installed, or 

purchased for which a NRTL listing is not available for the fuel that is intended 

to be stored for resale. 

Summary 

The auto and oil industries’ primary concern regarding an E15 waiver is the overriding need for consumer satisfaction and safety. EPA’s desire to allow more ethanol 

to be used in conventional vehicles cannot be allowed to harm the investments made 

by our customers in safe, reliable, and economical vehicle transportation. The oil 

and auto industries cannot support a premature action that could put consumer satisfaction and safety at risk. If consumer satisfaction and safety are compromised, 

the credibility of not only future ethanol products but the entire RFS2 program will 

be questioned and challenged. That is why API is supporting a comprehensive auto/ 

oil industry test program through the CRC to determine the effect of mid-level 

blends on our customers’ gasoline-powered vehicles, and this testing has revealed 

reasons for concern. Important parts of this research program remain incomplete 

but we are seeing results that demand completion before E15 should be given a 

green light. 

The E15 waiver controversy points to the larger problem with the RFS2 mandates. The amount of biofuels required to be blended is fast approaching the limit 

of the current vehicle fleet to safely utilize them. Within the next year or so this 

‘‘blend wall’’ will be exceeded, and refiners are greatly concerned about complying 

with an unworkable mandate. API urges Congress to seriously examine this looming 

issue, and adjust the biofuels mandates so that the biofuels volumes are aligned 

with the vehicle fleet’s capacity to safely utilize them. A premature E15 waiver is 

not the solution. 

Finally, regarding the current fuels retail infrastructure, current federal, state 

and local regulations and fire codes can and do preclude the use of ethanol blends 

over 10 percent. Concerns regarding the listing requirements for existing infrastructure as well as this infrastructure‘s compatibility with ethanol blends over 10 percent should have been resolved before a mid-level ethanol waiver was granted. Not 

only does the use of unlisted and incompatible equipment represent a significant potential legal liability for retail station owners, it also represents an even larger safety issue as most fuel storage and dispensing equipment have not been properly tested with mid-level blends, putting consumers and the environmentat risk. And using 

existing infrastructure for blends over 10 percent is a violation of worker and public 

safety laws in OSHA and fire codes. In this regard, EPA should engage with OSHA 

to understand the full scale of the issues in protecting the worker, the consumer 

and the environment. 

API remains committed to working with the auto industry and other stakeholders 

on E15 research until sufficient research has been completed to validate the introduction of this new fuel. EPA’s partial waiver approval was premature as EPA did 

not wait until the ongoing research effort was finished and the results were thoroughly evaluated. The oil industry needs a level of confidence in the data that will 

allow our brands to stand behind a new fuel. Our customers expect nothing less. 
25 
26 
27 
28 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Greco. Ms. White? 

STATEMENT OF MS. HEATHER WHITE, CHIEF OF STAFF AND 

GENERAL COUNSEL, ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP 

Ms. WHITE. Chairman Harris, Ranking Member Miller and Members of the Committee, my name is Heather White. I am chief of 

staff and general counsel to Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit research and advocacy organization based here in Washington, with offices in Iowa and California. Thank you for the opportunity to testify at this important hearing. 

Mr. Chairman, today the corn ethanol industry enjoys the luxury 

of a lucrative market created almost entirely by government intervention at taxpayer expense. Corn producers and ethanol companies press in tandem for any government intervention, especially 

from Washington. That will, by expanding the market for corn ethanol, automatically expand the market to deal with our oversupply 

of corn, an oversupply that was created in part by USDA crop subsidies, price and income supports. That is what this E15 debate is 

about, not energy policy or energy independence. 

We believe the government should play a strong leadership and 

regulatory role in shaping the Nation’s energy future. But making 

additional market distorting commitments to corn ethanol is not 

the way to get there. Adding small, well-tested amounts of ethanol 

as an engine fuel additive to reduce air pollution in targeted areas 

makes sense. But corn ethanol is not an alternative transportation 

fuel. 

Mandating higher blends will increase air pollution. Corn requires more pesticides and fertilizers than other crops. Sky-high 

corn prices have already resulted in fence-row-to-fence-row planting. That depletes the soil, pollutes water, causes drastic soil 

losses. On top of that, imagine the consumer nightmare of E15 

when people use the wrong gas, damage their car or truck, 

lawnmowers or boats, and realize their warranties are no good. 

Our comprehensive review of the current science concludes that 

the data do not support a decision to waive the Clean Air Act for 

E15. Higher ethanol blends lead to more toxic air pollution, lower 

gas mileage, more leaks from underground storage tanks, greater 

potential for drinking water contamination and damage to older 

cars and trucks and small engines. 

We believe in a strong, vibrant, well-funded EPA and robust authority for the Administrator, and the majority of the time, we are 

on EPA’s side. This Agency protects our public health and has 

saved billions of dollars in healthcare costs through environmental 

enforcement and regulation. But we think this decision is a bad 

call. It asks Americans to play roulette at the gas station if they 

fill an unapproved vehicle with E15. 

Earlier this year we asked 13 car makers whether vehicles made 

after 2001 could use E15 and whether the warranty would cover 

engine damage related to E15. The answer for most companies was 

either no, the warranty won’t cover you or we don’t know. Congressman Sensenbrenner received similar responses recently when 

he did his own survey of automakers. 

Crowning corn ethanol the energy winner is unfair to real, clean 

energy technologies. In additional to corn subsidies, the industry 
29 

benefits from the ethanol blender’s tax credit, an import tariff, and 

mandated production under the renewable fuel standard. These 

subsidies are crowing out the market for more promising advanced 

biofuels. Remember in 2007 when Congress was told that the renewable fuel standard would set up corn ethanol as a bridge to better advanced biofuels? Corn ethanol has since exceeded its mandate, but EPA has lowered advanced biofuel production targets by 

90 percent. In fact, corn ethanol is a bridge to nowhere. 

In industry’s response to its broken promises is to task for even 

more government handouts. In the face of an overwhelming Senate 

vote to end the blender’s tax credit, its latest ploy is to get taxpayers to pay for special gasoline blender pumps that can handle 

various ethanol blends. But wasting more money on corn ethanol 

will only lock in this environmentally unsustainable fuel while 

locking out alternatives, among them drop-in fuels such as those 

made from switchgrass, wood, crop residues and algae that do not 

require special pumps. 

In conclusion, EWG supports, one, efforts to reduce overall gasoline consumption through fuel efficiency and mass transit; two, 

biofuels, especially drop-in fuels that use existing infrastructure, 

conserve soil, water, air and wildlife habitat, do not compete with 

the food supply and do not divert farmland from food production; 

and finally, the Committee’s draft language calling for a National 

Academy of Sciences study on mid-level ethanol blends. We need 

greater scientific certainty before we move forward and introduce 

this fuel into our Nation’s fuel supply. 

Thank you. I welcome the opportunity to answer any questions 

you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. White follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MS. HEATHER WHITE, CHIEF OF STAFF AND GENERAL

COUNSEL, ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP

Chairman Harris, Ranking Member Miller and distinguished Members of the 

Committee: My name is Heather White. I am chief of staff and general counsel at 

the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit research and advocacy organization 

based in Washington, DC, with offices in Ames, Iowa, and Oakland, California. I 

thank the Members of the Committee for holding this important hearing and for the 

opportunity to testify. 

For almost two decades, our organization has advocated protection of vulnerable 

people from toxic contaminants, ending subsidies that encourage environmental 

harm and investing instead in conservation and sustainable development. 

This nation’s biofuels policy is on the wrong path. Environmental Working Group 

believes that the Environmental Protection Agency should not have waived the federal Clean Air Act to allow the percentage of ethanol blended with gasoline to increase by 50 percent, to 15 percent ethanol. Until this decision, gasoline’s ethanol 

content was generally capped at 10 percent. We are nearing the ‘‘blend wall,’’ the 

maximum amount of ethanol that can legally be blended into fuel. This blend wall 

is potentially at odds with the production mandate of 36 billion gallons of biofuels 

set forth in the Renewable Fuels Standard of the 2007 energy bill. Because of the 

lack of enforceable environmental safeguards surrounding biofuels policy, we opposed expansion of the energy bill’s RFS mandate. 

As this subcommittee examines mid-level ethanol blends and ethanol policy from 

a scientific perspective, we urge you to support efforts to: 

(1) Allow the ethanol tax credit to expire in 2011 and eliminate other oil subsidies 

and tax breaks. 

(2) Reject corn ethanol industry proposals to fund grants and back loan guarantees to support conventional biofuels infrastructure such as blender pumps, corn 

ethanol pipelines and mandates for flex-fuel vehicles. 

(3) Invest in focused research on advanced biofuels, including those recommended 

by the Interagency Biofuels Task Force, that significantly reduce greenhouse gases, 
30 

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘E15 (a blend of gasoline and up to 15% ethanol)’’ 

23 June 2011. Accessed 4 July 2011 at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/additive/e15/. 2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Written Statement by Margo T. Oge, Director, 

Office of Transportation And Air Quality, Office Of Air And Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee On Clean 

Air And Nuclear Safety, United States Senate. Accessed online 1 April 2009 at http:// 

epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&HearinglID=3fdd18ff-802a23ad-4378-d21b6beb4d5a. 3 Knoll, K., West, B.H., Clark, W., Graves, R.L., Orban, J., Przesmitzki, S., Theiss, T.J., Knoll, 

K., West, B.H., Clark, W., Graves, R.L., Orban, J., Przesmitzki, S., and Theiss, T.J. ‘‘Effects of 

Intermediate Ethanol Blends on Legacy Vehicles and Small Non-Road Engines, Report 1— Updated.’’ Department of Energy. 2009. Accessed online 6 March 2009 at http://feerc.ornl.gov/publications/IntlblendslRpt1lUpdated.pdf. 

do not compete with or displace food crops and are environmentally sustainable over 

both the short and long-term. 

(4) Reform the Renewable Fuels Standard by freezing and phasing out conventional biofuels mandates and adding significant and enforceable environmental safeguards to the advanced biofuels mandate. 

(5) Focus on policies that would cut gasoline consumption, among them, encouraging drivers to make fewer trips, to carpool and to invest in vehicles or forms of 

transportation that actually reduce dependence on fossil fuels. 

No matter which path Congress takes on biofuels policy, it is clear that the latest 

science on the health risks of mid-level ethanol blends raises red flags. Our comprehensive review of the available scientific data indicates that E15 and higher ethanol blends could have significant adverse impacts on human and environmental 

health. (Appendix A). The data simply do not support a decision to approve fuel 

blends above E10 in the U.S. 

Furthermore, E15-blended gasoline will likely result in a consumer nightmare for 

small engine owners, boaters and owners of older vehicles, who may find their engines destroyed or damaged and their warranties void. Until these data are adequately generated and assessed, consumer safety, public health, and environmental 

protection are at risk from mid-level ethanol blends. 

Hitting the blend wall is symptomatic of our backwards biofuels policy, but, in 

fact, for the last 30 years, federal subsidies and other supports for biofuels have 

been misguided. Federal supports for corn ethanol, an environmentally destructive 

biofuel, are numerous and duplicative. 

The ethanol industry benefits from corn subsidies since corn is its main feedstock. 

The industry also receives ethanol blender’s tax credit, import tariff and mandated 

production through the Renewable Fuel Standard. These taxpayer-backed subsidies 

for corn ethanol are crowding out the market for more promising advanced biofuels. 

It is time we stopped subsidizing corn ethanol and artificially stimulating demand 

for ethanol blends that are not compatible with many vehicles and engines. 

Some recent actions by the Environmental Protection Agency are cases in point. 

• In March 2009, Growth Energy, representing 54 ethanol manufacturers, applied 

for a federal Clean Air Act waiver to increase the percentage of ethanol that 

can be blended into gasoline from 10 percent to 15 percent. 

• On October 13, 2010, EPA approved a partial waiver, permitting E15 to be introduced into the fuel supply, with the caveat that it was approved only for vehicles manufactured after 2006. EPA proposed a rule to avert misfueling, meaning, using E15 in pre-2006 vehicles. It contemplated labeling gasoline pumps to 

deter consumers from fueling incompatible engines with E15. 

• On January 21, EPA extended the E15 waiver to vehicles manufactured as 

early as 2001, effectively approving the higher ethanol blend for use in about 

two-thirds of the U.S. vehicle fleet. 

• On June 28, EPA published its final misfueling rule, with label language intended to warn consumers if their vehicle or engine could be damaged by E15. 1

Problems with higher blends of ethanol 

The Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to approve E15 is bad for consumers, the environment and public health. The decision is counterproductive to the 

national goal of reducing gasoline consumption and strengthening energy independence. Expanding gasoline’s ethanol content by 50 percent will result in numerous 

short-term and long-term problems, among them: 

• Consumer confusion at the pump 

• Damage to older cars and trucks 2

• Damage to small and off-road engines 3
31 

4 Naidenko, Olga. ‘‘Ethanol-Gasoline Fuel Blends May Cause Human Health Risks and Engine Issues.’’ May 2009. Accessed online 4 July 2011 at http://www.ewg.org/biofuels/report/Ethanol-Health-Risks-and-Engine- Damage. 5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘National Air Quality—Status and Trends through 

2007 EPA-454/R- 08-006.’’ 2008. Accessed online May 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/2008/ 

index.html.Lower gas mileage. 6 Tiemann, Mary. ‘‘Leaking Underground Storage Tanks: Prevention and Cleanup.’’ 18 May 

2010. Congressional Research Service. Accessed online 4 July 2011 at http://ncseonline.org/nle/ 

crs/abstract.cfm?NLEid=1457. 7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘EPA Announces E15 Partial Waiver Decision and 

Fuel Pump Labeling Proposal.’’ 2 December 2010. Accessed online 4 July 2011 at http:// 

www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/additive/e15/420f10054.htm. 8 Environmental Working Group. ‘‘Comments on EPA’s E15 Misfueling Rule (40 CFR Part 

80 on November 4, 2010).’’ Accessed online 4 July 2011 at http://epw.senate.gov/public/ 

index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore—id=b33e540b-d305-4ba6-be45-81a0d701ed2b. 9 Growth Energy. ‘‘In Landmark Move, EPA Approves Higher Ethanol Blend for Vehicles 

Built in Last Decade.’’ 21 January 2011. Accessed online 4 July 2011 at http:// 

www.growthenergy.org/news-mediacenter/ releases/-in-landmark-move-epa-approves-higher-ethanol-blend-for-vehicles-built-in-last-decade/. 

• Safety issues 4

• Voided engine warranties • More air pollutants like nitrous oxide and formaldehyde 5

• More leaks from underground storage tanks 6

• Greater potential for drinking water contamination 

Preventing misfueling 

EPA approved introduction of E15 into the fuel supply with conditions that aimed 

to help consumers avoid using it in older vehicles and small engines. The agency: 

• Prohibited blends between E10 and E15 in unapproved vehicles and engines. 

• Require all fuel dispensers to have a label if a retail station chooses to sell E15. 

• Required a national survey of retail stations to ensure compliance with the labeling provisions. 7

EWG recommended that the EPA require gasoline station owners to put clear, detailed labels on pumps in order to alert consumers to the dangers of E15. 8 EPA incorporated a few of our recommendations but watered down the language at key 

points. For instance, we suggested the label bear the word ‘‘Warning.’’ EPA opted 

for the weaker word ‘‘Attention.’’ We recommended that the label display an 800 

number and website address or that it advise the consumer to consult the owner’s 

manual if uncertain whether E15 could be used in a particular vehicle or small engine. EPA ignored these suggestions, among many others, that would help prevent 

harm to older vehicles and ethanol-related pollution. 

EPA’s final rule minimized safety issues. It did not adequately inform consumers 

that small engines can stall or fail if fueled wrongly with E15. 

Taken together, these EPA decisions do not adequately protect consumers, public 

health or the environment. 

EPA decisions endanger older and smaller engines 

Adding small, well-tested amounts of oxygenated additives like ethanol to engine 

fuel to reduce air pollution in targeted nonattainment areas makes sense. But the 

misguided effort to treat ethanol as an alternative transportation fuel has become 

a well-founded source of concern for consumers, environmental groups, livestock 

farmers, automobile makers and the food industry. Most gasoline sold in the U.S. 

contains 10 percent ethanol. Most engines can tolerate that much ethanol. But engines run hotter on a gasoline-ethanol blend than on pure gasoline. As a result, 

many gasoline engines cannot run on E15 without risking major internal damage 

and increased tailpipe emissions. Newer vehicles can accommodate increased exhaust and catalyst temperatures, but many older vehicles cannot. For that reason, 

EPA has approved E15 only for automobiles made in 2001 and thereafter. Yet the 

ethanol industry, thirsting for bigger markets and more sales, has pressed hard to 

add E15 to the entire automobile fuel supply, arguing without basis that increased 

ethanol content in gasoline would somehow foster American energy independence. 

Well-known compatibility problems suffered by older vehicles and small or off-road 

engines were pushed to the side. 

Growth Energy has contended that tests show that no problems exist with using 

the E15 fuel mix. It has urged the agency to extend the waiver to older vehicles. 9

In fact, the Department of Energy’s vehicle emissions data for 2001 to 2006 model 

vehicles found that four of eight vehicles failed to meet at least one of three emissions standards, for nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide and non-methane organic 
32 

10 Environmental Working Group. ‘‘When It Comes to E15, Never Mind the Data.’’ 5 May 

2011. Accessed online 4 July 2011 at http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2011/05/when-it-comes-to-e15- 

never-mind-the-data/. 11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘Regulation To Mitigate the Misfueling of Vehicles 

and Engines With Gasoline Containing Greater Than Ten Volume Percent Ethanol and Modifications to the Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline Programs.’’ 23 June 2011. Accessed online 4 July 2007 at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/additive/e15/mitigate-misfuel-e15.pdf. 12 Ibid. 13 Coordinating Research Council, Inc. ‘‘About CRC.’’ Accessed online 4 July 2011 at http:// 

www.crcao.com/about/index.html. 14 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants.’’ 2007. Accessed online 17 March 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/hapindex.html. 15 National Institutes of Health—National Toxicology Program. ‘‘Formaldehyde.’’ June 2011. 

Accessed online 4 July 2011 at http://www.niehs.nih.gov/about/materials/formaldehydefs.pdf. 16 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants.’’ 2007. Accessed online 4 July 2011 at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/hapindex.html. 17 McCarthy, MC, O’Brien, TE, Charrier, JG, and Hafner, HR. ‘‘Characterization of the 

Chronic Risk and Hazard of Hazardous Air Pollutants in the United States Using Ambient Monitoring Data.’’ 2009. Environmental Health Perspectives 117(5): pp. 790-96; see also U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Integrated Risk Assessment System (IRIS). Acetaldehyde 

(CASRN 75-07-0). Available: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0290.htm. 18 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘Acetaldehyde.’’ 6 November 2007. Accessed online 

4 July 2011 at http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/hlthef/acetalde.html. 19 Weinmayr G, Romeo E, De Sario M, Weiland SK, Forastiere F. 2010. Short-term effects 

of PM10 and NO2 on respiratory health among children with asthma or asthma-like symptoms: 

a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Health Perspect 118(4): 449-57. 

gases. 10 Vehicles newer than 2006 fared slightly better. Still, fully one-fifth of vehicles manufactured in 2007 or later failed to meet at least one emissions standard 

when using E15. 

The E15 waiver is based on Section 211(c)(1), a provision in the federal Clean Air 

Act that allows the EPA to issue regulations to ‘‘control or prohibit the manufacture, 

introduction into commerce, offering for sale, or sale of any fuel or fuel additive for 

use in a motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or nonroad engine or nonroad vehicle 

(A) if, in the judgment of the Administrator, any fuel or fuel additive or any emission product of such fuel or fuel additive causes, or contributes, to air pollution or 

water pollution (including any degradation in the quality of groundwater) that may 

reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health or welfare, or (B) if emission products of such fuel or fuel additive will impair to a significant degree the performance of any emission control device or system which is in general use, or which 

the Administrator finds has been developed to a point where in a reasonable time 

it would be in general use were such regulation to be promulgated.’’ 11

It appears that EPA considered only option B when approving the E15 waiver. 

It seems to have ignored the act’s first principle—to protect public health and welfare. The agency approved a fuel known to damage vehicle engines made before 

2001 and with some chance of causing newer vehicles to emit excessive pollutants. 

In its final misfueling rule, EPA admitted that E15 use ‘‘could lead to extremely elevated exhaust and evaporative emissions.’’ 12 EPA issued the waiver despite evidence of increased emissions with use of higher ethanol blends. The waiver directly 

conflicts with testing by the Department of Energy, the National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the Coordinating Research 

Council, a non-profit organization that conducts engineering and environmental 

studies on the engines and petroleum products. 13

Health hazards of E15 emissions 

EPA’s E15 decision presents a clear risk to human health. 14 The more a vehicle 

burns higher ethanol blends, the more it emits the toxic pollutants acetaldehyde, 

formaldehyde and nitrous oxide. 

Last month, the Department of Health and Human Services officially classified 

formaldehyde as a ‘‘known human carcinogen.’’ 15 The International Agency For Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organization, also uses that designation. As well, formaldehyde causes severe respiratory tract irritation, chronic bronchitis and airway inflammation. 16

Acetaldehyde is a strong respiratory irritant and toxicant that is especially dangerous to children and adults with asthma. 17 EPA considers acetaldehyde a probable human carcinogen, based on studies in laboratory animals and in exposed 

workers. 18

Higher concentrations of acetaldehyde in car emissions could lead to increased 

cancer incidence and greater prevalence of respiratory disorders. 

Nitrous oxide emissions aggravate asthma, airway inflammation and respiratory 

disease. 19 Nitrous oxide contributes to the formation of ground-level ozone, a res-
33 

20 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘National Air Quality—Status and Trends through 

2007 EPA-454/R- 08-006.’’ 2008. Accessed online 20 January 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/ 

airtrends/2008/index.html. 21 Environmental Working Group. ‘‘You Could Be On Your Own If Ethanol Messes up Your 

Engine.’’ 9 May 2011. Accessed online 4 July 2011 at http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2011/05/youcould-be-on-your-own-if-ethanol-messes-up-your-engine/. 

piratory toxicant; it is also associated with acid rain as well as with harmful effects 

on soils and surface waters. 20

Misfueling explained 

EPA’s final rule on misfueling, issued June 27, is aimed at mitigating damage 

that a fuel like E15 can inflict upon unapproved engines like older cars and trucks 

and small or off-road engines. EPA’s misfueling rule will require gasoline stations 

to place approved labels on pumps and take other measures to help consumers 

choose the correct fuel blends for their vehicles or equipment. This rule will not, in 

fact, avert widespread misfueling and resulting engine warranty problems and needless expense incurred by vehicle owners. The label EPA has designed for gasoline 

pumps is not sufficient to alert consumers to the hazards of misfueling. EPA has 

given little guidance as to who, if anyone, will be held responsible when a motorist 

fills an unapproved vehicle or engine with E15. 

Earlier this year, Environmental Working Group called the national headquarters 

of 13 automobile manufacturers and asked two simple questions: 

1. Could vehicles from model years 2001 and later use E15 if it were to come on 

the market over the next year or so? 

2. Would the company’s warranty be voided if a vehicle had engine trouble related 

to E15? 

Not a single automobile manufacturer provided detailed answers to our questions. 21 Four said that engine problems caused by E15 would void their warranties. 

Most companies passed the buck, recommending that we ask a local dealer or check 

back later. Four suggested using a high-octane (and more expensive) blend. Only 

Chevrolet said its warranty would not be voided by E15-related damage if the correct octane level had been used. 

Small engines such as lawnmowers, outboard motors and chainsaws are even 

more vulnerable to E15-related damage because they were not manufactured to run 

on higher ethanol blends. The small engine industry has petitioned EPA to ensure 

that E10 will still be available. EPA denied this request last week. 

In the end, it seems that consumers, convenience store owners, car companies, 

local dealers and small engine manufacturers will be on their own to sort out the 

risks of E15. 

Leaking underground storage tanks 

In its recent guidance, EPA has reported that ethanol is more corrosive than gasoline and can cause underground gasoline storage tanks to leak. We suggested that 

EPA determine the implications of storing higher blends of ethanol in these tanks. 

Since researchers have established that storing gasoline-ethanol blends in incompatible tanks can cause leaks, EPA should assess the increased risk of soil and water 

contamination before it allows E15 to be introduced. We thank this Committee for 

taking leadership on this important issue. 

Biofuels policy on wrong track 

The many uncertainties surrounding E15 are symptoms of a much larger problem. 

Our nation’s biofuel policy is on the wrong track. The Renewable Fuel Standard, set 

in the 2007 energy bill, calls for production of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels 

by 2022. In practice, this standard does little or nothing to accomplish Congress’ primary objective—to bring to market a new generation of so-called advanced biofuels 

that do not compete with food crops. More than 90 percent of ethanol produced in 

the U.S. is refined from corn. Corn ethanol production—conceived as a first-generation biofuel solution—continues to exceed the maximum production level set by the 

Renewable Fuel Standard mandate. At the same time, production of cellulosic 

biofuels has lagged. EPA has been forced to reduce mandates for them by more than 

90 percent over the past two years. 

The notion that the Renewable Fuel Standard set up corn ethanol as a bridge to 

better advanced biofuels is simply false. Corn ethanol is proving to be a bridge to 

nowhere. 

Meanwhile, corn ethanol production consumes a disproportionate share of renewable energy tax credits. The Biomass Crop Assistance Program, an offshoot of the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency that intended to facilitate 
34 

22 National Resources Defense Council. ‘‘Coalition of 90 Group Urges Congress to End Corn 

Ethanol Subsidies.’’ 1 March 2011. Accessed online 4 July 2011 at http://switchboard.nrdc.org/ 

blogs/slyutse/todaylalwhoppingl87lorganizati.html. 23 The White House. ‘‘Growing America’s Fuel: An Innovation Approach to Achieving the 

President’s Biofuels Target.’’ 3 February 2010. Accessed online 4 July 2011 at http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rsslviewer/growinglamericaslfuels.PDF. 24 U.S. Department of Agriculture. ‘‘Rural Energy for America; Final Rule. ‘‘14 April 2011. 

Accessed online 4 July 2011 at http://www.agri-pulse.com/uploaded/REAPl14Apr11.pdf. 

the development of cellulosic biofuels, has veered seriously off track. Instead of 

funding crops like switchgrass, envisioned as a cellulosic feedstock, more than 80 

percent of this program’s budget has gone to existing pulp and paper companies. 

This year, Congress has considered bills and amendments to limit funding for ethanol blender pumps and to repeal the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit. EWG 

and at least 89 other organizations support repealing this tax credit this year. 22 We 

have urged Congress not to spend scarce taxpayer funds on blender pumps and 

other corn ethanol infrastructure. Wasting money on corn ethanol will only lock in 

this environmentally unsustainable fuel while locking out alternatives, among them 

dropin fuels—those made from switchgrass, wood and crop residues and algae—that 

do not require special infrastructure. 

The Department of Energy has recently announced grants and loan guarantees 

for research and development of advanced drop-in biofuels, following 2009 recommendations of the Interagency Task Force on Biofuels. 23 Meanwhile, in April, 

USDA announced an interim final rule that would make ethanol blender pumps eligible for Rural Energy for America Program funding. 24 Congress created the program to fund solar, wind, hydropower and energy efficiency projects that have true 

potential to reduce dependence on foreign oil and create rural jobs. Funding blender 

pumps will accomplish neither of these goals. The taxpayers will subsidize the corn 

ethanol industry once again. 

It is time to take a fresh look at our biofuels and transportation fuel policies. The 

first and immediate priority should be to reduce overall gasoline consumption by improving vehicle fuel efficiency, supporting alternative transportation opportunities 

and other such measures. We should follow the recommendations of the Interagency 

Task Force on Biofuels and focus on bringing advanced drop-in fuels to commercialization. We should undertake careful assessments of the performance of advanced biofuels before forcing them onto the market or spending large amounts of 

taxpayer dollars on subsidies and other incentives. 

It is critical that federal policy encourage those biofuels that are compatible with 

existing infrastructure, that conserve soil, water, air and wildlife habitat, that do 

not compete with the food supply and that do not use land that is used for food production. We cannot make the same mistakes that were made with corn ethanol. 

We believe that EPA’s recent E15 waiver runs counter to scientific evidence that 

mid-level ethanol blends worsen pollution. We support the Committee’s draft legislative language calling for a study by the National Academy of Sciences of the implications for public health of mid-level ethanol blends. 

We thank the Committee for holding this important hearing. We look forward to 

working with you to ensure that E15 is not prematurely introduced into our fuel 

supply at the expense of consumers, the environment and public health. 

[Additional information follows] 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you, Ms. White. Mr. Wasil? 

STATEMENT OF MR. JEFF WASIL, EMISSIONS CERTIFICATION 

ENGINEER, EVINRUDE OUTBOARD MOTORS 

Mr. WASIL. Good afternoon, Chairman Harris, Ranking Member 

Miller, and other Members of the Subcommittee. It is a pleasure 

to be here this afternoon. Good afternoon. My name is Jeff Wasil, 

and I am the Emissions Certification Engineer for BRP Marine Engine Division located in Sturtevant, Wisconsin. I am here today to 

testify on behalf of the National Marine Manufacturers Association 

which represents over 1,500 boat builders, marine engine and marine accessory manufacturers. I am responsible for marine engine 

emissions certification testing ensuring that all of our marine engines are compliant with the USEPA, California Air Resources 

Board and other global marine regulatory regulations. Additionally, 

I ensure that the engines that we sell will remain durable and perform to customers’ expectations. 

Over the past 12 years, I have published several peer-reviewed 

technical papers on marine engine emissions, including particulate 

matter, gaseous emissions and alternative fuels. This experience 

and other marine testing that I have done makes me uniquely 

qualified to tell you why I think it is a bad idea for the U.S. EPA 

to allow an increase in the volume of ethanol in gasoline and why 

I believe EPA has not followed proper procedures in either its decision to propose an ethanol increase in our gasoline supply or in 

their proposed warnings to consumers about the problems they 

know would be caused by E15 gasoline. 

I am here today representing NMMA and my company, but in a 

larger sense, I am representing many different kinds of engine 

manufacturers, including marine, lawnmower, chain saw, snow 

blower and snowmobile. These types of engines that EPA refers to 

as non-road engines typically do not have combustion feedback sensors capable of adjusting the air-fuel ratio of the engine to meet the 

specific requirements of the fuel. 

Ethanol is not gasoline, and the problem is that ethanol is a partially oxidized fuel, having a lower energy content than gasoline. 

As higher quantities of ethanol are blended into base gasoline, oxygen contained in the fuel increases for which the engine cannot 

compensate. Since many non-road engines do not have the capability of detecting the air-fuel requirements of the fuel, the engine 

could face catastrophic failure. 

As the person responsible for emissions certifications, EPA requires me to design, certify and lock in with tamper-proof controls, 

the optimum air-fuel ratio needed to meet emission requirements. 

When the fuel changes in the marketplace and additional 

oxygenates are added such as going to E10 to E15 gasoline, engines 

run hotter, causing serious durability issues and increase emissions, either in the form of increased nitrogen oxides or increased 

hydrocarbons due to misfire. 

