4662 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices 

1Partial Grant and Partial Denial of CAA Waiver 

Application Submitted by Growth Energy to 

Increase the Allowable Ethanol Content of Gasoline 

to 15 Percent; Decision of the Administrator. See 75 

FR 68094, November 4, 2010. 

2For purposes of today’s decision, ‘‘MY2001– 

2006 light-duty motor vehicles’’ include MY2001– 

2006 light-duty vehicles (LDV), light-duty trucks 

(LDT), and medium-duty passenger vehicles 

(MDPV), the same types of motor vehicles as in the 

October Waiver Decision, but for the earlier model 

years 2001–2006. 

Stallworth at the phone number or email address noted above, preferably at 

least ten days prior to the meeting, to 

give EPA as much time as possible to 

process your request. 

Dated: January 20, 2011. 

Anthony Maciorowski, 

Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board 

Staff Office. 

[FR Doc. 2011–1664 Filed 1–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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. 

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Prior E15 Partial Waiver Decision 

B. Waiver Decision for MY2001–2006 

Light-Duty Motor Vehicles 

C. Conditions on Today’s Partial Waiver 

and Proposed Rule on Misfueling 

Mitigation 

II. Introduction 

III. Method of Review 

IV. Analysis for MY2001–2006 Light-Duty 

Motor Vehicles 

A. Exhaust Emissions 

1. Long-term (Durability) Exhaust 

Emissions 

a. Growth Energy’s Submission and Public 

Comment Summary 

b. EPA Analysis and Durability Studies 

i. Description of DOE Catalyst Study for 

MY2001–2006 Motor Vehicles 

ii. DOE Catalyst Study Results 

2. Immediate Exhaust Emissions 

a. Growth Energy’s Submission and Public 

Comment Summary 

b. EPA Analysis 

B. Evaporative Emissions 

1. Immediate Evaporative Emissions 

a. Growth Energy’s Submission and Public 

Comment Summary 

i. Coordinating Research Council Test 

Programs—Results 

ii. Coordinating Research Council Test 

Programs—Analysis 

2. Long-term (Durability) Evaporative 

Emissions 

C. Materials Compatibility 

1. Growth Energy’s Submission and Public 

Comment Summary 

2. EPA Analysis and Conclusions 

D. Driveability and Operability 

1. Growth Energy’s Submission and Public 

Comment Summary 

2. EPA Analysis and Conclusions 

E. Conclusions 

V. Legal Issues Arising In This Partial Waiver 

Decision 

VI. Waiver Conditions 

VII. Partial Waiver Decision and Conditions 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Prior E15 Partial Waiver Decision 

In March 2009, Growth Energy and 54 

ethanol manufacturers petitioned the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 

or Agency) to allow the introduction 

into commerce of up to 15 volume 

percent (vol%) ethanol in gasoline. Prior 

to Growth Energy’s petition, ethanol 

was limited to 10 vol% in motor vehicle 

gasoline (E10). The petition requested 

that EPA exercise its authority under 

section 211(f)(4) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act) to waive the prohibition 

on the introduction of E15 into 

commerce under section 211(f)(1) of the 

Act. In April 2009, EPA invited public 

comment on Growth Energy’s waiver 

request and received about 78,000 

comments. On October 13, 2010, EPA 

took two actions on the waiver request 

based on the information available at 

that time (‘‘October Waiver Decision’’).1

First, it partially approved Growth 

Energy’s waiver request to allow the 

introduction of E15 into commerce for 

use in MY2007 and newer light-duty 

motor vehicles, subject to several 

conditions. Second, the Agency denied 

the waiver request for MY2000 and 

older light-duty motor vehicles, heavyduty gasoline engines and vehicles, 

highway and off-highway motorcycles, 

and other nonroad engines, vehicles, 

and equipment. The Agency also 

deferred making a decision on the 

waiver request for MY2001–2006 lightduty motor vehicles to await the results 

of additional testing being conducted by 

the Department of Energy (DOE). 

B. Waiver Decision for MY2001–2006 

Light-Duty Motor Vehicles 

In today’s action, EPA is partially 

granting Growth Energy’s waiver request 

for MY2001–2006 light-duty motor 

vehicles based on our analysis of the 

available information, including DOE 

and other test data and public 

comments. This partial grant waives the 

prohibition on fuel and fuel additive 

manufacturers and allows the 

introduction into commerce of gasoline 

containing greater than 10 vol% ethanol 

and no more than 15 vol% ethanol for 

use in MY2001–2006 light-duty motor 

vehicles, which includes passenger cars, 

light-duty trucks, and medium-duty 

passenger vehicles (large sport utility 

vehicles).2 It is subject to the same 

conditions that apply to the partial 

waiver issued in October for MY2007 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices 4663 

3 It should be noted that a number of additional 

steps must be completed by various parties before 

E15 may be distributed and sold. These steps 

include but are not limited to submission of a 

complete E15 fuels registration application by the 

fuel and fuel additive manufacturers who wish to 

introduce E15 into commerce, and EPA review and 

approval of the application, under the regulations 

at 40 CFR Part 79. Various state laws may also affect 

the distribution and sale of E15. 

4 DOE embarked on the study, in consultation 

with EPA, auto manufacturers, fuel providers and 

others, after enactment of the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007, which significantly 

expanded the federal Renewable Fuel Standard 

program by increasing the volume of renewable 

fuels that must be used in transportation fuel in 

order to reduce imported petroleum and emissions 

of greenhouse gases. 

5 In past waiver decisions, we have referred to 

‘‘immediate’’ emissions as ‘‘instantaneous’’ 

emissions. ‘‘Immediate’’ and ‘‘instantaneous’’ are 

synonymous in this context. 

6EPA regulates the Reid Vapor Pressure of 

gasoline sold at retail stations during the summer 

ozone season (June 1 to September 15) to reduce 

evaporative emissions from gasoline that contribute 

to ground-level ozone. Gasoline needs a higher 

vapor pressure in the wintertime for cold start 

purposes. 

and newer light-duty motor vehicles. 

Today’s waiver decision together with 

the October Waiver Decision means that 

E15 may be introduced into commerce, 

subject to those conditions, for use in all 

MY2001 and newer light-duty motor 

vehicles.3

To receive a waiver under CAA 

section 211(f)(4), a fuel or fuel additive 

manufacturer must demonstrate that a 

new fuel or fuel additive will not cause 

or contribute to the failure of engines or 

vehicles to achieve compliance with the 

emission standards to which they have 

been certified over their useful life. The 

information submitted by Growth 

Energy was not sufficient to support a 

waiver covering introduction of E15 into 

commerce for use in MY2001–2006 

light-duty motor vehicles. However, key 

data for responding to the waiver 

request for MY2001–2006 light-duty 

motor vehicles was provided by a DOE 

test program to determine the effect of 

long-term use of gasoline-ethanol 

blends, including E15, on the durability 

of emissions control systems, including 

catalysts, used in light-duty motor 

vehicles to control exhaust emissions 

(DOE Catalyst Study).4

In 2008, DOE began testing 19 

MY2007 and newer light-duty motor 

vehicle models, and the resulting test 

data were an important part of the basis 

for EPA’s October Waiver Decision, 

which granted a partial waiver for use 

of E15 in those model year and newer 

motor vehicles. In 2010, DOE began a 

second phase of its study with eight 

motor vehicle models to provide 

emissions-related data for MY2001– 

2006 light-duty motor vehicles. Many of 

the models were selected for their 

expected sensitivity to the effects of 

long-term use of higher gasoline-ethanol 

blends, such as E15, so that any 

potential emissions problems would be 

more likely to become apparent. The 

test fleet also included several highsales volume vehicle models. As a 

whole, the test fleet was appropriately 

composed to provide important 

information for assessing the potential 

impact of E15 on emissions of MY2001– 

2006 light-duty motor vehicles. 

In view of the ongoing DOE Catalyst 

Study, the Agency delayed making a 

decision on the waiver request for 

MY2001–2006 light-duty motor vehicles 

until the test program was completed 

and the results made available to the 

public. DOE testing was largely 

completed in November, and retesting 

of several models that experienced 

mechanical problems unrelated to fuel 

use was completed in December. The 

test results were made available to the 

public on a rolling basis, with EPA 

submitting data to the docket as soon as 

the data were received and checked for 

accuracy and completeness with DOE. 

As described more fully in Section IV 

of this notice, EPA is making today’s 

decision based on the results of the DOE 

Catalyst Study and other relevant test 

programs, as well as the Agency’s 

engineering assessment that changes in 

regulatory requirements affecting 

MY2001–2006 light-duty motor vehicles 

generally led manufacturers to design 

and build vehicles able to use E15 

without a significant impact on 

emissions. Consistent with past waiver 

decisions, the Agency is making its 

decision based on potential effects of 

E15 in four areas: (1) Exhaust 

emissions—immediate 5 and long-term 

(known as durability); (2) evaporative 

emissions—immediate and long-term; 

(3) the impact of materials compatibility 

on emissions; and (4) the impact of 

driveability and operability on 

emissions. 

For MY2001–2006 light-duty motor 

vehicles, EPA concludes that the DOE 

Catalyst Study, other information and 

EPA’s engineering analysis adequately 

demonstrate that the impact of E15 on 

overall exhaust emissions, including 

both immediate and long-term, will not 

cause or contribute to violations of the 

exhaust emissions standards for these 

motor vehicles. All but one of the 

vehicles that completed DOE testing met 

exhaust emission standards on average 

after the vehicles accumulated 

significant mileage, and were then 

tested, on E15. Although one vehicle 

tested on E15 slightly exceeded one 

emission standard, the exceedance does 

not appear related to fuel use since its 

counterpart tested on E0 (gasoline 

containing no ethanol) exceeded the 

same standard. Compliance with 

emission standards by the E15 test fleet 

as a whole is particularly compelling 

given that the vehicles tested were 

older, high mileage vehicles (reflecting 

their model year), and much of the 

testing was conducted at mileages 

beyond the vehicles’ regulatory ‘‘full 

useful life’’ (FUL) of 100,000–120,000 

miles, depending on vehicle type and 

model year. The test results also show 

that the vehicles aged and tested on E15 

did not have significantly higher 

emissions than the vehicles aged and 

tested on E0, and some vehicles’ 

emissions actually decreased on E15. 

Overall, the test results for MY2001– 

2006 are similar to the DOE test results 

for MY2007 and newer light-duty motor 

vehicles, indicating that the earlier 

model year vehicles are more like later 

model year vehicles in their ability to 

maintain emission control performance 

when operated on E15. The DOE test 

results thus strongly confirm EPA’s 

engineering assessment that auto 

manufacturers responded to regulatory 

changes applicable to MY2001–2006 

with design changes that made lightduty motor vehicles capable of 

maintaining exhaust emissions 

performance when operated on midlevel gasoline-ethanol blends, up to and 

including E15. 

With respect to evaporative 

emissions, EPA concludes that analysis 

of test data and other available 

information and the Agency’s 

engineering assessment adequately 

demonstrate for purposes of CAA 

section 211(f)(4), with the possible 

limited exception noted below, that the 

impact of E15 on overall evaporative 

emissions, including both immediate 

and durability-related, will not cause or 

contribute to MY2001–2006 light-duty 

motor vehicles exceeding their 

applicable evaporative emissions 

standards, so long as the fuel does not 

exceed a Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of 

9.0 psi in the summertime volatility 

control season.6 Analysis of available 

information suggests, but does not 

establish, the possibility that a limited 

number of vehicle models with 

emissions already very close to 

applicable evaporative emission 

standards might exceed the standards 

in-use if operated on E15. However, this 

possibility should be considered in light 

of information indicating that use of E15 

by those vehicles will, overall, be better 

for the environment with respect to inuse evaporative emissions than would 

otherwise occur if a waiver were not 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

4664 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices 

7See 43 FR 41425 (September 18, 1978). 

8See 44 FR 12244 (February 23, 1979). 

9See Waiver Decision on Application of E.I. 

DuPont de Nemours and Company (DuPont), 46 FR 

6124 (February 28, 1983). 

granted. In fact, E15 may result in 

somewhat lower in-use evaporative 

emissions compared to fuel currently 

sold in almost all of the country (E10), 

as a result of differences in the 

allowable RVP of the two gasolineethanol blends. As such, the possibility 

of a limited number of evaporative 

emission exceedances, under these 

somewhat unique circumstances, does 

not warrant denial of the request for a 

waiver with respect to these model year 

vehicles. Available information on 

materials compatibility and driveability 

also supports a partial waiver for 

MY2001–2006 light-duty motor 

vehicles. Further information and 

explanation concerning each of these 

findings are provided later in this 

notice. 

C. Conditions on Today’s Partial Waiver 

and Proposed Rule on Misfueling 

Mitigation 

Like the waiver for MY2007 and 

newer light-duty motor vehicles, today’s 

partial waiver is subject to several 

conditions to ensure fuel quality, limit 

the fuel’s summertime vapor pressure, 

and mitigate the potential for other 

vehicles, engines and products to be 

misfueled with E15. Specifically, EPA is 

placing two types of conditions on the 

partial waiver granted today: (1) Those 

for mitigating the potential for 

misfueling of E15 in all vehicles, 

engines and equipment for which E15 is 

not approved; and (2) those addressing 

fuel and ethanol quality. All of the 

conditions are discussed in Section X of 

the October Waiver Decision (see 75 FR 

68094, 68148 (November 4, 2010)) and 

are listed below in Section IV. EPA is 

applying the same conditions on 

introduction of E15 into commerce for 

use in MY2001–2006 light-duty motor 

vehicles that it applied to use of E15 in 

MY2007 and newer such vehicles, and 

for the same reasons, as explained in the 

October Waiver Decision. To meet the 

misfueling-related conditions, any fuel 

or fuel additive manufacturer subject to 

this waiver must obtain EPA approval of 

and implement a plan that meets the 

conditions for ensuring that the fuel or 

fuel additive is only introduced into 

commerce for use in MY2001 and newer 

light-duty motor vehicles, and not for 

use in other on- and off-road vehicles, 

engines and equipment for which E15 is 

not approved. See Section VI below. 

