### 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 public ation. 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 regula tions 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.

Alth ough 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 a re directly related to the conditions of the partial waivers which includ e 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 req uire 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 posi tion 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 exte nsive 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. I n 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 advers e 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 th at (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) D id EPA consider any copy testi ng to af firm 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 indu stry 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 developme nt 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 labe ling 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 gasoline

ethanol 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 labe l these dispensers at this time for reasons thoroughly discussed in section III.B.2.g in the Preamble.