[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 213 (Thursday, November 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68094-68150]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27432]
[[Page 68093]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 /
Notices
[[Page 68094]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 light-duty 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 (e-mail)
address for the Air and Radiation Docket is: [email protected],
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: [email protected].
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
[[Page 68095]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For purposes of today's decision, ``MY2007 and newer light-
duty motor vehicles'' include MY2007 and newer light-duty motor
vehicles (LDV), light-duty trucks (LDT), and medium-duty passenger
vehicles (MDPV).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 in-use 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
off-highway 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 68096]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In past waiver decisions, we have referred to ``immediate''
emissions as ``instantaneous'' emissions. ``Immediate'' and
``instantaneous'' are synonymous in this context.
\4\ EPA 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
sales-based 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
\6\ See 65 FR 6698 (February 10, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
gasoline-ethanol 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 long-term (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
[[Page 68097]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Permeation refers to the migration of fuel molecules through
the walls of elastomers used for fuel system components.
\8\ Southwest 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.
\9\ Environmental 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 gasoline-ethanol 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 light-duty 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
[[Page 68098]]
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 light-duty 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 EPA-approved 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
gasoline-ethanol 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
[[Page 68099]]
ethers and alcohols.\10\ E10 (a gasoline-ethanol 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 (gasoline-ethanol 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 56 FR 5352 (February 11, 1991).
\11\ As 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ As noted previously, the Energy Independence and Security
Act of 2007 also substantially increased the mandated renewable fuel
requirements of the Renewable Fuels Standard Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See 74 FR 18228 (April 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See 74 FR 23704 (May 20, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
(gasoline-ethanol 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
[[Page 68100]]
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See 43 FR 41425 (September 18, 1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See 44 FR 12244 (February 23, 1979).
\18\ See Waiver Decision on Application of E.I. DuPont de
Nemours and Company (DuPont), 46 FR 6124 (February 28, 1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See 44 FR 12244 (February 23, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See 44 FR 1447 (January 5, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 68101]]
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 light-
duty 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See 53 FR 33846 (September 1, 1988).
\22\ See 44 FR 10530 (February 21, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Public Comment Summary
Several commenters responded that the RIT Study has limitations and
does not alleviate concerns about the long-term 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 light-duty
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,
[[Page 68102]]
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 mid-level 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
\28\ See section IV.A.1.c. for a detailed discussion of these
terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ After 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 68103]]
the extra oxygen from the increased ethanol blends, catalyst
temperatures were cooler on average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See 73 FR 22277 (April 25, 2008).
\35\ See 44 FR 20777 (April 6, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
[[Page 68104]]
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 long-
term 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 long-term 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 long-term 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 long-term 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
[[Page 68105]]
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 [deg]F), and a 20 [deg]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 open-loop 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Catalyst Durability Study, Department of Energy Tier 2
vehicle testing completed September 2010. Final report due early
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 gasoline-ethanol 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:
[[Page 68106]]
Tier-2 compliant.
Manufacturer and sales/registration volumes.
Whether a motor vehicle did or did not apply learned fuel
trim (LFT or non-LFT, 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ E-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.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN04NO10.000
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 non-ethanol 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 mid-mileage 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 full-useful 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
[[Page 68107]]
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
gasoline-ethanol 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Southwest 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Our assessment of motor vehicles that exceeded emissions
standards at FUL mileage accumulation is that the exceedances were
not attributable to the fuel used.
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.
[[Page 68108]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Our assessment of motor vehicles that exceeded emissions
standards at FUL mileage accumulation is that the exceedances were
not attributable to the fuel used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 SPSS\TM\ 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ The 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.
\42\ Technical Summary of DOE Study on E15 Impacts On Tier 2
Vehicles and Southwest Research Teardown Report. EPA Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 68109]]
future gasoline detergent additive formulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ CRC Project No. CM-136-09-1B Engine Durability Study of
Mid-Level Ethanol blends, EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0211-
14003.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Exhaust Emissions--Immediate Effects for MY2007 and Newer Light-Duty
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Optimal 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.
\46\ Use 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 gasoline-ethanol 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
[[Page 68110]]
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ A 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.
\49\ The Agency's MOVES model has undergone extensive peer
review and testing, and incorporates the EPA Predictive Models.
\50\ These 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 [deg]F, a T90 of 325 [deg]F, and an RVP of 8.9 psi and
E10 had aromatics content of 24.9 vol%, a T50 of 202 [deg]F, T90 of
325 [deg]F, and an RVP of 8.9 psi. Other parameters not mentioned
here were assumed to be held constant between the blends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Results 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 68111]]
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 [deg]F and 50 [deg]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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ CRC 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the course of the DOE Catalyst Study (see Section IV.A.1.d),
some back-to-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ RIT-CIMS/USDOT E20 Test and Evaluation Program May 2010,
EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0211-14003.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 long-term
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ A 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 68112]]
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ See 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.