To help ensure that E15 is used only 

in motor vehicles for which it is 

approved, EPA issued a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published 

concurrently with the October Waiver 

Decision (‘‘Misfueling Mitigation 

NPRM,’’ 75 FR 68044, November 4, 

2010). In that NPRM, EPA proposed 

safeguards to provide the most practical 

way to mitigate the potential for 

misfueling of other vehicles, engines 

and equipment with E15. The Agency 

received many comments in response to 

the NPRM, particularly with regard to 

the proposed misfueling mitigation 

measures. EPA is now in the process of 

considering those comments in 

developing final mitigation measures so 

that vehicles, engines and products are 

appropriately fueled if E15 is 

introduced into commerce. As noted 

above, today’s waiver decision 

authorizes, but does not require, E15 to 

be introduced into commerce (subject to 

several conditions), and a number of 

additional steps must be taken before 

that occurs. In addition, any significant 

shift in the marketplace from E10 to E15 

will take time as producers, distributors 

and suppliers make the necessary 

adjustments. EPA is developing a 

program of misfueling mitigation 

measures that would work in tandem 

with the various steps involved in 

distributing and marketing E15 so that 

needed safeguards are timely and 

effective. 

EPA expects that the mitigation 

measures that are adopted would satisfy 

the misfueling mitigation conditions of 

the partial waiver decision issued in 

October and today, and would promote 

the successful introduction of E15 into 

commerce. In addition to the misfueling 

mitigation conditions, E15 and the 

ethanol used to make E15 must also 

meet certain fuel and fuel additive 

quality specifications before it may be 

introduced into commerce. 

II. Introduction 

Section II of the October Waiver 

Decision includes a comprehensive 

review of the relevant CAA provisions 

and the amendments made to those 

provisions by the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007. It also 

describes Growth Energy’s waiver 

application and the public review 

process that EPA conducted as part of 

its consideration of the application. 

Today’s partial waiver decision fully 

incorporates by reference Section II of 

the October Waiver Decision and 

provides additional information as 

needed to address the potential use of 

E15 in MY2001–2006 light-duty motor 

vehicles. 

III. Method of Review 

A full explanation of the method of 

review for waiver requests under CAA 

section 211(f)(4) is provided in Section 

III, Method of Review, in the October 

Waiver Decision. We fully incorporate 

by reference Section III of the October 

Waiver Decision into this partial waiver 

decision. For convenience, a brief 

description of our method of review is 

provided here. 

Section 211(f)(4) clearly places upon 

the waiver applicant the burden of 

establishing that its fuel or fuel additive 

will not cause or contribute to the 

failure of vehicles or engines to meet 

their assigned emission standards over 

their useful lives. If interpreted literally, 

however, this burden of proof would be 

virtually impossible to meet as it 

requires the proof of a negative 

proposition: that no vehicle or engine 

will fail to meet emission standards to 

which it is subject. Recognizing that 

Congress contemplated a workable 

waiver provision, EPA has previously 

indicated that reliable statistical 

sampling and fleet testing protocols is 

one approach that could be used to 

demonstrate that a fuel or fuel additive 

under consideration would not cause or 

contribute to motor vehicles in the 

applicable national fleet failing to meet 

their applicable emissions standards.7

EPA has also stated that an applicant 

may make a demonstration based upon 

a reasonable engineering theory 

regarding emissions effects and support 

these judgments with confirmatory 

testing as an alternative to providing the 

amount of data necessary to conduct 

robust statistical analyses.8 If a 

reasonable theory exists, based on good 

engineering 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.9 In making a waiver 

determination, EPA reviews all of the 

material in the public docket. 

For EPA to grant a waiver, the 

available information must be sufficient 

to answer the essential statutory 

question of whether the proposed fuel 

or fuel additive will impact emission 

controls such that it causes or 

contributes to vehicles and engines 

exceeding their emission standards. 

What specific types of information and 

analysis may be relevant for assessing a 

specific fuel or fuel additive depends in 

part on the physical and chemical 

characteristics of the proposed fuel or 

fuel additive and the emission controls 

it would affect. Applicable methods of 

review and the type of information 

sufficient to make the required showing 

thus vary as necessary and appropriate 

for addressing the emission control 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices 4665 

10See 44 FR 12244 (February 23, 1979). 

11As explained later in this notice, EPA has 

traditionally interpreted and applied CAA section 

211(f)(4) to authorize a waiver for fuels or fuel 

additives that statistical analysis shows will not 

result in a significant increase in violations of the 

vehicle emissions standards. Even if EPA were to 

adopt a more stringent test for waiver decisions, it 

would not apply such a test in these circumstances, 

where the actual environmental impact of the fuel 

is neutral or positive. In the unique circumstances 

here, the potential emissions violation should not 

be considered significant, given their actual impact 

on in-use emissions is neutral or even positive. 

Also, since the EPA regulations for determining 

auto manufacturers’ compliance with emission 

standards specify use of E0 fuel during compliance 

testing, manufacturers’ compliance status will not 

be adversely affected by any emission failures that 

might occur in-use as the result of any immediate 

emissions impacts of E15. 

issues that a proposed fuel or fuel 

additive raises. As discussed below, the 

grant of a partial waiver in this case is 

based on a combination of engineering 

assessment, test data, and other 

information, which together provide a 

reliable factual and technical basis for 

making the judgment required under 

section 211(f)(4). This approach is 

consistent with the discretion provided 

under the statute and EPA’s recognition 

in prior waiver decisions that more than 

one approach can be used to make the 

determination required under the 

statute, including combinations of test 

data and engineering assessment. 

As noted previously, the emissions 

impact analysis for a waiver request 

must address the following four major 

areas 10: (1) Exhaust emissions, 

immediate and long-term; (2) 

evaporative emissions, immediate and 

long-term; (3) materials compatibility; 

and (4) driveability and operability. EPA 

evaluates the emissions impacts in these 

four categories individually and 

collectively in making its waiver 

determination. 

Exhaust and evaporative emissions 

data are analyzed according to the 

effects that a fuel or fuel additive is 

predicted to have on emissions over 

time. A fuel might have only an 

immediate effect on emissions (i.e., the 

emission effects of the fuel or fuel 

additive are immediate and remain 

constant throughout the life of the 

vehicle or engine when operating on the 

waiver fuel). A fuel might instead or in 

addition affect the operation of the 

engine or related emission control 

hardware in a physical manner (e.g., 

operating temperatures, component 

interaction, chemical changes, increased 

permeation, or materials degradation) 

that might lead to emissions 

deterioration over time. Depending on 

the type of effect a fuel may have, 

different types of testing or other 

information may be appropriate to 

evaluate the effect on emissions. 

Materials compatibility issues can 

lead to substantial exhaust and 

evaporative emissions increases. In most 

cases, materials compatibility issues 

show up in emissions testing; however, 

there may be impacts that do not show 

up due to the way the testing is 

performed or because the tests simply 

do not capture the effect. 

A change in the driveability of a 

motor vehicle that results in significant 

deviation from normal operation (i.e., 

stalling, hesitation, etc.) could result in 

increased emissions. These increases 

may not be demonstrated in the test 

cycles used for certifying vehicles as 

complying with emission standards, but 

they are present during in-use 

operation. For example, a motor vehicle 

stall and subsequent restart can result in 

a significant emissions increase. 

Further, concerns exist that vehicles 

might be tampered with in an attempt 

to correct the driveability issue and 

emissions might increase as a result. 

IV. Analysis for MY2001–2006 LightDuty Motor Vehicles 

As described in detail below, DOE 

and other test data together with other 

available information and EPA’s 

engineering analysis support granting a 

partial waiver for use of E15 in 

MY2001–2006 light-duty motor 

vehicles. As with EPA’s waiver decision 

for MY2007 and newer light-duty motor 

vehicles, the DOE Catalyst Program 

provided critically important test data 

for assessing the ability of MY2001– 

2006 light-duty motor vehicles to meet 

applicable exhaust emission standards if 

operated on E15. DOE’s test fleet was 

carefully assembled to be broadly 

representative of the national fleet for 

those model years and to discern any 

emission problems that might arise from 

use of E15. Results from DOE’s testing 

strongly support a determination that 

E15 will not cause or contribute to 

MY2001–2006 light-duty motor vehicles 

exceeding their applicable exhaust 

emission standards. Analysis of other 

test data, including EPA compliance 

information, combined with EPA’s 

engineering assessment shows that 

MY2001–2006 light-duty motor vehicles 

should generally be able to meet 

evaporative emission standards when 

operated on E15 so long as the fuel does 

not exceed a RVP of 9.0 psi in the 

summertime volatility control season. In 

fact, such vehicles should have 

somewhat lower evaporative emissions 

when operated on 9.0 psi E15 than 

when operated on currently available 

in-use fuel. Although our analysis 

suggests the possibility that a relatively 

small number of vehicles already 

emitting at close to applicable 

evaporative emission standards may 

exceed those standards on E15, that 

possibility does not warrant denial of 

the waiver, particularly in light of the 

evaporative emission benefits that 9.0 

psi E15 is expected to achieve in 

comparison to commercially available 

in-use fuel.11

In the October Waiver Decision, EPA 

discussed at length Growth Energy’s 

request and the information provided by 

Growth Energy in its waiver application 

and by the public in comments on the 

request. As the Agency noted, the 

information provided for light-duty 

motor vehicles was generally not 

specific to model years. EPA described 

and addressed that information in 

discussing its decisions for MY2007 and 

newer light-duty motor vehicles and 

MY2000 and older light-duty motor 

vehicles. Rather than repeat the full 

discussion in the October Waiver 

Decision, we incorporate it by reference 

here and expand on it below as needed 

to address MY2001–2006 light-duty 

motor vehicles. 

At the outset of our analysis for 

MY2001–2006 light-duty motor 

vehicles, it is useful to note that our 

analysis for these model years is 

somewhat different from that used for 

MY2007 and newer light-duty motor 

vehicles. DOE’s Catalyst Study tested a 

large number of MY2007 and newer 

light-duty motor vehicles representing a 

cross section of the fleet. The size of the 

MY2007 and newer motor vehicle test 

fleet allowed a statistical analysis of the 

potential impact of a fuel or fuel 

additive on exhaust emissions. DOE’s 

data and EPA’s analysis of that data 

provided much of the basis for EPA’s 

determination that E15 will not cause or 

contribute to MY2007 and newer lightduty motor vehicles failing to meet 

applicable emission standards. The data 

and analysis also confirmed EPA’s 

engineering assessment that regulatory 

changes applicable to those model years 

likely resulted in manufacturers making 

design changes that allowed the 

vehicles to continue to comply with 

exhaust emission standards when 

operated on E15. For the other factors 

relevant to waiver determinations (e.g., 

evaporative emissions, materials 

compatibility), EPA employed 

engineering judgment based on and/or 

confirmed by available information, 

including data from DOE and other test 

programs. 

For MY2001–2006 light-duty motor 

vehicles, DOE tested fewer vehicle 

models but selected models for their 

expected sensitivity to ethanol blends 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

4666 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices 

12Compliance with vehicle and engine standards 

is determined for certification and in-use (i.e., 

recall) purposes using federal test procedures which 

include a specified test fuel that is E0. The purpose 

of the waiver process under CAA section 211(f)(4) 

is to determine whether a vehicle operated on the 

fuel or fuel additive for which a waiver is requested 

(here E15) would meet applicable emission 

standards after operating in-use and then testing 

using that fuel. In that way, section 211(f)(4) helps 

protect the emission control effectiveness of 

vehicles operated under real-world conditions, 

which ultimately determines the amount of 

emission reductions achieved. 

13The program was fully phased in by MY1999 

in the Northeast Trading Region (the region 

comprised of the states that meet the conditions 

specified under 40 CFR 86.1705(d)) within the 

NLEV program. The states that opted in include 

Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, 

Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, 

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Virginia. 

14Criteria pollutants are those pollutants, 

including precursors, for which EPA has set 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards under 

CAA section 109. 

and to achieve broad representation of 

the national vehicle fleet for these 

model years. As a result, while DOE’s 

test fleet does not include enough 

vehicles to allow the same statistical 

analysis conducted for MY2007 and 

newer light-duty motor vehicles, it is 

composed in a way that provides data 

that is very informative about the 

expected effects of E15 on the in-use 

fleet, and confirms the engineering 

assessment that regulatory requirements 

applicable to MY2001–2006 light-duty 

motor vehicles resulted in emission 

control improvements sufficient to 

maintain compliance with applicable 

exhaust standards if these vehicles are 

operated on E15. For MY2001–2006 

light-duty motor vehicles, EPA is thus 

utilizing a broad range of evidence 

relevant to making waiver decisions 

under CAA section 211(f)(4) and 

considering the DOE Catalyst Study in 

combination with other available test 

data and information and EPA’s 

engineering assessment in determining 

whether a waiver for these model years 

is appropriate. 

In evaluating Growth Energy’s waiver 

request with respect to MY2001–2006 

light-duty motor vehicles, EPA 

considered the potential impact of E15 

on the four relevant emission–related 

categories listed previously. The 

technical issue is whether these motor 

vehicles would still meet the applicable 

emission standards over their fuel 

useful life if they operated in-use on E15 

and emissions testing was performed 

using E15 as the fuel.12

In considering the potential impact of 

E15 on the four factors, we focused on 

MY2001–2006 light-duty motor vehicles 

subject to pre-Tier 2 emission standards 

(i.e., the standards in effect before Tier 

2 standards applied to all light-duty 

motor vehicles). As described in the 

October Waiver Decision, Tier 2 

standards began phasing in with 

MY2004 and, according to EPA 

certification information, were fully 

phased in by MY2007 for passenger cars 

and several categories of light-duty 

trucks. EPA expected, and DOE testing 

confirmed, that Tier 2 standards and 

related compliance requirements 

prompted manufacturers to make 

changes to vehicles that helped 

maintain emission control under realworld conditions, including fueling 

with E10. The applicability of Tier 2 

standards was thus found to be an 

important basis for partially granting the 

waiver request for MY2007 and newer 

model light-duty motor vehicles. 

Since Tier 2 standards began to phase 

in with MY2004, many MY2004–2006 

light-duty motor vehicles are subject to 

Tier 2 standards. Indeed, as illustrated 

by Figure IV.A–1, more than 60% of 

MY2005, and more than 80% of 

MY2006, light-duty motor vehicles are 

certified as complying with Tier 2 

standards. EPA’s reasons for partially 

granting the waiver with respect to 

MY2007 and newer light-duty motor 

vehicles also apply to MY2004–2006 

Tier 2 vehicles. However, in its October 

Decision, EPA did not grant the partial 

waiver with respect to MY2004–2006 

Tier 2 vehicles because the Agency 

expected most vehicle owners for those 

model years would not know what 

emission standards their vehicles are 

supposed to meet, and that information 

is not easily discerned from the vehicle 

itself. EPA thus decided to use a model 

year cut-off for delineating which model 

years were covered by the partial 

waiver. For purposes of today’s 

decision, though, it is important to note 

that MY2004–06 vehicles certified to 

Tier 2 standards should be able to use 

E15 without adverse impacts on their 

emissions for the reasons given in the 

October Waiver Decision. The analysis 

in today’s decision focuses on light-duty 

motor vehicles that are not certified to 

Tier 2 standards. 