Last week EPA finalized the label that would be required on fuel 

pumps at gas stations warning consumers that using E15 in certain types of engines may damage them. NMMA believes that the 

language in the label is severely inadequate and will do little to 
49 

properly inform and educate consumers as to the serious consequences of using the wrong fuel. 

Although NMMA and others petitioned EPA to require gas stations that offer E15 to also offer E10, EPA has denied this petition 

and has no plans to mandate the continued availability of E10. 

This will certainly lead to the very misfueling that EPA wants to 

avoid. 

Growth energy and other ethanol proponents will say that if 

there is a demand for E10, the marketplace will ensure that some 

stations will carry it, and this may very well be true to a certain 

extent. However, it is very unlikely that every gas station would 

carry E10 which would certainly increase the likelihood of 

misfueling. 

Now, I have seen some of the preliminary results of testing that 

has been conducted on marine engines by the Department of Energy. These results have not yet been made public, and we have 

been asked by DOE not to say anything specific until the report is 

final. But I can say that in these tests, the majority of engines that 

were run on E15 suffered significant damage or exhibited poor engine runability, performance and difficult starting, none of which is 

acceptable when on a boat out at sea. 

I would like to end my testimony today on a positive note and 

mention an alternative fuel that is currently being evaluated. Last 

year I published a technical paper on the effects of butanol-extended fuels in marine outboard engines. Butanol has an energy 

content closer to that of gasoline and is not hygroscopic, meaning 

that it is unlikely to absorb water and phase separate like ethanol. 

Based on this preliminary study, the data is promising in terms of 

better compatibility with existing engines and fuel systems. Additionally, NMMA and others are also currently evaluating the use 

of butanol-extended fuels in marine products. Butanol certainly 

does have potential and may allow for continued use of biofuel with 

better compatibility with existing engines and fuel system components. 

And finally, more testing should be done to determine the effects 

of E15 on various kinds of engines and to see whether there might 

be alternatives to ethanol, such as butanol. Additionally, the Committee asked me to comment on the legislation it is considering to 

engage the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of all 

scientific data on ethanol blends and their effects on engines. I do 

believe that this legislation is a good idea. 

Thank you very much for allowing me to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wasil follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. JEFF WASIL, EMISSIONS CERTIFICATION ENGINEER, 

EVINRUDE OUTBOARD MOTORS

Good afternoon, Chairman Harris, Ranking Member Miller, other Members of the 

Subcommittee. 

It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon. My name is Jeff Wasil and I am the 

Emissions Certification Engineer for BRP Evinrude Marine Engine division located 

in Sturtevant, Wisconsin. I am here today to testify on behalf of the National Marine Manufacturers Association, which represents over 1500 boat builders, marine 

engine, and marine accessory manufacturers. I ask that my full written testimony, 

with the attached exhibits, be made a part of the record of this hearing. 

I am responsible for marine engine emissions certification testing: ensuring that 

all of our marine engines are compliant with U.S. EPA, California, and other global 
50 

marine emission regulations. Additionally, I ensure that the engines we sell will remain durable and perform to customers’ expectations. Over the past 12 years, I have 

published several peer-reviewed technical papers on marine engine emissions, including particulate matter, gaseous emissions, green house gas emissions and alternative fuels. This experience and other marine testing I have done makes me 

uniquely qualified to tell you why I think it is a bad idea for the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency to allow an increase in the volume of ethanol in gasoline and why 

I believe EPA has not followed proper procedures in either its decision to propose 

an ethanol increase in our gasoline supply or in their proposed warnings to consumers about the problems that they know would be caused by E15 gasoline. 

As all of you most certainly know, EPA responded to a petition from ‘‘Growth Energy,’’ which represents ethanol producers and supporters, by proposing to raise the 

percentage of ethanol in gasoline from 10 percent to 15 percent by volume. I am 

here today representing NMMA and my company, but in a larger sense, I am representing many different kinds of engine manufacturers—marine, lawnmower, chain 

saw, snow blower, snow mobile. These types of engines that EPA refers to as ‘‘nonroad engines’’ typically do not have combustion feedback sensors capable of adjusting the air/fuel ratio of the engine to match the specific requirements of the fuel. 

Ethanol is not gasoline, and the problem is that ethanol contains additional oxygen. 

As higher quantities of ethanol are blended into base gasoline, oxygen contained in 

the fuel increases, which leads to engine enleanment. Since many non-road engines 

do not have the capability of detecting the air/fuel ratio requirements of the fuel, 

the engine could face catastrophic failure. As a member of the team responsible for 

engine calibration, and the person responsible for emissions certifications, EPA requires me to design, certify, and lock-in with tamper-proof controls, the optimal fuel/ 

air ratio needed to meet emission requirements. When the fuel changes in the marketplace and additional oxygenates added—such as by going from E10 gasoline to 

E15—engines run hotter, causing serious durability issues and increased emissions 

either in the form of increased Nitrogen Oxides (due to enleanment) or increased 

hydrocarbons (due to misfire). Additionally, ethanol is hygroscopic—meaning that it 

has an affinity for water. Obviously there is significant opportunity for fuel-related 

issues in the marine environment due to the presence of water near open vented 

fuel systems and due to the inherent long-term storage and usage cycles unique to 

recreational boats. Ethanol only exacerbates these issues. 

My concern is heightened by the EPA’s statutory mandate to increase the biofuel 

content in the nation’s gasoline supply to 36 billion gallons per year by 2022 and 

by the EPA’s efforts to achieve this mandate. As I mentioned, EPA has responded 

to the petition from Growth Energy by proposing a ‘‘partial waiver,’’ allowing E15 

to be used in certain vehicles and not in others. As a result of this partial waiver, 

EPA has begun working on a rule that will change the certification fuel for our engines from a 0% ethanol-extended fuel to a 15% ethanol-extended fuel. In addition, 

last week, EPA finalized a label that would be required on fuel pumps at gas stations warning consumers that using E15 in certain types of engines may damage 

them. NMMA believes that the language in the label is severely inadequate and will 

do little to properly inform and educate consumers as to the serious consequences 

of using the wrong fuel. I have attached a copy of the label with our specific concerns as part of my full written testimony. 

The reality is that if E15 becomes the standard gasoline in the marketplace, millions of consumers will run the risk of having their vehicles, boats, lawnmowers, 

and other gasoline-powered devices damaged, because they will not have the option 

of fueling them properly. Although NMMA and others petitioned EPA to require gas 

stations that offer E15 to also offer ElO, EPA has denied this petition and has no 

plans to mandate the continued availability of ElO. This will certainly lead to the 

very misfueling that EPA wants to avoid. 

Growth Energy and other ethanol proponents will say that if there is a demand 

for ElO, the marketplace will ensure that some stations will carry it, and this may 

be true to an extent. However, it is unlikely that every gas station would carry El0, 

and there might not be one anywhere near where you live or work. So that would 

inconvenience the consumer and increase the likelihood of misfueling. 

Why have I been so insistent that increasing ethanol is almost certain to damage 

marine and other types of engines? As the person who works on calibrating these 

engines, I know first-hand how to damage them. I have seen some of the preliminary results of testing that has been conducted on such engines by the Department 

of Energy’s National Renewable Energy laboratory. These results have not yet been 

made public, and we have been asked by DOE not to say anything specific until the 

report is final, but I can say that in these tests, the majority of the marine engines 

that were run on E15 suffered significant damage or exhibited poor engine 

runability, performance and difficult starting—none of which is acceptable when on 
51 

a boat out at sea. Why did this happen? As I mentioned in my opening, from a technical standpoint the failures are due to changes to the calibrated stoichometric air/ 

fuel ratio requirements of E15—which is different from the fuel on which the engine 

was intended and designed to run. The full results of the DOE tests are scheduled 

to be released in the fall, but from what we have already learned, E15 will cause 

many engines to fail well before they should: We know that, and the EPA knows 

that, and it’s the reason we should slow down this abrupt move to introduce E15 

into the marketplace. 

So that I do not end my testimony today on a completely negative point, I’d like 

to mention an alternative fuel that is currently being evaluated. Last year, I published a technical paper on the effects of butanol-extended fuels in marine outboard 

engines. Butanol has an energy content closer to that of gasoline and is not hygroscopic—meaning that it is unlikely to absorb water and phase-separate like ethanol. 

Based on this preliminary study, the data are promising in terms of better compatibility with existing engines and fuel systems. Additionally, the National Marine 

Manufacturers Association and others are also currently evaluating the use of butanol-extended fuels in marine products. Butanol, considered an advanced biofuel in 

the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS), can be produced from many different types 

of biomass feedstocks, including corn. Recent advances in microbial fermentation 

processes have increased the yields of butanol, which make this product more costeffective. We don’t know for sure whether butanol is going to be a long-term viable 

alternative to ethanol, but it certainly does have potential. Testing is being done 

this summer by the NMMA and the American Boat and Yacht Council. We have 

also learned that other groups that make small engines are planning to test this 

new type of fuel. Butanol may allow for continued use of biofuel without the disadvantages of ethanol. We would like to talk with you about this when we complete 

our evaluation of butanol and when the DOE report on marine engines is final and 

we are allowed to talk more specifically about the DOE testing. 

I was specifically asked by the subcommittee to comment on the draft legislation 

that you will be considering. This legislation calls for the National Academy of 

Sciences to conduct a survey of all available scientific information relating to the 

effects on engines of ethanol blends greater than 10 percent. This seems to me to 

be a terrific proposal, as it would bring together in one place all that is known about 

E15 and higher ethanol blends. 

To summarize what I have told you today, 

• First, an increase in the ethanol content of gasoline from E10 to E15 has been 

proposed by the EPA. 

• Second, EPA acknowledges that E15 gasoline is suitable only for a limited set 

of gasoline powered vehicles and engines, specifically not including marine engines, snowmobile engines, engines on outdoor power equipment, and cars older 

than the 2001 model year. 

• Third, the warning label EPA has proposed for placement on gasoline pumps 

is completely inadequate. The label they propose will not properly warn and inform consumers about problems associated with E15, and it is almost certain 

result in massive misfueling and subsequent engine damage. 

• Fourth, unless continued availability of ElO gasoline is mandated by the EPAwhich the EPA has declined to do-E15 will almost certainly become the common 

fuel in the marketplace, with ElO having very limited availability. 

• Fifth, there is no need to rush E15 into the marketplace. Let’s have a strategic 

pause while more testing is done to determine the effects of E15 on various 

kinds of engines and to see whether there might be alternatives to ethanol, such 

as butanol. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify today. 

Exhibit A: Jeff R. Wasil, narrative biography 

Exhibit B: Press Statement, National Marine Manufacturers Association, June 

28, 2011, Subject: ‘‘EPA Finalizes Pump Label and Other Misfueling Guidelines for 

E15; NMMA concerned controls are inadequate to prevent misfueling as final rule 

makes way for retail sale’’ 

Exhibit C: Proposed EPA E15 Label, June 28, 2011 

Exhibit D: Jeff R. Wasil, Justin Johnson, and Rahul Singh, ‘‘Alternative Fuel Butanol: Preliminary Investigation on Performance and Emissions of a Marine Twostroke Direct Fuel Injection Engine’’ 

Exhibit E: GEVO White Paper, Transportation Fuels 

Exhibit F: Top Ten Reasons to use Isobutanol 
52 

JEFF R. WASIL

Jeff Wasil is currently employed as an Engineering Technical Expert, Emissions 

Testing, Certification and Regulatory Development at the Evinrude Product Development Center, Sturtevant, Wisc. Jeff is responsible for the marine outboard engine 

emissions testing and certification laboratory at Bombardier Recreation Products 

Evinrude Product Development Center. Jeff has twelve years experience in engine 

emissions testing and is intimately involved with global marine regulatory emissions development and harmonization. He is a member of the National Marine Manufacturers Association’s engine manufacturers division technical board, the International Council of Marine Industry Association (ICOMIA) marine engines committee, ICOMIA technical committee and is a project leader of NMMA’s greenhouse 

gas task force. Over the past ten years he has published and presented several technical papers on marine engine emissions including particulate matter, gaseous emissions, bioassay analysis, life-cycle emission and alternative fuels. 

From 1995 to 1998 Jeff attended the Industrial Engineering Technology College 

of Lake County in Grayslake, IL, from which he received his Associates degree. He 

received a second Associates degree in ‘‘Environmental Sustainability’’ from Roosevelt University in Chicago. 

EPA FINALIZES PUMP LABEL AND OTHER MISFUELING GUIDELINES 

FOR E15 

NMMA concerned controls are inadequate to prevent misfueling as final 

rule makes way for retail sale 

WASHINGTON, D.C.—June 28, 2011—Today, the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) released its rule outlining a gas pump warning label as well as other 

misfueling controls for gasoline containing up to 15% ethanol, more commonly 

known as E15. Last October, the agency approved the use of E15 for model year 

2007 and newer vehicles as part of its response to a waiver petition filed in the 

spring of 2009 by pro-ethanol lobby group Growth Energy. In January 2011, E15 

was approved for model year 2001–2006 cars and trucks. Completion of this 

misfueling rule was one requirement that was stipulated in the partial waivers for 

E15 before the fuel could be sold at retail outlets. Fuel and fuel additive manufacturers now must register E15 with the EPA, which has not been done as of today. 

While both partial waivers exclude marine engines and other non-road engines 

such as snowmobiles, lawn and garden equipment, the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) continues to be concerned that the measures outlined 

in EPA’s misfueling rule do not take significant steps to address anticipated problems with consumer confusion and the risk of misfueling. In addition, the rule does 

not ensure compatible fuels remain available for the nation’s 13 million registered 

boat owners or the hundreds of millions of owners of gasoline-powered equipment. 

These concerns were outlined in NMMA’s full comments to EPA submitted earlier 

this year. 

Specifically, NMMA is concerned that: 

• The EPA believes that misfueling will be mitigated solely through an 

English-only label on the gas pump. The label does not identify the specific nature of the hazard and is not sufficiently strong enough to capture the 

user’s attention, especially among the many existing point-of-sale labels already competing for consumers’ attention. In addition, usage of the word 

‘‘may’’ does not reflect EPA’s own conclusion that E15 will damage marine engines and equipment. The label, which was not tested through consumer focus 

groups, does not meet American National Standards Institute (ANSI) warning 

label standards that require recognizable warning symbols and icons. 

• The EPA is not requiring any physical misfueling controls for E15. 

NMMA recommended that physical barriers such as electronic key pad confirmation, verbal cashier confirmation, radio frequency identification (RFID) 

tags on E15 compatible vehicles that would lock fuel dispensers for any noncompatible use such as boats and/or the establishment of segregated pumps 

for E15 be required. However, the EPA is not requiring any of these highly 

effective physical barriers to misfueling. 

• The EPA will not conduct a consumer education campaign.l While the 

agency notes that this is an important step to preventing misfueling, the 

agency is asking stakeholders to educate the public despite the fact that ethanol producers and corn-industry groups have aggressively marketed E15 

with misleading consumer information in the past. Any fair and objective con-
53 

sumer education campaign must be led by the EPA and not stakeholders with 

a direct financial incentive to promote and sell their product. 

• The EPA will not require that E10 remains available in the marketplace. The agency has denied NMMA’s petition.to require that E10 be sold 

at gas stations as the population of motor vehicles who are approved to use 

E15 grows over time. Without this requirement, fuel for boats and other nonroad engines and equipment will become an expensive specialty fuel, discouraging consumers from buying it and thus exacerbating the risk of misfueling. 

‘‘As E15 becomes available for on-road vehicles, this greatly increases the likehood 

of misfueling in boats, the large majority of which are refueled at neighborhood 

automotive gas stations where E15 will be sold,’’ said NMMA President Thom 

Dammrich. ‘‘NMMA is disappointed that EPA’s only mechanism to protect consumers from confusion at the pump and consequent engine failures, emissions control failures and safety issues is a small label on the pump.’’ 

In December 2010, the NMMA filed suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. 

Circuit challenging EPA’s partial waiver to approve E15 for certain motor vehicles. 

NMMA continues to work with the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI), the 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) and the Association of International 

Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM) in a coalition called the Engine Products Group 

(EPG) in pursuing this legal challenge. 

For more information, contact Cindy Squires at 202–737–9766 or 

csquires@nmma.org. 

Contact: Christine Pomorski 202.737.9774 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Wasil. Mr. Brown? 

STATEMENT OF MR. MIKE BROWN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

CHICKEN COUNCIL 

Mr. BROWN. Good afternoon, Chairman Harris, Congressman 

Miller, and Members of the Committee. Thank you, Chairman Harris, for the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing. Also while 

unfortunate, I know I appreciate as does Chuck Allen, his family, 

his growers and employees, your comments regarding their plight. 

I know the remaining companies on the Eastern Shore appreciate 

your efforts as they do Mr. Bartlett’s efforts this morning before 

the Small Business Committee on the livestock rules. So thank 

you. 

I am Mike Brown, President of the National Chicken Council. 

Companies accounting for more than 95 percent of the chicken produced and processed in the United States are members of the National Chicken Council. 

The NCC is extremely disappointed and dismayed that the Environmental Protection Agency issued a final approval on June 28, 

2011, for new labeling for the sale of gasoline blended with 15 percent ethanol. The E15 gasoline blend is 50 percent greater than the 

E10 currently sold at most gasoline pumps. Putting aside the very 

definite and common-sense problem of misfueling that this action 

will cause, the NCC cannot understand why the Federal Government is taking this untimely and unfortunate step to put more 

pressure on an already precarious corn crop this fall. A misguided 

ethanol policy is being further misguided by the rush to placate the 

corn ethanol interests. 

NCC appreciates the 73 Senators who voted last month to begin 

to stop the madness of full speed ahead for ethanol regardless of 

the cost or economic fallout on the U.S. economy. The Senators recognized that repealing the VEETC and eliminating the import tariff on foreign ethanol would not just save taxpayers billions of dollars but would also send a message that ethanol manufacturers 

need to learn to operate in a free-market economy, not a cocoon of 

government subsidies, mandated usage and insulation from market 

competition. NCC urges the House to follow suit. 

In addition, NCC very much appreciates the 283 House Members 

who last month voted to approve an amendment that would prohibit USDA from allocating funds for ethanol infrastructure, including blender pumps and storage facilities. 

The NCC questions the so-called compromise efforts being debated in Congress to allow the ethanol industry to have its corn 

and eat it, too. Compromise in NCC’s dictionary means that the 

ethanol industry needs to allow for a good measure of flexibility in 

the ethanol policy and program going forward. Moving from a tax 

credit for blenders to a subsidy to build infrastructure is simply 

dressing up ethanol policy in another dress and is not a compromise. 

More specifically, the RFS needs to be subject to an adjustment 

when market forces and the corn harvest are such that market 

needs cannot be met at a reasonable cost to users. This is one reason why NCC supports legislation to permit individual States to 

opt out of corn ethanol portion of the RFS. 
99 

The policies and rules of the games for corn-based ethanol must 

be re-balanced and the playing field must be leveled to permit 

chicken producers and other animal agriculture producers to more 

fairly compete for very limited supplies of corn this year and most 

likely for the next few years. Our companies compete every day in 

the marketplace, domestically and internationally. We cannot compete with the United States Government. 

Broiler companies, since last October when the sudden, unexpectedly run-up in corn and other feed ingredients occurred, have tried 

to weather the storm of very high, volatile corn prices. But now 

companies are trimming their production plans, which means growers will receive fewer chicks to grow to market and processing 

plant shifts will be reduced further affecting employment. 

A broiler company in Georgia just announced last week 300 

workers will no longer be needed. Also, this month a fourth-generation broiler company in Delaware filed for bankruptcy protection 

while it works to secure an owner for its assets. Further, another 

company in Arkansas last week announced plans to consolidate two 

processing plants as well as two hatcheries. This consolidation will 

result in additional 223 jobs being eliminated. The company in its 

announcement indicated that eliminating these jobs will give it a 

better chance to survive. 

I would like to tell this Committee that this downsizing is the 

end of the boiler industry’s financial problems, but I cannot tell you 

that because there are a number of other companies on the financial bubble. Banks and other lending institutions are telling these 

companies, enough is enough, meaning sell your assets and repay 

your outstanding debt. What some analysts say about the broiler 

industry of ten companies in ten years may become a reality much, 

much sooner. 

The NCC strongly supports legislation that the Subcommittee 

asked for our views on that would require the Administrator of the 

EPA to contract with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct 

a comprehensive assessment on the ramifications of the use of ethanol blends. Chicken companies and all of animal agriculture are 

bearing the burden and feeling the disastrous effects of competing 

for corn on a field that is heavily tilted toward the ethanol industry. 

Mr. Chairman, I have submitted more in-depth testimony, and I 

will conclude my remarks here. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. MIKE BROWN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CHICKEN

COUNCIL

Good afternoon, Chairman Harris, Congressman Miller, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you, Chairman Harris, for the opportunity to participate in this 

important and very timely hearing on the issues impacting poultry companies, farmers, and the allied industry that supplies the necessary goods and services to the 

poultry business. 

I am Mike Brown, President of the National Chicken Council. Companies accounting for more than 95 percent of the chicken produced and processed in the United 

States are members of the National Chicken Council. 

E15 Labeling Permitted 

The National Chicken Council is extremely disappointed and dismayed that the 

Environmental Protection Agency issued final approval on June 28, 2011 for new 

labeling for the sale of gasoline blended with 15 percent ethanol. This E15 gasoline 
100 

blend is 50 percent greater than the E10 currently sold at most gasoline pumps. 

Putting aside the very definite and common sense problem of misfueling that this 

action will cause, the National Chicken Council cannot understand why the federal 

government is taking this untimely and unfortunate step to put more pressure on 

an already precarious corn crop this Fall. A misguided ethanol policy is being further misguided by the rush to placate the corn ethanol interests. When will the Administration begin to recognize that blindly pursuing this type of policy is financially damaging consumer pocketbooks and causing taxpayers to pay for a policy 

that makes little, if any, economic sense? 

Some In Congress Understand 

The National Chicken Council appreciates the 73 Senators who voted last month 

to begin to stop the madness of full speed ahead for ethanol regardless of the cost 

or economic fallout on the U.S. economy. The Senators recognized that repealing the 

Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) and eliminating the import tariff 

on foreign ethanol would not just save taxpayers billions of dollars but would also 

send a message that ethanol manufacturers need to learn to operate in a free market economy, not a cocoon of government subsidies, mandated usage, and insulation 

from market competition. Also last month, similar legislation was introduced in the 

House and the National Chicken Council also strongly supports this House effort. 

The National Chicken Council very much appreciates the 283 House Members 

who last month voted to approve an amendment that would prohibit USDA from 

allocating funds for ethanol infrastructure, including blender pumps and storage facilities. It is important to note that the latest vote on this legislation received 22 

more votes than it did when originally passed by the House in February. This message is becoming increasingly clear that more and more Congress are recognizing 

that the ethanol industry must, after more than 30 years, begin to compete on a 

level field in the marketplace. 

Compromise Is Not A Compromise 

The National Chicken Council questions the so-called compromise efforts being debated in Congress to allow the ethanol industry to have its corn and eat it, too. 

Compromise in the National Chicken Council’s dictionary means that the ethanol 

industry needs to allow for a good measure of flexibility in the ethanol policy and 

program going forward. Dressing-up ethanol policy in another dress is not a compromise. More specifically, the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) needs to be subject 

to an adjustment when market forces and the corn harvest are such that all market 

needs cannot be met at a reasonable cost to users. That is one reason why the National Chicken Council supports proposed legislation to permit individual states to 

opt out of the corn ethanol portion of the RFS. This common sense approach would 

be a good policy, especially when there is a very limited supply of corn available 

at a reasonable cost. States under this type of legislation can determine for themselves the trade-off of higher food costs versus more gasoline blended with ethanol. 

Allowing states to make this critical call is a step toward taxpayers and consumers 

better deciding for themselves what is in their best interest. The National Chicken 

Council calls upon Congress and others involved to permit states this opportunity. 

There are, of course, other reasonable approaches to adjusting the RFS when the 

conditions so dictate. 

Corn-Based Ethanol Policies And Rules Need Re-Alignment ASAP 

The policies and rules of the games for corn-based ethanol must be re-balanced 

and the playing field must be leveled to permit chicken producers and other animal 

agriculture producers to more fairly compete for the very limited supplies of corn 

this year and most likely for the next few years. This action must be taken as-soonas-possible. Broiler companies, since last October when the sudden, unexpectedly 

run-up in corn and other feed ingredient costs occurred, have tried to weather the 

storm of very high, very volatile corn prices. But, now, companies can no longer 

withstand the storm. Companies are trimming their production plans, which means 

growers will receive fewer chicks to grow to market-ready broilers and processing 

plant work shifts are being reduced or even eliminated. With less work time, more 

and more workers are being laid-off. A broiler company in Georgia just announced 

300 workers will no longer be needed. Also, this month a fourth-generation family 

broiler company in Delaware filed for bankruptcy protection while it works to secure 

another owner for its assets. Further, another company in Arkansas last week announced plans to consolidate two processing plant operations into one location and 

similarly will combine two hatcheries into a single facility. This consolidation will 

result in 223 jobs being eliminated. The company in its announcement indicated 

that eliminating these jobs will give it a better chance to survive. Earlier in 2011 

this same company eliminated about 300 jobs in an attempt to stay in operation. 
101 

Also, in May this year, a third-generation broiler company with a complex in North 

Carolina and another complex in Arkansas succumbed to the financial stress of high 

feed costs. The result in this case is that its complex in North Carolina is now 

owned by a foreign company and the Arkansas complex is now owned by another 

broiler company that not only had the borrowing capacity to purchase the assets but 

the reserves that will undoubtedly be necessary to carry financial loses until the 

broiler market improves to at least a breakeven position. A third-generation company in Mississippi closed its doors earlier this year as the corn cost/chicken price 

squeeze became intolerable. 

I would like to tell this Committee that the above noted situations are the end 

of the broiler industry’s financial problems. I cannot tell you that conclusion because 

there are a number of other companies on the financial bubble. Banks and other 

lending institutions are telling these companies, ‘‘enough is enough,’’ meaning sell 

your assets and repay your outstanding debt. What some analysts say about the 

broiler industry of ‘‘ten companies in ten years’’ may become a reality, and perhaps, 

sooner than in a decade. 

Draft Legislation For NAS Study On E15 

The National Chicken Council strongly supports legislation that would require the 

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to contract with the National 

Academy of Sciences to conduct a comprehensive assessment on the ramifications 

of the use of mid-level ethanol blends, meaning any blend level above E-10. NCC 

supports research comparing ethanol-gasoline blends containing 15 percent ethanol 

with ethanol-gasoline blends containing 10 percent. Chicken companies and all of 

animal agriculture are bearing the burden and feeling the disastrous effects of competing for corn on a field that is heavily tilted toward the ethanol industry. NCC 

urges this Committee and others in Congress to move quickly to approve the draft 

legislation for an impartial, science-based study. Such a study will help document 

the folly of hiking the ethanol blend in question when there is not enough corn in 

the foreseeable future to even meet the needs of E10. 

Conclusion 

The National Chicken Council, its members, and the many allied industry companies that support poultry production, processing and marketing look forward to 

working more closely with the Committee and others in Congress so that poultry 

producers have a better opportunity to successfully manage the increasingly difficult 

challenges and issues. Improving the state of the poultry industry not only helps 

poultry companies and poultry farmers but, more importantly will allow consumers 

of poultry products to continue to enjoy an ongoing, adequate supply of animal protein at reasonable prices. 

I look forward to your questions and comments. 

Biographical Sketch of Mike Brown, President, National Chicken Council 

Mike Brown is president of the National Chicken Council. He was selected for this 

position in February 2011, succeeding George Watts. As president, Brown manages 

the NCC staff and is responsible for carrying out policies as determined by the 

Board of Directors. 

Previously, Brown was on the staff of the American Meat Institute, where he represented AMI to Congress and the Administration as the organization’s senior vice 

president for legislative affairs. He joined AMI in May 1995, after serving eight 

years as a legislative assistant for former Sen. John Warner (R-VA), focusing on agriculture, food safety, labor, immigration, environment, and international trade 

issues. Brown also previously worked as a legal publication specialist for the Federal Register, where he was responsible for providing information to Congress, federal agencies, trade associations and others on federal regulations and office programs and publications. 

Brown earned his Bachelor of Science in political science and history from the 

State University of New York, Brockport. Brown and his wife, Kelly, live in Vienna, 

Virginia. 

The National Chicken Council represents vertically-integrated chicken producerprocessors, the companies that produce, process and market chickens and chicken 

products. Member companies of NCC account for more than 95 percent of the chicken sold in the United States. 
102 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Brown. Mr. 

Burke? 

STATEMENT OF MR. W. STEVEN BURKE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

BIOFUELS CENTER OF NORTH CAROLINA 

Mr. BURKE. Mr. Harris, Mr. Miller, Members, the Biofuels Center of North Carolina was established by our legislature in 2007 to 

implement a long-term state policy goal, to gain large internal capacity for alternatives to petroleum-based liquid fuels. 

I have been asked today to explicate our thinking, not to provide 

technical E15 responses. I offer, however, a simple statement about 

the E15 decision. Assuming technical concerns can be addressed, 

the Biofuels Center supports it as a necessary intermediate step on 

the road to this Nation’s larger goals for advanced biofuels. More 

time is needed for their development. In the interim, increased ethanol use, ethanol not necessarily entirely made from corn, catalyzes 

new technology, affirms economic and environmental benefits and 

prepares us for the next large amounts of generational feedstocks 

and facilities. 

Biofuels development in North Carolina is shaped by a realistic 

premise: America will continue to seek more augmentation of petroleum-based liquid fuels and thus needs new State models to gain 

large amounts of liquid fuel from sources other than corn in places 

other than our Midwestern States. 

North Carolina sprang from a bold goal. By 2017, we seek to gain 

ten percent of our State’s liquid transportation fuels from biofuels 

grown and produced in North Carolina, 600 million gallons are estimated to be required. 

Appropriation and policy port for this goal is sustained and nonpartisan. Biofuels is judged a matter of shared future-thinking policy. 

How does the State create the disciplined framework for a complicated long-term new sector? The question is important, for 

States should assume increasing leadership in bringing biofuels to 

our national landscape. 

North Carolina’s nationally unique biofuels endeavor is shaped 

by six imperatives. Imperative one, by policy that biofuels endeavor 

is not based on corn-derived ethanol. Judged unusual when laid out 

in 2007, the decision has proven smart. North Carolina does not efficiently produce corn and our large animal sectors must not be disadvantaged. As such, other crop and tree-based feedstocks must be 

developed. Energy, grasses and wood will likely be dominant. 

Imperative two, biofuels must be seen and shaped as a technology. Despite large production of ethanol in the mid-west and in 

Brazil, the technology is nascent and unfolding, at an early stage 

comparable to main-frame computers. Current corn-based ethanol 

production displays the historical reality of technologies. They 

begin with what we know and with what we can do and then 

evolve. Such evolution will yield new ways to make fuels from new 

sources in more places. 

Imperative three, a comprehensive approach is required for 

piecemeal attention yields uncertain success in technology development. A dovetailed approach addresses every aspect of biofuels, 

science, growing, pilot and large scale production, company devel-
103 

opment, distribution, training, land, biomass, financing, environment, policy issues, public preparation. 

