68094 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211; FRL–9215–5] 

Partial Grant and Partial Denial of 

Clean Air Act Waiver Application 

Submitted by Growth Energy To 

Increase the Allowable Ethanol 

Content of Gasoline to 15 Percent; 

Decision of the Administrator 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Notice of partial waiver 

decision. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is partially granting 

Growth Energy’s waiver request 

application submitted under section 

211(f)(4) of the Clean Air Act. This 

partial waiver allows fuel and fuel 

additive manufacturers to introduce into 

commerce gasoline that contains greater 

than 10 volume percent ethanol and no 

more than 15 volume percent ethanol 

(E15) for use in certain motor vehicles 

if certain conditions are fulfilled. We are 

partially approving the waiver for and 

allowing the introduction into 

commerce of E15 for use only in model 

year 2007 and newer light-duty motor 

vehicles, which includes passenger cars, 

light-duty trucks and medium-duty 

passenger vehicles. We are denying the 

waiver for introduction of E15 for use in 

model year 2000 and older light-duty 

motor vehicles, as well as all heavy-duty 

gasoline engines and vehicles, highway 

and off-highway motorcycles, and 

nonroad engines, vehicles, and 

equipment. The Agency is deferring a 

decision on the applicability of a waiver 

to model year 2001 through 2006 lightduty motor vehicles until additional test 

data, currently under development, is 

available. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211. All 

documents and public comments in the 

docket are listed on the http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA 

Headquarters Library, EPA West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding holidays. The telephone 

number for the Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744. The Air and Radiation 

Docket and Information Center’s Web 

site is http://www.epa.gov/oar/ 

docket.html. The electronic mail (email) address for the Air and Radiation 

Docket is: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov, the 

telephone number is (202) 566–1742 

and the fax number is (202) 566–9744. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Anderson, Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality, 

Mailcode: 6405J, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; 

telephone number: (202) 343–9718; fax 

number: (202) 343–2800; e-mail 

address: Anderson.Robert@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

• MY2007 and Newer Light-Duty Motor 

Vehicles 

• Durability/Long-Term Exhaust 

Emissions 

• Immediate Exhaust Emissions 

• Evaporative Emissions 

• Materials Compatibility 

• Drivability and Operability 

• MY2000 and Older Light-Duty Motor 

Vehicles 

• MY2001–2006 Light-Duty Motor 

Vehicles 

• Nonroad Engines, Vehicles, and 

Equipment (Nonroad Products) 

• Heavy-Duty Gasoline Engines and 

Vehicles 

• Highway and Off-Highway Motorcycles 

• Conditions on Today’s Partial Waiver 

• Misfueling Mitigation Measures Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

II. Introduction 

A. Statutory Background 

B. Growth Energy Application and Review 

Process 

C. Today’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) on Misfueling Mitigation 

Measures 

III. Method of Review 

IV. Waiver Submissions and Analysis of 

Light-Duty Motor Vehicle Issues 

A. MY2007 and Newer Motor Vehicles 

1. Exhaust Emissions—Long-Term 

Durability 

a. Growth Energy’s Submission 

b. Public Comment Summary 

c. EPA Response Regarding the Need for 

Long-Term Exhaust Emissions 

(Durability) Testing 

i. General Long-term Exhaust Emissions 

(Durability) Concerns 

ii. Response to Growth Energy’s First 

Argument 

iii. Conclusion to Growth Energy’s Second 

Argument 

d. Durability Studies and EPA Analysis 

i. DOE Catalyst Study Overview 

ii. Vehicle Selection and Matching 

iii. Fuels and Blending 

iv. Emissions Test Protocol 

v. Mileage Accumulation 

vi. Powertrain Component Inspection 

vii. Summary and Conclusions of the Final 

Results of the DOE Catalyst Study 

2. Exhaust Emissions—Immediate Effects 

for MY2007 and Newer Light-Duty Motor 

Vehicles 

a. Growth Energy’s Submission 

b. Public Comment Summary 

c. EPA Analysis 

d. Conclusion 

3. Evaporative Emissions on MY2007 and 

Newer Light-Duty Motor Vehicles 

a. Introduction 

b. Growth Energy’s Submission 

c. Public Comment Summary 

d. EPA Analysis 

e. Conclusion 

4. Materials Compatibility for MY2007 and 

Newer Light-Duty Motor Vehicles 

a. Introduction 

b. Growth Energy’s Submission 

c. Public Comment Summary 

d. EPA Analysis 

e. Conclusions 

5. Driveability and Operability for MY2007 

and Newer Light-Duty Motor Vehicles 

a. Introduction 

b. Growth Energy’s Submission 

c. Public Comment Summary 

d. EPA Analysis 

e. Conclusions 

6. Overall Immediate and Long-Term 

Emissions Conclusions 

B. MY2001–2006 Light-Duty Motor 

Vehicles 

C. MY2000 and Older Light-Duty Motor 

Vehicles 

1. Growth Energy’s Submission 

2. Public Comment Summary 

3. EPA Analysis and Conclusion 

a. Scope of MY2000 and Older Motor 

Vehicles Data to Support a Waiver 

Decision 

b. Exhaust Emissions—Long-Term 

Durability 

i. General Exhaust Emissions Durability 

Concerns 

ii. Immediate Exhaust Emission Impacts 

c. Evaporative Emissions 

d. Materials Compatibility 

V. Nonroad Engines, Vehicles and Equipment 

(Nonroad Products) 

A. Introduction 

B. Growth Energy Submission 

C. Public Comment Summary 

D. EPA Analysis 

1. Scope of Nonroad Data to Support a 

Waiver Decision 

2. Long-Term Exhaust Emissions 

(Durability) 

3. Immediate Exhaust Emission Effects 

4. Evaporative Emissions 

5. Materials Compatibility 

6. Driveability and Operability 

E. Conclusion 

VI. Heavy-Duty Gasoline Engines and 

Vehicles 

VII. Motorcycles 

VIII. E12 Midlevel Ethanol Blends 

A. First Argument: E12 Is Already Used in 

the Marketplace With No Reported 

Problems 

1. ADM Argument 

2. Comments 

3. EPA Analysis 

B. Second Argument: EPA Effectively 

Allows Ethanol Blends Greater Than E10 

1. ADM Argument 

2. EPA Analysis 

C. Third Argument: EPA’s Models Allow 

Greater Than 10 vol% Ethanol 

1. ADM Argument 

2. API and Alliance Comments 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68095 

1For purposes of today’s decision, ‘‘MY2007 and 

newer light-duty motor vehicles’’ include MY2007 

and newer light-duty motor vehicles (LDV), lightduty trucks (LDT), and medium-duty passenger 

vehicles (MDPV). 

2 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 for increasing the use of renewable fuels 

in transportation fuel in order to reduce imported 

petroleum and emissions of greenhouse gases. 

3 In past waiver decisions, we have referred to 

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

Continued 

3. EPA Analysis 

D. Fourth Argument: ADM’s Argument for 

an E12 Waiver 

1. ADM Argument 

2. API, AllSAFE and Alliance Comments 

3. EPA Response 

E. Fifth Argument: E12 Is ‘‘Substantially 

Similar’’ to Certification Fuel 

1. ADM Argument 

2. API, AllSAFE and Alliance Comments 

3. EPA Response 

F. EPA Conclusion 

IX. Legal Issues Arising in This Partial 

Waiver Decision 

A. Partial Waiver and Conditions of E15 

Use 

B. Notice and Comment Procedures 

C. ‘‘Useful Life’’ Language in Section 

211(f)(4) 

X. Waiver Conditions 

A. Fuel Quality Conditions 

B. Misfueling Mitigation Conditions and 

Strategies 

1. Fuel Pump Dispenser Labeling 

2. Fuel Pump Labeling and Fuel Sample 

Survey 

3. Proper Documentation of Ethanol 

Content on Product Transfer Documents 

4. Public Outreach 

XI. Reid Vapor Pressure 

XII. Partial Waiver Decision and Conditions 

I. Executive Summary 

In March 2009, Growth Energy and 54 

ethanol manufacturers petitioned the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(‘‘EPA’’ or ‘‘The Agency’’) to allow the 

introduction into commerce of up to 15 

volume percent (vol%) ethanol in 

gasoline. In April 2009, EPA sought 

public comment on the Growth Energy 

petition and subsequently received 

about 78,000 comments. Prior to today’s 

action, ethanol was limited to 10 vol% 

in motor vehicle gasoline (E10). 

In today’s action, EPA is partially 

granting Growth Energy’s waiver request 

based on our careful analysis of the 

available information, including test 

data and public comments. This partial 

grant waives the prohibition on fuel and 

fuel additive manufacturers on the 

introduction into commerce of gasoline 

containing greater than 10 vol% ethanol 

and no more than 15 vol% ethanol (E15) 

for use in certain motor vehicles. More 

specifically, today’s action has two 

components. First, we are approving the 

waiver for and allowing the 

introduction into commerce of E15 for 

use in Model Year (MY) 2007 and newer 

light-duty motor vehicles, which 

includes passenger cars, light-duty 

trucks, and medium-duty passenger 

vehicles.1 Second, we are denying the 

waiver for introduction into commerce 

of E15 for use in MY2000 and older 

light-duty motor vehicles, as well as 

heavy-duty gasoline highway engines 

and vehicles (e.g., delivery trucks). 

Highway and off-highway motorcycles, 

and nonroad engines, vehicles, and 

equipment (nonroad products; e.g., 

boats, snowmobiles, and lawnmowers) 

typically use the same gasoline as 

highway motor vehicles; this decision is 

also a denial of a waiver for introducing 

motor vehicle gasoline into commerce 

containing more than 10 vol% ethanol 

for use in all of those products. The 

Agency is deferring a decision on the 

applicability of a waiver with respect to 

MY2001–2006 light-duty motor vehicles 

to await additional test data. The 

Department of Energy (DOE) has stated 

that it will complete testing on these 

vehicles in November, after which EPA 

will take appropriate action. 

To help ensure that E15 is only used 

in MY2007 and newer light-duty motor 

vehicles, EPA has developed a proposed 

rule (described below) with the express 

purpose of mitigating the potential for 

misfueling of E15 into vehicles and 

engines not approved for its use. EPA 

believes the proposed safeguards against 

misfueling would provide the most 

practical way to mitigate the potential 

for misfueling with E15. Moreover, the 

proposed rule, when adopted, would 

satisfy the misfueling mitigation 

conditions of today’s partial waiver 

described below and would promote the 

successful introduction of E15 into 

commerce. However, if parties covered 

by this waiver (fuel and fuel additive 

manufacturers, which include 

renewable fuel producers and importers, 

petroleum refiners and importers, and 

ethanol blenders) desire to introduce 

E15 into commerce prior to a final rule 

being issued, they may do so provided 

they submit and EPA approves a plan 

that demonstrates that the misfueling 

mitigation conditions will be satisfied. 

In addition to the misfueling mitigation 

conditions, E15 must also meet certain 

fuel quality specifications before it may 

be introduced into commerce. 

To receive a waiver, as prescribed by 

the Clean Air Act, a fuel or fuel additive 

manufacturer must demonstrate that a 

new fuel or fuel additive will not cause 

or contribute to the failure of an engine 

or vehicle to achieve compliance with 

the emission standards to which it has 

been certified over its useful life. 

Reflecting that EPA’s emission 

standards have continued to evolve and 

become more stringent over time, the inuse fleet is composed of vehicles and 

engines spanning not only different 

technologies, but also different 

emissions standards. Since ethanol 

affects different aspects of emissions, a 

wide range of data and information 

covering a wide range of highway and 

nonroad vehicles, engines, and 

equipment would be necessary for 

approval of an E15 waiver that would 

allow E15 to be introduced into 

commerce for use in all motor vehicles 

and all other engines and vehicles using 

motor vehicle gasoline (‘‘full waiver’’). 

Growth Energy did not provide the 

necessary information to support a full 

waiver in several key areas, especially 

long-term durability emissions data 

necessary to ensure that all motor 

vehicles, heavy-duty gasoline highway 

engines and vehicles, highway and offhighway motorcycles and nonroad 

products would continue to comply 

with their emission standards over their 

full useful life. In 2008, DOE began 

emissions durability testing on 19 Tier 

2 motor vehicle models that would 

provide this data for MY2007 and newer 

light-duty motor vehicles (‘‘DOE Catalyst 

Study’’).2 Consequently, the Agency 

delayed a decision until the DOE test 

program was completed for these motor 

vehicles in September 2010. 

EPA reached its decision on the 

waiver request based on the results of 

the DOE Catalyst Study and other 

information and test data submitted by 

Growth Energy and in public comments. 

EPA also applied engineering judgment, 

based on the data in reaching its 

decision. Specifically, consistent with 

past waiver decisions, the Agency 

evaluated Growth Energy’s waiver 

request and made its decision based on 

four factors: (1) Exhaust emissions 

impacts—long-term (known as 

durability) and immediate; (2) 

evaporative system impacts—both 

immediate and long-term; (3) the impact 

of materials compatibility on emissions; 

and, (4) the impact of drivability and 

operability on emissions. The Agency’s 

conclusions are summarized below and 

additional information on each subject 

is provided later in this decision 

document. 

MY2007 and Newer Light-Duty Motor 

Vehicles 

For MY2007 and newer light-duty 

motor vehicles, the DOE Catalyst Study 

and other information before EPA 

adequately demonstrates that the impact 

of E15 on overall emissions, including 

both immediate 3 and durability related 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
68096 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 

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

synonymous in this context. 

4EPA regulates the 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 and diminish the effects of 

ozone-related health problems. Gasoline needs a 

higher vapor pressure in the wintertime for cold 

start purposes. 

5 It should be noted that the Dodge Caliber 

vehicle aged on E15 failed Tier 2 Bin 5 FUL 

standards on E0. However, this vehicle met Tier 2 

Bin 5 FUL standards when tested on E15. The 

Agency could not determine the cause. 6See 65 FR 6698 (February 10, 2000). 

7Permeation refers to the migration of fuel 

molecules through the walls of elastomers used for 

fuel system components. 

emissions, will not cause or contribute 

to violations of the emissions standards 

for these motor vehicles. Likewise, the 

data and information adequately show 

that E15 will not lead to violations of 

the evaporative emissions standards, so 

long as the fuel does not exceed a Reid 

Vapor Pressure (RVP) of 9.0 psi in the 

summertime control season.4 The 

information on materials compatibility 

and drivability also supports this 

conclusion. 

Durability/Long-Term Exhaust 

Emissions 

The DOE Catalyst Study involved 19 

high sales volume car and light-duty 

truck models (MY2005–2009 motor 

vehicles produced by the top U.S. salesbased automobile manufacturers) that 

are all designed for and subject to the 

Tier 2 motor vehicle emission 

standards. The purpose of the program 

was to evaluate the long term effects of 

E0 (gasoline that contains no ethanol 

and is the certification test fuel for 

emissions testing), E10, E15, and E20 (a 

gasoline-ethanol blend containing 20 

vol% ethanol) on the durability of the 

exhaust emissions control system, 

especially the catalytic converter 

(catalyst), for Tier 2 motor vehicles. 

Analysis of the motor vehicles’ 

emissions results at full useful life 

(120,000 miles) and emissions 

deterioration rates showed no 

significant difference between the E0 

and E15 fueled groups. Three motor 

vehicles aged on EO fuel had failing 

emissions levels and one additional 

motor vehicle failed one of several 

replicate tests. One E15-aged motor 

vehicle had failing emissions.5

However, none of the emissions failures 

appeared to be related to the fuel used. 

There were no emissions component or 

material failures during aging that were 

related to fueling. In addition, a review 

of the emission deterioration rates over 

the course of the test program revealed 

no statistically significant difference in 

emissions deterioration with E15 in 

comparison to E0. Using standard 

statistical tools, the test results support 

the conclusion that E15 does not cause 

or contribute to the failure of MY2007 

and newer light-duty motor vehicles in 

achieving their emissions standards 

over their useful lives. These results 

confirm EPA’s engineering assessment 

that the changes manufacturers made to 

their motor vehicles (calibration, 

hardware, etc.) to comply with the 

Agency’s stringent Tier 2 emission 

standards (which began to phase in with 

MY2004) have resulted in the capability 

of Tier 2 motor vehicles to 

accommodate the additional 

enleanment caused by E15 and be 

compatible with ethanol concentrations 

up to E15.6. EPA’s certification data 

show that all gasoline-fueled cars and 

light-duty trucks were fully phased in to 

the Tier 2 standards by MY2007 even 

though the program did not require the 

phase-in to be complete until MY2009. 

Consequently, EPA believes it 

appropriate to apply these test results to 

all MY2007 and newer light-duty motor 

vehicles. 

Immediate Exhaust Emissions 

Scientific information supports a 

conclusion that motor vehicles 

experience an immediate emissions 

impact independent of motor vehicle 

age (and therefore emission control 

technology) when operating on gasolineethanol blends. Nitrogen oxide (NOX) 

emissions generally increase while 

volatile organic compound (VOC) and 

carbon monoxide (CO) emissions 

decrease. The available data supports a 

conclusion that the immediate 

emissions impacts of E15 on Tier 2 

motor vehicles are likely to have the 

same pattern as the immediate 

emissions impacts of E10 on older 

motor vehicles (i.e., NOX emissions 

increase while VOC and CO emissions 

decrease). Although the magnitude of 

the immediate impact is expected to be 

slightly greater with E15, Tier 2 motor 

vehicles generally have a significant 

compliance margin at the time of 

certification and later on in-use (when 

they are in customer service) that 

should allow them to meet their 

emission standards even if they 

experience the predicted immediate 

NOX increases from E15 when 

compared to E0. The results of the DOE 

Catalyst Study reflect both the 

immediate emissions effects as well as 

any durability effects as described 

above, and the Tier 2 motor vehicles 

continued to comply with their 

emissions standards at their full useful 

life. As noted above, none of the 

emissions failures appeared to be 

related to the fuel used. Based on this 

immediate exhaust emissions 

information, coupled with the durability 

test data and conclusions, E15 is not 

expected to cause Tier 2 motor vehicles 

to exceed their exhaust standards over 

their useful lives when operated on E15. 

Evaporative Emissions 

Both diurnal and running loss 

evaporative emissions increase as fuel 

volatility increases. Diurnal evaporative 

emissions occur when motor vehicles 

are not operating and experience the 

change in temperature during the day, 

such as while parked. Running loss 

evaporative emissions occur while 

motor vehicles are being operated. Reid 

Vapor Pressure (RVP) is the common 

measure of the volatility of gasoline. E15 

that meets an RVP limit of 9.0 pounds 

per square inch (psi) during the summer 

(which is equal to the RVP of E0) should 

not produce higher diurnal or running 

loss evaporative emissions than E0. We 

expect MY2007 and newer vehicles to 

meet evaporative emissions standard on 

9.0 psi E15. There are concerns with 

E15 having an RVP greater than 9.0 psi. 

When ethanol is blended at 15 vol%, a 

10.0 psi RVP fuel compared to 9.0 psi 

RVP fuel will have substantially higher 

evaporative emissions levels that must 

be captured by the emissions control 

system (a carbon filled canister and 

related system elements). This increase 

in evaporative emissions is beyond what 

manufacturers have been required to 

control, based on the motor vehicle 

certification testing for the emissions 

standards. Test results highlight the 

concern that fuel with an RVP greater 

than 9.0 psi during the summer will 

lead to motor vehicles exceeding their 

evaporative emission standards in-use. 

Additionally, as explained in the 

misfueling mitigation measures 

proposed rule, EPA interprets the 1.0 

psi waiver in CAA section 211(h) as 

being limited to gasoline-ethanol blends 

that contain 10 vol% ethanol. Therefore, 

given the significant potential for 

increased evaporative emissions at 

higher gasoline volatility levels, and the 

lack of data to resolve how this would 

impact compliance with the emissions 

standards, today’s waiver is limited to 

E15 with a summertime RVP no higher 

than 9.0 psi. 

Other potential issues for evaporative 

emissions of motor vehicles operated on 

E15 are increased permeation and longterm (durability) impacts.7 Available 

test data indicate that for Tier 2 motor 

vehicles any increase in evaporative 

emissions as a result of permeation is 

limited and within the evaporative 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68097 

8Southwest Research Institute Project 08–58845 

Status Report, ‘‘Powertrain Component Inspection 

from Mid-Level Blends Vehicle Aging Study,’’ 

September 6, 2010. See EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211– 

14016. 

9Environmental Testing Corporation NREL 

Subcontract JGC–9–99141–01 Presentation, 

‘‘Vehicle Aging and Comparative Emissions testing 

Using E0 and E15 Fuels: Evaporative Emissions 

Results,’’ August 31, 2010. See EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0211–14015. 

compliance margins for these motor 

vehicles. This is consistent with the 

demonstration of evaporative emissions 

system durability after aging on E10 that 

was required beginning with the Tier 2 

motor vehicle standards, for the purpose 

of limiting permeation. With respect to 

durability of the evaporative emissions 

control systems, data from several 

aspects of the DOE Catalyst Study point 

to the expected durability of the 

evaporative emissions control system of 

Tier 2 motor vehicles on E15. First, 

there appears to be no evidence of an 

increase in evaporative emissions 

system onboard diagnostic system codes 

being triggered by E15 compared to E0. 

Second, teardown results of the 12 

motor vehicles tested (six models with 

E0 and six models with E15) found no 

abnormalities for E15 motor vehicles 

compared to E0 motor vehicles.8

Finally, evaporative testing on four of 

the Tier 2 motor vehicles over the 

course of the test program found no 

increased deterioration in evaporative 

emissions with E15 in comparison to 

E0.9 Therefore, after taking into account 

all of these sources of evaporative 

emissions data, the evidence supports a 

conclusion that as long as E15 meets a 

summertime control season gasoline 

volatility level of no higher than 9.0 psi, 

E15 is not expected to cause or 

contribute to exceedances of the 

evaporative emission standards over the 

full useful life of Tier 2 motor vehicles. 

Materials Compatibility 

Materials compatibility is a key factor 

in considering a fuel or fuel additive 

waiver insofar as poor materials 

compatibility can lead to serious 

exhaust and evaporative emission 

compliance problems not only 

immediately upon use of the new fuel 

or fuel additive, but especially over the 

full useful life of vehicles and engines. 

As part of its E15 waiver application, 

Growth Energy submitted a series of 

studies completed by the State of 

Minnesota and the Renewable Fuels 

Association (RFA) that investigated 

materials compatibility of motor vehicle 

engines and engine components using 

three test fuels: E0, E10, and E20. The 

materials studied included what were 

considered to be many of the common 

metals, elastomers, and plastics used in 

motor vehicle fuel systems. Growth 

Energy concluded that E15 would not be 

problematic for current automotive or 

fuel dispensing equipment. While 

directionally illustrative, the materials 

compatibility information submitted by 

Growth Energy does not encompass all 

materials used in motor vehicle fuel 

systems, and the test procedures used 

are not representative of the dynamic 

real-world conditions under which the 

materials must perform. The 

information is therefore insufficient by 

itself to adequately assess the potential 

material compatibility of E15. However, 

the information generated through the 

DOE Catalyst Study demonstrates that 

MY2007 and newer light-duty motor 

vehicles will not experience materials 

compatibility issues that lead to exhaust 

or evaporative emission exceedances. 

The DOE Catalyst Study supports the 

Agency’s engineering assessment that 

newer motor vehicles such as those 

subject to EPA’s Tier 2 standards, were 

designed to encounter more regular 

ethanol exposure compared to earlier 

model year motor vehicles. Other 

regulatory requirements also placed an 

emphasis on real world motor vehicle 

testing, which in turn prompted 

manufacturers to consider different 

available fuels when developing and 

testing their emissions systems. 

Additionally, beginning with Tier 2, the 

evaporative durability demonstration 

procedures required the use of E10. As 

a result, based on the information before 

us, we do not expect E15 to raise 

emissions related materials 

compatibility issues for Tier 2 motor 

vehicles. 

Drivability and Operability 

There is no evidence from any of the 

test programs cited by Growth Energy or 

in the data from the DOE Catalyst Study 

of driveability issues for Tier 2 motor 

vehicles fueled with E15 that would 

indicate that use of E15 would lead to 

increased emissions or that might cause 

motor vehicle owners to want to tamper 

with the emission control system of 

their motor vehicle. The Agency 

reviewed the data and reports from the 

different test programs, and found no 

specific report of driveability or 

operability issues across the many 

different motor vehicles and duty 

cycles, including lab testing and in-use 

operation. 

MY2000 and Older Light-Duty Motor 

Vehicles 

For MY2000 and older motor 

vehicles, the data and information 

before EPA fail to adequately 

demonstrate that the impact of E15 on 

exhaust emissions—both immediate and 

durability-related—will not cause or 

contribute to violations of the emissions 

standards for these motor vehicles. 

MY2000 and older motor vehicles do 

not have the sophisticated emissions 

control systems of today’s Tier 2 motor 

vehicles, and there is an engineering 

basis to believe they may experience 

conditions affecting catalyst durability 

that lead to emission increases if 

operated on E15. This emissions impact, 

over time, combined with the expected 

immediate increase in NOX emissions 

from the use of E15, provides a clear 

basis for concern that E15 could cause 

these motor vehicles to exceed their 

emissions standards over their useful 

lives. Furthermore, some MY2000 and 

older motor vehicles were likely 

designed for no more than limited 

exposure to ethanol, since gasolineethanol blends were not used in most 

areas of the country at the time they 

were designed. Their fuel systems, 

evaporative emissions control systems, 

and internal engine components may 

not have been designed and tested for 

long-term durability, materials 

compatibility, or drivability with fuels 

containing ethanol. The limited exhaust 

emissions durability test data, 

evaporative emissions durability test 

data, and real-world materials 

compatibility test data either provided 

by Growth Energy in their petition or 

available in the public domain do not 

address or resolve these concerns. 

Therefore, the information before the 

Agency is not adequate to make the 

demonstration needed to grant a waiver 

for the introduction into commerce of 

E15 for use in MY2000 and older lightduty motor vehicles. 

MY2001–2006 Light-Duty Motor 

Vehicles 

EPA is deferring a decision on 

MY2001–2006 light-duty motor 

vehicles. DOE is in the process of 

conducting additional catalyst 

durability testing that will provide data 

regarding MY2001–2006 motor vehicles. 

The DOE testing is scheduled to be 

completed by the end of November 

2010. EPA will make the DOE test 

results available to the public and 

consider the results and other available 

data and information in making a 

determination on the introduction into 

commerce of E15 for use in those model 

year motor vehicles. EPA expects to 

make a determination for these motor 

vehicles shortly after the results of DOE 

testing are available. 

Nonroad Engines, Vehicles, and 

Equipment (Nonroad Products) 

The nonroad product market is 

extremely diverse. Nonroad products 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
68098 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 

with gasoline engines include lawn 

mowers, chainsaws, forklifts, boats, 

personal watercraft, and all-terrain 

vehicles. Growth Energy did not provide 

information needed to broadly assess 

the potential impact of E15 on 

compliance of nonroad products with 

applicable emissions standards. 

Nonroad products typically have more 

basic engine designs, fuel systems, and 

controls than light-duty motor vehicles. 

The Agency has reasons for concern 

with the use of E15 in nonroad 

products, particularly with respect to 

long-term exhaust and evaporative 

emissions durability and materials 

compatibility. The limited information 

provided by Growth Energy and 

commenters, or otherwise available in 

the public domain, did not alleviate 

these concerns. As such, the Agency 

cannot grant a waiver for introduction 

into commerce of E15 motor vehicle 

gasoline that is also for use in nonroad 

products. 

Heavy-Duty Gasoline Engines and 

Vehicles 

Given their relatively small volume 

compared to light-duty motor vehicles, 

heavy-duty gasoline engines and 

vehicles have not been the focus of test 

programs and efforts to assess the 

potential impacts of E15 on them. 

Growth Energy did not provide any data 

specifically addressing how heavy-duty 

gasoline engines’ and vehicles’ 

emissions and emissions control 

systems would be affected by the use of 

E15 over the full useful lives of these 

vehicles and engines. Additionally, 

from a historical perspective, the 

introduction of heavy-duty gasoline 

engine and vehicle technology has 

lagged behind the implementation of 

similar technology for light-duty motor 

vehicles. Similarly, emission standards 

for this sector have lagged behind those 

of light-duty motor vehicles, such that 

current heavy-duty gasoline engine 

standards remain comparable, from a 

technology standpoint to older lightduty motor vehicle standards. 

Consequently, we believe the concerns 

expressed above regarding MY2000 and 

older motor vehicles are also applicable 

to the majority of the in-use fleet of 

heavy-duty gasoline engines and 

vehicles. As such, the Agency cannot 

grant a waiver for the introduction into 

commerce of E15 for use in heavy-duty 

gasoline engines and motor vehicles. 

Highway and Off-Highway Motorcycles 

Like heavy-duty gasoline engines and 

vehicles, highway and off-highway 

motorcycles have not been the focus of 

E15 test programs. Growth Energy did 

not provide any data addressing how 

motorcycle emissions and emissions 

control systems would specifically be 

affected by the use of E15 over their full 

useful lives. While newer motorcycles 

incorporate some of the advanced fuel 

system and emission control 

technologies that are found in passenger 

cars and light-duty trucks, such as 

electronic fuel injection and catalysts, 

many do not have the specific control 

technology of today’s motor vehicles 

(advanced fuel trim control) that would 

allow them to adjust to the higher 

oxygen content of E15. More 

importantly, older motorcycles do not 

have any of these technologies and are 

therefore more on par with nonroad 

products in some cases and MY2000 

and older motor vehicles in others. As 

such, the Agency cannot grant a waiver 

for the introduction into commerce of 

E15 for use in highway and off-highway 

motorcycles. 

Conditions on Today’s Partial Waiver 

There are two types of conditions 

being placed on the partial waiver being 

granted today: Those for mitigating the 

potential for misfueling of E15 in all 

vehicles, engines and equipment for 

which E15 is not approved, and those 

addressing fuel and ethanol quality. All 

of the conditions are discussed further 

below and are listed in Section XII. 

EPA believes that the misfueling 

mitigation measures in the proposed 

rule accompanying today’s waiver 

decision would provide the most 

practical way to ensure that E15 is only 

used in vehicles for which it is 

approved. However, if any fuel or fuel 

additive manufacturer desires to 

introduce into commerce E15, gasoline 

intended for use as E15, or ethanol 

intended for blending with gasoline to 

create E15, prior to the misfueling 

mitigation measures rule becoming final 

and effective, they may do so provided 

they implement all of the conditions of 

the partial waiver, including an EPAapproved plan that demonstrates that 

the fuel or fuel additive manufacturer 

will implement the misfueling 

mitigation conditions discussed below. 

Misfueling Mitigation Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

As mentioned above, EPA is 

proposing a regulatory program that 

would help mitigate the potential for 

misfueling with E15 and promote the 

successful introduction of E15 into 

commerce. The proposal includes 

several provisions that parallel the 

misfueling mitigation conditions on the 

E15 waiver. First, the proposed rule 

would prohibit the use of gasolineethanol blended fuels containing greater 

than 10 vol% and up to 15 vol% ethanol 

in vehicles and engines not covered by 

the partial waiver for E15. Second, the 

proposed rule would require all fuel 

dispensers to have a label if a retail 

station chooses to sell E15, and it seeks 

comment on separate labeling 

requirements for blender pumps and 

fuel pumps that dispense E85. Finally, 

the proposed rule would require 

product transfer documents (PTDs) 

specifying ethanol content and RVP to 

accompany the transfer of gasoline 

blended with ethanol as well as a 

national survey of retail stations to 

ensure compliance with the these 

requirements. In addition to proposing 

actions to mitigate misfueling, the 

proposed rule would modify the 

Reformulated Gasoline (‘‘RFG’’) program 

by updating the Complex Model to 

allow fuel manufacturers to certify 

batches of gasoline containing up to 15 

vol% ethanol. Once adopted, these 

regulations would facilitate the 

introduction of E15 into commerce 

under this partial waiver, as certain 

requirements in the regulations would 

satisfy certain conditions in the waiver. 

If EPA adopts such a rule, EPA would 

consider any appropriate modifications 

to the conditions of this waiver. 

II. Introduction 

A. Statutory Background 

Section 211(f)(1) of the Clean Air Act 

(‘‘CAA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’) makes it unlawful 

for any manufacturer of any fuel or fuel 

additive to first introduce into 

commerce, or to increase the 

concentration in use of, any fuel or fuel 

additive for use by any person in motor 

vehicles manufactured after model year 

1974 which is not substantially similar 

to any fuel or fuel additive utilized in 

the certification of any model year 1975, 

or subsequent model year, vehicle or 

engine under section 206 of the Act. The 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(‘‘EPA’’ or ‘‘the Agency’’) last issued an 

interpretive rule on the phrase 

‘‘substantially similar’’ at 73 FR 22281 

(April 25, 2008). Generally speaking, 

this interpretive rule describes the types 

of unleaded gasoline that are likely to be 

considered ‘‘substantially similar’’ to the 

unleaded gasoline utilized in EPA’s 

certification program by placing limits 

on a gasoline’s chemical composition as 

well as its physical properties, 

including the amount of alcohols and 

ethers (oxygenates) that may be added to 

gasoline. Fuels that are found to be 

‘‘substantially similar’’ to EPA’s 

certification fuels may be registered and 

introduced into commerce. The current 

‘‘substantially similar’’ interpretive rule 

for unleaded gasoline allows oxygen 

content up to 2.7% by weight for certain 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68099 

10See 56 FR 5352 (February 11, 1991). 

11As explained at 44 FR 20777 (April 6, 1979), 

EPA did not grant or deny a waiver request for a 

fuel containing 90% unleaded gasoline and 10% 

ethyl alcohol within 180 days of receiving that 

request. By operation of a provision that was at that 

time included in section 211(f)(4), E10 was no 

longer subject to the prohibitions in CAA section 

211(f)(1) of the Act. That provision has 

subsequently been removed. 

12As noted previously, the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007 also substantially 

increased the mandated renewable fuel 

requirements of the Renewable Fuels Standard 

Program. 

13See 74 FR 18228 (April 21, 2009). 

14See 74 FR 23704 (May 20, 2009). 

ethers and alcohols.10 E10 (a gasolineethanol blend containing 10 vol% 

ethanol) contains approximately 3.5% 

oxygen by weight and received a waiver 

of this prohibition by operation of law 

under section 211(f)(4).11 E15 (gasolineethanol blended fuels containing greater 

than 10 vol% ethanol and up to 15 vol% 

ethanol) has greater than 2.7 wt% 

oxygen content, and Growth Energy has 

applied for a waiver under section 

211(f)(4) of the Act. 

Section 211(f)(4) of the Act provides 

that upon application of any fuel or fuel 

additive manufacturer, the 

Administrator may waive the 

prohibitions of section 211(f)(1) if the 

Administrator determines that the 

applicant has established that such fuel 

or fuel additive, or a specified 

concentration thereof, will not cause or 

contribute to a failure of any emission 

control device or system (over the useful 

life of the motor vehicle, motor vehicle 

engine, nonroad engine or nonroad 

vehicle in which such device or system 

is used) to achieve compliance by the 

vehicle or engine with the emission 

standards to which it has been certified 

pursuant to sections 206 and 213(a). In 

other words, the Administrator may 

grant a waiver for a prohibited fuel or 

fuel additive if the applicant can 

demonstrate that the new fuel or fuel 

additive will not cause or contribute to 

engines, vehicles or equipment to fail to 

meet their emissions standards over 

their useful lives. The statute requires 

that the Administrator shall take final 

action to grant or deny the application, 

after public notice and comment, within 

270 days of receipt of the application. 

The current section 211(f)(4) reflects 

the following changes made by the 

Energy Independence and Security Act 

of 2007: (1) Requires consideration of 

the impact on nonroad engines and 

nonroad vehicles in a waiver decision; 

(2) extends the period allowed for 

consideration of the waiver request 

application from 180 days to 270 days; 

and, (3) deletes a provision that resulted 

in a waiver request becoming effective 

by operation of law if the Administrator 

made no decision on the application 

within 180 days of receipt of the 

application.12

B. Growth Energy Application and 

Review Process 

On March 6, 2009, Growth Energy and 

54 ethanol manufacturers (hereafter 

‘‘Growth Energy’’) submitted an 

application to the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) for a waiver of 

the substantially similar prohibition. 

This application seeks a waiver for 

gasoline containing up to 15 vol% 

ethanol. On April 21, 2009, EPA 

published notice of the receipt of the 

application, and EPA requested public 

comment on all aspects of the waiver 

application for assisting the 

Administrator in determining whether 

the statutory basis for granting the 

waiver request for E15 has been met.13

EPA originally provided a 30-day period 

for the public to respond. The deadline 

for public comment was May 21, 2009. 

After multiple requests for additional 

time to comment, EPA agreed that 

additional time for comments was 

appropriate and that an extension of the 

comment period would aid in providing 

these stakeholders and others an 

adequate amount of time to respond to 

the complex legal and technical issues 

that result from possibly allowing E15 to 

be sold commercially. Accordingly, on 

May 20, 2009, EPA published a Federal 

Register notice extending the public 

comment period for the E15 waiver 

application until July 20, 2009.14 For 

EPA’s response to more recent requests 

for an additional comment period, see 

section IX. 

The Agency received approximately 

78,000 comments on the waiver 

application. The overwhelming majority 

of these comments were brief comments 

from individuals indicating either 

general support for or opposition to the 

E15 waiver application. The Agency 

also received a large number of 

comments from a variety of 

organizations which substantively 

addressed the questions which EPA 

posed in the Federal Register notice 

announcing receipt of the application. 

These comments are summarized and 

addressed below. 

In addition to the information 

submitted by Growth Energy and 

commenters, the Department of Energy 

(DOE) has been performing, and 

continues to perform, testing on a 

variety of motor vehicles focused on the 

effect E15 might have on motor vehicles 

after long-term use of E15 (‘‘DOE 

Catalyst Study’’). This testing is a 

significant source of information on the 

effects of E15 on the durability of motor 

vehicles’ emissions control systems, a 

key technical issue to be addressed in 

EPA’s waiver review. This kind of 

testing requires thousands of miles of 

mileage accumulation (or its equivalent 

using a test cell), and the collection of 

such data requires a significant amount 

of time to complete. 

Coordinating with EPA and 

stakeholders, DOE expedited the 

durability testing, first focusing on 

newer motor vehicles. Realizing that it 

would take a significant amount of time 

(months) to finish collecting and 

evaluating the durability data, EPA 

notified Growth Energy in a letter on 

November 30, 2009, that it was not 

issuing a decision on the waiver at that 

time but instead planned to issue a 

decision at a later date based on the 

need to assess the critical data being 

generated by the DOE catalyst durability 

test program. 

The DOE Catalyst Study is 

comprehensive. A total of 82 vehicles 

are expected to undergo full useful life 

testing. Motor vehicles are accumulating 

mileage under an accelerated protocol, 

which generally results in each motor 

vehicle being tested over 6–9 months. 

DOE has completed the first phase of 

this testing which focused on light-duty 

motor vehicles certified to Federal Tier 

2 emissions standards. The analysis and 

evaluation of not only this durability 

data, but all of the data relevant to the 

Growth Energy application, as well as 

EPA’s partial waiver decision, is 

discussed and explained below. DOE 

should complete testing on vehicles 

certified to National Low Emission 

Vehicle (NLEV) and Tier 1 Federal 

emission standards by the end of 

November. 

Various parties have also suggested 

allowances for the use of E12 (gasolineethanol blended fuel that contains 12 

vol% ethanol) for all gasoline-powered 

vehicles and engines. The issue of E12 

is also discussed separately below in 

Section VIII. 

C. Today’s Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) on Misfueling 

Mitigation Measures 

As noted above, today’s partial waiver 

decision places several conditions on 

fuel and fuel additive manufacturers to 

mitigate the use of E15 in nonroad 

products, highway and off-highway 

motorcycles, heavy-duty gasoline 

engines and vehicles, and motor 

vehicles older than MY2007. 

In a separate notice, we are today 

proposing regulatory provisions that 

parallel many of the conditions placed 

on the E15 partial waiver. Specifically, 

we are proposing a prohibition on the 

use of gasoline containing greater than 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
68100 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 

15 ‘‘Waiver Requests under Section 211(f) of the 

Clean Air Act (Revised August 22, 1995),’’ found at 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/additive/

waiver.pdf. 

16See 43 FR 41425 (September 18, 1978). 

17See 44 FR 12244 (February 23, 1979). 

18See Waiver Decision on Application of E.I. 

DuPont de Nemours and Company (DuPont), 46 FR 

6124 (February 28, 1983). 

19See 44 FR 12244 (February 23, 1979). 

20See 44 FR 1447 (January 5, 1979). 

10 vol% ethanol in MY2000 and older 

non-flex fueled light-duty motor 

vehicles, heavy-duty gasoline engines 

and vehicles, highway and off-highway 

motorcycles, and all nonroad products, 

based on findings under both sections 

211(c)(1)(A) and (B) of the CAA. The 

prohibition is necessary based on the 

potential for increased emissions 

resulting from the use of E15. In order 

to facilitate the entry of E15 into 

commerce for use in MY2007 and newer 

motor vehicles, while protecting 

vehicles and engines not approved for 

use of E15, this rulemaking proposes 

fuel pump labeling provisions to 

mitigate the misfueling of motor 

vehicles and other engines, vehicles and 

equipment prohibited from using a 

motor vehicle gasoline containing 

ethanol in levels higher than E10. We 

are also proposing additional 

requirements for fuels that contain 

greater than 10 vol% ethanol and no 

more than 15 vol% ethanol, including 

the proper documentation of ethanol 

content on product transfer documents 

and requirements for a national survey 

to ensure the proper placement of E15 

labels and the proper placement of 

gasoline-ethanol blends in the 

appropriate gasoline storage tanks; these 

provisions should help support the 

effectiveness of a labeling program. 

III. Method of Review 

Under section 211(f)(4) of the Act, 24 

applications for waivers of the section 

211(f)(1) prohibitions have been 

received over the past 30 years. Of 

these, 23 applications have sought a 

waiver for additives for unleaded 

gasoline. One application sought a 

waiver of the section 211(f)(1)(B) 

prohibitions for an additive to diesel 

fuel. Of these 24 applications, 11 

applications were granted (some with 

conditions attached), 10 were denied, 

and three were withdrawn by the 

applicant prior to the Agency’s 

decision.15

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. Absent a sufficient 

showing, the Administrator cannot 

make the required determination and 

cannot grant the waiver. If interpreted 

literally, however, this burden of proof 

would be virtually impossible for an 

applicant 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 has been 

certified. Such a literal interpretation 

could be construed as requiring the 

testing of every vehicle or engine that 

will use the waived fuel. Recognizing 

that Congress contemplated a workable 

waiver provision, EPA has previously 

indicated that reliable statistical 

sampling and fleet testing protocols 

could safely 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.16

While this demonstration typically 

takes the form of reliable statistical 

sampling and fleet testing protocols, an 

applicant may also make a 

demonstration based upon a reasonable 

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.17

If a reasonable theory exists, based on 

good engineering judgment, which 

predicts the emission effects of a fuel or 

fuel additive, an applicant may only 

need to conduct a sufficient amount of 

testing to demonstrate the validity of 

such a theory. This theory and 

confirmatory testing then form the basis 

from which the Administrator may 

exercise his or her judgment on whether 

the fuel or fuel additive will cause or 

contribute to a failure of the vehicles 

and engines to achieve compliance with 

their emission standards.18 Thus, the 

burden of proof calls for sufficient data 

to conduct statistical analyses or to 

confirm a reasonable theory based on 

sound engineering judgment. 

In determining whether a waiver 

applicant has established that the 

proposed fuel or fuel additive will not 

cause or contribute to vehicles and 

engines failing to meet their emission 

standards, EPA reviews all of the 

material in the public docket. At a 

minimum, the docket includes data 

submitted with the application and the 

public comments and data received 

during the public review and comment 

period on the application. EPA may also 

examine applicable data from any other 

sources which may shed light on the 

relevant analyses; such other data is also 

placed in the docket. EPA then 

considers and analyzes all of the data to 

ascertain the emission effects of the fuel 

or fuel additive on the applicable 

engines and vehicles. 

In conducting a waiver application 

review, EPA’s emissions impact analysis 

concentrates on the following four major 

areas: 19 (1) Exhaust emissions, both 

immediate and long-term (durability); 

(2) evaporative emissions, both 

immediate and long-term; (3) materials 

compatibility; and (4) driveability and 

operability. EPA evaluates the emissions 

impacts in these four categories 

individually and collectively and makes 

its final determination based on whether 

the new fuel or fuel additive will cause 

or contribute to the failure of vehicles 

and engines to meet their emissions 

standards. Each category is further 

discussed below. 

Exhaust and evaporative emission 

data are analyzed according to the 

effects that a fuel or fuel additive is 

predicted to have on emissions over 

time. If the fuel is predicted to 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), then ‘‘back-to-back’’ 

emissions testing will suffice. However, 

if the fuel or fuel additive affects the 

operation of the engine or related 

emission control hardware in a physical 

manner (e.g., operating temperatures, 

component interaction, chemical 

changes, increased permeation, and 

materials degradation) that might lead to 

emissions deterioration over time, test 

data is needed to demonstrate that the 

long-term durability of the emissions 

control system is not compromised by 

the fuel or fuel additive such that it 

would cause or contribute to the engines 

or vehicles failing to meet their 

emissions standards. 

Materials compatibility issues can 

lead to substantial exhaust and 

evaporative emissions increases. In most 

cases, materials incompatibility 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, especially if 

materials compatibility effects are 

determined to result with use of the new 

fuel or fuel additive over time. EPA has 

required applicants to demonstrate that 

new fuel or fuel additives will not have 

materials compatibility issues.20

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68101 

21See 53 FR 33846 (September 1, 1988). 22See 44 FR 10530 (February 21, 1979). 23The effect of E20 ethanol fuel on vehicle 

emissions, B Hilton and B Daddy, Center for 

Integrated Manufacturing Studies, Rochester 

Institute of Technology, June 26, 2009. See EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2009–0211. (‘‘The RIT Study’’). 

24 ‘‘Application For A Waiver Pursuant to Section 

211(f)(4) of the Clean Air Act For E–15’’ Submitted 

by Growth Energy on Behalf of 52 United States 

Ethanol Manufacturers; EPA Docket #EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0211–0002.6. 

25 ‘‘Growth Energy’s Comments on Notice of Clean 

Air Act Waiver Application To Increase the 

Allowable Ethanol Content of Gasoline to Fifteen 

Percent,’’ EPA Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211– 

2721.1. 

26 ‘‘Statement of the Manufacturers of Emission 

Controls Association on the Waiver Request 

Received by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency to Increase the Ethanol Content of Gasoline 

up to 15%,’’ EPA Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0211–2441.1. 

may not be demonstrated in the 

emission certification test cycles but 

instead are present during in-use 

operation. In addition to consumer 

dissatisfaction, a motor vehicle stall and 

subsequent restart can result in a 

significant emissions increase because 

hydrocarbon (HC) and CO emission 

rates are typically highest during cold 

starts. Further, concerns exist if the 

consumer or operator tampers with the 

motor vehicle in an attempt to correct 

the driveability issue since consumers 

may attempt to modify a motor vehicle 

from its original certified configuration. 

IV. Waiver Submissions and Analysis 

of Light-Duty Motor Vehicle Issues 

This section discusses Growth 

Energy’s waiver submission, comments 

received on it, and EPA’s waiver 

decision and analysis for light-duty 

motor vehicles. The discussion groups 

vehicles according to our decision: 

MY2007 and newer light-duty motor 

vehicles for which we are approving the 

waiver, MY2001–2006 for which we are 

deferring a decision, and MY2000 and 

older motor vehicles for which we are 

denying the waiver. 

As described in Section III, Method of 

Review, above, the Agency evaluated 

Growth Energy’s waiver request and 

made its decision based on four factors: 

(1) Exhaust emissions impact—both 

immediate and long-term (known as 

durability); (2) immediate exhaust 

emissions impact; (2) evaporative 

system impacts—both immediate and 

long-term; (3) the impact of materials 

compatibility on emissions; and, (4) the 

impact of drivability and operability on 

emissions. 

A. MY2007 and Newer Light-Duty Motor 

Vehicles 

While this section discusses the 

rationale of our decision for MY2007 

and newer light-duty motor vehicles, it 

references information related to other 

model years as Growth Energy’s 

submission was not model year specific 

and neither were the comments. In 

addition, we believe it was important to 

discuss MY2007 and newer motor 

vehicles in the context of how they are 

different from earlier model year lightduty motor vehicles. 

1. Exhaust Emissions—Long-Term 

Durability 

a. Growth Energy’s Submission 

For long-term durability testing 

(‘‘durability testing’’), Growth Energy 

suggests that durability testing is not 

required for E15 for two reasons. First, 

in its waiver application and public 

comments, Growth Energy argued that 

emissions testing to determine the 

impact of long-term use of E15 on the 

emissions control system is not required 

for E15 because EPA has waived 

durability testing for oxygenates in the 

past. Growth Energy contends that EPA 

has determined that oxygenates such as 

ethanol do not require durability testing 

because the Agency is ‘‘unaware of any 

long-term deteriorative effects on 

exhaust emissions associated with 

oxygenates’’ 21 and that ‘‘the vast 

majority of data indicate that the effect 

of oxygenates on exhaust emissions over 

time has not been a significant issue.’’ 22

Growth Energy argued further that it 

would be ‘‘arbitrary and capricious’’ for 

the Agency to require durability testing 

for E15 considering EPA’s long-standing 

position that oxygenates like ethanol 

will not have long-term exhaust 

emissions effects. 

Growth Energy’s second argument is 

that EPA may accept reasonable 

theoretical judgments regarding the 

emission effects of a fuel as an 

alternative to direct testing of motor 

vehicles, and that in this case, fuel 

volatility specification, limited 

durability emissions testing, and data 

regarding materials compatibility and 

driveability could be used to establish 

and confirm such a theory. Growth 

Energy suggests that the collection of 

studies supplied in the application, 

coupled with 30 years of experience 

using E10, provides a rational basis to 

develop a theory that E15 will not cause 

or contribute to emissions failures in 

motor vehicles. Growth Energy feels that 

the studies supplied in the application 

supply enough data to confirm their 

theory and this alleviates the need for 

long-term emissions testing. 

In particular, Growth Energy suggests 

that since a study conducted by the 

Rochester Institute of Technology 

(RIT) 23 examined the effects of E20 

(gasoline-ethanol blend containing 20 

vol% ethanol) on 10 vehicles over 

significant mileage accumulation 

(75,000 miles combined), and found no 

issues when comparing E20 emissions 

performance with E0 (gasoline 

containing no ethanol) emissions 

performance, that ‘‘E20 will not have a 

significant deteriorative effect on 

applicable vehicle parts.’’ 24 Growth 

Energy believes that this is enough 

information to satisfy long-term exhaust 

emissions testing requirements. In its 

comments, Growth Energy supplied an 

updated summary of the RIT Study 

which details RIT’s expansion of the 

driveability program to 400 motor 

vehicles. Growth Energy argues that the 

updated summary of the RIT Study that 

they submitted in their comments has 

shown ‘‘no significant issues’’ with over 

400 motor vehicles that have 

accumulated over 1.5 million total 

combined miles and found that 

‘‘emissions may be reduced through use 

of E–20.’’ 25 Growth Energy contends 

that this study confirms their theory that 

E15 will not cause or contribute to 

motor vehicles failing their emissions 

standards over their full useful lives. 

b. Public Comment Summary 

Several commenters responded that 

the RIT Study has limitations and does 

not alleviate concerns about the longterm emissions impacts of using E15 in 

motor vehicles. The Manufacturers of 

Emissions Controls Association (MECA) 

argues that emission control-related 

concerns regarding the use of E15 

include the potential for accelerated 

thermal deactivation of three-way 

catalysts equipped on existing lightduty motor vehicles or nonroad engines, 

due to higher exhaust temperatures that 

have been observed on engines fueled 

with mid-level ethanol blends in 

comparison to E0 and E10. MECA 

argues further that the thermal 

durability of three-way catalyst 

formulations is a function of time, 

catalyst temperature, and gas 

composition; extended catalyst 

exposure to higher exhaust 

temperatures, especially in the presence 

of oxygen-rich exhaust conditions that 

can be created through the use of E15, 

can accelerate catalyst thermal 

deactivation mechanisms (e.g., sintering 

of active precious metal sites, sintering 

of oxygen storage materials, and 

migration of active materials into inert 

support materials).26

Many commenters point out that 

Growth Energy submitted and cited only 

a summary of the RIT Study. The 

summary, as these commenters note, 

omits key details necessary to evaluate 

the conclusions that Growth Energy 

draws from the RIT Study. For example, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
68102 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 

27 Mid-level Ethanol Blends Catalyst Durability 

Study Screening (CRC Report: E–87–1), June 2009 

(‘‘CRC Screening Study’’), EPA Docket # EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0211–13970. Available at: http:// 

www.crcao.com/reports/recentstudies2009/E-87-1/ 

E-87-1%20Final%20Report%2007_06_2009.pdf. 

28See section IV.A.1.c. for a detailed discussion 

of these terms. 

29After reviewing the emissions results presented 

in the Orbital Study, we believe that these motor 

vehicles’ certified emissions standards are 

comparable to the Tier 1 (1994 to 1999) motor 

vehicle exhaust emissions standards in the United 

States. 

30 In October 2008, DOE released a report titled 

Effects of Intermediate Ethanol Blends on Legacy 

Vehicles and Small Non-road Engines, Report 1. 

DOE later published an update to that report, which 

included all of the original study plus additional 

vehicles. For the purposes of this decision 

document, we refer to the updated study, Effects of 

Intermediate Ethanol Blends on Legacy Vehicles 

and Small Non-road Engines, Report 1—Updated, 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, February 

2009, as the ‘‘DOE Pilot Study’’. EPA Docket #EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2005–0161–2880. 

31 ‘‘Exhibit B, Supplemental Statutory Appendix 

To the Comments of the Alliance for a Safe 

Alternative Fuels Environment On the Request for 

Waiver of the Prohibition in Section 211(f)(1) of the 

Clean Air Act 

Noticed for Comment at 74 FR 18,228 (April 21, 

2009)’’, submitted by AllSAFE, EPA Docket #EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2009–0211–2559.2. 

32 ‘‘ATTACHMENT A: Responses to Anecdotes 

and Unfounded Claims Regarding E–15,’’ submitted 

by Growth Energy, EPA Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0211–2721.2. 

33 In fact, ACE argues that these increased catalyst 

temperatures may be responsible for the average 

decreases in NOX emissions found in the DOE 

Study and RIT Study. See ACE’s Comment, 8. 

commenters noted that the summary did 

not specify the make, model and year of 

the motor vehicles tested, making it 

impossible to determine the 

representativeness of RIT’s motor 

vehicle test fleet. Additionally, they 

added that no actual data were included 

in the summary for commenters and the 

Agency to conduct independent 

analyses of RIT’s test results. 

Furthermore, no detailed descriptions 

outlining the fuel properties of both test 

fuels (E0 and E20) were included in the 

summary. Even through Growth Energy 

provided an updated summary of the 

RIT Study in its comments, this updated 

summary still omitted important details 

necessary for commenters and the 

Agency to conduct an independent 

analysis. 

Auto manufacturers, refiners, and 

several others similarly noted that 

higher exhaust temperatures could 

cause increased deterioration of 

catalysts over time. These commenters 

assert that this deterioration may 

adversely affect a motor vehicle’s ability 

to meet emissions standards, 

particularly after significant mileage 

accumulation. 

Commenters noted that a recently 

released Coordinating Research Council 

(CRC) Report E–87–1 (‘‘the CRC 

Screening Study’’ or ‘‘E–87–1’’) is the 

first phase of another test program 

developed to look at the effects of midlevel gasoline-ethanol blends on U.S. 

motor vehicles.27 The purpose of the 

study was to identify motor vehicles 

which used learned fuel trims to correct 

open-loop air-to-fuel (A/F) ratios since 

this may gauge the risk of the catalyst 

to thermal degradation.28 This study is 

the first phase of a two-phase study 

evaluating the effects of mid-level 

gasoline-ethanol blends on emission 

control systems. The test program 

identified and acquired a fleet of 25 test 

motor vehicles with 12 of those motor 

vehicles manufactured after 2000. The 

study collected vehicle speed, oxygen 

sensor A/F ratio, and catalyst 

temperature data on four fuels (E0, E10, 

E15, and E20). Results compared the 

three gasoline-ethanol blends with E0. 

The study concluded that a large 

number of vehicles (12 of the 25 tested) 

failed to apply long-term fuel trim to 

correct for increasing ethanol levels 

when operating in open-loop control. 

Commenters also pointed out that the 

CRC Screening Study showed increased 

exhaust temperatures in motor vehicles 

that failed to apply long-term learned 

fuel trim when operating open loop at 

wide open throttle using E15 and E20. 

This constituted seven of the sixteen 

vehicles tested, and the average increase 

was 30 degrees Celsius in these motor 

vehicles. 

Several comments refer to a series of 

studies conducted by Orbital Engine 

Company for Environment Australia to 

evaluate impacts E20 would have if 

introduced in Australia (‘‘the Orbital 

Study’’). The Orbital Study evaluated 

emissions performance on total 

hydrocarbon, CO, NOx and aldehydes, 

materials compatibility issues, and 

driveability of E20 compared to E0 with 

a test fleet of five paired late model 

Australian motor vehicles. The Orbital 

Study completed emissions testing over 

80,000 kilometers (about 50,000 miles). 

The study notes that there were 

substantial increases in regulated 

pollutants for motor vehicles that used 

E20 when compared with vehicles that 

used E0 after the accumulation of 

80,000 kilometers. The study’s authors 

further point out that one motor vehicle 

operating on E20 exceeded the 

Australian NOX emissions standard.29

The Orbital authors also examined 

catalyst efficiency changes as a possible 

cause of the changes in emissions as a 

result of aging the motor vehicles on 

E20. The Orbital authors conclude that 

the exhaust emissions increases 

occurred due to catalyst degradation 

which they attribute to the increase in 

exhaust temperature from E20 use 

during particular modes of operation. 

They continue by noting that the two 

motor vehicles that experienced 

dramatic emissions increases with E20 

after aging were motor vehicle models 

that failed to adjust to the higher oxygen 

levels found in E20. 

The Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers (‘‘the Alliance’’) reasons 

that the Orbital Study, the CRC 

Screening Study, and the DOE Pilot 

Study 30 suggest that allowing the use of 

E15 in motor vehicles could cause a 

substantial number of motor vehicles to 

fail emissions standards because of 

increased catalyst deterioration over the 

motor vehicles’ full useful life, 

especially in so-called ‘‘legacy vehicles’’ 

which constitute a bulk of the American 

motor vehicle fleet. The Alliance asserts 

that this uncertainty of the long-term 

effects of E15 on catalysts durability 

would require motor vehicle testing 

over the full useful life to address these 

concerns. The Alliance for a Safe 

Alternative Fuels Environment 

(‘‘AllSAFE’’) concluded that legally 

‘‘when the relevant effects can include 

accelerated catalyst deterioration, ’back 

to back’ testing to determine so-called 

’immediate’ emissions impacts is not 

sufficient.’’ 31

Growth Energy submitted two 

responses to the Orbital Study. First, 

Growth Energy commented that the 

motor vehicles tested in the Orbital 

Study were designed for Australian 

emission standards and are not 

representative of motor vehicles found 

in the US. Second, since much of the 

research Orbital relied on was 

conducted in the 1980s and early 1990s, 

Growth Energy points out that the ‘‘U.S. 

fleet has been redesigned significantly 

since the mid-1980s to accommodate 

different fuel blends and meet the 

world’s most stringent emission 

regulations.’’ 32

Specifically addressing the issue of 

higher catalyst temperatures, Growth 

Energy, ACE, and others responded in 

their respective comments that higher 

catalyst temperatures are not necessarily 

harmful to the catalysts.33 They point 

out that the catalyst temperature 

increases in the DOE Pilot Study were 

relatively small and well within normal 

operating temperatures. These 

commenters also note that the 

temperatures only occurred in certain 

motor vehicles and only when those 

motor vehicles were operated in the 

rarely used wide open throttle mode. 

Growth Energy points out that for the 

seven motor vehicles that adjusted for 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68103 

34See 73 FR 22277 (April 25, 2008). 

35See 44 FR 20777 (April 6, 1979). 

the extra oxygen from the increased 

ethanol blends, catalyst temperatures 

were cooler on average. 

c. EPA Response Regarding the Need for 

Long-Term Exhaust Emissions 

(Durability) Testing 

i. General Long-Term Exhaust Emissions 

(Durability) Concerns 

Ethanol impacts motor vehicles in 

two primary ways. First, as discussed 

below, ethanol enleans the A/F ratio 

(increases the proportion of oxygen 

relative to hydrocarbons) which can 

lead to increased exhaust gas 

temperatures and potentially increase 

incremental deterioration of emission 

control hardware and performance over 

time, possibly causing catalyst failure. 

Second, ethanol can cause materials 

compatibility issues, which may lead to 

other component failures (this will be 

discussed further in sections IV.A.3 and 

IV.A.4 below). Ultimately, either of 

these impacts may lead to emission 

increases. 

Due to the increased oxygen content 

of E15 relative to E10, motor vehicles 

operated on E15 will likely run even 

leaner than those operated on E10 

depending on the vehicle technology 

and operating conditions. It is also 

relevant to note that all motor vehicles 

are emissions and durability tested for 

exhaust emissions certification purposes 

using an E0 fuel; therefore, this effect of 

changing from E10 to E15 will not be 

present during certification and 

compliance testing. Enleaned 

combustion leads to an increase in the 

temperature of the exhaust gases. This 

increase in exhaust gas temperatures has 

the potential to raise the temperatures of 

various exhaust system components 

(e.g., exhaust valves, exhaust manifolds, 

catalysts, and oxygen sensors) beyond 

their design limits. However, based on 

past experience, the most sensitive 

component is likely the catalyst, 

particularly in older motor vehicles 

with early catalyst technology. Catalyst 

durability is highly dependent on 

temperature, time, and feed gas 

composition. Catalyst temperatures 

must be controlled and catalyst 

deterioration minimized during all 

motor vehicle operation modes for the 

catalyst to maintain high conversion 

efficiency over the motor vehicle’s full 

useful life (FUL). This is particularly 

important during high-load operation of 

a motor vehicle where the highest 

exhaust gas temperatures are typically 

encountered and the risk for catalyst 

deterioration is the greatest. Catalysts 

that exceed temperature thresholds will 

deteriorate at rates higher than 

expected, compromising the motor 

vehicles’ ability to meet the required 

emission standards over their FUL. 

Extended catalyst exposure to higher 

exhaust temperatures can accelerate 

catalyst thermal deactivation 

mechanisms (e.g., sintering of active 

precious metal sites, sintering of oxygen 

storage materials, and migration of 

active materials into inert support 

materials). While this damage can occur 

at a highly accelerated rate with a 

sudden change in temperature (e.g., 

with a misfire allowing raw fuel to reach 

the catalyst), it is more likely to occur 

over time from elevated exhaust 

temperatures as may be experienced 

with frequent or even occasional 

exposure to E15. This deterioration may 

adversely affect a motor vehicle’s ability 

to meet emissions standards, 

particularly after significant mileage 

accumulation. 

Some motor vehicles may be designed 

in ways that manage catalyst 

temperatures by compensating for the 

oxygen in the fuel under all operating 

conditions, including high loads. This is 

achieved by using a closed-loop fuel 

system that measures the A/F ratio and 

makes the appropriate corrections to 

maintain the A/F ratio in the very tight 

band of operation around stoichiometry 

necessary for optimum catalyst 

performance and reductions in HC, CO, 

and NOX emissions. The corrections can 

be applied to other areas of operation to 

achieve the desired A/F ratio. The part 

of the closed-loop fuel system that is 

responsible for the correction to the 

A/F ratio is referred to as ‘‘fuel trim.’’ 

The fuel trim adds or removes fuel to 

the engine in order to maintain the 

required A/F ratio. If the measured A/ 

F ratio has insufficient oxygen or is 

‘‘rich,’’ compared to what the engine 

needs, the fuel trim will instruct the fuel 

injectors to inject less fuel, making the 

A/F ratio ‘‘leaner.’’ The opposite is true 

if the measured A/F ratio has too much 

oxygen and needs to inject more fuel for 

a ‘‘richer’’ A/F ratio. The fuel trim is 

generally comprised of two major parts, 

short-term fuel trim and long-term or 

learned or adaptive fuel trim. Learned or 

adaptive fuel trim can also be applied to 

open-loop operation such as high-load 

or wide-open throttle to alleviate the 

catalyst temperature increases caused by 

operating on E15. However this practice 

has not been consistently employed by 

all manufacturers. 

ii. Response to Growth Energy’s First 

Argument 

In its first argument Growth Energy 

asserted that long-term exhaust 

emissions testing (‘‘durability testing’’) is 

not required for E15 because EPA has 

waived durability testing for oxygenates 

in previous waiver decisions. The 

Agency believes that Growth Energy’s 

waiver request application is different 

in substantial ways from previous 

oxygenate waiver applications that EPA 

has reviewed. Previous oxygenate 

waivers have, at most, resulted in 

increased fuel oxygen levels of up to 

around 2.7% by weight oxygen. E15, for 

the first time, would add significantly 

more oxygen to the fuel, up to around 

5.5% by weight oxygen depending on 

the density of the gasoline to which 

ethanol is added. This increase in 

oxygen content is double the current 

oxygen content limit that EPA interprets 

to be substantially similar to motor 

vehicle gasoline used in the certification 

of motor vehicles.34 Additionally, with 

the exception of the original E10 waiver, 

which was not granted through an EPA 

decision but through the operation of 

law,35 and the Tertiary-butyl Alcohol 

waiver, which leads to oxygen content 

of about 1.6 percent, EPA has placed a 

condition on all other gasoline-alcohol 

waivers requiring a corrosion inhibitor 

to deal with the aggressive nature of 

these fuels. 

In addition to this very large increase 

in oxygen content compared to the 

waivers granted by EPA over 20 years 

ago, the emissions standards that motor 

vehicles must achieve have become 

much more stringent over time. As a 

result, emissions control systems have 

also changed significantly over time. 

The emissions controls systems of 

vehicles over the last 20 years have 

progressively become more dependent 

on the ability to control the 

deterioration of the emissions control 

system, especially the catalyst, to 

achieve compliance with the emissions 

standards over the full useful life of the 

motor vehicle. Of particular importance 

is the ability of emissions control 

systems over time to limit or control 

long-term deterioration by accounting 

for the oxygen level of the fuel. The 

oxygen content levels at issue in this 

waiver application raise serious 

concerns about long-term durability. 

This concern is supported by 

information in several studies. 

For both of these reasons, EPA rejects 

Growth Energy’s claim that long-term 

exhaust emissions (durability) testing is 

not required for the E15 waiver request 

and that it would be arbitrary or 

capricious for EPA to require durability 

testing for this waiver. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
68104 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 

iii. Response to Growth Energy’s Second 

Argument 

Growth Energy in its second argument 

concluded that E15 does not require 

long-term exhaust emissions (durability) 

test data, because, as they state, EPA 

may accept reasonable theoretical 

judgments as to the emission effects of 

a fuel as an alternative to the direct 

testing of motor vehicles. However, 

Growth Energy has not presented a 

reasonable and valid engineering theory 

to demonstrate that E15 will not 

detrimentally impact the durability of 

emissions control systems such that 

engines and vehicles can still meet their 

emissions standards while using E15. 

They point to fuel volatility 

specification, limited durability 

emissions testing, data regarding 

materials compatibility and driveability, 

as well as the collection of studies 

supplied in the application, coupled 

with 30 years of experience with using 

E10, as providing a rational basis for a 

theory that E15 would not cause longterm deterioration of the emissions 

control systems of motor vehicles. 

However, this is not an engineering 

theory or an engineering analysis. 

Growth Energy has not analyzed the 

design of emissions control systems and 

their changes over time, as emissions 

standards have increasingly become 

more stringent. Nor has Growth Energy 

explained from an engineering 

perspective why in theory the oxygen 

levels found in E15 should not lead to 

durability problems for the emissions 

control system when used over time. 

Instead, Growth Energy points to the 

same information as both the source of 

its theory as well as the data used to 

confirm its theory. This highlights the 

circular nature of Growth Energy’s 

argument, as well as the absence of an 

engineering analysis that identifies and 

explains any theory Growth Energy 

relies upon. 

Absent such a theory, one would 

perform the durability testing and draw 

conclusions from such testing about the 

impact of E15 on long-term durability. 

In essence, Growth Energy is suggesting 

that the data and testing it presents 

provides such an evidentiary basis and 

is as credible as data gathered from 

actual long-term durability testing for 

drawing such conclusions. Instead of 

presenting a reasoned engineering 

theory and data to confirm it, they are 

presenting what amounts to an 

alternative evidentiary basis to longterm durability testing. However, the 

information that Growth Energy relies 

on is not adequate to provide such a 

basis. 

For example, the RIT Study that 

Growth Energy cites does not support 

the conclusions that Growth Energy 

draws from this test program. 

Specifically, Growth Energy argues that 

because the RIT Study had run 10 motor 

vehicles over 75,000 miles without any 

serious issues, a reasonable theory 

concerning E15’s effects on long-term 

durability may be inferred. However, 10 

motor vehicles run over 75,000 miles on 

E20 is only an average of 7,500 miles 

per motor vehicle. This is substantially 

lower than the 100,000/120,000 full 

useful life of the motor vehicles in the 

test program. Similarly, Growth Energy 

argues that the expanded RIT Study ran 

400 motor vehicles over 1.5 million 

combined miles without significant 

issues. However, 400 motor vehicles run 

over 1.5 million miles is an average of 

3,750 miles per motor vehicle. 

Additionally, Growth Energy suggests 

that RIT found decreases in the 

emissions of regulated pollutants in 

RIT’s 400-vehicle driveability study, but 

no actual emissions testing on those 

motor vehicles was performed. In the 

updated RIT summary that Growth 

Energy submitted during the comment 

period, RIT had not conducted any 

additional motor vehicle emissions 

testing since the earlier summary. 

Although the initial emissions testing 

conducted in 2008 may suggest 

decreases in regulated pollutants, it 

does not address concerns that 

increased ethanol levels in gasoline may 

lead to increased exhaust temperatures, 

increased catalyst deterioration, and 

increased emissions over time. Since the 

RIT study only performed emissions 

testing on 10 of the vehicles (4 of which 

were Ford F250 trucks), and the mileage 

accumulated on E20 for each vehicle 

was far less than the 120,000 mile FUL, 

it is not possible to draw adequate 

conclusions concerning long-term 

emissions from the RIT Study even after 

the completion of the test program. 

The Agency finds that none of the 

other studies or information cited by 

Growth Energy specifically addresses 

the concern with the effect of increased 

exhaust temperatures due to increased 

ethanol levels and how that will impact 

the motor vehicles’ ability to meet their 

emissions standards over their useful 

life. The studies and material may 

provide information relative to other 

aspects of ethanol impacts but fall short 

of providing any substantive 

information on the long-term effects of 

midlevel gasoline-ethanol blends on 

emissions control systems. Nor do any 

of the studies that Growth Energy cites 

provide sufficient information to lead 

the Agency to believe that there will not 

be long-term durability concerns. 

Growth Energy did not provide any data 

or analysis of warranty or repair 

information from in-use experience with 

E10 vs. E0 with which to assess what 

the impact has been over the last 30 

years from the use of E10 in the in-use 

fleet, nor any information showing how 

the results of such an analysis would 

change with the use of E15. Therefore, 

we do not agree with Growth Energy 

that durability testing is not required. 

The Agency concludes that the 

studies and other information cited in 

Growth Energy’s waiver request 

application, and its public comments, 

do not demonstrate that E15 is not likely 

to have adverse impacts on the longterm exhaust emissions (durability) of 

the emissions control system over the 

full useful life of motor vehicles. The 

DOE Pilot Study, the CRC Screening 

Study, the Orbital Study, comments 

from the automobile manufacturers, and 

our engineering judgment, as discussed 

below, all indicate that legitimate 

concerns exist that E15 could accelerate 

the deterioration of the catalysts in a 

sizeable portion of the national fleet, 

leading to increased emissions. 

Therefore, EPA finds that the limited 

durability testing and other information 

relied upon by Growth Energy is not 

adequate by itself to determine the longterm durability impact of E15 on 

exhaust emissions control systems. 

d. Durability Studies and EPA Analysis 

A number of regulatory actions have 

taken place since 2000 which have 

placed an emphasis on real-world 

testing of motor vehicles, which in turn 

has led to changes in emission control 

systems. First, the Compliance 

Assurance Program, more commonly 

known as CAP2000, took effect with 

MY2001 motor vehicles and was 

designed to place more emphasis on the 

‘‘in-use’’ performance (or the 

performance of motor vehicles once 

they are in customer service) of motor 

vehicle emission controls with motor 

vehicles operating nationwide on the 

different available fuels. The In-Use 

Verification Program (IUVP) introduced 

under CAP2000 requires manufacturers 

to perform exhaust and evaporative 

emissions tests on customer motor 

vehicles at low and high mileage 

intervals. This emphasis on real-world 

motor vehicle testing provided 

manufacturers with increased incentive 

to consider the impacts of different 

marketplace fuels, including E10, when 

developing and testing their emissions 

control systems. 

Second, by MY2004, Supplemental 

Federal Test Procedure (SFTP) 

emissions standards were fully phased 

in. SFTP emissions standards expanded 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68105 

36Catalyst Durability Study, Department of 

Energy Tier 2 vehicle testing completed September 

2010. Final report due early 2011. 

vehicle emission testing to better 

represent actual consumer driving 

habits and conditions by including the 

US06 test (a high speed and high 

acceleration cycle), the SCO3 test (an air 

conditioning test cycle run in an 

environmental test chamber at 95 °F), 

and a 20 °F cold test run on the Federal 

Test Procedure (FTP) cycle. In response 

to these requirements manufacturers 

developed more robust emissions 

control systems (such as systems using 

wide range oxygen sensors) capable of 

withstanding the higher temperatures 

experienced during these more severe 

cycles without simply relying on 

enriching of the A/F ratio, causing 

emissions to rise. 

Third, beginning with MY2004, the 

Agency implemented its current and 

most stringent emission standards—the 

Tier 2 standards, with full 

implementation for light-duty motor 

vehicles and trucks and medium duty 

passenger motor vehicles completed by 

MY2007. Importantly, in order to 

comply with Tier 2 full useful life 

requirements, additional changes were 

required to ensure the durability of the 

exhaust and evaporative emission 

control systems over ‘‘real world’’ 

conditions. 

As a result of all of these standards, 

Tier 2 motor vehicles (i.e. motor 

vehicles subject to the Tier 2 standards) 

are more technologically advanced and 

robust than cars built years ago. These 

motor vehicles have improved hardware 

as well as more sophisticated emissions 

control systems and strategies to help 

maintain catalyst effectiveness 

throughout the extended motor vehicle 

operating range over which emissions 

performance must be maintained. Motor 

vehicles now have the ability to 

precisely adjust for changes in the A/F 

ratio of the engine and ultimately 

maintain peak catalyst efficiency under 

almost any condition, such as exposure 

to oxygenated fuels like those 

containing ethanol. Auto manufacturers 

now warrant their new motor vehicles 

to operate on gasoline-ethanol blends up 

to E10. 

While the Tier 2 regulations allowed 

new motor vehicles to phase-in to the 

Tier 2 standards from MY2004–2009, 

actual manufacturer certification data 

indicates that gasoline-fueled motor 

vehicles reached full phase-in with 

MY2007. MY2004–2006 motor vehicles 

include a mix of Tier 2 and ‘‘interim 

non-Tier 2’’ motor vehicles. Only some 

flexible-fueled vehicles (FFVs) and 

diesel motor vehicles remained as 

interim non-Tier 2 motor vehicles in 

MY2008 and 2009. 

To comply with the stringent Tier 2 

standards, manufacturers must 

minimize deterioration of the emissions 

control system over a motor vehicle’s 

FUL of 120,000 miles (40 CFR 86.1811– 

04). In particular, catalyst deterioration 

must be minimized and catalyst 

temperatures controlled during all 

motor vehicle operation modes for the 

catalyst to work properly (i.e., for it to 

maintain the necessary high efficiency 

demanded by the Tier 2 standards). To 

do so, some manufacturers incorporated 

learned or adaptive fuel trim into their 

motor vehicle designs to help control 

the A/F ratio and alleviate catalyst 

temperature increases even under openloop conditions. Others, through careful 

hardware selection and certain 

calibration approaches, designed their 

motor vehicles with higher thermal 

margins to accommodate the effects of 

enleanment with gasoline-ethanol 

blends. Regardless of their approach, all 

manufacturers have warranted their Tier 

2 vehicles for operation on E10, and we 

believe, based on available data, that 

they are capable of operating on 

gasoline-ethanol blends up to E15 as 

well. 

The test data that has been collected 

supports our engineering assessment. 

Several test programs were conducted 

by CRC, the National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory (NREL), Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory and DOE to study the effects 

of E15 on Tier 2 vehicles, with the key 

study being the recently completed DOE 

Catalyst Study, discussed in more detail 

below. The CRC Screening Study and 

the DOE Pilot Study measured exhaust 

and catalyst temperature and/or 

evaluated the ability of motor vehicles 

to apply learned fuel trim to adjust for 

the enleanment due to ethanol during 

open-loop operation. As discussed 

above, leaner, hotter exhaust subjects 

the catalyst to greater risk of high 

temperatures and long-term catalyst 

deterioration and damage, and applying 

the learned fuel trim to open-loop 

operation is one of several methods 

manufacturers use to protect against 

this. Since roughly half of the motor 

vehicles tested in these test programs, 

including roughly half of the Tier 2 

motor vehicles, did not apply learned 

fuel trim, and those motor vehicles that 

did not apply learned fuel trim 

experienced higher catalyst and exhaust 

temperatures with E15, these screening 

studies highlighted the potential for 

concern. However, the lack of 

compensating for ethanol content while 

in open-loop operation indicates only 

the potential for temperature problems 

to occur, and elevated temperatures 

only indicate the potential for catalyst 

deterioration; motor vehicles that do not 

apply learned fuel trim may still have 

sufficient thermal margins. 

To evaluate the actual impacts of E15 

on Tier 2 motor vehicles, DOE 

performed a catalyst durability test 

program,36 the DOE Catalyst Study, 

throughout 2009 and 2010 on 19 Tier 2 

motor vehicle models from high sales 

volume models of the various light-duty 

motor vehicle manufacturers. The 

specific purpose of the program was to 

evaluate the long term effects of E0, E10, 

E15, and E20 on catalyst system 

durability. The program also provided 

other limited but valuable information 

relevant to today’s partial waiver 

decision, such as materials 

compatibility, evaporative control 

system integrity, diagnostic system 

sensitivity and general driveability. 

Without the results from this test 

program, EPA would not have had the 

information necessary to properly assess 

the long-term exhaust emission 

(durability) performance of E15. 

Program results indicate that the 

changes manufacturers made 

(calibration, hardware, etc.) to their 

motor vehicles to comply with the Tier 

2 standards have in fact resulted in the 

capability of the motor vehicle catalysts 

to withstand the additional enleanment 

caused by E15, regardless of whether or 

not the motor vehicles utilized learned 

fuel trim while in open-loop operation. 

The test program results show that a 

representative cross section of the Tier 

2 fleet maintained their exhaust 

emission performance on E15 over the 

full useful life of the motor vehicles. 

The discussion which follows contains 

a description of the DOE Catalyst Study 

and presents and analyzes its results. 

i. DOE Catalyst Study Overview 

The Intermediate Ethanol Blends 

Emissions Controls Durability Test 

Program (‘‘DOE Catalyst Study’’) was 

established in 2008, following 

enactment of the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007, to investigate 

the potential impacts of gasolineethanol blend levels above 10% on the 

durability of vehicle emissions control 

systems. The program was 

subcontracted to Southwest Research 

Institute (SwRI), Transportation 

Research Center (TRC) and 

Environmental Testing Corporation 

(ETC). 

ii. Vehicle Selection and Matching 

Several relevant criteria were used to 

determine the motor vehicle models 

selected: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
68106 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 

37E–89, Energy Policy Act (EPAct) Light-duty 

Vehicle Fuel Effects. (EPA and the National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) are sponsoring extensive testing of ethanol fuel effects 

in connection with project E–89.) 

• Tier-2 compliant. 

• Manufacturer and sales/registration 

volumes. 

• Whether a motor vehicle did or did 

not apply learned fuel trim (LFT or nonLFT, respectively) at wide-open throttle 

(WOT). 

Other studies also impacted selection: 

EPA’s EPAct motor vehicle study at 

Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) 

which was expanded into the CRC’s E– 

89 study,37 CRC’s E–87–1 study (CRC 

Screening Study), and the DOE Pilot 

Study. Based on the motor vehicle 

models EPA used to represent the Tier 

2 fleet in the CRC E–89 study, DOE 

consulted with CRC and then instructed 

the national laboratories to utilize the 

same set of motor vehicle models for the 

long-term durability studies, with one 

exception (at the request of CRC, they 

switched out a Toyota Sienna for a 

Nissan Quest). 

All the motor vehicles within a model 

set (one motor vehicle for each fuel 

tested within a model) were matched to 

prevent confounding of the data by 

undesirable motor vehicle attribute 

changes. The engine family, 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 

motor vehicle set. Physical inspections 

of the motor vehicles to eliminate 

obvious problematic motor vehicles 

(such as those with gross fluid leaks, 

obvious and excessive body damage, 

etc.) were also a part of the selection. 

Pre-owned motor vehicles’ initial 

odometer readings were to be within 

10,000 miles amongst a motor vehicle 

set. 

iii. Fuels and Blending 

Emissions and related tests were 

conducted using an emissions 

certification gasoline and splash 

blending batches of E10, E15, and E20 

on site. The gasoline-ethanol blends 

were blended from emissions 

certification gasoline and denatured 

fuel-grade ethanol. These emissions test 

fuels were termed E0 (for ethanol-free 

emissions fuel), E10 (for 10% ethanol 

emissions fuel), E15 (for 15% ethanol 

emissions fuel) and E20 (for 20% 

ethanol emissions fuel). 

Aging fuels were produced by splash 

blending fuel-grade ethanol with nonethanol containing gasoline obtained 

commercially by the subcontractors in 

their local area, rather than emissions 

certification gasoline. The aging fuels 

were designated RE0, RE10, RE15, and 

RE20 with ‘‘R’’ conveying blending from 

retail gasoline. 

iv. Emissions Test Protocol 

Motor vehicles were subjected to 

emissions (FTP) and related tests at the 

following points during the test 

program: (1) At the beginning of mileage 

accumulation; (2) at least one midmileage point; and (3) at the end of 

mileage accumulation. DOE consulted 

with CRC on recommended testing 

procedures. At SwRI and TRC, the 

acceptance tests also included WOT 

tests to aid in classifying the vehicles as 

either LFT or non-LFT motor vehicles. 

At each emissions test interval, 

duplicate FTP tests were conducted on 

each motor vehicle using both the 

gasoline-ethanol blend assigned to the 

motor vehicle as well as E0. (i.e. the 

‘‘E15’’ motor vehicle received duplicate 

FTPs on both E15 and E0.) The motor 

vehicles also underwent compression 

and leak-down checks at each emissions 

interval. Tier 2 compliant motor 

vehicles were driven up to their fulluseful life (120,000 miles). The initial 

mileages of the Tier 2 motor vehicles 

ranged from near zero to approximately 

50,000 miles. These vehicles were 

driven approximately 70,000–120,000 

miles during the program. 

New motor vehicles were first aged to 

4,000 miles to stabilize the engine and 

emissions control systems, followed by 

the initial emissions test. The motor 

vehicles then accumulated mileage until 

the first mid-aging emissions tests at 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04NO10.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68107 

38Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) Project 

08–58845 Status Report, ‘‘Powertrain Component 

Inspection from Mid-Level Blends Vehicle Aging 

Study,’’ September 6, 2010. EPA Docket #EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0211–14016. 

39Our assessment of motor vehicles that exceeded 

emissions standards at FUL mileage accumulation 

is that the exceedances were not attributable to the 

fuel used. 

60,000 miles. This cycle was then 

repeated to 90,000 miles for the motor 

vehicles under test at ETC. At TRC and 

SwRI, the 90,000 mile emissions tests 

were not conducted. All vehicles ended 

aging at 120,000 miles. Pre-owned 

motor vehicle sets with less than 70,000 

miles at the start were mid-aging tested 

at 95,000 miles with end-of-aging tests 

at 120,000 miles. 

v. Mileage Accumulation 

The standard road cycle (SRC) was 

used for all aging. The SRC is the 

official EPA driving cycle used for aging 

in the whole motor vehicle exhaust 

durability procedure. This is a 

recommended EPA procedure that the 

manufacturers regularly use for 

verifying full useful life emissions 

capability. It has an average speed of 

46.3 mph and a maximum of 75 mph. 

The Nissan Quest aging was changed 

part way through aging to a series of 

steady speed laps on the test track at 

TRC at DOE’s direction to accelerate 

completion of this motor vehicle set. 

ETC and SwRI used mileage 

accumulation dynamometers (MADs) 

for aging. Motor vehicles at TRC were 

aged on a closed test track. Drivers 

followed the SRC as they drove the 

motor vehicles around the track. To 

complete the test program required 

motor vehicles to undergo anywhere 

from six to nine months of mileage 

accumulation and emission testing. 

vi. Powertrain Component Inspection 

At the end of motor vehicle mileage 

accumulations and emissions testing at 

SwRI, six pairs of engines were 

disassembled and analyzed for signs of 

wear and materials compatibility 

problems of concern with gasolineethanol blends that might indicate 

durability concerns with E15 that did 

not show up in the accelerated aging 

testing performed.38 The eight different 

types of evaluations performed 

included: 

• Evaporative Emission System 

Integrity Check—a low pressure smoke 

leak test. 

• Evaporative Canister Butane 

Working Capacity Check. 

• Cam Lobe Wear—measuring overall 

cam height to indicate wear. 

• Valve Seat Width and Valve Surface 

Contour—to measure wear on the valve 

seat. 

• Valve Stem Height—to assess valve 

seat recession. 

• Intake Valve Deposit measurement. 

• ASTM D5185 Analysis of Engine 

Oil Drain Samples—to assess the 

presence of unusually high levels of 

wear metals. 

• Fuel Pump Flow Evaluation. 

vii. Summary and Conclusions of the 

Final Results of the DOE Catalyst Study 

Tier 2 motor vehicle testing 

concluded in late September. Analysis 

of the FUL emissions performance and 

emissions deterioration rates showed no 

significant difference between the E0 

and E15 fueled groups. As shown in 

Tables 2 and 3 below, three E0 aged 

motor vehicles had failing emissions 

levels at the end of the test program and 

one additional motor vehicle failed one 

of several replicate tests. Two E15 aged 

motor vehicles had failing emissions 

levels at the end of the test program. 

However, none of the emissions failures 

appeared to be associated with the 

differences in the aging fuels. There 

were no emissions component or 

material failures during aging that were 

related to fueling. There was a catalyst 

efficiency fault code on an E0 motor 

vehicle but not on the E15 counterpart. 

TABLE IV.A–2—E0 FUL RESULTS COMPARED TO TIER 2 STANDARDS 39

Year Model LFT@WOT NOX NMOG CO 

2007 ......... Accord ............................................................................... N Pass ................. Pass ................. Pass. 

2006 ......... Silverado ........................................................................... Y Pass ................. Pass ................. Pass. 

2008 ......... Altima ................................................................................ N Pass ................. Fail .................... Pass. 

2008 ......... Taurus ............................................................................... Y Pass ................. Pass ................. Pass. 

2007 ......... Caravan ............................................................................ N Pass ................. Pass ................. Pass. 

2006 ......... Cobalt ................................................................................ N Pass ................. Pass ................. Pass. 

2007 ......... Caliber ............................................................................... N Fail .................... Pass ................. Pass. 

2009 ......... Civic .................................................................................. N Pass ................. Pass ................. Pass. 

2009 ......... Explorer ............................................................................. Y Pass ................. Pass ................. Pass. 

2009 ......... Corolla ............................................................................... Y Pass ................. Pass ................. Pass. 

2009 ......... Liberty ............................................................................... N Pass ................. Pass ................. Pass. 

2005 ......... Tundra ............................................................................... Y Pass ................. Pass ................. Pass. 

2006 ......... Impala ............................................................................... Y Pass ................. Pass ................. Pass. 

2005 ......... F150 .................................................................................. Y Pass ................. Pass ................. Pass. 

2006 ......... Quest ................................................................................ N N/A ................... N/A ................... N/A. 

2009 ......... Outlook .............................................................................. Y Pass ................. Pass ................. Pass. 

2009 ......... Camry ............................................................................... Y Pass ................. Pass ................. Pass. 

2009 ......... Focus ................................................................................ Y Fail .................... Pass ................. Pass. 

2009 ......... Odyssey ............................................................................ N Pass * ............... Pass ................. Pass. 

Total Fails ......................................................................... ........................ 2 ....................... 1 ....................... 0. 

* Denotes that average of emissions tests were below applicable FUL standard, but had at least one test value above the applicable FUL 

standard. 

TABLE IV.A–3—E15 FUL RESULTS COMPARED TO TIER 2 STANDARDS 40

Year Model LFT@WOT NOX NMOG CO 

2007 .. Accord ................................ N Pass ................................... Pass ................................... Pass. 

2006 .. Silverado ............................ Y Pass ................................... Pass ................................... Pass. 

2008 .. Altima ................................. N Pass ................................... Pass ................................... Pass. 

2008 .. Taurus ................................ Y Pass ................................... Pass ................................... Pass. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
68108 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 

40Our assessment of motor vehicles that exceeded 

emissions standards at FUL mileage accumulation 

is that the exceedances were not attributable to the 

fuel used. 

41The Agency has typically used a confidence 

level of 90% in CAA section 211(f)(4) waiver 

requests instead of the more conventional 95% 

confidence level. We feel that the 90% confidence 

level increases the likelihood that increases in 

deterioration would be statistically significant and 

therefore would be more conservative in this case. 

However, these differences are also not statistically 

significant at the 95% confidence level. 

42Technical Summary of DOE Study on E15 

Impacts On Tier 2 Vehicles and Southwest Research 

Teardown Report. EPA Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0211. 43 Ibid. 

TABLE IV.A–3—E15 FUL RESULTS COMPARED TO TIER 2 STANDARDS 40—Continued 

Year Model LFT@WOT NOX NMOG CO 

2007 .. Caravan .............................. N Pass ................................... Pass ................................... Pass. 

2006 .. Cobalt ................................. N Pass ................................... Pass ................................... Pass. 

2007 .. Caliber ................................ N Pass ................................... Pass ................................... Pass. 

2009 .. Civic ................................... N Pass ................................... Pass ................................... Pass. 

2009 .. Explorer .............................. Y Pass ................................... Pass ................................... Pass. 

2009 .. Corolla ................................ Y Pass ................................... Pass ................................... Pass. 

2009 .. Liberty ................................ N Pass ................................... Pass ................................... Pass. 

2005 .. Tundra ................................ Y Pass ................................... Pass ................................... Pass. 

2006 .. Impala ................................ Y Pass ................................... Pass ................................... Pass. 

2005 .. F150 ................................... Y Pass ................................... Pass ................................... Pass. 

2006 .. Quest .................................. N Fail ..................................... Pass ................................... Pass. 

2009 .. Outlook ............................... Y Pass ................................... Pass ................................... Pass. 

2009 .. Camry ................................. Y Pass ................................... Pass ................................... Pass. 

2009 .. Focus ................................. Y Fail ..................................... Pass ................................... Pass. 

2009 .. Odyssey ............................. N Pass ................................... Pass ................................... Pass.

Total Fails .......................... ........................ 2 ......................................... 0 ......................................... 0. 

* Denotes that average of emissions tests were below applicable FUL standard, but had at least one test value above the applicable FUL 

standard. 

Using standard statistical tools, the 

resulting test results shown in Tables 

IV.A–2 and IV.A–3 support the 

conclusion that E15 does not cause Tier 

2 motor vehicles to exceed their exhaust 

emission standards over their useful 

life. 

We performed a statistical analysis of 

this emission data to assess the impact 

of E15 on the rate of deterioration of 

exhaust emissions. We used a general 

linear model in SPSSTM to perform this 

analysis. Each individual test motor 

vehicle was allowed its own base level 

of emissions (e.g., the Taurus aged on E0 

was allowed one base emission level 

and the Taurus aged on E15 was 

allowed a different base emission level). 

This reflects the fact that individual 

motor vehicles, even of the same design, 

have emissions levels that differ to at 

least the same order of magnitude as the 

effect of fuel quality on emissions. Each 

model type (e.g., all of the Taurus motor 

vehicles as a group) was also allowed its 

own rate of emissions deterioration. 

This reflects the fact that motor vehicle 

design has a significant impact on the 

rate of emissions deterioration. We then 

tested the hypothesis that the effect of 

aging the motor vehicle on E15 caused 

a non-zero change in the rate of change 

in non-methane organic gases (NMOG) 

and NOX emissions. Each emission test 

was weighted to reflect the number of 

replicates performed on that motor 

vehicle at a specific mileage test point. 

For example, if only two replicate tests 

were performed on the Taurus aged on 

E0 at it mid-level test point (i.e., 67,000 

miles), then each emission test was 

assigned a weight of 0.5. If three 

replicate tests were performed at that 

mileage, then each emission test was 

assigned a weight of 0.33. 

The statistical analysis of the 

remaining Tier 2 exhaust emission data 

indicated that the rate of deterioration 

in NMOG emissions decreased on 

average, while that for NOX emissions 

increased. However, the impacts were 

not statistically significant deterioration 

at the 90% confidence level.41 Thus, 

due to the variability in the effect across 

the various test motor vehicles, we 

cannot confidently reject the hypothesis 

that the emission deterioration rates on 

both blends are the same. In other 

words, there is a significant chance that 

the average impacts observed are the 

result of the randomness in the data. 

This conclusion is supported by the fact 

that the average changes in NMOG and 

NOX emissions deterioration rates went 

in opposite directions. If the catalysts 

had in fact been deteriorating faster with 

E15, then all emissions should have 

deteriorated consistently. Therefore, the 

catalyst durability test program results 

also support the conclusion that E15 

will not contribute to Tier 2 motor 

vehicles exceeding their emission 

standards over their full useful life. The 

details of this statistical analysis can be 

found in an EPA Technical Summary 

located in the docket to this waiver 

decision.42

The results of the vehicle tear-down 

inspections were analyzed to assess 

whether E15 exhibited any signs of wear 

or materials incompatibility that might 

indicate durability concerns that could 

lead to elevated exhaust or evaporative 

emissions that might not have shown up 

in the FUL emission testing 

performed.43 For seven of the eight 

evaluations performed, there were no 

apparent differences at the end-of-life 

between the motor vehicles that were 

operated on E15 and E0. While 

individual motor vehicle results varied 

(as one would expect in inspections 

such as this), there was no pattern that 

would suggest greater deterioration on 

E15, and none of the measurements 

indicated are a cause for a concern over 

powertrain durability for the Tier 2 

motor vehicles evaluated. The one area 

where motor vehicles aged on E15 

differed in their results was intake valve 

deposits. E15 showed a consistent and 

often significant increase in intake valve 

deposits in comparison to E0. This is 

not surprising given that prior detergent 

additive studies have shown E10 to be 

a more severe test fuel for intake valve 

deposits than E0. For this very reason 

the fuel on which fuel additive 

manufacturers must certify their 

detergent additive packages contains 10 

vol% ethanol. Since the Tier 2 motor 

vehicles did not show increased exhaust 

emission deterioration over their FUL 

with E15 in comparison to E0, the 

increased intake valve deposits do not 

appear to have lead to a corresponding 

emissions increase. As a result, the 

finding that E15 leads to increased 

intake valve deposits appears to be 

primarily an issue to be addressed in 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68109 

44CRC Project No. CM–136–09–1B Engine 

Durability Study of Mid-Level Ethanol blends, EPA 

Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211–14003.5. 

45Optimal Ethanol Blend-level Investigation, 

Final Report prepared by Energy & Environmental 

Research Center and Minnesota Center for 

Automotive research for American Coalition for 

Ethanol ‘‘ACE Study’’. EPA Docket # EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0211–0002.26. 

46Use of Mid-Range Ethanol/Gasoline Blends in 

Unmodified Passenger Cars and Light Duty Trucks, 

prepared by Minnesota Center for Automotive 

research July 1999 ‘‘MCARStudy.’’ EPA Docket 

#EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211–0002.24. 

47See Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comments, National Petrochemical and Refiners 

Association, the American Petroleum Institute’s 

Comments, and the Alliance for the Safe Alternative 

Fuels Environment comments in EPA Docket 

#EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211. 

future gasoline detergent additive 

formulations. 

Finally, the CRC engine durability 

study 44 has limited relevance for the 

waiver decision because it used only 

E20 fuel. Initial data is for eight motor 

vehicles ranging from MY2001–2009 

with initial mileage as high as 110,000 

miles. The engines were removed and 

dynamometer-aged for 500 hours with 

50% of the time at wide-open throttle 

(3500 rpm). Since the study used only 

E20 fuel and did not test matching 

engines aged on E0, there is no way to 

determine the influence of the fuel 

blend on engine deterioration. There 

were some elevated leakdown 

measurements observed in the study but 

there is no way to determine if they 

were fuel blend related or would have 

occurred even with E0 fuel. Also, 

several motor vehicles were listed as 

failing the leak tests yet the motor 

vehicles passed the leak test at later 

points in the study. In any event, all the 

engines that completed aging passed 

their motor vehicle emissions tests. 

2. Exhaust Emissions—Immediate 

Effects for MY2007 and Newer LightDuty Motor Vehicles 

Instantaneous or immediate impacts 

of a fuel or fuel additive are those that 

are experienced essentially immediately 

upon switching from the original fuel. 

In the case of this partial waiver 

decision, the immediate exhaust 

emission impacts of interest are those 

that are caused by E15 in comparison to 

E0, which is the fuel on which the 

motor vehicles were certified. The 

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. 

This section discusses the immediate 

exhaust emission impacts on MY2007 

and newer light-duty motor vehicles. 

Discussion of immediate exhaust 

emission impacts on other motor 

vehicles is addressed in their respective 

sections. However, since Growth 

Energy’s submission and information 

supplied by commenters regarding 

immediate emission impacts of E15 

were not specific to the model year of 

the motor vehicles, this section also 

contains much of the information on 

immediate emission impacts for other 

vehicles as well. 

a. Growth Energy’s Submission 

Growth Energy supplied data 

produced from several test programs 

that measured the immediate emission 

impacts of E15 on motor vehicles 

spanning a range of model years, 

including several Tier 2 motor vehicles. 

Growth Energy claims that the ACE 

Study.45 the RIT Study, the Minnesota 

Center for Automotive Research (MCAR) 

Study,46 and a DOE Pilot Study show 

that E15 results in decreased emissions 

of NOX, non-methane hydrocarbons 

(NMHC), and CO on average, and no 

increase in NMOG emissions when 

compared to E0. Growth Energy argues 

that these studies demonstrate that E15 

will not cause or contribute to the 

failure of motor vehicles to meet their 

emissions standards. While much of the 

data cited by Growth Energy was on 

E20, they argued that because the 

studies they submitted with their 

application show favorable emissions 

performance on gasoline-ethanol blends 

that contained higher than 15 vol% 

ethanol (i.e., E20), those results should 

be applicable to E15 by interpolation. 

b. Public Comment Summary 

The Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers (‘‘The Alliance’’) and 

several others commented that EPA has 

repeatedly outlined in past waiver 

decisions and public presentations 

important methodological 

considerations necessary to conduct a 

rigorous test program which would 

provide data sufficient to satisfy waiver 

criteria.47 Comments from the Alliance 

describe the data requirements EPA has 

required in the past, specifically noting 

that those test programs required the 

following: (1) Use representative test 

fleets of motor vehicles available in the 

market; (2) conduct back-to-back motor 

vehicle pair testing to control for 

variability; (3) compare test fuel results 

with a baseline certification fuel; (4) use 

Federal certification test procedures 

(FTP) for emissions testing; (5) evaluate 

emissions effects over the full useful life 

for durability testing through real-world 

aging; and (6) perform statistical 

analyses to provide defensible results. 

The Alliance went on in their comments 

to highlight deficiencies in one or more 

of these data requirements in each of the 

studies cited by Growth Energy. 

Additionally, the Alliance and others 

argue that none of the studies submitted 

by Growth Energy used nationally 

‘‘representative’’ test fleets. The Alliance 

points out that the American automobile 

fleet takes about 20 years to turn over, 

and that a well-executed study should 

have a test fleet that is proportionally 

similar to the model years that comprise 

the national fleet. The Alliance argues 

that a bulk of the emissions data cited 

in Growth Energy’s waiver request focus 

on newer (i.e., Tier 2) motor vehicles 

and do not adequately represent the 

national motor vehicle fleet and that 

these older motor vehicles may be more 

sensitive to the effects of higher 

gasoline-ethanol blends and constitute a 

greater portion of the number of motor 

vehicles currently in use. Many 

comments recommend that the Agency 

deny Growth Energy’s request based on 

the potentially adverse effects of E15 on 

older motor vehicles. 

Several commenters, including the 

automobile manufacturers, petroleum 

refiners, environmental organizations 

and State agencies, noted the expected 

linear relationship between ethanol 

content in gasoline-ethanol blends and 

increased NOX emissions. These 

commenters pointed out that the EPA 

Predictive Models, MOVES model and 

the MOBILE6.2 model all predicted 

increased NOX emissions as a gasolineethanol blend increases the ethanol 

content. These models are used for air 

quality modeling purposes for 

compliance with State and Federal air 

quality standards and are based on 

comprehensive motor vehicle testing 

spanning decades. These commenters 

argued further that these increases in 

NOX may cause a sizable portion of the 

motor vehicle fleet to exceed emissions 

standards, especially if a motor vehicle 

was close to the emissions standard. 

c. EPA Analysis 

The Agency agrees with commenters 

that there are several limitations of the 

studies cited by Growth Energy and/or 

the analyses they performed, which 

undermine their conclusions. The ACE 

study cited by Growth Energy does not 

provide useful information to assess the 

emissions performance of motor 

vehicles for purposes of this waiver 

decision since it tested three non-flex 

fuel Tier 2 motor vehicles primarily 

under high-speed and high-load 

conditions, atypical of most in-use 

motor vehicle operation and not 

representative of motor vehicle 

certification conditions. The study 

likely shows that the high heat of 

vaporization and high octane of ethanol 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
68110 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 

48A 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. 

49The Agency’s MOVES model has undergone 

extensive peer review and testing, and incorporates 

the EPA Predictive Models. 

50These effects are based on the EPA Predictive 

Models and are generally consistent with 

conclusions of CRC E–74b report (e.g., Figure ES– 

2). Fuels properties evaluated were based on market 

averages and were as follows: E0 had aromatics 

content of 29.5 vol%, a T50 of 215 °F, a T90 of 325 

°F, and an RVP of 8.9 psi and E10 had aromatics 

content of 24.9 vol%, a T50 of 202 °F, T90 of 325 

°F, and an RVP of 8.9 psi. Other parameters not 

mentioned here were assumed to be held constant 

between the blends. 

51Results based on data mostly from vehicle 

models that predated the Tier 2 emission standards, 

so several recent test programs have been focused 

on Tier 2 vehicles that will soon make up the 

majority of the in-use fleet. 

52CRC Report No. E–74b, ‘‘Effects of Vapor 

Pressure, Oxygen Content, and Temperature on CO 

Exhaust Emissions’’, May 2009, EPA Docket #EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2009–0211–13980. 

can enhance vehicle performance under 

wide-open throttle conditions and high 

loads, but the Agency believes that it is 

not relevant for evaluating emissions 

under normal operating conditions as 

observed on properly loaded motor 

vehicles tested on certification test 

cycles generally required for a waiver 

emission impacts demonstration. 

The RIT Study cited by Growth 

Energy was an interim report of ongoing 

work in which E0 and E20 fuels were 

tested in 10 1998–2004 model year 

motor vehicles from the Monroe County 

Fleet Center, none of which were 

designed to comply with Tier 2 

emission standards. The emissions 

testing performed at the time of Growth 

Energy’s application failed to properly 

measure emissions related to the 

ethanol (i.e., alcohols and aldehydes) 

which contribute to the NMOG 

emissions. Furthermore, the testing 

schedule did not perform back-to-back 

testing of the different fuels at common 

motor vehicle mileage intervals, thus 

confounding fuel and normal 

deterioration effects. As discussed 

below, we believe these shortcomings 

were subsequently corrected in later 

testing through the support of the NREL, 

but the data cited by Growth Energy 

could not be used to quantify the 

immediate emissions impacts of E15. 

The MCAR Study cited by Growth 

Energy tested 15 motor vehicles of 

various model years from 1985 to 1998. 

However, the emissions were measured 

over only a hot portion of the 

certification cycle and the individual 

test results needed for analysis were 

never submitted or made available to 

the Agency. Therefore, it could not be 

used to compare the emissions 

performance of the motor vehicles to the 

emissions standards. Furthermore, since 

only E10 and E30 were tested, it cannot 

be used to quantify the immediate 

emission impacts relative to the official 

E0 certification fuel. 

Only the DOE Pilot Study cited by 

Growth Energy provides useful 

information for assessing the immediate 

exhaust emission impacts of E15. It 

measured emissions from 16 vehicles, 

including seven Tier 2 compliant motor 

vehicles, on E0, E10, E15, and E20 

splash blends over the LA92 drive cycle. 

However, even it is of limited 

usefulness in drawing conclusions 

regarding the impact of E15 across the 

large in-use motor vehicle fleet due to 

the limited size and nature of the test 

program (fleet makeup, test fuels). The 

DOE Pilot Study was not designed to 

quantify the emissions impact across the 

fleet but instead to probe a limited 

sample of high sales volume motor 

vehicles certified to different emission 

standards for any immediate emission 

problems. By itself, it is not a basis for 

drawing any definitive conclusions with 

respect to E15 emissions performance. 

Thus, each of the individual studies is 

of limited value in evaluating the 

immediate emissions impact of E15 

across the various groups of motor 

vehicles at issue in this partial waiver 

decision. As a group, these studies are 

no stronger as they do not fill the gaps 

in each of the various studies. 

Therefore, the Agency does not believe 

that the studies submitted by Growth 

Energy adequately support the 

conclusions that Growth Energy drew 

from them regarding the immediate 

exhaust emission impacts from using 

E15. At the same time, the Agency 

believes that there is sufficient data and 

information available to demonstrate 

that the immediate emissions impact of 

E15 follows the same pattern as E10 in 

that there will be a decrease in NMOG 

(as well as NMHC and total HC) and CO 

emissions and an increase in NOX

emissions. While the magnitude of the 

NOX emissions increase is greater with 

E15 it is still not enough to cause at 

least Tier 2 compliant motor vehicles to 

violate their NOX emissions standard. 

There is a long history of test 

programs that have been carried out on 

light-duty motor vehicles and trucks 

that have quantified the emission 

impacts of blending ethanol up to 10 

vol% into gasoline. These test programs, 

dating back to the earliest days of 

gasoline-ethanol blends, have found that 

the oxygen content of ethanol enleans 

the A/F ratio in motor vehicles during 

open-loop operation, causing a decrease 

in HC and CO emissions, but also 

results in a corresponding increase in 

NOX emissions. These test programs 

have also shown that during normal 

closed-loop operation the combustion 

characteristics of ethanol contribute to 

small increases in NOX emissions. There 

are other factors that can play into the 

emission impacts, such as other changes 

to gasoline that occur or are made when 

ethanol is added, the high heat of 

vaporization and high octane of ethanol, 

and the design and control algorithms of 

the motor vehicle. However, similar 

emission trends with ethanol have been 

seen consistently in most carefully 

controlled and properly conducted 

studies. These studies have been used to 

develop emission models, such as the 

EPA Predictive Models 48 incorporated 

into the Agency’s MOVES model,49 that 

have been thoroughly peer reviewed. 

The result is that for a typical E10 blend 

of gasoline, exhaust NMHC emissions 

have been found to decrease by about 

5%, and NOX emissions to increase by 

about 6%, relative to E0.50

While the magnitude of impact may 

vary by a few percent depending on the 

motor vehicle technology and how other 

fuel properties change when ethanol is 

blended into gasoline, the relative 

magnitude and direction of the impacts 

remains consistent for typical fuels.51

While there is a great deal known 

about the immediate impacts of 

gasoline-ethanol blends on emissions 

from the past studies and modeling, it 

is all based on pre-Tier 2 motor vehicles 

and only ethanol blends up to E10. The 

issue for the waiver is whether the 

impacts of E15 would be significantly 

different in comparison to E0 and cause 

motor vehicles to violate their emission 

standards over their full useful life, and 

whether there is sufficient information 

to support such a conclusion for Tier 2 

motor vehicles as well as other motor 

vehicles. While the information 

provided by Growth Energy was of 

limited value, we believe that the 

additional information that is now 

available can be used to assess the 

immediate emissions impacts on Tier 2 

motor vehicles sufficiently to respond to 

the E15 waiver request. 

CRC recently completed a test 

program (E–74b) that evaluated the 

emissions performance of E10 and E20 

compared with E0 (‘‘CRC Emissions 

Study’’).52 The study tested 15 MY1994– 

2006 motor vehicles on E0, E10, and 

E20. The motor vehicles represented a 

cross-section of several motor vehicle 

technologies and emissions compliance 

levels, and included three Tier 1, five 

NLEV, and seven Tier 2 motor vehicles. 

The test fuels were match-blended to 

yield appropriate test program volatility 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68111 

53The Alliance commented that only the FTP test 

cycle should be used for emission impacts. While 

the LA92 cannot be used for confirmation of vehicle 

emissions compliance, it is used regularly in 

engineering and research work, including by 

manufacturers to measure emission impacts and 

confirm OBD monitor operation and therefore the 

Agency believes it remains a valid cycle for 

emissions analysis. 

54RIT–CIMS/USDOT E20 Test and Evaluation 

Program May 2010, EPA Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0211–14003.8. 

55A compliance margin is the difference between 

the emission standard and a vehicle or engine’s 

actual certification emission level. This certification 

level includes the manufacturer’s projected rate of 

deterioration over the useful life of the vehicle. 

56See 2007 Progress Report: Vehicle and Engine 

Compliance Activities. These compliance margin 

values are consistent with the general trend EPA 

has seen for Tier 2 vehicles. 

goals while attempting to maintain other 

desired property targets, such as 

aromatics content and distillation 

behavior. The study’s authors attempted 

to evaluate increased oxygen levels 

through the blending of ethanol in a 

variety of gasolines with fuel parameters 

representative of those found in the real 

world. Emissions performance testing 

was completed using the FTP at 75 °F 

and 50 °F. The study found a 

statistically significant positive linear 

relationship between the amount of 

ethanol blended into gasoline and NOX

emissions when controlling other fuel 

parameters. In other words, as the level 

of ethanol blended into gasoline 

increased, the amount of NOX emissions 

also increased, and this effect remained 

relatively consistent across the motor 

vehicle technologies tested. Specifically, 

the study found that NOX emissions 

increased with E10 by about 9% relative 

to E0, consistent with the projection 

from the EPA Predictive Models when 

the study’s fuel properties are input. 

NOX emissions for E20 increased by 

about 19% relative to E0. The test 

program also found that HC emissions 

declined from 8% to 16% over this 

same range. While not linear, a 

relationship of decreasing emissions 

with increasing ethanol content was 

also observed for CO emissions. 

Presumably the impacts of E15, had 

they tested it, would have fallen 

somewhere between those of E10 and 

E20. 

The DOE Pilot Study cited by Growth 

Energy tested 16 different MY1999– 

2007 light-duty motor vehicles on E0, 

E10, E15 and E20. These motor vehicles 

included three Tier 1, six NLEV, and 

seven Tier 2 motor vehicles of varying 

odometer mileage, generally 

proportional to age (i.e., older motor 

vehicles had higher miles). Test fuels 

were splash blended with the 

certification E0 fuel allowing the other 

fuel properties (aromatic content, RVP, 

etc.) to change with ethanol dilution. 

The motor vehicles were tested over the 

LA92 drive cycle (also known as the 

Unified Cycle) which is considered to 

be representative of real-world 

acceleration rates and speeds.53 The 

study found small reductions in NOX

and NMOG emissions across the 

different fuels that were not statistically 

significant. While these findings do not 

show the NOX emissions increase and 

NMOG and CO emissions decrease that 

might be anticipated, this may have 

been due to the limited scope of the 

program, the test cycle, and other 

changes in the fuel properties known to 

directly impact emissions. Nonetheless, 

the results do not show that the 

immediate NOX emissions impacts of 

E15 to be of concern. 

During the course of the DOE Catalyst 

Study (see Section IV.A.1.d), some backto-back tests of E15 and E0 fuels were 

performed. This portion of the testing 

was not designed to be able to quantify 

the immediate emission impacts with 

any degree of statistical confidence 

unless the impacts turned out to be very 

large, and in fact it did not show any 

statistically significant changes in NOX

or NMOG emissions for E15 compared 

to E0. At the same time, the data is 

useful in supporting the conclusion that 

the immediate emission impacts of E15 

compared to E0 are not large, and likely 

in the same range as other studies have 

shown. 

Finally, as mentioned above, RIT 

performed additional testing subsequent 

to the results Growth Energy submitted 

as part of its waiver request application. 

These later results were presented at a 

meeting of the Mid-Level Ethanol 

Blends Research Coordination Group on 

May 5, 2010.54 These results showed a 

13.9% reduction in HC (NMOG was not 

measured), 26.9% reduction in CO, and 

a 6.2% increase in NOX for E20 in 

comparison to E0. Again, presuming 

E10 and E15 results would lie within 

this range, these results are generally 

consistent with earlier studies and 

models and continue to confirm that no 

large increases in NOX emissions are 

expected. 

When EPA assesses the more recent 

information and data available, we 

believe it shows both: (1) That Tier 2 

motor vehicles exhibit similar 

immediate emission impact trends 

(small increases in NOX and small 

decreases in NMHC and CO) as the data 

and modeling show for older motor 

vehicles; and (2) that the immediate 

emission impacts of E15 continue to 

show the same trends as E10 with the 

effects being slightly exaggerated due to 

the higher ethanol content. These four 

studies (CRC E74b, the DOE Pilot Study, 

the DOE Catalyst Study, and the RIT 

Study) are all of limited size and scope 

and thus show considerable variation in 

their results, for NOX emissions in 

particular. However, taken together they 

suggest that the immediate emission 

impacts of E10 are likely to be 

comparable to those that would be 

projected using the EPA Predictive 

Models and that a slightly larger NOX

emission impact would be expected 

with E15. Thus, the NOX emissions 

impact of E15 is likely to be in the range 

of 5% to 10% based on extrapolation 

from E10 modeling using the Agency’s 

Predictive Models, and this impact 

would be expected to be roughly 

comparable for newer Tier 2 motor 

vehicles as well as older motor vehicles. 

For example, a Tier 2 motor vehicle that 

had NOX emissions levels of 0.030 

grams per mile (‘‘g/mi’’) on E0 would be 

expected to have NOX emissions levels 

of 0.033 or less if the same motor 

vehicle was tested on E15. 

Although the overall weight of the 

available data shows that E15 will cause 

an increase in NOX emissions, the issue 

is whether such increases, by 

themselves or in combination with longterm durability effects, would cause 

motor vehicles to exceed their certified 

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,55 and the lack of any 

significant increase in NOX emissions 

deterioration with E15 in comparison to 

E0 (as discussed in section IV.A.1.a.), it 

is not anticipated that using E15 will 

cause or contribute to Tier 2 compliant 

motor vehicles exceeding their 

emissions standards. 

A survey of official EPA Certification 

data showed that the average 

compliance margins for the MY2007 

light-duty motor vehicle fleet was over 

50% for NOX emissions.56 This margin 

is designed into motor vehicles by the 

manufacturer to account for variations 

in production vehicles and changes to 

the motor vehicle during actual field 

usage. Additionally, data collected from 

EPA’s In-use Verification Program 

(IUVP) demonstrate large compliance 

margins for motor vehicles operating in 

real-world conditions. IUVP is a 

manufacturer run program in which 

manufacturers test motor vehicles for 

emissions levels and submit the results 

to EPA. IUVP was designed to ensure 

that light-duty motor vehicles are 

meeting emissions standards in-use 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
68112 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 

57Tier 2 Bin 5 is the certification standard for a 

large majority of vehicles certified in MY2007 

(approximately 80%). See 2007 Progress Report: 

Vehicles and Engine Compliance Activities. 

58EPA, in collaboration with DOE and CRC has 

recently completed the testing part of the largest 

fuels emission research program conducted in the 

past two decades to assess the impacts of gasoline 

fuel properties on emissions, including the 

relationship between ethanol content and higher 

NOX emissions. E–89 ‘‘Comprehensive Gasoline 

Light-duty Exhaust Fuel Effects Test Program.’’ The 

test program evaluated emission changes on a motor 

vehicle test fleet consisting of 15 Tier 2 vehicles 

(including three FFVs) that was specifically 

selected to be representative of the makes and 

models in the national light-duty motor vehicle 

fleet. The focus was on Tier 2 vehicles to fill a data 

gap, since existing emission models are based on 

testing conducted on older technology vehicles. The 

program used 27 fuels of varying volatility (RVP), 

aromatic content, distillation range (T50 and T90) 

and ethanol concentrations (E0, E10, E15 and E20), 

which were blended specially to allow emission 

impacts to be attributed to one fuel parameter or 

another. Each vehicle in the test program had 

multiple emissions tests conducted on each fuel 

resulting in nearly 1000 emissions tests. While 

testing has been completed, the Agency is still in 

the process of working with DOE and CRC to 

evaluate the test data and develop emission models 

based on it to allow an understanding of the 

impacts of fuel changes on emissions. However, 

since the evaluations of the data have not been 

completed and the data is not publicly available, 

EPA is not relying on the data for purposes of 

evaluating the waiver request. EPA has reviewed 

the data preliminarily solely to determine whether 

it would be appropriate to delay making a decision 

until the evaluation is complete and the test 

program results could be incorporated into a 

decision on the waiver. EPA’s view based on its 

preliminary review of the data is that it is 

appropriate to go forward at this time with the 

waiver decision, as it is anticipated that the test 

program will reinforce the results found in the 

earlier studies and in the EPA Predictive Models. 

59Separately, the Agency has been performing 

analysis needed to support the anti-backsliding 

analysis required under the Energy Independence 

and Security Act. We are now in the process of 

assessing possible control measures to offset the 

potential increases in ozone and particulate matter 

that are expected to result from the increased use 

of renewable fuels required by EISA and in 

response to the May 21, 2010 presidential 

memorandum directive. (NOX emissions contribute 

to the formation of both pollutants.) We will 

incorporate the results of our analysis under this 

assessment in a proposal on new motor vehicle and 

fuel control measures. 

versus only through the certification 

process. According to the data 

submitted to EPA, the in-use 

compliance margins are similar to 

compliance margins experienced during 

certification. For IUVP testing for 

MY2007 as of August 2010, the average 

compliance margin for light-duty motor 

vehicles certified to the Tier 2 Bin 5 

standard was over 60%.57

In addition, the results of the recently 

completed DOE Catalyst Study also 

supports this conclusion for Tier 2 

motor vehicles. While the Catalyst 

Durability Test Program was carried out 

to assess long-term exhaust emissions 

(durability) impacts, the immediate 

emission impacts of ethanol are also 

captured in the testing. All but two of 

the Tier 2 motor vehicles tested 

continued to comply with their exhaust 

emission standards at FUL despite both 

the immediate and durability impacts of 

E15 on emissions. One motor vehicle 

appeared to exceed the standard not due 

to E15, but other problems, as it also 

exceeded the standard on E0. The other 

motor vehicle model experienced 

catastrophic issues with the comparable 

E0 and E20 motor vehicles which were 

unable to complete the testing. Those 

motor vehicles that complied with the 

standard on E15 continued to comply as 

is typical in IUVP data.58

d. Conclusion 

While data is limited on Tier 2 motor 

vehicles, and particularly with E15, 

there is a long history of test programs 

that have been carried out on light-duty 

motor vehicles and trucks that have 

quantified 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 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, cause some variations in 

study results, the bottom line is that the 

emissions changes are fairly well 

known. Several more recent studies 

have been performed looking at the 

impacts of gasoline-ethanol blends on 

more recent Tier 2 compliant motor 

vehicles, as well as some older model 

year motor vehicles. The size, scope, 

and design of these studies limit the 

ability to draw any firm conclusion to 

quantify the precise magnitude of the 

immediate emissions impacts. However, 

analysis of this more recent data in the 

context of historical data and modeling 

leads to the conclusion that Tier 2 motor 

vehicles likely respond similarly to 

older technology motor vehicles with 

respect to immediate emissions impacts, 

and that the magnitude of the 

immediate emissions impacts of E15 are 

relatively small, with decreases in 

NMHC and CO emissions and increases 

in NOX emissions in the range of 5 to 

10% depending on how other fuel 

properties change. For Tier 2 motor 

vehicles, there is generally a significant 

margin in both motor vehicle 

certification and in-use to emit within 

the emission standards even if the motor 

vehicle experiences the predicted 

immediate NOX increases from E15 

when compared to E0. 

The Agency believes that the data 

above, coupled with the average 

compliance margins, are sufficient to 

show that the immediate exhaust 

emissions effects by themselves would 

not cause motor vehicles to exceed their 

exhaust standards over their useful 

lives. As discussed earlier, however, 

whether the fuel or fuel additive will 

cause motor vehicles to exceed their 

exhaust emission standards requires 

consideration of the combined impact of 

immediate emissions increases and the 

long-term exhaust emissions (durability) 

effects.59

3. Evaporative Emissions on MY2007 

and Newer Light-Duty Motor Vehicles 

a. Introduction 

EPA has set evaporative emission 

standards for motor vehicles since 1971. 

During the ensuing years, these 

evaporative standards have continued to 

evolve, resulting in additional 

evaporative emissions reductions. Thus, 

consideration 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 to motor vehicle 

evaporative emissions that are 

important for our 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. 

Prior to MY1999, the evaporative 

emissions standards addressed diurnal 

and hot soak emissions, but the test 

procedure did not require control of 

running loss and permeation emissions. 

The Enhanced Evaporative Emissions 

requirements were fully phased in for 

Light-duty motor vehicles and lightduty trucks by MY1999. These new 

requirements included both new 

standards and new test procedures: The 

two-day and three-day diurnal tests 

with new canister loading procedures, 

and a running loss test. In addition to 

the new procedures, the useful life was 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68113 

60This Decision refers to several vehicle types as 

commonly used acronyms: Light-duty motor 

vehicles (LDV), light-duty trucks (LDT), light lightduty trucks (LLDT), heavy light-duty trucks (HLDT), 

and medium-duty passenger vehicles (MDPV). See 

‘‘Vehicle Weight Classifications’’ found at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/otaq/standards/weights.htm. 

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. This required motor 

vehicles to detect a leak equivalent to 

.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 .020 inch. While 

not required Federally, many 

manufacturers developed one leak 

detection system for sale in all 50 States 

which complied with the more stringent 

California requirement. 

The Federal Tier 2 evaporative 

emissions standards 60 were phased in 

beginning in 2004 with the exhaust 

standards and were fully phased in by 

2007 for light-duty motor vehicles (2009 

for HLDT and MDPV). These standards 

were significantly lower (over a 50% 

reduction for LDVs and LLDTs—as seen 

in Table 1 below) and used the same test 

procedures, which were introduced 

with the Enhanced Evaporative 

Emissions requirements. However, one 

important change was made in that a 

demonstration of evaporative system 

durability on E10 was required to 

address concerns with respect to 

permeation of hydrocarbons through 

elastomers in the fuel and evaporative 

emission systems. This prompted 

manufacturers to change materials to 

those with improved permeation 

barriers with ethanol. Once again in 

2009 the evaporative emission standards 

for LDVs were cut nearly in half with 

the introduction of the Federal LEV II 

requirements, a harmonization of 

Federal and California evaporative 

standards. See Table IV.A–4 below. This 

section discusses the evaporative 

emissions impacts on MY2007 and 

newer light-duty motor vehicles. 

Discussion of evaporative emission 

impacts on older motor vehicles is 

addressed in sections IV.B. and IV.C. 

However, since the information we 

received through Growth Energy’s 

waiver request application, information 

supplied by commenters, and other 

available information regarding 

evaporative emission impacts of ethanol 

blends were not specific to the model 

year of the motor vehicles, this section 

also contains some of the information 

covering older motor vehicles as well. 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
68114 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C b. Growth Energy’s Submission 

Growth Energy primarily argued that 

based on the similar volatility and 

permeation characteristics of E15 to 

E10, the evaporative emissions for 

motor vehicles using E15 should be no 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04NO10.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68115 

61CRC Report No. E–65–3, Fuel Permeation from 

Automotive Systems: E0, E6, E10, E20 and E85 

Final Report, December, 2006. EPA Docket #EPA– 

HQ–OAR–0211–14012. 

62 Growth Energy Request Letter—Tab 4, 1st half, 

EPA Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211–0002.12. 

63These studies are available at http:// 

www.crcao.org. 

worse than those from motor vehicles 

using E10. Growth Energy pointed to 

two studies to support this conclusion. 

The first study cited was the E–65–3 

study on permeation conducted by the 

CRC.61 The E–65–3 study measured the 

impact of E6, E10, E20, and E85 

gasoline-ethanol blends on permeation 

and diurnal canister breakthrough 

emissions in comparison to E0 on test 

rigs taken from five MY2000–2005 

California motor vehicles. The testing 

was performed on California fuels using 

California test procedures. 

The second study cited was 

completed by the University of 

Stockholm for the government of 

Sweden to investigate the potential 

effects that increased ethanol levels 

blended into gasoline may have if 

approved for use in Sweden 

(‘‘Stockholm Study’’).62 The Stockholm 

Study is primarily a literature review 

that includes studies and experiences 

with gasoline-ethanol blends in several 

countries (e.g., Brazil, the Netherlands, 

and Australia). As part of the Stockholm 

Study, a small test program compared 

vapor generation rates from two 

summer-time gasoline fuels blended 

with ethanol at contents of zero, five, 

10, and 15 vol%. The Stockholm Study 

found that the impact of ethanol on the 

RVP of gasoline blends peaked 

somewhere between E5 and E10, 

consistent with past studies. 

Other than cross-referencing materials 

compatibility testing, Growth Energy 

did not address the potential impacts of 

E15 on evaporative emissions 

durability, hot soak and running loss 

emissions, or fuel system integrity (leaks 

as monitored by the OBD system) to 

assess noncompliance with the 

evaporative emissions standards. 

Growth Energy simply used these two 

studies to argue that the evaporative 

emissions of E15 will be lower or no 

worse than E10 or E6. They argued that 

since the CRC Permeation Study and the 

Stockholm Study show no increases in 

evaporative emissions between E10 and 

E15, that materials compatibility testing 

showed no problem, and that if EPA can 

place a condition requiring finished 

fuels to meet ASTM volatility 

specifications, evaporative emissions 

criteria for a waiver are satisfied. 

c. Public Comment Summary 

Several commenters point to design 

flaws and limitations with both the 

Stockholm Study and CRC Study which 

underscore the need for more 

investigation into E15’s impact on 

vehicles’ evaporative emissions. API 

and others argue that the fuels used in 

the Stockholm Study’s evaporative 

emissions test program do not resemble 

fuels produced and used in the United 

States. API argues that RVP of the base 

fuels tested in the program are relatively 

high in comparison to summertime nonethanol fuels used in the US (9.14 and 

10.15 psi). API also argues that since the 

test program did not complete the 

evaporative emissions testing in the VT– 

SHED with actual vehicles and did not 

utilize the EPA approved Federal Test 

Procedure, it would be difficult to 

determine what the actual emissions 

results for E15 would have been under 

real world conditions. 

Similarly, many commenters noted 

limitations and concerns with the CRC 

E–65–3 permeation study cited by 

Growth Energy. The study did not 

evaluate evaporative emissions from 

entire motor vehicles, but rather from 

test rigs set up specifically to study 

permeation rates with various gasolineethanol blends. While the study also 

measured diurnal emissions by 

measuring breakthrough of the canister, 

it did so only using very low RVP fuels 

that met California’s reformulated 

gasoline standards. Further, the test rigs 

were uniquely configured for precise 

permeation measurement and not for a 

quantitative assessment of vapors from 

canister breakthrough. 

Several commenters allude to the fact 

that Growth Energy provided no 

analysis of how evaporative emissions 

control systems will behave over the full 

useful lives of motor vehicles. The New 

York Department of Environmental 

Conservation (‘‘NYDEC’’) expressed in 

particular their concern that full useful 

life testing is needed since E15 could 

cause increased water absorption which 

in turn may lead to decreased canister 

capacity and evaporative emissions 

breakthrough of the canister. 

Several comments noted that Growth 

Energy often compares performance 

results of E15 to E10 rather than E15 to 

certification fuel (E0) to satisfy waiver 

criteria. AllSAFE and the Alliance both 

suggest that EPA has a legal obligation 

to only consider comparisons of E15 to 

certification fuel. AllSAFE argues that 

EPA has required that CAA section 

211(f)(4) waiver requests compare the 

test fuel with certification fuel over the 

past 30 years, and that comparing E15 

to E10 would be making a comparison 

between two fuels that are not 

‘‘substantially similar’’ to certification 

fuel. AllSAFE continues by arguing that 

allowing comparisons to fuels that have 

been granted waivers rather than a 

comparison to fuels that are 

substantially similar to certification 

fuels may allow for ‘‘incremental creep’’ 

that might mask emissions effects of 

new fuels or fuel additives. 

d. EPA Analysis 

Growth Energy’s conclusions with 

respect to evaporative emission impacts 

are not adequately supported by the 

evidence they submitted. They did not 

provide any test data of in-use motor 

vehicles showing that they continued to 

meet their evaporative emission 

standards over their full useful life, but 

rather provided only limited 

information to address these concerns. 

The Stockholm Study they cited cannot 

be used to assess actual motor vehicle 

emission performance in comparison to 

their standards, but rather simply 

quantifies the potential increase in 

vapor generation rates (fuel volatility) 

for various gasoline-ethanol blends. 

Increased vapor generation may result 

in increased motor vehicle emissions, 

but one needs to evaluate this in the 

context of evaporative emissions control 

systems on actual motor vehicles. 

The CRC E–65–3 permeation study 

cited by Growth Energy did not evaluate 

evaporative emissions from entire motor 

vehicles, but rather from test rigs set up 

specifically to study permeation rates 

with various gasoline-ethanol blends. 

This study measured diurnal using only 

very low RVP fuels that met California’s 

reformulated gasoline standards. As a 

result, it cannot be used to assess the 

impact on diurnal emissions of higher 

volatility fuels. However, perhaps the 

most important limitation of this study 

is simply that it was a predecessor to 

much more comprehensive studies not 

addressed by Growth Energy (E–77, 

E–77–2, E–77–2b, E–77–2c) 63 into the 

permeation and evaporative emission 

impacts of various gasoline-ethanol 

blends that grew out of the original 

E–65–3 study. 

In addition to these study limitations, 

perhaps the most important concern is 

that Growth Energy failed to use the 

available information to perform the 

correct comparison. To grant a waiver 

for a fuel or fuel additive under CAA 

section 211(f)(4), it must be shown that 

motor vehicles will continue to meet 

their evaporative emission standards 

over their full useful life. Short of actual 

test data on motor vehicles 

demonstrating this, the evaluation of the 

potential emissions impacts must 

compare motor vehicles using the new 

fuel or fuel additive to their emissions 

performance on the fuel they were 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
68116 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 

64Running loss emissions measured in the E–77 

programs did not use the certification cycle. The 

study was focused on the worst case for permeation 

emissions and therefore used back-to-back LA92 

cycles to increase the tank temperature with more 

aggressive driving. The certification cycle uses the 

NYCC which 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, therefore the chart in Figure 

2 shows the effects of ethanol and RVP on running 

loss permeation. 

certified on, in this case E0. Instead, 

when considering the potential 

permeation and diurnal emission 

impacts, Growth Energy only drew their 

conclusion for E15 relative to E10 and 

E6, which themselves have been 

demonstrated in the CRC studies to 

cause elevated permeation and diurnal 

emissions. 

Growth Energy also failed to address 

potential long-term evaporative 

emission durability concerns in any 

meaningful way, referencing only the 

materials compatibility work discussed 

in section IV.A.4. 

Despite the limitations of the Growth 

Energy petition with respect to vehicle 

evaporative emissions, the Agency 

believes that sufficient information is 

available through other studies to 

support the conclusion that as long as 

E15 meets a summertime gasoline 

volatility level of no higher than 9.0 psi, 

Tier 2 compliant motor vehicles—which 

includes all MY2007 and newer 

gasoline-fueled light-duty motor 

vehicles and trucks, and medium-duty 

passenger vehicles—are expected to 

continue to comply with their 

evaporative emissions standards on E15. 

By virtue of testing of motor vehicles 

with gasoline-ethanol blends for more 

than three decades, it is known that 

gasoline-ethanol blends can have 

negative impacts on evaporative 

emissions when compared to E0 on 

which the motor vehicles are certified. 

Ethanol impacts diurnal emissions 

primarily through its impact on the 

volatility of the gasoline-ethanol blend, 

boosting the RVP of the final gasolineethanol blend by approximately 1 psi 

unless the gasoline blendstock is 

produced to offset the increase. 

Permeation emissions through 

elastomers in fuel tanks, lines, valves, 

and connectors have been shown to be 

strongly influenced by the presence of 

ethanol in the fuel, though the Tier 2 

standards have minimized this impact 

for Tier 2 compliant motor vehicles. Hot 

soak and running loss emissions will 

change in chemical composition with 

gasoline-ethanol blends and could be 

impacted over the long term by impacts 

of ethanol on motor vehicle component 

materials. Ethanol is also known to 

cause degradation of certain materials 

that have been used in motor vehicle 

gasoline and evaporative emission 

control systems that could lead to 

increased evaporative emissions over 

time. As a result of the changing 

emission standards and motor vehicle 

designs over the years, these impacts of 

ethanol on evaporative emissions will 

vary depending on the age of the motor 

vehicle. The discussion which follows 

is focused on the impact on Tier 2 motor 

vehicles. 

For hot soak and running loss 

emissions, E15 should not impact 

compliance with the evaporative 

emissions standards (see Figures 1 and 

2). Data from the CRC E–77 test 

programs suggest that there may be 

some correlation between hot soak and 

running loss 64 emissions and ethanol 

content, but the impact is small, of 

questionable statistical significance, and 

may be related to permeation that 

occurs during the testing (see Figures 

IV.A–1 and 2). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04NO10.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68117 

The CRC E–77 test programs also 

support the conclusion that diurnal 

evaporative emissions with E15 are 

likely to be comparable to those with E0 

at the same RVP. Testing performed on 

E0, E10, and E20 shows that diurnal 

emissions are a function of the volatility 

of the fuel, not the ethanol content. As 

the volatility of the fuel was increased, 

the number of motor vehicles which 

experienced canister emissions 

breakthrough also increased, with seven 

of eight Tier 2 motor vehicles 

experiencing canister breakthrough at 

10.0 psi RVP. These elevated diurnal 

emissions are not unexpected 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 what has been required of 

manufacturers in motor vehicle 

certification. Almost any canister 

breakthrough would be enough to cause 

Tier 2 motor vehicles to exceed their 

evaporative emissions standard. 

However, since these tests were done on 

a more severe diurnal cycle of 65 °F–105 

°F (California cycle), as opposed to the 

Federal requirement of 72 °F–96 °F, 

these test results only serve to highlight 

the concern that fuel with a higher 

volatility than 9.0 psi RVP during the 

summer will lead to motor vehicles 

exceeding their evaporative emissions 

standard in-use, but do not demonstrate 

it. At the same time, the Agency is also 

not aware of any data that would show 

that E15 with an RVP greater than 9.0 

psi would in fact allow motor vehicles 

to continue to meet their evaporative 

emissions standards. Given this lack of 

data and the significant potential for 

increased evaporative emissions at 

higher gasoline volatility levels, the E15 

waiver can only be considered in the 

context of E15 that maintains the same 

volatility as required of E0 certification 

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 addition to the 

increased evaporative emissions 

impacts that would result from allowing 

E15 to have a higher RVP than E0, as 

discussed in section X, 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 also 

consistent with how EPA has 

historically implemented CAA section 

211(h)(4) through 40 CFR 80.27(d), 

which provides that gasoline-ethanol 

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. 

While the CRC E–77 test programs 

were extremely valuable in assessing 

diurnal emissions, their primary 

purpose was to allow the quantification 

and modeling of evaporative permeation 

emissions separate and apart from other 

evaporative emissions for E0, E10, and 

E20. Some key findings of the test 

programs were that gasoline-ethanol 

blends can significantly increase 

permeation emissions compared to pure 

gasoline. However, consistent with the 

results from the E–65–3 test program, it 

appears that the magnitude of the 

impact is relatively constant across E6, 

E10, and E20 blends, i.e., no statistically 

significant difference. In other words, 

permeation emissions are a strong 

function of the presence of ethanol in 

the gasoline, not a strong function of the 

concentration within the range tested. 

Consequently, results for E15 would be 

anticipated to be comparable to those 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04NO10.003</GPH>
68118 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 

65Permeation here will include some background 

motor vehicle emissions, such as off-gassing from 

plastic components. The test procedure excluded 

canister breakthrough emissions and any refrigerant 

and methanol windshield washer solvent 

emissions. 

for E10 and E20. The results of the test 

program also demonstrate the 

effectiveness of the Tier 2 evaporative 

emissions standards at reducing 

permeation emissions. Based on the test 

results shown in Figure IV.A–3, the 

additional permeation emissions caused 

by the ethanol in E15 relative to results 

with E0 would appear to add little if 

anything, given the confidence 

intervals, to the evaporative emissions 

measurements of a Tier 2 motor vehicle 

operating over the Federal test cycle. 

Given the magnitude of manufacturer’s 

evaporative emissions compliance 

margins for Tier 2 motor vehicles, as 

shown in Figure IV.A–4, any increase in 

permeation due to E15 should not be 

sufficient to cause Tier 2 motor vehicles 

to exceed their evaporative emission 

standards. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04NO10.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68119 

66The two-day evaporative in-use data includes 

light-duty motor vehicles, light-duty trucks, and 

MDPVs, with the appropriate standards for each 

type of motor vehicle given in Table IV.A–4. 

67Technical Summary of DOE Study on E15 

Impacts on Tier 2 Vehicles and Southwest Research 

Teardown Report. See EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211. 

In addition to immediate evaporative 

emission impacts, Tier 2 motor vehicles’ 

evaporative emissions controls systems 

were designed for regular E10 use, and 

they should be compatible and durable 

with E15 use over the full useful life of 

the motor vehicle. While they are tested 

for compliance with their applicable 

evaporative emissions standards on E0, 

these motor vehicles are required to 

demonstrate durability of the 

evaporative emissions control systems 

by performing aging with E10; therefore, 

these motor vehicles must demonstrate 

that they meet their evaporative 

emissions standards over their full 

useful lives after essentially operating 

exclusively on E10 prior to the 

certification testing. In other words, the 

seals, connections and other evaporative 

and fuel system hardware must be 

designed to meet evaporative emissions 

standards over their full useful lives 

after aging exclusively on E10. In 

addition to designing them for sustained 

E10 exposure, these designs must have 

sufficient design robustness to 

encompass production variability in 

materials and tolerances. Robustness in 

the design of these components should 

provide the safety margin manufacturers 

target for volume production. That same 

robustness is what we believe should 

allow for durability on E15, and the 

available test data supports this 

conclusion. 

Testing conducted as part of the DOE 

Catalyst Study supports the conclusion 

that Tier 2 motor vehicle evaporative 

emissions systems should be durable inuse when operating on E15. The 

program, described above in section 

IV.A.1, did not show any evidence of 

evaporative emissions related problems. 

The onboard diagnostic monitors on the 

motor vehicles did not set any fault 

codes for evaporative emission system 

leaks. Furthermore, no physical 

differences were found between the 

impacts of E15 and E0 on motor vehicle 

components exposed to fuel or fuel 

vapor during the teardowns of the 12 

Tier 2 motor vehicles analyzed (six aged 

on E0 and six aged on E15).67 In the 

same study, one of DOE’s contractors 

performed evaporative emission testing 

on eight of the Tier 2 motor vehicles 

(four aged on E0 and four aged on E15) 

on which they were performing motor 

vehicle aging and exhaust emission 

deterioration testing. They performed 

evaporative emission tests at the same 

mileage intervals where they measured 

exhaust emission performance. While 

this was only a limited sample size, and 

not directly applicable to Federal 

certification testing due to the lower 

RVP of the test fuels, they did not show 

any greater deterioration in evaporative 

emission performance over time on E15 

compared to E0 (See Figure IV.A–5). 

While EPA is aware of another ongoing 

study, AVFL–15, which is looking at the 

durability of fuel system components, 

our understanding is that it is 

performing the testing on E20 using an 

atypical, ‘‘aggressive’’ ethanol. 

Consequently, while it may provide 

useful information for the 

manufacturers in designing their motor 

vehicles for the worst case conditions, it 

would not appear that it would have 

any bearing on the E15 partial waiver 

decision being made today. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04NO10.005</GPH>
68120 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 

68The vehicles in this study were not aged over 

standard evaporative emissions systems aging 

protocol but rather underwent rapid mileage 

accumulation. Three vehicles are presented here as 

the fourth vehicle developed a leak and the data 

was not comparable for fuel effects. 

69State of Minnesota and Renewable Fuels 

Association. The Feasibility of 20 Percent Ethanol 

Blends by Volume as a Motor Fuel, EPA Docket 

#EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211–0337. 70 ‘‘The Effects of E20 on Metals Used in 

Automotive Fuel System Components;’’ Bruce 

Jones, Gary Mead, Paul Steevens, and Mike 

Timanus; Minnesota Center for Automotive 

Research at Minnesota State University, Mankato; 

February 22, 2008. EPA Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0211–0338. 

71 ‘‘The Effects of E20 on Elastomers Used in 

Automotive Fuel System Components;’’ Bruce 

Jones, Gary Mead, Paul Steevens, and Chris 

Connors; Minnesota Center for Automotive 

68

e. Conclusion 

In assessing the potential impacts of 

E15 on evaporative emissions in their 

waiver application, Growth Energy did 

not draw their conclusions by 

comparing E15 to certification fuel (E0), 

but rather compared E15 to other 

gasoline-ethanol blends. In addition, 

Growth Energy provided only limited 

information on whether E15 would 

cause motor vehicles to violate their 

evaporative emission standards over 

their full useful lives. In fact, they made 

only a passing reference to potential 

evaporative emissions durability 

impacts of E15. As a result, they did not 

adequately support their waiver 

application with respect to evaporative 

emissions, either immediate emission 

impacts or long-term durability impacts. 

However, both evaporative emission 

testing performed in the CRC E–77 test 

programs (E–77, E–77–2, E–77–2b, E– 

77–2c) and limited evaporative emission 

testing as part of the DOE Catalyst Study 

support the conclusion that as long as 

E15 meets a summertime gasoline 

volatility level of no higher than 9.0 psi, 

Tier 2 motor vehicles are expected to 

continue to comply with their 

evaporative emission standards over 

their full useful lives when using E15. 

4. Materials Compatibility for MY2007 

and Newer Light-Duty Motor Vehicles 

a. Introduction 

Materials compatibility is a key 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. In most cases one would expect 

any materials incompatibility to show 

up in the emissions tests, but 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. As a result, along with 

emissions testing, materials 

compatibility is a key factor in assessing 

the emissions durability of a fuel or fuel 

additive. This section discusses 

materials compatibility issues for 

MY2007 and newer light-duty motor 

vehicles. However, since Growth 

Energy’s submission and information 

supplied by commenters regarding 

immediate emissions impacts of E15 

were not specific to the model year of 

the motor vehicles, this section also 

contains much of the information and 

discussion on emission impacts on 

older motor vehicles that is further 

discussed in section IV.C. 

b. Growth Energy’s Submission 

Growth Energy submitted a series of 

studies completed by the State of 

Minnesota and the Renewable Fuels 

Association (RFA) 69 that investigated 

materials compatibility of motor vehicle 

engines and engine components using 

three test fuels: E0, E10, and E20 

(‘‘Minnesota Compatibility Study’’). The 

Minnesota Compatibility Study looked 

at 19 metals (‘‘Metals Study’’),70 eight 

elastomers (rubber materials) 

(‘‘Elastomers Study’’),71 eight plastics 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04NO10.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68121 

Research at Minnesota State University, Mankato; 

February 22, 2008. EPA Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0211–0002.5. 

72 ‘‘The Effects of E20 on Plastic Automotive 

System Components;’’ Bruce Jones, Gary Mead, and 

Paul Steevens; Minnesota Center for Automotive 

Research at Minnesota State University, Mankato; 

February 21, 2008. EPA Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0211–0002.8. 

73 ‘‘The Effects of E20 on Automotive Fuel Pumps 

and Sending Units;’’ Nathan Hanson, Thomas 

Devens, Colin Rohde, Adam Larson, Gary Mead, 

Paul Steevens, and Bruce Jones; Minnesota State 

University, Mankato; February 21, 2008. EPA 

Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211–0002.28. 

74 ‘‘An Examination of Fuel Pumps and Sending 

Units During a 4000 Hour Endurance Test in E20;’’ 

Gary Mead, Bruce Jones, Paul Steevens, Nathan 

Hanson, and Joe Harrenstein, Minnesota Center for 

Automotive Research at Minnesota State University, 

Mankota, March 25, 2009. EPA Docket #EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0211–2721. Also available at http://

www.mda.state.mn.us/news/publications/

renewable/ethanol/e20endurance.pdf. 

75Effects assessed in the studies include: Pitting, 

surface texture change, discoloration, or loss of 

mass for metals; appearance, volume, weight, 

tensile strength, elongation, and hardness for 

elastomers; mass loss or gain, volume loss or gain, 

tensile elongation, impact resistance, and tensile 

strength for plastics; and corrosion and longevity as 

measured by flow and pressure tests for pumps and 

sending units. 

76 ‘‘Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comments on Clean Air Act Waiver Application to 

Increase the Allowable Ethanol Content of Gasoline 

to 15 Percent, A–22. EPA Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0211–2551.1. 77SAE J1297, revised July 2007, Surface Vehicle 

Information Report, Alternative Fuels. 78SAE 800786, ‘‘Effects of Mixtures of Gasoline 

With Methanol and With Ethanol on Automotive 

Elastomers,’’ Ismat A. Abu-Isa, General Motors 

Research Laboratory. SAE 2007–01–2738. 

79SAE 800786, ‘‘Effects of Mixtures of Gasoline 

With Methanol and With Ethanol on Automotive 

Elastomers,’’ Ismat A. Abu-Isa, General Motors 

Research Laboratory. 

80SAE 800789, ‘‘The Volume Increase of Fuel 

Handling Rubbers in Gasoline/Alcohol Blends,’’ 

Nersasian, A., Passenger Car Meeting, June 9–13, 

1980. 

81SAE 912413 ‘‘An Overview of the Technical 

Implications of Methanol and Ethanol as Highway 

Motor Vehicle Fuels,’’ Frank Black, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Research 

Triangle Park, NC. 

82 ‘‘Market Barriers to the Uptake of Biofuels 

Study, A Testing Based Assessment to Determine 

Impacts of a 20% Ethanol Gasoline Fuel Blend on 

the Australian Passenger Vehicle Fleet, Report to 

Environment Australia;’’ Orbital Engine Company; 

March 2003. 

83 ‘‘Market Barriers to the Uptake of Biofuels 

Study Testing Gasoline Containing 20% Ethanol 

(E20), Phase 2B Final Report to the Department of 

the Environment and Heritage;’’ Orbital Engine 

Company; May 2004. 

84Components were selected from three vehicles, 

the Holden 1990 VN and 1985 VK Commodore and 

a 1985 Ford XE Falcon to encompass most 

Continued 

(‘‘Plastics Study’’),72 and 24 common 

fuel sending unit and fuel pump 

combinations (‘‘Fuel Pumps Study’’ and 

‘‘Fuel Pump Endurance Study’’),73 74

currently used in automotive, marine, 

small engine, and fuel system 

dispensing equipment for physical or 

chemical effects due to ethanol.75 The 

Compatibility Study concluded that ‘‘the 

effects of 20 percent ethanol blended 

fuels would not present problems for 

current automotive or fuel dispensing 

equipment.’’ While much of the data 

cited by Growth Energy was on E20, 

they argued that because E20 showed 

comparable performance to E10 or E0, 

E15 should also be comparable by 

interpolation. In addition, Growth 

Energy stated that materials used to 

construct motor vehicle fuel systems 

have been certified to industry 

standards (SAE J1681) that are qualified 

using fuels containing 15% methanol, 

which is much more aggressive than 

ethanol. Since these standards have 

been used by the automotive industry 

for the last 15 years, Growth Energy 

concluded that most motor vehicles in 

use today should have fuel and 

evaporative systems compatible with up 

to 15% ethanol. 

c. Public Comment Summary 

Commenters responded to Growth 

Energy’s claims by arguing that E15’s 

effect on fuel system materials has not 

been properly studied. Many 

commenters noted that Growth Energy 

may have selectively excluded 

important findings from the Minnesota 

Compatibility Study. 

Regarding the Metals Study, some 

comments noted that 14 out of the 19 

metal samples that were tested 

exhibited greater than 50% measurable 

mass changes when tested with E20 

compared to E10, and if those metals 

had been compared to E0 instead of E10, 

some mass changes would have 

exceeded 200%. The Alliance stated 

that such mass changes in metals ‘‘can 

be a very noteworthy indication of 

heavily accelerated corrosive effects’’ 

since unprotected metals often 

accelerate in a non-linear fashion.76

With respect to specific materials, 

commenters stated that E15 will 

increase corrosion of terne plate gas 

tanks which were used in light-duty 

motor vehicles prior to the mid-1990s. 

The Alliance criticized the Elastomers 

Study for testing raw materials instead 

of actual fuel system components (such 

as hoses, seals, and diaphragms), and 

argued that the impacts of mid-level 

gasoline-ethanol blends on raw 

materials would differ substantially 

from manufactured parts because 

manufacturers vary the compounds 

used in the construction of fuel system 

parts. The Alliance commented further 

that most of the materials tested were 

neither being used nor expected to be 

used in the future. The Alliance also 

commented that the study failed to 

justify how a 500 hour exposure test 

period provides the ability to predict 

compatibility of materials. The Alliance 

added that while studies have shown 

generally acceptable materials 

compatibility with ethanol up to 10 

vol% ethanol, higher dosages have 

degraded certain metals, elastomers, 

plastics, and motor vehicle finishes.77

The Alliance also commented that many 

researchers have found that the effects 

of gasoline-ethanol blends on elastomers 

may be non-linear with increasing 

ethanol content and that a blend 

containing 10–25% ethanol may be 

more harmful to elastomers than E85 or 

E100.78 Moreover, the Alliance noted in 

their comments that over 30 years of 

research has led to the conclusion that 

concentrations between 15 and 50% 

ethanol provide the most challenging 

environment for elastomers compared to 

other ethanol levels. Regarding specific 

elastomers, commenters stated that E15 

will damage fuel system components 

made of nitrile rubber while 

fluorocarbon elastomers have shown the 

best resistance to swell, tensile strength, 

and elongation for ethanol gasoline 

blends at 10 vol%.79 80 81

Some commenters also expressed 

concerns with a particular material, 

polybutlyene terephthalate (PBT), tested 

in the Plastics Study. The Alliance 

noted that PBT experienced a slight 

elevation in tensile elongation as the 

percentage of ethanol was increased, 

and that the study was performed at 

temperatures lower than would be 

experienced under real-world driving 

conditions. Since materials like PBT 

undergo a chemical transformation 

when exposed to ethanol, the Alliance 

argued that the elongation effect on PBT 

would be greater at the elevated 

temperatures found in real-world 

driving conditions. The Alliance 

concluded that E15 will damage fuel 

system components made of PBT and 

noted that at least one fuel system 

supplier used PBT in fuel pump 

modules between model years 1993 and 

2004. 

Several comments noted that the 

sample size for the Fuel Pumps Study 

was too small to draw conclusions about 

the effects of E20 and that the duration 

of the test program included only a 

short-term, static soak test of 720 hours 

as opposed to testing periods of at least 

2,000 hours and up to 10,000 hours 

usually used to validate fuel pump 

designs and materials. Several 

commenters referred to the materials 

compatibility work in the Orbital 

Study 82 83 which evaluated the effects of 

E20 on fuel system components for 

several older model Australian 

passenger vehicles.84


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
68122 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 

component types within the Australian passenger 

car fleet. 

85SAE J1681, ‘‘Surface Vehicle Recommended 

Practice, for Gasoline, Alcohol and Diesel Fuel 

Surrogates for Materials Testing,’’ Issued 1992–09, 

Revised 2000–01. 

86 Ibid. 

87SAE J1297, revised July 2007, Surface Vehicle 

Information Report, Alternative Fuels. 

88Only a difference in intake valve deposits was 

seen. 

d. EPA Analysis 

The Agency is concerned, based on its 

review of the literature and automotive 

industry comments, that most pre-Tier 2 

motor vehicles, including Tier 0 

vehicles (from the 1980s to 1995) and 

Tier 1 vehicles (from 1996 to 2001), may 

have been designed for only limited 

exposure to E10 and consequently may 

have the potential for increased 

materials degradation with the use of 

E15. This potential for materials 

degradation may make the emissions 

control and fuel systems more 

susceptible to corrosion and chemical 

reactions from E15 when compared to 

the certification fuels for these motor 

vehicles which did not contain any 

ethanol, and therefore may increase 

motor vehicle emissions. For MY2000 

and older motor vehicles especially, E15 

use may result in degradation of 

metallic and non-metallic components 

in the fuel and evaporative emissions 

control systems that can lead to highly 

elevated HC emissions from both vapor 

and liquid leaks. Potential problems 

such as fuel pump corrosion or fuel 

hose swelling will likely be worse with 

E15 than historically with E10, 

especially if motor vehicles operate 

exclusively on E15. Since ethanol 

historically comprised a much smaller 

portion of the fuel supply, in-use 

experience with E10 was often 

discontinuous or temporary, while 

material effects are time and exposure 

dependent. Thus, issues may surface 

with E15 that may not have surfaced 

historically in-use with E10. 

Newer motor vehicles, such as Tier 2 

and NLEV vehicles (MY2001 and 

newer), on the other hand, were 

designed to encounter more regular 

ethanol exposure compared to earlier 

model year motor vehicles. IUVP, 

introduced under CAP2000, requires 

manufacturers to perform exhaust and 

evaporative emissions tests on in-use 

motor vehicles. This emphasis on realworld motor vehicle testing prompted 

manufacturers to consider different 

available fuels when developing and 

testing their emissions systems. 

Additionally, beginning with Tier 2, the 

durability demonstration procedures 

required the demonstration of 

evaporative emission system durability 

on E10. As a result, the materials in Tier 

2 motor vehicles have been able to 

mitigate the permeation effects of 

ethanol in the fuel, as discussed in 

section IV.A.2. As a result, our 

engineering analysis would suggest that 

Tier 2 compliant motor vehicles are 

more likely to be compatible with E15 

than older motor vehicles. 

While Growth Energy asserted that 

15% methanol was a worst-case fuel for 

E15 materials compatibility purposes, 

the Agency is not aware of any analysis 

or industry standard practice that 

confirms that motor vehicle materials 

tested on 15% methanol test fuels will 

cover gasoline-ethanol blends up to 

15% for materials compatibility and 

evaporative emissions purposes. SAE 

J1681 provides specifications and 

formulations for evaluating oxygenates 

in gasoline, including ethanol, on 

automotive fuel system components.85

EPA’s evaluation of SAE J1681 does not 

reveal that 15% methanol would be the 

surrogate worst case test fuel in 

evaluating all oxygenates. To the 

contrary, the fuel formulations for 

aggressive methanol and aggressive 

ethanol are different, as described in 

Appendix E of SAE J1681. EPA believes 

this difference is to account for 

contaminants that may be present in 

these two different products during 

production and/or transportation of 

each product. To properly evaluate the 

potential worse case impacts of a midlevel gasoline-ethanol blend, such as 

E15, on motor vehicle fuel systems 

components, the Agency believes it 

would be prudent to use the aggressive 

ethanol fuel formulation provided in 

Appendix E of SAE J1681, to the extent 

that it reflects E15 according to ethanol 

content, as well as any contaminant, 

that may be associated with the 

production or transportation of an E15 

gasoline product. The Agency notes that 

SAE J1681 includes language describing 

potential impacts of oxygenates on 

metals (from by-products derived from 

oxygenates and especially when water is 

present), polymers (including 

elastomers and plastics), and polymer 

systems (including laminates and multilayered components).86

e. Conclusions 

The Agency has reviewed the studies 

and information submitted by Growth 

Energy, commenters, and other publicly 

available information to further assess 

the potential materials compatibility 

performance of E15, including the 

Minnesota Compatibility Studies.87 The 

Minnesota studies were on component 

parts using laboratory bench tests rather 

than durability studies of whole motor 

vehicle fuel systems simulating ‘‘real 

world’’ motor vehicle use. Such tests are 

typically used to provide a first level 

screening of potential materials prior to 

more real-world testing to demonstrate 

materials compatibility of actual vehicle 

and engine components. In addition, the 

study admittedly assessed only a subset 

of materials used in motor vehicles and 

nonroad products over the years, and 

provided no information with which to 

correlate the materials tested with those 

in use in either the MY2007 and newer 

motor vehicles or older motor vehicles 

and nonroad products. Manufacturers 

have continually modified engine, fuel 

system, and emissions control system 

materials over the years in response to 

technology needs, in-use fuel quality 

changes (including E10), and emission 

standards. In many cases, they have 

incorporated special coatings and 

barriers in existing materials to address 

problems discovered in the field or in 

emissions testing. Furthermore, as 

commenters point out, there were 

differences found in the testing for some 

of the materials, which would suggest 

further testing was necessary. Finally, 

conclusions Growth Energy reached 

comparing the results of some of the 

materials on E20 to E10 are not helpful 

in assessing the impacts of E15 relative 

to E0. Consequently, while the 

Minnesota studies are informative, they 

cannot by themselves be used to draw 

any definitive conclusions. Rather, the 

conclusion is that actual vehicle 

durability testing is warranted. 

In the case of MY2007 and newer 

motor vehicles, the Agency believes that 

the DOE Catalyst Study has provided 

the additional information needed. 

Along with (1) our engineering analysis 

of the types of changes manufacturers 

have made in response to the Tier 2 

motor vehicle standards and the rapid 

rise of E10 use across the nation; (2) the 

limited information available from the 

Minnesota studies; and (3) the lack of 

any information from commenters 

showing definitive problems on Tier 2 

compliant motor vehicles, we believe 

that the durability testing performed by 

DOE as discussed in section IV.A.1. 

above is sufficient to provide assurance 

that MY2007 and newer motor vehicles 

will not exhibit any serious materials 

incompatibility problems with E15. Not 

only did the DOE Catalyst Study not 

uncover any emissions deterioration 

problems with E15 in comparison to E0, 

it also did not uncover any material 

differences upon tear-down and 

inspection of six of the motor vehicle 

pairs tested out to FUL.88 Therefore, the 

Agency does not expect that there will 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68123 

89 In Growth Energy’s comments submitted 

during the E15 public notice and comment period, 

Growth Energy submitted an updated summary for 

the RIT Study. See below for more details. 

90Application For A Waiver Pursuant to Section 

211(f)(4) of The Clean Air Act For E–15 submitted 

by Growth Energy on behalf of 52 United States 

Ethanol Manufacturers see EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0211, 33. 91Application For A Waiver Pursuant to Section 

211(f)(4) of The Clean Air Act For E–15 submitted 

by Growth Energy on behalf of 52 United States 

Ethanol Manufacturers see EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0211, 34. 

92 ‘‘E15/E20 Tolerance of In-Use Vehicle OBD–II 

Systems.’’ Presentation available at http:// 

www.crcao.com/. 

be materials compatibility issues with 

E15 that would cause MY2007 and 

newer light-duty motor vehicles to 

exceed their exhaust or evaporative 

emission standards over their full useful 

lives. 

5. Driveability and Operability for 

MY2007 and Newer Light-Duty Motor 

Vehicles 

a. Introduction 

In past waiver applications before the 

Agency, driveability and general 

operability of the motor vehicle have 

not necessarily been impacted by the 

fuel or fuel additive and therefore not 

significant to the decision making 

process. However, a change in the 

driveability of a motor vehicle that 

results in significant deviation from 

normal operation (i.e., stalling, 

hesitation, etc.) can conceivably result 

in unexpected emission increases and 

should be considered when evaluating a 

fuel or fuel additive. These increases 

may not be demonstrated in the 

emissions certification test cycles but 

instead be present during in-use 

operation. A motor vehicle stall and 

subsequent restart can result in a 

significant emissions increase because 

HC and CO emissions rates are typically 

highest during cold starts. Further, a 

consumer or operator might tamper with 

the motor vehicle in an attempt to 

correct the driveability by modifying the 

vehicle from its original certified 

configuration. 

b. Growth Energy’s Submission 

Growth Energy relies on the 

Minnesota Driveability Study, the RIT 

Study, the MCAR Study, and the DOE 

Pilot Study to support their claim that 

‘‘E–15 will cause no driveability issues’’ 

and will not lead to the removal of or 

the rendering inoperative of emissions 

control devices or systems based on 

negative performance impacts. Growth 

Energy claims that the RIT Study 

supports the Minnesota Driveability 

Study’s findings by driving 10 motor 

vehicles with significant mileage 

(between 30,000 and 120,000 miles) for 

over 75,000 miles on E20 under ‘‘real 

world conditions.’’ They argue that the 

RIT Study’s drivers did not detect any 

performance degradation and there were 

no engine or fuel part failures that 

required abnormal maintenance.89

Growth Energy argues that the MCAR 

Study, which tested 15 in-use cars and 

light-duty trucks operating on E10 and 

E30 for a year, showed ‘‘no driveability 

complaints, no reports of cold starting, 

vapor lock, or hard starting conditions, 

and no reports of hesitation with the 

E–30 blend of fuel.’’ 90 Growth Energy 

contends that the DOE Pilot Study 

showed that ‘‘none of the vehicles tested 

displayed a malfunction indicator light 

as a result of the ethanol content, no 

fuel filter plugging symptoms were 

observed, no cool start problems were 

observed in 75 °F and 50 °F laboratory 

conditions, and no fuel leaks or 

conspicuous degradation of the fuel 

systems were observed.’’ 91

In their application, Growth Energy 

asserts that the Minnesota Driveability 

Study, the MCAR Study, and the RIT 

Study demonstrate that higher gasolineethanol blends do not result in 

driveability or performance problems. 

c. Public Comment Summary 

Several commenters mention specific 

methodological issues with the 

driveability studies included in Growth 

Energy’s waiver request. The Alliance 

pointed out what they believe to be 

several flaws with the Minnesota 

Driveability Study. First, they noted low 

response rates for the drivers rating 

operability concerns. Second, the 

trained drivers did not drive motor 

vehicles back-to-back on E0 and E20, 

which made direct comparison of 

driveability on E0 to E20 impossible. 

Third, the Alliance argues that many of 

the batch fuel analyses were suspect, 

casting doubt on the actual fuel 

properties used in the study. The 

Alliance and others had similar 

critiques with the MCAR Study and also 

noted that neither the Minnesota 

Driveability Study nor the MCAR Study 

were peer-reviewed. With regard to the 

RIT Study, as mentioned previously, 

many commenters point out that the 

study summary provided with Growth 

Energy’s public comments does not 

provide enough detail to conduct a 

thorough independent analysis, making 

it difficult to verify Growth Energy’s 

claims. The Alliance argues that more 

testing needs to be conducted evaluating 

how ethanol affects T50 and TV/L in the 

gasoline-ethanol blends containing 

greater than 10 vol% ethanol. 

Growth Energy responded to these 

driveability issues in their comments by 

reiterating the arguments made in their 

E15 waiver application and noting that 

the updated summary of the RIT Study 

that they submitted as part of their 

comments showed no driveability or 

mechanical problems with 

approximately 400 motor vehicles 

driven on E20 for over 1.5 million miles. 

Commenters also raised questions 

regarding the sensitivity of the OBD 

system to increased gasoline-ethanol 

blends and some ongoing studies to 

quantify potential impacts. Honda 

submitted some limited data regarding 

potential motor vehicle sensitivity to 

higher gasoline-ethanol blends. 

Additionally, at the Mid-Level Ethanol 

Blends Research Coordination Group 

meeting on May 5, 2010, a presentation 

was made to members regarding 

possible implications of increased levels 

of ethanol on the vehicle OBD 

systems 92. The presentation described 

the findings of the first phase of CRC 

project E–90 which is intended to study 

the impact of ethanol on OBD systems. 

Phase 1 of the study was designed to 

investigate differences in the status of 

vehicle OBD monitors and other 

emissions control information in E10 

versus E0 areas of the country in an 

attempt to isolate potential ethanol 

impacts to OBD. Since E15 and E20 are 

not currently legal fuels for 

conventional motor vehicles (i.e., nonflex fuel vehicles), the study used the 

differences between E0 and E10 to 

project potential impacts of E15 and E20 

on the OBD system but did not actually 

perform any testing on E15 or E20. 

Similarly, Honda did not perform any 

actual testing using E15 or E20 but 

instead used the E0 to E10 information, 

combined with potential component 

tolerance stack-up, to assess risk of 

having the OBD system set a fault and 

illuminate the malfunction indicator 

lamp (MIL). 

d. EPA Analysis 

The Agency understands the concern 

for driveability and other operational 

issues that could potentially occur with 

an increase in ethanol content. During 

the initial introduction of ethanol over 

30 years ago, problems with hot fuel 

handling were encountered due to the 

ethanol boiling in the fuel system, 

resulting in operational issues like 

stalls, engine hesitations, misfires and 

vapor lock preventing hot restarts. Since 

the introduction of ethanol, motor 

vehicles have evolved to alleviate these 

early issues, mainly through fuel system 

design. These changes included the 

switch to fuel injection with an 

associated increase in the system fuel 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
68124 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 

93CRC Report No. 652, ‘‘2008 CRC Cold-Start and 

Warm-up E85 and E15/E20 Driveability Program,’’ 

October 2008. 

pressure, all of which have worked to 

reduce the potential for hot fuel issues 

when operating on gasoline-ethanol 

blends. In fact, E85 capable FFVs sold 

today typically operate at similar or the 

same fuel pressure as their non-FFV 

counterparts with no reported issues. 

Due to the stringent emission standards 

requiring precise fuel control, Tier 2 

vehicles have been engineered with the 

highest fuel pressure systems in vehicle 

history which make them also highly 

robust at managing ethanol’s low boiling 

point. The Agency does not believe that 

properly functioning fuel injected 

vehicles, particularly Tier 2 vehicles, 

will encounter any new heat related 

operational issues with an increase in 

ethanol content of the fuel to 15 vol%. 

Driveability issues could also occur 

from incompatibility between E15 and 

manufacturers’ approaches at calibrating 

a motor vehicle for fuels it is expected 

to encounter in-use. If the error in fuel 

quantity, caused by the fuel properties 

of E15 (i.e., oxygen content), is beyond 

what the system is designed to 

compensate for, driveability issues (cold 

start roughness, hesitations) can arise. 

However, due to the large variability 

found in fuels in the market today 

which can result in similar driveability 

behaviors, from experience with in-use 

fuels, manufacturers have employed 

methods to counter or compensate for 

fuel differences and try to prevent these 

driveability issues. Because of the 

stringent Tier 2 emission standards, Tier 

2 vehicles required focused attention to 

cold start fueling to ensure emission 

compliance while tolerating the 

different fuel blends that the vehicle 

could encounter in-use. This resulted in 

modification of calibration and control 

strategies by manufacturers to balance 

the need for precise cold start fuel that 

meet both emission requirements and 

operate properly when fuel properties 

vary in-use. Because manufacturers 

already calibrate motor vehicles based 

on their experience with in-use fuels, 

combined with lack of any reported 

driveability issues in any of the E15 and 

E20 test programs during both 

laboratory and road testing, the Agency 

believes that properly functioning and 

maintained motor vehicles will not 

experience an increase in driveability 

issues when operating on a properly 

blended E15 fuel. Collectively, the RIT 

Study, Minnesota Driveability Study, 

MCAR Study and a CRC cold start 

study 93 did not report any fuel related 

driveability issues demonstrated across 

different E15 and E20 seasonally 

blended fuels and verified during 

winter, summer and shoulder seasons, 

supporting the Agency’s findings. 

Motor vehicles produced since 

approximately 1995 have been equipped 

with OBD systems that monitor all 

aspects of the exhaust and evaporative 

emissions control system. The Agency 

recognizes that the additional oxygen 

content in E15 will be identified by the 

OBD system as a shift in the fueling 

requirements. In some motor vehicles, a 

shift in the fuel requirements beyond 

predetermined thresholds, based on the 

manufacturer’s research, can result in a 

MIL illumination. However, across the 

many different test programs with 

different motor vehicles and duty 

cycles, including lab testing, mileage 

accumulation and in-use operation, 

there were no reported incidences of 

MIL illumination from the use of 

increased ethanol for both E15 and E20. 

Based on this, the Agency believes that 

properly functioning (i.e., within 

component tolerances) and maintained 

motor vehicles will not experience an 

increase in MIL illumination due to the 

use of E15. However, for a vehicle that 

has a component issue or failure (i.e., 

intake vacuum leak, exhaust leak, etc.) 

which indirectly effects the same OBD 

monitors as ethanol content, it is 

possible that the increase in ethanol 

may push the OBD system monitor over 

the calibrated thresholds and cause a 

MIL illumination. 

e. Conclusion 

The Agency has reviewed the studies 

and information submitted by Growth 

Energy, commenters, as well as other 

information from the emissions and 

durability test programs to assess the 

potential for driveability and diagnostic 

issues on Tier 2 motor vehicles (i.e., 

MY2007 and newer). With the exception 

of ethanol content, fuel properties were 

largely allowed to vary across the 

different studies and test programs (i.e., 

gasoline blend stocks varied between 

programs and season). This included 

ethanol blends as high as E30 in the 

MCAR Study and the program with the 

largest amount of vehicles, the RIT 

study, operating on E20 throughout the 

year which included summer, winter, 

spring, and fall operation. In these two 

studies where the ethanol levels 

exceeded E15 and the vehicles were 

operated in a relatively uncontrolled 

manner (i.e., not driven on a specific 

duty-cycle), there were no reported 

driveability issues or OBD related 

problems on the vehicles. 

The DOE test programs, both the DOE 

Pilot Study and the DOE Catalyst Study, 

did not report any occurrence of 

driveability or diagnostics issues 

throughout the testing. For the 

durability program, mileage 

accumulation on the Tier 2 vehicles 

occurred at three locations including 

one location at altitude (Denver 

Colorado). For the mileage 

accumulation, fuels where made by 

splash blending locally available 

commercial fuels. Vehicle mileage 

accumulation was performed both on 

mileage accumulation dynamometers 

and on a track with actual drivers. There 

were no reported driveability issues or 

OBD related problems during the 

mileage accumulation period on the 

Tier 2 vehicles at the various testing 

locations. 

The Agency’s review of the data 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 operating 

and maintained MY2007 and newer 

light-duty motor vehicles. 

6. Overall Immediate and Long-Term 

Emissions Conclusions 

As described in the preceding 

sections, EPA evaluated Growth 

Energy’s submission based on five 

factors: Long-term exhaust emissions 

impact over time, immediate exhaust 

emissions impact; immediate and longterm evaporative system impacts; the 

impact of materials compatibility on 

emissions; and the impact of drivability 

and operability on emissions. Based on 

results from the DOE Catalyst Study in 

particular coupled with our engineering 

judgment, EPA believes there is strong 

evidence that MY2007 and newer lightduty motor vehicles will not exceed 

their emission standards over their 

useful life when operated on E15. 

Therefore, EPA is granting the waiver 

for MY2007 and newer light-duty motor 

vehicles. 

B. MY 2001–2006 Light-Duty Motor 

Vehicles 

EPA is deferring its decision on 

MY2001–2006 light-duty motor 

vehicles. DOE is in the process of 

conducting additional catalyst 

durability testing that will provide data 

regarding MY2001–2006 motor vehicles. 

The DOE testing is scheduled to be 

completed by November 2010. The data 

will be made available to the public. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68125 

94EPA certifies light-duty motor vehicles on a test 

group basis. A test group is a group of vehicles 

having similar design and emission characteristics. 

EPA will then consider these data and 

other data and information available to 

make a further determination on the use 

of E15 in those MY motor vehicles. 

C. MY2000 and Older Light-Duty Motor 

Vehicles 

Due to differences in vehicle 

standards and technology over time and 

in light of the data and information 

available, the Agency has chosen to split 

consideration of the E15 waiver request 

into model year groupings. This section 

concerns MY2000 and older light-duty 

motor vehicles. 

TABLE IV.C–1—TIER 0 AND TIER 1 EMISSION STANDARDS PHASE-IN BY MODEL YEAR

Tier 0 

Tier 1 Phase-in percentage 

MY1994 MY1995 MY1996 

Passenger car ....................................................... MY1981 and newer* ............................................. 40 80 100 

Light duty truck <6000 GVW ................................ MY1988 and newer .............................................. 40 80 100 

Light duty truck >6000 GVW ................................ MY1990 and newer .............................................. 50 100 

* Final diesel particulate standard required came in 1987. 

MY2000 and older light-duty motor 

vehicles have much less sophisticated 

emissions control systems compared to 

today’s vehicles and, as described 

below, may experience conditions that 

lead to immediate emission increases 

and may exceed their emission 

standards if operated on E15. Vehicles 

produced prior to the mid-1980s were 

equipped primarily with carbureted 

engines. The A/F ratio of the carburetor 

is preset at the factory based on the 

expected operating conditions of the 

engine such as ambient temperature, 

atmospheric pressure, speed, and load. 

As a result, carburetors have ‘‘open 

loop’’ fuel control which means that the 

air and fuel are provided at a specified, 

predetermined ratio that is not 

automatically adjusted during vehicle 

operation. As fuel composition can vary, 

an engine with a carburetor and open 

loop fuel control would never know if 

it achieved the desired A/F ratio or not. 

Since the vehicles at this time operated 

‘‘open loop’’ all of the time with no 

ability to react to changes in the A/F 

ratio, the addition of ethanol to the fuel 

tended to make the A/F ratio leaner, 

typically resulting in an immediate 

emission impact of reducing HC and CO 

emissions, but increasing NOX

emissions. However, some of these older 

open loop systems already operate at the 

lean edge of combustion on current 

commercial fuels so an increase in 

ethanol may cause them to begin to 

misfire resulting in HC and CO 

increases. 

As a result of the Clean Air Act of 

1970, EPA established standards and 

measurement procedures for exhaust, 

evaporative, and refueling emissions of 

criteria pollutants. From 1975 into the 

1980s, vehicles became equipped with 

catalytic converters, first with catalysts 

capable of oxidizing HC and CO, and 

then, in response to EPA’s ‘Tier 0’ 

standards, with three-way catalysts that 

also reduced NOX. With the ‘Tier 0’ 

standards, closed loop fuel control was 

required to maintain proper fuel air 

ratio control necessary to achieve high 

conversion efficiency in the three way 

catalyst. In most vehicles this was 

accomplished through the use of 

feedback carburetors. Vehicles produced 

from the late 1980s and even more so 

into the 1990s, as a result of more 

stringent California and Federal 

standards, evolved to incorporate more 

sophisticated and durable emission 

control systems. These systems 

generally included an onboard 

computer, oxygen sensor, and early 

electronic fuel injection with more 

precise closed loop fuel compensation 

and therefore A/F ratio control during 

more of the engine’s operating range. 

However, even with the use of closed 

loop systems through the late 1990s, the 

emission control system and controls 

remained fairly simple with a limited 

range of authority and were primarily 

designed to adjust for component 

variability (i.e., fuel pressure, injectors, 

etc.) and not for changes in the fuel 

composition. During this period, 

ethanol was only available in very 

limited areas of the U.S. so the 

manufacturers’ designs of the emission 

controls and the durability of emission 

control hardware generally did not 

account for the increased oxygen 

content of ethanol. As a result, this 

generation of vehicles certified to Tier 0 

and early Tier 1 emission standards 

experienced immediate emission 

impacts of ethanol and likely also 

deteriorated at different rates when 

exposed to ethanol. These designs 

continued to evolve during the early 

period of the Tier 1 emission standards 

as manufacturers and component 

suppliers gained experience with 

vehicles in-use. However, the largest 

improvements to emission controls and 

hardware durability came after 2000 

with the introduction of several new 

emission standards and durability 

requirements forcing manufacturers to 

better account for the implications of inuse fuels on the evaporative and exhaust 

emission control systems. 

The NLEV program for exhaust 

emissions began Federally with MY2001 

(MY1999 in the northeast trading region 

within the NLEV program) for all cars 

and light trucks up to 6000 lbs. GVW. 

This program essentially adopted the 

existing California LEV certified 

vehicles as a national vehicle program. 

These NLEV vehicles met more 

stringent emission standards for all 

criteria emissions requiring substantial 

changes to emission control hardware 

and strategies compared with Tier 1 

vehicles. The LEV and NLEV programs 

largely were the start of a migration to 

emission control hardware and 

strategies resembling future Tier 2 

program approaches (e.g. independent 

catalyst per bank on V engines). Many 

of the improvements (i.e. catalyst 

designs, washcoat formulation) may 

have been leveraged by the remaining 

new Tier 1 vehicles, mainly the over 

6000 lbs. GVW trucks not required to 

comply with the NLEV standards, but to 

what degree is unknown. 

The CAP2000 program was 

implemented for MY2001 and later 

vehicles. The CAP2000 program was 

designed to place more emphasis on inuse performance of vehicle emission 

controls with vehicles operating 

nationwide on the different available 

fuels. The IUVP introduced under 

CAP2000 requires manufactures to 

perform exhaust and evaporative 

emissions tests on customer vehicles. 

These tests must be performed at low 

and high mileage intervals and include 

at least one vehicle per test group 94 at 

75% of full useful life. This emphasis 

on real world vehicle testing prompted 

manufacturers to consider different 

available fuels when developing and 

testing their emissions systems. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
68126 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 

95Ricardo Inc., Technical Assessment of the 

Feasibility of introducing E15 Blended Fuel in U.S. 

Vehicle Fleet, 1994 to 2000 Model Years, 10 

September, 2010. EPA Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0211–14007.1. 

Under the CAP2000 program, 

manufacturers are allowed to design 

durability processes that predict in-use 

deterioration. Prior to CAP2000, 

manufacturers would run traditional 

durability programs to calculate 

emissions deterioration which generally 

required that vehicles accumulated 

mileage out to their full useful life 

under highly controlled conditions and 

fuels. Under the new program with 

increased emphasis on in-use emission 

levels, manufacturers must confidently 

ensure that their in-use emission 

deterioration is as predicted. 

The Enhanced Evaporative Emissions 

requirements were fully phased in for 

light-duty vehicles by 1999. These new 

requirements included both new 

standards and new test procedures: The 

2-day and 3-day diurnal tests with new 

canister loading procedures. In addition, 

the durability demonstration procedures 

that took effect with the Tier 2 program 

beginning in 2004 required the use of at 

least the maximum ethanol 

concentration permitted by Federal law 

that is commercially available for the 

entire service accumulation period. 

Along with the Enhanced Evaporative 

Emissions requirements, OBD 

requirements for evaporative leak 

detection monitors were introduced. 

This required vehicles to detect a leak 

equivalent to .040 inch in the fuel or 

evaporative emissions system. 

Beginning in 2001, EPA allowed 

manufactures to comply with California 

OBD regulations, which required 

vehicles to detect a leak equivalent to a 

.020 inch. While not required Federally, 

many manufacturers developed one leak 

detection system for sale in all 50 States, 

which complied with the more stringent 

California requirement. 

By MY2004, the SFTP was fully 

phased in. Additional test procedures 

were developed to better represent the 

driving habits and conditions 

experienced in actual customer driving. 

These procedures expanded the vehicle 

testing to include the US06 test, a high 

speed and high acceleration cycle, the 

SCO3 test, an air conditioning test cycle 

run in an environmental test chamber at 

95 °F, and a 20 °F cold test run on the 

FTP cycle. These additional test cycles 

coupled with the in-use testing required 

under CAP2000 have pushed 

manufactures to develop robust 

emissions control systems capable of 

withstanding the higher temperatures 

experienced on these more severe 

cycles. 

The tightening evaporative emission 

standards, the durability requirement to 

include prolonged exposure to ethanol 

in the fuel, the CAP2000 requirement to 

test high mileage in-use vehicles, and 

the OBD leak detection requirement 

have all combined to compel 

manufacturers to develop more durable 

evaporative emission systems and focus 

on testing with fuels that would be 

encountered in customer vehicles, 

including fuels containing ethanol. 

Thus, MY2000 and older vehicles have 

not benefitted from many of the design 

changes that MY2007 and newer lightduty motor vehicles have. Therefore, we 

do not have the same confidence with 

MY2000 and older light-duty motor 

vehicles as we do with MY2007 and 

newer light-duty motor vehicles with 

respect to operation on E15. 

1. Growth Energy’s Submission 

Growth Energy’s waiver application 

covered all model years of motor 

vehicles—they made no specific claims 

specific to MY2000 and older motor 

vehicles. A summary of Growth 

Energy’s submission with respect to the 

potential impacts of E15 on (1) exhaust 

emissions, both long-term durability 

and immediate impacts, (2) evaporative 

emissions, both long-term durability 

and immediate impacts, (3) materials 

compatibility, and (4) driveability and 

operability for MY2007 and newer lightduty motor vehicles is discussed in the 

respective subsections within Section 

IV.A. Since Growth Energy’s waiver 

application was for all model years of 

motor vehicles, the summary of their 

submission contained in Section IV.A is 

also applicable here for MY2000 and 

older light-duty motor vehicles. 

2. Public Comment Summary 

Similar to the broad applicability of 

Growth Energy’s submission, the public 

comments received tended to cover all 

model years of light-duty motor 

vehicles, and the summary of comments 

received contained in section IV.A. is 

also applicable here. However, the 

Alliance specifically commented that 

historically, it has taken about 20 years 

for an entire vehicle fleet to turn over, 

but with current depressed sales due to 

poor economic conditions, the turn-over 

rate could be slower in the near future 

and that a well-executed study should 

have a test fleet that is proportionally 

similar to the model years that comprise 

the national fleet. The Alliance argued 

that the bulk of the emissions data cited 

in Growth Energy’s waiver request focus 

on newer (i.e., Tier 2) vehicles and do 

not adequately represent the national 

vehicle fleet and that these older 

vehicles may be more sensitive to the 

effects of higher ethanol blends and 

constitute a greater portion of the 

number of vehicles currently in use. 

Specifically the Alliance commented 

that the DOE Pilot Study presents data 

from R. L. Polk describing the U.S. fleet 

but did not select the vehicles to 

statistically represent that fleet. The 

study included no Tier 0 vehicles, for 

example, and the selected test vehicles 

did not proportionally represent the 

vehicles in the Polk table. The test 

program generally ignored pre-1999 

motor vehicles, even though they will 

continue to be a large portion of the 

legacy fleet for many years. These older 

motor vehicles are most likely to have 

operational and emissions issues with 

E15 and E20. 

The Alliance also commented that 

many years of automaker experience 

with developing and producing vehicles 

capable of using E22, E85 and E100 

fuels have shown that engines need to 

be hardened for resistance to ethanol. 

Use of ethanol blends in unhardened 

engines can result in bore, ring, piston 

and valve seat wear. Deterioration of 

these components can lead to 

compression and power loss, misfire 

and catalyst damage 

Finally, EPA recently received a 

report by Ricardo 95 commissioned by 

the Renewable Fuels Association 

specifically discussing the potential 

impacts of E15 on MY2000 and older 

light-duty motor vehicles. This report’s 

conclusions stated that: 

‘‘While performing an engineering 

assessment on a fleet of such magnitude as 

the current U.S. motor vehicle fleet, it was 

necessary to make certain assumptions and 

approximations to allow an overall 

assessment to be made. Due to this 

unavoidable circumstance, there are certain 

exceptions to the overall findings of this 

study which may occur in the field due to 

unpredictable conditions outside the scope of 

normal operation. Without investigating each 

and every vehicle in the fleet individually for 

its reaction to an E15 fuel blend, there cannot 

be 100% certainty that some vehicles will not 

observe adverse effects from the use of E15. 

However, using statistical analysis, the fleet 

was reduced to a more manageable and 

representative collection of platforms and 

manufacturers. The vehicles arising from this 

methodology were evaluated and served as 

representative vehicles for the time period. 

The effect of E15 on various vehicle 

systems were assessed for vehicles in the 

1994 to 2000 MY time period. Overall, 

moving from the use of E10 to E15 in the 

current U.S. light vehicle fleet is seen as a 

low risk from an engineering analysis 

perspective. While certain risks do remain, 

they are manageable and exist in vehicles 

that are outside the normal bounds of 

‘‘standard’’ vehicles in the 1994 to 2000 MY 

timeframe.’’ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68127 

3. EPA Analysis and Conclusion 

a. Scope of MY2000 and Older Data to 

Support a Waiver Decision 

As highlighted by the Alliance in 

their comments, Growth Energy did not 

provide information to broadly assess 

the emission performance of E15 in all 

motor vehicles in the in-use fleet, and 

this is particularly true of MY2000 and 

older motor vehicles. Furthermore, there 

are important differences in design 

between the MY2000 and older and 

MY2007 and newer (Tier 2) vehicles 

that makes it impossible to simply rely 

on data collected on more recent model 

year vehicles. 

Growth Energy did make reference to 

the RIT and MCAR studies which 

included some vehicles from MY2000 

and older. However, as discussed in 

section IV.A, these studies have the 

following limitations: The vehicles 

tested in these studies do not fully 

represent the MY2000 and older fleet. 

The RIT study only performed 

emissions testing on 2 vehicles from 

MY2000 and older and the mileage 

accumulated on E20 for each vehicle 

was far less than the 120,000 mile FUL. 

Since the MCAR study did not use 

Federal test procedures it would be 

difficult to determine compliance to 

Federal emissions standards. Therefore, 

it is not possible to draw adequate 

conclusions concerning the potential 

impacts of E15 on the emission 

performance of MY2000 and older 

vehicles from these studies. 

The Agency is not aware of any other 

information that would allow us to fully 

assess the potential impacts of E15 on 

the emission performance of MY2000 

and older vehicles. The recently 

released Ricardo study, despite its focus 

on MY1994–2000 motor vehicles, does 

little to change this understanding. EPA 

believes that the Ricardo study offers 

little additional data and information 

with which to assess the emissions 

effect of E15 on MY2000 and older 

motor vehicles. First and most 

importantly, Ricardo did not perform 

any emissions or durability testing of 

E15 on MY2000 and older light-duty 

motor vehicles. Rather, they conducted 

a literature search of existing data and 

information already cited by Growth 

Energy, commenters, or otherwise 

available to the Agency, and simply 

focused their discussion on MY1994– 

2000 vehicles instead of all MY2000 and 

earlier vehicles. Second, the only new 

data and information provided in the 

Ricardo study was their visible 

inspection of fuel system components 

from 11 MY1994–2000 motor vehicles 

that were evaluated for any visible signs 

of material compatibility or durability 

issues. The fuel systems were collected 

from a reclamation service in Southeast 

Michigan (Southeast Michigan has had 

varying levels of E10 market penetration 

over the years). However, as the authors 

acknowledge, since no vehicle history 

records were available to indicate to 

what extent the fuel systems may have 

been exposed to E10, if at all, during 

their lifetimes, it is impossible to draw 

any definitive conclusions regarding the 

effects of ethanol on these components. 

Finally, the authors did not draw any 

conclusions as to the potential impacts 

of E15 relative to E0. The authors only 

concluded that ‘‘The analysis concluded 

that the adoption and use of E15 would 

not adversely affect fuel system 

components in properly engineered 

vehicles, nor would it cause then to 

perform in a sub-optimal manner, when 

compared to the use of E10.’’ 

In addition to the paucity of data on 

MY2000 and older motor vehicles, as 

discussed below, there are reasons for 

concern with the use of E15 in these 

motor vehicles, particularly with respect 

to long-term exhaust and evaporative 

emissions durability. This makes it 

difficult to rely on an engineering 

assessment and makes the need for 

actual emissions data critical. 

b. Exhaust Emissions—Long-Term 

Durability 

i. General Tailpipe Emissions Durability 

Concerns 

Ethanol enleans the A/F ratio, which 

leads to increased exhaust gas 

temperatures and therefore potentially 

incremental deterioration of emission 

control hardware and performance. 

Over time, the enleanment caused by 

ethanol has the potential to cause 

catalyst failure. This effect of E15 and 

the use of closed loop fuel trim to 

mitigate the effect are discussed in more 

detail in section IV.A.1.c.i above. 

The A/F ratio of the carburetor is 

preset at the factory based on the 

expected operating conditions of the 

engine such as ambient temperature, 

atmospheric pressure, speed, and load. 

As a result, carburetors have ‘‘open 

loop’’ fuel control, which means that the 

air and fuel are provided at a specified, 

predetermined ratio that is not 

automatically adjusted during vehicle 

operation. As fuel composition can vary, 

an engine with a carburetor and open 

loop fuel control would never know if 

it achieved the desired A/F ratio or not. 

Since the vehicles at this time operated 

‘‘open loop’’ all of the time with no 

ability to react to changes in the A/F 

ratio, the addition of ethanol to the fuel 

tended to make the A/F ratio leaner. 

This leaner operation could increase 

catalyst temperature and therefore 

increase the emissions deterioration 

rate. 

For MY2000 and older light-duty 

motor vehicles, which are capable of 

operating with closed loop fuel control, 

the fuel trim range is generally more 

limited than the range for newer 

vehicles, and these vehicles may use 

their full range of fuel trim adjustment 

to account for normal component 

deterioration. Injectors, sensors and 

changes to fuel pressure may shift with 

time and aging to use all of the fuel 

trim’s range of adjustment. The 

additional oxygenate in E15 may 

actually shift the A/F ratio more than 

the earlier introduction of E10 if the 

engine’s A/F feedback cannot 

compensate because it has reached its 

adjustment limit. In short, MY2000 and 

older motor vehicles and earlier are at 

risk of having insufficient thermal 

margins to accommodate ethanol blends 

up to E15 due to the limits of their fuel 

trim authority. 

There is very little test data on the use 

of E15 in older vehicles but the concern 

is more than just theoretical. Three 

studies—the CRC Screening Study, DOE 

Pilot Study, and the Orbital Study— 

discussed in section IV.A. highlight in 

particular the concern with MY2000 

and older motor vehicles. The CRC 

Screening Study (E–87–1) was a test 

program developed to look at the effects 

of mid-level ethanol blends on U.S. 

vehicles. This screening study was the 

first phase of a two-phase study 

evaluating the effects of mid-level 

ethanol blends on emission control 

systems. The purpose of this first phase 

of the study was to identify vehicles 

which used learned fuel trims to correct 

open loop air-fuel rations. Under the 

test program a fleet of 25 test vehicles 

was identified and acquired with six of 

those vehicles being MY2000 and older. 

The study collected vehicle speed, 

oxygen sensor air-fuel-ratio, and catalyst 

temperature data for four fuels (E0, E10, 

E15, and E20). The results of the three 

ethanol blended fuels compared to E0 

showed that four of the six MY2000 and 

older vehicles tested failed to apply 

long-term fuel trim to open loop 

operation in order to compensate for 

increasing ethanol levels. And that these 

same four vehicles exhibited increased 

catalyst temperatures when operated on 

E20 as compared to E0. While the 

subsequent DOE Catalyst Study 

concluded that this learned fuel trim 

was not important for MY2007 and 

newer motor vehicles because they are 

durable (and therefore can handle E15) 

as discussed in section IV.A, there was 

no such follow on program for MY2000 

and older motor vehicles so the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
68128 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 

96SAE J1297, revised July, 2007, Surface Vehicle 

Information Report, Alternative Fuels. 

durability of these vehicles on E15 is 

unknown. 

Another study suggests that many 

MY2000 and older motor vehicles may 

also have emission exceedances if 

operated on E15. In 2003, the Orbital 

Engine Company issued a report on the 

findings of vehicle testing it completed 

to assess the impact of E20 on the 

Australian passenger vehicle fleet. 

While the Australian vehicles in this 

study were not representative of U.S. 

vehicles of the same model years, they 

are similar to MY2000 and older U.S. 

motor vehicles with respect to 

technology and emission standards. The 

testing program covered vehicle 

performance and operability testing, 

vehicle durability testing, and 

component material compatibility 

testing, on nine different vehicle makes 

or models, five vehicles from MY2001 

and four vehicles from MY1985 to 

MY1993. Testing results showed 

increases in exhaust gas temperature in 

five of the nine vehicles tested with 

three showing increases in catalyst 

temperature. Enleanment was found to 

occur in six of the nine vehicles tested, 

with three having closed loop control— 

the old vehicles without closed loop 

control all displayed enleanment. In 

general, the increase in exhaust gas 

temperature was found to follow those 

vehicles with enleanment. Furthermore, 

one vehicle in the study experienced 

catalyst degradation sufficient to make 

the tested vehicle no longer meet its 

applicable Australian emission 

standards. 

Hence, based on this very limited test 

data and our engineering judgment, we 

can conclude that MY2000 and older 

motor vehicles have the potential to 

experience conditions when operated 

on E15 which may ultimately lead to an 

increase in exhaust emissions. 

Specifically, enleanment followed by 

higher exhaust temperatures could 

cause accelerated catalyst deterioration. 

Furthermore, there are potential 

concerns other than just catalyst 

durability for these older vehicles, as 

highlighted by the Alliance in their 

comments. Absent actual emissions 

durability testing, it is not possible to 

know the validity of these emissions 

concerns with E15 in MY2000 and older 

motor vehicles. Unlike for MY2007 and 

newer motor vehicles we are not aware 

of any existing test program which can 

address the lack of data concerning 

MY2000 and older motor vehicles. 

ii. Immediate Exhaust Emission Impacts 

Growth Energy claims that the ACE 

Study, the RIT Study, the MCAR Study, 

and the DOE Pilot Study show that E15 

results in decreased emissions of NOX, 

NMHC, and CO on average, and no 

increase in NMOG emissions when 

compared to E0. Growth Energy argues 

that these studies demonstrate E15 will 

not cause or contribute to the failure of 

vehicles to meet their emissions 

standards. While much of the data cited 

by Growth Energy was on E20, they 

argued that because the studies they 

submitted with their application show 

favorable emissions performance on 

blends that contained higher than 15% 

ethanol (i.e. E20), those results should 

be applicable to E15 by interpolation. 

As discussed in IV.A.1, the ACE 

study, RIT Study, and MCAR Studies 

offer little value in assessing the impact 

of E15 on immediate exhaust emissions. 

Since the DOE Pilot Study focused only 

on motor vehicles newer than MY2000, 

Growth Energy provided very little 

information of value in assessing the 

immediate exhaust emission impacts of 

E15. Furthermore, very little data has 

been collected on E15 on MY2000 and 

older vehicles. However, also as 

discussed in section IV.A.1.b., the 

Agency believes that there is sufficient 

data on older vehicles to quantify the 

immediate emission impacts of E10 on 

older vehicles and furthermore 

sufficient data from testing E15 

primarily on newer vehicles to have a 

reasonable projection of what the 

immediate emission impacts of E15 are 

likely to be on MY2000 and older 

vehicles. Specifically, as discussed in 

section IV.A.1.b., EPA would anticipate, 

that the immediate emission impact of 

E15 will be similar for both older 

vehicles and MY2007 and newer 

vehicles—to decrease NMOG (as well as 

NMHC and total HC) and CO emissions 

and to increase NOX emissions, with 

increases in NOX in the range of 5–10%. 

The importance of this NOX increase is 

a function of what the durability 

impacts might be, since they must be 

taken into consideration together when 

evaluating potential impacts on 

compliance with emissions standards. 

c. Evaporative Emissions 

Much of the discussion in section 

IV.A.2 applies to MY2000 and older 

motor vehicles. However it is important 

to note that this group of vehicles has 

several key differences. 

First, the majority of these vehicles 

were designed and built prior to the 

enhanced evaporative emissions 

requirements. These vehicles were 

tested using the 1-hour diurnal plus hot 

soak procedure only. The CRC E–77 test 

programs showed that permeation 

emissions are considerably higher on 

pre-Tier 2 motor vehicles than on Tier 

2 motor vehicles. Therefore it is 

expected that permeation emissions 

with E15 on MY2000 and older motor 

vehicles will be much higher than that 

discussed in section IV.A.3. for MY2007 

and newer motor vehicles. However, 

given that the evaporative emission 

standards that applied to MY1998 and 

older motor vehicles (pre-enhanced 

evaporative emission control standards), 

used only a 1-hour diurnal test, the 

increased permeation emissions would 

not show up appreciably in the 

certification testing and could not cause 

motor vehicles to exceed the emission 

standard. 

Second, the MY2000 and older motor 

vehicles were not required to 

demonstrate evaporative emissions 

durability with fuels containing ethanol. 

Furthermore, E10 had a limited market 

share during the time when many of 

these motor vehicles were designed and 

built. This raises the concern that the 

fuel and evaporative emissions system 

components may not have been 

designed for constant exposure to E10, 

and especially not E15. These older 

motor vehicles could experience 

significant material compatibility issues 

(as discussed below) that could lead to 

elevated evaporative emissions over 

time or both fuel and vapor leaks. Thus, 

while the immediate evaporative 

emission impacts of E15 may not be a 

waiver concern, evaporative emission 

durability would be a primary concern 

for MY2000 and older motor vehicles. 

Finally, these motor vehicles were not 

subject to OBD leak detection, so if 

problems did occur there would be no 

OBD warning for the vehicle owner. 

d. Materials Compatibility 

The Agency has reviewed the studies 

that have shown generally acceptable 

materials compatibility in newer motor 

vehicles (i.e. Tier 2 motor vehicles) with 

ethanol up to 10% by volume, but 

degradation of certain metals, 

elastomers, plastics, and vehicle 

finishes with higher dosages.96

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 

MY2000 and older 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. We can conclude, however, that 

some portion of the fleet may 

experience changes that could result in 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68129 

accelerated component failures beyond 

what would be expected on E0 or E10. 

We are especially concerned that older 

motor vehicles may not have been 

designed to accommodate ethanol 

blends. 

The Agency believes, based on its 

review of the literature and automotive 

industry comments, that a number of 

pre-Tier 2 motor vehicles, including 

Tier 0 motor vehicles (from the 1980s to 

1995) and Tier 1 motor vehicles (from 

1996 to 2001), may have been designed 

for only limited exposure to E10 and 

consequently may have the potential for 

increased material degradation with the 

use of E15 even though they are beyond 

their useful life requirements. This 

potential for material degradation may 

make the emissions control and fuel 

systems more susceptible to corrosion 

and chemical reactions from E15 when 

compared to the certification fuels for 

these motor vehicles which did not 

contain any ethanol, and therefore may 

increase vehicle emissions. For MY2000 

and older motor vehicles, especially, 

E15 use may result in degradation of 

metallic and non-metallic components 

in the fuel and evaporative emissions 

control systems that can lead to highly 

elevated hydrocarbon emissions from 

both vapor and liquid leaks. Potential 

problems such as fuel pump corrosion 

or fuel hose swelling will likely be 

worse with E15 than historically with 

E10, especially if motor vehicles operate 

exclusively on it. Since ethanol 

historically comprised a much smaller 

portion of the fuel supply, in-use 

experience with E10 was often 

discontinuous or temporary, while 

material effects are time and exposure 

dependent. Thus, issues may surface 

with E15 that have not surfaced 

historically in-use. 

The authors of the Ricardo study 

acknowledge that ‘‘Many materials have 

been used in the fuel systems of light 

duty motor vehicles, small engines, and 

off-road equipment. Limiting the scope 

to light duty motor vehicles, including 

passenger cars and light trucks, from the 

target range of model years (1994 to 

2000) it is impractical to complete a 

comprehensive survey of the materials 

that might be exposed to liquid fuels.’’ 

This highlights the concern that older 

motor vehicles could experience 

significant material compatibility issues. 

e. Driveability and Operability for 

MY2000 and Older Light-Duty Motor 

Vehicles 

Very little test data was submitted 

regarding driveability and general 

operability of MY2000 and older lightduty motor vehicles operating on E15. 

However as discussed in the MY2007 

and newer light-duty motor vehicle 

analysis, past issues with driveability 

and operability of older technology fuel 

controls have been observed with fuels 

containing ethanol. Hence, absent data 

to prove otherwise, there is uncertainty 

regarding the ability of MY2000 and 

older motor vehicles to handle E15. We 

have concerns that these motor vehicles 

could experience driveability and 

operability issues that may also lead to 

an emissions increase. 

f. Conclusions 

It is the burden of the applicant to 

demonstrate that any new fuel or fuel 

additive that requires a waiver under 

CAA section 211(f)(4) of the 

substantially similar prohibition in CAA 

section 211(f)(1) will not cause or 

contribute to the failure of motor 

vehicles to meet their emissions 

standards over the vehicles’ full useful 

life. Growth Energy has not made this 

demonstration for MY2000 and older 

light-duty motor vehicles as Growth 

Energy has not provided sufficient data 

and information to broadly assess the 

performance of these motor vehicles 

while using E15. Additionally, based on 

our own engineering judgment after 

review of all available data and 

information for MY2000 and older lightduty motor vehicles, we find that there 

are concerns about potential emissions 

increases with the use of E15 in these 

vehicles, particularly regarding longterm exhaust and evaporative emissions 

(durability) impacts and materials 

compatibility. Therefore, the Agency 

has concluded that it cannot grant a 

waiver for the use of E15 in MY2000 

and older light-duty motor vehicles 

based on existing data. 

V. Nonroad Engines and Equipment 

(Nonroad Products) 

A. Introduction 

Past waiver decisions were made 

solely on the basis of the emission 

impacts of the fuel or fuel additive on 

motor vehicles. However, with the 

passage of the Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007, CAA section 

211(f)(4) was expanded to require that 

the emissions impacts on nonroad 

engines and nonroad vehicles 

(collectively referred to as nonroad 

products in this section) also be taken 

into consideration when reviewing a 

waiver application. Nonroad products 

for the following discussion is defined 

as those nonroad products that contain 

spark-ignition engines and are used to 

power such nonroad vehicles and 

equipment as boats, snowmobiles, 

generators, lawnmowers, forklifts, 

ATVs, and many other similar products. 

These nonroad products are typically 

used only seasonally and occasionally 

during the season which is very 

different from the daily use of 

automobiles. Due to the seasonal and 

occasional use, consumers can hold 

onto and use their nonroad products 

over decades with some being 30 or 40 

years old. Nonroad engines are typically 

more basic in their engine design and 

control than engines and emissions 

control systems used in light-duty motor 

vehicles, and commonly have 

carbureted fuel systems (open loop) and 

air cooling (extra fuel is used in 

combustion to help control combustion 

and exhaust temperatures). 

EPA received authority to regulate 

emissions from nonroad products with 

the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. 

Through a series of subsequent 

rulemakings, EPA has promulgated 

exhaust emission standards for the 

categories of new nonroad engines that 

use motor vehicle gasoline: (1) Small 

spark-ignition engines, (2) large sparkignition engines, (3) marine spark 

ignition engines, and (4) recreational 

engines. Evaporative emission standards 

(tank permeation, hose permeation, 

diurnal and running loss) have been 

promulgated on a portion of the 

nonroad products in these categories. 

Thus, like for motor vehicles, EPA’s 

emissions impact analysis for nonroad 

products concentrates on the following 

four major areas: (1) Exhaust emissions, 

both immediate and longer-term 

durability, (2) evaporative emissions, 

both immediate and long-term; (3) 

materials compatibility, and (4) 

driveability. 

The following table summarizes the 

various nonroad products and their 

applicable emissions standards. The 

current standards are to be met after a 

period of engine aging which is done on 

either a dynamometer or chassis per 

regulation requirements per nonroad 

sector. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
68130 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04NO10.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68131 

97On-highway motorcycles have separate 

emissions standards and minimum useful life 

requirements, which may be found in 40 CFR Part 

86 Subpart E. 

Typical emission control strategies for 

nonroad products include enleanment 

and engine redesign with some limited 

number of nonroad products adding 

catalysts. A limited number of nonroad 

products have also incorporated 

electronic fuel injection; however the 

vast majority of all nonroad products 

still use open loop fuel systems (either 

carbureted or fuel injected) and hence 

do not adjust automatically for 

oxygenated fuel. The result of all this is 

that there is a broad range of nonroad 

engine and equipment designs across 

the nonroad sector, making it difficult to 

apply data or conclusions from one 

nonroad product broadly. For example, 

the following list shows the various 

trends in design changes in nonroad 

engines due to emission regulations. 

• Small spark-ignition Class I and 

Class II (nonhandheld) engines are 

typically open loop carbureted 4-stroke, 

side valve or overhead valve design, air 

and fuel cooled engines. Engine 

manufacturers have incorporated 

changes to the engine designs 

(improving combustion chamber design, 

adding valve guides, improving cooling, 

etc.), incorporated catalysts on some 

models and enleaned engine operating 

A/F ratios from past richer operation 

approaches. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04NO10.008</GPH>
68132 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 

98Bresenham, D. and Reisel, J. ‘‘The Effect of High 

Ethanol Blends on Emissions from Small Utility 

Engines,’’ SAE 1999–01–3345, JSAE 9938100, 1999. 

99EPA Docket Number: EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0211–0002.6: Growth Energy Application, 34. 

100EPA Docket Number: EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0211–0002.6:. Growth Energy Application, 34. 

101The study contained two parts; (1) a pilot (new 

engine) emission study and (2) a study of emissions 

after a full life durability dynamometer aging. Four 

different engines were used in the full life 

durability portion (Briggs & Stratton, Honda, Stihl, 

Poulan) and multiple engines for each of these were 

utilized in the study. The multiple engines were 

used to age different engines on different ethanol 

blend fuels (E0, E10, E15 and E20). 

102Small spark ignition engines are grouped into 

seven Classes and include Class I, Class I–A, Class 

I–B, Class II, Class III, Class IV and Class V. The 

engines in the DOE Pilot Study were in Class I, 

Class II and Class IV for the pilot study and in 

Classes I and IV for the full life study. 

• Small spark-ignition Class III–Class 

V (handheld) engines are typically open 

loop carbureted 2-stroke,air and fuel 

cooled engines. Engine manufacturers 

have incorporated changes to the 2 

stroke engine designs including reduced 

scavenging, lean out the A/F ratio, from 

past richer operation approaches, and 

catalysts (on some models). Some 

manufacturers have switched to 4-stroke 

design or mixed (2- and 4-stroke) design 

where the application allows. 

• Large Spark Ignition Engines are 

typically retrofitted automobile engines 

and a number of them do run on motor 

vehicle gasoline. These engines are 

water cooled and run feedback 

electronic controls much like their 

automotive equivalent. 

• Marine outboard and personal 

watercraft engines were typically open 

loop carbureted 2 stroke engines. Today 

these engines are typically open loop 4- 

stroke engines or direct injected 2-stroke 

engines. Engines are water cooled. 

• Marine sterndrive/inboard engines 

are typically open loop 4-stroke 

carbureted or electronic fuel injection 

and emission regulations in 2010 are 

expected to result in catalysts on 

sterndrive/inboard engines and possibly 

closed loop electronic fuel injection. 

Engines are water cooled. 

• Off-highway motorcycles and ATVs 

have typically been open loop 

carbureted 2-stroke and 4-stroke engines 

but are becoming more 4-stroke design 

with some fuel injection. These engines 

are typically air and fuel cooled. 

• Snowmobile engines have typically 

been open loop carbureted 2-stroke 

engines but have recently started to 

migrate towards fuel injection and even 

some 4-stroke engines. 

B. Growth Energy Submission 

Growth Energy provided only limited 

information in support of their waiver 

request application regarding the 

potential emission impacts of E15 on 

nonroad products. For addressing the 

potential long-term exhaust emission 

(durability) impacts, Growth Energy 

refers to a single study of ethanol blend 

use in nonroad engines: the DOE Pilot 

Study. Growth Energy states in its 

application that the DOE Pilot Study 

compared regulated emission levels 

from a comprehensive and nationally 

representative fleet of 28 small nonroad 

engines (SNREs), and that the DOE Pilot 

Study showed that regulated emissions 

were no worse for E15 and E20 when 

compared with E0. Growth Energy 

argues that the DOE Pilot Study 

demonstrates that E15 will not cause or 

contribute to nonroad engines failing to 

meet emissions standards. 

For addressing immediate exhaust 

emission impacts, Growth Energy 

referenced a 1999 SAE report, ‘‘The 

Effect of High Ethanol Blends on 

Emissions from Small Utility 

Engines.’’ 98 The study conducted 

emissions testing on three MY1994 

small (12.5 hp) engines using SAE and 

EPA procedures. Ethanol was splash 

blended with a commercial RBOB to 

produce E0, E10, E25, and E50. The 

small engine set included two 12.5-hp 

(9.3 kW gross rating) Briggs & Stratton 

side-valve engines, and one 12.5-hp 

Kohler overhead-valve engine. The 

engines started out running rich on E0, 

but became leaner with increasing 

ethanol content. As the ethanol 

concentration increased, HC and CO 

emissions decreased, and NOX

emissions increased. The emissions 

results were fully consistent with the 

observed stoichiometries. Because NOX

is regulated by standards for HC+NOX, 

from a regulatory perspective, the 

overall emission performance was 

relatively unaffected by the changes in 

ethanol content. Growth Energy claims 

this study demonstrates that E15 should 

not have any impact on HC+NOX

emissions. 

Growth Energy did not submit any 

test data that evaluated how the use of 

E15 would impact evaporative 

emissions and evaporative emissions 

controls for nonroad products, either for 

immediate emission impacts or longterm evaporative emission impacts 

(durability). 

They did, however, cite the 

Minnesota Compatibility Study to 

address potential materials 

compatibility concerns with E15; 

materials compatibility issues could 

also lead to evaporative (short-term 

permeation or long-term durability) as 

well as long-term exhaust emission 

impacts. Growth Energy suggests that 

the Minnesota Compatibility Study 

tested commonly used materials in the 

construction of nonroad engines and 

that the DOE Pilot Study concluded that 

‘‘no obvious materials compatibility 

issues were observed during [the] 

testing’’ of SNREs.99 Growth Energy 

argues that the Minnesota Compatibility 

Study demonstrates that SNREs should 

experience no significant materials 

compatibility problems with E15. 

Growth Energy did not provide any 

data or information quantifying the 

potential impacts of E15 on the 

operability or driveability of nonroad 

products. Instead, they pointed to the 

DOE Pilot Study discussed above which 

evaluated long-term emission 

performance of SNREs. Growth Energy 

claims that the DOE Pilot Study 

demonstrates that the use of E15 will 

not have a discernable impact on the 

performance and operability of SNREs. 

They stated that since the DOE Pilot 

Study shows that the engine 

performance of SNREs varies 

considerably regardless of fuel type 

used that it is not possible to isolate the 

effects of ethanol on the operability of 

SNREs.100

In their comments, Growth Energy 

wrote that there ‘‘is no scientific basis’’ 

for excluding SNREs in a waiver for 

E15, and further states that the DOE 

Pilot Study ‘‘found no statistically 

significant impact on operations from 

higher-blend ethanol, including E–15.’’ 

Growth Energy also argues that there are 

no studies that show that E15 will create 

problems for nonroad engines (marine 

engines specifically). 

C. Public Comment Summary 

AllSAFE and several other 

commenters argued that the DOE Pilot 

Study’s test program is too small and 

unrepresentative of the national SNRE 

population. The commenters pointed 

out that the DOE Pilot Study only 

looked at 10 different small spark 

ignited engines <19kW.101 The 

commenters noted that those engines 

were only from three of the possible 

seven main classes of SNREs.102 The 

commenters stated that in 2008, over 

1,000 individual SNREs were certified 

by EPA, so the 10 engines tested were 

not comprehensive and nationally 

representative. 

Commenters also noted that the DOE 

Pilot Study itself says that ‘‘DOE’s test 

program could focus only on a small 

subset of these engine families.’’ 

AllSAFE also argues that the DOE Pilot 

Study demonstrates that every lawn and 

garden engine tested showed significant 

increases in emissions and greater 

emissions control system deterioration 

with increasing ethanol levels. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68133 

103HC reduction estimated from graph while NoX

and HC+NOX changes were stated in the report. 

104The Briggs and Stratton Study stated ‘‘A fuel 

soak test was performed on all parts that come into 

direct contact with the fuel. These parts include 

carburetor bodies of zinc and aluminum, brass fuel 

metering jets, rubber and fiber gaskets, rubber 

primer bulbs, floats, and fuel bowls.’’ No engine was 

specifically mentioned. 

105 It was not clear exactly what parts were used 

for the fuel soaking tests. It was stated in the study 

that a 6.0 HP Quantum engine was used, 

specifically ‘‘engine 123K02 0239E1 04061458 was 

used for all testing except exhaust emissions.’’ 

However, it was stated that ‘‘parts’’ were soaked, not 

an engine. 

106EPA Docket Number: EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0211–2559. 

107 Generator sets need constant speed in order to 

provide reliable power for tasks. Lawnmowers 

require consistent engine speed in order to maintain 

constant blade tip speed whose top speed is 

governed by a safety standard. 

108See Tables in 73 FR 59034, 59036 (10/8/08). 

Furthermore, AllSAFE points out that 

the DOE Pilot Study demonstrated 

higher exhaust temperatures with 

increasing ethanol levels, which may 

adversely impact numerous emissionrelated components, including pistons, 

crankshafts, gaskets, and catalysts 

(particularly under off-nominal 

conditions). 

AllSAFE’s submittal contained 

emission results on the testing of a 

Briggs and Stratton 6.0 horsepower 

Quantum engine (Class I) on E20 

(‘‘Briggs and Stratton Study’’). AllSAFE 

points out that the Briggs and Stratton 

Study demonstrated that new engine 

emission testing of the Quantum engine 

on E20 had an adverse effect on NOX

emissions. Exhaust emission testing 

results on the engine showed a decrease 

of approximately 32% in HC emissions 

and an 133% increase in NOX emissions 

using E20 when compared to E0, which 

resulted in 10.5% increase in HC+NOX

emissions. 103

Many commenters contend that use of 

E15 in nonroad products causes 

material compatibility concerns and 

necessitates further investigation into 

the impacts of the use of E15 in nonroad 

engines. Commenters point to two 

additional studies not cited in Growth 

Energy’s waiver application: (1) An 

Orbital Study; and, (2) the Briggs and 

Stratton Study. The Orbital Study is a 

separate nonroad product study (i.e.: 

separate from the Orbital Study on 

Australian motor vehicles), that 

conducted 2,000-hour bench testing 

with E20 on materials from the fuel 

systems of a Mercury 15hp Marine 

Outboard engine and a Stihl F45R Line 

Trimmer (‘‘Orbital Nonroad Products 

Study’’). The Orbital Nonroad Product 

Study found that E20 caused severe 

corrosion, rusting and pitting of metallic 

and brass components, such as the 

carburetor body and throttle, piston 

rings, crankshaft seal housing, 

crankshaft bearings and surfaces, 

connecting rod, cylinder liner, throttle 

blades. The study also found that E20 

caused swelling, distortion and 

degradation of the fuel delivery hose, 

fuel primer bulbs, fuel line connector, 

and crankshaft seal. The Orbital 

Nonroad Products Study concluded that 

these problems would likely cause: (1) 

Oxides that may dislodge and damage 

the engine; (2) the loss of intended fuelair metering and control, and (3) fuel 

leakage. 

The Briggs and Stratton Study 

submitted in Exhibit C of the AllSAFE 

comments contains evaluations of the 

impacts of E20 on EPA-certified engines 

through soaking fuel components 104

and this report was cited by other 

commenters. After six months of 

soaking, the study showed 5–10% 

greater swelling and mass gained by 

gaskets and rubber parts for parts soaked 

in E20 compared to E0. The epoxy for 

the Welsch plug, a plug placed over the 

progression holes in the carburetor 

body, dissolved in E20 and coated the 

plug. In a running engine, that could 

result in the plug falling out and fuel 

leaking from the carburetor, resulting in 

a potential increase in evaporative 

emissions. The inlet needle seats and 

the fuel cap gaskets swelled, which 

could also lead to increases in 

evaporative emissions. Garden tractor 

fuel tank caps and seals ‘‘exhibited 

extreme swelling’’ in E20 versus E0.105

AllSAFE argues that these conclusions 

corroborate the Orbital Nonroad 

Products Study’s findings and highlight 

the need for additional research into 

E15’s effects on the materials used in 

SNREs and other nonroad products. 

AllSAFE and others note that the DOE 

Pilot Study found many issues with 

SNREs that were not discussed in 

Growth Energy’s waiver application. For 

example, commenters noted the 

following problems from the DOE Pilot 

Study: (1) Three Weed Eater blower 

engines failed, one on E0 and two on 

E15; (2) one Weed Eater blower would 

not idle on E20 and (3) another Weed 

Eater blower would not make full power 

on E20; (4) a Stihl line trimmer had high 

idle with E15 and E20 that caused 

clutch engagement at idle; and (5) a 

Briggs and Stratton 3500 kW generator 

stalled and experienced loss of power 

and abrupt stopping of the engine on 

E20. 

Commenters also point to the 

operability problems that arose in the 

Briggs and Stratton Study. In the study, 

a 6.0 HP Quantum engine was used for 

temperature, durability and 

performance, and evaporative testing. 

AllSAFE and others note that higher 

operating temperatures were observed 

with increasing ethanol content. The 

authors say that the higher temperatures 

caused material compatibility issues, 

citing a head gasket failure after 25 

hours of ‘‘very light duty testing.’’ 106

The RPM stability was observed to 

decrease for both E10 and E20 over E0, 

with the decrease for E20 close to three 

times larger than for E10. The stability 

decrease can lead to harsh audible 

speed oscillations which may be 

deemed unacceptable for many 

applications which require stable engine 

speeds (e.g., generator, lawn equipment, 

etc.).107 Tests on starting showed a 

decrease in acceleration using E20 in 

comparison to E10 and E0. 

Several commenters argue that 

Growth Energy does not provide data 

concerning the performance of many 

categories, classes, and families of 

nonroad engines on E15, and the test 

data from the DOE Pilot Study is not 

adequate to cover all nonroad 

applications. Notable data gaps include 

information regarding marine engines, 

snowmobiles, recreational vehicles, 

motorcycles, and several classes of 

small nonroad engines that were not 

tested in the DOE Pilot Study. In 

addition, several commenters noted, 

some of the operability issues may pose 

a significant safety hazard to operators 

of small nonroad engines due to higher 

idle speeds and inadvertent clutch 

engagement. 

D. EPA Analysis 

1. Scope of Nonroad Data to Support a 

Waiver Decision 

Prior to assessing the technical merits 

of the information submitted by Growth 

Energy to support their waiver 

application with respect to nonroad 

products, it is necessary to first assess 

the completeness of the application. 

Listed above are four major categories of 

nonroad engines, and these categories 

are further broken down into various 

classes based on the fundamental 

differences in engine and vehicle design 

within these classes. EPA has 

promulgated exhaust and evaporative 

emission standards for these different 

categories at various times and these 

regulations have resulted in various 

approaches to engine calibration and 

design.108 Therefore, to assess the 

potential impacts of E15 on nonroad 

products requires data representing the 

cross section of different nonroad 

engine categories. EPA highlighted this 

necessity in discussions with Growth 

Energy, RFA, DOE, and other 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
68134 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 

109EPA Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211– 

2559.2, API Technology Committee Meeting, 

Chicago, 6/4/08. 

110Effects of long term storage and seasonal use 

were not captured in the accelerated aging. 

111 DOE Pilot Study contained data from which 

the following changes in emissions were calculated. 

On the B&S consumer engines, the engine aged on 

non-ethanol fuel had no change in HC, +76% in 

NOX and ¥47% in CO. The engines aged on E10, 

E15 and E20 showed changes in HC of +44%, 

+149%, +99% and NOX changes of ¥5%, 0% and 

14%, and CO changes of +36%, +109% and +17%, 

respectively. The Honda commercial engine 

showed that the engine aged on non-ethanol fuel 

had emission changes of +25% HC, 0%NOX and 

14%CO. The engines aged on E10, E15 and E20: 

HC: 4%, 42% and 69%, NOX: 11%, ¥14%, ¥16% 

and CO: +5%,+16%,+24%, respectively. 

stakeholders even prior to the receipt of 

the E15 waiver application.109

The following table summarizes the 

many potential breakouts of nonroad 

engine technologies currently in the inuse fleet. Growth Energy gave us data in 

four areas shown below. Even in areas 

in which Growth Energy provided data, 

those data were very limited. Since 

Growth Energy has not provided 

information to broadly assess the 

nonroad engine and vehicle sector, 

since there are important differences in 

design between the various classes and 

categories, and since the Agency is not 

aware of other information that would 

allow us to do so, it is not possible for 

the Agency to fully assess the potential 

impacts of E15 on the emission 

performance of nonroad products. In 

addition, as discussed below, there are 

reasons for concern with the use of E15 

in nonroad products, particularly with 

respect to long-term exhaust and 

evaporative emissions durability, and 

materials compatibility, so the need for 

data is all the more important. 

TABLE V.D–1—NONROAD ENGINES AND ENGINE TECHNOLOGIES OVER THE PAST 14 YEARS

SMALL SI Pre-reg: 

2-stroke 

Pre-reg: 

4-stroke 

(ohv/sv) 

Phase 1: 

4-stroke 

(ohv/sv) 

Phase 1: 

2-stroke 

w/cat 

Phase 2: 

Phase 2: 

2-stroke 

w/cat 

Phase 2: 

4-stroke Phase 3: Phase 3: w/cat 

Class I ........................................ X ............ X ohv ..... X sv ........ - .............. - .............. - .............. X sv ** .... X sv ........ X sv 

................ X SV ...... Xohv ...... ................ ................ ................ X ohv ** X ohv .....

Class II ....................................... - .............. X sv ** .... X sv ........ - .............. - .............. - .............. X ohv ..... X ohv ..... - 

................ X ohv ** X ohv ..... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

Class III ...................................... X ............ - .............. X ............ X ............ - .............. X ............ - .............. - .............. - 

Class IV ...................................... X ............ - .............. X ............ X ............ - ............. X ** ........ X ** ........ - .............. - 

Class V ....................................... X ............ - ............. X ............ X ............ - .............. X ............ - .............. - ............. - 

MARINE Pre-reg: 

2-stroke 

Pre-reg: 

2-stroke 

IDI 

Phase 1: 

4-stroke 

Phase 1: 

2 DI 

Phase 1: 

4-stroke 

Carb 

Phase 1: 

4-EFI 

Phase 2: 

4-str 

closed 

loop catalyst 

Outboard ............................................................................. X ............ X ............ X (few) ... X ............ X ............ X ............ - 

PWC ................................................................................... X ............ X ............ - ............. X ............ - ............. X ............ - 

SD/I ..................................................................................... - .............. - .............. X ............ - .............. X ............ X ............ X 

RECREATIONAL Pre-reg: 

2-stroke 

Pre-reg: 

4-stroke 

Phase 1: 

4-stroke 

closed 

crankcase 

Phase 1: 

4-stroke 

Phase 1: 

2-stroke 

Phase 2: 

2-stroke 

Phase 3: 

2-stroke 

Phase 3: 

4-stroke 

NRMC ......................................... X ............ X ............ X ............ X ............ X* ........... N/A ......... N/A ......... N/A .........

Snow Mobiles ............................. X ............ X ............ X ............ X ............ X ............ X ............ X ............ X ............

ATV ............................................. X ............ X ............ X ............ X ............ - .............. N/A ......... N/A ......... N/A .........

*NRMC: allows 2-stroke competition bikes. 

** Data Provided by Growth Energy on one/two engine families per group. 

2. Long-Term Exhaust Emissions 

(Durability) 

Ethanol contains oxygenates which 

result in a leaner operating A/F ratio. 

Unlike light-duty vehicles, the 

overwhelming majority of nonroad 

engines are ‘‘open loop’’ and do not 

automatically adjust for oxygenated 

content of the fuel. Hence they are 

subject to direct and continuous effects 

to changes in combustion characteristics 

(i.e., leaner mixture) of increased 

ethanol in the fuel which typically 

result in hotter combustion and exhaust 

temperatures during operation. These 

changes in combustion result in general 

increases in NOX emissions and 

decreases in HC emissions. This 

increase in temperature will vary 

between engines and engine operating 

conditions. In addition to the NOX

emission increases that are observed 

almost immediately with increased 

ethanol levels, there is a concern that an 

increase in temperature can compromise 

long-term durability of the engines 

resulting in a significant deterioration of 

all emissions over time. 

The potential for an increase in 

operating temperatures to cause longterm durability issues for engines is 

shown in the accelerated full life aging 

emission results in the DOE Pilot 

Study110. Four new Class I B&S 

consumer and four new Class I Honda 

commercial engines were aged on nonethanol and ethanol blends (one engine 

each on E0, E10, E15 and E20). All 

engines were tested on non-ethanol 

fuels when new and at the end of aging 

on their respective fuel. The change in 

emissions on non-ethanol fuel gives a 

basis for comparison of the deterioration 

effects of aging on various ethanol blend 

fuels.111 For the B&S Class I engines, it 

was found that the non-ethanol aged 

engine leaned over time with CO 

decreasing and NOX increasing. For the 

ethanol aged engine, the increases in CO 

along with the increases in HC illustrate 

the possibility of valve warpage and 

valve seat distortion, or piston/piston 

ring/engine block distortion due to the 

increased combustion temperatures. In 

these cases the combustion becomes less 

efficient, and hence CO and HC 

emissions increase, due to the leak past 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68135 

112Bresenham, D. and Reisel, J. ‘‘The Effect of 

High Ethanol Blends on Emissions from Small 

Utility Engines,’’ SAE 1999–01–3345, JSAE 

9938100, 1999. 

the valves or piston rings. The Honda 

Class I engine aged on non-ethanol 

showed small increases in both HC and 

CO, however the trend was clear in the 

ethanol engines that the HC and CO 

emissions increased and NOX decreased 

in line with increasing amounts of 

ethanol. Some of the variability in 

emission results are due to the fact that 

these engines are mechanically 

governed, single cylinder (high 

vibration), carbureted, open loop, air 

and fuel cooled and hence engine aging 

is subject to a number of mechanical 

and quality factors. 

The DOE Pilot Study cited by Growth 

Energy assessed the potential long-term 

durability emission effects of several 

SNREs in the <19kW category that were 

aged under conditions that were 

representative of aging for emission 

standards (constant dynamometer 

aging). While the study was limited and 

there was considerable variability in the 

results across the engines tested, as 

AllSAFE highlights, the fact that two 

Weed Eater blower engines failed on 

E15, a Stihl line trimmer had high idle 

with E15, and other problems were 

experienced with testing on E20, 

suggests the potential for serious 

durability concerns with E15 in nonroad 

products. At a minimum, a 

comprehensive nonroad test program 

would be needed to support Growth 

Energy’s assertions. We know of no such 

program underway. 

The engine failures in the DOE Pilot 

Study are also consistent with our 

engineering assessment. The leaner 

operation and subsequently hotter 

burning mixture and exhaust 

temperatures expose engine components 

to operating temperatures which may be 

beyond design expectations for a 

particular engine. Unlike light-duty 

vehicles which implement liquid 

cooling systems (i.e., antifreeze) to 

control vital engine component 

temperatures, most nonroad engines 

rely on air and fuel cooling. Proper 

cooling on air cooled engines depends 

on anticipated combustion and exhaust 

temperatures which are mainly 

controlled by the A/F mixture. 

Depending on the engine category, 

engine cooling may be critical to 

durability and therefore the ability to 

continue to operate on E15. Some 

engines that run too lean for an 

extended period of time may also result 

in engine seizure in which the metal of 

the piston, piston rings and engine 

cylinder expand into each other due to 

the increased temperatures and hence 

cannot function. 

While data on long-term durability on 

E15 of other nonroad categories does not 

currently exist, we believe that many of 

the concerns expressed regarding small 

SI engines may to varying degrees be 

indicative of other nonroad categories as 

well. These concerns include concerns 

of open loop carburetion or open loop 

fuel injection and enleaned 4-stroke 

engine running on a fuel with 

oxygenates where there used to be 

richer running 2-stroke or 4-stroke 

engines. 

3. Immediate Exhaust Emission Effects 

In evaluating the emission impacts of 

a new fuel or fuel additive, the Agency 

not only considers potential long-term 

durability impacts, as discussed above, 

but also the existence and magnitude of 

any immediate exhaust emission 

impacts that are evident immediately 

upon switching to the new fuel or fuel 

additive. Growth Energy referred to two 

studies for immediate tailpipe emission 

effects and they include the DOE Pilot 

Study and a 1999 study on ‘‘The Effect 

of High Ethanol Blends on Emissions 

from Small Utility Engines’’. 

The DOE Pilot Study contained 

emissions at new engine condition for 

two sets of Phase 2 SNRE’s. One set was 

used for the pilot study and the second 

set was used for the useful life 

durability study. The results showed 

that emission changes from the use of 

E15 resulted in increased NOx emissions 

and decreased HC and CO emissions. 

For both Class I engines the HC and CO 

emissions decreased and NOx emissions 

increased in comparison to E0. The 

overall change of HC+NOx (the form of 

the emissions standard for nonroad 

engines) for a particular engine was 

dependent on whether the NOx

increased more than the HC decreased, 

but in general it appears that the two 

changes tended to balance each other 

out for the engines and fuels tested. 

Class II engines were examined in a 

second study 112 referred to by Growth 

Energy. The study conducted emission 

testing on three MY1994 SNREs (12.5 

hp) engines using SAE and EPA 

procedures and showed that preregulation Class II engines experienced 

a similar trend with respect to 

immediate exhaust emission impacts as 

Class I engines in the DOE Pilot Study. 

In their comments, AllSAFE also 

pointed to recent testing described in a 

Briggs and Stratton Study of exhaust 

emission testing on a Quantum engine 

using E20. It showed a decrease in HC 

emissions and a 133% increase in NOx

emissions using E20 when compared to 

E0, which resulted in 10.5% increase in 

HC + NOx emissions. While it was on 

E20 instead of E15, this data is still 

helpful in showing that despite a very 

large percentage impact on NOx

emissions, the overall immediate 

emission impact of E15 on the 

combined HC+NOx emission standard is 

likely to be a relatively small one. 

Nevertheless, since the available studies 

do not provide data for other nonroad 

engine categories it is unclear how 

broadly these results can be 

extrapolated across other nonroad 

products. Therefore the number of 

engines and applications tested needs to 

be widened before any conclusions can 

be made for all of nonroad products. 

4. Evaporative Emissions 

Different evaporative emission 

standards have been established for the 

different nonroad engine categories. As 

shown in Tables V.D.4–1 and V.D.4–2 

below, evaporative emissions standards 

for nonroad products are focused on 

three aspects: (1) Fuel line and fuel tank 

permeation; (2) vapor loss through 

diurnal or running loss conditions 

where the volatility of the fuel will be 

important for compliance; and, (3) the 

durability of the nonroad product in 

achieving these standards over its full 

useful life. The test fuel for fuel tank 

permeation is E10 and the test fuel for 

hose permeation is CE10. The test fuel 

for the diurnal standards is certification 

fuel (E0) with a volatility of 9.0 RVP. 

These standards came into effect in 

2007 for Large SI engines, 2008 for 

recreational vehicles and are being 

phased in from 2009–2015 for Small SI 

engines and Marine SI engines. For each 

of these standards, permeation 

requirements are based on the use of a 

test fuel containing 10 vol% ethanol. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
68136 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 

113The complete table is available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/otaq/standards/nonroad/nonroadsievap.htm. 

Growth Energy did not submit any 

data that evaluated how the use of E15 

would impact evaporative emissions 

and evaporative emissions controls for 

nonroad products, and instead relied on 

light-duty motor vehicle information. 

The Agency is not aware of any test data 

to evaluate these impacts of E15 on 

nonroad products. However, from an 

engineering standpoint, it would appear 

that the main concern with the use of 

E15 in nonroad products for evaporative 

emissions would be durability, and 

these concerns stem from materials 

compatibility concerns in the fuel 

system, as discussed in the next section. 

For diurnal emissions compliance, as 

for light-duty motor vehicles, our belief 

is that as long as E15 meets the same 

volatility as E0 certification fuel (9.0 psi 

RVP), then its emissions performance 

should be comparable. Testing on 

vehicles discussed in section IV.A.3. has 

shown that diurnal emissions are 

primarily a function of the volatility of 

the fuel, not the ethanol content, and 

there is no reason to suggest otherwise 

for nonroad products. However, due to 

the rudimentary evaporative emissions 

controls on most nonroad products, any 

higher volatility would lead to higher 

evaporative emissions, potentially 

causing the nonroad products to exceed 

their standards. In the case of the 

permeation related evaporative 

emissions standards, it is likewise 

possible that the designs certified for 

E10 use may also qualify with E15. As 

discussed in section IV.A.3., permeation 

testing on light-duty fuel tanks (CRC 

E77 studies) seems to suggest 

permeation with E15 may be 

comparable to that with E10, assuming 

the RVP will not increase between the 

two fuels. Since nonroad permeation 

standards already use E10 as the test 

fuel, this would suggest that nonroad 

products would continue to meet their 

permeation standards with E15. The 

only question is whether the test results 

on light-duty motor vehicle fuel systems 

would be applicable to tanks and hoses 

used in nonroad products. 

5. Materials Compatibility 

Materials compatibility is one of the 

key issues that the Agency reviews due 

to the potential for very large exhaust or 

evaporative emission impacts of a fuel 

or fuel additive, not only in the short 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04NO10.009</GPH> EN04NO10.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68137 

114EPA Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211– 

0335: ‘‘Effects of Intermediate Ethanol blends on 

Legacy Vehicles and Small Non-Road Engines, 

Report 1,’’ October 2008, page 3–12, NREL/TP–540– 

43543 and ORNL/TM–2008/117. 

115 It was not clear exactly what parts were used 

for the fuel soaking tests. It was stated in the study 

that a 6.0 HP Quantum engine was used, 

specifically ‘‘engine 123K02 0239E1 04061458 was 

used for all testing except exhaust emissions.’’ 

However, it was stated that ‘‘parts’’ were soaked, not 

an engine. 

116The DOE Study of February 2009 on Small SI 

engines includes information in Table 3.5: A Class 

I consumer engine was described to lose power at 

full load on E20 however did run well if more fuel 

was put into the engine. A Class IV engine was 

found to have 25% higher idle speed due to the fact 

that the extra oxygen in the fuel improves 

combustion and hence speed increases (they do not 

have speed governors). A Class IV 2-stroke 

handheld engine seized on E20. A Class I 

commercial engine showed erratic operation at light 

loads due to unstable governor. 

term, but especially over the life of the 

motor vehicle or nonroad product. 

Growth Energy argues that the 

Minnesota Compatibility Study 

demonstrates that SNREs should 

experience no significant problems with 

E15. However, as highlighted by 

commenters, the focus of the Minnesota 

Compatibility Study was on the 

materials used in motor vehicles’ fuel 

systems and that nonroad engine 

manufacturers use different elastomers, 

polymers, and plastics not investigated 

in the Minnesota Compatibility Study. 

Furthermore, a wide range of materials 

have been used over the years by the 

many different nonroad products 

manufacturers for the many different 

nonroad products currently in use. The 

study does not claim to have tested all 

materials nor provide any means of 

quantifying the degree to which the 

materials tested reflect those in the 

current fleet. Growth Energy contends 

that the DOE Pilot Study showed no 

material compatibility issues. However, 

several commenters note that the DOE 

Pilot Study’s authors point out that 

materials compatibility issues ‘‘were not 

specifically characterized as part of this 

study.’’ 114 The Agency’s review of the 

DOE Pilot Study is that the main focus 

was to measure emissions changes from 

the use of various fuels in SNREs over 

a test procedure that lasted 125–500 

hours (or 10–40 days at 12.5 hours/day). 

Materials compatibility issues are 

mostly seen over a length of time of 

unused fuel sitting in the fuel tank and 

in the fuel system, and this was not a 

focus of the study. For the Minnesota 

Compatibility Study, there was minimal 

if any applicable information for the 

vast range of nonroad products and no 

information to correlate the materials 

tested with those in the in-use fleet of 

nonroad products. 

Due to the unique chemical and 

physical characteristics of ethanol, in 

comparison to gasoline, one must be 

careful in selecting materials for use in 

motor vehicles and nonroad products to 

ensure long-term materials 

compatibility. Otherwise, materials 

incompatibility can lead to long-term 

exhaust and evaporative emission 

increases that may or may not be 

detected in certification and compliance 

testing, as well as product operability 

problems that could lead to product 

tampering and premature engine failure. 

Two studies cited by commenters 

serve to highlight the importance of 

materials compatibility with gasolineethanol blends: (1) The Orbital Nonroad 

Products Study; and (2) the Briggs and 

Stratton Study. The Orbital Nonroad 

Products Study conducted 2,000-hour 

bench testing with E20 on materials 

from the fuel systems of a Mercury 15hp 

Marine Outboard engine and a Stihl 

F45R Line Trimmer. The Orbital 

Nonroad Products Study found that E20 

caused severe corrosion, rusting and 

pitting of metallic and brass 

components, such as the carburetor 

body and throttle, piston rings, 

crankshaft seal housing, crankshaft 

bearings and surfaces, connecting rod, 

cylinder liner, and throttle blades. The 

study also found that E20 caused 

swelling, distortion and degradation of 

the fuel delivery hose, fuel primer 

bulbs, fuel line connector, and 

crankshaft seal. The Orbital Nonroad 

Products Study concluded that these 

problems would likely cause: (1) Oxides 

that may dislodge and damage the 

engine; (2) the loss of intended fuel-air 

metering and control; and (3) fuel 

leakage. 

The Briggs and Stratton Study 

presented results of a completed 

evaluation of the impacts of E20 on 

EPA-certified engines through soaking 

fuel components. After six months of 

soaking, the study showed 5–10% 

greater swelling and mass gained by 

gaskets and rubber parts for parts soaked 

in E20 compared to E0. The epoxy for 

the Welsch plug, a plug placed over the 

progression holes in the carburetor 

body, dissolved in E20 and coated the 

plug. In a running engine, that could 

result in the plug falling out and fuel 

leaking from the carburetor, resulting in 

a potential increase in evaporative 

emissions. The inlet needle seats and 

the fuel cap gaskets swelled, which 

could also lead to increases in 

evaporative emissions. Garden tractor 

fuel tank caps and seals ‘‘exhibited 

extreme swelling’’ in E20 versus E0.115

Given the available information to 

suggest a cause for materials 

compatibility concerns that could lead 

to elevated exhaust and evaporative 

emissions, we do not believe the 

information provided by Growth Energy 

adequate addresses materials 

compatibility for E15 use in nonroad 

products. 

6. Driveability and Operability 

E15 will introduce a leaner A/F ratio 

to the engine compared to motor vehicle 

gasoline in use today. The open-loop 

fuel systems on the nonroad engines 

will not adjust for this and the engines 

will be subject to potential immediate 

and long-term operability and 

drivability issues, such as those 

described in the DOE Pilot Study.116

The concern regarding operability and 

driveability is that if the use of E15 

resulted in poor operation of nonroad 

products, causing such things as 

misfires, backfires or carburetor 

malfunctions, then this would cause 

short-term and long-term emission 

increases. In addition, it would 

encourage consumers to adjust and/or 

tamper with their nonroad products to 

improve performance. Most nonroad 

products that have been designed to our 

emission standards have been required 

to be tamper resistant to protect the 

emissions performance of the product. 

However, this also means that if the 

nonroad product operates poorly on 

E15, it will continue to do so, which 

may increase emissions and shorten its 

life. 

E. Conclusion 

It is the burden of the applicant to 

demonstrate that any new fuel or fuel 

additive that requires a waiver under 

CAA section 211(f)(4) of the 

substantially similar prohibition in CAA 

section 211(f)(1) will not cause or 

contribute to the failure of nonroad 

engines and nonroad vehicles to meet 

their emissions standards over the 

engines’ or vehicles’ full useful life. 

Growth Energy has not made this 

demonstration as Growth Energy has not 

provided sufficient data and 

information to broadly assess the 

performance of all nonroad products 

while using E15. Additionally, based on 

our own engineering judgment after 

review of all available data for nonroad 

products, we find that there are 

emissions-related concerns with the use 

of E15 in nonroad products, particularly 

regarding long-term exhaust and 

evaporative emissions (durability) 

impacts and materials compatibility 

issues. Therefore, the Agency has 

concluded that it cannot grant a waiver 

for the use of E15 in nonroad products 

based on existing data. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
68138 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 

117Woertz, P.A. Letter to Lisa P. Jackson. 7 June 

2010. See Docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211– 

13999. 

118Technical Support Document For Archer 

Daniles Midland Company’s Request for Approval 

of Ethanol-Gasoline Blends of Up To And Including 

12 Percent Ethanol, July 20, 2010, EPA Docket 

#EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211–13995. 

119CRC Project No. CM–136–09–1B, EPA Docket 

#EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211–14008. 

120See Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211– 

14005.1, p.7 and Docket # EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0211–14004.1, p.3. 

121 In the ADM TSD, ADM in many cases uses 

data and other information either submitted as part 

of the Growth Energy application or addressed by 

EPA above in Section IV for ADM’s assertions 

regarding E12. For example, ADM uses data and 

information from the Growth Energy application to 

discuss materials compatibility issues for E12. This 

data and information has already been evaluated 

and addressed by EPA in the appropriate sections 

above. This Section VIII will only address new data 

and information submitted regarding E12 in the 

ADM, API, AllSAFE and Alliance submissions that 

were not previously submitted elsewhere as part of 

Growth Energy’s waiver request application. 

122See ADM TSD, 5–8. 

123See ADM TSD, 5. 

124See ADM TSD, 5–8. 

VI. Heavy-Duty Gasoline Engines and 

Vehicles 

Given its limited market, heavy-duty 

gasoline engines and vehicles have not 

been the focus of test programs and 

efforts to assess the potential impacts of 

E15 on such engines and vehicles. From 

a historical perspective, the 

introduction of heavy-duty gasoline 

engine and vehicle technology has 

lagged behind the implementation of 

similar technology for light-duty motor 

vehicles. Similarly, emissions standards 

for this sector have lagged behind those 

of light-duty motor vehicles, such that 

current heavy-duty gasoline engine 

standards remain comparable, from a 

technology standpoint, to older lightduty motor vehicle standards (for 

example Tier 1 emissions standards). 

Consequently, we believe the concerns 

raised for MY2000 and older motor 

vehicles are also applicable to the 

majority of the in-use fleet of heavyduty gasoline engines and vehicles. 

Additionally, Growth Energy did not 

provide any data specifically addressing 

how heavy-duty gasoline engines and 

vehicles’ emissions and emissions 

control systems would be affected by 

the use of E15 over the full useful life 

of these vehicles and engines. Thus, a 

waiver is not being granted for these 

engines and vehicles. 

VII. Highway and Off-Highway 

Motorcycles 

Growth Energy did not provide any 

data addressing how motorcycle 

emissions and emissions control 

systems would specifically be affected 

by the use of E15 over their full useful 

life. Like heavy-duty gasoline engines 

and vehicles, highway and off-highway 

motorcycles have not been the focus of 

test programs to evaluate the effects on 

these motorcycles while using E15. 

While some newer highway and offhighway motorcycles incorporate some 

of the advanced fuel system and 

emissions control technologies that are 

found in passenger cars and light-duty 

trucks, such as electronic fuel injection 

and catalysts, many do not have the 

advanced fuel trim control of today’s 

motor vehicles that would allow them to 

adjust to the higher oxygen content of 

E15. More importantly, older highway 

and off-highway motorcycles do not 

have any of these technologies (i.e., 

their engines are carbureted and/or they 

do not have catalysts) and are therefore 

more on par with MY2000 and older 

motor vehicles and light-duty trucks. 

Consequently, we believe the discussion 

for MY2000 and older motor vehicles 

applies to highway and off-highway 

motorcycles. 

VIII. E12 Midlevel Gasoline-Ethanol 

Blends 

On June 7, 2010, EPA received a letter 

from Archer Daniels Midland Company 

(ADM) to consider, within the context of 

Growth Energy’s E15 waiver 

application, allowing 12 vol% ethanol 

in gasoline (E12) for the introduction 

into commerce for all motor vehicles.117

ADM also requested that EPA modify its 

‘‘substantially similar’’ interpretive rule 

under CAA section 211(f)(1) and allow 

higher oxygen content, thus allowing for 

introduction of E12 into the marketplace 

without need for a waiver. On July 20, 

2010, ADM sent a Technical Support 

Document (TSD) in support of these 

requests (‘‘ADM TSD’’).118 On September 

3, 2010 API submitted its response to 

both ADM documents, arguing that 

ADM’s analysis contained several 

critical flaws and suggested that EPA 

not approve E12 to be introduced into 

commerce for all motor vehicles.119 On 

September 17 and 24, 2010, the Alliance 

and AllSAFE submitted their own 

responses with similar arguments.120

We are treating all of these letters as late 

comments received on the Growth 

Energy waiver request application. The 

following sections address ADM’s 

request and supporting rationale,121 the 

responses received, and our own 

analysis regarding ADM’s request. 

In the ADM TSD, ADM made several 

arguments for its requests that EPA 

grant a CAA section 211(f)(4) waiver for 

E12 and that EPA amend its CAA 

section 211(f)(1) ‘‘substantially similar’’ 

interpretive rule and consider E12 

‘‘substantially similar’’ to its certification 

fuels. For example, in making its 

argument for granting an E12 waiver, 

ADM presented some new data, such as 

evaluations of fuel survey data regarding 

levels of ethanol in gasoline in the 

national market today. ADM used their 

survey results to attempt to evaluate 

expected emissions impacts and other 

related issues from using E12 and to 

conclude that the E12 supposedly now 

in use in the national gasoline market 

was not resulting in any motor vehicle 

problems that adversely affect 

emissions. ADM also argued that EPA 

already effectively allows E12 in the 

marketplace through previously issued 

letters and its models. In making all of 

these arguments, it appears that ADM 

was essentially attempting to address 

the four factors discussed in Section III 

that EPA analyzes when reviewing a 

waiver request. In other words, ADM 

was apparently making these arguments 

in an attempt to assert that E12 satisfies 

these four factors so EPA should grant 

a waiver for E12. EPA generally 

disagrees with ADM’s conclusions and 

addresses each of these arguments, as 

well as the comments received on the 

ADM submission, below. 

A. First Argument: E12 Is Already Used 

in the Marketplace With No Reported 

Problems 

1. ADM Argument 

In its request, ADM argued that based 

on surveys and studies, E12 is already 

in significant use and there have not 

been any problems reported in-use or in 

the studies. To support their argument, 

ADM relied on fuel sample survey data 

from ‘‘selected years and seasons’’ from 

the seasonal Northrop Grumman motor 

gasoline surveys.122 ADM suggested that 

these data provide ‘‘significant and 

substantial compelling data 

demonstrating that ethanol blends 

approaching E12 are currently available 

and are being used in the United States 

without incident’’.123 Additionally, 

ADM argues that around 30% of 

samples reported in select years and 

seasons from 1990 through 2009 have 

denatured ethanol contents greater than 

10.5 vol%. ADM specifically cites the 

summer 2008 Northrop Grumman motor 

gasoline survey data as showing that 

over 70% of samples had denatured 

ethanol contents of higher than 10 vol% 

ethanol and approximately 30% of 

samples had 11 vol% or greater 

denatured ethanol contents.124

2. API, AllSAFE, and Alliance 

Comments 

Commenters pointed out that ADM’s 

data is based upon measurements of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68139 

125By regulation denaturant is required to be 

added to fuel-grade ethanol in order that it not be 

sold for non-fuel purposes such as the production 

of beverages. 

126We chose to look at only samples that 

contained greater than 5 vol% ethanol because 

those appear to be the samples included in ADM’s 

analysis. See ADM TSD, page 8. 

‘‘denatured’’ ethanol 125 and that the 

Northrop Grumman data is actually 

based upon tests which measure actual 

ethanol content. Commenters also 

pointed out that one possible reason for 

the higher ethanol contents in ADM’s 

analysis may have been an attempt to 

take the volume of the denaturant into 

account for each fuel sample. API stated 

that this may mislead the reader since 

the pertinent data is actual ethanol or 

neat ethanol content and inclusion of an 

assumed denaturant was inappropriate 

in making the case that higher ethanol 

contents were routinely in the 

marketplace. 

Commenters also argued that ADM 

failed to provide any peer-reviewed test 

program or published test data that 

shows that the possible prevalence of 

E12 in some areas did not result in 

substantial mechanical failures. API and 

the Alliance also analyzed the Northrop 

Grumman data and other datasets and 

concluded that ADM’s conclusions 

about the prevalence of E12 in the 

marketplace were not accurate. In its 

submission, AllSAFE aligned itself with 

these comments. 

3. EPA Analysis 

The Agency evaluated the Northrop 

Grumman data and found that the actual 

number of samples that had measured 

ethanol contents greater than 10 vol% 

ethanol and 11 vol% ethanol were very 

low. For example, Figure VIII.A.3–1 

below shows the distribution of all fuel 

samples included in the summer 2008 

Northrop Grumman motor gasoline 

survey that had greater than 5 vol% 

ethanol.126

Figure VIII.A.3–1 shows that less than 

0.5% of samples in the summer of 2008 

had measured ethanol concentrations 

greater than 11 vol% and only 

approximately 2% of samples had 

measured ethanol concentrations greater 

than 10.5 vol%. Due to inherent 

variability of the ASTM test procedure 

used to measure the concentration of 

ethanol in gasoline (both within the 

same testing laboratories and between 

different laboratories), the observed 

distribution in measurements of ethanol 

content is precisely what one would 

expect to see for fuel samples that 

actually contained no more than 10 

vol% ethanol. Since the blending 

equipment used at terminals to blend 

ethanol and other additives into 

gasoline is extremely precise, and our 

understanding and experience is that 

the industry practice is to be as close to 

10% as possible, there is no reason to 

believe that ethanol levels greater than 

10 vol% have been experienced in-use 

except in the infrequent circumstances 

of blending equipment failure. 

Recognizing the variability in the ASTM 

test method results, the Northrop 

Grumman data actually confirms this to 

be the case. Had ethanol concentrations 

actually been at 11 vol% or even 12 

vol% in practice, then the variability 

associated with test measurements 

would have resulted in some samples 

measuring as high as 13 vol% or 14 

vol%. Such levels have not been seen. 

These results are also similar to 

results using other data sources. Figure 

VIII.A.3.–2 shows the distribution of 

ethanol content measurements for the 

fuel samples containing greater than 5 

vol% ethanol collected by the Alliance 

from 2007 through 2009. Again, these 

data show the expected distribution of 

measurements around 10 vol% that one 

would expect for fuels actually 

containing 10 vol% ethanol using a test 

method with significant variability. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04NO10.011</GPH>
68140 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 

Figure VIII.A.3–3 shows data for 

summer 2008 from the RFG Survey 

Program. Although these data do not 

represent the nation as a whole, they are 

obtained from a robust survey program 

designed to estimate RFG fuel 

parameters. As can be seen, this data 

shows the same consistent distribution 

around 10 vol% as the Northrop 

Grumman and Alliance data. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04NO10.012</GPH> EN04NO10.013</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68141 

127Since most ethanol is denatured with 

hydrocarbon mixtures, typically gasoline itself, EPA 

is unaware how the denaturant content could have 

been determined if the samples tested were samples 

of gasoline-ethanol blends. 

128See ADM TSD, 9. 

129 Gasoline densities typically vary seasonally 

and geographically to account for varying 

performance requirements such as variations in 

requirements for cold and hot weather or highaltitude regions. The oxygen content of 10 vol% 

ethanol in gasoline varies as the density of the 

gasoline into which it is blended varies. For 

example, when 10 vol% ethanol is added to a 

relatively low-density winter gasoline, the oxygen 

content from the ethanol will be relatively heavier 

than when the same ethanol is added to a heavier 

or higher density summertime fuel. 

130Although very small amounts of oxygen were 

added when trace contaminant amounts of MTBE 

were allowed when such gasoline had been 

inadvertently added to 10 vol% ethanol, MTBE 

would, in any event, have different effects on 

vehicles/engines in that it is a less polar molecule 

resulting in different impacts regarding materials 

compatibility. 

131The ‘‘Complex Model’’ is a regulatory model 

used to predict the emissions effects of various 

gasoline properties, including oxygen content. 

132See API Comment, Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0211–14000.1, 2. 

As highlighted by API, we believe one 

possible reason for the slightly lower 

results from our analysis and ADM’s 

analysis is that an attempt may have 

been made to take the volume of the 

denaturant into account for each fuel 

sample. Northrop Grumman reports 

ethanol content as vol% measured with 

ASTM 5599; however, ADM describes 

their analysis in terms of denatured 

ethanol. Adjusting the ethanol content 

of samples to include denaturant would 

shift the distribution and show a higher 

percentage of fuels containing greater 

than 10 vol% ethanol.127 However, the 

original waiver for E10 allowed for 10 

vol% anhydrous ethanol and testing of 

fuel samples as mentioned above 

indicate that the full 10 vol% ethanol is 

actually utilized in making E10. We 

therefore believe this would be an 

inappropriate adjustment of ethanol 

content that may be misleading since 

denaturant is typically unleaded 

gasoline and therefore would not be 

expected to have an adverse effect on 

motor vehicles and nonroad products. 

Additionally, ADM’s analysis of the 

historical data was not complete. The 

data selected from the Northrop 

Grumman surveys are limited; for 

example, the 2005 survey uses only 173 

fuel samples and appeared to ignore 

other fuel samples in the same survey 

for the same year and also used only 

selected seasons and years for their 

arguments. When we look at all the data 

available, including all the Northrop 

Grumman data, the Alliance data, and 

the RFG survey data, in the context of 

the ASTM test method variability, we 

conclude that it supports a conclusion 

that in-use ethanol levels have not 

exceeded 10 vol%. Otherwise 

measurements would have been 

considerably higher. 

Furthermore, even if one were to 

accept ADM’s argument that there have 

been isolated geographically or 

temporally oriented situations where 

gasoline-ethanol blends up to and 

including E12 were in common use for 

a period of time, ADM has not provided 

a method of determining or measuring 

whether problems occurred. 

B. Second Argument: EPA Effectively 

Allows Gasoline-Ethanol Blends Greater 

Than E10 

1. ADM Argument 

ADM also argued that EPA guidance 

at various times in the late 1980s and 

1993 indicated EPA’s allowance for 

gasoline-ethanol blends containing 

greater than 10 vol% ethanol. ADM sites 

three letters from EPA in support of 

their argument.128 For the first two 

letters, ADM’s argument was based on 

EPA-stated oxygen contents for average 

E10 gasoline-ethanol blends or 

maximum oxygen contents for E10 

blends. With respect to the third letter, 

ADM argued that by allowing 

contaminant levels of MTBE in gasoline 

for ethanol blending, EPA was 

endorsing the intentional ‘‘stacking’’ of 

10 vol% ethanol on top of gasoline with 

up to 2 vol% MTBE, thus allowing for 

higher oxygen levels equivalent or 

nearly equivalent to E12. ADM then 

argues that the letters essentially were 

an EPA allowance to utilize up to 11.7 

vol% ethanol. 

2. EPA Analysis 

ADM inappropriately concludes that 

EPA was approving ethanol content 

above 10 vol% in the first two letters. 

These two letters merely stated various 

oxygen weight contents as estimates of 

the weight percent of oxygen in a 10 

vol% gasoline-ethanol blend, depending 

upon the density of the gasoline into 

which the ethanol was added.129

Neither EPA letter states, nor was there 

any intention conveyed, that it was legal 

to blend ethanol above 10 vol% into 

unleaded gasoline. 

In the third letter, EPA had 

recognized how ubiquitous MTBE had 

become in the fungible gasoline 

distribution system, including in 

pipelines and terminals. The allowance 

for very small amounts of MTBE in 

gasoline to be blended with ethanol (socalled ‘‘stacking’’) was allowed to 

address the ubiquitous presence of 

MTBE in some fungible systems at that 

time, making it a low-level contaminant 

for gasoline used in E10. Typically the 

MTBE was in trace amounts in gasoline 

and was not close to 2 vol%. The letter 

recognized this as a contaminant so that 

it would not be unlawful to add up to 

10 vol% ethanol into the base gasoline. 

Refiners were not permitted to 

intentionally produce a gasoline using 2 

vol% MTBE and 10 vol% ethanol. EPA 

has not stated that it is permissible to 

utilize over 10 vol% ethanol under the 

original ethanol waiver and the data 

discussed above shows that, in practice, 

it is only rarely (and impermissibly) 

used above 10 vol%.130

C. Third Argument: EPA’s Models Allow 

Greater Than 10 Vol% Ethanol 

1. ADM Argument 

ADM further argued that E12 is 

implicitly allowed by virtue of the 

oxygen limits allowed in the Complex 

Model. ADM argued that since the 

Complex Model 131 provides valid 

emissions results for a fuel with up to 

4% oxygen by weight (wt%), and E12 is 

‘‘close’’ to this weight percent limit since 

it represents 4.2 wt% to 4.4 wt% in 

gasoline, EPA, through this model, has 

effectively already allowed use of E12. 

2. API and Alliance Comments 

API pointed out that the 4 wt% 

oxygen limit was meant as a range limit, 

taking into account the variability of 

densities that exist in gasoline across 

the nation. API states that ‘‘ADM * * * 

twists the logic stated by EPA in 1994 

for increasing the high end of the valid 

range for fuel oxygen content to 4.0 wt% 

in the RFG Complex Model. ADM 

asserts that this action by EPA meant 

that it had ‘already authorized’ the use 

of E11.7 vol% gasoline-ethanol blends. 

This interpretation confuses the issue of 

weight percent oxygen in the final 

gasoline-ethanol blend versus the 

volume percentage of ethanol added to 

the fuel. ADM acknowledges that the 

density of the base hydrocarbon blend 

stock (BOB) is critically important in the 

weight percent calculation, but then 

totally ignores it. To translate from 4.0 

wt% oxygen to 11.7 vol%, ADM had to 

have made an assumption regarding the 

BOB density, but it fails to provide any 

information as to the nature and/or basis 

for it.’’ 132

API goes on to state that ‘‘EPA’s 1994 

ruling did not ‘authorize’ the use of 

E11.7, it simply recognized the range of 

BOB densities that exist in commerce 

and allowed for the resulting wt% 

oxygen that might be observed with E10. 

In fact, a careful reading of the 1994 

regulatory text reveals that there is not 

one shred of evidence that even hints at 

the possible consideration (in 1994) of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
68142 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 

gasoline-ethanol blends containing 

greater than 10 vol%.’’ The Alliance 

specifically aligned itself with the 

comments on this issue from API. 

3. EPA Analysis 

We do not agree with ADM’s 

argument. The 4 wt% oxygen limit in 

the Complex Model was meant as a 

range limit on the weight of oxygen in 

the gasoline-ethanol blend, taking into 

account the variability of densities that 

exist in gasoline across the nation. It did 

not change the 10 vol% limit for ethanol 

use in gasoline. It recognized that the 

same volume percent of ethanol may 

lead to different weight percents of 

oxygen in the gasoline-ethanol blend, 

based on the density of the gasoline. 

The Complex Model is designed to 

allow a valid emissions projection for 

purposes of the Reformulated Gasoline 

program for the full range of ethanol and 

other blends of fuels that lawfully could 

be produced. It did not change any of 

the requirements that fuels otherwise 

had to meet to be a lawful fuel. 

Specifically, it did not change the 

requirement that gasoline-ethanol 

blends could only be lawfully produced 

at no higher than 10 vol% ethanol. The 

range of the Complex Model would then 

potentially cover the range of wt% 

oxygen that could occur for a finished 

gasoline-ethanol blend that had no more 

than 10 vol% ethanol. 

D. Fourth Argument: ADM’s Argument 

for an E12 Waiver 

1. ADM Argument 

ADM reiterated its support of the 

Growth Energy request and argued that 

E12 should be considered under the 

Growth Energy waiver application and 

that a waiver should be granted for E12. 

The primary basis of ADM’s argument 

relied on studies and materials that had 

already been submitted under the 

Growth Energy waiver request 

application. 

ADM provided reference to a number 

of engineering papers which noted the 

similarity in effects on elastomers and 

plastics for E12 when compared to E10. 

ADM also made many arguments which 

were essentially the same as the 

arguments made for the Growth Energy 

application regarding exhaust and 

evaporative emissions effects, materials 

compatibility and driveability/ 

operability on motor vehicles and small 

engines. These studies, and the 

arguments, essentially mirrored 

arguments already considered in the 

context of the Growth Energy 

application discussed above. 

ADM also utilized the survey data it 

had presented to attempt to make 

conclusions regarding the emissions 

effects of E12. For example, ADM tried 

using the Complex Model to predict 

emissions for E12 based upon changes 

in properties if 12 vol% ethanol was 

added to gasoline. 

2. API, AllSAFE and Alliance 

Comments 

API rejected the ADM arguments. API 

stated that ADM’s arguments were 

erroneous because the studies cited 

were misinterpreted, already presented 

in the Growth Energy application, or 

based upon flawed survey data. API also 

pointed out that the Complex Model, 

used for predicting emissions, is based 

only upon 1990 technology motor 

vehicles and that ADM’s emissions 

predictions made assumptions about 

fuel composition after the addition of 12 

vol% ethanol that were not supported 

by any analysis. AllSAFE also pointed 

out that the ADM TSD attempted to 

extrapolate the effects of E12 based on 

the effects of lower levels of ethanol 

content found in gasoline-ethanol 

blends, and argued that this is not an 

adequate substitute for the actual testing 

of E12. 

3. EPA response 

To address ADM’s arguments, we 

refer to our discussion of immediate and 

long-term (durability) exhaust and 

evaporative emissions impacts, 

materials compatibility and driveability 

found in Section IV regarding the 

Growth Energy waiver application. 

EPA’s analysis above regarding the 

Growth Energy waiver request 

application covers the range of gasolineethanol blends that include blends 

above 10 vol% and no more than 15 

vol% ethanol. Additionally, we note 

that ADM’s analysis of survey data is 

flawed in that EPA’s analysis indicates 

that there is no evidence of E12 in the 

marketplace today. ADM also does not 

present any process by which any 

effects of E12 in the marketplace could 

be evaluated. EPA agrees with API’s 

comments regarding the use of the 

Complex Model to evaluate projected 

emissions changes; such use is 

inappropriate for a waiver decision. 

ADM’s arguments are based upon 

flawed use of the survey data, 

inappropriately used models, issues and 

data already discussed within the 

context of the Growth Energy 

application, interpolation of data and 

effects from studies that did not 

specifically investigate the effects of 

E12, or studies that included 

insufficient data to make the 

conclusions ADM stated. Furthermore, 

many of ADM’s arguments involving 

interpolation or comparison of data 

compared E12 to E10 where the 

appropriate comparison for meeting the 

criteria of a waiver would be 

appropriately made between E12 and 

E0. Most importantly, the data 

presented by ADM did not present any 

data on which a conclusion regarding 

the long-term emissions effects of E12 

could be based. ADM provides no 

additional information on E12 that 

would change our evaluation regarding 

a waiver for gasoline-ethanol blends 

over 10 vol%. 

Thus, EPA concludes, after review of 

the information provided by ADM, and 

based on the data received regarding the 

E15 waiver request, that there is 

insufficient basis to support the 

introduction into commerce of E12 for 

use in all motor vehicles and nonroad 

products. Specifically, our analysis for 

gasoline-ethanol blends up to 15 vol% 

ethanol has concluded that there is 

insufficient data or evidence to grant a 

waiver beyond MY2007 and newer 

light-duty motor vehicles. ADM did not 

provide any data regarding motor 

vehicle exhaust or evaporative 

emissions using a 12 vol% gasolineethanol blended fuel. Also, EPA is not 

aware of any test data using 12 vol% 

gasoline-ethanol blends that would 

support this request beyond MY2007 

and newer light-duty motor vehicles. 

EPA has determined that there is an 

inadequate demonstration for an E12 

waiver application for MY2000 and 

older motor vehicles, heavy-duty 

gasoline engines and vehicles, highway 

and off-highway motorcycles and for all 

nonroad products. EPA is deferring a 

decision for MY2001–2006 motor 

vehicles. 

E. Fifth Argument: E12 is ‘‘Substantially 

Similar’’ to Certification Fuel 

1. ADM Argument 

ADM’s final argument is that since 

E10 is used as an aging fuel for 

evaporative emissions service 

accumulation purposes in EPA’s 

emissions certification regulations, E10 

is a ‘‘certification fuel’’ for purposes of 

the CAA section 211(f)(1) ‘‘substantially 

similar’’ determination. ADM further 

asserts that E12 is ‘‘substantially similar’’ 

to E10 based on its chemical and 

physical properties, so EPA should 

revise its ‘‘substantially similar’’ 

interpretive rule and increase the 

‘‘substantially similar’’ oxygen limit 

from 2.7% by weight to 4.25% by 

weight. 

2. API, AllSAFE and Alliance 

Comments 

The Alliance commented that E10 is 

only used for certification purposes 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68143 

133See Alliance Comments Docket #EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0211–14004.1, 9–10. 

134For example, when EPA revised its 

substantially similar definition in 1991 under 

which the allowable oxygen content was raised to 

2.7% by weight for certain alcohol and ether 

oxygenates (56 FR 5352, February 11, 1991), there 

was a long history of use and a large database to 

draw from regarding the use of oxygenates at these 

levels. As discussed above, EPA does not believe 

the data shows that E12 has, in fact, been routinely 

used in the marketplace and independent testing on 

E12 is not available. 

regarding the aging of motor vehicles for 

evaporative emissions certification; E10 

is not used in any of the actual 

emissions certification tests. The 

Alliance points out that ‘‘ADM bases 

this argument on the fact that EPA 

requires manufacturers to use the 

highest gasoline-ethanol blend for 

evaporative system durability aging in 

the certification process. Unfortunately, 

ADM either misunderstands or has 

misrepresented the vehicle certification 

process. Importantly, this particular 

requirement applies only to evaporative 

emissions system aging; it has no 

connection to exhaust emission testing.’’ 

The Alliance concludes that ‘‘ADM’s 

assertion that this fuel qualifies as a 

certification fuel for the entire fleet is 

simply untrue.’’ 133 AllSAFE’s 

comments essentially agree with this 

interpretation, noting that ‘‘consistent 

with the focus of [section] 211(f)(4) on 

emissions control devices, Congress 

must necessarily have intended 

certification fuels to refer to emissions 

certification fuels, not mileage 

accumulation fuels.’’ API also agreed 

that the ADM submission did not 

support a conclusion that E12 is 

substantially similar to certification fuel 

and pointed out that ADM presents no 

emissions data on E12. 

3. EPA Response 

In evaluating ADM’s request to revise 

the definition of ‘‘substantially similar,’’ 

EPA considered all certification fuels 

used for the broad range of motor 

vehicle model years, not just the current 

model years, and considered both the 

exhaust and the evaporative emissions 

certification procedures. This is because 

the ‘‘substantially similar’’ definition 

affects roughly 300 million motor 

vehicles which represent thousands of 

different designs by a wide range of 

manufacturers from around the world. 

These motor vehicles are in a 

transportation system and marketplace 

that affects the entire country. Based on 

these considerations, EPA does not 

believe that E10 qualifies as a 

‘‘certification fuel’’ in the manner 

asserted by ADM such that it would be 

appropriate to compare E12 to E10 in 

determining whether E12 is 

‘‘substantially similar’’ for a CAA section 

211(f)(1) determination. E10 is only 

used in one part of the certification 

process for certain newer motor 

vehicles. Specifically, E10 is only used 

in the mileage-accumulation or aging 

portion of certification for evaporative 

emissions for Tier 2 vehicles. However, 

all exhaust and evaporative emissions 

testing for certification purposes is 

conducted using an E0 fuel. Thus, E10 

plays a limited role in the certification 

process for a limited subset of motor 

vehicles. In contrast, E0 has been and 

remains the primary fuel used in 

certification since it is the actual test 

fuel for all of the actual emissions 

standards testing required for 

certification. Thus, it would be 

inappropriate to consider E10 a 

‘‘certification fuel’’ for comparison with 

E12 in making a ‘‘substantially similar’’ 

determination as requested by ADM. 

The proper comparison is between E12 

and E0. 

In making a ‘‘substantially similar’’ 

determination, EPA generally evaluates 

the physical and chemical composition 

of the new fuel or fuel additive against 

our certification fuels to determine the 

emissions effects of that new fuel or fuel 

additive. Here, we find that E12 is not 

‘‘substantially similar’’ physically or 

chemically to E0. As is noted in today’s 

Decision, E12 has a substantially higher 

oxygen content than E0, and the polarity 

of the ethanol molecule results in 

various properties different from those 

of E0, such as differences in polarity 

and volatility. Such differences may 

affect emissions and the durability of 

motor vehicle components. Consistent 

with our prior revisions to the 

‘‘substantially similar’’ definition, and 

prior ‘‘substantially similar’’ 

determinations, we would also consider 

test data on the emissions effects of E12, 

as with a waiver request, in making this 

determination.134 For E12, we would 

evaluate whether the higher oxygen 

content would produce similar emission 

results as E0 under the certification 

process. ADM provided no such data 

and we are not aware of any test data 

using 12 vol% ethanol blends. Based on 

the physical and chemical differences 

between E12 and E0, and the absence of 

a showing of the emissions impacts 

when using E12 versus using E0, EPA 

finds no basis for revising the 

‘‘substantially similar’’ definition to 

include E12. 

F. EPA Conclusion 

For MY2007 and newer light-duty 

motor vehicles, EPA has concluded that 

there is an adequate demonstration for 

an E12 partial and conditional waiver, 

within the context of the Growth Energy 

E15 waiver request application, as 

discussed above in Section IV. For 

MY2000 and older motor vehicles, 

heavy-duty gasoline engines and 

vehicles, highway and off-highway 

motorcycles, and all nonroad products, 

EPA has concluded that there is 

insufficient evidence to grant a waiver. 

EPA is deferring a decision for 

MY2001–2006 light-duty motor 

vehicles. 

EPA has also concluded that ADM has 

not made a demonstration that E12 is 

‘‘substantially similar’’ to certification 

fuels, and EPA declines to amend its 

‘‘substantially similar’’ interpretive rule 

to include E12. 

IX. Legal Issues Arising in This Partial 

Waiver Decision 

A. Partial Waiver and Conditions of E15 

Use 

As stated in EPA’s notice for comment 

on the E15 waiver request, a possible 

outcome after the Agency reviewed the 

record of scientific and technical 

information may be an indication that a 

fuel up to E15 could meet the criteria for 

a waiver for some vehicles and engines 

but not for others. In this context, the 

Agency noted that one interpretation of 

section 211(f)(4) is that the waiver 

request could only be approved for that 

subset of vehicles or engines for which 

testing supports its use. We also stated 

that such a partial waiver for use of E15 

may be appropriate if adequate 

measures or conditions could be 

implemented to ensure its proper use. 

EPA invited comment on the legal 

aspects regarding a waiver that 

restricted the use of E15 to a subset of 

vehicles or engines, and the potential 

ability to impose conditions on such a 

waiver. 

We received a number of comments 

expressing opposition to a partial 

waiver based on a lack of legal authority 

under section 211(f)(4). Some of those 

same commenters, as well as others, 

also stated that EPA should first conduct 

and finalize a rulemaking under section 

211(c) to mitigate the potential for 

misfueling and limit the types of mobile 

sources for which E15 may be used. 

Many commenters pointed to the 

language in section 211(f)(4) and argued 

that the use of the word ‘‘any’’ in the 

phrase ‘‘will not cause or contribute to 

a failure of any emission control device 

or system (over the useful life of the 

motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, 

nonroad engine or nonroad vehicle in 

which such device or system is used) to 

achieve compliance by the vehicle or 

engine,’’ means that if the waiver 

applicant has not established that the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
68144 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 

135See Sun Petroleum Products Co.; Conditional 

Grant of Application for Fuel Waiver for 0–5.5% 

methanol/TBA, 44 FR 37,074 (June 25, 1979); 

E.I.DuPont de Nemours & Co.; Conditional Grant of 

Application for Fuel Waiver for 5% methanol/2% 

cosolvent alcohols, specified corrosion inhibitor, 

Decision Document, 51 FR 39,800 (Oct. 31, 1986); 

Texas Methanol Corp.; Conditional Grant of 

Application for Fuel Waiver for Octamix (5% 

methanol, 2.5% cosolvent alcohols, specified 

corrosion inhibitor), Decision Document, 53 FR 

33,846 (Sept. 1, 1988); Sun Refining and Marketing 

Co.; Conditional Grant of Application for Fuel 

Waiver for 15% MTBE, Decision Document, 53 FR 

33,846 (Sept. 1, 1988). These conditions have taken 

various forms, from restrictions on the chemical 

composition and additive concentration of the 

waiver fuel and requirements to meet ASTM and 

seasonal volatility standards, to specific testing 

protocols and mandates that a fuel manufacturer 

take ‘‘all reasonable precautions’’ to guard against 

unauthorized uses of the waiver fuel. 

136See Ethyl Corp., Denial of Application for Fuel 

Waiver for MMT (1/16 and 1/32 gpg Mn), 43 FR 

41,424 (Sept. 18, 1978). 

use of E15 meets the waiver criteria for 

any type of motor vehicle or nonroad 

product, then the waiver must be 

denied. Noting the statutory provision’s 

use of the word ‘‘any,’’ commenters 

asserted that should E15 cause or 

contribute to a failure of any emission 

control device to achieve compliance 

under any single circumstance, then the 

waiver applicant has not met the waiver 

criteria and the waiver must be denied 

in its entirety. Another commenter 

suggested that the word ‘‘any’’ modifies 

‘‘emission control device’’ and that if an 

emission control device for any of the 

types of vehicles in the parenthetical 

language in section 211(f)(4) is 

implicated, then the waiver must be 

denied. Still another commenter 

suggested that ‘‘In amending section 

211(f)(4) in 2007 with enactment of the 

Energy Independence and Security Act, 

Congress expanded the types of devices 

for which an applicant must establish 

that a fuel or fuel additive will not cause 

or contribute to a failure while retaining 

the prohibition of causing or 

contributing to the failure of ‘any’ 

device. With the expansion of section 

211(f)(4), EPA is directed to only 

approve a waiver if all nonroad and onroad vehicles and engines would not be 

adversely affected.’’ Commenters 

asserted that the provision effectively 

required that there should be a ‘‘general 

purpose’’ fuel. The commenters noted 

that EPA would contradict this direction 

if it failed to address impacts on any 

portion of the vehicles or engines. 

Essentially, the implication of all of 

these assertions is that EPA can only 

grant a waiver if all emission control 

devices in all types of mobile sources 

listed in the statute will not be 

adversely impacted by E15. 

We also received several comments 

suggesting that if EPA desires to grant a 

partial waiver, it must first proceed 

under section 211(c) with a separate and 

full rulemaking to analyze the costs, 

benefits, necessary lead time, and the 

technological feasibility of a partial 

waiver. The commenters stated that this 

rulemaking should also include an 

analysis of the partial prohibition and 

controls on the use of E15 and include 

detailed regulatory requirements to 

ensure adequate control measures and 

to mitigate misfueling with E15. 

Commenters stated that the inclusion in 

section 211(f)(4) of 270 days by which 

EPA must act does not allow enough 

time to address all the necessary 

marketing and other issues and thus 

Congress could not have envisioned a 

partial waiver. 

Growth Energy and ACE stated that 

the Agency has the authority to grant a 

partial waiver or that EPA’s authority 

for a partial waiver is a permissible 

interpretation of CAA authority, but that 

the evidence suggests a waiver for all 

vehicles and engines on the road today 

is appropriate. 

We also received comment noting that 

the prohibition in section 211(f)(1) only 

applies to the use of any fuel or fuel 

additive in light-duty motor vehicles, 

indicating that the grant of the waiver of 

this prohibition under section 211(f)(4) 

is not dependent on findings with 

respect to nonroad products. The 

commenter further noted that although 

EPA has the authority and discretion to 

look at the effect of a fuel or fuel 

additive on nonroad products (in the 

context of examining impacts on motor 

vehicles), nothing in the statute or 

legislative history indicates that the 

amendment to section 211(f)(4) sought 

to limit EPA’s discretion for issuing a 

waiver for motor vehicles. In light of 

Congress’ decision in the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

to substantially increase the Renewable 

Fuel Standard Program’s volume 

mandates, this commenter suggests that 

reading the word ‘‘any’’ in section 

211(f)(4) as amended by the 2007 Energy 

Act to apply to anything more than any 

emission control systems on the subset 

of motor vehicles would be at odds with 

congressional intent. 

Regarding EPA’s authority to impose 

conditions on a waiver, we received 

comment stating that EPA has the 

authority to grant waivers subject to a 

broad range of conditions that ensure 

that the fuel or fuel additive will not 

cause or contribute to the failure of any 

emission control device or system. One 

commenter pointed to four of the eleven 

waivers EPA has issued since 1977 that 

have placed conditions on a waiver.135

In EPA’s first waiver decision in 1978, 

the Agency discussed its authority to 

grant conditional waivers, noting that it 

may grant a waiver ‘‘conditioned on 

time or other limitations,’’ so long as 

‘‘the requirements of section 211(f)(4) 

are met.’’ 136 This commenter also points 

to the legislative history of section 

211(f)(4) which makes clear that EPA 

has authority to grant conditional 

waivers. The 1977 Senate Report 

regarding section 211(f)(4) states: ‘‘The 

Administrator’s waiver may be under 

such conditions, or in regard to such 

concentrations, as he deems appropriate 

consistent with the intent of this 

section.’’ Senate Report No. 95–125, 

95th Congress, 1st Session 91 (1977), 

pg 91. 

The issue before EPA is whether it is 

reasonable to interpret section 211(f)(4) 

as authorizing EPA to grant a partial 

waiver under appropriate conditions, as 

in today’s decision. If Congress spoke 

directly to the issue and clearly 

intended to not allow such a partial 

waiver, then EPA could not do so. 

However, if Congress did not indicate a 

precise intention on this issue, and we 

believe that section 211(f)(4) is 

ambiguous in this regard, then a partial 

waiver with appropriate conditions 

would be authorized if it is a reasonable 

interpretation. EPA has considered the 

text and structure of this provision, as 

well as the companion prohibition in 

section 211(f)(1), and believes it is a 

reasonable to interpret section 211(f)(4) 

as providing EPA with discretion to 

issue this partial waiver with 

appropriate conditions. 

It is important to put section 211(f)(4) 

in its statutory context. The prohibition 

in section 211(f)(1) and the waiver 

provision in section 211(f)(4) should be 

seen as parallel and complementary 

provisions. Together they provide two 

alternative paths for entry into 

commerce of fuels and fuels additives. 

The section 211(f)(1) prohibition allows 

fuels or fuel additives to be introduced 

into commerce as long as they are 

substantially similar to fuel used to 

certify compliance with emissions 

standards, and the section 211(f)(4) 

waiver provision allows fuels or 

additives to be introduced into 

commerce if they will not cause or 

contribute to motor vehicles and 

nonroad products to fail to meet their 

applicable emissions standards. EPA’s 

authority to issue a waiver is 

coextensive with the scope of the 

prohibition—whatever is prohibited can 

also be the subject of a waiver if the 

criteria for granting a waiver are met. In 

addition, the criteria for each provision 

have similar goals. They are aimed at 

providing flexibility to the fuel and fuel 

additive industry by allowing a variety 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68145 

137See 54 FR 4834 (November 22, 1989). 

138See 44 FR 10530 (February 21, 1979); Motor 

Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n. et. al. v. EPA, 768 F.2d 385 (DC 

Cir. 1985). 

139New York v. EPA, 443 F.3d 880, (DC Cir. 2006) 

concerned the use of the word ‘‘any’’ in a different 

provision in the Clean Air Act and does not lead 

to any different conclusion here. The Court found 

that the statutory language, context, and legislative 

intent of that provision required an expansive 

meaning of the phrase ‘‘any physical change’’ in the 

definition of ‘‘modification’’ in CAA section 

111(a)(4). EPA is also applying the term ‘‘any’’ in an 

expansive manner, but in the context of a subset of 

motor vehicles. This takes into account the context, 

text, and purposes of both section 211(f)(1) and 

Continued 

of fuels and fuel additives into 

commerce, without limiting fuels and 

additives to those products that are 

identical to those used in the emissions 

certification process. This flexibility is 

balanced by the goal of limiting the 

potential reduction in emissions 

benefits from the emissions standards, 

even if some may occur because a fuel 

or fuel additive is not identical to 

certification fuel or it leads to some 

emissions increase but not a violation of 

the standards. Together, these are 

indications that these provisions are 

intended to be parallel and 

complementary provisions. 

The section 211(f)(1) prohibition has 

evolved over time. Initially it was 

adopted in the 1977 amendments of the 

Act, and was much more limited in 

nature. It applied only to fuels or fuel 

additives for general use, and was also 

limited to fuels or fuel additives for use 

in light-duty motor vehicles. EPA 

interpreted this as applying to bulk fuels 

or fuel additives for use in unleaded 

gasoline. The prohibition did not apply 

to other gasoline, or to diesel fuels or 

alternative fuels, or to fuel additives that 

were not for bulk use. It was thus 

relevant only to the subset of motor 

vehicles designed to be operated on 

unleaded gasoline. 

In 1990 Congress amended the 

prohibition and broadened it. It now 

applies to ‘‘any fuel or fuel additive for 

use by any person in motor vehicles 

manufactured after model year 1974 

which is not substantially similar to any 

fuel or fuel additive utilized in the 

certification of any model year 1975, or 

subsequent model year, vehicle or 

engine.’’ This extended the scope of the 

prohibition to apply to all gasoline, to 

diesel fuel, and to other fuels such as 

E85. However, the concept of applying 

this prohibition based on the relevant 

subset of vehicles continues. For 

example, a diesel fuel that is introduced 

into commerce for diesel vehicles does 

not need to be substantially similar to 

gasoline fuel or other fuels intended for 

non-diesel vehicles. This is so even 

though Congress used the phrase 

‘‘substantially similar to any fuel or fuel 

additive utilized in the certification of 

any * * * vehicles or engine’’ 

(emphasis supplied). Clearly Congress 

did not intend the use of the term ‘‘any’’ 

in the prohibition to always mean all 

motor vehicles or 100% of the motor 

vehicle fleet. Diesel fuel does not need 

to be substantially similar to the fuel 

used in the certification of gasoline 

vehicles, and E85 does not need to be 

substantially similar to fuel used in the 

certification of diesel vehicles. For 

example, manufacturers who want to 

introduce E85 fuel or fuel additives for 

E85 look to the certification fuel that 

was used for the subset of vehicles that 

were certified for use on E85. 

In some limited cases, EPA has 

approved a fuel additive as substantially 

similar even when it is introduced into 

commerce for use in just one part of a 

single vehicle manufacturer’s product 

line. For example, where a fuel additive 

is considered part of the emissions 

control system for a vehicle model, and 

is certified that way by the vehicle 

manufacturer, then it is not a violation 

of the substantially similar prohibition 

for manufacturers of the fuel additive to 

introduce it into commerce for use in 

just that very small subset of vehicles as 

long as it is substantially similar to the 

fuel additive used in the certification of 

that vehicle model.137 In all of these 

cases, broad to narrow subsets of motor 

vehicles can be considered when 

deciding whether the introduction of a 

fuel or fuel additive for use by that 

subset of motor vehicles is in 

compliance with the prohibition. 

EPA has in fact applied this construct 

of this provision in all of its past waiver 

decisions. EPA has previously said that 

it is virtually impossible for an 

applicant to demonstrate that a new fuel 

or fuel additive does not cause or 

contribute to any vehicle or engine 

failing to meet its emissions standards. 

Instead, EPA and the courts allow 

applicants to satisfy this statutory 

provision through technical conclusions 

based on appropriately designed test 

programs and properly reasoned 

engineering judgment.138 For example, 

the sample size in these test programs 

does not include all motor vehicles in 

the current fleet; the sample size is 

comprised of a statistically significant 

sample of motor vehicles that, once 

tested, will enable the applicant to 

extrapolate its findings and make its 

demonstration. EPA believes that this 

practice of focusing on a relatively small 

but representative subset of motor 

vehicles does not violate the statutory 

use of the word ‘‘any’’ in this provision. 

Since the waiver and the substantially 

similar provisions are parallel and 

complementary provisions, this clearly 

raises the question of whether a waiver 

can also be based on a subset of motor 

vehicles meeting the criteria for a 

waiver. EPA believes the text and 

construction of section 211(f)(4) 

supports this interpretation. 

First, the term ‘‘waive’’ as used in 

section 211(f)(4) is not modified in any 

way. Normally one would read this 

provision as a general grant of waiver 

authority, encompassing both partial 

and total waivers, as long as the waiver 

criteria are met. Second, the waiver 

criteria, like section 211(f)(1), have 

evolved over time. In 1977, the criteria 

were phrased as providing for a waiver 

when the fuel or fuel additive ‘‘will not 

cause or contribute to a failure of any 

emission control device or system (over 

the useful life of any vehicle in which 

such device or system is used) to 

achieve compliance by the vehicle with 

the emission standards to which it has 

been certified.’’ This was not modified 

in the 1990 amendments. In EISA 2007, 

Congress amended the waiver criteria, 

providing for a waiver when the fuel or 

fuel additive will not ‘‘cause or 

contribute to a failure of any emission 

control device or system (over the useful 

life of the motor vehicle, motor vehicle 

engine, nonroad engine or nonroad 

vehicle in which such device or system 

is used) to achieve compliance by the 

vehicle or engine with the emission 

standards to which it has been 

certified.’’ Congress uses the term ‘‘any’’ 

in section 211(f)(4), as it does in several 

places in section 211(f)(1). One use of 

the term ‘‘any’’ was deleted in the 2007 

amendments, when the parenthetical 

was broadened to include consideration 

of nonroad engines and nonroad 

vehicles as well as motor vehicles. The 

term ‘‘any,’’ however, has always been 

paired with the consistent use of the 

singular when referring to vehicles and 

emissions control systems—‘‘the 

vehicle’’ and the emissions standards to 

which ‘‘it’’ is certified, and the ‘‘vehicle 

in which such device or system is used.’’ 

Certainly Congress did not state that the 

applicant has to demonstrate that the 

fuel or fuel additive would not cause 

any devices or control systems, over the 

useful lives of the motor vehicles or 

nonroad products in which they are 

used, to fail to achieve the emissions 

standards to which they are certified. If 

Congress had stated that, then it would 

be clear, as one commenter suggests, 

that EPA should only grant a waiver if 

all emission control devices in all the 

types of mobile sources listed would not 

be impacted by the fuel. But Congress 

did not state that.139


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
68146 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 

(f)(4), which, as discussed above, envisions use of 

such subsets of vehicles. 

Several aspects of section 211(f) thus 

support the reasonableness of EPA’s 

interpretation. The prohibition and the 

waiver provisions are properly seen as 

parallel and complementary, and the 

prohibition properly can be evaluated in 

terms of appropriate subsets of motor 

vehicles, notwithstanding the use of the 

term ‘‘any’’ to modify several parts of the 

prohibition. This clearly raises the 

concept of also applying the waiver 

criteria to appropriate subsets of motor 

vehicles. ‘‘Waive’’ is reasonably seen as 

a broad term that generally encompasses 

a total and a partial waiver, as well as 

the discretion to impose appropriate 

conditions. The criteria for a waiver also 

refer to ‘‘any’’ but the entire provision 

does not provide a clear indication that 

Congress intended to preclude 

consideration of subsets of motor 

vehicles when considering an 

application for a waiver. Finally, a 

partial waiver gives full meaning to all 

of the provisions at issue. 

For example, in this case, granting a 

partial waiver means that E15 can be 

introduced into commerce for use in a 

subset of motor vehicles, MY2007 and 

newer light-duty motor vehicles, and 

only for use in those motor vehicles. For 

those motor vehicles, EPA is not making 

a finding of it being substantially 

similar, but E15 has been demonstrated 

to not cause or contribute to these motor 

vehicles exceeding their applicable 

emissions standards. It will also not 

cause any other motor vehicles or any 

other on or off-road vehicles or engines 

to exceed their emissions standards 

since it may not be introduced into 

commerce for use in any other motor 

vehicles or any other vehicles or 

engines. Thus, under a partial waiver, as 

the commenter suggested, all emission 

control devices in all the types of 

mobile sources listed will not be 

adversely impacted by the fuel. It can 

only be introduced into commerce for 

those vehicles and engines where it has 

been shown not to cause emissions 

problems; for other types of mobile 

sources, it cannot be introduced into 

commerce for use in such vehicles and 

engines. In concept, therefore, the 

combination of this partial waiver, with 

appropriate conditions, and partial 

retention of the substantially similar 

prohibition, has the same effect as when 

the criteria for a total waiver has been 

met—the fuel or fuel additive will only 

be introduced into commerce for use in 

a manner that will not cause violations 

across the fleet of motor vehicles and 

nonroad products. It can only be 

introduced into commerce for use in 

vehicles and engines where it has been 

shown not to cause violations of the 

emissions standards, and may not be 

introduced into commerce for use in 

other vehicles or engines. 

EPA recognizes that a partial waiver 

raises implementation issues regarding 

how to ensure that a fuel or fuel 

additive is only introduced into 

commerce for use in the specified subset 

of motor vehicles. The discretion to 

grant a partial waiver includes the 

authority and responsibility for 

determining and imposing reasonable 

conditions that will allow for effective 

implementation of a partial waiver. In 

this case, EPA has conditioned the 

waiver on various actions that the fuel 

or fuel additive manufacturer must take. 

The actions are all designed to help 

ensure that E15 is only used by the 

MY2007 and later motor vehicles 

specified by the waiver. If a fuel or fuel 

additive manufacturer does not comply 

with the conditions, then EPA will 

consider their fuel or fuel additive as 

having been introduced into commerce 

for use by a broader group of vehicles 

and engines than is allowed under the 

waiver, constituting a violation of the 

section 211(f)(1) prohibition. 

EPA recognizes, as several 

commenters have suggested, that EPA 

can impose waiver conditions only on 

those parties who are subject to the 

section 211(f)(1) prohibition and the 

waiver of that prohibition. These parties 

are the fuel and fuel additive 

manufacturers. Waiver conditions can 

apply to them, but cannot apply directly 

to various downstream parties, such as 

a retailer who is not also a fuel or fuel 

additive manufacturer. This is one 

reason EPA is also proposing specific 

misfueling mitigation measures in a 

separate rulemaking under section 

211(c), to minimize any risk of 

misfueling. This will also facilitate 

compliance with certain of the waiver 

conditions. 

Many commenters suggested that 

before EPA can grant a waiver of any 

type under section 211(f)(4), the Agency 

must first issue a rule under section 

211(c) that addresses the proper 

prohibition and control of a new fuel or 

fuel additive to the extent necessary 

before such fuel or fuel additive is 

permitted under section 211(f)(4). 

However, there is no mention of timing 

in these two statutory provisions and 

EPA believes it appropriate to consider 

the merits of a section 211(f)(4) waiver 

request on its face. 

B. Notice and Comment Procedures 

Section 211(f)(4) requires that EPA 

grant or deny an application for a 

waiver ‘‘after public notice and 

comment.’’ As discussed in detail in 

Section II.B., EPA published notice of 

receipt of the waiver application on 

April 21, 2009 and provided the public 

with an extended public comment 

period of 90 days to submit comments 

on the waiver application. EPA received 

approximately 78,000 comments during 

the public comment period. 

Commenters have asked the Agency 

for a second public comment period so 

that they may review and comment on 

the testing data generated by the DOE 

Catalyst Study. An additional comment 

period is neither necessary nor required 

by law. EPA has continued to accept 

comments on the waiver application 

even after closure of the formal 

comment period, and has considered 

comments received even as late as early 

October. All of these comments have 

been included in the public docket and 

thus made available to all members of 

the public for review and comment. 

Many commenters have taken the 

opportunity to submit additional 

comments in light of other comments 

and information included in the docket. 

Data from ongoing vehicle testing 

programs, including DOE’s data, have 

been included in the public docket 

shortly after EPA has received the 

information, making it available for the 

public’s review and comment as soon as 

practicable. Many commenters 

providing substantive feedback on the 

waiver application have been involved 

in one or more of the various testing 

programs, including DOE’s, and 

consequently have had immediate 

access to the data. Comments submitted 

to the docket reflect that commenters 

have had access to and an opportunity 

to consider the various testing 

information cited by EPA in the waiver 

decision. 

EPA has also held numerous meetings 

with stakeholders in which stakeholders 

have shared their comments, concerns 

and additional data regarding the waiver 

request. Information received at these 

meetings has been made available in the 

public docket. 

In view of the access that has been 

made available to the relevant 

information in the public docket, EPA 

believes no need exists for a second 

public comment period. Moreover, EPA 

has already satisfied its notice and 

comment requirements for this Decision 

and has no legal obligation to provide 

an additional notice and comment 

period. EPA satisfied its procedural 

requirements through the public notice 

and comment period EPA already 

provided (see Section II.B) and nothing 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68147 

140This Decision is distinguishable from the 

outcome in Air Transport Ass’n of America v. FAA, 

169 F.3d 1 (DC Cir. 1999). In ATA v. FAA, the DC 

Circuit found that the FAA’s reliance on ex parte 

information submitted after closure of the public 

comment period violated the applicable notice and 

comment period requirements. The Court’s holding 

was primarily based on the private nature of the 

information. ATA, 169 F.3d at 8 (‘‘The important 

point is that because the transmission of this 

information * * * was never public, petitioner did 

not have a fair opportunity to comment on it.’’). In 

contrast, the data relied upon by the Agency in this 

waiver decision were included in the pubic docket 

for the decision prior to its issuance. 

141Additionally, Congress authorized EPA to set 

separate in-use standards (section 202(g)) and to 

order recall of motor vehicles not meeting those 

standards (section 207(c)(1)), further illustrating its 

intent that emissions reductions continue at all 

times during the actual life of motor vehicles. Also 

see General Motors Corp. v. Ruckelshaus, 742 F.2d 

1561 (DC Cir. 1984) (finding that section 207(c)(1) 

enables EPA to order a recall of all motor vehicles 

in a class—even those beyond their statutory useful 

life—as long as EPA can demonstrate that those 

motor vehicles were not meeting their emissions 

standards while within their useful life.) 

in section 211(f)(4) mandates a second 

comment period.140

C. ‘‘Useful Life’’ Language in Section 

211(f)(4) 

In making any waiver decision, 

section 211(f)(4) indicates that EPA 

should ensure that any new fuel or fuel 

additive will not cause or contribute to 

a vehicle or engine failing to meet its 

emissions standards over its useful life. 

The Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to 

define ‘‘useful life’’ for the vehicles and 

engines EPA regulates, see CAA sections 

202(d) and 213(d), and EPA includes 

those definitions in the same regulations 

that contain the emission standards for 

those vehicles and engines. 

As discussed above, the construction 

of section 211(f) indicates that the 

meaning of section 211(f)(4) is best 

determined by reading it in context with 

the substantially similar prohibition in 

section 211(f)(1). Section 211(f)(1) 

contains the general prohibition against 

introducing fuels and fuel additives that 

are not ‘‘substantially similar’’ to the 

certification fuels used for certifying 

1975 and subsequent model year motor 

vehicles with EPA’s emissions 

standards. The prohibition is expansive, 

effectively protecting MY1975 and 

newer motor vehicles from using fuels 

or fuel additives that could 

detrimentally impact their ability to 

meet their emissions standards. In 

enacting this provision, Congress stated 

that ‘‘the intention of this new 

subsection [(f)] is to prevent the use of 

any new or recently introduced additive 

in those unleaded grades of gasoline 

required to be used in 1975 and 

subsequent model year automobiles 

which may impair emission 

performance of vehicles * * *.’’ Senate 

Report (Environment and Public Works 

Committee) No. 95–127 (To accompany 

S. 252), May 10, 1977, pg 90. This 

general prohibition equally protects all 

MY1975 and newer motor vehicles from 

the use of new fuels and fuel additives 

that the motor vehicles may not have 

been designed to use and could degrade 

their emissions control systems. 

The section 211(f)(1) prohibition is 

designed to protect the emissions 

control systems for the breadth of motor 

vehicles in the fleet, whether they are 

within or outside the regulatory useful 

life of an applicable emissions standard. 

This broad scope recognizes that the 

emissions control system of a motor 

vehicle continues to operate and 

provide important emissions benefits 

throughout the actual life of the motor 

vehicle, including the many miles or 

years that it may be operated past its 

regulatory useful life. Thus, it is 

important that the motor vehicle 

continue to use fuels that do not 

interfere with the continued normal 

operation of the emissions control 

system after its regulatory useful life. 

That normal operation may not ensure 

that the motor vehicle stills meets the 

applicable emissions standards, but it is 

typically such that it provides 

significant emissions control benefits for 

the country. Congress recognized this 

and prohibited entry into commence of 

fuels or fuel additives that could 

interfere with this result, no matter how 

old the motor vehicle. Congress also 

recognized this goal by prohibiting 

tampering anytime during the actual life 

of the motor vehicle, not just during its 

regulatory useful life. See CAA section 

203(a)(3).141

In promulgating CAA section 

211(f)(4), Congress provided EPA with 

the authority to waive the prohibition 

for particular fuels or fuel additives, but 

only when the fuel or fuel additive 

manufacturer demonstrated that motor 

vehicles could still meet their emissions 

standards while using the particular fuel 

or fuel additive. See Senate Report 

(Environment and Public Works 

Committee) No. 95–127, May 10, 1977, 

pg 91 (‘‘The waiver process * * * was 

established * * * so that the 

prohibition could be waived, or 

conditionally waived, rapidly if the 

manufacturer of the additive or the fuel 

establishes to the satisfaction of the 

Administrator that the additive, whether 

in certain amounts or under certain 

conditions, will not be harmful to the 

performance of emission control devices 

or systems.’’). While section 211(f)(4) 

refers to the ‘‘useful life’’ of the motor 

vehicle, that is part of the reference to 

causing or contributing to the 

noncompliance of the motor vehicle 

with its emission standards, as the 

emissions standards are defined in part 

by the useful life provision. See House 

Conference Report No. 95–564 (To 

accompany H.R. 6161), Aug. 3, 1977, pp 

160–162 (‘‘The conferees also intend 

that the words ’cause or contribute to 

the failure of an emission control device 

or system to meet emission standards 

over its useful life to which it has been 

certified pursuant to section 206’ mean 

the noncompliance of an engine or 

device with emission levels to which it 

was certified, taking into account the 

deterioration factors employed in 

certifying the engine.’’) This indicates 

that Congress was not trying to limit the 

scope of the waiver provision, but 

instead was using language normally 

used when referring to the emission 

standards. Congress wanted to ensure 

that new fuels or fuel additives allowed 

into the marketplace through a waiver 

would be the kinds of fuels or fuel 

additives that are consistent with motor 

vehicles meeting their applicable 

emissions standards. 

In that context, EPA looks at whether 

the fuel or fuel additive would lead to 

an exceedance of the emissions 

standards if it was used during the 

motor vehicle’s regulatory useful life. If 

that is the case, then the fuel should not 

be entered into commerce for use by 

that motor vehicle anytime during its 

actual life—just as the section 211(f)(1) 

prohibition ensures that motor vehicles 

will not use fuel or fuel additives 

anytime during their actual lives that 

are not substantially similar to the fuel 

or fuel additives used to certify their 

compliance with the emissions 

standards over their regulatory useful 

lives. This gives a reasonable meaning 

to the waiver provision and keeps it 

parallel and complementary to the 

section 211(f)(1) provision to which it is 

tied. EPA believes this reflects Congress’ 

intention and avoids an unintended 

consequence that would be far at odds 

with the apparent purpose of sections 

211(f)(1) and (4). If EPA were limited to 

only considering motor vehicles within 

their regulatory useful lives, this could 

require the Agency to approve waiver 

requests for new fuels and fuel additives 

even if they were clearly known to 

seriously degrade emission control 

devices or systems and cause large 

emissions increases in older motor 

vehicles, which comprise a significant 

percentage of the entire fleet. Allowing 

such a detrimental fuel or fuel additive 

into the marketplace is clearly contrary 

to the purposes of section 211(f) which 

is designed as a whole to protect the 

benefits of the emissions control 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
68148 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 

142ASTM International D4806–10, Standard 

Specification for Denatured Fuel Ethanol for 

Blending with Gasolines for Use as Automotive 

Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel. 

standards over the actual life of the 

motor vehicles. 

X. Waiver Conditions 

The conditions placed upon the 

partial waiver EPA is granting today fall 

into two categories. The first category 

concerns properties of the ethanol used 

to manufacture E15 and the properties 

of the final E15 blend. The second 

category of conditions concerns 

mitigation of potential misfueling with 

E15. Any party wishing to utilize this 

partial waiver for E15 must satisfy all of 

these conditions to be able to lawfully 

register and introduce E15, or ethanol 

used to make E15, into commerce. 

A. Fuel Quality Conditions 

As requested by Growth Energy in 

their waiver request application, and as 

is industry practice, the partial waiver 

for E15 contains a condition that 

requires use of ethanol which meets 

industry specifications as outlined in 

ASTM International D4806.142

Additionally, as discussed above in our 

evaluation of the potential effect of E15 

on evaporative emissions, the partial 

waiver for E15 contains a condition that 

E15 must meet a maximum RVP of 9.0 

psi during the summertime volatility 

season, May 1 through September 15. 

B. Misfueling Mitigation Conditions and 

Strategies 

EPA believes that minimizing the 

possibility of misfueling of E15 into 

vehicles or engines for which it is not 

approved would best be achieved 

through implementation of misfueling 

mitigation requirements as proposed by 

EPA today in a separate action. 

Nevertheless, EPA is allowing the use of 

the partial waiver prior to the 

finalization of such requirements 

provided the fuel or fuel additive 

manufacturer using the partial waiver 

can implement the conditions described 

below prior to introducing E15 into 

commerce. Any fuel or fuel 

manufacturer wishing to utilize this 

partial waiver must submit a plan for 

EPA approval for implementing these 

misfueling mitigation conditions. EPA 

will determine if the plan is sufficient 

to address these conditions. 

We believe that there are four 

important components to an effective 

misfueling mitigation strategy for 

reducing the potential for misfueling 

with E15. First, effective labeling is a 

key factor. Labeling is needed to inform 

consumers of the potential impacts of 

using E15 in vehicles and engines not 

approved for its use, to mitigate the 

potential for intentional and 

unintentional misfueling of these 

vehicles and engines. Labeling is also 

done at the point of sale where the 

consumer most likely will be choosing 

which fuel to use. Second, retail stations 

and wholesale purchaser-consumers 

need assurance regarding the ethanol 

content of the fuel that they purchase so 

they can direct the fuel to the 

appropriate storage tank and properly 

label their fuel pumps. The use of 

proper documentation in the form of 

PTDs has proven to be an effective 

means of both ensuring that retail 

stations know what fuel they are 

purchasing and as a possible defense for 

retail stations in cases of liability in the 

event of a violation of EPA standards. 

Third, labeling and fuel sampling 

surveys are necessary to ensure that 

retail stations are complying with 

labeling requirements, ethanol blenders 

are not blending more than the stated 

amount of ethanol on PTDs, and 

assuring downstream compliance for 

fuel refiners. The Agency has used this 

general strategy to implement several 

fuel programs over the past thirty years, 

including the unleaded gasoline 

program, the RFG program, and the 

diesel sulfur program. These strategies 

are conditions of use associated with 

today’s waiver decision and are 

described below. 

While not a condition of today’s 

waiver decision, the fourth component 

of an effective misfueling mitigation 

strategy is effective public outreach and 

consumer education. Outreach to 

consumers and stakeholders is critical 

to mitigate misfueling incidents that can 

result in increased emissions and 

vehicle damage. Consumers need to be 

engaged through a variety of media to 

ensure that accurate information is 

conveyed to the owners and operators of 

vehicles and engines. 

EPA recognizes that it may be difficult 

to fully implement all of these 

misfueling mitigation strategies prior to 

finalization of today’s proposed rule. 

However, any fuel or fuel additive 

manufacturer wishing to introduce E15 

into commerce before EPA finalizes its 

misfueling mitigation measures rule will 

need to demonstrate to EPA its ability 

to meet the following misfueling 

mitigation conditions of the partial 

waiver: 

1. Fuel Pump Dispenser Labeling 

Any fuel or fuel additive 

manufacturer using this partial waiver 

must ensure the labeling of any 

dispensers of this gasoline-ethanol 

blend. The label would have to indicate 

that the fuel contains up to 15 vol% 

ethanol—that is, the fuel is gasoline 

containing greater than 10 vol% ethanol 

and up to 15 vol% ethanol. 

Based on the Agency’s experience 

with fuel pump labeling for Ultra-Low 

Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) and Low Sulfur 

Diesel (LSD) (see 40 CFR 80.570), there 

are four important elements to an 

effective label for misfueling. The 

language of the E15 label must contain 

four components: (1) An information 

component; (2) a legal approval 

component; (3) a technical warning 

component; and (4) a legal warning 

component. Together, these four 

components highlight the critical 

information necessary to inform 

consumers about the impacts of using 

E15. 

The labeling requirements EPA is 

proposing today in a separate proposed 

rule concurrent with today’s partial 

waiver decision would place labeling 

requirements on retail stations that 

dispense E15. Compliance with these 

labeling requirements, when finalized, 

will satisfy this fuel pump dispenser 

labeling condition. If a fuel or fuel 

additive manufacturer chooses to utilize 

this partial waiver prior to finalization 

of today’s proposed rule, a label 

designed to meet the components 

described in today’s proposed rule and 

approved by EPA can satisfy this fuel 

pump dispenser labeling condition of 

this partial waiver decision. 

2. Fuel Pump Labeling and Fuel Sample 

Survey 

Any fuel or fuel additive 

manufacturer using this partial waiver 

must participate in a survey, approved 

by EPA, of compliance at fuel retail 

facilities conducted by an independent 

surveyor. An EPA-approved survey plan 

is to be in place prior to introduction of 

E15 into the marketplace and the results 

of the survey must be provided to EPA 

for use in its enforcement and 

compliance assurance activities. 

One of two options may be utilized to 

meet this condition of this partial 

waiver decision: 

For Survey Option 1, a fuel or fuel 

additive manufacturer may individually 

survey labels and ethanol content at 

retail stations wherever its gasoline, 

ethanol, or ethanol blend may be 

distributed if it may be blended as E15. 

EPA must approve this survey plan 

before it is conducted by the fuel or fuel 

additive manufacturer. 

For Survey Option 2, a fuel or fuel 

additive manufacturer may choose to 

conduct the survey through a 

nationwide program of sampling and 

testing designed to provide oversight of 

all retail stations that sell gasoline. 

Details of the survey requirements are 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68149 

143Evaluations are underway which may 

facilitate the shipment of gasoline-ethanol blends 

by pipeline to terminals. Hence, parties upstream of 

the terminal may need to include information on 

maximum ethanol concentration on product PTDs 

in the future. 

144 Gasoline in this case may be gasoline 

blendstocks that produce gasoline upon the 

addition of the specified amount of ethanol covered 

by the waiver. 

145ASTM D4806–10, Standard Specification for 

Denatured Fuel Ethanol for Blending with 

Gasolines for Use as Automotive Spark-Ignition 

Engine Fuel. 

similar to those included in the ULSD 

and RFG programs. A fuel or fuel 

additive manufacturer may conduct this 

survey as part of a consortium, as 

discussed in the proposed rule. 

EPA is proposing more formal 

requirements for a national E15 labeling 

and ethanol content survey in today’s 

notice of proposed rulemaking. If a fuel 

or fuel additive manufacturer chooses to 

utilize this partial waiver prior to 

finalization of today’s proposed rule, a 

survey designed to satisfy the 

components described in today’s 

proposed rule and approved by EPA 

will be deemed to be sufficient to satisfy 

this fuel pump labeling and fuel sample 

survey condition of this partial waiver 

decision. 

3. Proper Documentation of Ethanol 

Content on Product Transfer Documents 

Today’s proposed rule would require 

that parties that transfer blendstocks, 

base gasoline for oxygenate blending, 

and/or finished gasoline that contains 

ethanol content greater than 10 vol% 

and no more than 15 vol% include the 

ethanol concentration of the fuel in 

volume percent. Product transfer 

documents (PTDs) are customarily 

generated and used in the course of 

business and are familiar to parties who 

transfer or receive blendstocks or base 

gasoline for oxygenate blending and 

oxygenated gasoline. Since we are 

approving a partial waiver for the 

introduction into commerce of E15 for 

use in only MY2007 and newer motor 

vehicles, the PTDs that accompany the 

transfer of base gasoline/gasoline 

blendstocks used for oxygenate blending 

and for oxygenated gasoline must 

include the ethanol content of the fuel 

to help avoid misfueling. Downstream 

of the terminal where ethanol blending 

takes place, information on the 

maximum ethanol concentration in the 

ethanol blend is needed to help ensure 

that fuel shipments are delivered into 

the appropriate storage tanks at retail 

and fleet gasoline dispensing 

facilities.143 A gasoline retail station and 

fleet dispensing facility must know the 

ethanol content of a fuel shipment so 

that fuel pumps may be correctly 

labeled. 

In the event that there is a period of 

time when this partial waiver is utilized 

prior to finalization of today’s proposal, 

a PTD program designed to satisfy the 

elements of today’s proposed rule will 

be sufficient to satisfy the PTD 

condition of this partial waiver 

decision. 

4. Public Outreach 

While not a formal condition of this 

partial waiver, EPA recognizes the 

importance of outreach to consumers 

and stakeholders to misfueling 

mitigation. The potential for E15 

misfueling incidents may exist for 

several reasons. For example, 

consumers may be inclined to misfuel 

when E15 costs less than E10 or E0. 

Additionally, in some situations, it may 

be more difficult to find fuels other than 

E15. EPA thus encourages fuel and fuel 

additive manufacturers to conduct a 

public outreach and education program 

prior to any introduction of E15 into 

commerce. 

A recent example of outreach to 

consumers and stakeholders that may be 

applicable is coordinated work done in 

support of the ULSD program. ULSD 

was a new fuel with the possibility of 

consumer misfueling that could result 

in engine damage. With ULSD, the fuel 

industry trade association API took the 

lead in working with stakeholders to 

establish the Clean Diesel Fuel Alliance 

(CDFA), a collaboration of public and 

private organizations designed to ensure 

a smooth program transition by 

providing comprehensive information 

and technical coordination. The 

organizations represented in the CDFA 

include engine manufacturers, fuel 

retailers, trucking fleets, DOE and EPA. 

CDFA efforts to educate ULSD users 

include developing technical guidance 

and educational information, including 

a Web site (http://www.clean-diesel.org), 

as well as serving as a central point of 

contact to address ULSD-related 

questions. 

The CDFA outreach model could 

prove beneficial in this case. EPA 

anticipates that all parties involved in 

bringing higher gasoline-ethanol blends 

to market will participate in a 

coordinated industry-led consumer 

education and outreach effort. In the 

context of this program, potential key 

participants include ethanol producers, 

fuel and fuel additive manufacturers, 

automobile, engine and equipment 

manufacturers, States, nongovernmental organizations, parties in 

the fuel distribution system, EPA, DOE, 

and USDA. Potential education and 

outreach activities a public/private 

group could undertake include serving 

as a central clearinghouse for technical 

questions about E15 and its use, 

promoting best practices to educate 

consumers or mitigate misfueling 

instances, and developing education 

materials and making them available to 

the public. 

XI. Reid Vapor Pressure 

Commenters questioned whether E15 

would qualify for the 1.0 psi RVP 

waiver permitted for E10 under CAA 

section 211(h). As explained in the 

misfueling mitigation measures 

proposed rule, EPA interprets the 1.0 

psi waiver in CAA section 211(h) as 

being limited to gasoline-ethanol blends 

that contain 10 vol% ethanol. Please see 

the preamble of that proposed rule for 

more discussion of this issue and for an 

opportunity to submit comments on this 

issue. 

XII. Partial Waiver Decision and 

Conditions 

Based on all the data and information 

described above, EPA has determined 

that, subject to compliance with all of 

the conditions below, a gasoline 

produced with greater than 10 vol% and 

no more than 15 vol% ethanol (E15) 

will not cause or contribute to a failure 

of certain motor vehicles to achieve 

compliance with their emission 

standards to which they have been 

certified over their useful lives. 

Therefore, 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 MY2007 and newer 

light-duty motor vehicles, light-duty 

trucks, and medium duty passenger 

vehicles (hereafter ‘‘MY2007 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-MY2007 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,144 and the ethanol must meet 

the specifications for fuel ethanol found 

in the ASTM International specification 

D4806–10.145

(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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
68150 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 

146 In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published 

in today’s Federal Register, EPA is proposing a 

more detailed labeling, product transfer documents, 

and survey plan. 

(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 

MY2007 and newer 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 MY2007 

and newer gasoline cars, MY2007 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.146

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 

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 

waiver. 

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 January 3, 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: October 13, 2010. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27432 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2