A. Exhaust Emissions 

As described below, a number of 

regulatory actions took place by 2000 

that placed emphasis on real-world 

testing of motor vehicles, which in turn 

led to changes in design of exhaust 

emission control systems. Those 

actions, together with actual compliance 

information, provide a strong basis for 

an engineering assessment that 

manufacturers improved exhaust 

emission controls for MY2001–2006 

light-duty motor vehicles in ways 

similar in nature to Tier 2 motor 

vehicles and are likely sufficient to 

allow such vehicles to use E15 and still 

meet exhaust emission standards. DOE’s 

testing of pre-Tier 2 vehicle models 

(including several expected to be 

sensitive to ethanol’s impact on 

emissions control) strongly confirms 

that assessment and demonstrates that 

MY2001–2006 light-duty motor vehicles 

can operate on E15 without significant 

impact on exhaust emission control and 

that E15 is not expected to cause or 

contribute to failures to meet applicable 

exhaust emissions standards. 

1. Long-term (Durability) Exhaust 

Emissions 

The October Waiver Decision 

describes at length various changes in 

regulatory requirements since the 1970s 

that over time have required auto 

manufacturers to design and build 

increasingly cleaner vehicles that can 

maintain their emission control 

performance over the vehicles’ FUL 

under real-world conditions. For today’s 

decision, we focus on those changes that 

were applicable by or affected MY2001, 

since those changes are relevant to any 

engineering assessment of whether 

MY2001–2006 light-duty motor vehicles 

that are not Tier 2 vehicles would 

operate on E15 without significant loss 

of emission control. 

a. Growth Energy’s Submission and 

Public Comment Summary 

As mentioned above, Growth Energy’s 

submission and the information 

supplied by commenters regarding longterm exhaust emission impacts of E15 

were generally not specific to the model 

year of motor vehicles. For a detailed 

discussion of Growth Energy’s 

submission and summary of public 

comments with respect to the impact of 

long-term use of E15 on exhaust 

emissions, refer to section IV.A.1 for 

MY2007 and newer light-duty motor 

vehicles and IV.C.3.b.i for MY2000 and 

older light-duty motor vehicles of the 

October Waiver Decision. 

b. EPA Analysis and Durability Studies 

By MY2001, the federal National Low 

Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program for 

reducing exhaust emissions was fully 

phased in for all cars and light-duty 

trucks (LDT) up to 6000 lb. gross vehicle 

weight (GVW) (LDT 1s and 2s) (63 FR 

926, January 7, 1998).13 This program 

essentially adopted the existing 

California LEV standards (which began 

phasing in for California with MY1994) 

as a national vehicle program. NLEV 

motor vehicles were required to meet 

more stringent emission standards for 

emissions of all criteria pollutants,14

which in turn required substantial 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices 4667 

15FUL is 100,000 miles for NLEV passenger cars 

and light-duty truck category 1; 120,000 miles for 

NLEV light-duty truck category 2; and 120,000 

miles for Tier 1 light-duty truck categories 3 and 4. 

Light-duty trucks up to 6000 lbs. GVW are 

composed of light-duty truck categories 1 and 2 

where category 1 has a loaded vehicle weight equal 

to 3,750 lbs. and category 2 has a loaded vehicle 

weight greater than 3,750 lbs. Light-duty trucks of 

6001–8500 lbs. GVW are composed of light-duty 

truck categories 3 and 4 where category 3 has an 

adjusted loaded vehicle weight less than or equal 

to 5,750 lbs and category 4 has an adjusted loaded 

vehicle weight greater than 5,750 lbs. 

16Close-coupled faster light-off catalysts, faster 

light-off oxygen sensors, and more sophisticated 

cold start strategies enable faster transition from 

open loop to closed loop operation for reduced cold 

start emissions. 

17 Interim Non-Tier 2 refers to MY2004 or newer 

vehicles not certified to Tier 2 FTP exhaust 

emission standards during the Tier 2 phase in 

period. Interim Non-Tier 2 emission standards 

included all of the Tier 2 emission standard bins 

in addition to bins unique to the Interim Non-Tier 

2 program. The Interim Non-Tier 2 fleet average 

NOX standard was 0.30 g/mi compared to the Tier 

2 fleet average NOX standard of 0.07 g/mile. The 

Interim Non-Tier 2 standards were more stringent 

than both the NLEV and Tier 1 standards. 

changes to emission control hardware 

and strategies compared with motor 

vehicles certified to the previous Tier 1 

standards. 

Light-duty trucks from 6001–8500 lb. 

GVW (e.g., large pickup trucks and vans, 

known as LDT 3s and 4s) were not 

subject to NLEV standards, and instead 

transitioned directly from Tier 1 to Tier 

2 standards. Many of the improvements 

made for smaller light-duty motor 

vehicles (i.e., catalyst designs and 

washcoat formulation) may have been 

applied to these motor vehicles. These 

motor vehicles also emit at levels 

substantially below their applicable 

federal standard because, as discussed 

later in this section, many were also 

certified to a more stringent California 

emission standard. This ‘‘compliance 

margin,’’ which is the difference 

between a vehicle’s certified emission 

level and the applicable standard, 

suggests these heavier light-duty trucks 

benefited from at least some of the 

advances in exhaust emission controls 

developed for lighter trucks, and, in any 

event, can continue to comply with 

standards even if operated on E15, as 

discussed below. 

Issuance in 2000 of more stringent 

Tier 2 standards (65 FR 6698, February 

10, 2000) also affected manufacturers’ 

planning. To comply with those 

standards, including compliance over 

vehicles’ FUL,15 manufacturers were 

required to focus on ensuring the 

durability of the exhaust and 

evaporative emission controls of their 

vehicles under real-world conditions. 

Although Tier 2 standards only began to 

phase in with MY2004, manufacturers 

were allowed to earn credit towards 

compliance with those standards in 

earlier model years. As a result, they 

had a strong incentive to develop and 

apply emission control hardware and 

strategies resembling future Tier 2 

designs to earlier model year light-duty 

motor vehicles. 

Overall, the transition from Tier 1 to 

NLEV and then to Tier 2 exhaust 

standards called for design changes that 

all moved in the same direction of 

increased control of exhaust emissions, 

through increasingly sophisticated 

emissions control systems aimed at 

reducing the level of emissions created 

by the combustion of the fuel in the 

engine combined with increased control 

of these emissions by the catalyst 

system. This increasing sophistication 

was based on better air fuel ratio 

control, and increased efficiency, 

durability and faster light-off of the 

catalyst. While Tier 2 standards called 

for the most sophisticated engine and 

catalyst system designs, the NLEV 

standards prompted major redesign 

efforts by manufacturers that were later 

expanded and advanced even further to 

meet, and earn credits towards 

compliance with, Tier 2 standards. 

From an engineering perspective, the 

emissions control systems of pre-Tier 2, 

NLEV vehicles are significantly more 

robust than those used in MY2000 and 

older vehicles and more like those of 

Tier 2 vehicles in terms of the degree of 

sophistication of engine controls and 

catalyst technology. 

Review of the emission control and 

related changes made by manufacturers 

for MY2001–2006 confirms that the LEV 

and NLEV programs involved use of 

more sophisticated technologies and 

strategies. From its decades-long role in 

certifying and overseeing in-use 

compliance of light-duty motor vehicles, 

EPA is aware that manufacturers made 

a number of improvements to reduce 

emissions at cold start, provide better 

fuel control, and make their emission 

control systems more durable. These 

improvements included independent 

catalysts per bank on V-engines, higher 

cell density catalyst substrates with 

thinner cell walls for lower thermal 

inertia/faster light-off, stereo oxygen 

sensors on V-engines, and improved 

catalyst washcoats with improved lightoff and better resistance to thermal 

deterioration.16 In addition, 

manufacturers improved oxygen sensor 

designs for better durability and 

improved oxygen sensor heater control 

strategies to reduce the likelihood of 

cracking due to thermal shock. These 

technologies were developed even 

further for Tier 2 vehicles. 

The phase-in of these various exhaust 

emission control programs for MY2001– 

2006 light-duty motor vehicles is shown 

in Figure IV.A–1. As the figure 

illustrates, the percentage of Tier 2 

vehicles significantly increased between 

MY2004 and MY2006 such that the 

large majority of the MY2005 and 

MY2006 light-duty motor vehicle fleet 

met the more stringent standards 

applicable to MY2007 and newer motor 

vehicles. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

4668 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices 

18EPA certifies light-duty motor vehicles on a test 

group basis. A test group is a group of vehicles 

having similar design and emission characteristics. 

Another important regulatory change 

for improving the exhaust emissions 

control durability of MY2001–2006 

light-duty motor vehicles was the 

Compliance Assurance Program 

(‘‘CAP2000’’), which took effect by 

MY2000 for light-duty motor vehicles. 

CAP2000 placed more emphasis on inuse performance of vehicle emission 

controls, including the potential 

impacts of operation on different 

available in-use fuels. In particular, the 

In-use Verification Program (IUVP) 

introduced under CAP2000 requires 

manufacturers to perform exhaust and 

evaporative emissions tests on customer 

vehicles in the in-use fleet to confirm 

the durability projections that 

manufacturers make at certification. 

These tests must be performed at low 

and high mileage intervals and include 

at least one vehicle per test group 18 at 

75% of FUL. This emphasis on realworld vehicle testing to ensure durable 

emission controls prompted 

manufacturers to consider different 

commercially available fuels (including 

ethanol blends up to E10) when 

developing and testing their emissions 

systems for MY2000 and later. 

Section VI.A of the Misfueling 

Mitigation NPRM describes the growing 

market penetration of E10 over time. In 

the late 1990s, when manufacturers 

were planning for MY2001, national 

availability of E10 was increasing, and 

E10 was already the predominant form 

of gasoline sold in several major 

metropolitan areas. For example, by 

2000, E10 comprised nearly 15% of the 

U.S. gasoline market, and for certain 

major metropolitan areas such as 

Chicago and Milwaukee, the gasoline 

market entirely shifted to E10 by around 

1996. With the advent of CAP2000 and 

with E10 pervasive in several major 

markets, manufacturers had a strong 

incentive to plan for ethanol exposure 

in designing for durable emissions 

performance. 

Finally, the Supplemental Federal 

Test Procedure (SFTP) compliance 

requirements began to phase in with 

MY2001 and were fully phased in with 

MY2004. These standards further 

increased manufacturers’ incentives to 

design emissions controls that would be 

durable in use and with exposure to 

available gasoline-ethanol blends. The 

SFTP compliance requirements 

expanded motor vehicle emission 

testing to better represent actual 

consumer driving habits and conditions 

by including the US06 test (a high speed 

and high acceleration cycle) and the 

SCO3 test (an air conditioning test cycle 

run in a environmental test chamber at 

95 °F). In response to these 

requirements, manufacturers developed 

increasingly robust emissions control 

systems capable of withstanding the 

higher engine and catalyst temperatures 

experienced during these more severe 

cycles without simply relying on 

enrichment of the air-to-fuel ratio 

(which causes increased emissions) for 

temperature control. This improved 

ability to handle higher temperatures 

would also help emission control 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICESEN26JA11.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices 4669 

19Enleanment refers to increasing the amount of 

oxygen in the mixture of air and fuel that enters the 

engine for combustion. Enrichment refers to 

increasing the amount of fuel in that mixture. At 

any one air to fuel ratio, adding ethanol to the fuel 

adds additional oxygen to the mixture of air and 

fuel, tending to enlean the mixture. 

20These data are submitted by manufacturers to 

EPA’s Certification and Fuel Economy Information 

System to demonstrate compliance with the 

applicable emission standards and are part of the 

application process to receive a certificate of 

conformity. The CAA requires that all motor 

vehicles be covered by a certificate of conformity 

before they may enter into commerce. 

21The MY2000 vehicle models selected were 

representative of all MY2001 and later pre-Tier 2 

vehicles since they were certified as meeting Tier 

1 or NLEV standards. 

22See October Waiver Decision Section IV.A for 

a full discussion of the relevance of learned fuel 

trim to waiver determinations for gasoline-ethanol 

blends. 

systems withstand enleanment 19 from 

ethanol use. 

Another consideration in our 

engineering analysis is the extent to 

which MY2001–2006 light-duty motor 

vehicles, when tested on E0 (as required 

for determining auto manufacturers’ 

compliance with emission standards), 

emit at levels below the applicable 

standards and therefore have a 

compliance margin. Compliance 

margins are generally designed into 

motor vehicles by manufacturers to 

account for possible variations in 

production vehicles and changes to 

vehicle emissions control systems from 

actual field usage, such as the type of 

driving employed and the type of fuel 

used. The larger the compliance margin, 

the more likely it is that vehicles would 

accommodate any emissions increases 

from fueling with E15 and continue to 

meet emission standards in-use. As 

discussed in more detail later in this 

decision, a survey of certification data 20

shows that the average FUL compliance 

margin (which accounts for in-use 

deterioration) projected at the time of 

certification for the entire MY2001– 

2006 light-duty motor vehicle fleet was 

approximately 66%. In-use data from 

the IUVP program indicates that motor 

vehicles actually achieved a similar 

compliance margin when operated in 

real-world conditions. The size of the 

compliance margins for MY2001–2006 

light-duty motor vehicles suggests 

manufacturers were in fact designing 

and building motor vehicles that were 

significantly cleaner than required as 

part of a planned migration to 

technologies capable of meeting the 

tighter Tier 2 standards. 