Imperative four, the endeavor for biofuels is civic in scale and responsibility. As biofuels affects the largest components of our society, science, technology, agriculture and growers, crops, forests, policy, strategy, public choices, cars, car culture, land, energy, economic gain, production, distribution, environments, sustainability, 

jobs, daily life and in fact, every one of us, civic is at hand. 

Imperative five, economic and agricultural sustainability of crop 

and tree-based resources over time must be ensured for national 

feedstock requirements will be enormous and unprecedented. 

Imperative six, innovative targeted projects are required. Three 

representative examples are under way in North Carolina’s biofuels 

endeavor. One, North Carolina’s biofuels campus, a 426-acre campus will be developed over the next ten years as the Nation’s only 

large site for growing company development, public engagement 

and demonstration. Two, use of swine lagoon spray fields. North 

Carolina’s swine industry yields lagoon affluence sprayed for remediation on 100,000 acres growing low-value coastal Bermuda grass. 

The Biofuel Center has trials under way to verify environmental 

and economic benefits to instead grow cellulosic energy grasses, 

sorghums, switchgrass, miscanthus, and Arundo donax. 

Project Eastern Gain. We seek by 2016 to gain 50 million gallons 

of jet aviation fuel from our land contiguous to bases. 

I appreciate the opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burke follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. W. STEVEN BURKE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, BIOFUELS

CENTER OF NORTH CAROLINA

Mr. Chairman and Committee Members: I am Steven Burke, President and CEO 

of the Biofuels Center of North Carolina. A private non-profit corporation, the Center was established by the North Carolina Legislature in 2007 to implement a policy, economic, and agricultural imperative: to gain large internal capacity for alternatives to petroleum-based liquid fuels. 

I have been asked not to provide technical responses about E15 but, instead, 

North Carolina’s way of thinking and a way of doing about our biofuels future. 

I briefly make, however, a simple statement about the E15 decision of the EPA. 

The Biofuels Center supports the decision as a necessary intermediate step on the 

road to larger and longer-term national goals. More time is clearly needed for advanced biofuels technologies to develop. In the interim, increased use of ethanol 

serves as the first stage foundation required for new biofuels technology, affirms 

biofuels within consumer and national life, and prepares for large amounts of next 

generation feedstocks, technology, and facilities. 

For biofuels development in North Carolina, my requested topic, our way of thinking and doing is shaped by a strong premise: America will continue to seek more 

augmentation of petroleum-based fuels and thus needs new models to gain large 

amounts of liquid fuel from sources other than corn in places other than the Midwest. 

North Carolina has shaped such a model, springing from an ambitious goal: by 

2017, 10% of the state’s liquid transportation fuels will come from biofuels grown 

and produced internally. By current usage estimates, up to 600M gallons will be required. 

The goal is challenging but possible if a key recognition underlies policy and activities: development of large biofuels capacity must be seen as landscape changing, 

actually and figuratively, and as such must be judged nothing less than a societal 

and civic imperative. 

Such thinking, both bold and common-sensical, shapes work of the Biofuels Center of North Carolina. Judged the nation’s only agency working comprehensively 

over time for all aspects of biofuels development, it was established to meet the 

state goal and shape a 10–15 year civic endeavor statewide. The endeavor sprang 

from four compelling and strong imperatives: 
104 

1. Smart places and leaders now must strategically address their energy future 

as crucial for their future success and daily survival. 

2. An enormous and feasible new sector, well dovetailed to a state strong in both 

agriculture and technology, will be created. 

3. Economic and societal gains will come across the state, largely in rural and agricultural counties most in need of economic advantage. Realistic opportunities for 

sustained rural gain are few and merit committed support. 

4. Job and economic enrichment will be as strong or stronger in existing areas— 

forestry, agriculture, logistics, and distribution—as in new production facilities. 

Financial and policy support for North Carolina’s biofuels endeavor is sustained, 

permanent within the budget even at a time of financial constraint, and consistently 

nonpartisan. Biofuels in North Carolina is judged a matter of thoughtful futurethinking policy and not of politics. 

The Center is located on North Carolina’s Biofuels Campus, in the Granville 

County town of Oxford. The 426-acre Campus is a former lead USDA Tobacco Research Station established in 1910 and turned over to the state in 2005. The movement from tobacco to biofuels nicely symbolizes evolutionary changes in state and 

national agriculture. 

How does a single state create and implement the long-term, disciplined, and comprehensive framework required to create and maintain a complicated new sector? 

Our thinking is shaped under two headings: 

• NORTH CAROLINA’S NATIONALLY UNIQUE BIOFUELS ENDEAVOR 

• CONSIDERED THINKING ABOUT POLICIES, MANDATES, AND SUPPORT 

North Carolina’s Nationally Unique Biofuels Endeavor 

Shaped by the Biofuels Center of North Carolina, a statewide framework will over 

time strengthen resources, gain both feedstocks and production facilities, minimize 

risk and maximize gain to growers and investors, and address attendant financial, 

environmental, and policy issues. 

Ten factors and recognitions shape North Carolina’s approach to biofuels development: 

1. An Endeavor Not Based on Corn 

By policy, North Carolina’s state biofuels endeavor will not be based on or develop 

corn-derived ethanol. Judged an unusual determination when laid out in 2007, the 

decision has been proven sound. It grants realistically that the state does not efficiently produce corn and that large poultry and swine industries must not be disadvantaged. 

As such, state policy must soon and strongly move to practical evidence that other 

feedstocks, both crop- and tree-based, can sustainably and economically support advanced cellulosic biofuels. While this will make large commercial production unlikely in the short-term, it will yield strong advantage and good preparation for the 

longer-term as America moves to other feedstocks and more producing states. 

2. Biofuels Development is Technology Development 

Biofuels must be seen and shaped as a technology—demanding and complicated, 

exploratory and entrepreneurial. Despite large production of ethanol in the mid-west 

and Brazil, the technology is new and unfolding, at an early stage comparable to 

main-frame computers. Such ethanol production displays the historical reality of 

technologies: they begin with what we know and can do, and inevitably evolve. Such 

evolution will in coming years yield new ways to make fuels from new sources in 

new places. 

As with any new technology, gaining such new biofuels will take time, prove expensive, yield risks and setbacks, and necessarily require problem-solving. As technologies must, the imperative will engage our best thinking, arouse entrepreneurial 

imagination, trigger new governmental programs and policies, yield large economic 

return, force leadership, and make the place better. Although based on agriculture— 

the first technology around which societies formed—advanced biofuels are as technologically complex as the devices in our pockets. Failure to understand this complexity lessens the speed and effectiveness with which programs and funding move 

biofuels along the process of technology development, from societal need and research to outcome and change. 

3. The Endeavor is Agricultural 

Human life has been shaped by dependency upon the land—for food, key materials, and energy. Although the last century was shaped by non-land based energy 

sources for most vehicular transportation, common sense and strategic reality now 

impel movement from total dependency on carbon-emitting, variably available, and 
105 

politically destabilizing petroleum. Costly to America by many measures, that 

about-to-end-era freed the land unrealistically and only temporarily from its place 

in energy production. 

Agriculture and the land are, so to speak, back . . .and indeed 

strengthened . . .for energy production. Both must provide expanding capacities to 

fuel our vehicles as well as our diets and materials for daily life. Responsible state 

biofuels programs grant that accommodating new feedstocks to land, in balance with 

both food uses and the environment, requires challenging new thinking and policies. 

4. A Comprehensive Approach is Required 

North Carolina’s approach to biofuels development is comprehensive, based on the 

recognition that piecemeal attention to resources and tasks yields uncertain success. 

A dovetailed framework of strategy and activities must integrate every aspect of 

biofuels, from societal policy to new fuels enthusiastically placed in vehicles. 

The nation’s only state-based agency constituted with a comprehensive mandate, 

the Center addresses over time: research, growing and agronomic analysis, pilot and 

large scale production, company development, distribution, land and land use, environmental and policy issues, and public preparation. 

Specific requirements are varied: farmers and landowners must commit to new 

feedstocks and new uses of biomass; economic analyses must verify that money can 

be made in growing, production, and distribution; consequential issues must be addressed, for large impact will be seen on land, biodiversity, water, and the environment. Credibly addressing issues will in fact likely prove crucial in coming years 

to sustained growth of the biofuels sector; addressing them is a responsibility as 

well as the task of a life-based technology. Problems must be solved; models for sustainability must be crafted. 

While few would argue that these are the tasks of biofuels development, no other 

federal or state models appear to purposefully identify, fund, and address them in 

a comprehensive framework. Encouraging such state and regional models can prove 

valuable to this Subcommittee and to federal agencies, as they will increasingly 

prove necessary for the success and survival of a national biofuels endeavor expanding in feedstocks, geography, and strategic importance. 

5. Sustained Commitment is Required 

North Carolina grants that a long-term commitment is required. Technologies, a 

landscape changing sector, and visionary goals do not come about quickly or easily. 

As such, a sustained endeavor, over 15 plus years, will yield daunting tasks and 

developing groundwork in the short term but verifiable and large return in the longterm. 

6. The Endeavor is Civic in Scale and Responsibility 

Biofuels both springs from and shapes many of the largest societal imperatives: 

science and technology, agriculture and growers, crops and forests, policy and strategy, public behaviors and car culture, land and land use, energy and comprehensive 

energy policy, economic gain, production and distribution, climate, verified and functional sustainability, and something of daily survival in a changing world. As such, 

biofuels is nothing less than a civic endeavor. Smart places, agencies, and policy 

leaders should include it among imperatives for deliberate civic attention. Synthesis 

among the imperatives is challenging but required. As with any civic and societal 

mandate, the key framing question is constant and large: how can this endeavor 

make better our place and our future? 

7. Production at Varying Scales is Sought 

Biofuels, particularly biodiesel, can be produced at widely varying scales by widely 

varying producers. No other significant technology permits such variation from 

small to large, from local and civic sources to 100M gallons per year commercial facilities. Granting that biofuels can and should fully spring from every feedstock 

source and possible facility, North Carolina posits a future landscape peppered with 

sites varying in output and sources. Gains to municipalities, consortia, landfills, 

farmers, and landowners will augment large commercial gains. A balance of local 

and centralized biofuels production simultaneously serves strategy, common sense, 

and community economies. 

8. Feedstocks and Biomass Must be Sustainable 

Sustainability of varied crop- and tree-based resources over time must be ensured, 

for the feedstock requirements and drawdown in coming years—particularly if petroleum is constrained more quickly than expected—will be enormous and unprecedented in North Carolina and beyond. Environmental, agricultural, and economic 

imperatives must be simultaneously served and balanced. While farmers are accustomed at thinking in such terms, not all parties seeing gain from biofuels necessarily will be, particularly in the short-term. 
106 

9. The Imperative is Unquestioned 

Smart places and leaders understand now that gaining alternatives to petroleumbased fuels is not just desirable, not a luxury, and not just a useful addition to the 

agricultural sector. Biofuels are requisite for our future. Our best problem-solving 

and most targeted programs must be shaped to ensure their availability and benefit. 

More challenging yet, biofuels must be shaped within the full context of comprehensive energy policy, for in our era no source or new mandate can exist in isolation. 

Doing so proves challenging to states as to the federal government. 

10. Innovative Partnerships and Targeted Projects are Required 

Creating enormous amounts of new fuels from more places with expanding agriculture and new technology is unlikely without new thinking and activities. In any 

place, goals must be matched with resources and activities and must fit a comprehensive framework. Four representative examples, each complex and large in 

ambition, are underway in North Carolina: 

North Carolina’s Biofuels Campus 

The 426 acre Campus will be developed over the next ten years as the nation’s 

only large site for: 

1. Trial growing and agronomic data for crops and trees, both indoors and in 

greenhouses. 

2. Company incubation and partnerships. A recently completed business accelerator, with lab renovation funded by the DOE, provides a setting for small company development. 

3. Pilot and demonstration facilities. 

4. Public education and multiparty convenings on the biofuels issues, financing, 

and technology. 

Use of Swine Lagoon Sprayfields 

North Carolina’s large swine industry yields lagoons containing nitrogen and 

phosphorus. Excess liquid is routinely sprayed on 100,000 acres of prime fields currently growing low-yield and low-value Coastal Bermuda grass only to absorb and 

remediate these effluents. The Biofuels Center has trials underway to verify both 

environmental and economic benefits to instead grow cellulosic energy grasses: sorghums, switchgrass, miscanthus, and Arundo donax. Multiple commercial and proximal production facilities can be supported from the feedstocks; benefits will accrue 

nicely for both animal and crop agriculture as well as rural for regional economic 

gain. 

Assessment of Wood Resources Statewide 

North Carolina’s 18M acres of forested land proves compelling to technology and 

production companies working for conversion of privately owned wood biomass, for 

the amount can balance both feedstock needs and sustainability over years. The 

Biofuels Center will soon complete analysis of wood resources statewide and of 14+ 

sites for production facilities. Doing so is necessary to enable production companies 

to economically sustain new wood-based technologies and justify large investment. 

Project Eastern Gain 

Home to the nation’s third largest military presence, from all branches, North 

Carolina seeks to both strategically serve the military and to prevent encroachment 

on its bases. An ambitious project seeks by 2016 to gain up to 50M gallons of jet 

aviation fuel from new land use and new production facilities in rural counties contiguous to bases. 

Considered Thinking About Policies, Mandates, And Support 

Ultimately in our society, government policies, leadership at all levels, smart 

thinking, and best outcomes work for only two profound goals: societal improvement 

and survival. As areas of societal improvement become larger in impact, more complex in implications, and change-inducing, governments assume inevitable responsibility to guide and trigger. Biofuels, as well as the larger imperative of sustainable 

energy of all types, should be judged necessarily worthy of governmental attention 

and mandate. For biofuels—as for any new endeavor, new technology, or new policy—the shaping of appropriate attention and mandate is challenging, evolving, and 

difficult. 

To ensure national biofuels capabilities, federal agencies and some state governments have shaped programs, set goals, and committed funding. Doing so gives 

verification of need as well as impetus for new biofuels capabilities, resources, and 

policies—from science and technology to production facilities, consumer choices, and 

agricultural foundations. Important and complex societal outcomes seldom just hap-
107 

pen anymore by fate and good intentions. Inducement, support, and nurturance are 

required. Leadership is necessary to induce change and gain. 

For the federal government in particular, large in both responsibility and resources, two enormous key questions soon emerge around such attention to biofuels: 

First, how is the always uneven balance between goals, public outcomes, and technology development addressed? Policies and questions around ethanol reveal this inevitable initial disjuncture. Moving to larger ethanol usage, as discussed in this 

hearing, moves national goals to quantifiable reality; doing so is always hard and 

always welcome. At the same time, the goal impels change to both industry and the 

public. The juncture of goals, new technology, and an existing industry is historically never smooth and biofuels development proves no exception. 

As a result, the proposed assessment of effects of mid-level ethanol blends discussed today is neither surprising nor unwelcome. If quantifiable results and concerns reveal new needs or liabilities, the continual imperative of new technology development is simply at hand and affirmed: address and solve the problem. That is 

what technologies do as they find their place and merge with existing industries. 

Failure to do so with ethanol would surely be akin to truncating mobile phones development because they early dropped calls. Technologies always yield challenges 

and outcomes in equal measure. Economic, policy, industry, and public factors are 

always at play and must be balanced, with risk usually at hand if one vantage point 

is allowed to dominate decisions. 

Second, how do we evaluate the cusp at which a new technology or sector, like 

any offspring, needs to be weaned of nurturance? The movement from necessary 

nurturance to ongoing subsidy seems often subtle and too-inevitable. A technology 

too-long subsidized is at best expensive as well harder to defend, and seems at worst 

the boutique captive of vested interests. No sector truly important to society, as is 

true of biofuels, can be seen fairly or not as supporting vested rather than societal 

interests. Current analyses of ethanol subsidies reveal the inevitability of addressing this cusp. 

At the same time, other federal programs and mandates—for loan guarantees of 

production facilities, for verification of new technologies, for gaining of biomass, for 

production and use of ethanol—appropriately continue still-early nurturance of goals 

and infrastructure. However, they will necessarily evolve as a strengthened and expanding biofuels community nationwide moves to new needs in coming years. 

BIOGRAPHY FOR W. STEVEN BURKE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, BIOFUELS CENTER OF

NORTH CAROLINA

Mr. Burke has served as president and CEO of the Biofuels Center of North Carolina since March of 2009. He served as founding board chair from July of 2007 until 

that date, and as acting president since August 2008. 

The Biofuels Center is a private, non-profit corporation established by the State 

of North Carolina to implement a policy commitment to gain large capacity for 

growth and production of biofuels. The Center is judged the nation’s only agency 

working within a long-term and comprehensive framework for all aspects of biofuels 

development. 

Mr. Burke serves on the Executive Committee of the Biofuels Center. He is a 

member of the State of North Carolina’s Energy Policy Council; a board member of 

the Bent Creek Institute; and Vice Chair of the board of directors of the Biotechnology Institute, a non-profit corporation working for strengthened biotechnology education nationwide. From 2001–2009, he served as founding board 

chair and board member of the Institute of Forest Biotechnology, a private non-profit corporation addressing the scientific, industry, and societal issues of forest biotechnology worldwide. He served two terms—in 1995–96 and 1997–98—as chair of 

the 100+ member Council of Biotechnology Centers of BIO, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and served on the Council’s Board from 1993–2000. He served 

from 1994 until June of 1999 on the Emerging Companies Section Governing Board 

of BIO. 

Mr. Burke has been an active participant in the national and international life 

science and biotechnology communities since the mid-1980s. He speaks throughout 

the United States and internationally on life science technology development, with 

particular attention to: 

• The policies, issues, and development of biofuels 

• The factors, strategies, and issues shaping effective biotechnology and life 

science communities 

• The international and cultural imperatives of biotechnology development 
108 

Mr. Burke departed the North Carolina Biotechnology Center in 2009 as senior 

vice president for corporate affairs. Over 24 years, he helped shape the approach 

and strategies of the Center, the world’s first targeted initiative for biotechnology 

development. He was responsible for varied activities and programs addressing strategic, governmental, policy, societal, and international issues. Among key outcomes: 

oversight of Growing North Carolina’s AgBiotech Landscape, shaping multi-party 

long-term state vision; development of a nationally unique program to strengthen 

niche biotechnology through five regional offices across North Carolina; development 

with partners of North Carolina’s Strategic Plan for Biofuels Leadership and the 

Biofuels Center of North Carolina; activities and policy recommendations shaping 

forest biotechnology and establishing the Institute of Forest Biotechnology; envisioning and establishing with partners the Bent Creek Institute, working in western 

North Carolina at the juncture of biotechnology with native plants; and a collaborative relationship with the German state of North Rhine–Westphalia. Prior to joining the North Carolina Biotechnology Center in 1985 as its fifth employee, Mr. 

Burke taught Instructional Design at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, 

North Carolina. He has an undergraduate degree in Religion and Literature from 

Duke University, and a Master of Education in Instructional Design from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He owns, curates, and informs about the 

nation’s largest collection of American folk art buildings. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Burke. I now recognize our final witness, Dr. Ron Sahu testifying on behalf of the 

Outdoor Power Equipment Institute. 

STATEMENT OF DR. RON SAHU, TECHNICAL CONSULTANT, 

OUTDOOR POWER EQUIPMENT INSTITUTE 

Mr. SAHU. Good afternoon, Chairman Harris, Ranking Member 

Miller and other Members of the Committee. 

Chairman HARRIS. I think you have to turn your microphone on 

because we are being recorded. 

Mr. SAHU. Oh, I will use this one instead. Thank you. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear. I am an independent technical consultant as the Chair noted in introductions. 

I have a Bachelor’s and Master’s and Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering, the latter two from CalTech. 

Since about 2005, I have been looking at the impact of what is 

commonly called mid-level ethanol blends in the fuel mix on a variety of equipment. It began with the effort in Minnesota, and ever 

since that time and in the years pursuant, I have done extensive 

research on almost every aspect of the fuel impact on equipment. 

I am not going to repeat much of what I heard from the other 

panelists in the interest of time, and going last I have that advantage. So I am going to hit some of the points that were not made 

or could not be made because of time. 

Let me give you a scale of this potential problem. I understand 

EPA’s waiver decision is limited to automobiles and late-model 

automobiles. Even assuming that those automobiles are perfectly 

capable of handling E15, that still leaves us with a potential problem. And there may be reason to believe that that universe is still 

likely to be impacted negatively. 

There are collectively around 500 million pieces of equipment in 

this country, legacy equipment, that are already out there, everything from boats and cars, including outdoor equipment. Much of 

that equipment is incapable of adaptive technology to handle new 

fuels, so it is out there. Much of it cannot be tracked. 

We estimate a replacement value north of $2 trillion for that universe. This group is going to be drinking gasoline so to speak from 
109 

the same pool that the automobiles drink, so there is no way to 

separate the fuel pool unless designed by regulation. Although 

there are so many pieces of equipment as a percent user of gasoline, the non-road sector is a relatively small percentage. So there 

is little incentive for dispensers to create separate infrastructure to 

support this large- or small-volume user group. 

But let us not confuse that with the risk and harm. The harm 

and risk is not proportional to the volume of the market. This is 

a technical hearing. Let me point to some critical things we have 

learned I think universally from the Department of Energy studies, 

State of Minnesota work, independent work that industry has done. 

Ethanol increased to E15 will cause increased temperatures, exhaust temperatures and equipment temperatures. A lot of equipment is used close to the operators. If you see people operating a 

chain saw or a blower, it is next to their person. The inability to 

handle high amounts of heat properly without sustaining burns is 

a critical safety issue. 

Increased temperatures will also affect material usage and deterioration, including rubbers, elastamers, plastics, variety of metals 

that are used in the equipment that is already out there. 

Increased permeation and other evaporative emissions will also 

result. 

And another safety issue is inadvertent misoperation of equipment. Take chainsaw, for example. If a chainsaw starts to engage, 

the clutch engages at a different rotational speed before the operator expects it to, you can only imagine the catastrophic consequences. And that is one of the findings of the DOE study is unintentional clutch engagement of that type of close and hard-bladed 

equipment. 

We appreciate the dilemma that EPA had in making its regulatory decision. We certainly do. But in spite of asking for a sound 

and tough label that would provide some measure of separation in 

this common pool, EPA declined to provide a strong label. We do 

not think the label proposed is at all going to serve the need to segregate or warn people. In fact, it is an attention label, not even a 

warning label. 

And as a fellow panelist noted, EPA has declined to mandate the 

availability of E10 for this large universe, which means misfueling 

is a strong possibility. 

I would urge the Committee in its National Academy of Science 

study to expand the scope specifically with regards to two items, 

one, to expand the work that they need to do to look at implications 

of compatibility issues, higher temperatures and safety. The second 

is they should critically examine the issue of misfueling because 

misfueling is a very complex issue, and they should go beyond labels and look at all the other ways in which a more sound barrier 

can be provided between a waiver that applies to a portion of the 

population and not to the others. 

I will be happy to answer any questions that the Committee may 

have later. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Sahu follows:] 
110 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. RON SAHU, TECHNICAL CONSULTANT, OUTDOOR POWER

EQUIPMENT INSTITUTE

Good afternoon Chairman Harris, Ranking Member Miller and Members of the 

Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear. 

INTRODUCTION 

My name is Ron Sahu. I am an independent technical consultant. I am representing myself as well as members of the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute 

(OPEI), a trade association whose members make a wide range of outdoor power 

equipment, including lawn and garden equipment. 

I have provided my curriculum vitae to the Subcommittee as requested (Attachment I). Briefly, I have a Batchelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT); followed by Masters and Ph.D degrees, also in 

Mechanical Engineering, the latter with an emphasis in combustion, from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), in Pasadena, CA. I am also adjunct faculty 

at a number of local universities including UCLA. And, I have served as expert witness for the EPA on Clean Air Act matters. 

MID-LEVEL ETHANOL AND ITS IMPACTS ON ENGINE AND EQUIPMENT 

As the Committee may be aware, all current engines and equipment sold and operated in the US, collectively a universe of over 500 million legacy products valued 

at around 2 trillion dollars, that rely on motor gasoline as fuel, can handle up to 

10% ethanol as part of the gasoline. Many auto manufacturers have also designed 

cars that can run on E85, which contains 85% ethanol. I am not aware of any nonautomotive or non-road applications with E85. I will use the term ‘‘mid-level’’ ethanol to denote ethanol contents of greater than 10% but less than 85%. Typically, 

however, mid-level will mean ethanol contents of greater than 10% to perhaps 15% 

or even 20% in gasoline. 

Driven by a number of factors producers of ethanol have been proposing to increase the ethanol content of gasoline to greater than 10% for the last several years. 

For the last six years I have been very involved in various assessments of what 

would occur if this happened, particularly in non-road engines. I am examined in 

detail all prior work done in this country and abroad in this regard. I have evaluated work done in Australia, other countries and by the Dept. of Energy (DoE) and 

have critiqued the DoE work (Attachment II). I have also conducted additional technical analyses. These are provided in a technical paper in Attachment III to this 

testimony. 

Unequivocally, the answer is that millions of products including most non-road 

engines and equipment will sustain a range of damage if the ethanol content of gasoline is increased to 15%. I believe that work by the US Dept. of Energy, also confirms this. Extensive documentation of likely adverse impacts, including impacts on 

safety, durability, loss-of performance, environmental impacts, etc. is documented in 

many reports and studies and is summarized in my paper in Attachment III. 

In brief, the impacts include 

A. Heat 

Increased Ethanol in gasoline could result in increased engine heat, including consumer accessible components, such as the plastic engine cover, guards, etc. Higher 

engine heat may result in potential safety concerns, especially in smaller hand held 

lawn and garden products that are held in close proximity to the operator. A product operator could inadvertently come in contact with the hotter plastic engine housing or other surfaces because they are unaware of the added heat caused by the 

higher ethanol gasoline. 

Current two-cycle engine oils do not mix well with alcohol, which may also increase engine heat and lead to premature engine failures. 

Increased heat causes damage to gaskets and piston seals, which in turn, causes 

increased emissions of HC and NOx, as documented by the tests performed by DoE. 

B. Fuel Leaks and Evaporative Emission Increases 

The effects of higher ethanol levels on engine components are not fully known, 

but may result in earlier degradation of existing and legacy engine seals, gaskets, 

fuel lines, etc.; the deterioration of these components could lead to fuel leaks and 

increase the risk of fire if an ignition source is present. 

E-15 also causes increased permeation and evaporative emissions. 

C. Unintended/Early Clutch Engagement 

Higher levels of Ethanol will also mean higher oxygen levels in fuel and result 

in higher engine speeds. 
111 

The higher engine speed may present unintended clutch engagement, which may 

result in potential safety concerns for bladed products, such as brush cutters, edgers, chain saws, hedge trimmers and pruners where the customer is expecting the 

blade to start moving at a different speed from prior product experience. 

For example, a chain saw chain may now turn at idle speed when it did not with 

the lower ethanol content fuel, which may surprise the operator and cause an accident. 

Ethanol damage to engines and products is permanent. The DoE’s testing on outdoor power equipment concluded that 28 engines in four families showed increased 

heat, performance irregularities, failure and unintentional clutch engagement. 

EPA’s REGULATORY ACTIONS 

Let me say at the outset that EPA is faced with difficult decisions in balancing 

competing objectives and we are sensitive to its predicament. 

In response to the problems discussed above, the EPA, in granting Growth Energy’s petition, has excluded from the waiver approval the entire universe of non-road 

engines and equipment, along with automobiles that are model year 2000 and prior. 

However, the practical effect of EPA’s waiver to allow greater than 10% ethanol in 

gasoline will certainly affect non-road engines. Since this large non-road universe 

is actually is relatively small user of gasoline, by overall volume as compared to onroad automobiles, fuel suppliers and gas stations are unlikely, in general, to make 

available E10 or lower ethanol content gasoline in addition to E15. 

EPA’s answer to this dilemma is to rely on a label at the dispenser that fails to 

adequately warn consumers of the adverse impacts of greater than 10% ethanol on 

their engines and equipment. However, disappointingly, EPA’s recent label rule proposes a mild, ‘‘ATTENTION’’ in an unobtrusive color label that is unlikely to be effective at this. EPA also declines to mandate the continued availability of E10 in 

order to support this universe of equipment—stating that market forces would continue to make this fuel available. 

LIKELY FUTURE IMPACTS 

Thus, the most likely scenario would be the introduction of greater than 10% ethanol fuel into this non-road universe that cannot and is not designed to handle it. 

Of course there will be substantial damage to millions of products and millions of 

consumers will be faced with with loss of durability and loss of functionality from 

equipment already paid for. But, more crucially, one should also expect more risk 

to consumers due to potential fuel leaks and fires (perhaps on a boat in open water 

or in an enclosed garage), equipment starting when not intended (such as a 

chainsaw), or burns sustained by an operator due to the increased exhaust gas temperatures associated with greater than 10% ethanol. 

Avoidable financial and human loss/suffering aside, one of the more lasting unintended impacts of all of this will be to the perception of ethanol itself as a fuel or 

fuel component. I am not sure that this is what the backers of higher ethanol in 

gasoline intend. Yet, that would be the logical consequence of pushing EPA to introduce ethanol into gasoline at levels for which the user population is simply not 

ready. 

SUGGESTIONS FOR PROPOSED NAS STUDY 

I have reviewed the language of the proposed legislation that would require a 

study by the National Academy of Sciences to address this issue. While I generally 

agree with the scope of the proposed study, I have a couple of suggestions. First, 

I recommend that the focus of the study be on the implications and ramifications, 

including increased financial and non-financial risks from the use of greater than 

E10, particularly in the non-road fleet. Second, the NAS study scope should also include a critical examination of the issue of mis-fueling under the proposed EPA labeling scheme and investigate how mis-fueling can be minimized via options other 

than labeling. 

I will be happy to answer any questions that Members of the Committee may 

have. 

Preliminary Concerns on the Report Titled ‘‘Effects of Intermediate Ethanol 

Blends on Legacy Vehicles and Small Non-Road Engines, Report 1—Updated,’’ 

NREL/TP–540–43543 and ORNL/TM–2008/117, dated February 2009 

Dr. Ron Sahu, Consultant to the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute 

(OPEI) 

These comments focus exclusively on major adverse impacts observed during the 

tests performed on Small Non-Road Engines (SNRE), including lawn, garden and 

forestry products, like lawnmowers and trimmers. 
112 

I. THE TESTS DOCUMENT THE FOLLOWING MAJOR ADVERSE IMPACTS 

RESULTED FROM FUELS GREATER THAN 10% ETHANOL 

A. Engine exhaust temperatures rose significantly. Significant rises in temperatures (exhaust, cylinder head, etc.) occurred on the order of 20 to 70 C from engines 

run on E0 compared to E20. For several categories, significant temperature rises resulted between E10 and E15. Additional heat generation has obvious implications 

on increased burn and fire hazards—considering the proximity of cut grass, wood 

chips and the operator to the engine’s hot exhaust. However, the report does not 

delve into the implications of the additional heat and its ramifications on engine 

and equipment failure, personnel safety, increased fire hazards, or the inability to 

mitigate any of these hazards on millions of pieces of legacy equipment. 