\57\ Tier 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ EPA, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Separately, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 light-duty 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
[[Page 68113]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ This Decision refers to several vehicle types as commonly
used acronyms: Light-duty motor vehicles (LDV), light-duty trucks
(LDT), light light-duty 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 68114]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN04NO10.001
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
[[Page 68115]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ CRC 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Growth Energy Request Letter--Tab 4, 1st half, EPA Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0211-0002.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 non-
ethanol 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 gasoline-ethanol 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ These studies are available at http://www.crcao.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 68116]]
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 gasoline-ethanol
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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Running 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN04NO10.002
[[Page 68117]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN04NO10.003
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 [deg]F-105 [deg]F (California cycle), as opposed to the
Federal requirement of 72 [deg]F-96 [deg]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
[[Page 68118]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ Permeation 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN04NO10.004
[[Page 68119]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN04NO10.005
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Testing conducted as part of the DOE Catalyst Study supports the
conclusion that Tier 2 motor vehicle evaporative emissions systems
should be durable in-use 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Technical Summary of DOE Study on E15 Impacts on Tier 2
Vehicles and Southwest Research Teardown Report. See EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 68120]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN04NO10.006
\68\
e. Conclusion
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 68121]]
(``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ State of Minnesota and Renewable Fuels Association. The
Feasibility of 20 Percent Ethanol Blends by Volume as a Motor Fuel,
EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-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 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.
\75\ Effects 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ SAE J1297, revised July 2007, Surface Vehicle Information
Report, Alternative Fuels.
\78\ SAE 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.
\79\ SAE 800786, ``Effects of Mixtures of Gasoline With Methanol
and With Ethanol on Automotive Elastomers,'' Ismat A. Abu-Isa,
General Motors Research Laboratory.
\80\ SAE 800789, ``The Volume Increase of Fuel Handling Rubbers
in Gasoline/Alcohol Blends,'' Nersasian, A., Passenger Car Meeting,
June 9-13, 1980.
\81\ SAE 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
\84\ Components were selected from three vehicles, the Holden
1990 VN and 1985 VK Commodore and a 1985 Ford XE Falcon to encompass
most component types within the Australian passenger car fleet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 68122]]
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
real-world 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
mid-level 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 multi-layered components).\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ SAE J1681, ``Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice, for
Gasoline, Alcohol and Diesel Fuel Surrogates for Materials
Testing,'' Issued 1992-09, Revised 2000-01.
\86\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ SAE J1297, revised July 2007, Surface Vehicle Information
Report, Alternative Fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 68123]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ Only a difference in intake valve deposits was seen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 [deg]F and 50
[deg]F laboratory conditions, and no fuel leaks or conspicuous
degradation of the fuel systems were observed.'' \91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
\90\ 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 see EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0211, 33.
\91\ 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 see EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0211, 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In their application, Growth Energy asserts that the Minnesota
Driveability Study, the MCAR Study, and the RIT Study demonstrate that
higher gasoline-ethanol 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., non-flex 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ ``E15/E20 Tolerance of In-Use Vehicle OBD-II Systems.''
Presentation available at http://www.crcao.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 68124]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ CRC Report No. 652, ``2008 CRC Cold-Start and Warm-up E85
and E15/E20 Driveability Program,'' October 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
long-term 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 light-duty 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.
[[Page 68125]]
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 1 Phase-in percentage
Tier 0 --------------------------------------
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 in-use 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 in-use
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ EPA certifies light-duty motor vehicles on a test group
basis. A test group is a group of vehicles having similar design and
emission characteristics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 68126]]
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 [deg]F, and a 20 [deg]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 light-
duty 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 light-duty 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ Ricardo 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.
``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.''
[[Page 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
[[Page 68128]]
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
[[Page 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ SAE J1297, revised July, 2007, Surface Vehicle Information
Report, Alternative Fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 light-duty 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
light-duty motor vehicles, we find that there are concerns about
potential emissions increases with the use of E15 in these vehicles,
particularly regarding long-term 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 spark-ignition
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.
[[Page 68130]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN04NO10.007
[[Page 68131]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN04NO10.008
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ On-highway motorcycles have separate emissions standards
and minimum useful life requirements, which may be found in 40 CFR
Part 86 Subpart E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
[[Page 68132]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ Bresenham, D. and Reisel, J. ``The Effect of High Ethanol
Blends on Emissions from Small Utility Engines,'' SAE 1999-01-3345,
JSAE 9938100, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
long-term 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ EPA Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0211-0002.6: Growth
Energy Application, 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ EPA Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0211-0002.6:. Growth
Energy Application, 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ The 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).