Based on our engineering analysis of 

the expected impact of relevant 

regulatory changes and certification and 

IUVP data, we believe that the 

regulatory changes affecting MY2001– 

2006 light-duty motor vehicles 

prompted manufacturers to design those 

MY2001–2006 vehicles using 

technology similar to the technology 

used for Tier 2 motor vehicles. As with 

Tier 2 motor vehicles, these technology 

changes would be expected to maintain 

the durability of the performance of 

emission control systems when motor 

vehicles are operated on E10 and also 

allow the motor vehicles to operate over 

time on E15 without significant changes 

in exhaust emissions. The designs of the 

emission control systems of MY2001– 

2006 light-duty motor vehicles also 

included a large compliance margin to 

address, among other things, variations 

in in-use driving patterns and fuels, and 

this large compliance margin would be 

expected to offset exhaust emissions 

increases that might be associated with 

the long-term use of E15. The 

combination of these factors leads to the 

engineering conclusion that the longterm use of E15 by MY2001–2006 lightduty motor vehicles is not expected to 

lead to significant emission increases 

and to cause or contribute to failures to 

meet applicable exhaust emissions 

standards. 

i. Description of DOE Catalyst Study for 

MY2001–2006 Motor Vehicles 

The results of DOE’s Catalyst Study 

for MY2001–2006 light-duty motor 

vehicles provide strong confirmation 

that those vehicles should be able to 

operate on E15 and continue to comply 

with applicable exhaust emission 

standards. As described in detail below, 

DOE selected vehicle models so that the 

test fleet would broadly represent the 

national MY2001–2006 light-duty motor 

vehicle fleet and be likely to reveal any 

adverse emissions impacts from longterm operation on E15. DOE also 

followed all other aspects of the test 

protocol it used for MY2007 and newer 

motor vehicle testing to assure 

appropriate and consistent rigor in 

testing of MY2001–2006 motor vehicles. 

DOE test results indicate that the 

changes manufacturers made to 

MY2001–2006 light-duty motor vehicle 

emission controls, calibration, 

hardware, etc., in response to regulatory 

changes in fact resulted in vehicle 

exhaust emissions control systems, 

including the catalyst, that are capable 

of withstanding the additional 

enleanment caused by E15 and 

maintaining exhaust emission 

performance on E15 over the FUL of the 

motor vehicles. 

To evaluate the actual impacts of E15 

on MY2001–2006 light-duty motor 

vehicles, DOE tested eight MY2000– 

2003 motor vehicle models,21 including 

high sales volume models produced by 

several light-duty motor vehicle 

manufacturers. The specific purpose of 

the program was to evaluate the longterm effects of E0, E10, E15, and E20 on 

catalyst durability of MY2001–2006 

light-duty motor vehicles that were 

subject to pre-Tier 2 standards (i.e., 

NLEV or Tier 1). A number of criteria 

were used to select motor vehicle 

models for the program. In particular, 

vehicle selection was based on high 

sales volume models so that the test 

fleet would be broadly representative of 

the in-use fleet. Since the number of 

models tested for MY2001–2006 was not 

as large as the number tested for newer 

model years, models were also selected 

for expected emissions related 

sensitivity (particularly in terms of their 

ability to apply learned fuel trim from 

closed loop to open loop operation 22) so 

that the test fleet would be more likely 

to include vehicles that would reveal 

any adverse impacts of E15. In addition, 

one-half of the motor vehicle models 

were selected for their likely sensitivity 

to ethanol-gasoline blends as indicated 

by the results the Coordinating Research 

Council (CRC) Mid-level Ethanol Blends 

Catalyst Durability Study Screening (E– 

87–1). CRC is a research organization 

comprised of auto manufacturers and oil 

companies. 

Testing of all vehicles followed the 

same protocol as that used for MY2007 

and newer light-duty motor vehicles, 

although the NLEV or Tier 1 vehicles 

were all used vehicles with relatively 

high mileage due to their age. See Table 

IV.A–1—Vehicle Attribute Summary for 

the list of specific models. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

4670 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices 

23As discussed previously, EPA relied on the 

vehicles using E15 and E0 for aging and test results, 

as that allows the emissions impact of the candidate 

fuel to be compared to the emissions impact of the 

fuel used for testing for compliance with the 

certification standards. 

24Total hydrocarbons (THC), non-methane 

hydrocarbons (NMHC), non-methane organic gases 

(NMOG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and carbon 

monoxide (CO). 

25 In general, EPA may take action to compel a 

manufacturer to recall and remedy a problem after 

determining that a substantial number of properly 

maintained and operated vehicles fail to conform to 

EPA standards in actual use. EPA will use the 

information from the DOE test program to help it 

identify future vehicle test classes as part of its 

overall vehicle compliance program. 

26The exhaust emissions of some vehicles 

actually decreased over the course of the testing 

program. There are a few possible reasons for this 

result. For example, ‘‘TOP TIER Detergent Gasoline’’ 

was used during the aging cycles. With unknown 

TABLE IV.A–1—VEHICLE ATTRIBUTE SUMMARY

Project Vehicle Summary Engine 

Engine Family 

Emissions standard Starting odometer 

(×1000 miles) 

Year Vehicle Disp Config NMOG CO NOX E0 E15 

Southwest Research Institute 

2000 ... Chevrolet Silverado ......... 5 .3 V8 YGMXT05.3181 .... Tier 1/LDT 3 .................... 0.460 6.4 0.98 111 112 

2002 ... Nissan Frontier ................ 2 .4 I4 2NSXT02.4C4B .... NLEV (LEV) ..................... 0.130 5.5 0.5 95 91 

2002 ... Dodge Durango ............... 4 .7 V8 2CRXT04.75B0 .... Tier 1/LDT 3 .................... 0.460 6.4 0.98 71 60 

Transportation Research Center 

2003 ... Toyota Camry .................. 2 .4 I4 3TYXV02.4HHA ... ULEV ............................... 0.055 4.2 0.3 77 77 

2003 ... Ford Taurus ..................... 3 V6 3FMXV03.0VF3 .... NLEV (LEV) ..................... 0.090 4.2 0.3 93 88 

2003 ... Chevrolet Cavalier ........... 2 .2 I4 3GMXV02.2025 .... NLEV (LEV) ..................... 0.090 4.2 0.3 78 81 

Environmental Testing Corp 

2000 ... Honda Accord .................. 2 .3 I4 YHNXV02.3PF3 ... NLEV (LEV) ..................... 0.090 4.2 0.3 106 95 

2000 ... Ford Focus ...................... 2 I4 YFMXV02.0VF3 ... NLEV (LEV) ..................... 0.090 4.2 0.3 103 85 

For testing purposes, at least two 

vehicles of the same model were 

matched to prevent confounding of the 

data by differences in vehicle attributes. 

Specifically, the test group, engine 

displacement, evaporative emissions 

control family, model year, powertrain 

control unit calibration, axle ratios, 

wheel size, and tire size were 

constrained to be identical within a 

vehicle set. Physical inspections of the 

vehicles were conducted to eliminate 

obviously problematic vehicles (such as 

those with gross fluid leaks, obvious 

and excessive body damage, etc.). 

Odometer reading was also used to 

identify candidate vehicles with the 

goal of restricting the difference in 

odometer readings within a vehicle set 

to a maximum of 10,000 miles in order 

to facilitate data comparisons between 

the vehicles. One vehicle from each set 

was aged on E0, one was aged on E15, 

and each vehicle was tested on both E0 

and E15. Additional vehicles were aged 

on E20 or E10.23

The assignment of a particular vehicle 

to a particular fuel was random and was 

accomplished prior to conducting any 

emissions tests on the vehicles. 

Obtaining suitable matched sets of 

vehicles was challenging for several of 

the older model year vehicles for the 

simple reason that these were older 

vehicles with various driving histories. 

As a result, there were a few instances 

where it was necessary to test vehicles 

with mileages that were not within the 

10,000 mile odometer range target for 

matched vehicles in order to obtain a 

suitably-matched set of vehicles. 

ii. DOE Catalyst Study Results 

As noted above, the results from the 

DOE Catalyst Study for MY2001–2006 

light-duty motor vehicles confirm the 

engineering analysis that long-term use 

of E15 is not expected to lead to 

significant emissions increases or 

contribute to those vehicles exceeding 

their exhaust emission standards over 

their FUL. Emission test results and the 

applicable emission standards 24 for the 

vehicles aged on E0 (‘‘E0 vehicles’’) and 

the vehicles aged on E15 (‘‘E15 

vehicles’’) at the start, middle, and end 

of the test program are shown in Tables 

IV.A–2 and 3. There were no trends or 

patterns that appeared fuel related. No 

significant increases in long-term 

exhaust emissions were observed with 

the E15 vehicles. Furthermore, the test 

results show that the vehicles aged and 

tested on E15 did not have significantly 

higher emissions than the vehicles aged 

and tested on E0, and some vehicles’ 

emissions actually decreased on E15. 

Overall, the exhaust emission test 

results across test vehicles were 

generally similar with regard to 

deterioration and failure rates to the test 

results observed for the Tier 2 vehicle 

test fleet (which included some MY2005 

and 2006 motor vehicles) and discussed 

in the October Waiver Decision. 

All E15 vehicles except one were 

below their emissions limits at the end 

of the test. One E15 vehicle exceeded its 

non-methane organic gas (NMOG) 

emissions limits at the end of the test 

program. The vehicle, a 2000 Honda 

Accord, was just above its FUL NMOG 

standard after 50,000 miles of aging.25

The exceedance of the NMOG standard 

did not appear to be related to E15 since 

the NMOG emissions of the E0 

counterpart motor vehicle also exceeded 

the standard after only 25,000 miles of 

aging. Two other E0 motor vehicles 

(2003 Chevy Cavalier and 2003 Toyota 

Camry) also failed the NMOG standard 

but their E15 counterpart did not. 

All motor vehicles except for the E0 

Accord were below their carbon 

monoxide (CO) emissions limits at the 

end of the test. One end-of-test program 

data point for the E15 Frontier was over 

the standard but the test point average 

was well below the standard. All motor 

vehicles were below their oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX) emissions limits at the 

end of the test program. 

Testing of older motor vehicles did 

pose challenges since they had 

relatively high mileages and their 

maintenance and driving histories were 

not well known. As a result, test results 

for these motor vehicles showed greater 

variability than the results for the newer 

motor vehicles of the Tier 2 test fleet. 

There were also mechanical issues to 

address during mileage accumulation. 

Considering the higher variability 

expected in this situation, there were 

generally small changes in emissions 

(both increases and decreases) with 

mileage accumulation for most of the 

motor vehicles (with the exception of 

the Honda Accord samples) with no 

indication of significant deterioration of 

the exhaust emission control system, 

including the catalyst, due to E15.26 The 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices 4671 

aging conditions and fuel quality prior to the testing 

and mileage accumulation, some vehicles may have 

become cleaner between the start of the test and the 

midpoint of the test due to the detergent additives 

in the aging fuel. In addition, the standard Road 

Cycle used for the mileage accumulation may have 

helped restore catalyst activity in some vehicles if 

they were never driven hard enough (high speed 

and/or high load) during previous aging. 

relative durability of exhaust emissions 

control performance is particularly 

notable given the high mileage of the 

test vehicles at the end of testing. The 

results from the DOE test program thus 

provide compelling support for the 

conclusion that the long-term use of E15 

will not cause or contribute to MY2001– 

2006 light-duty motor vehicles 

exceeding their exhaust emission 

standards over their FUL. 

TABLE IV.A–2—E15 EMISSION TEST RESULTS COMPARED TO THE RESPECTIVE CERTIFICATION STANDARDS AT START, 

MIDDLE, AND END OF TEST

Year Make Model Cert Standard THC NMHC NMOG CO NOX

E15 Start of Test Program Pass/Fail Results 

2002 ... Nissan ............. Frontier .................... NLEV(LEV) ..................... N/A .......... N/A ........... Pass .......... Pass ........ Pass. 

2002 ... Dodge .............. Durango ................... Tier 1/LDT3 .................... Pass ........ Pass ......... N/A ............ Pass ........ Pass. 

2003 ... Chevy .............. Cavalier ................... NLEV(LEV) ..................... N/A .......... N/A ........... Pass .......... Pass ........ Pass. 

2003 ... Ford ................. Taurus ..................... NLEV(LEV) ..................... N/A .......... N/A ........... Pass .......... Pass ........ Pass. 

2003 ... Toyota ............. Camry ...................... ULEV .............................. N/A .......... N/A ........... Pass .......... Pass ........ Pass. 

2000 ... Ford ................. Focus ....................... NLEV(LEV) ..................... N/A .......... N/A ........... Pass .......... Pass ........ Pass. 

2000 ... Honda .............. Accord ..................... NLEV(LEV) ..................... N/A .......... N/A ........... Pass .......... Pass ........ Pass. 

2000 ... Chevy .............. Silverado .................. Tier 1/LDT3 .................... Pass ........ Pass ......... N/A ............ Pass ........ Pass. 

E15 Middle Test Program Pass/Fail Results 

2002 ... Nissan ............. Frontier .................... NLEV(LEV) ..................... N/A .......... N/A ........... Pass .......... Pass ........ Pass. 

2002 ... Dodge .............. Durango ................... Tier 1/LDT3 .................... Pass ........ Pass ......... N/A ............ Pass ........ Pass. 

2003 ... Chevy .............. Cavalier ................... NLEV(LEV) ..................... N/A .......... N/A ........... Pass .......... Pass ........ Pass. 

2003 ... Ford ................. Taurus ..................... NLEV(LEV) ..................... N/A .......... N/A ........... Pass .......... Pass ........ Pass. 

2003 ... Toyota ............. Camry ...................... ULEV .............................. N/A .......... N/A ........... Pass .......... Pass ........ Pass. 

2000 ... Ford ................. Focus ....................... NLEV(LEV) ..................... N/A .......... N/A ........... Pass .......... Pass ........ Pass. 

2000 ... Honda .............. Accord ..................... NLEV(LEV) ..................... N/A .......... N/A ........... Pass* ........ Pass ........ Pass. 

2000 ... Chevy .............. Silverado .................. Tier 1/LDT3 .................... Pass ........ Pass ......... N/A ............ Pass ........ Pass. 

E15 End of Test Program Pass/Fail Results 

2002 ... Nissan ............. Frontier .................... NLEV(LEV) ..................... N/A .......... N/A ........... Pass .......... Pass* ...... Pass. 

2002 ... Dodge .............. Durango ................... Tier 1/LDT3 .................... Pass ........ Pass ......... N/A ............ Pass ........ Pass. 

2003 ... Chevy .............. Cavalier ................... NLEV(LEV) ..................... N/A .......... N/A ........... Pass .......... Pass ........ Pass. 

2003 ... Ford ................. Taurus ..................... NLEV(LEV) ..................... N/A .......... N/A ........... Pass .......... Pass ........ Pass. 

2003 ... Toyota ............. Camry ...................... ULEV .............................. N/A .......... N/A ........... Pass .......... Pass ........ Pass. 

2000 ... Ford ................. Focus ....................... NLEV(LEV) ..................... N/A .......... N/A ........... Pass .......... Pass ........ Pass. 

2000 ... Honda .............. Accord ..................... NLEV(LEV) ..................... N/A .......... N/A ........... Fail ............ Pass ........ Pass. 