B. Risks to operators dramatically increased. The report recognizes that unintentional clutch engagement resulted on several tested products because of high idle 

speeds. Obviously significant risks are created when a chainsaw blade becomes engaged when the product should be idling. However, there is no discussion in the Report of this increased hazard. If anything, the mitigation proposed (i.e., adjustment 

of fuel air mixture enleanment) is feasible to adjust carburetors on millions of legacy 

equipment that are already in use. 

C. Damage to Engines. Both of the tested ‘‘Residential Handheld Engines’’ (engines B–3 and B–7 as shown in Figure 3.9, pp. 3–18) suffered total and complete 

failures and would not start or operate after running on E–15 fuel for 25 or less 

hours, which is less than half of their useful life. 

D. Operational Problems. Many of the engines tested on mid-level ethanol suffered from erratic equipment operation, ‘‘missing’’ and stalling of engines, and 

power-reduction. 

II. MISCHARACTERIZATION OF RESULTS IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Executive Summary does not accurately summarize the scope, results as well 

as uncertainties associated with the testing. Since most of the policy-makers will 

focus only on the Executive Summary, this could result in misinformed policies 

based on misleading conclusions. 

There appear to be numerous, material inconsistencies in the manner in which 

the results are reported in the main body of the report versus in the Executive Summary, including the following examples: 

A. The Executive Summary merely notes three handheld trimmers experienced 

higher idle speeds and unintentional clutch engagement. (See Sec. E.5.2). The report 

recognizes that this same problem could also occur on chainsaws. (See Sec. 3.2). The 

implications of unintentional clutch engagement in chainsaws and hedgeclippers 

(which are both examples of should have been fully addressed in the Executive Summary. 

B. With regards to materials compatibility, the Executive Summary incorrectly 

concludes that ‘‘... no obvious materials compatibility issues were noted.’’ (see p. xix). 

In fact, the report itself recognizes that materials incompatibility (such as swelling 

of the elastomeric seat for the needle in the carburetor bowl) could be the cause of 

the engine stall for the Briggs and Stratton generator observed in the pilot study 

(see pp. 3–15). The report also states that: 1) ‘‘... various fuel-wetted materials in 

some small engines may not be compatible with all ethanol blends ...’’ (see p. 3–9); 

and 2) ‘‘... materials compatibility issues were not specifically characterized as part 

of the study ...’’ (see p. 3–12). 

C. Engines in the study experienced ‘‘unstable governor operation,’’ ‘‘missing’’ and 

‘‘stalling’’ when operating on E20 fuel, indicating unacceptable performance. (See 

Section 3.2.2). However, the Executive Summary omitted any discussion of these 

substantial problems. 

D. Discussing emissions, the Executive Summary simply notes that HC emissions 

‘‘generally decreased’’ and that combined HC+NOx emissions ‘‘decreased in most instances.’’ (See p. xix). However, the report notes that while HC emissions generally 

decreased, they also increased in some engines. The net change in HC+NOx emissions ranged from -36% to +41% as reported in Sec. 3.2.2. It is important to note 

that for new engines, the net change in HC+NOx was often greatest in going from 

E0 to E10 and smaller in the other transitions (i.e., from E0 to E15 or E0 to E20). 

(See Table 3.7). For example, the numerical average for all engines shows that the 

HC+NOx reduction was -16.6% from E0 to E10; -13.5% from E0 to E15 and only 

-9.5% from E0 to E20. Since small engines are already capable of E10 operation and 
113 

that fuel is HC+NOx from E10. (As a side note, what is actually measured as HC 

in the study is unclear since a FID was used for this purpose, uncorrected for any 

ethanol or aldehydes, as noted in the report). 

III. DEFICIENCIES IN THE TESTING PLAN AND SCOPE 

A. No emissions testing pertaining to evaporative emissions was conducted. Thus, 

all references to ‘‘emissions’’ means tail-pipe emissions from the engine. Evaporative 

emissions are now regulated by EPA for small engines and equipment and covered 

by the EPA ‘‘certification’’ program. Lack of evaporative emissions is a major omission. 

B. The report does not contain any direct data on ‘‘materials compatibility’’ testing 

or results—i.e., involving the various fuels tested and the materials that may be exposed to these fuels and how they interact. Material compatibility is a significant 

concern with E15 and E20 fuels when used in small engines, leading not only to 

‘‘operational issues’’ but also to durability, emissions, and safety impacts. 

C. The report notes that the following fuels were used: E0, as well as splashblended E10, E15, and E20. However, the report does not contain the actual ASTM 

specification of the blended fuels, including all relevant properties such as distillation cut point temperatures, etc. Table 2.2 of the report contains a few parameters 

of the blends. This is incomplete and a more complete fuel specification should be 

provided. The executive summary concludes that ‘‘... the different fuel characteristics of match-blended and splash-blended fuels were not expected to have a significant impact on temperature’’ or on durability. (See p. xviii). However, there is not 

any cited technical support for these statements. Similarly, there is no support for 

the observation that ‘‘... emission results ... are not expected to vary significantly. . .between blended and match-blended fuels.’’ Id. 

D. As the report notes, neither cold-start, nor warm-up testing was done, although 

these are two very common modes of operation for many categories of small engines. 

Additional performance tests that impact ‘‘operational issues’’ which should have 

been tested include: (i) acceleration; (ii) application performance; (iii) carburetor and 

breather icing; (iv) fuel consumption; (v) governor stability; (vi) load pick up; and 

(vii) vapor lock. Individual categories of small engines will likely have additional 

performance-related test requirements. 

E. As the Executive Summary notes, the report presents ‘‘initial results ... focused 

on identifying emissions or operational issues and measurement of several key engine temperatures.’’ (See p. xviii). It is not clear what is meant by ‘‘operational 

issues’’ or what quantitative surrogates and/or metrics were used to substitute for 

operational issues. It appears that erratic operation, high idle, stalling, etc. were 

used as evidence of operational issues. While these are undeniably evidence of operational issues, no testing appears to have been done on various actual equipment 

operational modes (as discussed later) so the full extent of operational issues has 

by no means been evaluated. 

F. The report does not fully flesh out the issue and implications of irreversibility— 

i.e., once exposed to E15 and/or E20, performance is not restored simply by reverting to E0. In the case of the Poulan weedeater, it is noted that there were poor operations with E15 and E20 and that ‘‘normal operation could not be restored on E0.’’ 

(See Section 3.2.2). This is significant. Actual users, when faced with operational 

problems with ethanol blended fuels, will, as common sense dictates, revert to E0. 

What they will find is that doing so will not ‘‘unring the bell’’ since the damage by 

the ethanol blends is not reversible simply by changing the fuel. 

IV. UNREPRESENTATIVE AND LIMITED NUMBER OF TESTS CONDUCTED 

A. The category of forestry, lawn and garden equipment includes a broad swath 

of equipment and engine types. Yet, the category has not been defined in the report 

so that the extent of test results presented can be judged in context. While noting 

that millions of products with small engines are sold each year (actually tens of millions), and that EPA certifies on the order of 900 engine emission families, the report does not cover the immense diversity of the category including: 1) the various 

engine and equipment types used, 2) the fuel delivery mechanisms, 3) the various 

sizes and functions of the equipment, 4) the constraints that the equipment operate 

under (such as close proximity to operators, as an example), and 5) many other 

characteristics. Engines in this product category utilize a wide variety of engine architecture including both single and twin cylinders, two cycle and four cycle combustion, ported and valve charge controlled, side valve and overhead valve orientations, 

with and without exhaust after-treatment, governed load and product load con-
114 

trolled, etc. The report should clearly qualify its findings are based on a tiny fraction of the diverse population of affected products. 

B. The types and numbers of engines and equipment tested are inadequate to be 

representative of even the limited types of small engines that were the subject of 

testing. While practical constraints such as time and money will always constrain 

the amount of testing that can be done, the basis for choosing the engine and equipment—namely those found in ‘‘... popular, high sales volume equipment.’’ appears 

not to have been followed. For example, of the six pieces of equipment selected for 

the pilot study, four were generators. No chainsaws were tested, even though the 

OPEI had directly requested that they be included—because of their extreme operating conditions and sensitivity to mid-level ethanol. Also, it is explicable why only 

one residential hand-held engine would be tested, even though these are likely to 

be very sensitive to fuel changes. The report should provide the basis of selection 

rather than referencing unspecified EPA sources. One of the constraints also seems 

to have been the available laboratory equipment (i.e., lack of small engine 

dynamometers). This is clearly an inappropriate basis for constraining equipment 

selection, especially if the goal is to obtain data on the entire class of affected engines and products. 

C. The report rightly notes the challenges associated with multi-cylinder engines—although characterizing these as being ‘‘more sensitive’’ is too vague. (See p. 

3–11). It is unfortunate that while the study included one twin cylinder engine in 

the initial screening process, there were no twin cylinder engines included in the 

more in depth portions of the testing program. Particularly when the initial screening test clearly demonstrated significant influences of higher ethanol blends. A significant portion of the Class 2 (>225 cc) non-handheld engines produced each year 

are two cylinder engines. The omission of these engines in the expanded program 

is puzzling. The detailed test program should include engines and equipment that 

demonstrated any significant influence during the screening tests. 

D. The limited number of tests conducted cannot provide assurances that the results presented have any statistical significance, where appropriate. In fact, no attempt is made to discuss results in terms of statistical significance. Nor are such 

issues discussed in support of the design of the test matrix itself. For example, no 

pair-wise tests were run or results reported even though those opportunities were 

available even with the limited equipment selection. 

E. The manner in which the tests were run makes it difficult to separate the effects of engines, fuels, and aging. For example, the full-life tests do not allow the 

ability to distinguish between fuel-driven and engine-driven causes since only one 

engine was tested on each fuel. In the pilot study, the effects of the fuel and aging 

are similarly hard to separate. These types of issues could have been avoided with 

better test planning. 

V. OTHER COMMENTS 

A. The comments are preliminary because not all of the test data discussed in the 

report are included. Specifically, backup test data for all tests conducted by the 

Dept. of Energy (NREL and ORNL) and its contractors (TRC) still need to be provided. 

B. The report notes that the test plan was developed with close consultation involving, among others, ‘‘... US automobile companies, engine companies, and other 

organizations ...’’ It would be helpful to have details of all the companies and individuals consulted in an Appendix to the report. 

C. The report does not separately discuss the comments of the peer reviewer(s) 

and what changes were made to the draft report as a result. While the Acknowledgements note that the peer review panel was led by Joseph Colucci, the report 

does not contain a list of all peer reviewers used, what portions of the report were 

peer reviewed by whom, and the necessary vitae for the reviewers. This should be 

included. 
115 

TECHNICAL PAPER ON THE INTRODUCTION OF GREATER THAN E10-GASOLINE BLENDS

BY DR. RANAJIT (RON) SAHU,CONSULTANT

SAHURON@EARTHLINK.NET 626-382-0001 

1.0 Introduction 

Recent debates driven by issues ranging from reducing dependence on foreign oil, 

reducing global climate change impacts, reducing the rapid escalation of gasoline 

prices at the pump, and even improving national security have resulted in the call 

to increase the proportion of renewable fuels available to users. In particular, there 

have been marked calls to rapidly increase the proportion of ethanol (ethyl alcohol) 

in gasoline. The current gasoline pool in the U.S. contains anywhere from 0% by 

volume (E0) to 10% by volume of ethanol (E10) depending on time of year and location. A mix of 85% ethanol in gasoline (E85) is also available as a motor fuel for 

vehicles that are capable of using the fuel. There are several efforts underway to 

statutorily increase the E10 proportion to greater than 10%. In particular, Minnesota has targeted 20% ethanol in gasoline as the goal for fuel for the conventional 

market, and legislators in other states have attempted to mandate 30% and 50% 

ethanol blends. 

At first glance, increasing the ethanol content from 5–10% to higher levels in gasoline does not seem like a very radical idea. Assuming ethanol availability, proponents argue that it should be easy to implement and will help meet several policy 

goals. The argument goes as follows: all current engines and equipment fuel systems 

that run on gasoline already run successfully on E5–E10. Thus, why should there 

be any additional difficulty in increasing the ethanol content in gasoline? Further, 

proponents ask why there should be difficulties if others (particularly Brazil) have 

been able to make the switch to greater than E10. Surely all technical issues should 

have already been addressed. These lines of reasoning, however, are overly simplistic. They fail to properly consider the interaction of these proposed fuels with 

a large and extensive existing (or legacy) fleet of over 300 million pieces of equipment and vehicles that have to run successfully on the fuel they are given but are 

designed to run only on gasoline containing up to 10% ethanol. They also fail to consider the peculiar chemistry and physical properties of ethanol-gasoline mixtures 

and how these can dramatically affect the transportation, storage, combustion, and 

emissions of such fuel mixtures. These technical issues are not intuitive. This paper 

will discuss some of these key technical issues that need to be carefully considered 

before allowing greater than E10 in the conventional U.S. motor gasoline pool. Finally, it should also be noted that many engines and products are built for global 

distribution and fuel mix changes in the U.S. can have impacts on how such products have to be designed and distributed in the future. 

2.0 Description and Diversity of Affected Equipment 

A primary focus of this paper is the impact of greater than E10 fuels on the existing pool of equipment that will need to use this fuel. Broadly, this pool consists of 

on-road equipment—mainly automobiles and motorcycles—and off-road equipment— 

which ranges from the smallest hand-held 2-stroke chainsaw to large off-road machinery and from lawn-mowers to personal watercraft. Table A contains a list of the 

various types of off-road equipment that are designed for and run on conventional 

gasoline. 

There is a vast amount of diversity in the existing gasoline-using vehicle and 

equipment population that, altogether, can be categorized based on the following: 

-Use (e.g., lawn and garden; marine; snowmobiles, transportation, etc.) 

-Engine Size (e.g., displacement ranging from less than 20 cc to 6000 cc) 

-Expected Useful Life (50 hours or less to 10,000 hours) 

-Engine Design 

-Air or water cooled 

-2-Stroke, 4-Stroke, or hybrid (2/4 Stroke) 

-Side-valve or overhead valve 

-Variable valve timing 

Intake air charging—superchargers, turbochargers, etc. 

-Fuel Injection Technology 

-Carbureted—float-type, diaphragm type, single and multi-circuit 

-Fuel Injection—multi-port, direct, etc. 

-Control Technologies 
116 

2 Based on years of research, good driveability is generally considered to include the following: 

quick starting, stall-free engine warm up, smooth idle, hesitation-free response to throttle, 

surge-free operation during cruise, and freedom from vapor lock. Driveability is rated at idle, 

during acceleration, and under cruise or normal operating conditions as the car/equipment engine is driven through a prescribed cycle. 3 States started banning MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) after leaking underground fuel 

storage tanks caused it to be found in groundwater. 

-Open loop 

-Closed loop 

-Fuel Systems 

-Variety of tank and hose materials 

-Various evaporative control strategies for permeation and tank venting 

-Various design considerations such as for multi-positional use 

-Emission Control Systems 

-Engine modifications 

-Three-way catalysts and oxidation catalysts (2-stroke engines) 

-Exhaust gas sensors and diagnostic systems 

-Feedback systems 

Considering all of the above, from a cost standpoint, on-road and off-road equip- ment can range from a $50 hand held blower all the way to a $100,000+ automobile 

or a piece of construction equipment. 

The existing population of automobiles in the U.S. is estimated at close to 200 

million units. The existing population of off-road equipment is around an additional 

100 million. Assuming an average resale price of $10,000 for an existing car/truck 

and an average cost of $500 for existing off-road equipment, the nominal asset value 

that is represented by existing equipment is over 2 trillion dollars. Should this 

equipment be damaged and need to be replaced, the replacement costs would be 

even greater. The average American family possesses, in addition to 2 cars/trucks, 

several pieces of off-road gasoline-powered products ranging from lawn and garden 

equipment to recreational equipment. It is not an exaggeration to note that almost 

every American household has significant on-road and off-road equipment assets. 

3.0 Fuel and Equipment Form a Single System 

Another point that should be made is that the on-road and off-road equipment are 

designed from the very outset with a particular fuel or fuel range in mind. The performance or driveability, 2 durability, and emissions can only be assessed when the 

combined fuel and equipment is considered to be a single, combined, system. Equipment is rarely designed (or can rarely be economically designed in these very competitive markets) to anticipate a wide range of fuel properties. Fuel specifications, 

therefore, are very important, both to the manufacturer of the equipment and to the 

user. 

4.0 Ethanol and Ethanol-Gasoline Mixture Properties 

Ethanol has been used in the U.S. as a gasoline fuel additive since the late 1970s 

when it was used as a fuel extender due to gasoline shortages after the oil embargo 

as well as an octane enhancer since it improved the anti-knock performance of gasoline. In the early 1990s, the federal government began to require 2% oxygen by 

mass in the gasoline used in certain parts of the country to reduce smog. In this 

decade, when many state governments prohibited the use of the predominant oxygenate, MTBE, 3 ethanol then became the oxygenate of choice. Several states also 

have required ethanol use in winter (‘‘gasohol’’) as a way to reduce carbon monoxide 

emissions. 

Some (but not all) of the changes in fuel properties due to the addition of ethanol 

to gasoline include: 

-Change in octane number 

-Change in fuel volatility (as measured through several properties, including 

vapor pressure, vapor-liquid ratio, and the temperature-distillation curve) 

-Change in the energy density 

-Change due to the oxygen content 

-Effect on water solubility and phase separation 

These property changes can affect performance, emissions, or both. Ethanol also 

may affect the fuel’s compatibility with various materials, which means it can affect 

the product’s durability. 

4.1 Change in Octane Number 
117 

4 Issues associated with driveability and operational problems have been discussed for onroad vehicles and for off-road equipment in a series of reports in 2002–2004 by Orbital Engine 

Company for a biofuels assessment conducted in Australia. In particular, see (a) A Testing 

Based Assessment to Determine Impacts of a 10% and 20% Ethanol Gasoline Fuel Blend on 

Non-Automotive Engines, January 2003; (b) Marine Outboard Driveability Assessment to Determine Impacts of a 10% and 20% Ethanol Gasoline Fuel Blend on a Small Batch of Engines, 

February 2003 and (c) A Testing Based Assessment to Determine Impacts of a 20% Ethanol 

Gasoline Fuel Blend on the Australian Passenger Vehicle Fleet—2000hrs Material Compatibility 

Testing, May 2003. 5 Permeation is a process that is not yet fully understood; other factors besides vapor pressure 

also likely play a role in permeation rates. 6 Gasoline is a mixture of several different molecules, and its composition can vary widely. 7 American Petroleum Institute (API), Alcohol and Ethers: A Technical Assessment of Their 

Application as Fuels and Fuel Components. API Publication 4261, Third Edition. June 2001. 

In general, addition of ethanol up to a certain amount improves gasoline’s octane 

number due to its excellent anti-knock properties. Engines specifically designed to 

use high octane fuels, such as high performance engines, may use higher compression ratios or increase charge air compression to increase power output. 

4.2 Change in Fuel Volatility 

A fuel’s ability to vaporize is referred to as its volatility. It is represented by several measurements, including vapor pressure, vapor-liquid ratio and the amount vaporized at different temperatures (distillation). The vapor pressure of the fuel, which 

is very important from both an emissions and performance standpoint, may be the 

property most familiar to the public. Typically, refiners optimize and maintain vapor 

pressure in a given range for performance, business, and regulatory purposes. If the 

vapor pressure of the fuel is too low, that may cause problems in starting engines 

in cold temperatures; if it is too high, it may cause vapor lock at high temperatures. 

In either case, the driver or operator will experience performance problems. 4 High 

vapor pressure and the presence of ethanol also increases evaporative/diffusional 

emissions (and fuel loss) as well as higher permeation losses. 5

The vapor pressure of ethanol is lower than that of gasoline. However, the addition of ethanol to gasoline, especially at lower concentrations, can actually increase 

the vapor pressure of the mixture to greater than that of gasoline. It depends on 

the amount of ethanol added and the composition of the base gasoline. 6 For blends 

using a base gasoline with a vapor pressure of 9 psi, the vapor pressure increase 

reaches a maximum around E5, and then slowly starts to come down with further 

increase in ethanol concentration. 7

So, what is the effect of ethanol/gasoline blends on engine performance? Gasoline 

does not ignite as a liquid, only as a vapor. There must be sufficient fuel vapor 

present inside the combustion chamber to initiate and sustain combustion, i.e., to 

get the engine to start. This vaporization is governed by the fuel’s overall volatility, 

measured by its distillation curve. Within a certain temperature range (that varies 

with each blend), ethanol decreases the temperature at which the fuel vaporizes, 

which, theoretically, should help combustion. However, ethanol blends also require 

more heat to vaporize than gasoline, which means that less vapor than predicted 

by the distillation curve is actually present inside the cylinder. For example, E10 

requires over 15% more heat to vaporize than gasoline. Thus not only the distillation percentage versus temperature, but the heat input required to achieve the temperature are important to understand how fuel differences will interact with the engine design and the operating conditions. Current fuels are formulated to address 

this phenomenon. These fuel formulations allow the fuel blend to provide the desired amount of fuel vapor at the temperatures and air pressures typically found 

in engines to provide the expected starting and hot engine operation characteristics. 

Other concerns about low temperature fuel characteristics of blends include a) increased viscosity of ethanol/gasoline blends which may impede fuel flow and b) 

phase separation in the vehicle fuel system due to reduced water solubility. 

The primary fuel-related concern that occurs at elevated ambient temperatures is 

vapor lock. Vapor lock is a condition where the fuel in the engine’s fuel delivery system vaporizes preventing the required volume of fuel to be delivered. Increasing the 

ethanol concentration beyond E10 is likely to increase the likelihood of vapor lock 

for open loop fuel control system engines typically used on older vehicles and most 

off-road engines. Even in the closed loop engine systems used in some off-road engines and in most late-model vehicles, there remains the likelihood of vapor lock. 

4.3 Change Due to the Enleanment Effect of Ethanol 
118 

8 Sulfur, nitrogen, and trace elements also may be present. 9 Orbital Engine Company Reports: (a) A Literature Review Based Assessment on the Impacts of a 20% Ethanol Gasoline Fuel Blend on the Australian Vehicle Fleet, November 2002; 

(b) Market Barriers to the Uptake of Biofuels Study Testing Gasoline Containing 20% Ethanol 

(E20) Phase 2B Final Report, 2004. 

Gasoline is a mixture of many hydrocarbon compounds that consist mainly of hydrogen and carbon. 8 Ethanol also contains hydrogen and carbon—but, in addition, 

it also contains oxygen. The exact air-to-fuel ratio needed for complete combustion 

of the fuel (to carbon dioxide and water vapor) is called the ‘‘stoichiometric air-tofuel ratio.’’ This ratio is about 14.7 to 1.0 (on weight basis) for gasoline. For ethanol/ 

gasoline blends less air is required for complete combustion because oxygen is contained in the ethanol and because some of the hydrocarbons have been displaced. 

For example, for E10 the stoichiometric air-to-fuel ratio is 14.0 to 14.1 pounds of 

air per pound of fuel. To deliver the required power for any given operating condition engines consume enough air and fuel to generate the energy required, to the 

limit of the engine’s capabilities. Because fuel delivery systems are designed to deliver the prescribed amount of fuel on a volume control basis the fuel volume delivered is related to the volume of air introduced. The engine design anticipates that 

the fuel utilized will match the air-to-fuel ratio characteristics utilized in the engine 

design and calibration. Because ethanol blended fuels require more fuel for the same 

amount of air to achieve stoichiometric conditions, the fuel system must adapt by 

introducing more fuel or the desired mixture is not achieved. The effect of this type 

of fuel change on an engine is called ‘‘enleanment.’’ 

The effect of enleanment depends on engine design and how fuel is metered into 

the engine. Since the early 1980s, most automobile engines in the U.S. have used 

some form of ‘‘closed loop’’ fuel system that continuously monitors and adjusts the 

amount of fuel delivered to the engine to maintain the stoichiometric air-to-fuel 

ratio. These vehicles have adjustment ranges that can accommodate oxygenated 

fuels and, when operating in the ‘‘closed loop’’ mode, may not experience any adverse effects from oxygenated fuels once they have reached operating temperature. 

Even these vehicles, however, during cold start and at full throttle, can operate in 

an ‘‘open loop’’ mode that provides a rich fuel mixture that is necessary for these 

conditions and to allow the control system to achieve operating temperatures. In the 

rich mixture, ‘‘open loop’’ mode, vehicles can experience enleanment effects from the 

oxygenated fuel. While most on-road engines have closed-loop systems, most off-road 

engines do not. Thus, they have no way to compensate for this enleanment condition. Lean operation can have several negative attributes including higher combustion temperatures. Even with closed-loop systems, if the fuel contains an amount 

of ethanol that is outside the system design, the engine similarly may receive too 

much oxygen and experience performance problems. Additional Orbital test reports 9

discuss the performance issues associated with on-road vehicles and off-road equipment using E20 fuels. 

4.4 Effect on Water Solubility and Phase Separation 

Separation of a single phase gasoline into a ‘‘gasoline phase’’ and a ‘‘water phase’’ 

can occur when too much water is introduced into the fuel tank. Water contamination is most commonly caused by improper fuel storage practices at the fuel distribution or retail level, or the accidental introduction of water during vehicle refueling. Water has a higher density than gasoline, so if water separates, it will form 

a layer below the gasoline. Because most engines obtain their fuel from, or near, 

the bottom of the fuel tank, engines will not run if the fuel pick up is in the water 

phase layer. 

Typically, gasoline can absorb only very small amounts of water before phase separation occurs. Ethanol/gasoline blends, due to ethanol’s greater affinity with water, 

can absorb significantly more water without phase separation occurring than gasoline. Ethanol blends can actually dry out tanks by absorbing the water and allowing 

it to be drawn harmlessly into the engine with the gasoline. If, however, too much 

water is introduced into an ethanol blend, the water and most of the ethanol will 

separate from the gasoline and the remaining ethanol. The amount of water that 

can be absorbed by ethanol/gasoline blends, without phase separation, varies from 

0.3 to 0.5 volume percent, depending on temperature, aromatics, and ethanol content. If phase separation were to occur, the ethanol/water mixture would be drawn 

into the engine and the engine would most likely stop. 

In some situations, ethanol/gasoline blends might absorb water vapor from the atmosphere, leading to phase separation. Such problems are of greater concern for en-
119 

10 A Testing Based Assessment to Determine Impacts of a 20% Ethanol Gasoline Fuel Blend 

on the Australian Passenger Vehicle Fleet—2000hrs Material Compatibility Testing, May 2003 

and A Testing Based Assessment to Determine Impacts of a 10% and 20% Ethanol Gasoline 

Fuel Blend on Non-Automotive Engines -2000hrs Material Compatibility Testing, May 2003. 11 (a) See EPA–420–D-06–004, Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Hazardous Air 

Pollutants from Mobile Sources, Chapter 7, February 2006. (b) See also, Fuel Permeation from 

Automotive Systems: E0, E6, E10, E20, and E85, Final Report, CRC Project No. E–65–3, December 2006. 12 Enleanment creates an increase in oxygen and nitrogen in the combustion zone. 

gines with open-vented fuel tanks that are operated in humid environments, such 

as marine engines. 

Additionally, more complex phenomena such as lubricating oil/fuel separation (in 

2-stroke engines) and temperature-induced phase separation of various fuel components have also been noted. 

4.5 Effect on Material Compatibility 

A variety of components in engine/equipment systems can come into contact with 

the fuel. These include 

-Fuel Lines 

-Fuel Tanks 

-Fuel Pumps 

-Fuel Injectors 

-Fuel Rails 

-Carburetors (and internal components) 

-Pressure Regulators 

-Valves 

-0-Rings 

-Gaskets 

Materials used in these components should be compatible with the full range of 

expected fuel composition. Table B shows the types of metals, rubbers, and plastics 

that are used in existing engines and fuel system components currently designed to 

run on E10 fuel blends. This is not an exhaustive list and is meant as an illustration of the diversity of materials used presently. The compatibility of all of these 

materials with greater than E10 fuel blends is currently unknown; little testing has 

been done because higher level blends are illegal for use in conventional products 

and vehicles, so there has been no reason to test. However, some test data is available from testing on E20 fuels by others. 10 Based on these studies, it is clear that 

several rubbers and elastomers can swell and deteriorate more rapidly in the presence of ethanol. Other materials, such as fluoroelastomers may be able to handle 

a range of ethanol blends. Ethanol also corrodes certain metals. Corrosion occurs 

through different mechanisms including acidic attack, galvanic activity, and chemical interaction. The first is caused by water in the fuel. Ethanol attracts and dissolves water, creating a slightly acidic solution. Unlike gasoline, ethanol alone or 

combined with water conducts electricity; this conductivity creates a galvanic cell 

that causes exposed metals to corrode. Another mechanism is direct chemical interaction with ethanol molecules on certain metals. 

Clearly, deterioration of materials would result in loss of function of critical engine components, resulting in fuel leaks, fires from fuel leaks, and equipment failure. This has obvious safety implications. 

As noted earlier, permeation of fuel through elastomers can result in deterioration 

of these materials. In recent testing, all of the tested ethanol blends showed higher 

permeation rates through elastomers than conventional gasoline. 11

5.0 Effect on Emissions 

Various studies have been conducted on assessing the effect of E5–E10 on engine 

exhaust emissions of NOx, hydrocarbons, CO, and other air toxics. Based on these, 

it is generally true that emissions of CO are reduced in the presence of ethanol due 

to the presence of the oxygen atom in the fuel. Exhaust emissions of hydrocarbons 

may increase or decrease, depending on such factors as engine or product design 

and the overall fuel properties. However, NOx emissions from conventional products 

and vehicles generally increase since enleanment creates conditions which increase 

NOx. 12 The degree of increase of NOx, however, is a complex function of engine design and other operating conditions. For sophisticated closed-loop operation, NOx 

emission increases can be small, but for less sophisticated open-loop engines, NOx 

emission increases can be dramatic. While many of the toxics show expected de-
120 

13 ASTM D5798–99, Standard Specification for Fuel Ethanol for Automotive Spark-Ignition 

Engines. 

creases in the presence of ethanol, some toxics, such as aldehydes, can show increases. Besides the potential toxic effects of aldehydes in exhaust gases, the 

aldehydes act as an ozone precursor and increase the smog-forming potential. Again, 

the presence of post-combustion emissions controls such as three-way catalysts (in 

automobiles) can mitigate aldehyde emissions increases to a certain extent. Although there are some off-road equipment and vehicles utilizing catalytic converters 

today, the majority of off-road engines are not equipped with catalysts. 

The emissions effects of increased ethanol in gasoline are generally not linear 

with the amount of oxygen in the fuel. Hence, the effects of increasing the ethanol 

content beyond E10 on exhaust and evaporative emissions on current engines are 

not fully known. 

Table C presents an overview of these effects and how they can influence emissions, performance, and durability, mainly for automobiles; but, in some instances, 

the effect of increased ethanol on less sophisticated off-road engines is also noted. 

6.0 Ethanol-Compatible Design 

Scientists and engineers have learned how to make automobile and off-road engines and fuel systems compatible with ethanol-gasoline blends. For current off-road 

engines, the maximum amount of ethanol than can be tolerated in current designs 

is E10. There is very little ability in such engines to adapt to higher ethanol levels 

given their open-loop, factory tuned, carbureted designs. For certain automobiles, 

however, higher levels including E85 can be used. As noted earlier, experiences from 

other countries, such as Brazil, in this regard can be relevant. It is instructive to 

review the types of changes that have been made in certain automobiles to handle 

greater than E10 fuels. Table D shows the types of changes that have been made 

in Brazilian vehicles in order to accommodate higher ethanol blends. The reader can 

then understand the complexity of (a) implementing such changes across the broad 

spectrum of all on-road and off-road engines; and (b) the near impossibility of implementing such changes in the existing on-road and off-road equipment fleet. 

For automobiles designed to handle greater than E10, the changes involve the use 

of innovative and ethanol-compatible technologies, material changes, and adjustments in calibration. Initially, a vehicle intended for higher ethanol use was designed specifically for a particular ethanol level, such as E85. Today, new technology 

has enabled the introduction of ‘‘flexible-fueled vehicles’’ (FFVs), which can burn fuel 

with any amount of ethanol up to E85. In all cases, one cannot adapt or retrofit 

existing products because too many parts and design steps are involved and the 

product may have size constraints. Necessary modifications must occur during design and production to ensure compliance with strict emission standards and to 

meet consumer expectations for safety, durability, performance, and cost. 

6.1 E0–E10 

The amount and type of modifications needed increase as the ethanol concentration in the gasoline fuel increases. At levels below about 5–6% ethanol by volume, 

product changes generally are not needed because the ethanol concentration is too 

low to cause significant impacts. Fuel blends with about 5–10% ethanol by volume, 

however, begin to require product important changes to maintain performance, durability, and/or emissions capabilities. For example, manufacturers can increase the 

corrosion resistance of some parts, such as carburetors and fuel pumps, and recalibrate the engine and emission control systems, among other possible changes. 

E10 adaptations also include changing the overall fuel formula. As with any fuel, 

proper blending and formulation are required for best performance, durability, and 

emissions. ASTM International has developed voluntary industry standards for gasoline and E10 to help marketers produce fuel with acceptable formulations. 

6.2 E10–E85 

It should be noted at the outset that ASTM has a standard for E85 which covers 

formulations ranging from E70 to E85. 13 However, there are no standards for midlevel blends between E10-E70. Without standards, these formulations are being 

made on an ad-hoc basis by users, as needed typically by splash blending denatured 

ethanol with some type of base gasoline. Therefore, there is no comparability between properties of these mid-level blends made by various users. 
121 

14 NMMA Ethanol Position Paper, no date, available at www.nmma.org/government/environmental/?catid=573. 15 Ibid. 16 ‘‘Fuel Specifications in Latin America: Is Harmonization a Reality?’’ Henry Joseph Jr., 

ANFAVEA (Brazilian Vehicle Manufacturers Association), presented at the Hart World Fuels 

Conference, Rio de Janeiro, 21–23 June 2004. 17 See references to Orbital Engine Company reports referenced earlier. 

To ensure materials compatibility at higher ethanol levels for use with flexible 

fuel vehicles (FFVs) manufacturers use corrosion resistant materials in any part 

that may contact fuel. For example, Brazilian auto manufacturers, who have considerable experience producing ethanol-compatible vehicles, recommend using electronic fuel injectors made with stainless steel, larger holes, and modified designs to 

improve fuel spray. Similarly, manufacturers of carbureted engines—for example, 

almost all small engine products such as chain saws and lawn mowers, as well as 

older and antique vehicles—recommend, among other steps, coating or anodizing 

aluminum carburetors or substituting a different metal not susceptible to attack. 

Boats have similar compatibility concerns. Many, for example, use aluminum fuel 

tanks that are susceptible to corrosion. While sacrificial zinc anodes often are added 

later to the external parts of these tanks, they are not feasible for the tank’s interior. 14 Older yachts with fiberglass tanks have a different problem. Ethanol can 

chemically attack some of the resins used to make these tanks causing them to dissolve. In doing so, the ethanol causes leaks, heavy black deposits on marine engine 

intake valves, and deformation of push rods, pistons, and valves. 15

Conventional vehicles and products do not have these material adaptations for 

higher level ethanol use. One device particularly difficult to address after-the-fact 

is the fuel tank level sensor. These sensors, which are placed inside the fuel tank, 

directly expose wiring to the fuel. Depending on how much ethanol these devices 

contact and for how long, galvanic corrosion would be expected to dissolve the wires 

and eventually cause device failure. 

Corrosion inhibitors have been developed to try to delay or prevent corrosion of 

steel components in the ethanol distribution system, but these additives cannot be 

relied on to protect engines and vehicles. Furthermore, a soon to be released report 

by the American Petroleum Institute (API) implies corrosion inhibitors may increase 

stress corrosion in steel. 

Manufacturers make additional design changes to address emissions and performance needs. 16 In this context, it is important to remember that U.S. emission standards are more stringent than those in Brazil. For U.S. vehicles, manufacturers select oxygen sensors and onboard diagnostic (OBD) systems specifically to cover the 

expected range of oxygen in the exhaust gas. If the fuel ethanol pushes the exhaust 

oxygen content outside the range of the oxygen sensor, the vehicle’s OBD system 

won’t work properly and may erroneously illuminate or fail to illuminate the dashboard warning light. In addition, manufacturers must calibrate vehicle and product 

systems to the expected fuel to ensure the proper air-fuel ratio for both emissions 

and performance purposes. In the U.S., off-road engines are also regulated for emissions regardless of their size or equipment that they power. Generally, the off-road 

engines do not utilize oxygen sensors and computer controls to adjust fuel delivery 

by a closed loop system. In many products, emission compliance has dictated airto-fuel ratio controls that are a delicate balance between being too rich and, therefore, out of compliance, or too lean, resulting in performance or durability problems. 

The long term durability of emission control systems is a critical issue, with current U.S. federal and California emission standards requiring vehicles to comply for 

up to 150,000 miles and off-road engines to comply for full useful life periods. If the 

control system of the vehicle was not designed to accommodate the leaning effect 

of ethanol, the vehicle’s catalyst protection routine will be disabled. This will lead 

to the type of catalyst damage seen in an Australian study using vehicles that were 

also sold in the U.S. 17 For off-highway engines, or older vehicles without closed loop 

systems, the enleanment influence can result in higher exhaust gas temperatures. 

This can cause thermal degradation of the catalyst over time, either through sintering of the precious metal wash-coat or damage to the substrate and can also degrade 

critical engine components such as pistons and exhaust valves. 

As noted earlier, an important emissions concern that remains poorly understood 

is ethanol’s ability to permeate through rubber, plastic, and other materials used 

widely in the fuel tank, fuel system hoses, seals, and other parts of the fuel han-
122 

18 See, e.g.:, the CRC E–65–3 Project Report referenced earlier as well as the EPA document 

referenced earlier which also discusses testing conducted by the California Air Resources Board. 

dling system. Recent studies have shown these emissions can be quite significant. 18

Automobile vehicle manufacturers (but not off-road engine manufacturers) are now 

using fewer permeable components in newer vehicles, so the emissions increase is 

more significant for older vehicles and off-highway products. Regulators expect permeation emissions will decrease over time as the on-highway fleet turns over to the 

newer products, but existing data are based on the use of E0–E10. Permeation rates 

for higher ethanol blends are largely unknown. 

7.0 Conclusions 

There are significant known and unknown technical issues associated with changing the U.S. conventional motor gasoline pool to accommodate higher than E10 

blends. While some of these may be surmountable with additional research and the 

resultant use of new materials and engine/equipment designs, these can only be implemented in new equipment and with proper lead time. Important data gaps aside, 

with present knowledge, it is likely that there will be adverse, large-scale impacts 

if higher than E10 is required as motor gasoline for the existing fleet of on-road and 

off-road equipment, particularly the latter. Minimizing these likely adverse impacts 

on existing equipment and vehicles would require significant and expensive adaptation and mitigation measures. 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 

BIOGRAPHY FOR DR. RON SAHU, TECHNICAL CONSULTANT, OUTDOOR POWER

EQUIPMENT INSTITUTE

EXPERIENCE SUMMARY 

Dr. Sahu has over twenty one years of experience in the fields of environmental, 

mechanical, and chemical engineering including: program and project management 

services; design and specification of pollution control equipment; soils and groundwater remediation; combustion engineering evaluations; energy studies; multimedia 

environmental regulatory compliance (involving statutes and regulations such as the 

Federal CAA and its Amendments, Clean Water Act, TSCA, RCRA, CERCLA, 

SARA, OSHA, NEPA as well as various related state statutes); transportation air 

quality impact analysis; multimedia compliance audits; multimedia permitting (including air quality NSR/PSD permitting, Title V permitting, NPDES permitting for 

industrial and storm water discharges, RCRA permitting, etc.), multimedia/multipathway human health risk assessments for toxics; air dispersion modeling; and 

regulatory strategy development and support including negotiation of consent agreements and orders. 

He has over nineteen years of project management experience and has successfully managed and executed numerous projects in this time period. This includes 

basic and applied research projects, design projects, regulatory compliance projects, 

permitting projects, energy studies, risk assessment projects, and projects involving 

the communication of environmental data and information to the public. Notably, 

he has successfully managed a complex soils and groundwater remediation project 

with a value of over $140 million involving soils characterization, development and 

implementation of the remediation strategy, regulatory and public interactions and 

other challenges. 

He has provided consulting services to numerous private sector, public sector and 

public interest group clients. His major clients over the past seventeen years include 

various steel mills, petroleum refineries, cement companies, aerospace companies, 

power generation facilities, lawn and garden equipment manufacturers, spa manufacturers, chemical distribution facilities, and various entities in the public sector 

including EPA, the US Dept. of Justice, California DTSC, various municipalities, 

etc.). Dr. Sahu has performed projects in over 44 states, numerous local jurisdictions 

and internationally. 

Dr. Sahu’s experience includes various projects in relation to industrial waste 

water as well as storm water pollution compliance include obtaining appropriate 

permits (such as point source NPDES permits) as well development of plans, assessment of remediation technologies, development of monitoring reports, and regulatory 

interactions. 

In addition to consulting, Dr. Sahu has taught and continues to teach numerous 

courses in several Southern California universities including UCLA (air pollution), 

UC Riverside (air pollution, process hazard analysis), and Loyola Marymount University (air pollution, risk assessment, hazardous waste management) for the past 

seventeen years. In this time period he has also taught at Caltech, his alma mater 

and at USC (air pollution) and Cal State Fullerton (transportation and air quality). 

Dr. Sahu has and continues to provide expert witness services in a number of environmental areas discussed above in both state and Federal courts as well as before 

administrative bodies. 

EXPERIENCE RECORD 

2000–present Independent Consultant. Providing a variety of private sector (industrial companies, land development companies, law firms, etc.) public sector (such 

as the US Department of Justice) and public interest group clients with project 

management, air quality consulting, waste remediation and management consulting, 

as well as regulatory and engineering support consulting services. 

1995–2000 Parsons ES, Associate, Senior Project Manager and Department Manager for Air Quality/Geosciences/Hazardous Waste Groups, Pasadena. Responsible 

for the management of a group of approximately 24 air quality and environmental 

professionals, 15 geoscience, and 10 hazardous waste professionals providing fullservice consulting, project management, regulatory compliance and A/E design assistance in all areas. 

Parsons ES, Manager for Air Source Testing Services. Responsible for the management of 8 individuals in the area of air source testing and air regulatory permitting projects located in Bakersfield, California. 

1992–1995 Engineering-Science, Inc. Principal Engineer and Senior Project Manager in the air quality department. Responsibilities included multimedia regulatory 

compliance and permitting (including hazardous and nuclear materials), air pollution engineering (emissions from stationary and mobile sources, control of criteria 
128 

and air toxics, dispersion modeling, risk assessment, visibility analysis, odor analysis), supervisory functions and project management. 

1990–1992 Engineering-Science, Inc. Principal Engineer and Project Manager in 

the air quality department. Responsibilities included permitting, tracking regulatory 

issues, technical analysis, and supervisory functions on numerous air, water, and 

hazardous waste projects. Responsibilities also include client and agency interfacing, 

project cost and schedule control, and reporting to internal and external upper management regarding project status. 

1989–1990 Kinetics Technology International, Corp. Development Engineer. Involved in thermal engineering R&D and project work related to low-NOx ceramic 

radiant burners, fired heater NOx reduction, SCR design, and fired heater retrofitting. 

1988–1989 Heat Transfer Research, Inc. Research Engineer. Involved in the design of fired heaters, heat exchangers, air coolers, and other non-fired equipment. 

Also did research in the area of heat exchanger tube vibrations. 

EDUCATION 

1984–1988 Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, California Institute of Technology 

(Caltech), Pasadena, CA. 

1984 M. S., Mechanical Engineering, Caltech, Pasadena, CA. 

1978–1983 B. Tech (Honors), Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Kharagpur, India. 

TEACHING EXPERIENCE 

Caltech 

‘‘Thermodynamics,’’ Teaching Assistant, California Institute of Technology, 1983, 

1987. 

‘‘Air Pollution Control,’’ Teaching Assistant, California Institute of Technology, 

1985. 

‘‘Caltech Secondary and High School Saturday Program,’’—taught various mathematics (algebra through calculus) and science (physics and chemistry) courses to 

high school students, 1983–1989. 

‘‘Heat Transfer,’’—taught this course in the Fall and Winter terms of 1994–1995 

in the Division of Engineering and Applied Science. 

‘‘Thermodynamics and Heat Transfer,’’ Fall and Winter Terms of 1996–1997. 

U.C. Riverside, Extension 

‘‘Toxic and Hazardous Air Contaminants,’’ University of California Extension Program, Riverside, California. Various years since 1992. 

‘‘Prevention and Management of Accidental Air Emissions,’’ University of California Extension Program, Riverside, California. Various years since 1992. 

‘‘Air Pollution Control Systems and Strategies,’’ University of California Extension 

Program, Riverside, California, Summer 1992–93, Summer 1993–1994. 

‘‘Air Pollution Calculations,’’ University of California Extension Program, Riverside, California, Fall 1993–94, Winter 1993–94, Fall 1994–95. 

‘‘Process Safety Management,’’ University of California Extension Program, Riverside, California. Various years since 1992–2010. 

‘‘Process Safety Management,’’ University of California Extension Program, Riverside, California, at SCAQMD, Spring 1993–94. 

‘‘Advanced Hazard Analysis—A Special Course for LEPCs,’’ University of California Extension Program, Riverside, California, taught at San Diego, California, 

Spring 1993–1994. 

‘‘Advanced Hazardous Waste Management’’ University of California Extension 

Program, Riverside, California. 2005. 

Loyola Marymount University 

‘‘Fundamentals of Air Pollution—Regulations, Controls and Engineering,’’ Loyola 

Marymount University, Dept. of Civil Engineering. Various years since 1993. 

‘‘Air Pollution Control,’’ Loyola Marymount University, Dept. of Civil Engineering, 

Fall 1994. 

‘‘Environmental Risk Assessment,’’ Loyola Marymount University, Dept. of Civil 

Engineering. Various years since 1998. 

‘‘Hazardous Waste Remediation’’ Loyola Marymount University, Dept. of Civil Engineering. Various years since 2006. 

University of Southern California 

‘‘Air Pollution Controls,’’ University of Southern California, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Fall 1993, Fall 1994. 

‘‘Air Pollution Fundamentals,’’ University of Southern California, Dept. of Civil 

Engineering, Winter 1994. 
129 

University of California, Los Angeles 

‘‘Air Pollution Fundamentals,’’ University of California, Los Angeles, Dept. of Civil 

and Environmental Engineering, Spring 1994, Spring 1999, Spring 2000, Spring 

2003, Spring 2006, Spring 2007, Spring 2008, Spring 2009. 

International Programs 

‘‘Environmental Planning and Management,’’ 5 week program for visiting Chinese 

delegation, 1994. 

‘‘Environmental Planning and Management,’’ 1 day program for visiting Russian 

delegation, 1995. 

‘‘Air Pollution Planning and Management,’’ IEP, UCR, Spring 1996. 

‘‘Environmental Issues and Air Pollution,’’ IEP, UCR, October 1996. 

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS AND HONORS 

President of India Gold Medal, IIT Kharagpur, India, 1983. 

Member of the Alternatives Assessment Committee of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission, established by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 

1992-present. 

American Society of Mechanical Engineers: Los Angeles Section Executive Committee, Heat Transfer Division, and Fuels and Combustion Technology Division, 

1987-present. 

Air and Waste Management Association, West Coast Section, 1989-present. 

PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS 

EIT, California (# XE088305), 1993. 

REA I, California (#07438), 2000. 

Certified Permitting Professional, South Coast AQMD (#C8320), since 1993. 

QEP, Institute of Professional Environmental Practice, since 2000. 

CEM, State of Nevada (#EM–1699). Expiration 10/07/2011. 

PUBLICATIONS (PARTIAL LIST) 

‘‘Physical Properties and Oxidation Rates of Chars from Bituminous Coals,’’ with 

Y.A. Levendis, R.C. Flagan and G.R. Gavalas, Fuel, 67, 275–283 (1988). 

‘‘Char Combustion: Measurement and Analysis of Particle Temperature Histories,’’ with R.C. Flagan, G.R. Gavalas and P.S. Northrop, Comb. Sci. Tech. 60, 

215–230 (1988). 

‘‘On the Combustion of Bituminous Coal Chars,’’ PhD Thesis, California Institute 

of Technology (1988). 

‘‘Optical Pyrometry: A Powerful Tool for Coal Combustion Diagnostics,’’ J. Coal 

Quality, 8, 17–22 (1989). 

‘‘Post-Ignition Transients in the Combustion of Single Char Particles,’’ with Y.A. 

Levendis, R.C.Flagan and G.R. Gavalas, Fuel, 68, 849–855 (1989). 

‘‘A Model for Single Particle Combustion of Bituminous Coal Char.’’ Proc. ASME 

National Heat Transfer Conference, Philadelphia, HTD–Vol. 106, 505–513 (1989). 

‘‘Discrete Simulation of Cenospheric Coal-Char Combustion,’’ with R.C. Flagan 

and G.R. Gavalas, Combust. Flame, 77, 337–346 (1989). 

‘‘Particle Measurements in Coal Combustion,’’ with R.C. Flagan, in ‘‘Combustion 

Measurements’’ (ed. N. Chigier), Hemisphere Publishing Corp. (1991). 

‘‘Cross Linking in Pore Structures and Its Effect on Reactivity,’’ with G.R. Gavalas 

in preparation. 

‘‘Natural Frequencies and Mode Shapes of Straight Tubes,’’ Proprietary Report for 

Heat Transfer Research Institute, Alhambra, CA (1990). 

‘‘Optimal Tube Layouts for Kamui SL–Series Exchangers,’’ with K. Ishihara, Proprietary Report for Kamui Company Limited, Tokyo, Japan (1990). 

‘‘HTRI Process Heater Conceptual Design,’’ Proprietary Report for Heat Transfer 

Research Institute, Alhambra, CA (1990). 

‘‘Asymptotic Theory of Transonic Wind Tunnel Wall Interference,’’ with N.D. 

Malmuth and others, Arnold Engineering Development Center, Air Force Systems 

Command, USAF (1990). 

‘‘Gas Radiation in a Fired Heater Convection Section,’’ Proprietary Report for 

Heat Transfer Research Institute, College Station, TX (1990). 

‘‘Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop in NTIW Heat Exchangers,’’ Proprietary Report for Heat Transfer Research Institute, College Station, TX (1991). 

‘‘NOx Control and Thermal Design,’’ Thermal Engineering Tech Briefs, (1994). 

‘‘From Puchase of Landmark Environmental Insurance to Remediation: Case 

Study in Henderson, Nevada,’’ with Robin E. Bain and Jill Quillin, presented at the 

AQMA Annual Meeting, Florida, 2001. 
130 

‘‘The Jones Act Contribution to Global Warming, Acid Rain and Toxic Air Contaminants,’’ with Charles W. Botsford, presented at the AQMA Annual Meeting, 

Florida, 2001. 

PRESENTATIONS (PARTIAL LIST) 

‘‘Pore Structure and Combustion Kinetics—Interpretation of Single Particle Temperature-Time Histories,’’ with P.S. Northrop, R.C. Flagan and G.R. Gavalas, presented at the AIChE Annual Meeting, New York (1987). 

‘‘Measurement of Temperature-Time Histories of Burning Single Coal Char Particles,’’ with R.C. Flagan, presented at the American Flame Research Committee 

Fall International Symposium, Pittsburgh, (1988). 

‘‘Physical Characterization of a Cenospheric Coal Char Burned at High Temperatures,’’ with R.C. Flagan and G.R. Gavalas, presented at the Fall Meeting of the 

Western States Section of the Combustion Institute, Laguna Beach, California 

(1988). 

‘‘Control of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions in Gas Fired Heaters—The Retrofit Experience,’’ with G. P. Croce and R. Patel, presented at the International Conference on 

Environmental Control of Combustion Processes (Jointly sponsored by the American 

Flame Research Committee and the Japan Flame Research Committee), Honolulu, 

Hawaii (1991). 

‘‘Air Toxics—Past, Present and the Future,’’ presented at the Joint AIChE/AAEE 

Breakfast Meeting at the AIChE 1991 Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, California, November 17–22 (1991). 

‘‘Air Toxics Emissions and Risk Impacts from Automobiles Using Reformulated 

Gasolines,’’ presented at the Third Annual Current Issues in Air Toxics Conference, 

Sacramento, California, November 9–10 (1992). 

‘‘Air Toxics from Mobile Sources,’’ presented at the Environmental Health 

Sciences (ESE) Seminar Series, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, November 12, 

(1992). 

‘‘Kilns, Ovens, and Dryers—Present and Future,’’ presented at the Gas Company 

Air Quality Permit Assistance Seminar, Industry Hills Sheraton, California, November 20, (1992). 

‘‘The Design and Implementation of Vehicle Scrapping Programs,’’ presented at 

the 86th Annual Meeting of the Air and Waste Management Association, Denver, 

Colorado, June 12, 1993. 

‘‘Air Quality Planning and Control in Beijing, China,’’ presented at the 87th Annual Meeting of the Air and Waste Management Association, Cincinnati, Ohio, June 

19–24, 1994. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much, Dr. Sahu. And I will 

recognize myself for five minutes for questions. I want to again 

thank you very much, the whole panel, for your patience in letting 

us get a little late start because of the voting. 

Let me just ask a question. Mr. Greco, did you mention valve and 

valve seats in your testimony and the possible affect on that? 

Mr. GRECO. That is correct. That is one of the criteria we are 

looking at when we see engine durability. We have five different—— 

Chairman HARRIS. So we don’t really know whether E15 would 

adversely affect the wear of valve and valve seats? And there is a 

specific reason I am asking. I mean, I have replaced valve and 

valve seats. I mean, if your valve seat fails prematurely, you lack 

compression, you will get whatever you are putting in that cylinder 

into the ambient air. I mean, it is not an emission control system 

specifically defined as such in a car manufacturer’s manual, but it 

certainly functions as that because it seals off the combustion 

chamber from the ambient environment. Is that correct? 

Mr. GRECO. That is correct, yes. The engine now has to handle 

that increased leakage as a result, potentially of ethanol. 

Chairman HARRIS. Right. 

Mr. GRECO. And we have seen some failures. Again, it is preliminary information, but that does seem to be one of the impacts that 

we see on some engines. 
131 

Chairman HARRIS. So if the EPA only studied, or the DOE in 

their study didn’t take into account premature valve wear, they 

could come up with a conclusion, well, it doesn’t affect any of the 

emission systems but it in fact could have an adverse effect on 

emissions from that car. 

Mr. GRECO. That is correct. 

Chairman HARRIS. That is what I thought. 

Mr. GRECO. You would have to take a very narrow definition. 

Chairman HARRIS. Okay. Ms. Oge, let me ask you a question. 

Did the EPA take into consideration the effect on emissions take 

into account that in fact, from what Vice-Chairman Sensenbrenner’s letters from the auto companies would indicate, that the 

use of E15 in a car might invalidate the warranty on emission systems in the car? 

Ms. OGE. Sir, what I want to let you know is that—can I answer 

something? 

Chairman HARRIS. No, I only have five minutes. 

Ms. OGE. Okay. 

Chairman HARRIS. Okay, you have got to stay on my question. 

Ms. OGE. Yes, we did, and that is—— 

Chairman HARRIS. You did? 

Ms. OGE. Yes, we did. 

Chairman HARRIS. So is it possible that use of E15 will invalidate the warranty on emissions control systems? 

Ms. OGE. No, it is not. As long as E15 is used for 2001 and later 

in your vehicles, we strongly believe, and the record was in front 

of the Administrator that assigned the waivers shows, that 2001 

and later vehicles will not be undermined. 

Chairman HARRIS. You misunderstand my question. If I buy a 

car and its vehicle emissions system for some reason doesn’t work 

right in four years, because they have to be warranted for five 

years is my understanding. 

Ms. OGE. Yes. 

Chairman HARRIS. So at four years, it stops working, I take it 

to the dealer and they say, oops. You have used E15. We are not 

going to repair this under warranty. If I live in a place where they 

don’t test my vehicle emissions or they don’t test me, I just go out 

and say, well, if you are not paying for it, I will just drive my car 

around with the emissions system not working. I mean, invalidating a warranty has an effect on emissions because these systems may not get repaired under warranty. If they don’t get repaired under warranty, it may not get repaired at all. 

Ms. OGE. So the warranty—— 

Chairman HARRIS. Did the EPA take that possibility that the 

warranties may be invalidated? 

Ms. OGE. Again, the decision that we made, if the consumer uses 

E15 for 2001 and later vehicles, that warranty will not be impacted. So for your example—— 

Chairman HARRIS. Ms. Oge, how can it not be impacted when 

the—— 

Ms. OGE. Let me answer. Let me answer. 

Chairman HARRIS. Well, again, I only have two minutes. You 

can’t filibuster me on this. When we have letters from companies 

saying, specifically from Honda saying our manual says if you use 
132 

E10 and below, you are warranted. If you use E15, it will compromise the vehicle’s warranty. 

Ms. OGE. Sir, we talked to Honda. We talked to all the companies. We have seen the letters that came back from the car companies. There are not any facts or any hard data to demonstrate— 

and we have had discussions with the car companies: Please give 

us one test data that suggests that if you use E15 for 2001 in your 

vehicles, that will have an impact on the 100,000 durability of the 

emissions control systems. There is not a single—— 

Chairman HARRIS. It doesn’t make a difference whether it affects 

that system. If that system fails, the auto company, under contract 

with an individual, the individual knowingly put E15 in there because maybe that was all that was available, the company legitimately can say we are not covering that system under warranty. 

You knowingly put a fuel in that your owner’s manual said you 

shouldn’t be putting in. I understand that you say you think it 

won’t adversely affect the system, but the auto company doesn’t 

care. If that system fails for another reason, a piece of plastic broke 

in the EGR valve, they are not under obligation if you have put 

the—is that my reading of the warranty? 

Ms. OGE. May I answer? 

Chairman HARRIS. Sure. 

Ms. OGE. No, it is not. The dealer or manufacturer will have to 

demonstrate that indeed it was the fuel that caused the impact on 

the catalytic converters. 

Chairman HARRIS. I think you give way too much credit for what 

gets refused under an automotive warranty, and anybody that has 

brought a car to a dealer under an automotive warranty I think 

understands what I am talking about. 

Anyway, I will recognize Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Oge, I understand 

that there are different fuels in use now. Obviously, it is a big mistake to put diesel fuel in your car if you don’t have a diesel engine. 

But there are other fuels in widespread use, is that correct? 

Ms. OGE. Yes, it is. 

Mr. MILLER. Okay. And some are appropriate for some engines 

and not for others? 

Ms. OGE. Yes. 

Mr. MILLER. And how much of a problem has EPA discerned that 

there is with misfueling? 

Ms. OGE. That is a very good question actually. In 2006, EPA 

mandated actually that diesel fuel contains low sulfur levels, from 

500 parts per million to 15 parts per million. So we mandated a 

cleaner diesel fuel because the new diesel truck engines introduced 

in the marketplace could have impacts on emissions control systems if higher diesel fuel goes into this new marketplace. 

So the agency used similar procedures that we are using here for 

E15, for misfueling labeling, to make sure that there is appropriate 

product transfer, documentation from point A to Z. 

So to answer your question, we have had very good experience 

with the clean diesel fuel in 2006, where actually the consumer if 

used the old diesel fuel could have impact, severe impact, to their 

engines, not just in emissions control systems, but also to the engine itself. 
133 

Mr. MILLER. Okay. I am one of those who voted against implementing this rule immediately for the next year, and the reason 

was concern about emissions. And as Ms. White acknowledged in 

her testimony, the Environmental Working Group usually supports 

the work of the EPA, but you all have parted company on this 

issue, and with respect to the effect of E15 on emissions of vehicles 

2001 and newer, do emissions for those vehicles using E15 stay 

within the EPA minimum emission standards? 

Ms. OGE. Yes, it does. Actually, the data shows that emissions 

for nitrogen oxides using E15 will increase. Emissions for hydrocarbon, CO and benzene will decrease. But also under the 2007 Energy Independence and Safety Act, Congress has requested that 

EPA evaluate these potential increases and take steps to reduce 

those increases. And EPA is in the process of doing that with a new 

program that we are developing under the direction of our President to reduce emissions for both fuel and cars to address this 

issue. 

Mr. MILLER. And I am sorry, your rules allow you to kind of 

swap off emissions that if formaldehyde goes above levels and 

something else goes below that you can kind of trade it around? 

Ms. OGE. No. Our rules require—the waiver decision is based on 

demonstrating that the vehicles and engines in which E15 is going 

to be allowed to use, this E15 will not cause or contribute to the 

emissions of those vehicles failing. Our determination clearly shows 

that 2001 or newer vehicles will continue to meet those standards. 

However, overall, there will be some increases still meeting the 

standards. There will be some increases on nitrogen oxide. There 

will be decreases on hydrocarbon and CO and benzene. Congress 

has directed us to make sure that we net out those increases, but 

the standards will still be met. 

Mr. MILLER. Ms. White, do you wish to be heard on this point? 

Ms. WHITE. Yes, I think the point really is looking at the Department of Energy tests that EPA based at least part of its waiver decision on for model years 2001 to 2007. At least 50 percent of the 

cars that they tested failed at least one emissions standard. And 

then when we looked at 2007 or newer cars, at least 20 percent of 

the cars tested failed. 

So we are obviously concerned about the emissions. Whether or 

not the balancing test under the EPA regulations pans out, the fact 

that there was a small number of cars sampled and that there 

were high rates in our opinion of failure for really serious emissions that we are talking about. We are talking about formaldehyde, for example, which is a known carcinogen, and there are 

really serious public health implications here. 

I think one of the questions that we don’t know the answer to 

is where are these older model cars? Where are we going to see impacts in air pollution? 

Mr. MILLER. Of course it would be useful to have the Department 

of Energy here to address this issue. Mr. Chairman, it is peculiar 

that, you know, a hearing about ethanol, we have a witness from 

the petroleum industry but not from the ethanol industry. We 

have, however, received a letter from the Renewable Fuels Association which is the trade association for the ethanol industry. With-
134 

out embracing the contents of the letter as my own, I would like 

to enter this into the record of the hearing out of simple fairness. 

Chairman HARRIS. Without objection. 

[The information can be found in Appendix II.] 

Chairman HARRIS. Now, I do want to ask unanimous consent to 

add four items into the record as well. These items are in the public domain and shared with the minority. 

Number one is EPAs partial grant and partial denial of Clean 

Air Act waiver application submitted by Growth Energy to increase 

the allowable ethanol content of gasoline to 15 percent. In the light 

of the Renewable Fuel Association concern, I note the EPA’s decision makes it very clear that the Agency did not rely upon the Renewable Fuel Association study. EPA said that RFA study simply 

‘‘conducted a literature search of existing information’’ already 

cited and ‘‘did not perform any emissions or durability testing.’’ 

The second item is the subsequent partial grant of Clean Energy 

Act waiver application submitted by Growth Energy to increase the 

allowable ethanol content of gasoline to 15 percent. The decision of 

the Administrator, that is from the Federal Register, January 26, 

2011. 

Letter dated March 26, 2009, sent from over 40 business, environmental, taxpayer, free market and public health groups to Administrator Jackson and other Administration officials asking that 

any waiver decision on E15 heed President Obama’s memorandum 

on ‘‘scientific integrity.’’ 

And finally, a joint letter from the American Motorcyclists Association and the All-Terrain Vehicle Association dated July 6, 2011, 

sent to Ranking Member Miller and me in support of the discussion 

draft language considered at this hearing. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information can be found in Appendix II.] 

Chairman HARRIS. I want to recognize Dr. Broun. 

Dr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Oge, why did the 

EPA and the Department of Energy choose to fund the E15 research to support the waiver petition rather than asking the petitioners themselves to pay for the necessary research? It is my understanding that previously all other petitioners, the EPA has insisted that the petitioner pay. Why did you all use taxpayer’s dollars to do this research? 

Ms. OGE. Sir, I think this question should go to Department of 

Energy. EPA did not fund the study. We worked with them. 

Dr. BROUN. You all didn’t have any decision—— 

Ms. OGE. No funding. 

Dr. BROUN. Okay. In EPA’s decision document, for the first E15 

waiver, EPA dismissed the CRC engine durability test program 

stating that the data provided up to that point in time only pertained to E20 blends. This ongoing program has recently identified 

potential engine failures on E15. How will the EPA consider this 

new information with respect to the waiver? 

Ms. OGE. Sir, the DOE program was designed with participation—— 

Dr. BROUN. How will you all consider this, though? Will you have 

failures—— 
135 

Ms. OGE. We believe that the Administrator made the decision 

based on the best record, which was the Department of Energy’s 

statistically significant developed study and other data that EPA 

has. We have test cars, we have thousands of certificates. We are 

aware of the four studies that CRC is doing. Those studies, however, are not designed to answer the question in front of the Administrator—— 

Dr. BROUN. Ma’am, I apologize for cutting you off. I just have 

three minutes left. 

Mr. Greco, do you want to respond to that? 

Mr. GRECO. Yeah, a couple things. I think she was about to say 

the DOE program was designed to address these emissions. As I 

mentioned, EPA did not properly use the DOE research program. 

It was designed to test catalyst durability which is one particular 

set of parameters to stress the catalytic converter. If you want to 

stress the engine, you are going to design a test program differently. EPA with DOE inappropriately utilized a catalyst program to break down the engines and draw conclusions about engine durability. We let EPA know at the time and DOE that was 

an inappropriate way to go forward, that we had designed a more 

thorough and more robust program, but they decided not to go that 

route. 

Dr. BROUN. So they didn’t use good scientific integrity. Speaking 

of scientific integrity, in March 2009, Lisa Jackson was sent a letter from a diverse coalition. More than 40 businesses, environmental, taxpayer, free market and public health groups that called 

on EPA to heed President Obama’s memorandum on scientific integrity. The key tenet of these principles is that agencies should 

not dismiss scientific information associated with public policy decisions. 

If oxygen sensors are found to fail because of E15 exposure, will 

EPA rescind its waiver determination? 

Ms. OGE. Sir, we are not here to guess, and I would not answer. 

The only thing I have to tell you is that the series of studies that 

you are referring are not designed appropriately the way that the 

DOE extensive, sound, robust study was designed. Therefore, the 

results, if they show failures, are not going to be viewed in the 

same light as a well-designed scientifically robust study, the Department of Energy study. 

Dr. BROUN. On June 2008, EPA staff gave a presentation that 

outlined what it would take to grant a waiver for mid-level ethanol 

blends. In that were recommendations that included the need of 

testing of all types of emissions, and the tests should be completed 

on medium-duty vehicles, heavy-duty vehicles, motorcycles as well 

as non-road engines across nine different equipment categories 

from hedge trimmers to snowmobiles. Did you all do that? 

Ms. OGE. Sir, there is not any sufficient data. That is why the 

Administrator—— 

Dr. BROUN. You all didn’t—— 

Ms. OGE. Excuse me. Let me finish. That is why the Administrator is prohibiting the use of E15 for those vehicles. Medium- and 

heavy-duty gasoline—— 

Dr. BROUN. You all didn’t do that. 

Ms. OGE. —vehicles— 
136 

Dr. BROUN. My time has about run out. Now obviously, you 

didn’t do that. The EPA staff made those recommendations. You 

just neglected even the EPA staff’s recommendations on this, which 

is intolerable as far as I am concerned. I am the Chairman of the 

Investigations and Oversight Committee, and we particularly have 

been interested in scientific integrity. You all are not doing that. 

You are not heeding the President’s recommendations to use scientific integrity, and frankly, when I go to a gas station for my 

boat, for my chain saws, for my weed whacker and those types of 

things, E10 is bad for those things and E15 is going to be disastrous for all those things. This was a terrible decision that you all 

made, and I hope that you all will go and consider the scientific 

and use scientific integrity because you have not done so in a rush 

to try to produce this wavier. 

Mr. Chairman, my time is up. I will yield back. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you, Doctor. Mr. Tonko? 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. Before I ask my question, is it possible 

to get a 1-minute response or 30-second response from Ms. Oge? 

Chairman HARRIS. Your clock is running. 

Mr. TONKO. It is. Did you want to respond? I just thought you 

had some response. I was going to give you 30 seconds of my time. 

Ms. OGE. The agency is not required by law to do testing to make 

the case for off-road equipment. The agency had sufficient information, scientific information, to be concerned about off-road equipment, to be concerned about medium- and heavy-duty gasoline engines and to be concerned about motorcycles. That is why the agency is prohibiting the use of E15 in the marketplace. 

So we use the right science in a very robust, scientific process to 

make these decisions. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. Several of you have mentioned in your 

written testimony that you believe the Federal Government should 

be supporting renewable fuel research. Perhaps specifically to Mr. 

Burke and Ms. White, what kind of research would you recommend 

the Federal Government to fund to overcome the blend wall issue? 

Mr. Burke? 

Mr. BURKE. Two main areas. The first, self-evident. Research in 

every technology that will, in coming decades, yield every possible 

liquid fuel from every possible source, either land-based or those 

such as algae, municipal waste and whatever. 

Second, more subtle, more challenging but historically necessary 

as to some degree our content today reveals. Fund research at the 

juncture of overlapping sectors and overlapping technologies. We 

have a juncture in liquid transportation fuels with not only the existing petroleum industry but with, as we have heard today, equipment, resources, other technology. Historically and inevitably, new 

technologies butt up against what is already at hand. And to some 

degree, we are remiss both in our success and in our responsibilities if we don’t fund research at the point of juncture. 

Mr. TONKO. Ms. White, please? 

Ms. WHITE. Yes. Thank you, Representative. We think it is really 

important to invest in drop-in biofuels that do not require any— 

that can use the existing infrastructure, do not require special 

pumps, et cetera. 
137 

We also think it is important to take a lesson from corn ethanol. 

We don’t want to repeat the mistakes that we saw where there 

needs to be a precautionary principle with respect to advanced 

biofuels. We would like to see more research into swtitchgrass and 

some miscanthus as well as into algae. But we really think that we 

would need to constantly reassess the amount of money we are putting into the advanced biofuels to make sure we get where we want 

to go. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. And Mr. Burke, North Carolina and my 

home State of New York have a lot in common as it relates to biomass resources. They are both large agricultural states, and we 

both have substantial forest resources. 

Do you have any recommendations for New York on how to drive 

economic development through sustainable feedstock production? 

Mr. BURKE. Yes, sir. If we in North Carolina and New York and 

beyond will successfully gain our expected new biofuels in coming 

years. The drawdown, the use of our natural resources will be extraordinary, unprecedented and greater than we can probably even 

begin to anticipate. 

As such, we must merge technology, economic thinking and environmental responsibility to begin to effectively determine not just 

what we can quickly harvest or grow but what equally important 

we can sustainably grow and keep on the ground well into the future. It is possible that we will not need to only be attentive to sustainability and environmental implications, we will very possibly 

need in coming years to use biotechnology to purposefully alter various of our crop and forest resources so that they grow under the 

best conditions, with the best outcome, with minimal environmental degradation. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair? 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. I now recognize the 

Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Hall. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Oge, I think 

the Chairman started out the questions here. I would like some inquiry. Have you relied partial waiver decision under Section 211(f) 

of the Clean Air Act in regard to mid-level ethanol blends and gasoline? And I think you know that the auto industry along with the 

engine manufacturers and the oil industry expressed a lot of concern about EPA’s permitting up to 15 percent ethanol in gasoline 

and that it may have a negative consequence. I think the Chairman clearly pointed that out to you on engine performance, emissions and also create a situation where misfueling by consumers 

might occur. You understand that, don’t you? 

Ms. OGE. Yes. 

Chairman HALL. Then let me ask you this. It is my understanding that EPA is proceeding though with the rule-making on 

tier three. I don’t think anybody has asked you about tier three, 

have they today? 

Ms. OGE. No. 

Chairman HALL. And you know what I am talking about, don’t 

you? 

Ms. OGE. Yes, I do. 
138 

Chairman HALL. This would impact the sulfur content in gasoline as well as the reid vapor pressure of gasoline. What on earth 

is the justification for proceeding with the rulemaking at this time? 

Ms. OGE. The tier three rules that you are referring to, sir, is a 

regulation that has two drivers. One is the existing ozone NAAQS 

for both ozone and PM, and the second is actually the Energy Independence and Security Act that requires EPA to evaluate the potential impacts of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel in the marketplace, and if we determine that there are increases in emissions 

from the use of the 36 billion gallons to take steps to reduce those 

increases. 

The agency is in the process of developing such a rule, but I am 

not allowed at this point to give you any details because no decisions have been made. We are in the process of talking to the car 

companies, talking to the oil industry and we are in the process of 

developing this regulation. 

Chairman HALL. Well, as you know, Section 209 of the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 required EPA to complete 

a study 18 months after enactment to determine whether, quote, 

the renewable fuel volumes required by the RFS2 will adversely 

impact air quality before proceeding with any rulemaking. The 

statute even further provides that you might determine additional 

rulemaking is not even necessary. Yet, in September of last year, 

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Regina McCarthy, 

told Congress EPA was carrying out some of the long lead-time 

work needed to perform the anti-backsliding analysis required by 

Section 209 and noted that EPA would incorporate the results of 

our analysis under the Section 209 assessment in the proposed long 

new vehicle and fuel control measures. 

So in other words, EPA failed to complete the Section 209 study 

by the statutory deadline, did you not? 

Ms. OGE. The studies as Ms. McCarthy said would be part of the 

tier three proposal. Also I may note that when we finalized the 

RFS2 program a couple of years ago, we did put a preliminary 

analysis of the potential impacts of— 

Chairman HALL. Well, did you or did you not—excuse me. Did 

you or did you not fail to complete the Section 209 study by the 

statutory deadline? 

Ms. OGE. We have not completed— 

Chairman HALL. Just tell me yes or no. 

Ms. OGE. Yes, sir. 

Chairman HALL. All right. And as the study is not yet completed, 

when do you expect to complete the Section 209 study? 

Ms. OGE. At the end of this year. 

Chairman HALL. And do you expect to provide an opportunity for 

comment on the results of the study prior to the incorporation of 

the results into a proposal on new vehicle and fuel control measures? 

Ms. OGE. That will be part of the proposal that will go out for 

the purpose of comments. 

Chairman HALL. We will be studying that further, and we will 

study the record that you are making here and that others from 

the EPA have made before this Committee. 
139 

I might caution you to understand that this Subcommittee expects a full explanation why this statutory deadline has been ignored and why it seems EPA is moving forward with control measures prior to completion of even a single study mandated by Congress. You know what that means, don’t you, when you are mandated by Congress? Why can you just disobey that and ignore it? 

Ms. OGE. Sir, we have not ignored it. We are late in completing 

the study, and are going to do that by the end of the year. 

Chairman HALL. Well, my time is running out, but I think it is 

only fair to let you know that you may be back before us again. It 

seems that there is a pattern of regulating in this area before the 

necessary and appropriate scientific analysis and testing is performed and reviewed. 

I think perhaps you are going to hear from Mr. Sensenbrenner 

and from Dr. Broun in the future. I thank you, and I yield back 

my time. 

Ms. OGE. Thank you. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. 

Bartlett? 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you. Mr. Burke, I noted your observations 

about we were going to need all of the alternative liquid fuels that 

we could get. I am sure you are aware of the IEA reports of ’08 

and 2010 indicating that for the last five years, the world has been 

stuck at 84 billion barrels of oil a day, and their projections for the 

future are that productions from our current fields are going to decrease quite dramatically. 

You know, if you are wildly optimistic about all of the alternative 

liquid fuels and add them up, they can’t even come close to 84 billion barrels a day. So thank you very much for your recognition of 

the challenges that we face there. 

Ms. Oge, I want to make the point that if you were really interested in the environment, you would certainly not have given a 

waiver for E15. You would have recommended that we not even 

have E10 because I don’t think there is any justification from an 

environmental perspective for having E10. 

You are familiar I am sure with the National Academy of Science 

report that said that at the year of their report, if we had taken 

all of their corn and converted it into ethanol that it would have 

displaced just 2.4 percent of our gasoline. They noted I think quite 

correctly that we could have saved as much gasoline by tuning up 

our car and putting air in the tires as we would have saved by converting all of our corn to corn ethanol. You are familiar with that 

study? 

Ms. OGE. Yes, I am. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Okay. You are also familiar with the studies that 

have indicated that the energy that goes into producing ethanol 

may be very close to the energy that we get out of ethanol? When 

you look at all of the inputs for instance about half the energy used 

to produce corn comes from natural gas in which nitrogen fertilizer 

is made. So there may be little or no increased energy available as 

a result of using ethanol which means that there may be no diminution in the CO2 footprint. You are familiar with those studies? 
140 

Ms. OGE. I am familiar with the studies that we have done as 

part of the RFS and the ones that Congress requires to do for our 

own life-cycle analysis. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Yeah, there have been studies which have indicated that there is really, it may actually be negative. It may take 

more energy to produce it than not. But even if it is mildly positive, 

what happened when we produced all that corn for ethanol, we 

planted where we shouldn’t have planted. We took fields out of reserve and we put them in cultivation. There has been increased 

erosion. 

Today for every bushel of corn that we grow in Iowa, three 

bushes of topsoil go down the Mississippi River. So even with our 

really good cultural practice, really good compared with yesteryear, 

it is still not sustainable. You can’t have three bushels of corn go 

down the Mississippi River, three bushels of topsoil for every bushel of corn. 

The next thing that happened was that we diverted acres from 

wheat to corn. Corn is a huge hog when it comes to using energy, 

is it not? And so now there was less wheat available, and we had 

a drought in the place where they produce rice, so less rice was 

available. 

So there was an increase in the basic foods for everybody in the 

world, part of that laid at our doorstep because of this silly corn 

ethanol program. 

If you were really interested in the environment, why wouldn’t 

you recommend that we do away with E10? 

Ms. OGE. Sir, I worked for EPA for 32 years. I am a public servant. I am not a political appointee, and I pride myself that every 

day I wake up I make a difference. I don’t make the laws. Congress 

does. We have a law in 2007—— 

Mr. BARTLETT. But when we say something dumb—— 

Ms. OGE. No, excuse me. 

Mr. BARTLETT. —don’t you feel some obligation to tell us we are 

doing something dumb—— 

Ms. OGE. No—— 

Mr. BARTLETT. —and our support of ethanol is something dumb. 

Ms. OGE. The Congress passed a law, the President signed it. We 

are implementing the law. As public servants that is all we can do, 

and we have to use the best science and legal justification for the 

decision we are making. And again, I feel pretty strong that the 

Administrator made the best scientific basis for this waiver decision. But I will not comment about policies on ethanol. 

Mr. BARTLETT. But I thought that you were there to protect the 

environment—— 

Ms. OGE. And I am—— 

Mr. BARTLETT. I don’t think the use of corn ethanol protects the 

environment. Would you argue me that it does protect the environment? 

Ms. OGE. Sir, I am at EPA to implement the laws that Congress 

passes. Congress passed a law in 2007, and we are implementing 

it as Congress has required based on the best science and legal criteria available to us. 
141 

Mr. BARTLETT. So you are doing as little harm as possible to implement the laws that we shouldn’t have passed. Is that what you 

are saying? 

Ms. OGE. I am not going to comment on that. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much, Dr. Bartlett. Mr. Sensenbrenner, the Vice-Chairman? 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. To 

begin with, I would like to submit for the record a letter which I 

sent to Administrator Jackson dated yesterday with all of the letters that I have received from both large-engine and small-engine 

manufacturers. 

Chairman HARRIS. Without objection. 

[The information can be found in Appendix II.] 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Now, Ms. Oge, I think we have seen pretty 

adequate testimony that E15 will reduce fuel efficiency while at the 

same time Congress has mandated an increase in fuel efficiency. 

Isn’t the EPA kind of working across purposes by having E15 at 

the same time there has been a Congressional mandate? Remember, I have only five minutes, too. 

Ms. OGE. You are right. Let us also—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay. I am right. Fine. Thank you. 

Ms. OGE. No, I didn’t say that. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay. Now—— 

Ms. OGE. Can I clarify it? 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Now, let us go on. Okay. We heard from 

both Ms. White and the letters that I have received that E15 will 

void the warranty. Most car engines will wreck practically all of 

the smaller engines. And yet at the same time, there is no mandate 

from the EPA that gas stations continue to provide E10. Now, if 

you have a small engine for Dr. Broun’s boat or Dr. Harris’ lawnmower or Mr. Palazzo’s snowmobile in Mississippi, where are they 

going to find the fuel that doesn’t wreck their engines if there is 

not a mandate that E10 be available? 

Ms. OGE. Sir, we are not mandating E15 to be used. Any E15 

right now cannot be used until we register the fuel, so it is not a 

legal fuel. And there are many steps that need to take place at the 

state, local and Federal Government for E15 to be marketed. 

When it does get marketed, we will be more than willing to take 

a look and see what happens to E10 because we agree with you 

that E10 is needed for off-road equipment and older equipment. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, you know, that is nice, but you know, 

I started driving around when the leaded fuel ban came, and there 

was more than a sticker on the gas pump. They actually made the 

fuel import or the fuel ducts narrower so that with the leaded fuel, 

you had a wide nozzle and an unleaded fuel you had a narrow nozzle. And still, according to the statistics, 20 percent of the vehicles 

were misfueled. 

Now, how are you going to be able to do that without having gas 

stations to go to the extent of having separate pumps for E15 and 

E10 and some kind of a barrier to prevent the E15 from being put 

into engines that can only run on E10? 

Ms. OGE. Sir, unleaded fuel as you will remember was mandated—— 
142 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. No, let us—— 

Ms. OGE. No, excuse me. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Yeah, well, let us look—I gave the example, you know, of the different size gas nozzles between leaded fuel 

and unleaded fuel when that mandate came. Now, if you have E10 

and E15 at the same gas station, are you going to have to have 

separate pumps for that which is an expense of the gas station or 

are you going to have some kind of blockage so that E15 is not put 

into an engine that will only run on E10? 

Ms. OGE. May I answer? 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Yes. 

Ms. OGE. We are not mandating E15 to be used. We mandated 

unleaded fuel because new vehicles introduced into the marketplace with catalytic converters, they would destroy those. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I understand that, but now we are talking 

about a fuel that can destroy a small engine and an engine in the 

car that has been manufactured since 2001. And I used the example of the mid-’70s where 20 percent of the cars were misfueled 

even with the barriers that were available. Now, you know, you 

better start thinking this through. 

You know, I remember your visit to Milwaukee 15 years ago 

when the reformulated gas mandate came in, and as a result of 

some of your answers, the riot squad was being assembled in the 

parking lot across the street. And then you promised a hearing in 

Madison which you walked out of because you didn’t like what the 

public had to say. 

We are elected officials. We have to listen to what the public has 

to say, and I guess I am warning you that if you have a repeat of 

what happened back 15 years ago over reformulated gas, the public 

is a lot less tolerant and you better start looking at what the public 

thinks. This fuel doesn’t help the environment, the fuel does have 

all the problems that have been stated, and the EPA ought to wake 

up and recognize that fact, rather than they being off in La La 

Land trying to impose another mandate from on high. And I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Vice Chairman. 

You know, you are right. On the Eastern Shore of Maryland, they 

started selling good, old-fashioned gasoline so you can use it in 

your boats without any ethanol. The Chair recognizes Mr. Palazzo. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to sit 

in on your Subcommittee hearing. I think Congressman Sensenbrenner said it best in addressing the question about the damage 

it is going to cause anything E10 or above to chainsaws, 

lawnmowers, boats, snowmobiles, but for the record, I own a fourwheeler, not a snowmobile. To me, in this day and age, family 

budgets are tight, Americans are more busier now than ever. You 

know, distractions, hardships, things that just take their mind off 

what is happening, and I think most of these hardships, distractions and crises in American lives are basically generated by overregulation and by a lot of the actions of the former Congresses. 

So I am definitely concerned about misfueling and things of that 

nature. But I think that was pretty much asked and answered, especially with Mr. Sahu, his comment that over 500 million pieces 

of equipment could be damaged if they use E10 or greater or pos-
143 

sibly even E10. A lot of people seem to think that has a lot of damage on small engines, and I agree. And up to $200 trillion in replacement just for those pieces of equipment, and that is just 

money American people don’t have right now. And things are tight, 

and I just don’t think we should be pushing what it feels like is 

more of a mandate on them. 

But my question for Ms. Oge is centered around the infrastructure concerns. My understanding is that the Underwriters’ Laboratory has not certified any existing fuel pumps to handle E15. Additionally, Underwriters’ Laboratory, along with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, conducted extensive testing on the use of 

E15 in new and used fuel dispensing equipment, like hoses, valves, 

pump and nozzles. The testing was completed in November 2010 

and showed that more than 50 percent of used equipment, and 

more than 30 percent of new equipment, failed when used with 

E15. Were these major infrastructure concerns considered by the 

EPA? 

Ms. OGE. Sir, I think I am familiar with the study that you are 

referring to. There was a Department of Energy sponsored study. 

Again, the Clean Air Act under 211(f), the Administrator in looking 

at this waiver, has to determine to what extent a new fuel or fuel 

additive would impact cars or contribute to emissions control of 

that vehicle failing. EPA is not responsible for dispenser units. As 

you know, a lot of state and local governments have that responsibility, and as I mentioned earlier, before E15 becomes a commercially available fuel in the marketplace, first we have to register 

this fuel. To date EPA has not received a full application from the 

renewable fuel producers on behalf of them, so it is not registered, 

therefore it is not legally allowed to enter the marketplace. 

The second issue has to do with underground storage tanks. EPA 

just put out a guidance. There are issues of potential compatibility 

of materials, based on the rating of dispensing units, plus, there 

are 30 or 35 states that have ASTM laws that require changes 

from E10 to 15. 

So what I am trying to say is that there are a lot of steps that 

need to be taken that EPA is not responsible for before E15 is marketed. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Is there some form of timeline before this may be 

registered? I mean, because everybody assumes it is barreling down 

the road, so is this two years, three years. And you also mentioned 

that the states and local governments are responsible for the infrastructure. I mean, they are broke, too, so how are we going to ask 

them to pick up the costs or who do you expect to pick up the cost 

at the end of the day? 

Ms. OGE. So the first question about registration, we have received some data from the renewable fuel producers. We don’t have 

the full records, and we don’t have the formal application from 

them so I cannot give you a timeframe. 

As far as dispensing units, retail stations have to meet local and 

state government regulations on compatibility of dispensing units, 

and the same thing for underground storage tanks. So it will vary 

from station to station, from state and local government laws. 
144 

Mr. PALAZZO. This is just open for everybody. I know everybody 

is focused on Ms. Oge, and hopefully I have a few extra seconds 

and won’t get gaveled out. 

Does America have an energy policy? Does anybody want to try 

to tackle that in 15 seconds or less? It is pretty simple. One, stop 

the government policies that drive up the cost of energy because 

our economy and national security is dependent upon affordable 

and available energy. Second is expand domestic energy production. That is American energy, so open up the East Coast, the West 

Coast the off-shore, on-shore, Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, and drill. 

Three things will happen. We will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, we will drive down the cost of energy and we will create 

American jobs. And three, promote an all-the-above approach, oil, 

nuclear, coal, natural gas. Heck, I am okay with wind, solar and 

water and anything else you can think and biofuels as well as long 

as it is not subsidized by the American taxpayer. Mr. Chairman, 

thank you. 

Chairman HARRIS. I thank you very much. Before we adjourn, we 

are going to have one more five minutes for each side, and the minority is trying to round up a Member for their five minutes, but 

I am going to recognize myself for five minutes to start the truncated second round. 

First of all, I just want to make a comment that there were some 

questions about the appearance of DOE at the hearing. Now, we 

don’t think that it is necessary to have DOE because this is specifically about EPA making the ruling using that information. It is not 

whether the DOE study was adequate or inadequate, it is basically 

whether it was done scientifically. It was whether EPA needed 

more information in order to make this instead of just depending 

on that study. 

Now, let me ask Mr. Wasil, I got a question for you because I 

do have a marine engine, and I will tell you, there is great fear 

about putting any ethanol at all into those engines. So literally, 

there are places now popping up that sell good, old-fashioned, 100 

percent gasoline to put into which is a little pain because, you 

know, your marinas don’t have it. You got to get it from a gas station. It is a whole other mess. But anyway, I remember back in the 

’70s when we first talked about putting ethanol in, and I would rebuild a carburetor. They would say, look, you can’t use ethanol in 

it because it affects the gaskets. Is that one of the concerns, the 

effect of ethanol on gaskets in an engine? 

Mr. WASIL. Sure, absolutely that is a good point. Many of the 

components, fuel system components, on the engines themselves 

are susceptible to damage from ethanol. 

Chairman HARRIS. Okay, and thank you very much because I got 

to keep it short. 

Mr. WASIL. Okay. 

Chairman HARRIS. Ms. Oge, did the EPA test gaskets? I mean, 

because gaskets, they degrade over time. It could take two years, 

three years for that gasket to fail, and the failure of a gasket in 

a fuel system can be a catastrophic event, not only for the environment because it leaks gasoline at that point, but obviously it leaks 

gasoline, I mean, around a hot engine. Did the EPA consider how 

long a period you would have to study a gasket in a fuel system 
145 

or an emissions control system before you can say confidently increase in the ethanol concentration will not adversely affect that 

gasket performance? 

Ms. OGE. The DOE study of the 19 models, they tested each one 

of these models, about 88 cars, 120,000 miles. Also, they took some 

of the engines and they broke them up. 

Chairman HARRIS. But excuse me, they tested over what period 

of time? 

Ms. OGE. One hundred twenty thousand miles—— 

Chairman HARRIS. Over what period of time? 

Ms. OGE. Six months to a year. 

Chairman HARRIS. Okay. Ms. Oge, you do realize that there is 

a time dependency of the wearing away of a gasket with exposure 

to ethanol? 

Ms. OGE. Sir, there are test procedures. When a company certifies a car, there are test procedures that EPA determines for the 

car company to demonstrate that the vehicle would meet the environmental standards for its full useful life. So this similar test procedures of car companies are using today in short periods of time 

to determine and to demonstrate that their cars would last—— 

Chairman HARRIS. But Ms. Oge, they are testing for E10. 

Ms. OGE. Sir—— 

Chairman HARRIS. You are testing for E15. My question is simple. Did you all insist on a scientific test that lasted as long as the 

life of a car would last? 

Ms. OGE. Sir, we test at E0 and E15. We had one car that failed 

E0, and three cars—three cars that failed I believe E0 and two cars 

that failed E15. The same test protocols that were used for E0 for 

the 120,000 miles that car companies are using to demonstrate 

that the car would last for 120,000 miles—— 

Chairman HARRIS. Okay. I am not worried about the entire car. 

Ms. OGE. —for 10 years. 

Chairman HARRIS. I am worried about—— 

Ms. OGE. Sir—— 

Chairman HARRIS. —a gasket failure—— 

Ms. OGE. Sir, I am telling you, we use the same test procedures 

that the car company has to use when they certify that their gaskets and their emissions control systems would last for 120,000, 

eight years or 120,000 miles. The same test procedures were used 

by the Department of Energy. If you are interested to know more 

details, we would be glad to provide that for—— 

Chairman HARRIS. I would be very interested in knowing how 

you tested the gasket because it is my understanding that you test 

catalysts. You tested catalysts performance. I don’t understand. 

Does that mean what comes out of a catalytic converter at the end? 

Ms. OGE. Actually we tested catalyst performance but also there 

were a number of models that were chosen where the engine was 

broken down for both E0 and E15 and they take a look at, you 

know, what extent there are valves that are affected, hoses, the engine is affected. And we found similar impacts of E0 to E15 for 

those engines— 

Chairman HARRIS. Well, I am shocked—— 

Ms. OGE. —and we would be glad—— 
146 

Chairman HARRIS. —at that because I know ethanol does things 

to gaskets that gasoline doesn’t. 

Ms. OGE. I would be glad to share that information. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you. I am going to recognize Dr. Bartlett for my last 30 seconds. 

Mr. BARTLETT. If we have a second round, I will claim my own 

five minutes. 

Chairman HARRIS. Well, Dr. Bartlett, we decided since there are 

no minority Members and they were trying to round up one, that 

would have five minutes. I will give you 30 seconds, but the gavel 

is not going to be very active. So take advantage of it. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. I wouldn’t want my disaffection with ethanol to be extrapolated into believing that I am 

not a supporter of alternative fuels. Mr. Burke, I was led to believe 

from some of your observations that you may be one of the exceptions that I refer to when I tell audiences that the innocence and 

ignorance in our country on energy matters is astounding, and with 

a few exceptions, we have truly representative government. I think 

you may be one of those exceptions. 

I gather that you are familiar with the IEA. 

Mr. BURKE. I think I will thank you for that, Dr. Bartlett. 

Mr. BARTLETT. I meant it so, sir. 

Mr. BURKE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. BARTLETT. You are familiar with the IEA projections of future oil production? 

Mr. BURKE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Okay. Do you believe that we are going to be getting 2/3 of all the oil that we pump just about 20 years from now 

from fields from which we are getting nothing now? 

Mr. BURKE. I believe that all of our best estimations, prognostications and thinking are likely to be confounded in coming years by 

factors barely known to us about fuel usage worldwide and gaining 

usage worldwide. 

In the light of such mercurial unknown changes in the future, we 

in North Carolina have determined that it is simply smart policy 

to grant that we need as much as possible of every kind of liquid 

fuel. We don’t disavow petroleum from any source. It seems to us 

that in fuels as in other areas, dependency on a monosource is 

never a good idea. That is why we don’t like monopolies, that is 

why we were fearful of a corn blight many years ago. Single source, 

not good. 

So we are simply determining that provident future mongering 

suggests we should have the capability for as many kinds of liquid 

fuels as possible. 

Mr. BARTLETT. I don’t know how many of you are familiar with 

the corn blight that you talking about. I imagine that is the male 

Texas sterile cytoplasm that were used to sterilize the corn in hybrid corns so we wouldn’t have to pull the tassels off, and it got 

a blight and we were threatened with having no corn the following 

year. So they went to the islands where they could grow two corn 

crops in a year so we had some corn seed at very high prices the 

next year. When was that, sir? 

Mr. BURKE. I believe in the mid-’70s. 
147 

Mr. BARTLETT. Yeah. Well, that was a wake-up call when you get 

to a monoculture. You see, to produce hybrid corn, you tear the 

male part of it off, and that was a lot of work and sometimes you 

missed it. And when you missed it, that was a bad deal because 

then you didn’t have hybrid corn. 

So what they would do is they developed this male Texas sterile 

cytoplasm which made the male Texas things sterile, but they got 

a blight that affected only that. And that is the risk that we have 

in our world of moving to only milk from Holsteins, only eggs for 

lake horn chickens and so forth. You go to a monoculture, you run 

the risk that they may have a collapse and you may be in a real 

catastrophe. And that was kind of a wake-up call. 

I appreciate your tolerance, sir. Thank you very much. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much, Dr. Bartlett. Always 

learn something from your questioning. 

I want to thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and 

the Members for their questions. The Members of the Subcommittee may have additional questions for the witnesses, and we 

will ask you to respond to those in writing, and the record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments from Members. 

And again, I want to thank you for your patience. We ran late. The 

witnesses are excused. The hearing is adjourned. 

Mr. GRECO. Mr. Chair, can the witnesses also provide information? I would like to correct a couple of erroneous comments. 

Chairman HARRIS. Yeah, we will, in response to your questions. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 4:35 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(149) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
150 

1 ‘‘Technical Summary of DOE Study on E15 Impacts On Tier 2 Vehicles and Southwest Research Teardown Report,’’ October 13, 2010. See Docket ID EPA–HQ–2009–0211–14019 at 

www.regulations.gov. 2 See 75 FR 68094 (November 4, 2010). 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Ms. Margo Oge, Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Questions submitted by Chairman Andy Harris 

Q1. You stated that the DOE test data on catalyst durability was posted in the docket 

for parties to review and comment. Is it not true that only 5 weeks elapsed from when 

preliminary test data from the DOE Program was made available in raw form to 

when EPA made its initial waiver decision? Why did EPA wait until the day Administrator Jackson signed the initial waiver decision (October 13, 2010) before posting 

its technical analysis of the initial DOE Catalyst Durability Program to the Public 

Docket? Why didn’t EPA reopen the comment period to allow sufficient time for others to truly review and comment on the DOE data? 

A1. Beginning May 21, 2010, five months before the initial waiver decision, EPA 

submitted data from DOE’s Catalyst Durability Program to the docket as the data 

became available and was checked for accuracy, and the public was allowed to review and comment on the data. In an April 20, 2010, letter to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and in discussions with other interested parties, EPA explained that it would place new data and other information in the docket, continue 

to accept substantive comments on the waiver, and consider those comments in 

making a waiver determination. Over 90% of the data for model year (MY) 2007 and 

newer light-duty motor vehicles was available in the docket five weeks prior to the 

Administrator issuing the partial waiver covering those vehicles. 

EPA posted the document, ‘‘Technical Summary of DOE Study on E15 Impacts 

On Tier 2 Vehicles and Southwest Research Teardown Report,’’ 1 on the day the Administrator signed the initial waiver decision consistent with its practice in all previous Clean Air Act section 211(f)(4) waiver decisions. This technical summary provides further elaboration of EPA’s first waiver decision as set forth in the Federal 

Register notice of the decision. Providing a more detailed technical explanation of 

the Agency’s waiver decision is analogous to the regulatory impact analyses and response to comment documents for rulemakings, which are also released to the public 

on the day that the final rule is signed. 

We noted in the first waiver decision that an additional comment period was neither needed nor necessary. 2 Section 211(f)(4) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA 

grant or deny an application for a waiver after public notice and comment. EPA 

published notice of receipt of the waiver application on April 21, 2009, and provided 

the public with an extended public comment period of 90 days to submit comments 

on the waiver application. EPA received approximately 78,000 comments during the 

public comment period. 

As described above, EPA continued to accept comments on the waiver application 

after closure of the formal comment period. Over 300 individual comments representing a broad range of affected stakeholders and the public took the opportunity 

to submit additional comments in light of other comments and information included 

in the docket. EPA also held meetings in which stakeholders shared their comments, concerns and additional data regarding the waiver request. Information received at these meetings was made available in the public docket. In view of the 

access that had been made available to all of the information in the public docket, 

EPA concluded that there was no need for a second public comment period. 

Q2. You testified that ‘‘The burden is on the waiver applicant to make the demonstration, although EPA considers information submitted by the public and other available information in making its waiver decisions.’’ Please quantify the burden shouldered by Growth Energy in demonstrating the case for this waiver versus that borne 

by the Federal Government. Please also quantify the burden shouldered by applicants 

in past waiver requests versus that borne by the Federal Government. How do these 

proportions compare? 

A2. We do not have information about the costs incurred by Growth Energy in 

preparing the E15 waiver application, so we cannot quantify the burden shouldered 

by Growth Energy versus that borne by the Federal Government in responding to 

the waiver application. We note, however, that in its waiver application Growth Energy presented a number of technical papers that covered vehicle testing of gasoline- 
151 

3 http://www.epa.gov/oms/additive.htm. 

ethanol blends, along with a discussion of why these papers supported granting the 

waiver. Since DOE was conducting testing that could address issues not resolved 

by the technical data presented by Growth Energy, EPA waited to make waiver decisions until DOE testing had been completed and assessed. 

While DOE testing provided much of the data on which the partial waivers were 

based, it was not the first time that emissions data relevant to a waiver determination were developed by the Federal Government or sources other than the waiver 

applicant. For example, in 1978 EPA received a waiver application from a small 

company, Gas Plus, Inc., and the Illinois Department of Agriculture for E10. The 

application included a compilation of general papers on alcohol fuels and fuel 

blends. In that case, the Federal Government, two auto manufacturers and two refiners conducted some vehicle emissions testing on E10. In the context of the waiver 

application for MMT, a manganese-based gasoline additive, EPA and auto manufacturers conducted some vehicle emissions testing in addition to that sponsored by the 

waiver applicant. As a general matter, waiver applicants develop the bulk of vehicle 

emissions data supporting their application. 

Q3. You stated in your testimony that the Agency has yet to receive or act on a complete E15 registration application. 

a. Has EPA received any portions of a registration application? Has the Agency 

taken any action to assist applicants or potential applicants in ensuring completeness 

of an E15 registration application? 

A3a. In February of this year, the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) and Growth 

Energy submitted to EPA for review E15 emissions and health effects information 

for meeting fuel registration requirements. EPA is in the process of completing its 

review. To the extent the information is found sufficient, RFA and Growth Energy 

may make it available to fuel manufacturers in submitting fuel registration applications for E15. The fuel registration regulations call for fuel manufacturers to submit 

applications that include emissions and health effects information as well as other 

information specific to the manufacturer (e.g., estimated sales and additives that 

will be used in the fuel). 

EPA routinely assists fuel registration applicants by answering their questions 

about the various application requirements and how the requirements may be met. 

We provided such guidance to RFA and Growth Energy as they prepared E15 emissions and health effects information for meeting registration requirements. When we 

find deficiencies with applications, we also routinely provide guidance to applicants 

on how to correct the deficiencies. 

b. According to EPA’s website, ‘‘health-effects testing is required. before a new product can be registered.’’ 3 In light of concerns raised in testimony by Heather White 

from the Environmental Working Group and others, what health-effects testing will 

EPA require prior to registration? 

A3b. EPA’s fuel registration regulations include ‘‘Tier 1’’ and ‘‘Tier 2’’ testing requirements to provide information useful in identifying potential health and environmental effects of emissions of the fuel or fuel additive being registered. For E15, 

Tier 1 testing requires that an engine be run on E15 and the compounds in the exhaust be identified and measured. For any compounds not already found in the exhaust of E0, a literature search is required for information on the potential toxicological, environmental, and other public welfare effects of those compounds. Likewise, for evaporative emissions of E15, a literature search is required for any compounds not already found in the evaporative emissions of E0. 

Tier 2 testing involves animal exposure to emissions of the new fuel or fuel additive. The regulations specify standard Tier 2 test protocols and also provide for ‘‘Alternative Tier 2’’ testing where the standard tests would not provide useful information. (For example, Alternative Tier 2 testing has been used for most gasoline fuels, 

including E10, because the exhaust emissions of the fuels contain carbon monoxide, 

the effects of which could mask or otherwise compromise the collection of meaningful information.) The fuel registration regulations further provide that Tier 2 testing 

need not be performed for a new fuel or fuel additive if it is determined that previously conducted tests provide information reasonably comparable to that which 

would be provided by appropriate Tier 2 testing of the new fuel or additive. In addition, the fuel registration regulations authorize EPA to require additional ‘‘Tier 3’’ 

testing as appropriate, including testing to address any issues raised by Tier I or 

Tier 2 test results or information available from other sources. Tier 3 testing can 

be required before or after a fuel is registered. 
152 

4 ‘‘EPA Waivers,’’ Briefing for Staff of Committee on Science, Space and Technology, June 23, 

2011. 5 Brent Yacobucci, ‘‘Intermediate-Level Blends of Ethanol in Gasoline, and the Ethanol‘Blend 

Wall.’’’ R40445, July 1, 2011, 8. 6 http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211–13925. 

As noted above, EPA is in the process of completing its review of the sufficiency 

of the emissions and health effects information submitted by RFA and Growth Energy. 

Q4. In a presentation by your staff 4 to the Committee staff and in a recent report 

by the Congressional Research Service, 5 the stated waiver criteria established by 

EPA in determining whether to authorize a new fuel includes an evaluation of the 

immediate and long-term impacts of the fuel in four areas: exhaust emissions; evaporative emissions; materials compatibility; and drivability or operability. 

a. If EPA sets this criteria and found that there was not enough clear evidence to 

grant a single, non-bifurcated waiver, does this criteria need to be changed? 

A4a. The four waiver criteria correspond to those ways in which a fuel or fuel additive may affect vehicle or engine emissions. They inform the kind of testing and 

analysis that may be needed to determine whether a new fuel or fuel additive will 

cause or contribute to failure of emission standards. The criteria are applied to each 

category of vehicle or engine for which a waiver is considered and were so applied 

in the case of E15. We believe the criteria remain appropriate for consideration of 

future fuel waivers. 

b. Why did the Agency not require testing of pre-2001 model year vehicles? Why were 

evaporative emissions, drivability/operability, and materials compatibility not subjected to a separate testing program to satisfy these criteria? 

A4b. As discussed in the first waiver decision, EPA had engineering concerns that 

pre-2001 model year motor vehicles may not be able to maintain compliance with 

emissions standards if operated on E15. No testing was conducted by the waiver applicants or any other entity to address those concerns, so EPA denied the waiver 

for those vehicles. Under the Clean Air Act, the waiver applicant has the burden 

of demonstrating that the waiver criteria are met through appropriate testing and/ 

or engineering analysis. EPA is not required to conduct testing in order to supplement the information provided by the waiver applicant or public commenters. 

As described in the two E15 partial waiver decisions, available test data, information and analyses adequately addressed the evaporative emissions, drivability/operability, and materials compatibility criteria for E15 for MY2001 and newer lightduty motor vehicles. Separate testing to address each criterion by itself is not necessary. Test programs, like DOE’s, can be conducted to address several criteria, and 

other information and analyses may be sufficient to address one or more criteria, 

depending on the particular issues raised by a new fuel or fuel additive. EPA took 

into account all of the information before the Agency in determining that each of 

the waiver criteria were met for E15 use in MY2001 and newer light-duty motor 

vehicles. 

Q5. In your testimony you mention that, in making decisions about fuel waivers, EPA 

can look at representative test programs or ‘‘a reasonable engineering theory about 

emissions effects.’’ Similarly, in a November 2009 letter to Growth Energy, Assistant 

Administrator Gina McCarthy said that ‘‘our engineering assessment to date indicates that the robust fuel, engine and emissions control systems on newer vehicles.will likely be able to accommodate higher ethanol blends, such as E15.’’ 6

a. What is ‘‘a reasonable engineering theory’’ and what role did such a theory play 

in the E15 waiver decision? 

A5a. EPA has previously described two approaches for demonstrating that a new 

fuel or fuel additive will not cause or contribute to motor vehicles failing to meet 

their applicable emissions standards. One approach utilizes reliable statistical sampling and fleet testing protocols such as that conducted by DOE for assessing the 

emissions impact of E15 on MY2007 and newer light-duty motor vehicles. An alternative approach is to articulate a reasonable engineering theory about the likely 

emissions effects of the new fuel or additive based on relevant and well-founded engineering and other scientific principles, and to support that assessment with confirmatory testing or other information. In other words, if a reasonable theory exists, 

based on good engineering information and judgment, which predicts the emission 

effects of a fuel or fuel additive, an applicant need only conduct a sufficient amount 

of testing or provide other data and analysis sufficient to demonstrate the validity 

of such a theory. In making a waiver determination, EPA reviews all of the material 

in the public docket. 
153 

7 See 75 FR 68094 (November 4, 2010). 

As explained in the waiver decision documents, engineering assessments contributed to the bases for granting the partial waivers. For example, the partial waiver 

decision covering MY2001–2006 light-duty motor vehicles relied in part on an engineering assessment of the capacity of the emission-related systems of those vehicles 

to accommodate E15, and that assessment was confirmed by data from the DOE 

test program. 

b. If an ‘‘engineering assessment’’ was guiding EPA’s beliefs about the impacts of 

E15 before final test results from DOE were available, why was this assessment never 

released for public comment? 

A5b. Since DOE testing of MY2007 and newer light-duty motor vehicles entailed 

reliable statistically significant sampling and fleet testing protocols, the results of 

that testing provided much of the basis for granting the partial waiver covering 

those vehicles. As EPA explained in the first waiver decision, those test results, 

which were made available to the public, confirmed EPA’s engineering assessment 

that tighter applicable emission standards and test protocols likely led manufacturers to design vehicles capable of maintaining emission standards compliance on E10 

and that those design improvements were sufficient to allow compliance on E15. 

c. Please provide the Committee the engineering assessment cited by Assistant Administrator McCarthy in November 2009. 

A5c. The engineering assessment referred to in the November 2009 letter to 

Growth Energy simply reflected the ongoing consideration of EPA engineering staff 

reviewing Growth Energy’s waiver request, available test data, and other information. The full assessment and the bases for it were described in the final waiver decision document addressing MY2007 and newer light-duty motor vehicles. 

Testing Programs 

Q6. Did your staff attend meetings held on June 3, 2009, September 16, 2009, and 

May 5, 2010 to receive briefings on relevant Coordinating Research Council (CRC) 

research projects to examine the impact of mid-level ethanol blends on engines? 

A6. Yes. 

a. If so, and in light of EPA and DOE’s previous involvement with the CRC test 

programs, why did EPA ignore the issues raised in these meetings with respect to 

emissions concerns and decline to wait for CRC to finish? Please answer in light of 

the fact that EPA had did not issue the waiver for nearly a year after the 270-day 

deadline outlined in Section 211(f)(4) of the Clean Air Act. 

A6a. EPA addressed the issues raised in these meetings with respect to emissions 

testing and explained why it was not waiting for the completion of several of the 

CRC mid-level ethanol blends test programs before making the E15 waiver decisions. As explained in the first waiver decision addressing MY2007 and newer lightduty motor vehicles, 7 the Agency did not wait for the results of the ongoing CRC 

studies because the record was sufficient without the studies, and many of the studies were not designed to answer the specific question before EPA (i.e., would E15 

cause or contribute to failure of emission standards). As explained in detail in the 

waiver decisions, the ongoing CRC research projects have significant design issues 

that undermine the utility of these programs for evaluating the E15 waiver, including but not limited to the following issues: 

• No actual vehicle testing; 

• No testing on baseline fuel (E0) to properly ensure that observed effects were 

based on the test fuel and not some other cause; 

• Testing on E20 instead of E15; 

• Testing using an ‘‘aggressive’’ form of ethanol that is not allowed under the 

waiver decisions and applicable fuel regulations; and/or 

• Selection of vehicle test fleets that are not representative of the national fleet. 

b. Will EPA revoke the waiver if the CRC mid-level ethanol blends test program 

identifies that E15 will cause or contribute to a failure of an emission control device 

in any 2001 or newer passenger vehicle? 

A6b. As stated above, EPA does not believe that the ongoing CRC mid-level ethanol blends test programs are properly designed to answer the specific waiver question before EPA. Also, as outlined in the waiver decision documents, the record is 

sufficient to partially grant the E15 waiver request for MY2001 and newer lightduty motor vehicles. Therefore, EPA does not anticipate that the CRC test programs 
154 

8 Simon, Karl. ‘‘Mid Level Ethanol Blend Experimental Framework—EPA Staff Recommendations’’ presentation to API Technology Committee Meeting, Chicago, IL (June 4, 2008). See EPA 

Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211- 2559.2 at www.regulations.gov. 9 Government Accountability Office, ‘‘BIOFUELS: Challenges to the Transportation, Sale, and 

Use of Intermediate Ethanol Blends,’’ June 2011, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11513.pdf. 

will yield results that would undermine the partial waiver decisions, particularly 

considering the numerous CRC testing issues discussed above. 

Q7. During question and answers in the July 7 hearing you stated that the DOE catalyst durability study was designed to be ‘‘statistically significant.’’ Please provide 

necessary information to demonstrate the statistical significance of the study design. 

A7. EPA staff specifically outlined an example of an appropriate statistical sampling methodology for use in the design of waiver test programs to CRC and DOE 

at a June 4, 2008 meeting. 8 The methodology informs sample size and selection so 

that the test fleet adequately represents the national fleet for the relevant vehicle 

category. The DOE Catalyst Durability Study for MY2007 and newer light-duty 

motor vehicles generally adhered to the methodology outlined in this presentation 

and is sufficient in both scope and size to be used to evaluate criteria for making 

a waiver request determination. It should also be noted that the ongoing CRC midlevel ethanol research programs do not adhere to this statistical sampling methodology and generally entail smaller and less representative test fleets. 

Q8. A June 2011 General Accountability Office report, 9 which was reviewed by EPA 

officials, outlined the status of DOE and EPA-sponsored ethanol blend research in 

the table below: 
155 

a. Please explain why, in making partial waiver decisions in October 2010 and 

January 2011, EPA’s decision relied heavily on a DOE test program that GAO characterized as still ‘‘ongoing’’ on March 1, 2011. Why did EPA not wait for a completed, 

publically-available, interpretive report on these tests that is expected in the summer 

of 2011? 

A8a. Based on information from DOE, we did not anticipate that any additional 

data relevant to making waiver decisions would be provided in DOE’s final report 

of its test program. In addition, EPA made the test data and relevant test design 

information available to the public prior to the waiver decision. 

b. Please explain which of these completed and expected studies were included in 

EPA’s evaluation of the E15 waiver, and a description of the relative weight afforded 

to each individual test program. 

A8b. Please see attached table. It should also be noted that EPA considered a 

number of other studies in addition to those listed in the GAO table. 

c. Will EPA re-examine the waiver decision when DOE issues reports on its detailed exhaust emissions study, full-life emissions study, drivability study, and fuelsystem materials compatibility study? If not, why would EPA ignore these test programs that directly address EPA’s stated waiver criteria? 
156 

10 EPA and NHTSA discussed their respective statutory authorities in detail in this rulemaking. See 74 FR 49454, 49460–467 (September 28, 2009). Under their respective authorities, 

both agencies consider the same or similar factors in setting standards, factors relating to the 

cost and effectiveness of control technology, lead time, the economic and other impacts of the 

program on the manufacturers, the need of the country for emissions reductions and conservation of energy, and the impact of other governmental standards. Each agency has significant 

discretion in weighing and balancing these factors in determining the appropriate standards 

under their respective authorities. The two agencies harmonized the joint rulemaking by adopting CAFE and GHG standards that reflect these statutory similarities and differences, and by 

establishing a common set of technical assumptions and analyses, for example on the cost to 

comply with the joint rule. For example, the air conditioning credits allowed under EPA’s 2012– 

2016 GHG program provide an additional flexibility for automakers to achieve the standards. 

A8c. For reasons described above and in the partial waiver decisions, we do not 

anticipate that the final reports on these test programs will provide new data or 

information that usefully addresses the specific questions before EPA in evaluating 

the emissions impact of E15. The information before the Agency at the time it 

granted the partial waivers provides sufficient support for the waivers. 

Q9. EPA evaluated engine ‘‘teardown’’ inspections of a subset of the vehicles tested 

in the DOE Catalyst Durability test program and concluded that there ‘‘were no apparent differences at the end-of-life between the motor vehicles that were operated on 

E15 and E0’’ and ‘‘there was no pattern that would suggest greater deterioration on 

E15.’’ The DOE program included driving cycles and procedures designed specifically 

to age and observe fuel effects on the exhaust emission control systems, not the durability of the engine. Please explain why you believe that it is relevant and valid to 

extrapolate these operating conditions and procedures as the bases for drawing conclusions concerning the effects of E15 on powertrain system durability and materials 

compatibility. 

A9. The DOE Catalyst Durability test program aged vehicles using the whole vehicle aging procedures defined in the emission durability regulations (40 CFR 

86.1823–08). The vehicles were driven on chassis dynamometers or actual road surfaces for the full 120,000 mile useful life according to the standard road cycle. The 

severity of this cycle was designed to be greater than 90 percent of the distribution 

of emissions deterioration by selecting speeds and accelerations to be higher than 

the ninetieth-percentile driver. Since this is a whole vehicle mileage accumulation 

process, the entire vehicle, including the engine, fuel system, exhaust, and emissions 

components, were all exposed to E15 for the full mileage accumulation period. 

Fuel Economy 

Q10. On March 11, 2011, before the House Subcommittees of Energy and Power and 

the Environment and the Economy, in reference to the House vote on H.R. 910, EPA 

Administrator Lisa P. Jackson stated: ‘‘I cannot, for the life of me, understand why 

you [Members of Congress] would vote to massively increase America’s oil dependence.’’Please provide the basis, for the Administrator’s statement by quantifying how 

many more barrels of oil America will import because of H.R. 910. Please take into 

account when answering that under H.R. 910, the Administration retains full authority to regulate economy under CAFE, and EPA retains authority to regulate vehicle air conditioner refrigerants under the Clean Air Act. Please include your precise 

methodology. 

A10. As described in the 2012–2016 Joint Final Rule, under a harmonized 10 na- tional program for greenhouse gases and fuel economy the Clean Air Act allows for 

significant additional fuel savings and greenhouse gas reductions beyond what is 

achievable under CAFE: • EPA’s Model Year 2016 standards are estimated to be equivalent to 35.5 mpg 

(if all the GHG reductions are from CO2 and not air conditioner refrigerants), 

while DOT estimated the 2016 CAFE standards would achieve a level of 32.7 

mpg. The harmonized standards for Model Year 2012–2016 cars and light 

trucks will cause the oil consumption of the affected vehicles to be 1.85 billion 

barrels less than it otherwise would be. Of these significant oil reductions, one 

quarter, or 455 million barrels of oil (if all the GHG reductions are from CO2 

and not air conditioner refrigerants), are unique to the EPA standards. • The EPA GHG provisions also provide an additional 326 mmt CO2e reductions 

over the reductions that would be achieved from the affected vehicles if only 

CAFE standards were in place. This accounts for about one-third of the overall 

reductions of 962 mmtCO2e [75 FR 25490]. 

For the MY2017–25 standards, we also expect benefits for the EPA program in 

addition to the NHTSA program due largely to CAA flexibilities and the allowance 

under CAFE for manufacturers to pay penalties in lieu of achieving the full fuel 
157 

11 Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, Remarks at the National Press Club, as prepared (March 

8, 2010). 12 74 Fed. Reg. 34754 (July 8, 2009). 

economy standard. These additional benefits are not associated with EPA’s authority under Title 6 of the CAA to regulate refrigerants. Rather, a portion of the benefits result from providing the automobile manufacturers the option of achieving part 

of the GHG reductions through the control of refrigerant emissions under Title 2 

of the CAA. The precise estimate of those additional benefits will be included in the 

rulemaking proposal in the fall of 2011. 

In addition, EPA’s medium and heavy-duty truck GHG standards, finalized jointly 

with DOT’s fuel economy standards on August 9, 2011 will achieve 22.1 billion gallons of fuel reductions over the lifetime of the heavy-duty vehicles built in 2014 

through 2018 model years. DOT’s program saves approximately 14.5 billion gallons. 

Therefore, the additional oil savings due to EPA’s program is approximately 7.6 billion gallons of fuel, along with additional GHG savings of approximately 95 million 

metric tons of CO2. These additional benefits are largely a result of EPA standards 

taking effect in 2014. Given the four-year lead time requirement in the Energy Independence and Security Act, the fuel economy standards are not in force until 2016. 

Q11. At that same March 11 hearing, Administrator Jackson stated: ‘‘The bill [H.R. 

910] that passed the Committee would actually increase the amount of money that 

Americans have to pay for gasoline, diesel.’’ Since the Administration touts that the 

next CAFE rule for MYs 2017–25 could save up to 1.3 billion barrels of fuel/ and 

under H.R. 910, the Obama Administration retains full authority to regulate fuel 

economy under CAFE, and EPA retains authority to regulate vehicle air conditioner 

refrigerants under the Clean Air Act, how it is possible that H.R. 910 will ‘‘increase 

the amount of money that Americans have to pay for gasoline, diesel’’? Please include 

your precise methodology. 

A11. The added fuel economy and greenhouse gas benefits of EPA action under 

the CAA as described in the response to number 10, above, would be lost. The net 

fuel cost savings over the life of the vehicle for the MY2012–2016 standards was 

$3,000. Had the standards only reached the ‘‘achieved level’’ of 32.7 mpg under 

CAFE, a significant portion of those savings would be lost. Again, a detailed analysis of the MY2017–2025 benefits will be included in the proposal, targeted in the 

fall of 2011. 

Q12. Administrator Jackson stated that separate California fuel economy standards 

would create a ‘‘patchwork of state standards.’’ 11 However, EPA refuses to consider 

the economic or environmental harm of the ‘‘patchwork’’ because arguments against 

the patchwork ‘‘are outside the scope of our section 209(b)(1) waiver criteria.’’ 12

a. What is the Administration’s position on the ‘‘patchwork’’? 

A12a. The Administration does not have a position on this, but is aware of concerns on the part of the auto industry. As discussed below, the Administration has 

been successfully pursuing an approach to vehicle GHG and fuel economy standards 

that avoids a state patchwork. 

b. Is EPA voluntarily powerless to stop California regulators from implementing 

its ‘‘patchwork’’? 

A12b. The section of the Clean Air Act that allows other states to adopt California’s standards (section 177) is separate from the provision governing waivers for 

California’s standards (section 209(b)). EPA’s evaluation of California waiver requests is limited to the criteria listed in section 209(b) of the Act, and those criteria 

do not include other states’ adoption of California’s standards. 

The current national greenhouse gas (GHG) emission and fuel economy program 

for MY2012–2016 light-duty vehicles is an example of and template for avoiding any 

patchwork of state GHG standards. Based on the MY2012–06 program, California 

has allowed automakers showing compliance with EPA’s GHG standards to be 

deemed in compliance with California’s GHG requirements. This has resulted in a 

truly national program for addressing vehicle GHG emissions and fuel economy. 

EPA and NHTSA recently issued a Supplemental Notice of Intent (SOI) outlining 

the key program elements that EPA and NHTSA plan to propose for MY2017–2025 

light-duty vehicles. The agencies coordinated extensively with California, and held 

discussions with other stakeholders, including automakers, states, and environmental groups, to ensure that the forthcoming proposal is based on the most robust 

technical analysis possible. Many automakers and California have announced their 

commitment to support the outlined program. California has publicly committed to 
158 

13 State of Minnesota and Renewable Fuels Association. The Feasibility of 20 Percent Ethanol 

Blends by Volume as a Motor Fuel, EPA Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR- 009–0211–0337. 

taking the same approach as it did for the MY2012–16 standards, paving the way 

for the continuation of a coordinated national program. 

Questions submitted by the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner 

Q1. In testifying before the Subcommittee, you stated ‘‘if the consumer uses E15 for 

2001 in your vehicles, that warranty will not be impacted’’ and that EPA had talked 

to all the automobile manufacturers in the waiver process. In a May 5th hearing before the House Energy and Power Subcommittee, you also testified that ‘‘We are very 

confident that newer vehicles can use E15 gasoline blend.’’ 

a. When I contacted the automakers about E15, they shared their warranty information, which specifically prohibited the use of fuel over E10. These warranties state 

that using a fuel above E10 would constitute misfueling and result in the warranty 

being voided. How do you resolve the discrepancy between what you are telling this 

Committee and what the automakers are telling us? You state that EPA talked to 

the automakers when considering this decision, so why the inconsistency regarding 

warranty coverage for E15? 

A1a. My testimony before the Committee is based on EPA’s waiver decisions and 

the record for those decisions. The Clean Air Act test for granting fuel waivers requires EPA to determine whether available data and analysis demonstrate that a 

new fuel will not cause or contribute to failures of emission standards. It does not 

depend on what fuel manufacturers recommend in their owner’s manual. For E15, 

EPA determined that the extensive data available on E15 emission impacts demonstrates that E15 will not jeopardize compliance by MY2001 and newer cars and 

light trucks. 

In light of the available information demonstrating that MY2001 and newer vehicles will continue to meet emission standards on E15, we do not believe E15 use 

in these vehicles will result in damage or warranty claims. 

It is also worth noting that EPA’s waiver decisions and labeling rule do not 

change the terms of manufacturers’ warranty provisions. Under EPA’s regulations, 

manufacturers may condition their emissions warranties on use of a particular fuel 

so long as the fuel is broadly available, and may deny an emissions warranty claim 

if use of a different fuel causes the problem. EPA does not have jurisdiction over 

other warranties that manufacturers may provide. However, as explained above, we 

do not anticipate that use of E15 in MY2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles 

will result in warranty claims. 

b. What tests did EPA use that supports your agency’s confidence that newer vehicles 

will be unharmed by E15? Were these tests designed specifically to test engine durability and the durability of components, such as a fuel pump and the fuel level senor? 

From my understanding of your testimony at the hearing, the tests simulated vehicle 

usage by meeting mileage thresholds, but isn’t time a factor that should be considered? 

A1b. Several studies provided information about the potential effects of mid-level 

ethanol blends on the durability of emission-related components, including engines, 

fuel pumps and fuel sensors. In particular, the DOE Catalyst Durability test program provided robust data for MY2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles on the 

effect of long-term E15 exposure on vehicle components. The DOE program aged vehicles on E15 using the whole vehicle aging procedures defined in EPA’s emission 

durability regulations (40 CFR 86.1823–08,1824–08). The vehicles were driven on 

chassis dynamometers or actual road surfaces for up to the full 120,000 mile useful 

life according to the standard road cycle. Since this is a whole vehicle mileage accumulation process, the entire vehicle including the engine, fuel pump, and fuel level 

sensor were all exposed to E15 for the full mileage accumulation period. To complete 

the study in a reasonable amount of time, the vehicles were driven nearly continuously over a period of six to nine months. This practice is consistent with the procedures manufacturers are required by regulation to perform in order to determine 

the emission deterioration of vehicles in actual use over their full useful life (FUL). 

Manufacturers must show that their vehicles will continue to meet emissions standards over their FUL, taking deterioration into account, to obtain the certificate of 

conformity that allows them to sell the vehicles. 

EPA also considered the series of studies completed by the State of Minnesota and 

the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), 13 including a study specifically inves-
159 

14 ‘‘The Effects of E20 on Automotive Fuel Pumps and Sending Units;’’ Nathan Hanson, 

Thomas Devens, Colin Rohde, Adam Larson, Gary Mead, Paul Steevens, and Bruce Jones; Minnesota State University, Mankato; February 21, 2008. EPA Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211– 

0002.28. 

tigating the effects of E20 on automotive fuel pumps. 14 In addition, EPA technical 

experts reviewed other relevant information such as emissions-related defects and 

in-use vehicle test results reported to EPA by manufacturers as required by regulation. Based on all of the information before the Agency, including our engineering 

analysis of the types of changes manufacturers have made in response to the increasing stringency of motor vehicle standards and the rapid rise of E10 use across 

the nation, EPA concluded that newer motor vehicles will be able to maintain compliance with emissions standards if operated on E15. 

Q2. On July 7th, you repeatedly minimized the role of EPA is determining whether 

E15 gets sold in this country, citing that ‘‘[a] number of additional steps need to be 

taken before E15 can enter the market, and many of those steps are not under EPA’s 

control.’’ Without EPA granting a waiver under the Clean Air Act, could any state 

or individual station allow the sale of E15? Without EPA registering E15, could any 

state or individual station ever allow the sale of the fuel? Assuming that E85 progresses at current or slightly higher levels, is it possible to meet Renewable Fuel 

Standard requirements over the next eleven years with mid-level ethanol blends up 

to E10? 

A2. The Clean Air Act prohibits fuel manufacturers from introducing E15 into 

commerce for use in conventional light-duty motor vehicles, but authorizes EPA to 

waive that prohibition if the requisite demonstration is made. Under the Clean Air 

Act, fuel manufacturers are also prohibited from introducing E15 into commerce for 

conventional vehicles until they register E15. These prohibitions do not apply to individual stations, but do apply to the fuel manufacturers that supply stations with 

fuel. Until a fuel manufacturer registers E15 for use in conventional vehicles, the 

manufacturer may sell E15 only for use in flexible-fueled vehicles. 

It is possible to meet the RFS volume requirements over the next eleven years 

if sufficient volumes of E85 and mid-level ethanol blends are consumed or if other 

qualifying renewable fuels are developed and used. The actual volume of ethanol 

consumed will depend on the degree to which sufficient infrastructure for E85 and 

mid-level ethanol blends are implemented, and the extent to which other types of 

fuels are produced to meet the RFS volume requirements. 

Q3. In response to a question from Ranking Member Miller, you referenced the Ultra 

Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) program labeling requirements and the positive experiences in avoiding misfueling with that program. There are several distinctions, 

though, between that labeling program and what would be required for E15: (1) 

EPA’s labeling requirements for the high sulfur fuels was much stronger and included a noticeable ‘‘Warning’’ in red letters, while the final E15 label is much weaker—it is nothing more than an ‘‘Attention’’ label; (2) The new fuel on the market, 

ULSD, was compatible with both new and old vehicles and engines which is not the 

case for E15; (3) the end users of ULSD doing the refueling (commercial truck drivers 

who recently purchased the vehicle with a business interest in preserving his/her expensive truck) were likely more informed and attentive to fuel labeling than typical 

citizens who will be purchasing gasoline for their vehicles or off-road equipment. 

In light of these distinctions, isn’t the potential for misfueling a pre-model year 

2001 vehicle, any heavy-duty vehicle, motorcycle or piece of non-road equipment on 

E15 likely to be greater than the chance of misfueling a MY2007 or newer heavyduty truck on high-sulfur diesel fuel? 

A3. No. With regard to each of the distinctions you note: 

(1) EPA designed the E15 label with the help of consumer labeling experts at the 

Federal Trade Commission to effectively communicate key information for avoiding 

misfueling. As discussed in response to question 4a below, we concluded that ‘‘ATTENTION’’ would more appropriately alert consumers to the need to determine 

whether E15 is allowed for their vehicle or engine. 

(2) E10 is now the predominant fuel on the market, and it is compatible with new 

and old vehicles and engines. There is no requirement to sell E15, and we expect 

that it will take some time for businesses to take the various steps needed to bring 

it to market and make it widely available. The E15 partial waivers and misfueling 

mitigation rule require that measures be taken to minimize the risk of misfueling 

when E15 is introduced into commerce. 

(3) The ULSD program included an effective public outreach campaign, and we 

anticipate a similarly effective industry-led public education and outreach campaign 
160 

for E15. Consumers have a strong interest in avoiding repair and replacement costs, 

whether they own trucks, cars or other vehicles and engines. EPA plans to work 

with E15 stakeholders to help establish a public education and outreach program 

that provides consumers with additional information about the potential effects of 

E15 on vehicles and engines. 

Q4. The American National Standards Institute and the International Standardization Organization recommend very specific color, signal word, and image standards 

for labels. Did EPA consult these recognized authorities in creating the misfueling 

label? 

A4. EPA communicated with the chairman of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) committee responsible for the ANSI standard for developing safety labels to obtain information about the standard as well as examples of products which 

had been labeled using the standard. To develop a label that would effectively convey the key information needed to avoid misfueling, we considered a broad range 

of public comments and expert advice, including advice from labeling experts at the 

Federal Trade Commission (FTC). 

a. Why change the signal word from ‘‘CAUTION’’ to ‘‘ATTENTION’’ in the final 

label? 

A4a. As discussed in the preamble of the final misfueling mitigation rule, comments in response to the proposed rule were divided between those who believed 

that the use of ‘‘CAUTION!’’ on the proposed label would deter appropriate use of 

E15, and those who believed that it would not be effective at preventing misfueling. 

We discussed this issue with FTC’s consumer labeling experts who advised that 

‘‘ATTENTION’’ would more likely attract consumer notice without the risk of discouraging appropriate use of the fuel. EPA concluded that ‘‘ATTENTION’’ strikes 

the right balance between alerting consumers about the improper use of E15 and 

scaring them away from appropriate use of E15. FTC staff also suggested that ‘‘ATTENTION’’ be placed at an angle in the upper left corner of the label to help draw 

consumers’ eyes to it, and we adopted that placement. 

b. Why did EPA not include a picture of the types of vehicles and products that 

can or cannot use E15? 

A4b. As discussed in the preamble of the final misfueling mitigation rule, EPA 

decided not to require icons for several reasons. First, the icons suggested by some 

public commenters for on-highway vehicles that can, or cannot use, E15 relied on 

text to convey much of their message. Those icons also depicted a passenger car, 

which is only one of several vehicle types that can use E15 if from the specified 

model years. The other suggested icons portrayed only some of the nonroad vehicles 

and equipment that cannot use E15, which could have led consumers to incorrectly 

infer that E15 can be used in the types of equipment not depicted. In addition, use 

of multiple icons would have made the label more dense and complicated. Labeling 

experts at the FTC advised that consumers are unlikely to read lengthy pump labels 

with many icons. However, to the extent a fuel provider believes icons would be 

helpful to its customers, it may post them on its own signs and/or develop and submit an alternative E15 label including appropriate icons for EPA consideration and 

approval. 

Questions submitted by the Honorable Chuck Fleischmann 

Q1. Please provide a breakdown of the total amount of funds expended by the EPA 

in setting fuel economy standards/mobile source greenhouse gases since 2007 by 

year. 

A1. The following amounts have been allocated since 2007 for work supporting the 

development and implementation of GHG emissions standards for mobile sources: 

2007: $6.7 million; 2008: $4.3 million; 2009: $3.1 million; 2010: $3.2 million; and in 

2011: $6.8 million. For FY 2012, the total amount of funds requested in the President’s Budget proposal is $9.2 million. 

Q2. What has been the total cost of EPA regulations on the auto industry from January 20, 2009 to the present? 

A2. The light-duty GHG standards begin implementation in 2012, while the 

Heavy-duty GHG standards begin implementation in 2014. Therefore, there have 

been virtually no costs associated with these regulatory programs for the time period highlighted in this question. 

Q3. When does the EPA contemplate proposing fuel economy standards for heavy 

duty trucks for Model Year 2019 and later? 
161 

A3. EPA and DOT have not set a schedule for the next set of GHG and fuel efficiency standards for heavy-duty trucks and vehicles. 

Q4. How many EPA employees are working on regulating fuel economy/mobile 

source greenhouse gases? The agency utilized base staffing levels for these standards, 

and to develop the 2017- 2025 vehicle standards, but we do not have a separate 

budget line-item for this effort. 

A4. EPA hired an additional 8 FTE in 2011 to support the 2012–2016 vehicle and 

the 2014–2018 truck standards. These were the only new FTE to support mobile 

source GHG standards. 

5. Last year, the EPA finalized a fuel economy/mobile source greenhouse gas rule 

for model years 2012 to 2016 that will raise the average price of a new vehicle by 

approximately $950. Last month, it was reported that the EPA is considering raising 

the fuel economy standard gain to 56.2 mpg for model years 2017 to 2025. By the 

EPA’s own estimates, raising the fuel economy standard to 56.2mpg will increase the 

price of a new vehicle by between $2,100 and $2,600. These two rulemakings will increase the average price of a new vehicle in 2025 between $3,050 and $3,550. Accordingly, how many Americans will be priced out of the new car market in 2025 if, on 

average, $3,000 is added to price of a new vehicle? 

A5. The Agencies will provide an assessment of the cost of the 2017–2025 proposed fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards as part of the agencies’ joint rulemaking proposal in the fall of 2011. There will be two primary economic impacts 

of more stringent future fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards on 

new car buyers: a higher up-front price and ongoing fuel savings. For example, for 

the 2012–2016 standards, while the up-front cost is about $950 higher, fuel savings 

are estimated at about $4,000 over the life of the vehicle. While EPA and NHTSA 

are still completing our analysis of projected vehicle price increases for the MY2017– 

2025 proposed standards, we are confident that both the lifetime and 5-year consumer fuel savings, discounted to account for net present value, will exceed the projected vehicle price increases. It is also likely that consumers who buy a vehicle with 

a 5-year loan will benefit from positive cash flow immediately upon purchase as the 

monthly fuel savings exceed the incremental monthly loan payment. 

Questions submitted by the Honorable Randy Neugebauer 

Q1. Ms. Oge, could you explain the details behind what makes an engine in a vehicle 

from model years 2001 and later safe to use E15 while that fuel is not suitable for 

a vehicle from a model year of 2000 or earlier? What is the mechanical and physical 

difference between an engine from 2000 versus an engine from 2001 related to the 

use of E15, and why did the EPA determine that one is safe for E15 and one is not? 

A1. In the E15 partial waiver decisions, EPA allowed E15 for sale only for the 

vehicles that extensive testing and analysis show can meet emission standards on 

E15. We denied the waiver for all other vehicles and engines because there was insufficient information to allay engineering concerns that E15 could cause or contribute to these products exceeding the emissions standards to which they were certified. EPA did not determine there are any mechanical or physical differences between the engines used in MY2000 and older vehicles versus the engines used in 

MY2001 and newer vehicles that caused us to deny the waiver for the former population of vehicles. Rather, available information and analysis indicated that the 

emission control systems of MY2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles could 

maintain compliance with emissions standards when the vehicles were operated on 

E15. EPA’s analysis is described in detail in sections IV. A of the January 2011 decision document and IV. C of the November 2010 decision document. 

Q2. Could you please briefly explain the damage that would occur to an engine in 

the case of using E15 in an engine not approved for such usage? 

A2. It is not possible to predict exactly what type of damage, if any, would occur 

to a particular engine in view of the vast array of engines which may not use E15. 

We denied a waiver for the sale of E15 for use in these engines because there was 

insufficient information to allay engineering concerns that E15 could cause or contribute to the engines exceeding the emissions standards to which they were certified. Those concerns include potential adverse effects on catalyst durability, fuel 

systems, evaporative emissions control systems and internal engine components. 

Please see the Nov. 4, 2010 waiver decision (75 Fed. Reg. 68094) and misfueling 

mitigation proposed rule (75 Fed. Reg. 68044) for detailed discussions of the potential impacts of E15 exposure on the emission control-related components of vehicles 

and engines for which a waiver for E15 was denied. 
162 

DOE-sponsored testing has provided data on possible damage to non-road engines. 

A 2009 report by DOE found that two studies on the effect of E15 on nonroad engines were inconclusive but indicated potential problems in small non-road engines, 

including higher engine and exhaust temperatures and, in the case of three 

handheld trimmers, higher idle speeds and unintentional clutch engagement. A recently issued DOE report on the effects of E15 on current and legacy marine engines 

showed that of the three outboard engines tested, two had mechanical failures and 

the third exhibited misfire/rough operation at the end of the test period. 

Q3. Has the EPA estimated the frequency that consumers are expected to mis-fuel 

their vehicles with E15 and the economic damage that would cause? Does the EPA 

believe that a simple pump label is sufficient to prevent consumers from putting the 

wrong fuel in their vehicle? 

A3. There is very little test data with respect to the effect of E15 use in MY2000 

and older light-duty motor vehicles and all heavy-duty gasoline engines and vehicles, motorcycles, and nonroad products. Our engineering assessment for these vehicles, engines, and products indicates a number of emission-related concerns with the 

use of E15. However, without more data, it is not possible to precisely quantify the 

frequency at which these vehicles, engines, and products might experience problems 

if fueled with E15. 

To minimize potential misfueling, EPA conditioned the E15 partial waivers on effective misfueling mitigation measures being taken. The Agency also issued a final 

rule establishing four regulatory provisions to further address concerns about potential misfueling: (1) a prohibition against the use of gasoline containing more than 

10 vol% ethanol in vehicles, engines and equipment not covered by the partial waiver decisions, specifically MY2000 and older motor vehicles, heavy-duty gasoline engines and vehicles, on and off-highway motorcycles, and nonroad engines, vehicles, 

and equipment; (2) labeling requirements for fuel pumps that dispense E15 to alert 

consumers to the appropriate and lawful use of the fuel; (3) the addition to product 

transfer documents of information regarding the ethanol content of, or the level of 

ethanol that may be added to, gasoline being sold to retail stations or wholesale purchaser-consumers so that E15 may be properly blended and labeled; and (4) an ongoing implementation survey requirement to ensure that E15 is in fact being properly blended and labeled (76 FR 44406, Jul. 25, 2011). In addition, EPA plans to 

work with stakeholders to develop an industry-led public education and outreach 

campaign; monitor the effectiveness of misfueling mitigation measures as E15 enters in the market; and take any further actions as needed and appropriate. 
163 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Mr. Bob Greco, Group Director, Downstream and Industry Operations, 

American Petroleum Institute 

Questions submitted by Chairman Andy Harris 

Q1. During the question-and-answer session, Ms. Oge indicated that the CRC research was not properly designed. Please identify who designed the CRC testing and 

explain the difference or differences between the testing which EPA relied on for making a decision on the E15 waiver and the testing that the automotive and oil industries are conducting through CRC? 

A1. The E10+ research program currently being conducted by the CRC was designed by technical committees comprised of Automakers (Chrysler, Ford, GM, 

Honda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Toyota, VW), Petroleum Companies (BP, Chevron, 

ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Marathon, Shell). In addition, DOE (through the National Renewable Energy Lab) assisted in the design of two of the CRC E10+ studies: (a) engine durability and (b) the durability of automotive fuel system components exposed to E20. In fact, DOE also provided some financial support for the latter. 

The key difference between the CRC test program and the DOE study, which EPA 

relied upon for the E15 waiver, is the scope of the two efforts. The DOE study was 

designed for and targeted at determining effects of mid-level ethanol blends on the 

catalytic converters used in vehicle exhaust emission control systems, whereas the 

CRC program included tests which address the full range of potential short- and 

long-term emissions and performance issues associated with operating highway vehicles on these fuels. The CRC program is therefore a significantly more robust and 

comprehensive effort than that undertaken by DOE. As described in my written 

statement, the CRC program includes studies which evaluate: (a) engine durability, 

(b) vehicle fuel storage and handling equipment durability, (c) onboard diagnostic 

systems, (d) long term evaporative emissions control systems durability, and (e) 

emissions inventory/air quality modeling of mid-level ethanol blends. Attachment 1 

to my written statement presents the timeline for this ongoing CRC effort. 

Q2. In June of 2008, EPA staff presented ‘‘Staff Recommendations’’ for a mid-level 

ethanol blends test program to support a waiver during a meeting of API’s Technical 

Committee in Chicago. How did this framework differ from the test program that 

EPA relied on in their decision? 

A2. The ‘‘Staff Recommendations’’ made by EPA in June of 2008 outlined a framework for a comprehensive mid-level ethanol test program that included tests designed to address exhaust emissions, evaporative emissions, as well as materials 

compatibility and driveability or operability issues for both highway and non-road 

vehicles. For the waiver decisions, EPA effectively ignored this approach. It relied 

heavily on the results of the DOE Catalyst study which focused exclusively on an 

evaluation of long-term exhaust emissions control systems durability issues associated with the use of mid-level ethanol blends in highway vehicles. The Agency also 

inappropriately relied on the DOE study to draw conclusions about evaporative and 

engine system durability impacts for which the program was not designed to address. 
164 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Ms. Heather White, Chief of Staff and General Counsel, Environmental 

Working Group 

Questions submitted by Chairman Andy Harris 

Q1. In light of your testimony about the human health effects of E15, would you support EPA requiring applicants to conduct additional testing on physiological and 

health impacts before registering the fuel? 

A1. Yes. Environmental Working Group would support efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency to require applicants to conduct additional testing on environmental and human health impacts before registering E15, pursuant to section 

211(o) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.§7545. As I mentioned in my oral testimony, 

we believe in a strong, vibrant, well-funded EPA and most of the time, we agree 

with EPA regulators. The E15 decision, however, concerns us because of the potential environmental and health impacts of its use. The agency should require additional testing of E15 before this fuel goes on the market, given that E15 has substantially different properties than gasoline blended with 10 percent ethanol (E10). 

EPA should specifically analyze the health impacts of E15 and associated air pollution on children, pregnant women, minority or low-income communities, and other 

sensitive populations. EPA should also consider E15’s direct and indirect impacts on 

fuel mileage, underground storage tanks and other fueling or storage infrastructure, 

air quality, and water resources. All testing results and EPA analyses should also 

be made available to the public upon completion. 
165 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Mr. Jeff Wasil, Emissions Certification Engineer, 

Evinrude Outboard Motors 

Questions submitted by Chairman Andy Harris 

Q1. The U.S. Coast Guard filed comments in opposition to the granting of an E15 

waiver. Rear Admiral Kevin Cook cited a ‘‘reduction in the level of safety for recreational boaters’’ and fuel system deterioration as reasons not to grant the waiver. 

Do you agree with this assessment of the potential safety hazards cited by the U.S. 

Coast Guard? 

A1. Yes, I agree with the U.S. Coast Guard’s assessment. While there have been 

boat fuel system issues associated with E10, increasing the ethanol content by fifty 

percent to E15 will merely exacerbate these safety concerns. As I stated in my written testimony, we have evidence that an E15 blend of gasoline is almost certain to 

damage marine and other engines. Testing of E15 done by the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory focusing specifically on marine engines 

has demonstrated significant damage to most of the engines tested, with those that 

were not damaged demonstrating problems with performance, including the ability 

to run smoothly and start promptly. If such problems occur in an automobile, it’s 

very simple: you wait for the tow truck to arrive. You’re usually not in any danger, 

and it’s just an inconvenience. If your engine breaks down while you are twenty 

miles at sea, however, it’s an entirely different matter. You could be drifting helplessly, caught in a storm, and in grave danger-all because your fuel was an E15 

blend. You might have to be rescued by the Coast Guard, thereby putting their boat 

and crew in danger. The irony is that this is a potential disaster that is easy to 

avoid: we simply do not move to a standard E15 fuel. There might be those who 

would suggest that you simply fuel your boat with no-ethanol gasoline or low-ethanol gasoline, and that would be ideal. But if E15 becomes the standard fuel, you 

might not have that option. There is no need for the headlong rush to E15 being 

pursued by the EPA. The Coast Guard got it right. Such a move would reduce the 

level of safety for recreational boaters, and it should not be done. 

Q2. You stated in your testimony that the EPA label for gasoline pumps that will 

dispense E15 is inadequate. Can you describe your specific concerns with EPA’s 

misfueling label? 

A2. The misfueling label proposed by the EPA is inadequate. EPA asked for comments on its proposed label, and then it proceeded to ignore comments from some 

States, environmental groups, and marine, vehicle, engine, and petroleum industries, all of whom indicated that the label needed to be strengthened. As demonstrated from our past experience when the country transitioned from leaded to 

unleaded gasoline, a label alone is inadequate as a way of preventing misfueling. 

Our experience when unleaded fuel was introduced is that misfueling with leaded 

fuel was widespread, even with different nozzle sizes that were supposed to prevent 

such. Labels alone do not work, because the burden for preventing misfueling and 

subsequent engine damage or threats to operator safety is dependent on the consumer’s first noticing and reading the label among all the others that are affixed 

to a gasoline pump and then making a decision about whether or not the label applies to his or her engine before deciding to dispense the fuel. The label proposed 

by the EPA is only in English and does not contain any graphic representations or 

pictures to supplement the text. This English-only text will increase the likelihood 

of misfueling, as the EPA apparently assumes that everyone in this country can 

read and understand English, which is most definitely not the case. Even assuming 

that the consumer actually notices the label on the fuel dispenser and can read the 

text, the language is not strong enough to warrant any real concern. The use of the 

word ‘‘Attention’’ on the EPA label is simply not strong enough to warn the consumer of potential ramifications of the misuse of this product. In a product safety 

sense and degree of risk assessment, the word ‘‘Attention’’ typically means, ‘‘The 

user should observe this information to ensure the proper use of the product, although failure to do so may not result in injury.’’ The word ‘‘Caution’’ would be better suited, meaning, ‘‘Failure to observe this instruction may result in injury or 

property damage.’’ Additionally, the label should direct readers to consult their 

equipment owner’s manual. Finally, regular misfueling surveys should be conducted 

to determine whether the label is working as designed and is actually preventing 

misfueling. If the label proves to be ineffective, E15 should be withdrawn from the 

marketplace until more effective misfueling prevention measures are implemented. 
166 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. Ron Sahu, Technical Consultant, Outdoor Power Equipment Institute 

Questions submitted by Chairman Andy Harris 

Q1. You included with your testimony a critique of a DOE report on the effects of 

ethanol blends on legacy vehicles and small non-road engines. 

Q1a. Could you summarize what you found in anallyzing DOE’s testing? 

A1a. I reviewed the DoE Report entitled ‘‘Effects of Intermediate Ethanol Blends 

on Legacy Vehicles and Small Non-Road Engines, Report 1—Updated,’’ NREL/TP540-43543 and ORNL/TM-2008/117, dated February 2009. 

First, I found that the testing plan and scope was inadequate to provide a reasonably complete picture of the effects of greater than E15 ethanol on the target engine 

and equipment universe—basically the number and types of tests conducted was inadequate and therefore the results, even if they had indicated little or no impacts, 

would have been suspect. Certainly there were not enough tests conducted to deduce 

and statistical relationships. 

Second, the above notwithstanding, based on my review, I found that the report 

did note the following major adverse impacts due to use of fuels with ethanol content greater than 10%: 

(a) engine exhaust temperatures rose significantly—yet the report did not discuss any of the implications of these higher temperatures and additional heat 

including impacts on the engine and equipment (including catalysts if present) 

itself, personnel safety, increased fire hazards, or the inability to mitigate any 

of these hazards; 

(b) risks to operators dramatically increased such as due to unintentional clutch 

engagement which resulted on several tested products such as chainsaws because of high idle speeds; 

(c) Damage to Engines to the extent that some suffered total and complete failures and would not start or operate after running on E15 fuel; and 

(d) Operational Problems on many of the engines tested on mid-level ethanol 

such as erratic equipment operation, ‘‘missing’’ and stalling of engines, and 

power reduction. 

Third, somewhat troublingly, I also found that Executive Summary of the report 

did not accurately summarize the scope, results as well as uncertainties associated 

with the testing which were reported in the main body of the report itself. It is my 

opinion that since most of the policy-makers will focus only on the Executive Summary, this could result in misinformed policies based on misleading conclusions. 

Q1b. If you were to extend a similar assessment to the DOE Catalyst Study for onroad vehicles that EPA relied upon in granting a partial waiver, would you have 

similar criticism? Would you have designed the test program differently? 

A1b. Based on my experience with reviewing the prior report, I would have concerns regarding test design and scope since this is fundamental to the conclusions 

that are being drawn from the findings. I will give one example. 

The test procedure on which EPA relied is known as the ‘‘Standard Road Cycle’’ 

(SRC) (Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 213 /Thursday, November 4, p68107). This procedure is only applicable to MY2008 and newer on-road vehicles. This procedure was 

finalized in January 2006 (Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 

2006 / pp 2810–2842) and was developed in response to a court finding that EPA’s 

CAP 2000 regulations did not satisfy the requirements of section 206(d) of the CAA 

(Ethyl Corp. v. EPA). Manufacturers typically apply for vehicle emissions certification the year before a model goes on sale to allow time for the certification data 

to be reviewed and the certification issued. This means that a MY 2008 vehicle 

would have its data submitted in 2006. EPA recognized this by having the rule containing the SRC go into effect for the 2008 model year; further, EPA did not make 

any changes to the carryover provisions in the current regulations (ref. 40 CFR 

86.1839–01). These provisions allow manufacturers to use durability data that was 

previously generated and used to support certification provided that the data ‘‘represent a worst case or equivalent rate of deterioration’’. 

Based on the above, it is likely that very few of the vehicles tested in the DoE 

catalyst durability program were certified using the SRC durability program. 

It is my understanding that as the test program was originally envisioned, the 

2001 Hyundai Accent that failed analogous testing in Australia was to be one of the 

first vehicles tested. The purpose was to determine whether the test cycle itself was 

adequate since there is no data demonstrating that the EPA SRC cycle is sufficient 
167 

to detect a vehicle whose catalyst would be damaged by the use of fuel containing 

ethanol in excess of that for which it was designed. Had the Hyundai Accent failed 

then this would have confirmed that the SRC could detect a failing vehicle; conversely, had it passed then it might have been concluded that the test cycle was 

inappropriate for this purpose. 

Yet, in the EPA/DOE test program, the Hyundai Accent was removed from the 

list of vehicles—thus it is unclear whether the SRC is an appropriate cycle or not. 

Thus one change to the test design would have been to include the Hyundai Accent in the program and to have first tested it, confirming the usefulness (hopefully) 

of the SRC and then to have used the SRC in subsequent tests. 

(169) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
170 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

Material Submitted by Representative Brad Miller 
171 
172 
173 

Material Submitted by Chairman Andy Harris 

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-27432.pdf 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0211; 

FRL-9215-5] Partial Grant and Partial Denial of Clean Air Act Waiver Application Submitted by Growth Energy To Increase the Allowable Ethanol 

Content of Gasoline to 15 Percent; Decision of the Administrator 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. 

ACTION: Notice of partial waiver decision. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is partially granting 

Growth Energy’s waiver request application submitted under section 211(f)(4) of the 

Clean Air Act. This partial waiver allows fuel and fuel additive manufacturers to 

introduce into commerce gasoline that contains greater than 10 volume percent ethanol and no more than 15 volume percent ethanol (E15) for use in certain motor 

vehicles if certain conditions are fulfilled. We are partially approving the waiver for 

and allowing the introduction into commerce of E15 for use only in model year 2007 

and newer light-duty motor vehicles, which includes passenger cars, light-duty 

trucks and medium-duty passenger vehicles. We are denying the waiver for introduction of E15 for use in model year 2000 and older light-duty motor vehicles, as 

well as all heavy-duty gasoline engines and vehicles, highway and off-highway motorcycles, and nonroad engines, vehicles, and equipment. The Agency is deferring a 

decision on the applicability of a waiver to model year 2001 through 2006 lightduty 

motor vehicles until additional test data, currently under development, is available. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0211. All documents and public comments in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Publicly available docket materials 

are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744. The 

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center’s Web site is http://www.epa.gov/ 

oar/ docket.html. The electronic mail (email) address for the Air and Radiation 

Docket is: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov, the telephone number is (202) 566-1742 and the 

fax number is (202) 566-9744. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert 

Anderson, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Mailcode: 6405J, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: (202) 343-9718; fax number: (202) 343-2800; e-mail address: Anderson.Robert@epa.gov. 
174 

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2011/pdf/2011-1646.pdf 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0211; 

FRL-9258-6] Partial Grant of Clean Air Act Waiver Application Submitted 

by Growth Energy To Increase the Allowable Ethanol Content of Gasoline 

to 15 Percent; Decision of the Administrator 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. 

ACTION: Notice of Decision Granting a Partial Waiver. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking additional 

final action on Growth Energy’s application for a waiver submitted under section 

211(f)(4) of the Clean Air Act. Today’s partial waiver allows fuel and fuel additive 

manufacturers to introduce into commerce gasoline that contains greater than 10 

volume percent ethanol and no more than 15 volume percent ethanol (E15) for use 

in model year (MY) 2001 through 2006 light-duty motor vehicles (passenger cars, 

light-duty trucks and medium-duty passenger vehicles), if certain conditions are fulfilled. In October 2010, we granted a partial waiver for E15 for use in MY2007 and 

newer light-duty motor vehicles subject to the same conditions. Taken together, the 

two waiver decisions allow the introduction into commerce of E15 for use in MY2001 

and newer light-duty motor vehicles if those conditions are met. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0211. All documents and public comments in the docket are listed on the http:// www.regulations.gov Web site. Publicly available docket materials 

are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744. The 

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center’s Web site is http://www.epa.gov/ 

oar/ docket.html. The electronic mail (email) address for the Air and Radiation 

Docket is: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov, the telephone number is (202) 566-1742 and the 

fax number is (202) 566-9744. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert 

Anderson, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Mailcode: 6405J, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: (202) 343-9718; fax number: (202) 343-2800; e-mail address: Anderson.Robert@epa.gov. 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 

Material Submitted by Representative F. James Sensenbrenner 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 

Æ