Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

1

1) One question is whether the Complex Model is already updated for E15 or in 

the process of being updated? We thought it was still in the data analysis 

process but the rulemaking discusses it in the past tense. Perhaps it is 

expected to be complete by publication. If this is the case, no action is 

required.

The regulations include formulas that comprise the complex model, and additional 

sections indicating how parameters in the formulas are to be set in certain 

circumstances. This rulemaking does not change the Complex Model formulas, but 

instead changes the regulations at § 80.45 to include a provision that specifies that 

fuels with an oxygen concentration greater than 4.0 weight percent and not more 

than 5.8 weight percent should be evaluated using the oxygen fuel parameter in the 

Complex Model VOC performance formula set equal to 4.0 percent by weight for 

purposes of calculating exhaust VOC emissions. Section III.G.1.a of the Preamble 

explains our justification for this change based on relevant test data and established 

engineering theory. However, the preamble language found at section III.G was 

somewhat inconsistent with the text of the regulations. We have slightly modified 

the language to more accurately convey the changes to the Complex Model 

regulations in this rulemaking. This action is unrelated to the motor vehicle testing 

and emissions modeling requirements in section 211(q) of the Clean Air Act.

2) One thing that could be added but may not be in EPA’s regulatory authority is 

to have the fuel surveys for RVP also measure the T50 point to see how much 

of the fuel meets ASTM specs. E15 suppresses the T50 point compared to E0 

and E10 fuels and there was some concern in the industry about the 

availability of blend stocks to meet specs with E15. 

Although EPA is aware of the effect that higher gasoline-ethanol blends may have on 

distillation parameters, EPA does not currently have T50 standards for conventional 

gasoline. However, in RFG areas, as part of the RFG Survey Program, fuel samples 

are already tested for distillation properties including T50, T90, E200 and E300. As 

explained in section III.D of the Preamble, the Agency is only requiring in this rule 

that fuels labeled as E15 only be tested for ethanol content and RVP since these 

parameters are directly related to the conditions of the partial waivers which

include misfueling mitigation measures that are necessary for a successful 

introduction of E15 fuels if businesses decide to make, market and sell E15. 

Therefore, we believe that requiring fuel samples to be tested for T50 is outside of 

the scope of this particular rulemaking. Ultimately, we do expect that fuel 

manufacturers and oxygenate blenders will take ASTM specifications for gasoline 

into account when making E15 since many states require gasoline-ethanol blended 

fuels to meet applicable specifications.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

2

3) On Section IV B, “The Applicability of the Statutory 1.0 psi RVP Waiver to E15”, 

we suggest that EPA include a description of the arguments posed by 

commenters both for and against EPA’s position on the waiver, and also 

include responses to these arguments in the preamble text. Additionally, 

could EPA explain to us the implications of this decision, specifically how the 

gasoline blendstock needed to produce E15 will have to differ, in terms of 

measured volatility, from that currently used for E10, and the market 

implications of that difference?

We have added more discussion to section IV.B of the Preamble that outlines the 

basic arguments posed by commenters for and against EPA’s position on the 

applicability of Clean Air Act section 211(h)(4), the statutory 1.0 psi RVP waiver 

provision, to E15. We believe the discussion of EPA's position in the draft final rule 

preamble adequately addresses the significant comments made. A more extensive 

response to these comments will be provided in a comment summary and response 

document that EPA is preparing for the rulemaking record.

Regarding the implications for E15 of EPA's final position on the applicability of 

section 211(h)(4), it is worth noting at the outset that as part of the partial waiver 

decisions, EPA placed a condition on the introduction of E15 into commerce that 

limits the RVP of E15 to a maximum of 9.0 psi in the summer. EPA placed this 

condition due to concerns associated with a vehicle’s ability to continue to meet 

evaporative emissions standards in-use with E15 if the RVP of E15 exceeds 9.0 psi in 

the summer months. As a result of this waiver condition, the implications of the 

section 211(h)(4) waiver for E15 are limited. In the proposed rule, we discussed the 

potential implications on the fuel distribution system of determining that E15 was 

ineligible to receive the 1.0 psi RVP waiver (see 75 FR 68044, 68061 (November 4, 

2010)). As explained in the proposed rule, in view of reformulated gasoline and 

other RVP requirements, blendstocks for winter gasoline, summertime RFG and 

areas limited to 9.0 psi RVP in the summer will not need to change to produce E15, 

regardless of the eligibility of E15 for the statutory 1.0 psi RVP waiver. Only 

blendstocks for a small number of areas that typically have a summer RVP 

requirement of 7.8 psi (or lower as per their State Implementation Plan) may be 

affected by today's interpretation.

4) On page 36, EPA refers to a comment regarding adverse fuel economy effects 

associated with use of E15 fuel. Unlike other topics discussed in the response 

to comments section of the preamble, this comment is not analyzed or 

discussed in as much detail. 

We have added more discussion in section III.B.c.2 that (1) helps explain the 

relationship between E15 use and fuel economy;(2) provides more information 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

3

about the commenters' concerns associated with fuel economy; and (3) provides a 

more detailed response to the comments. 

5) Did EPA consider any copy testing to affirm the effectiveness of its proposed 

fuel pump label design?

Yes, EPA considered copy testing the proposed label design but, in view of limited 

Agency resources, we decided to rely on consideration of public comments, 

including input from industry experts, our recent labeling experience (i.e., ULSD),

and expert FTC staff advice to develop an effective label. For the final E15 label, we 

adopted the basic format, fonts and color scheme of FTC’s existing labels for 

alternative fuels and proposed labels for mid-level gasoline-ethanol blends, so we 

expect the new E15 label to look familiar to the public and be understood as 

providing additional information concerning the appropriate use of E15. The final 

rule also provides flexibility for development and use of alternative labels with EPA 

approval. To the extent fuel providers or others find that the specified label can be 

improved for their circumstances or in general, they may submit an alternative label 

for EPA approval.

6) To what degree has EPA considered labeling mid-level ethanol blends? 

EPA carefully considered requiring the labeling of gasoline-ethanol blended fuels 

containing more than 15 volume percent ethanol, so-called mid-level gasolineethanol blends. In the proposal, EPA provided sample label language and sought 

comment on whether to require retail stations to label dispensers of mid-level 

ethanol blends. EPA received many comments both in support and against the 

Agency requiring such labels, but ultimately EPA decided not to label these 

dispensers at this time for reasons thoroughly discussed in section III.B.2.g in the 

Preamble.