2000 ... Chevy .............. Silverado .................. Tier 1/LDT3 .................... Pass ........ Pass ......... N/A ............ Pass ........ Pass. 

* Indicates that average of composites met standards, but one test result exceeded standard. 

TABLE IV.A–3—E0 EMISSION TEST RESULTS COMPARED TO THE RESPECTIVE CERTIFICATION STANDARDS AT START, 

MIDDLE, AND END OF TEST

Year Make Model Cert Standard THC NMHC NMOG CO NOX

E0 Start of Test Program Pass/Fail Results 

2002 ... Nissan ............. Frontier .................... NLEV(LEV) ..................... N/A .......... N/A ........... Pass .......... Pass ........ Pass. 

2002 ... Dodge .............. Durango ................... Tier 1/LDT3 .................... Pass ........ Pass ......... N/A ............ Pass ........ Pass. 

2003 ... Chevy .............. Cavalier ................... NLEV(LEV) ..................... N/A .......... N/A ........... Pass .......... Pass ........ Pass. 

2003 ... Ford ................. Taurus ..................... NLEV(LEV) ..................... N/A .......... N/A ........... Pass .......... Pass ........ Pass. 

2003 ... Toyota ............. Camry ...................... ULEV .............................. N/A .......... N/A ........... Pass* ........ Pass ........ Pass. 

2000 ... Ford ................. Focus ....................... NLEV(LEV) ..................... N/A .......... N/A ........... Pass .......... Pass ........ Pass. 

2000 ... Honda .............. Accord ..................... NLEV(LEV) ..................... N/A .......... N/A ........... Pass .......... Pass ........ Pass. 

2000 ... Chevy .............. Silverado .................. Tier 1/LDT3 .................... Pass ........ Pass ......... N/A ............ Pass ........ Pass. 

E0 Middle Test Program Pass/Fail Results 

2002 ... Nissan ............. Frontier .................... NLEV(LEV) ..................... N/A .......... N/A ........... Pass .......... Pass ........ Pass. 

2002 ... Dodge .............. Durango ................... Tier 1/LDT3 .................... Pass ........ Pass ......... N/A ............ Pass ........ Pass. 

2003 ... Chevy .............. Cavalier ................... NLEV(LEV) ..................... N/A .......... N/A ........... Pass* ........ Pass ........ Pass. 

2003 ... Ford ................. Taurus ..................... NLEV(LEV) ..................... N/A .......... N/A ........... Pass .......... Pass ........ Pass. 

2003 ... Toyota ............. Camry ...................... ULEV .............................. N/A .......... N/A ........... Pass .......... Pass ........ Pass. 

2000 ... Ford ................. Focus ....................... NLEV(LEV) ..................... N/A .......... N/A ........... Pass .......... Pass ........ Pass. 

2000 ... Honda .............. Accord ..................... NLEV(LEV) ..................... N/A .......... N/A ........... Fail ............ Fail .......... Pass. 

2000 ... Chevy .............. Silverado .................. Tier 1/LDT3 .................... Pass ........ Pass ......... N/A ............ Pass ........ Pass. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

4672 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices 

27CRC E74b, DOE Pilot Study, DOE Catalyst 

Study, and the RIT Study, all of which are 

discussed at length in the October Waiver Decision. 

28A detailed description of the development of 

the EPA Predictive Models is available in a 

Technical Support Document: ‘‘Analysis of 

California’s Request for Waiver of the Reformulated 

Gasoline Oxygen Content Requirement for 

California Covered Areas,’’ EPA420–R–01–016, June 

2001. 

29Based on data submitted to EPA’s Certification 

and Fuel Economy Information System and 

available on the EPA Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/otaq/crttst.htm. 

TABLE IV.A–3—E0 EMISSION TEST RESULTS COMPARED TO THE RESPECTIVE CERTIFICATION STANDARDS AT START, 

MIDDLE, AND END OF TEST—Continued 

Year Make Model Cert Standard THC NMHC NMOG CO NOX

E0 End of Test Program Pass/Fail Results 

2002 ... Nissan ............. Frontier .................... NLEV(LEV) ..................... N/A .......... N/A ........... Pass .......... Pass ........ Pass. 

2002 ... Dodge .............. Durango ................... Tier 1/LDT3 .................... Pass ........ Pass ......... N/A ............ Pass ........ Pass. 

2003 ... Chevy .............. Cavalier ................... NLEV(LEV) ..................... N/A .......... N/A ........... Fail ............ Pass ........ Pass. 

2003 ... Ford ................. Taurus ..................... NLEV(LEV) ..................... N/A .......... N/A ........... Pass .......... Pass ........ Pass. 

2003 ... Toyota ............. Camry ...................... ULEV .............................. N/A .......... N/A ........... Fail ............ Pass ........ Pass. 

2000 ... Ford ................. Focus ....................... NLEV(LEV) ..................... N/A .......... N/A ........... Pass* ........ Pass ........ Pass. 

2000 ... Honda .............. Accord ..................... NLEV(LEV) ..................... N/A .......... N/A ........... Fail ............ Fail .......... Pass. 

2000 ... Chevy .............. Silverado .................. Tier 1/LDT3 .................... Pass ........ Pass ......... N/A ............ Pass ........ Pass. 

* Indicates that average of composites met standards, but one test result exceeded standard. 

2. Immediate Exhaust Emissions 

Instantaneous or immediate impacts 

of a fuel or fuel additive are those that 

are experienced essentially immediately 

upon switching from the original fuel. 

The immediate exhaust emission 

impacts of interest are any that are 

caused by E15 in comparison to the test 

fuel on which motor vehicles are tested 

for compliance with the applicable 

standards (E0). Immediate exhaust 

emission impacts must be taken into 

consideration along with the long-term 

or durability emission impacts 

discussed in the previous section in 

assessing the waiver. 

a. Growth Energy’s Submission and 

Public Comment Summary 

As mentioned above, Growth Energy’s 

submission and the information 

supplied by commenters regarding 

immediate exhaust emission impacts of 

E15 on light-duty motor vehicles were 

not specific to the model year of the 

motor vehicles. For more information, 

including a detailed discussion of 

Growth Energy’s submission and 

summary of public comments on 

immediate exhaust emission impacts, 

refer to section IV.A.2 for MY2007 and 

newer light-duty motor vehicles and 

IV.C.3.b.ii for MY2000 and older lightduty motor vehicles of the October 

Waiver Decision. 

b. EPA Analysis 

Since the earliest days of gasolineethanol blends, many test programs 

have been carried out on light-duty 

motor vehicles and trucks to quantify 

the immediate emissions impacts of 

blending ethanol into gasoline. The 

common theme across these various test 

programs is that, consistent with 

combustion theory, the enleanment of 

the air-to-fuel (A/F) ratio caused by the 

oxygen in ethanol leads to an immediate 

reduction in HC and CO emissions and 

a corresponding increase in NOX

emissions. While other factors influence 

this, such as the combustion 

characteristics of the ethanol itself, 

other changes that occur in the gasoline 

when ethanol is added, and the test 

conditions under which the emissions 

are measured which can cause some 

variations in study results, the bottom 

line is that the immediate emissions 

changes from increased levels of ethanol 

are fairly well known. 

More recent data and information 27

show that (1) newer motor vehicles 

exhibit similar immediate emission 

impact trends as the data and modeling 

show for older motor vehicles, and (2) 

the immediate emission impacts of E15 

continue to show the same trends as E10 

with the effects being slightly larger for 

E15 due to its higher ethanol content 

and therefore the increased enleanment 

due to its higher oxygen content. Thus, 

MY2001–2006 light-duty motor vehicles 

are expected to have immediate 

emissions impacts similar to MY2007 

and newer, and MY2000 and older, 

light-duty motor vehicles, and the 

magnitude of the E15 impact is expected 

to be relatively small. As the analysis in 

the October Waiver Decision for Tier 2 

vehicles shows, non-methane 

hydrocarbon (NMHC) and CO emissions 

are expected to decrease for MY2001– 

2006 light-duty motor vehicles while 

NOX emissions are expected to increase 

between 5 and 10% (depending on how 

other fuel properties change). This 

estimated impact is based on 

extrapolation from E10 modeling using 

the Agency’s Predictive Models.28

Although the overall weight of the 

available data shows that E15 will cause 

a small immediate increase in NOX

emissions, the issue is whether such 

increases, by themselves or in 

combination with long-term durability 

effects, would cause or contribute to 

MY2001–2006 light-duty motor vehicles 

to exceed their emissions standards. 

Given the relatively small magnitude of 

the immediate NOX emissions increase 

in relation to the large compliance 

margins that motor vehicle 

manufacturers have traditionally built 

in to the products they certify, and the 

lack of any significant increase in NOX

emissions deterioration with E15 in 

comparison to E0, it is reasonable to 

expect that E15 will not cause or 

contribute to compliant MY2001–2006 

light-duty motor vehicles exceeding 

their emissions standards. 

Available information on the 

compliance margins of MY2001–2006 

light-duty motor vehicles indicates that 

these vehicles have compliance margins 

even larger than the average compliance 

margin manufacturers typically provide. 

Average compliance margins projected 

during certification for MY2001–2006 

light-duty motor vehicles are shown in 

Table IV.A–4.29

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices 4673 

TABLE IV.A–4—AVERAGE CERTIFICATION COMPLIANCE MARGIN (PERCENT BY POLLUTANT) FOR MY2001–2006 LIGHTDUTY MOTOR VEHICLES

Percent Compliance Margin by Pollutant 

NMOG NMHC Total HC NOX CO Overall 

MY2001–2006 Tier 2 & NLEV ......................................... 51% N/A N/A 65% 75% 63% 

MY2001–2003 NLEV ....................................................... 49% N/A N/A 71 78 66 

MY2001–2003 Tier 1 LDT 3 & 4 ..................................... N/A 74% 80% 73 71 74 

Data collected from EPA’s IUVP also 

show large compliance margins for 

light-duty motor vehicles operating in 

real-world conditions. Based on data 

from IUVP testing of MY2001–2006 

light-duty motor vehicles as of August 

2010, the average compliance margin 

was 56%, 69%, and 76% for 

hydrocarbons (NMOG, NMHC, and 

Total HC), NOX, and CO, respectively. 

These large certification program and 

in-use testing compliance margins 

indicate that MY2001–2006 light-duty 

motor vehicles on average would absorb 

the immediate emissions impact of E15 

on NOX emissions without exceeding 

the applicable emission standards. 

In addition, the results of the recently 

completed DOE Catalyst Study provide 

direct evidence that MY2001–2006 

light-duty motor vehicles would 

accommodate the immediate impact of 

E15 on NOX emissions and still comply 

with applicable standards. While the 

Catalyst Study was carried out to assess 

long-term (durability) exhaust emissions 

impacts, the immediate emission 

impacts of ethanol are also captured in 

the testing. All of the motor vehicles 

tested for the MY2001–2006 program 

continued to comply with their NOx 

emission standards at FUL despite both 

the immediate and durability impacts of 

E15 on emissions. The results from the 

DOE test program thus support the 

conclusion that the immediate 

emissions impact of E15 will not cause 

or contribute to MY2001–2006 lightduty motor vehicles exceeding their 

exhaust emission standards over their 

FUL. 

B. Evaporative Emissions 

Assessment of the impact of E15 on 

evaporative emissions compliance 

requires consideration of the applicable 

evaporative emissions standards to 

which the particular motor vehicles 

were certified. There are now five main 

components of motor vehicle 

evaporative emissions that are 

addressed by standards: (1) Diurnal 

(evaporative emissions that come off the 

fuel system as a motor vehicle heats up 

during the course of the day); (2) hot 

soak (evaporative emissions that come 

off a hot motor vehicle as it cools down 

after the engine is shut off); (3) running 

loss (evaporative emissions that come 

off the fuel system during motor vehicle 

operation); (4) permeation (evaporative 

emissions that come through the walls 

of elastomers in the fuel system and are 

measured as part of the diurnal test); 

and (5) unintended leaks due to 

deterioration/damage that is now largely 

monitored through onboard diagnostic 

standards. 

As with exhaust emissions, emission 

control improvements adopted in 

response to applicable regulatory 

requirements are important to the 

consideration of the potential impact of 

a fuel or fuel additive on evaporative 

emissions, both immediate and longterm. EPA has set evaporative emission 

standards for motor vehicles since 1971. 

During the ensuing years, evaporative 

standards have continued to evolve, 

resulting in technology and designs that 

achieve additional evaporative 

emissions reductions. A number of 

regulatory actions occurred by MY2001 

that placed an emphasis on the control 

of evaporative emissions and on realworld testing of motor vehicles, which 

in turn led to changes in evaporative 

emission control systems. These 

regulatory changes together with test 

data and information and analysis 

concerning compliance margins support 

the conclusion that MY2001–2006 lightduty motor vehicles operated on E15 

would generally continue to comply 

with evaporative emission standards 

and likely achieve actual evaporative 

emission levels somewhat lower than 

what they currently experience when 

operated on in-use fuel. 

1. Immediate Evaporative Emissions 

a. Growth Energy’s Submission and 

Public Comment Summary 

Growth Energy’s submission and the 

information supplied by commenters 

regarding immediate evaporative 

emission impacts of E15 were not 

specific to the model year of the motor 

vehicles. For more information, 

including a detailed discussion of 

Growth Energy’s submission and 

summary of public comments regarding 

immediate evaporative emissions, refer 

to section IV.A.3 for MY2007 and newer 

light-duty motor vehicles and IV.C.3.c 

for MY2000 and older light-duty motor 

vehicles of the October Waiver Decision. 

b. EPA Analysis and Test Programs 

As discussed in the October Waiver 

Decision, prior to MY1999, evaporative 

emissions standards addressed diurnal 

and hot soak emissions, but the test 

procedures for determining compliance 

did not require control of running loss 

and permeation emissions. These latter 

emissions became subject to control 

with the enhanced evaporative 

emissions requirements and were fully 

phased in for light-duty motor vehicles 

and light-duty trucks by MY1999. These 

requirements included both new 

emission standards and new test 

procedures: The two-day and three-day 

diurnal tests with new canister loading 

procedures, and a running loss test. 

Prior to the enhanced evaporative 

requirements, the diurnal evaporative 

emissions test was only 1 hour and 

there was no running loss measurement. 

The longer diurnal measurement and 

the addition of the running loss test 

made the control of emissions from both 

permeation and running losses more 

critical. In addition to the new 

procedures, the regulatory useful life of 

covered vehicles was extended from 5 

years/50,000 miles to 10 years/100,000 

miles for light-duty motor vehicles. 