\102\ Small 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
[[Page 68133]]
Furthermore, AllSAFE points out that the DOE Pilot Study demonstrated
higher exhaust temperatures with increasing ethanol levels, which may
adversely impact numerous emission-related 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ HC reduction estimated from graph while NoX and
HC+NOX changes were stated in the report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 fuel-air
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ EPA 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 68134]]
stakeholders even prior to the receipt of the E15 waiver
application.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ See Tables in 73 FR 59034, 59036 (10/8/08).
\109\ EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0211-2559.2, API
Technology Committee Meeting, Chicago, 6/4/08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following table summarizes the many potential breakouts of
nonroad engine technologies currently in the in-use 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-reg: 2- Pre-reg: 4- Phase 1: 4- Phase 1: 2- Phase 2: 2- Phase 2: 4-
SMALL SI stroke stroke (ohv/sv) stroke (ohv/sv) stroke w/cat Phase 2: stroke w/cat 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............... -............... -.............. -
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase 2: 4-str
MARINE Pre-reg: 2- Pre-reg: 2- Phase 1: 4- Phase 1: 2 DI Phase 1: 4- Phase 1: 4-EFI closed loop
stroke stroke IDI stroke stroke Carb catalyst
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outboard........................ X............... X.............. X (few)........ X.............. X.............. X.............. -
PWC............................. X............... X.............. -.............. X.............. -.............. X.............. -
SD/I............................ -............... -.............. X.............. -.............. X.............. X.............. X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase 1: 4-
RECREATIONAL Pre-reg: 2- Pre-reg: 4- stroke closed Phase 1: 4- Phase 1: 2- Phase 2: 2- Phase 3: 2- Phase 3: 4-
stroke stroke crankcase stroke stroke stroke stroke 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
long-term durability issues for engines is shown in the accelerated
full life aging emission results in the DOE Pilot Study\110\. Four new
Class I B&S consumer and four new Class I Honda commercial engines were
aged on non-ethanol 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
[[Page 68135]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ Effects 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
pre-regulation 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ Bresenham, D. and Reisel, J. ``The Effect of High Ethanol
Blends on Emissions from Small Utility Engines,'' SAE 1999-01-3345,
JSAE 9938100, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
[[Page 68136]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN04NO10.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN04NO10.010
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ The complete table is available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/standards/nonroad/nonroadsi-evap.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 68137]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ EPA 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 gasoline-ethanol 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
[[Page 68138]]
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 light-duty 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
heavy-duty 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 off-highway 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ Woertz, P.A. Letter to Lisa P. Jackson. 7 June 2010. See
Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0211-13999.
\118\ Technical 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.
\119\ CRC Project No. CM-136-09-1B, EPA Docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0211-14008.
\120\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ See ADM TSD, 5-8.
\123\ See ADM TSD, 5.
\124\ See ADM TSD, 5-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. API, AllSAFE, and Alliance Comments
Commenters pointed out that ADM's data is based upon measurements
of
[[Page 68139]]
``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ By 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ We 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN04NO10.011
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.
[[Page 68140]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN04NO10.012
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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN04NO10.013
[[Page 68141]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ Since 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ See ADM TSD, 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 high-
altitude 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (so-called ``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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ Although 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ The ``Complex Model'' is a regulatory model used to
predict the emissions effects of various gasoline properties,
including oxygen content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ See API Comment, Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0211-
14000.1, 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 68142]]
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
gasoline-ethanol 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% gasoline-ethanol 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
[[Page 68143]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ See Alliance Comments Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-
0211-14004.1, 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ For 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 68144]]
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 on-road
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ See 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.
\136\ See Ethyl Corp., Denial of Application for Fuel Waiver for
MMT (1/16 and 1/32 gpg Mn), 43 FR 41,424 (Sept. 18, 1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 68145]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ See 54 FR 4834 (November 22, 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ See 44 FR 10530 (February 21, 1979); Motor Vehicle Mfrs.
Ass'n. et. al. v. EPA, 768 F.2d 385 (DC Cir. 1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ New 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 (f)(4), which, as discussed above, envisions
use of such subsets of vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 68146]]
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
[[Page 68147]]
in section 211(f)(4) mandates a second comment period.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ This 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ Additionally, 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 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
[[Page 68148]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ ASTM International D4806-10, Standard Specification for
Denatured Fuel Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as
Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 68149]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ Evaluations 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, non-governmental 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
\145\ ASTM D4806-10, Standard Specification for Denatured Fuel
Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as Automotive Spark-
Ignition Engine Fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(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.
[[Page 68150]]
(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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(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