Along with the enhanced evaporative 

emissions requirements, EPA 

introduced the On Board Diagnostic 

(OBD) requirements for evaporative leak 

detection monitors; those requirements 

were fully phased in with MY1999. 

OBD required motor vehicles to detect 

a leak equivalent to 0.040 inch in the 

fuel or evaporative emissions system. 

Beginning in MY2001, EPA allowed 

manufacturers to comply with 

California OBD regulations, which 

required motor vehicles to detect a leak 

equivalent to a 0.020 inch. While not 

required federally, according to EPA 

certification data for MY2001–2006, 

many manufacturers developed one leak 

detection system that complied with the 

more stringent California requirement 

for use in vehicles for sale in all 50 

states. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

4674 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices 

As described in the exhaust emissions 

section above, CAP2000 took effect 

beginning with MY2000 and was 

designed to place more emphasis on inuse performance of vehicle emission 

controls, including the fact that vehicles 

operate nationwide on different 

available fuels. In particular, CAP2000 

introduced the IUVP program, which 

requires manufacturers to perform 

exhaust and evaporative emissions tests 

on customer in-use vehicles. These tests 

must be performed at low and high 

mileage intervals. This emphasis on 

real-world vehicle testing prompted 

manufacturers to consider different 

commercially available fuels (including 

E10) when developing and testing their 

emissions systems. Also under 

CAP2000, manufacturers are required to 

focus on using an effective durability 

process for predicting in-use 

deterioration as part of the process of 

certifying vehicles as complying with 

applicable evaporative emission 

standards. For this process, 

manufacturers are required to use fuel 

representative of commercial gasoline 

that will generally be available at retail 

outlets for the mileage accumulation on 

their durability demonstration vehicles. 

Based on the enhanced evaporative 

emission standards and test procedures, 

the CAP2000 requirements, and the 

OBD leak detection requirement, our 

engineering assessment is that 

regulatory changes prompted 

manufacturers to make the evaporative 

emission systems of MY2001–2006 

light-duty motor vehicles, in 

comparison to prior model year 

vehicles, more compatible from an 

emissions perspective with fuels that 

would be encountered in the 

marketplace, including ethanol blends. 

As such, MY2001–2006 light-duty 

motor vehicles generally would be 

expected to include design elements 

that would better control evaporative 

emissions than prior model year 

vehicles when fueled on ethanol blends, 

moving in the direction of the design 

elements implemented for Tier 2. 

It should also be noted that for 

MY2004–2006 Tier 2 vehicles, 

manufacturers were required to use E10 

for the full mileage accumulation period 

used in the certification durability 

demonstration process to demonstrate 

evaporative emissions durability. In 

addition, Tier 2 evaporative emissions 

standards were significantly lower (over 

a 50% reduction). These Tier 2 

requirements prompted manufacturers 

to further change materials to those with 

improved permeation barriers with 

ethanol. For purposes of the evaporative 

emissions discussion below, it is 

important to note that a large percentage 

of MY2004–2006 motor vehicles 

certified to Tier 2 evaporative emission 

standards should be able to use E15 

without adverse impacts on their 

evaporative emissions for the reasons 

given in the October Waiver Decision. 

The analysis in today’s decision of the 

potential E15 impact on evaporative 

emissions focuses on light-duty motor 

vehicles that are certified to enhanced 

evaporative emission standards (preTier 2 standards). Figure IV.B–1 shows 

the fleet percentage by evaporative 

emissions standard level for MY2001– 

2006 light-duty motor vehicles. 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICESEN26JA11.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices 4675 

30Enhanced Evaporative Emission Vehicles (CRC 

Report: E–77–2), March 2010, and Evaporative 

Emissions from In-Use Vehicles: Test Fleet 

Expansion (CRC Report: E–77–2b), June 2010. 

31Running loss emissions measured in the CRC 

E–77 programs did not use the certification cycle. 

The study was focused on the worst case for 

permeation emissions and therefore used back-toback LA92 cycles to increase the tank temperature 

with more aggressive driving. The certification 

cycle, which uses the Urban Dynamometer Driving 

Schedule, followed by a two-minute idle, two New 

York City Cycles followed by a two-minute idle, 

and another Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule 

followed by a two-minute idle, has many stops and 

starts, making it more difficult to purge the canister. 

There was no canister breakthrough measured 

during running loss tests in the study. 

i. Coordinating Research Council Test 

Programs—Results 

EPA examined available test data and 

other information to evaluate whether 

expected enhancement to evaporative 

emissions control systems were in fact 

sufficient to permit MY2001–2006 lightduty motor vehicles to operate on E15 

without significant adverse impact on 

immediate evaporative emissions. 

In section IV.A.3 of the October 

Waiver Decision, EPA discussed the 

impact of ethanol on diurnal emissions 

as a result of ethanol’s effect on fuel 

volatility absent countervailing changes 

to fuel or emission controls. EPA 

reviewed the CRC E–77 test programs 30

and found they support the conclusion 

that evaporative emissions (excluding 

permeation) measured on the diurnal 

test with E10 and E20 are likely to be 

comparable to those with E0, at the 

same RVP. This conclusion also applies 

to E15 by interpolation. Testing 

performed on E0, E10, and E20 shows 

that diurnal emissions, with the 

exception of permeation, are a function 

of the volatility of the fuel, not the 

ethanol content. As a result, EPA 

concluded that for Tier 2 vehicles E15, 

with adequate control of volatility, 

would not adversely affect vehicles’ 

diurnal evaporative emissions with the 

possible exception of permeation 

emissions. This conclusion is applicable 

to MY2001–2006 light-duty motor 

vehicles as well as to MY2007 and 

newer light-duty motor vehicles. 

The impact of gasoline volatility on 

diurnal evaporative emissions led EPA 

to condition the introduction of E15 into 

commerce for MY2007 and newer lightduty motor vehicles on E15 having no 

more than 9.0 RVP during the 

summertime period when RVP is 

controlled. For the same evaporative 

emission control reasons, EPA is 

applying the same RVP limit condition 

to today’s waiver for use of E15 in 

MY2001–2006 light-duty motor 

vehicles. As EPA explained in the 

October Waiver Decision, the CRC E–77 

test program indicated that as the 

volatility of the fuel increased, the 

number of motor vehicles which 

experienced canister emissions 

breakthrough also increased, with three 

of five enhanced evaporative vehicles 

experiencing canister breakthrough at 

10.0 psi RVP. These elevated diurnal 

emissions with increased volatility are 

expected, since the increased volatility 

of 10.0 psi versus 9.0 psi fuel results in 

roughly a 25% increase in evaporative 

vapor generation that must be captured 

by the canister, beyond the amount of 

vapor generation that must be captured 

during evaporative emission testing 

using E0 fuel. The canister breakthrough 

measured in the CRC E–77 program was 

enough to cause these enhanced 

evaporative vehicles to exceed their 

evaporative emissions standard on E10 

fuel. It should be noted, however, that 

the CRC diurnal tests were done on a 

more severe temperature cycle of 

65 °F—105 °F (California cycle), as 

opposed to the federal requirement of 

72 °F—96 °F. These test results 

nonetheless confirm the expectation 

that ethanol blends with volatility 

higher than 9.0 psi RVP during the 

summer will lead to motor vehicles 

exceeding their evaporative emissions 

standard in-use. 

At the same time, the Agency is not 

aware of any data showing that motor 

vehicles would continue to meet their 

evaporative emissions standards when 

tested using E15 with an RVP greater 

than 9.0 psi. Given the significant 

potential for increased evaporative 

emissions at higher gasoline volatility 

levels and the lack of any data to 

indicate this would not cause a problem 

with compliance with the standard, the 

E15 waiver can only be considered in 

the context of E15 that maintains the 

same volatility as required of the E0 test 

fuel. As long as the volatility of the fuel 

does not exceed 9.0 psi during the 

summer, diurnal emissions from E15 are 

not anticipated to cause the motor 

vehicles to exceed their evaporative 

emissions standards in-use. 

As a related but separate matter, as 

discussed in section IX of the October 

Waiver Decision, EPA interprets CAA 

section 211(h)(4) as limiting the 1.0 psi 

waiver to gasoline-ethanol blends that 

contain 10 vol% ethanol, including 

limiting the provision concerning 

‘‘deemed to be in full compliance’’ to the 

same 10 vol% blends. This 

interpretation is consistent with how 

EPA has historically implemented CAA 

section 211(h)(4) through 40 CFR 

80.27(d), which provides that gasolineethanol blends that contain at least 9 

vol% ethanol and not more than 10 

vol% ethanol qualify for the 1.0 psi 

waiver of the applicable RVP standard. 

EPA has invited comment on this issue 

in the Misfueling Mitigation NPRM (75 

FR 68044, 68061 (November 4, 2010)). 

E15 does not appear to raise any 

issues with respect to hot soak and 

running loss emissions from MY2001– 

2006 light-duty motor vehicles, for the 

same reasons applicable to MY2007 and 

newer motor vehicles. Data from the 

CRC E–77 test programs suggest that 

there may be some correlation between 

hot soak and running loss 31 emissions 

and ethanol content, but the impact is 

small, of questionable statistical 

significance, and may be related to 

permeation that occurs during the 

testing (Figures IV.B–2 and 3). While 

there was an increase in the measured 

hot soak and running loss emissions 

with the E10 fuel compared to the E0 

fuel, the emissions from the E20 fuel 

were comparable to the emissions from 

the E0 fuel, and lower than the 

emissions from the E10 fuel. We expect 

by interpolation that emissions from 

E15 would be between the emissions 

from E10 and E20 and that any 

emissions increase would be too small 

to result in evaporative emission 

standard exceedances. 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

4676 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICESEN26JA11.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices 4677 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICESEN26JA11.009</GPH>
4678 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices 

32For example, the California diurnal 

temperature profile of 65 to 105 °F and fuel with 

an RVP of 9 psi were used. 

33Compare Figure IV.B–4 in today’s notice with 

Figure IV.A–3 in the October Waiver Decision. 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C 

As described in the October Waiver 

Decision, while the CRC E–77 test 

programs were valuable in assessing 

diurnal emissions, their primary 

purpose was to allow the quantification 

and modeling of evaporative emissions 

from permeation separate and apart 

from the other evaporative emissions for 

E0, E10, and E20. Some key findings of 

the test programs were that (1) gasolineethanol blends can significantly 

increase permeation emissions 

compared to pure gasoline; and (2) 

permeation emissions are a function of 

the presence of ethanol in the gasoline 

irrespective of concentration (especially 

in the E6 to E20 range). Consequently, 

results for E15 would be anticipated to 

be comparable to those for E10 and E20 

having the same RVP. 

ii. Coordinating Research Council Test 

Programs—Analysis 

We believe CRC E–65 and E–77 test 

results are useful for indicating the 

potential magnitude of permeation 

emission increases for the vehicles in 

the test programs as well as for the 

MY2001–2006 motor vehicle fleet. The 

CRC E–65 and E–77 test programs 

covered a large segment of the MY2001– 

2006 light-duty motor vehicle fleet (high 

sales volume models). While the test 

programs used unique test procedures 

designed to isolate the effects of ethanol 

on permeation,32 we have no reason to 

believe that the test procedures are more 

or less stringent than the federal test 

procedures in measuring permeation, 

since permeation is affected much more 

by the ethanol content of the fuel than 

by changes in temperature and fuel 

volatility. Therefore, while the overall 

results of the CRC E–65 and E–77 test 

programs cannot be directly compared 

to federal emission standards, the 

observed impacts on permeation are 

appropriate to use for generally 

assessing potential evaporative emission 

increases from E15. 

For pre-Tier 2 MY2001–2006 lightduty motor vehicles, the results of the 

CRC test programs indicate that the 

permeation emissions of these vehicles 

are likely to increase with use of 

ethanol-gasoline blends to a greater 

extent than is expected for MY2007 and 

newer motor vehicles.33 The issue thus 

becomes whether the increase will 

cause or contribute to MY2001–2006 

light-duty motor vehicles exceeding 

their evaporative emission standards. 

We used the results of the CRC test 

programs to estimate the increase in 

evaporative emissions from the 

permeation effect of an E10–20 fuel (and 

therefore E15 by interpolation) for 

vehicles in the programs, since they 

represent a large segment of the national 

fleet. We began by averaging the results 

of the CRC E–65 and E–77 programs 

together for each of the models tested 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICESEN26JA11.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices 4679 

34We also averaged the ethanol blends together 

to compare to E0. As noted above, the effect of 

ethanol blends on permeation emissions is 

essentially constant across E6, E10 and E20, so it 

is appropriate to average the emissions increases 

resulting from the different blends to obtain a more 

robust result. 

given the limited sample size of each 

program and the fact that ethanol 

content alone, versus RVP or the 

specific ethanol volume percentage of 

the fuel, has the greatest effect on 

permeation. Then, we calculated the 

permeation change (E0 to E10–20) for 

each vehicle model.34 Next, we added 

that vehicle model’s permeation 

increase to the vehicle model’s 

projected evaporative emission level (as 

determined for certifying compliance 

with emission standards) to estimate 

what the vehicle model’s projected 

evaporative emissions would be if 

operated on E15. The results of this 

analysis show that all of the vehicle 

models tested in the CRC programs 

would meet their evaporative emissions 

standard even with the calculated 

permeation increase (Figure IV.B–1). 

Hence, while the permeation impact of 

E10 and E20, and therefore E15 by 

interpolation, on these vehicle models is 

projected to be larger than for E0, the 

vehicle models also have very large 

compliance margins that would allow 

them to still meet their evaporative 

emission standards on E15. 

TABLE IV.B–1—ENHANCED EVAPORATIVE VEHICLES PERMEATION MEASURED IN CRC E65 AND E–77(B) 

MY Make & model 

E0 

7 psi 

(mg) 

E0 

9 psi 

(mg) 

E10 

7 psi 

(mg) 

E10 

10 psi 

(mg) 

E20 

9 psi 

(mg) 

Avg. 

E0 

(mg) 

Avg. 

E10 

and 

E20 

(mg) 

Delta 

E0 to 

E10– 

20 

(mg) 

Cert 

Level 

(g) 

Projected 

Emissions 

(g) 

1999 ......... Honda Accord .................... 367 628 1260 1548 1103 498 1304 806 1.0 1.8 

2001 ......... Toyota Corolla ................... 383 500 1783 1794 1775 441 1784 1343 0.4 1.7 

2001 ......... Dodge Caravan .................. 398 406 1087 1406 1548 402 1347 945 1.0 1.9 

2004 ......... Ford Escape ...................... 494 1102 524 492 752 798 589 ¥209 0.9 0.7 

2000 ......... Mitsubishi Galant ............... 603 706 895 828 751 655 824 170 0.6 0.8 

2001 ......... Toyota Tacoma .................. 91 ............ ............ ............ 508 91 508 418 0.4 0.8 

2000 ......... Honda Odyssey ................. 458 ............ ............ ............ 1765 458 1765 1308 0.7 2.0 

2002 ......... Nissan Altima ..................... 1172 1500 2583 2777 1959 1336 2439 1103 0.8 1.9 

2004 ......... Toyota Highlander* ............ 294 202 ............ ............ 451 249 157 ............ 0.3 0.4 

*Tier 2 vehicle 

As noted above, the vehicles tested in 

the CRC programs represent a broad 

cross-section of the national light-duty 

motor vehicle fleet, so our analysis 

indicates that most MY2001–2006 lightduty motor vehicles would still meet 

applicable evaporative emission 

standards if operated on E15. However, 

the test programs were not fully 

representative as they included no 

General Motors models or larger lightduty trucks. Thus, there may be some 

vehicles in the fleet with smaller 

compliance margins such that the 

impact of permeation could increase 

their total evaporative emissions beyond 

the standard to which they were 

certified. 

Even if a small number of vehicle 

models might exceed evaporative 

emission standards in-use when 

operated on E15, we believe that a 

waiver is appropriate for two reasons. 

One, any increase in evaporative 

emission standard exceedances is 

expected to be limited since all the CRC 

motor vehicles tested continued to meet 

their evaporative emission standards 

and those motor vehicles represent a 

large segment of the national fleet. In 

past waiver decisions, EPA has applied 

statistical tests that are failed if the fuel 

or fuel additive being considered would 

increase the number of motor vehicles 

exceeding their emissions standard by a 

significant amount. For example, see the 

discussion of the Petrocoal Waiver in 

MVMA v. EPA, 768 F.2d 385, 399 (DC 

Cir. 1985) (‘‘Petrocoal Waiver, 46 FR at 

48,978. The Deteriorated Emissions Test 

is designed to provide a 90 percent 

probability of failure of the test if 25 

percent or more of the vehicle fleet 

tested would fail to meet emission 

standards using the waiver fuel or fuel 

additive.’’). This was based on EPA’s 

longstanding interpretation that the 

criteria in CAA section 211(f)(4) could 

be met where a fuel or fuel additive 

would not cause or contribute to a 

‘‘significant’’ number of motor vehicles 

in the national fleet failing their 

emission standards. See MVMA, 768 

F.2d at 391 (‘‘This burden, which 

Congress has imposed on the applicant, 

if interpreted literally, is virtually 

impossible to meet as it requires proof 

of a negative proposition, i.e., that no 

vehicle will fail to meet emission 

standards with respect to which it has 

been certified. Taken literally, it would 

require the testing of every vehicle. 

Recognizing that Congress contemplated 

a workable waiver provision, mitigation 

of this stringent burden was deemed 

necessary. For purposes of the waiver 

provision, EPA has previously indicated 

that reliable statistical sampling and 

fleet testing protocols may be used to 

demonstrate that a fuel under 

consideration would not cause or 

contribute to a significant failure of 

emission standards by vehicles in the 

national fleet.’’) The statistical tests used 

by EPA were intended to identify 

failures of a statistically significant 

number of motor vehicles resulting from 

the fuel or fuel additive itself as 

opposed to other non-fuel related 

causes. Consequently, the statistical 

tests do not bar a waiver for a fuel or 

fuel additive that would increase the 

number of motor vehicles exceeding 

their applicable emission standards by 

an amount smaller than the statistical 

tests were designed to confidently 

discern. While EPA is not applying 

those statistical tests in this case, they 

represent the Agency’s past judgment 

that a possible increase in a limited 

number of motor vehicles exceeding 

their applicable emission standards is 

not necessarily a basis for denying a 

waiver request. 

In this case, the CRC test data indicate 

that the large majority of MY2001–2006 

vehicle models have compliance 

margins adequate to meet their 

evaporative emissions standard when 

operated on E15. EPA’s engineering 

assessment is that the degree of control 

of permeation emissions from E15 

exhibited in the CRC test programs 

(although less than the degree of control 

exhibited by Tier 2 vehicles) and the 

size of compliance margins likely result 

in large part from the response to EPA’s 

regulatory changes discussed above. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

4680 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices 

35E10 is already the predominant gasoline fuel in 

most of the country and it is reasonable to assume 

that, if and when E15 is introduced into the 

marketplace, it would be in a market where fuel 

ethanol is already available and sold as E10. 

36E15 use would also not affect vehicle 

manufacturers’ compliance status since in-use 

testing for recall and other regulatory purposes is 

conducted on E0 fuel, and any effect of E15 on 

immediate evaporative emissions is transient and 

would not affect results of compliance testing on E0 

fuel. 

37 It is important to note that the relevant 

comparison for evaluating whether a fuel or fuel 

additive will have an impact on failures of emission 

standards is a comparison between the proposed 

fuel or additive (here E15) and the fuel on which 

vehicles are tested for purposes of determining auto 

manufacturers’ compliance with emission standards 

(E0). While E15 may result in limited additional 

exceedances of evaporative emission standards in 

comparison to E0, it will reduce actual in-use 

evaporative emissions compared to E10, the fuel it 

is expected to replace. We believe it is appropriate 

to consider both E15’s limited potential for 

increasing exceedances of standards when 

compared to E0 fuel, and this real-world 

evaporative emissions benefit of E15 in considering 

the significance of any such exceedances, in 

deciding whether to grant a waiver for E15 use in 

MY2001–2006 light-duty motor vehicles. 

38Manufacturers are required by the CAA to 

warrant that their vehicles are free from defects in 

materials and workmanship which would cause 

such vehicle to fail to conform to applicable 

regulations for the two year/24,000 mile warranty 

period. These vehicles are also subject to the recall 

provisions of Section 207 of the CAA which 

requires a manufacture to remedy non-conformities 

if the Administrator has determined that a 

substantial number of any class or category of 

vehicles do not conform to the regulations when in 

actual use throughout their useful life. 

Manufacturers were improving their 

evaporative emissions systems so they 

would be more effective at controlling 

evaporative emissions from in-use fuels, 

including fuels containing ethanol. The 

regulatory changes also generally 

applied to the kinds of vehicles not 

included in the CRC test program, so 

similar levels of permeation emission 

control and compliance margins could 

also be expected in those vehicles. 

There is thus the possibility of, at most, 

limited emission standard exceedances 

in the MY2001–2006 light-duty motor 

vehicle fleet with the use of E15, 

considering the results of the CRC test 

programs, EPA’s analysis using the 

compliance margins of those vehicles, 

and the expectation of similar emissions 

levels and compliance margins for other 

MY2001–2006 vehicles. This judgment 

is based on all of the information before 

the Agency, including the engineering 

assessment discussed above. 

A second reason that a waiver is 

appropriate in this case is that the 

environment would likely benefit from, 

and in any event would not be harmed 

by, the impact of E15 use on evaporative 

emissions of MY2001–2006 light-duty 

motor vehicles. As explained in the 

Misfueling Mitigation NPRM, E10 is 

now the pervasive fuel in the national 

motor vehicle fuel market. The use of 

E10 already results in some permeation 

increases, resulting from its ethanol 

content, and E15 would cause no greater 

permeation emissions than E10. As a 

result, permeation emissions from the 

use of E15 should not lead to any actual 

increase in exceedances of the 

evaporative emissions standards in the 

in-use fleet of MY2001–2006 light-duty 

motor vehicles compared to no use of 

E15. In addition, as a result of the CAA’s 

1 psi waiver for E10, the use of E10 

results in significant additional 

evaporative emissions from canister 

breakthrough, resulting from the fuel’s 

higher volatility at 10.0 psi RVP. Since 

a waiver for E15 would not allow RVP 

greater than 9.0 psi, the lower volatility 

of E15 would lead to significantly lower 

evaporative emissions than would 

otherwise result from canister 

breakthrough with E10. To the extent it 

is used in the marketplace, E15 would 

likely replace the use of E10.35

Therefore, its use would likely benefit, 

and would not harm, the environment 

by reducing in-use vehicle evaporative 

emissions.36 In these somewhat unique 

circumstances, EPA believes that any 

limited number of motor vehicles 

exceeding their evaporative emission 

standards when using E15 should not be 

considered significant for purposes of 

determining whether to grant a waiver 

under section 211(f)(4).37

This interpretation and approach is 

also appropriate as it furthers the goals 

of Congress in the recent amendments to 

the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) 

program under section 211(o). Congress’ 

purpose in enacting the EISA 

amendments to section 211(o) was to 

increase the volume of renewable fuel, 

including gasoline-ethanol blends, to 

improve the nation’s energy and 

economic security. Granting a waiver for 

E15 is consistent with and advances 

these goals. This provides further 

support for EPA’s decision that it is 

appropriate to grant a partial waiver for 

E15 where it would not cause or 

contribute to a significant number of 

motor vehicles exceeding their 

evaporative emission standards, 

especially given the fact that E15 use 

would not increase, but would likely 

reduce, actual in-use evaporative 

emissions when compared to E10 use. 

2. Long-term (Durability) Evaporative 

Emissions 

Considering regulatory changes 

applicable to MY2001–2006 light-duty 

motor vehicles, the Agency believes that 

manufacturers generally designed their 

enhanced evaporative emission control 

systems for long-term exposure to E10 

and that the systems should be 

compatible and durable with E15 use 

over the FUL of the motor vehicle. 

As mentioned previously, CAP 2000 

requires MY2001–2006 motor vehicle 

evaporative emission systems to be 

tested on in-use vehicles exposed to 

market fuel, including fuels containing 

ethanol. Further, in MY1999, along with 

enhanced evaporative emissions 

requirements, OBD leak detection 

requirements were introduced with the 

more stringent California requirement 

adopted optionally by manufacturers in 

2001 to enable the sale of vehicles in all 

50 states with one leak detection 

system. To avoid excessive warranty 

costs and potential recalls, 

manufacturers needed to ensure the 

evaporative emissions control and fuel 

systems would be compatible with and 

durable to market fuel, including fuels 

containing ethanol.38 As a result of 

these requirements, manufacturers had a 

strong incentive to develop evaporative 

emission systems that are robust to 

market fuels, including fuels containing 

ethanol. Manufacturers also design to 

account for production variability in 

materials and tolerances. Robustness in 

the design of these components 

provides a safety margin that, according 

to the compliance margin data 

discussed above, results in vehicles 

actually emitting at levels well below 

required levels. There is thus an 

engineering basis for expecting 

robustness in design to allow MY2001– 

2006 motor vehicle evaporative 

emission systems to maintain durable 

emissions control with long-term use of 

E15. 

Available data from IUVP, EPA’s inuse surveillance program, and 

manufacturer emission defect 

information reports support that these 

vehicles can maintain evaporative 

emission control with long-term E15 

use. The data are robust given the nature 

of these programs. IUVP, as previously 

described, requires manufacturers to 

perform exhaust and evaporative 

emissions tests on in-use vehicles, 

including at high mileage, and submit 

the data to EPA. EPA itself conducts an 

ongoing surveillance program at its Ann 

Arbor laboratory to assess vehicle 

emissions a few years after vehicles 

enter customer service. EPA typically 

recruits two- or three-year-old vehicles 

from vehicle owners for this program. 

These vehicles are chosen for a variety 

of reasons, ranging from issues of past 

emissions performance to gaining a 

better understanding of how new 

technologies are working. As for defects, 

manufacturers are required to report 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices 4681 

39SAE J1297, revised July, 2007, Surface Vehicle 

Information Report, Alternative Fuels. 

emission-related defects to EPA. An 

emission-related defect is a defect in 

design, materials, or workmanship in a 

device, system, or assembly, as 

described in the approved application 

for certification. 

Review of the data from these 

programs indicates there have been no 

detected defects (e.g., leaks from 

material softening, swelling, or 

cracking) or evaporative test failures 

attributable to ethanol exposure over 

time for MY2001–2006 light-duty motor 

vehicles, notwithstanding the long-term 

and expanding use of E10 across the 

country. As previously mentioned, E10 

has been exclusively utilized as gasoline 

fuel in major U.S. cities since as early 

as 1996. By 2006, many, if not most, 

U.S. major metropolitan areas (for 

example, those cities utilizing 

reformulated gasoline) were using E10 

and close to half of the U.S. gasoline 

market was comprised of E10. Now over 

80 percent of the U.S. market is E10. For 

these periods, EPA is unaware of any 

significant problems associated with the 

use of the fuel in MY2001–2006 (or 

newer) light-duty motor vehicles. The 

lack of any reported problems with use 

of E10, coupled with the large 

compliance margins of most MY2001– 

2006 light-duty motor vehicles, 

indicates that MY2001–2006 light-duty 

motor vehicles generally should be able 

to accommodate E15 without exceeding 

evaporative emission standards. Even if 

a small subset of the MY2001–2006 fleet 

experienced some decrease in 

evaporative emissions control durability 

on E15, it is unlikely to outweigh the 

evaporative emission benefits resulting 

from E15’s lower volatility compared to 

commercially available E10. 

Several commenters recommended 

that we wait for the results of the CRC 

E91 ‘‘Evaporative Emissions Durability 

Testing’’ program which is studying the 

impact of E10 and E20 on permeation 

emissions. The test results are expected 

by the end of 2011. The Agency does 

not believe it is necessary to await the 

program’s results to decide the waiver 

request for MY2001–2006 light-duty 

motor vehicles. In view of the lack of 

ethanol-related problems documented 

in our IUVP, in-use surveillance, and 

defect report data and information, and 

our engineering analysis, we expect that 

MY2001–2006 light-duty motor vehicles 

are likely to have evaporative emission 

control systems with a margin of safety 

sufficient to generally enable them to 

operate on E15 without experiencing 

long-term deterioration. Any 

evaporative emission standard 

exceedances that might occur are 

expected to be small and offset by the 

environmental benefit of the evaporative 

emission benefits of E15 compared to 

E10. 

C. Materials Compatibility 

As explained previously, materials 

compatibility is a factor in considering 

a waiver request since poor materials 

compatibility can lead to serious 

exhaust and evaporative emissions 

compliance problems not only 

immediately upon using the new fuel or 

fuel additive, but especially over time. 

1. Growth Energy’s Submission and 

Public Comment Summary 

As with the exhaust and evaporative 

emissions sections above, Growth 

Energy’s submission and the 

information supplied by commenters 

regarding materials compatibility 

impacts of E15 were not specific to the 

model year of the motor vehicles. For 

information on Growth Energy’s 

submission and public comments on 

materials compatibility, refer to section 

IV.A.4 for MY2007 and newer light-duty 

motor vehicles and section IV.C.3.d for 

MY2000 and older light-duty motor 

vehicles of the October Waiver Decision. 

2. EPA Analysis and Conclusions 

The Agency has reviewed the studies 

that have shown generally acceptable 

materials compatibility in newer motor 

vehicles with ethanol up to 10 vol%, 

but degradation of certain metals, 

elastomers, plastics, and vehicle 

finishes with higher dosages.39

However, most of these studies, 

including the Minnesota Compatibility 

Study, were on component parts using 

laboratory bench tests rather than 

durability studies of whole vehicle fuel 

systems simulating real-world vehicle 

use. In addition, there is no way to 

correlate the results of the study with 

MY2001–2006 motor vehicles. Many 

different materials were used over the 

years and we do not have data that 

shows which manufacturers used which 

specific materials at various points in 

time. 

As the Agency noted in the October 

Waiver Decision, newer motor vehicles, 

including NLEVs, were designed to 

encounter more regular ethanol 

exposure compared to earlier model 

year motor vehicles. The Agency 

believes that the CAP2000 in-use testing 

and durability demonstration 

requirements as well as the introduction 

of OBD leak detection monitors and 

enhanced evaporative emission test 

procedures have led manufacturers to 

design vehicles using materials that will 

continue to function properly with 

respect to evaporative emissions when 

ethanol blends are used. This includes 

materials compatible with long-term use 

of ethanol blends, as the standards 

apply for the useful life of the vehicle, 

and the IUVP test program and the OBD 

leak detection requirement monitor 

compliance throughout the useful life. 

As discussed in the long-term 

evaporative emissions section of this 

notice, data from IUVP, EPA’s in-use 

surveillance program, and manufacturer 

emission defect information reports 

have not detected any failures 

attributable to ethanol up to E10. Based 

on the Agency’s engineering judgment 

and this supplemental information, and 

the generally large evaporative 

emissions compliance margin for these 

vehicles, EPA does not expect that there 

will be materials compatibility issues 

with E15 that would cause MY2001– 

2006 light-duty motor vehicles to 

exceed their evaporative emission 

standards over their FUL. For exhaust 

emissions, the same kind of information 

supports the same conclusion. In 

addition, the results of the DOE Catalyst 

Study support this conclusion, as E15 

was used for long-term aging of the 

vehicles and the Study did not uncover 

any emissions deterioration problems 

with E15 in comparison to E0 that 

would result in materials compatibility 

issues. 

D. Driveability and Operability 

1. Growth Energy’s Submission and 

Public Comment Summary 

As with the exhaust and evaporative 

emissions and material compatibility 

sections above, Growth Energy’s 

submission and information supplied by 

commenters regarding driveability and 

operability impacts of E15 were not 

specific to the model year of the motor 

vehicles. For information on Growth 

Energy’s submission and public 

comments on driveability and 

operability, refer to section IV.A.5 for 

MY2007 and newer light-duty motor 

vehicles and IV.C.3.e for MY2000 and 

older light-duty motor vehicles of the 

October Waiver Decision. 

2. EPA Analysis and Conclusions 

Our engineering judgment as 

confirmed by the results of DOE’s 

Catalyst Study is that MY2001–2006 

light-duty motor vehicles (NLEV and 

some remaining Tier 1 trucks) are 

similar enough to MY2007 and newer 

Tier 2 motor vehicles in design of the 

emissions control systems that the 

analysis and conclusions presented in 

the October Waiver Decision apply to 

MY2001–2006 light-duty motor vehicles 

applies. The Agency’s review of the data 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

4682 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices 

40 Gasoline in this case may be gasoline 

blendstocks that produce gasoline upon the 

addition of the specified amount of ethanol covered 

by the waiver. 

41ASTM International D4806–10, Standard 

Specification for Denatured Fuel Ethanol for 

Blending with Gasolines for Use as Automotive 

Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel. 

42 In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published 

on November 4, 2010 in the Federal Register (see 

75 FR 68044), EPA proposed a more detailed 

labeling, product transfer documents, and survey 

plan. 

and information from the different test 

programs finds no specific reports of 

driveability, operability or OBD issues 

across many different vehicles and duty 

cycles including lab testing and in-use 

operation. Thus, while the potential 

exists for some vehicles more sensitive 

to ethanol to experience driveability or 

operability issues, the frequency is 

likely not more than what is currently 

experienced in-use today. Therefore, the 

Agency does not anticipate that there 

will be driveability, operability or OBD 

issues with E15 on properly operated 

and maintained MY2001–2006 lightduty motor vehicles. 

E. Conclusions 

As described in the preceding 

sections, EPA evaluated the potential 

impact of E15 with respect to the four 

emission-related categories for 

MY2001–2006 light-duty motor 

vehicles. Based on results from the DOE 

Catalyst Study and other information, 

coupled with our engineering judgment, 

EPA believes the evidence supports the 

conclusion that MY2001–2006 lightduty motor vehicles will not exceed 

their emission standards over their FUL 

when operated on E15. Where there is 

a possibility of such exceedances, the 

somewhat unique circumstances here 

warrant determining that such a 

possibility is not significant. Therefore, 

EPA is partially granting the waiver for 

MY2001–2006 light-duty motor 

vehicles. 

The October Waiver Decision granted 

a partial waiver with respect to MY2007 

and newer light-duty motor vehicles, 

and today’s decision grants a partial 

waiver with respect to MY2001–2006 

light-duty motor vehicles. The two 

waiver decisions taken together allow 

introduction of E15 into commerce for 

use in MY2001 and newer light-duty 

motor vehicles. 

V. Legal Issues Arising In This Partial 

Waiver Decision 

We fully incorporate by reference 

Section IX of the October Waiver 

Decision into this decision. Section IX, 

entitled ‘‘Legal Issues Arising in This 

Partial Waiver Decision,’’ presents 

discussion regarding legal issues arising 

from issuing these partial waiver 

decisions. We incorporate that 

discussion here as our rationale is the 

same for this decision. 

VI. Waiver Conditions 

We fully incorporate by reference 

Section X of the October Waiver 

Decision into this decision. Section X, 

entitled ‘‘Waiver Conditions,’’ provides a 

more detailed explanation regarding the 

conditions placed on these partial 

waiver decisions. We incorporate that 

discussion here as our rationale is the 

same for this decision. 

VII. Partial Waiver Decision and 

Conditions 

Based on all the data and information 

described above and in the October 

Waiver Decision, the waiver request 

application submitted by Growth Energy 

for its gasoline-ethanol blend with up to 

15 vol% ethanol is partially and 

conditionally granted as follows: 

(1) The partial waiver applies only to 

fuels or fuel additives introduced into 

commerce for use in MY2001 and newer 

light-duty motor vehicles, light-duty 

trucks, and medium duty passenger 

vehicles (hereafter ‘‘MY2001 and newer 

light-duty motor vehicles’’) as certified 

under Section 206 of the Act. The 

waiver does not apply to fuels or fuel 

additives introduced into commerce for 

use in pre-MY2001 motor vehicles, 

heavy-duty gasoline engines or vehicles, 

or motorcycles certified under section 

206 of the Act, or any nonroad engines, 

nonroad vehicles, or motorcycles 

certified under section 213(a) of the Act. 

(2) The waiver applies to the blending 

of greater than 10 vol% and no more 

than 15 vol% anhydrous ethanol into 

gasoline,40 and the ethanol must meet 

the specifications for fuel ethanol found 

in the ASTM International specification 

D4806–10.41

(3) The final fuel must have a Reid 

Vapor Pressure not in excess of 9.0 psi 

during the time period from May 1 to 

September 15. 

(4) Fuel and fuel additive 

manufacturers subject to this partial 

waiver must submit to EPA a plan, for 

EPA’s approval, and must fully 

implement that EPA-approved plan, 

prior to introduction of the fuel or fuel 

additive into commerce as appropriate. 

The plan must include provisions that 

will implement all reasonable 

precautions for ensuring that the fuel or 

fuel additive (i.e. gasoline intended for 

use in E15, ethanol intended for use in 

E15, or final E15 blend) is only 

introduced into commerce for use in 

MY2001 and newer light-duty motor 

vehicles. The plan must be sent to the 

following address: Director, Compliance 

and Innovative Strategies Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Mail Code 

6405J, Washington, DC 20460. 

Reasonable precautions in a plan 

must include, but are not limited to, the 

following conditions on this partial 

waiver: 

(a)(i) Reasonable measures for 

ensuring that any retail fuel pump 

dispensers that are dispensing a 

gasoline produced with greater than 10 

vol% ethanol and no more than 15 vol% 

ethanol are clearly labeled for ensuring 

that consumers do not misfuel the 

waivered gasoline-ethanol blend into 

vehicles or engines not covered by the 

waiver. The label shall convey the 

following information: 

(A) The fuel being dispensed contains 

15% ethanol maximum; 

(B) The fuel is for use in only MY2001 

and newer gasoline cars, MY2001 and 

newer light-duty trucks and all flex-fuel 

vehicles; 

(C) Federal law prohibits the use of 

the fuel in other vehicles and engines; 

and 

(D) Using E15 in vehicles and engines 

not approved for use might damage 

those vehicles and engines. 

(ii) The fuel or fuel additive 

manufacturer must submit the label it 

intends to use for EPA approval prior to 

its use on any fuel pump dispenser. 

(b) Reasonable measures for ensuring 

that product transfer documents 

accompanying the shipment of a 

gasoline produced with greater than 10 

vol% ethanol and no more than 15 vol% 

ethanol properly document the volume 

of ethanol. 

(c)(i) Participation in a survey of 

compliance at fuel retail dispensing 

facilities. The fuel or fuel additive 

manufacturer must submit a statistically 

sound survey plan to EPA for its 

approval and begin implementing the 

survey plan prior to the introduction of 

E15 into the marketplace. The results of 

the survey must be provided to EPA.42

The fuel or fuel additive manufacturer 

conducting a survey may choose from 

either of the following two options: 

(ii) Individual survey option: Conduct 

a survey of labels and ethanol content 

at retail stations wherever your gasoline, 

ethanol, or ethanol blend may be 

distributed if it may be blended as E15. 

The survey plan must be approved by 

EPA prior to conducting the survey 

plan. 

(iii) Nationwide survey option: 

Contract with an individual survey 

organization to perform a nationwide 

survey program of sampling and testing 

designed to provide oversight of all 

retail stations that sell gasoline. The 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices 4683 

survey plan must be approved by EPA 

prior to conducting the survey plan. 

(d) Any other reasonable measures 

EPA determines are appropriate. 

(5) Failure to fully implement any 

condition of this partial waiver means 

the fuel or fuel additive introduced into 

commerce is not covered by this partial 

wavier. 

These conditions are the same as 

those provided in the October partial 

waiver for MY2007 and newer lightduty motor vehicles. They have been 

modified here only to reflect the 

combined model years covering 

MY2001 and newer. 

This partial waiver decision is final 

agency action of national applicability 

for purposes of section 307(b)(1) of the 

Act. Pursuant to CAA section 307(b)(1), 

judicial review of this final agency 

action may be sought only in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit. Petitions for review 

must be filed by March 28, 2011. 

Judicial review of this final agency 

action may not be obtained in 

subsequent proceedings, pursuant to 

CAA section 307(b)(2). This action is 

not a rulemaking and is not subject to 

the various statutory and other 

provisions applicable to a rulemaking. 

Dated: January 21, 2011. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–1646 Filed 1–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0988; FRL–8856–2] 

Pesticide Experimental Use Permit; 

Receipt of Application; Comment 

Request 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA’s 

receipt of an application 29964–EUP– 

RR from Pioneer Hi-Bred International, 

Inc. requesting an experimental use 

permit (EUP) for combined and single 

trait corn containing one or more of the 

following plant-incorporated protectants 

(PIPs): (1) [Bt11] Bacillus thuringiensis 

Cry1Ab delta-endotoxin and the genetic 

material (via elements of vector 

pZO1502) necessary for its production 

in corn (SYN–BT;11–1), (2) [DAS– 

59122–7] Bacillus thuringiensis 

Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1 proteins and 

the genetic material necessary for their 

production (PHP17662 T–DNA) in event 

DAS59122–7 corn (Organisation for 

Economic Co-operation and 

Development (OECD) Unique Identifier: 

DAS–59122–7), (3) [MIR162] Bacillus 

thuringiensis Vip3Aa20 and the genetic 

material necessary for its production 

(vector pNOV1300) in event MIR162 

maize (SYN–IR162–4), (4) [MIR604] 

Modified Cry3A protein and the genetic 

material necessary for its production 

(via elements of pZM26) in corn (SYN– 

IR604–8), (5) [TC1507] Bacillus 

thuringiensis Cry1F protein and the 

genetic material (plasmid insert 

PHI8999A) necessary for its production 

in corn event DAS–;15;7–1, and (6) 

[MON810] Bacillus thuringiensis 

Cry1Ab delta-endotoxin and the genetic 

material necessary for its production 

(Vestor PV–ZMCT01) in event MON 810 

corn (OECD Unique Identifier: MON– 

;;81;–6). The focus of the EUP are the 

three breeding stacks: (1) MIR604 × 1507 

× 59122 × MON 810, (2) MIR604 × 

59122 × MON810, and (3) MIR604 × 

1507. The Agency has determined that 

the permit may be of regional and 

national significance. Therefore, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 172.11(a), the 

Agency is soliciting comments on this 

application. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 25, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0988, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs 

(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. 

• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public 

Docket (7502P), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One 

Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. 

Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket 

Facility’s normal hours of operation 

(8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays). 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Docket Facility telephone number is 

(703) 305–5805. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2010– 

0988. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the docket 

without change and may be made 

available on-line at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through regulations.gov or 

e-mail. The regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

regulations.gov, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the docket and made available 

on the Internet. If you submit an 

electronic comment, EPA recommends 

that you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the docket index available 

at http://www.regulations.gov. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either in the 

electronic docket at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPP 

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S– 

4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 

2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The 

hours of operation of this Docket 

Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The Docket Facility telephone 

number is (703) 305–5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mike Mendelsohn, Biopesticides and 

Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), 

Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 308–8715; e-mail address: 

mendelsohn.mike@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

This action is directed to the public 

in general. This action may, however, be 

of interest to those persons interested in 

agricultural biotechnology or those who 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES