Partial Grant of Clean Air Act Waiver Application Submitted by Growth Energy To Increase the Allowable Ethanol Content of Gasoline to 15 Percent; Decision of the Administrator, 4662-4683 [2011-1646]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
4662
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices
Stallworth at the phone number or email address noted above, preferably at
least ten days prior to the meeting, to
give EPA as much time as possible to
process your request.
Dated: January 20, 2011.
Anthony Maciorowski,
Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board
Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 2011–1664 Filed 1–25–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211; FRL–9258–6]
Partial Grant of Clean Air Act Waiver
Application Submitted by Growth
Energy To Increase the Allowable
Ethanol Content of Gasoline to 15
Percent; Decision of the Administrator
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of Decision Granting a
Partial Waiver.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking additional final
action on Growth Energy’s application
for a waiver submitted under section
211(f)(4) of the Clean Air Act. Today’s
partial waiver allows fuel and fuel
additive manufacturers to introduce into
commerce gasoline that contains greater
than 10 volume percent ethanol and no
more than 15 volume percent ethanol
(E15) for use in model year (MY) 2001
through 2006 light-duty motor vehicles
(passenger cars, light-duty trucks and
medium-duty passenger vehicles), if
certain conditions are fulfilled. In
October 2010, we granted a partial
waiver for E15 for use in MY2007 and
newer light-duty motor vehicles subject
to the same conditions. Taken together,
the two waiver decisions allow the
introduction into commerce of E15 for
use in MY2001 and newer light-duty
motor vehicles if those conditions are
met.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211. All
documents and public comments in the
docket are listed on the https://
www.regulations.gov Web site. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically through https://
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
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 Jan 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
number for the Reading Room is (202)
566–1744. The Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center’s Web
site is https://www.epa.gov/oar/
docket.html. The electronic mail (email) address for the Air and Radiation
Docket is: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov, the
telephone number is (202) 566–1742
and the fax number is (202) 566–9744.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Anderson, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality,
Mailcode: 6405J, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number: (202) 343–9718; fax
number: (202) 343–2800; e-mail
address: Anderson.Robert@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. Prior E15 Partial Waiver Decision
B. Waiver Decision for MY2001–2006
Light-Duty Motor Vehicles
C. Conditions on Today’s Partial Waiver
and Proposed Rule on Misfueling
Mitigation
II. Introduction
III. Method of Review
IV. Analysis for MY2001–2006 Light-Duty
Motor Vehicles
A. Exhaust Emissions
1. Long-term (Durability) Exhaust
Emissions
a. Growth Energy’s Submission and Public
Comment Summary
b. EPA Analysis and Durability Studies
i. Description of DOE Catalyst Study for
MY2001–2006 Motor Vehicles
ii. DOE Catalyst Study Results
2. Immediate Exhaust Emissions
a. Growth Energy’s Submission and Public
Comment Summary
b. EPA Analysis
B. Evaporative Emissions
1. Immediate Evaporative Emissions
a. Growth Energy’s Submission and Public
Comment Summary
i. Coordinating Research Council Test
Programs—Results
ii. Coordinating Research Council Test
Programs—Analysis
2. Long-term (Durability) Evaporative
Emissions
C. Materials Compatibility
1. Growth Energy’s Submission and Public
Comment Summary
2. EPA Analysis and Conclusions
D. Driveability and Operability
1. Growth Energy’s Submission and Public
Comment Summary
2. EPA Analysis and Conclusions
E. Conclusions
V. Legal Issues Arising In This Partial Waiver
Decision
VI. Waiver Conditions
VII. Partial Waiver Decision and Conditions
I. Executive Summary
A. Prior E15 Partial Waiver Decision
In March 2009, Growth Energy and 54
ethanol manufacturers petitioned the
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA
or Agency) to allow the introduction
into commerce of up to 15 volume
percent (vol%) ethanol in gasoline. Prior
to Growth Energy’s petition, ethanol
was limited to 10 vol% in motor vehicle
gasoline (E10). The petition requested
that EPA exercise its authority under
section 211(f)(4) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act) to waive the prohibition
on the introduction of E15 into
commerce under section 211(f)(1) of the
Act. In April 2009, EPA invited public
comment on Growth Energy’s waiver
request and received about 78,000
comments. On October 13, 2010, EPA
took two actions on the waiver request
based on the information available at
that time (‘‘October Waiver Decision’’).1
First, it partially approved Growth
Energy’s waiver request to allow the
introduction of E15 into commerce for
use in MY2007 and newer light-duty
motor vehicles, subject to several
conditions. Second, the Agency denied
the waiver request for MY2000 and
older light-duty motor vehicles, heavyduty gasoline engines and vehicles,
highway and off-highway motorcycles,
and other nonroad engines, vehicles,
and equipment. The Agency also
deferred making a decision on the
waiver request for MY2001–2006 lightduty motor vehicles to await the results
of additional testing being conducted by
the Department of Energy (DOE).
B. Waiver Decision for MY2001–2006
Light-Duty Motor Vehicles
In today’s action, EPA is partially
granting Growth Energy’s waiver request
for MY2001–2006 light-duty motor
vehicles based on our analysis of the
available information, including DOE
and other test data and public
comments. This partial grant waives the
prohibition on fuel and fuel additive
manufacturers and allows the
introduction into commerce of gasoline
containing greater than 10 vol% ethanol
and no more than 15 vol% ethanol for
use in MY2001–2006 light-duty motor
vehicles, which includes passenger cars,
light-duty trucks, and medium-duty
passenger vehicles (large sport utility
vehicles).2 It is subject to the same
conditions that apply to the partial
waiver issued in October for MY2007
1 Partial Grant and Partial Denial of CAA Waiver
Application Submitted by Growth Energy to
Increase the Allowable Ethanol Content of Gasoline
to 15 Percent; Decision of the Administrator. See 75
FR 68094, November 4, 2010.
2 For purposes of today’s decision, ‘‘MY2001–
2006 light-duty motor vehicles’’ include MY2001–
2006 light-duty vehicles (LDV), light-duty trucks
(LDT), and medium-duty passenger vehicles
(MDPV), the same types of motor vehicles as in the
October Waiver Decision, but for the earlier model
years 2001–2006.
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
and newer light-duty motor vehicles.
Today’s waiver decision together with
the October Waiver Decision means that
E15 may be introduced into commerce,
subject to those conditions, for use in all
MY2001 and newer light-duty motor
vehicles.3
To receive a waiver under CAA
section 211(f)(4), a fuel or fuel additive
manufacturer must demonstrate that a
new fuel or fuel additive will not cause
or contribute to the failure of engines or
vehicles to achieve compliance with the
emission standards to which they have
been certified over their useful life. The
information submitted by Growth
Energy was not sufficient to support a
waiver covering introduction of E15 into
commerce for use in MY2001–2006
light-duty motor vehicles. However, key
data for responding to the waiver
request for MY2001–2006 light-duty
motor vehicles was provided by a DOE
test program to determine the effect of
long-term use of gasoline-ethanol
blends, including E15, on the durability
of emissions control systems, including
catalysts, used in light-duty motor
vehicles to control exhaust emissions
(DOE Catalyst Study).4
In 2008, DOE began testing 19
MY2007 and newer light-duty motor
vehicle models, and the resulting test
data were an important part of the basis
for EPA’s October Waiver Decision,
which granted a partial waiver for use
of E15 in those model year and newer
motor vehicles. In 2010, DOE began a
second phase of its study with eight
motor vehicle models to provide
emissions-related data for MY2001–
2006 light-duty motor vehicles. Many of
the models were selected for their
expected sensitivity to the effects of
long-term use of higher gasoline-ethanol
blends, such as E15, so that any
potential emissions problems would be
more likely to become apparent. The
test fleet also included several highsales volume vehicle models. As a
whole, the test fleet was appropriately
composed to provide important
3 It should be noted that a number of additional
steps must be completed by various parties before
E15 may be distributed and sold. These steps
include but are not limited to submission of a
complete E15 fuels registration application by the
fuel and fuel additive manufacturers who wish to
introduce E15 into commerce, and EPA review and
approval of the application, under the regulations
at 40 CFR Part 79. Various state laws may also affect
the distribution and sale of E15.
4 DOE embarked on the study, in consultation
with EPA, auto manufacturers, fuel providers and
others, after enactment of the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007, which significantly
expanded the federal Renewable Fuel Standard
program by increasing the volume of renewable
fuels that must be used in transportation fuel in
order to reduce imported petroleum and emissions
of greenhouse gases.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 Jan 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
information for assessing the potential
impact of E15 on emissions of MY2001–
2006 light-duty motor vehicles.
In view of the ongoing DOE Catalyst
Study, the Agency delayed making a
decision on the waiver request for
MY2001–2006 light-duty motor vehicles
until the test program was completed
and the results made available to the
public. DOE testing was largely
completed in November, and retesting
of several models that experienced
mechanical problems unrelated to fuel
use was completed in December. The
test results were made available to the
public on a rolling basis, with EPA
submitting data to the docket as soon as
the data were received and checked for
accuracy and completeness with DOE.
As described more fully in Section IV
of this notice, EPA is making today’s
decision based on the results of the DOE
Catalyst Study and other relevant test
programs, as well as the Agency’s
engineering assessment that changes in
regulatory requirements affecting
MY2001–2006 light-duty motor vehicles
generally led manufacturers to design
and build vehicles able to use E15
without a significant impact on
emissions. Consistent with past waiver
decisions, the Agency is making its
decision based on potential effects of
E15 in four areas: (1) Exhaust
emissions—immediate 5 and long-term
(known as durability); (2) evaporative
emissions—immediate and long-term;
(3) the impact of materials compatibility
on emissions; and (4) the impact of
driveability and operability on
emissions.
For MY2001–2006 light-duty motor
vehicles, EPA concludes that the DOE
Catalyst Study, other information and
EPA’s engineering analysis adequately
demonstrate that the impact of E15 on
overall exhaust emissions, including
both immediate and long-term, will not
cause or contribute to violations of the
exhaust emissions standards for these
motor vehicles. All but one of the
vehicles that completed DOE testing met
exhaust emission standards on average
after the vehicles accumulated
significant mileage, and were then
tested, on E15. Although one vehicle
tested on E15 slightly exceeded one
emission standard, the exceedance does
not appear related to fuel use since its
counterpart tested on E0 (gasoline
containing no ethanol) exceeded the
same standard. Compliance with
emission standards by the E15 test fleet
as a whole is particularly compelling
5 In past waiver decisions, we have referred to
‘‘immediate’’ emissions as ‘‘instantaneous’’
emissions. ‘‘Immediate’’ and ‘‘instantaneous’’ are
synonymous in this context.
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4663
given that the vehicles tested were
older, high mileage vehicles (reflecting
their model year), and much of the
testing was conducted at mileages
beyond the vehicles’ regulatory ‘‘full
useful life’’ (FUL) of 100,000–120,000
miles, depending on vehicle type and
model year. The test results also show
that the vehicles aged and tested on E15
did not have significantly higher
emissions than the vehicles aged and
tested on E0, and some vehicles’
emissions actually decreased on E15.
Overall, the test results for MY2001–
2006 are similar to the DOE test results
for MY2007 and newer light-duty motor
vehicles, indicating that the earlier
model year vehicles are more like later
model year vehicles in their ability to
maintain emission control performance
when operated on E15. The DOE test
results thus strongly confirm EPA’s
engineering assessment that auto
manufacturers responded to regulatory
changes applicable to MY2001–2006
with design changes that made lightduty motor vehicles capable of
maintaining exhaust emissions
performance when operated on midlevel gasoline-ethanol blends, up to and
including E15.
With respect to evaporative
emissions, EPA concludes that analysis
of test data and other available
information and the Agency’s
engineering assessment adequately
demonstrate for purposes of CAA
section 211(f)(4), with the possible
limited exception noted below, that the
impact of E15 on overall evaporative
emissions, including both immediate
and durability-related, will not cause or
contribute to MY2001–2006 light-duty
motor vehicles exceeding their
applicable evaporative emissions
standards, so long as the fuel does not
exceed a Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of
9.0 psi in the summertime volatility
control season.6 Analysis of available
information suggests, but does not
establish, the possibility that a limited
number of vehicle models with
emissions already very close to
applicable evaporative emission
standards might exceed the standards
in-use if operated on E15. However, this
possibility should be considered in light
of information indicating that use of E15
by those vehicles will, overall, be better
for the environment with respect to inuse evaporative emissions than would
otherwise occur if a waiver were not
6 EPA regulates the Reid Vapor Pressure of
gasoline sold at retail stations during the summer
ozone season (June 1 to September 15) to reduce
evaporative emissions from gasoline that contribute
to ground-level ozone. Gasoline needs a higher
vapor pressure in the wintertime for cold start
purposes.
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
4664
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
granted. In fact, E15 may result in
somewhat lower in-use evaporative
emissions compared to fuel currently
sold in almost all of the country (E10),
as a result of differences in the
allowable RVP of the two gasolineethanol blends. As such, the possibility
of a limited number of evaporative
emission exceedances, under these
somewhat unique circumstances, does
not warrant denial of the request for a
waiver with respect to these model year
vehicles. Available information on
materials compatibility and driveability
also supports a partial waiver for
MY2001–2006 light-duty motor
vehicles. Further information and
explanation concerning each of these
findings are provided later in this
notice.
C. Conditions on Today’s Partial Waiver
and Proposed Rule on Misfueling
Mitigation
Like the waiver for MY2007 and
newer light-duty motor vehicles, today’s
partial waiver is subject to several
conditions to ensure fuel quality, limit
the fuel’s summertime vapor pressure,
and mitigate the potential for other
vehicles, engines and products to be
misfueled with E15. Specifically, EPA is
placing two types of conditions on the
partial waiver granted today: (1) Those
for mitigating the potential for
misfueling of E15 in all vehicles,
engines and equipment for which E15 is
not approved; and (2) those addressing
fuel and ethanol quality. All of the
conditions are discussed in Section X of
the October Waiver Decision (see 75 FR
68094, 68148 (November 4, 2010)) and
are listed below in Section IV. EPA is
applying the same conditions on
introduction of E15 into commerce for
use in MY2001–2006 light-duty motor
vehicles that it applied to use of E15 in
MY2007 and newer such vehicles, and
for the same reasons, as explained in the
October Waiver Decision. To meet the
misfueling-related conditions, any fuel
or fuel additive manufacturer subject to
this waiver must obtain EPA approval of
and implement a plan that meets the
conditions for ensuring that the fuel or
fuel additive is only introduced into
commerce for use in MY2001 and newer
light-duty motor vehicles, and not for
use in other on- and off-road vehicles,
engines and equipment for which E15 is
not approved. See Section VI below.
To help ensure that E15 is used only
in motor vehicles for which it is
approved, EPA issued a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published
concurrently with the October Waiver
Decision (‘‘Misfueling Mitigation
NPRM,’’ 75 FR 68044, November 4,
2010). In that NPRM, EPA proposed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 Jan 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
safeguards to provide the most practical
way to mitigate the potential for
misfueling of other vehicles, engines
and equipment with E15. The Agency
received many comments in response to
the NPRM, particularly with regard to
the proposed misfueling mitigation
measures. EPA is now in the process of
considering those comments in
developing final mitigation measures so
that vehicles, engines and products are
appropriately fueled if E15 is
introduced into commerce. As noted
above, today’s waiver decision
authorizes, but does not require, E15 to
be introduced into commerce (subject to
several conditions), and a number of
additional steps must be taken before
that occurs. In addition, any significant
shift in the marketplace from E10 to E15
will take time as producers, distributors
and suppliers make the necessary
adjustments. EPA is developing a
program of misfueling mitigation
measures that would work in tandem
with the various steps involved in
distributing and marketing E15 so that
needed safeguards are timely and
effective.
EPA expects that the mitigation
measures that are adopted would satisfy
the misfueling mitigation conditions of
the partial waiver decision issued in
October and today, and would promote
the successful introduction of E15 into
commerce. In addition to the misfueling
mitigation conditions, E15 and the
ethanol used to make E15 must also
meet certain fuel and fuel additive
quality specifications before it may be
introduced into commerce.
II. Introduction
Section II of the October Waiver
Decision includes a comprehensive
review of the relevant CAA provisions
and the amendments made to those
provisions by the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007. It also
describes Growth Energy’s waiver
application and the public review
process that EPA conducted as part of
its consideration of the application.
Today’s partial waiver decision fully
incorporates by reference Section II of
the October Waiver Decision and
provides additional information as
needed to address the potential use of
E15 in MY2001–2006 light-duty motor
vehicles.
III. Method of Review
A full explanation of the method of
review for waiver requests under CAA
section 211(f)(4) is provided in Section
III, Method of Review, in the October
Waiver Decision. We fully incorporate
by reference Section III of the October
Waiver Decision into this partial waiver
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
decision. For convenience, a brief
description of our method of review is
provided here.
Section 211(f)(4) clearly places upon
the waiver applicant the burden of
establishing that its fuel or fuel additive
will not cause or contribute to the
failure of vehicles or engines to meet
their assigned emission standards over
their useful lives. If interpreted literally,
however, this burden of proof would be
virtually impossible to meet as it
requires the proof of a negative
proposition: that no vehicle or engine
will fail to meet emission standards to
which it is subject. Recognizing that
Congress contemplated a workable
waiver provision, EPA has previously
indicated that reliable statistical
sampling and fleet testing protocols is
one approach that could be used to
demonstrate that a fuel or fuel additive
under consideration would not cause or
contribute to motor vehicles in the
applicable national fleet failing to meet
their applicable emissions standards.7
EPA has also stated that an applicant
may make a demonstration based upon
a reasonable engineering theory
regarding emissions effects and support
these judgments with confirmatory
testing as an alternative to providing the
amount of data necessary to conduct
robust statistical analyses.8 If a
reasonable theory exists, based on good
engineering judgment, which predicts
the emission effects of a fuel or fuel
additive, an applicant need only
conduct a sufficient amount of testing or
provide other data and analysis
sufficient to demonstrate the validity of
such a theory.9 In making a waiver
determination, EPA reviews all of the
material in the public docket.
For EPA to grant a waiver, the
available information must be sufficient
to answer the essential statutory
question of whether the proposed fuel
or fuel additive will impact emission
controls such that it causes or
contributes to vehicles and engines
exceeding their emission standards.
What specific types of information and
analysis may be relevant for assessing a
specific fuel or fuel additive depends in
part on the physical and chemical
characteristics of the proposed fuel or
fuel additive and the emission controls
it would affect. Applicable methods of
review and the type of information
sufficient to make the required showing
thus vary as necessary and appropriate
for addressing the emission control
7 See
43 FR 41425 (September 18, 1978).
44 FR 12244 (February 23, 1979).
9 See Waiver Decision on Application of E.I.
DuPont de Nemours and Company (DuPont), 46 FR
6124 (February 28, 1983).
8 See
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices
issues that a proposed fuel or fuel
additive raises. As discussed below, the
grant of a partial waiver in this case is
based on a combination of engineering
assessment, test data, and other
information, which together provide a
reliable factual and technical basis for
making the judgment required under
section 211(f)(4). This approach is
consistent with the discretion provided
under the statute and EPA’s recognition
in prior waiver decisions that more than
one approach can be used to make the
determination required under the
statute, including combinations of test
data and engineering assessment.
As noted previously, the emissions
impact analysis for a waiver request
must address the following four major
areas 10: (1) Exhaust emissions,
immediate and long-term; (2)
evaporative emissions, immediate and
long-term; (3) materials compatibility;
and (4) driveability and operability. EPA
evaluates the emissions impacts in these
four categories individually and
collectively in making its waiver
determination.
Exhaust and evaporative emissions
data are analyzed according to the
effects that a fuel or fuel additive is
predicted to have on emissions over
time. A fuel might have only an
immediate effect on emissions (i.e., the
emission effects of the fuel or fuel
additive are immediate and remain
constant throughout the life of the
vehicle or engine when operating on the
waiver fuel). A fuel might instead or in
addition affect the operation of the
engine or related emission control
hardware in a physical manner (e.g.,
operating temperatures, component
interaction, chemical changes, increased
permeation, or materials degradation)
that might lead to emissions
deterioration over time. Depending on
the type of effect a fuel may have,
different types of testing or other
information may be appropriate to
evaluate the effect on emissions.
Materials compatibility issues can
lead to substantial exhaust and
evaporative emissions increases. In most
cases, materials compatibility issues
show up in emissions testing; however,
there may be impacts that do not show
up due to the way the testing is
performed or because the tests simply
do not capture the effect.
A change in the driveability of a
motor vehicle that results in significant
deviation from normal operation (i.e.,
stalling, hesitation, etc.) could result in
increased emissions. These increases
may not be demonstrated in the test
cycles used for certifying vehicles as
10 See
44 FR 12244 (February 23, 1979).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 Jan 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
complying with emission standards, but
they are present during in-use
operation. For example, a motor vehicle
stall and subsequent restart can result in
a significant emissions increase.
Further, concerns exist that vehicles
might be tampered with in an attempt
to correct the driveability issue and
emissions might increase as a result.
IV. Analysis for MY2001–2006 LightDuty Motor Vehicles
As described in detail below, DOE
and other test data together with other
available information and EPA’s
engineering analysis support granting a
partial waiver for use of E15 in
MY2001–2006 light-duty motor
vehicles. As with EPA’s waiver decision
for MY2007 and newer light-duty motor
vehicles, the DOE Catalyst Program
provided critically important test data
for assessing the ability of MY2001–
2006 light-duty motor vehicles to meet
applicable exhaust emission standards if
operated on E15. DOE’s test fleet was
carefully assembled to be broadly
representative of the national fleet for
those model years and to discern any
emission problems that might arise from
use of E15. Results from DOE’s testing
strongly support a determination that
E15 will not cause or contribute to
MY2001–2006 light-duty motor vehicles
exceeding their applicable exhaust
emission standards. Analysis of other
test data, including EPA compliance
information, combined with EPA’s
engineering assessment shows that
MY2001–2006 light-duty motor vehicles
should generally be able to meet
evaporative emission standards when
operated on E15 so long as the fuel does
not exceed a RVP of 9.0 psi in the
summertime volatility control season. In
fact, such vehicles should have
somewhat lower evaporative emissions
when operated on 9.0 psi E15 than
when operated on currently available
in-use fuel. Although our analysis
suggests the possibility that a relatively
small number of vehicles already
emitting at close to applicable
evaporative emission standards may
exceed those standards on E15, that
possibility does not warrant denial of
the waiver, particularly in light of the
evaporative emission benefits that 9.0
psi E15 is expected to achieve in
comparison to commercially available
in-use fuel.11
11 As explained later in this notice, EPA has
traditionally interpreted and applied CAA section
211(f)(4) to authorize a waiver for fuels or fuel
additives that statistical analysis shows will not
result in a significant increase in violations of the
vehicle emissions standards. Even if EPA were to
adopt a more stringent test for waiver decisions, it
would not apply such a test in these circumstances,
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4665
In the October Waiver Decision, EPA
discussed at length Growth Energy’s
request and the information provided by
Growth Energy in its waiver application
and by the public in comments on the
request. As the Agency noted, the
information provided for light-duty
motor vehicles was generally not
specific to model years. EPA described
and addressed that information in
discussing its decisions for MY2007 and
newer light-duty motor vehicles and
MY2000 and older light-duty motor
vehicles. Rather than repeat the full
discussion in the October Waiver
Decision, we incorporate it by reference
here and expand on it below as needed
to address MY2001–2006 light-duty
motor vehicles.
At the outset of our analysis for
MY2001–2006 light-duty motor
vehicles, it is useful to note that our
analysis for these model years is
somewhat different from that used for
MY2007 and newer light-duty motor
vehicles. DOE’s Catalyst Study tested a
large number of MY2007 and newer
light-duty motor vehicles representing a
cross section of the fleet. The size of the
MY2007 and newer motor vehicle test
fleet allowed a statistical analysis of the
potential impact of a fuel or fuel
additive on exhaust emissions. DOE’s
data and EPA’s analysis of that data
provided much of the basis for EPA’s
determination that E15 will not cause or
contribute to MY2007 and newer lightduty motor vehicles failing to meet
applicable emission standards. The data
and analysis also confirmed EPA’s
engineering assessment that regulatory
changes applicable to those model years
likely resulted in manufacturers making
design changes that allowed the
vehicles to continue to comply with
exhaust emission standards when
operated on E15. For the other factors
relevant to waiver determinations (e.g.,
evaporative emissions, materials
compatibility), EPA employed
engineering judgment based on and/or
confirmed by available information,
including data from DOE and other test
programs.
For MY2001–2006 light-duty motor
vehicles, DOE tested fewer vehicle
models but selected models for their
expected sensitivity to ethanol blends
where the actual environmental impact of the fuel
is neutral or positive. In the unique circumstances
here, the potential emissions violation should not
be considered significant, given their actual impact
on in-use emissions is neutral or even positive.
Also, since the EPA regulations for determining
auto manufacturers’ compliance with emission
standards specify use of E0 fuel during compliance
testing, manufacturers’ compliance status will not
be adversely affected by any emission failures that
might occur in-use as the result of any immediate
emissions impacts of E15.
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
4666
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
and to achieve broad representation of
the national vehicle fleet for these
model years. As a result, while DOE’s
test fleet does not include enough
vehicles to allow the same statistical
analysis conducted for MY2007 and
newer light-duty motor vehicles, it is
composed in a way that provides data
that is very informative about the
expected effects of E15 on the in-use
fleet, and confirms the engineering
assessment that regulatory requirements
applicable to MY2001–2006 light-duty
motor vehicles resulted in emission
control improvements sufficient to
maintain compliance with applicable
exhaust standards if these vehicles are
operated on E15. For MY2001–2006
light-duty motor vehicles, EPA is thus
utilizing a broad range of evidence
relevant to making waiver decisions
under CAA section 211(f)(4) and
considering the DOE Catalyst Study in
combination with other available test
data and information and EPA’s
engineering assessment in determining
whether a waiver for these model years
is appropriate.
In evaluating Growth Energy’s waiver
request with respect to MY2001–2006
light-duty motor vehicles, EPA
considered the potential impact of E15
on the four relevant emission–related
categories listed previously. The
technical issue is whether these motor
vehicles would still meet the applicable
emission standards over their fuel
useful life if they operated in-use on E15
and emissions testing was performed
using E15 as the fuel.12
In considering the potential impact of
E15 on the four factors, we focused on
MY2001–2006 light-duty motor vehicles
subject to pre-Tier 2 emission standards
(i.e., the standards in effect before Tier
2 standards applied to all light-duty
motor vehicles). As described in the
October Waiver Decision, Tier 2
standards began phasing in with
MY2004 and, according to EPA
certification information, were fully
phased in by MY2007 for passenger cars
and several categories of light-duty
trucks. EPA expected, and DOE testing
confirmed, that Tier 2 standards and
related compliance requirements
12 Compliance with vehicle and engine standards
is determined for certification and in-use (i.e.,
recall) purposes using federal test procedures which
include a specified test fuel that is E0. The purpose
of the waiver process under CAA section 211(f)(4)
is to determine whether a vehicle operated on the
fuel or fuel additive for which a waiver is requested
(here E15) would meet applicable emission
standards after operating in-use and then testing
using that fuel. In that way, section 211(f)(4) helps
protect the emission control effectiveness of
vehicles operated under real-world conditions,
which ultimately determines the amount of
emission reductions achieved.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 Jan 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
prompted manufacturers to make
changes to vehicles that helped
maintain emission control under realworld conditions, including fueling
with E10. The applicability of Tier 2
standards was thus found to be an
important basis for partially granting the
waiver request for MY2007 and newer
model light-duty motor vehicles.
Since Tier 2 standards began to phase
in with MY2004, many MY2004–2006
light-duty motor vehicles are subject to
Tier 2 standards. Indeed, as illustrated
by Figure IV.A–1, more than 60% of
MY2005, and more than 80% of
MY2006, light-duty motor vehicles are
certified as complying with Tier 2
standards. EPA’s reasons for partially
granting the waiver with respect to
MY2007 and newer light-duty motor
vehicles also apply to MY2004–2006
Tier 2 vehicles. However, in its October
Decision, EPA did not grant the partial
waiver with respect to MY2004–2006
Tier 2 vehicles because the Agency
expected most vehicle owners for those
model years would not know what
emission standards their vehicles are
supposed to meet, and that information
is not easily discerned from the vehicle
itself. EPA thus decided to use a model
year cut-off for delineating which model
years were covered by the partial
waiver. For purposes of today’s
decision, though, it is important to note
that MY2004–06 vehicles certified to
Tier 2 standards should be able to use
E15 without adverse impacts on their
emissions for the reasons given in the
October Waiver Decision. The analysis
in today’s decision focuses on light-duty
motor vehicles that are not certified to
Tier 2 standards.
A. Exhaust Emissions
As described below, a number of
regulatory actions took place by 2000
that placed emphasis on real-world
testing of motor vehicles, which in turn
led to changes in design of exhaust
emission control systems. Those
actions, together with actual compliance
information, provide a strong basis for
an engineering assessment that
manufacturers improved exhaust
emission controls for MY2001–2006
light-duty motor vehicles in ways
similar in nature to Tier 2 motor
vehicles and are likely sufficient to
allow such vehicles to use E15 and still
meet exhaust emission standards. DOE’s
testing of pre-Tier 2 vehicle models
(including several expected to be
sensitive to ethanol’s impact on
emissions control) strongly confirms
that assessment and demonstrates that
MY2001–2006 light-duty motor vehicles
can operate on E15 without significant
impact on exhaust emission control and
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
that E15 is not expected to cause or
contribute to failures to meet applicable
exhaust emissions standards.
1. Long-term (Durability) Exhaust
Emissions
The October Waiver Decision
describes at length various changes in
regulatory requirements since the 1970s
that over time have required auto
manufacturers to design and build
increasingly cleaner vehicles that can
maintain their emission control
performance over the vehicles’ FUL
under real-world conditions. For today’s
decision, we focus on those changes that
were applicable by or affected MY2001,
since those changes are relevant to any
engineering assessment of whether
MY2001–2006 light-duty motor vehicles
that are not Tier 2 vehicles would
operate on E15 without significant loss
of emission control.
a. Growth Energy’s Submission and
Public Comment Summary
As mentioned above, Growth Energy’s
submission and the information
supplied by commenters regarding longterm exhaust emission impacts of E15
were generally not specific to the model
year of motor vehicles. For a detailed
discussion of Growth Energy’s
submission and summary of public
comments with respect to the impact of
long-term use of E15 on exhaust
emissions, refer to section IV.A.1 for
MY2007 and newer light-duty motor
vehicles and IV.C.3.b.i for MY2000 and
older light-duty motor vehicles of the
October Waiver Decision.
b. EPA Analysis and Durability Studies
By MY2001, the federal National Low
Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program for
reducing exhaust emissions was fully
phased in for all cars and light-duty
trucks (LDT) up to 6000 lb. gross vehicle
weight (GVW) (LDT 1s and 2s) (63 FR
926, January 7, 1998).13 This program
essentially adopted the existing
California LEV standards (which began
phasing in for California with MY1994)
as a national vehicle program. NLEV
motor vehicles were required to meet
more stringent emission standards for
emissions of all criteria pollutants,14
which in turn required substantial
13 The program was fully phased in by MY1999
in the Northeast Trading Region (the region
comprised of the states that meet the conditions
specified under 40 CFR 86.1705(d)) within the
NLEV program. The states that opted in include
Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia,
Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Virginia.
14 Criteria pollutants are those pollutants,
including precursors, for which EPA has set
National Ambient Air Quality Standards under
CAA section 109.
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices
changes to emission control hardware
and strategies compared with motor
vehicles certified to the previous Tier 1
standards.
Light-duty trucks from 6001–8500 lb.
GVW (e.g., large pickup trucks and vans,
known as LDT 3s and 4s) were not
subject to NLEV standards, and instead
transitioned directly from Tier 1 to Tier
2 standards. Many of the improvements
made for smaller light-duty motor
vehicles (i.e., catalyst designs and
washcoat formulation) may have been
applied to these motor vehicles. These
motor vehicles also emit at levels
substantially below their applicable
federal standard because, as discussed
later in this section, many were also
certified to a more stringent California
emission standard. This ‘‘compliance
margin,’’ which is the difference
between a vehicle’s certified emission
level and the applicable standard,
suggests these heavier light-duty trucks
benefited from at least some of the
advances in exhaust emission controls
developed for lighter trucks, and, in any
event, can continue to comply with
standards even if operated on E15, as
discussed below.
Issuance in 2000 of more stringent
Tier 2 standards (65 FR 6698, February
10, 2000) also affected manufacturers’
planning. To comply with those
standards, including compliance over
vehicles’ FUL,15 manufacturers were
required to focus on ensuring the
durability of the exhaust and
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
15 FUL is 100,000 miles for NLEV passenger cars
and light-duty truck category 1; 120,000 miles for
NLEV light-duty truck category 2; and 120,000
miles for Tier 1 light-duty truck categories 3 and 4.
Light-duty trucks up to 6000 lbs. GVW are
composed of light-duty truck categories 1 and 2
where category 1 has a loaded vehicle weight equal
to 3,750 lbs. and category 2 has a loaded vehicle
weight greater than 3,750 lbs. Light-duty trucks of
6001–8500 lbs. GVW are composed of light-duty
truck categories 3 and 4 where category 3 has an
adjusted loaded vehicle weight less than or equal
to 5,750 lbs and category 4 has an adjusted loaded
vehicle weight greater than 5,750 lbs.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 Jan 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
evaporative emission controls of their
vehicles under real-world conditions.
Although Tier 2 standards only began to
phase in with MY2004, manufacturers
were allowed to earn credit towards
compliance with those standards in
earlier model years. As a result, they
had a strong incentive to develop and
apply emission control hardware and
strategies resembling future Tier 2
designs to earlier model year light-duty
motor vehicles.
Overall, the transition from Tier 1 to
NLEV and then to Tier 2 exhaust
standards called for design changes that
all moved in the same direction of
increased control of exhaust emissions,
through increasingly sophisticated
emissions control systems aimed at
reducing the level of emissions created
by the combustion of the fuel in the
engine combined with increased control
of these emissions by the catalyst
system. This increasing sophistication
was based on better air fuel ratio
control, and increased efficiency,
durability and faster light-off of the
catalyst. While Tier 2 standards called
for the most sophisticated engine and
catalyst system designs, the NLEV
standards prompted major redesign
efforts by manufacturers that were later
expanded and advanced even further to
meet, and earn credits towards
compliance with, Tier 2 standards.
From an engineering perspective, the
emissions control systems of pre-Tier 2,
NLEV vehicles are significantly more
robust than those used in MY2000 and
older vehicles and more like those of
Tier 2 vehicles in terms of the degree of
sophistication of engine controls and
catalyst technology.
Review of the emission control and
related changes made by manufacturers
for MY2001–2006 confirms that the LEV
and NLEV programs involved use of
more sophisticated technologies and
strategies. From its decades-long role in
certifying and overseeing in-use
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4667
compliance of light-duty motor vehicles,
EPA is aware that manufacturers made
a number of improvements to reduce
emissions at cold start, provide better
fuel control, and make their emission
control systems more durable. These
improvements included independent
catalysts per bank on V-engines, higher
cell density catalyst substrates with
thinner cell walls for lower thermal
inertia/faster light-off, stereo oxygen
sensors on V-engines, and improved
catalyst washcoats with improved lightoff and better resistance to thermal
deterioration.16 In addition,
manufacturers improved oxygen sensor
designs for better durability and
improved oxygen sensor heater control
strategies to reduce the likelihood of
cracking due to thermal shock. These
technologies were developed even
further for Tier 2 vehicles.
The phase-in of these various exhaust
emission control programs for MY2001–
2006 light-duty motor vehicles is shown
in Figure IV.A–1. As the figure
illustrates, the percentage of Tier 2
vehicles significantly increased between
MY2004 and MY2006 such that the
large majority of the MY2005 and
MY2006 light-duty motor vehicle fleet
met the more stringent standards
applicable to MY2007 and newer motor
vehicles.
16 Close-coupled faster light-off catalysts, faster
light-off oxygen sensors, and more sophisticated
cold start strategies enable faster transition from
open loop to closed loop operation for reduced cold
start emissions.
17 Interim Non-Tier 2 refers to MY2004 or newer
vehicles not certified to Tier 2 FTP exhaust
emission standards during the Tier 2 phase in
period. Interim Non-Tier 2 emission standards
included all of the Tier 2 emission standard bins
in addition to bins unique to the Interim Non-Tier
2 program. The Interim Non-Tier 2 fleet average
NOX standard was 0.30 g/mi compared to the Tier
2 fleet average NOX standard of 0.07 g/mile. The
Interim Non-Tier 2 standards were more stringent
than both the NLEV and Tier 1 standards.
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices
Another important regulatory change
for improving the exhaust emissions
control durability of MY2001–2006
light-duty motor vehicles was the
Compliance Assurance Program
(‘‘CAP2000’’), which took effect by
MY2000 for light-duty motor vehicles.
CAP2000 placed more emphasis on inuse performance of vehicle emission
controls, including the potential
impacts of operation on different
available in-use fuels. In particular, the
In-use Verification Program (IUVP)
introduced under CAP2000 requires
manufacturers to perform exhaust and
evaporative emissions tests on customer
vehicles in the in-use fleet to confirm
the durability projections that
manufacturers make at certification.
These tests must be performed at low
and high mileage intervals and include
at least one vehicle per test group 18 at
75% of FUL. This emphasis on realworld vehicle testing to ensure durable
18 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 Jan 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
emission controls prompted
manufacturers to consider different
commercially available fuels (including
ethanol blends up to E10) when
developing and testing their emissions
systems for MY2000 and later.
Section VI.A of the Misfueling
Mitigation NPRM describes the growing
market penetration of E10 over time. In
the late 1990s, when manufacturers
were planning for MY2001, national
availability of E10 was increasing, and
E10 was already the predominant form
of gasoline sold in several major
metropolitan areas. For example, by
2000, E10 comprised nearly 15% of the
U.S. gasoline market, and for certain
major metropolitan areas such as
Chicago and Milwaukee, the gasoline
market entirely shifted to E10 by around
1996. With the advent of CAP2000 and
with E10 pervasive in several major
markets, manufacturers had a strong
incentive to plan for ethanol exposure
in designing for durable emissions
performance.
Finally, the Supplemental Federal
Test Procedure (SFTP) compliance
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
requirements began to phase in with
MY2001 and were fully phased in with
MY2004. These standards further
increased manufacturers’ incentives to
design emissions controls that would be
durable in use and with exposure to
available gasoline-ethanol blends. The
SFTP compliance requirements
expanded motor vehicle emission
testing to better represent actual
consumer driving habits and conditions
by including the US06 test (a high speed
and high acceleration cycle) and the
SCO3 test (an air conditioning test cycle
run in a environmental test chamber at
95 °F). In response to these
requirements, manufacturers developed
increasingly robust emissions control
systems capable of withstanding the
higher engine and catalyst temperatures
experienced during these more severe
cycles without simply relying on
enrichment of the air-to-fuel ratio
(which causes increased emissions) for
temperature control. This improved
ability to handle higher temperatures
would also help emission control
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
EN26JA11.006</GPH>
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
4668
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices
systems withstand enleanment 19 from
ethanol use.
Another consideration in our
engineering analysis is the extent to
which MY2001–2006 light-duty motor
vehicles, when tested on E0 (as required
for determining auto manufacturers’
compliance with emission standards),
emit at levels below the applicable
standards and therefore have a
compliance margin. Compliance
margins are generally designed into
motor vehicles by manufacturers to
account for possible variations in
production vehicles and changes to
vehicle emissions control systems from
actual field usage, such as the type of
driving employed and the type of fuel
used. The larger the compliance margin,
the more likely it is that vehicles would
accommodate any emissions increases
from fueling with E15 and continue to
meet emission standards in-use. As
discussed in more detail later in this
decision, a survey of certification data 20
shows that the average FUL compliance
margin (which accounts for in-use
deterioration) projected at the time of
certification for the entire MY2001–
2006 light-duty motor vehicle fleet was
approximately 66%. In-use data from
the IUVP program indicates that motor
vehicles actually achieved a similar
compliance margin when operated in
real-world conditions. The size of the
compliance margins for MY2001–2006
light-duty motor vehicles suggests
manufacturers were in fact designing
and building motor vehicles that were
significantly cleaner than required as
part of a planned migration to
technologies capable of meeting the
tighter Tier 2 standards.
Based on our engineering analysis of
the expected impact of relevant
regulatory changes and certification and
IUVP data, we believe that the
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
19 Enleanment refers to increasing the amount of
oxygen in the mixture of air and fuel that enters the
engine for combustion. Enrichment refers to
increasing the amount of fuel in that mixture. At
any one air to fuel ratio, adding ethanol to the fuel
adds additional oxygen to the mixture of air and
fuel, tending to enlean the mixture.
20 These data are submitted by manufacturers to
EPA’s Certification and Fuel Economy Information
System to demonstrate compliance with the
applicable emission standards and are part of the
application process to receive a certificate of
conformity. The CAA requires that all motor
vehicles be covered by a certificate of conformity
before they may enter into commerce.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 Jan 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
regulatory changes affecting MY2001–
2006 light-duty motor vehicles
prompted manufacturers to design those
MY2001–2006 vehicles using
technology similar to the technology
used for Tier 2 motor vehicles. As with
Tier 2 motor vehicles, these technology
changes would be expected to maintain
the durability of the performance of
emission control systems when motor
vehicles are operated on E10 and also
allow the motor vehicles to operate over
time on E15 without significant changes
in exhaust emissions. The designs of the
emission control systems of MY2001–
2006 light-duty motor vehicles also
included a large compliance margin to
address, among other things, variations
in in-use driving patterns and fuels, and
this large compliance margin would be
expected to offset exhaust emissions
increases that might be associated with
the long-term use of E15. The
combination of these factors leads to the
engineering conclusion that the longterm use of E15 by MY2001–2006 lightduty motor vehicles is not expected to
lead to significant emission increases
and to cause or contribute to failures to
meet applicable exhaust emissions
standards.
i. Description of DOE Catalyst Study for
MY2001–2006 Motor Vehicles
The results of DOE’s Catalyst Study
for MY2001–2006 light-duty motor
vehicles provide strong confirmation
that those vehicles should be able to
operate on E15 and continue to comply
with applicable exhaust emission
standards. As described in detail below,
DOE selected vehicle models so that the
test fleet would broadly represent the
national MY2001–2006 light-duty motor
vehicle fleet and be likely to reveal any
adverse emissions impacts from longterm operation on E15. DOE also
followed all other aspects of the test
protocol it used for MY2007 and newer
motor vehicle testing to assure
appropriate and consistent rigor in
testing of MY2001–2006 motor vehicles.
DOE test results indicate that the
changes manufacturers made to
MY2001–2006 light-duty motor vehicle
emission controls, calibration,
hardware, etc., in response to regulatory
changes in fact resulted in vehicle
exhaust emissions control systems,
including the catalyst, that are capable
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4669
of withstanding the additional
enleanment caused by E15 and
maintaining exhaust emission
performance on E15 over the FUL of the
motor vehicles.
To evaluate the actual impacts of E15
on MY2001–2006 light-duty motor
vehicles, DOE tested eight MY2000–
2003 motor vehicle models,21 including
high sales volume models produced by
several light-duty motor vehicle
manufacturers. The specific purpose of
the program was to evaluate the longterm effects of E0, E10, E15, and E20 on
catalyst durability of MY2001–2006
light-duty motor vehicles that were
subject to pre-Tier 2 standards (i.e.,
NLEV or Tier 1). A number of criteria
were used to select motor vehicle
models for the program. In particular,
vehicle selection was based on high
sales volume models so that the test
fleet would be broadly representative of
the in-use fleet. Since the number of
models tested for MY2001–2006 was not
as large as the number tested for newer
model years, models were also selected
for expected emissions related
sensitivity (particularly in terms of their
ability to apply learned fuel trim from
closed loop to open loop operation 22) so
that the test fleet would be more likely
to include vehicles that would reveal
any adverse impacts of E15. In addition,
one-half of the motor vehicle models
were selected for their likely sensitivity
to ethanol-gasoline blends as indicated
by the results the Coordinating Research
Council (CRC) Mid-level Ethanol Blends
Catalyst Durability Study Screening (E–
87–1). CRC is a research organization
comprised of auto manufacturers and oil
companies.
Testing of all vehicles followed the
same protocol as that used for MY2007
and newer light-duty motor vehicles,
although the NLEV or Tier 1 vehicles
were all used vehicles with relatively
high mileage due to their age. See Table
IV.A–1—Vehicle Attribute Summary for
the list of specific models.
21 The MY2000 vehicle models selected were
representative of all MY2001 and later pre-Tier 2
vehicles since they were certified as meeting Tier
1 or NLEV standards.
22 See October Waiver Decision Section IV.A for
a full discussion of the relevance of learned fuel
trim to waiver determinations for gasoline-ethanol
blends.
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
4670
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices
TABLE IV.A–1—VEHICLE ATTRIBUTE SUMMARY
Project Vehicle Summary
Engine
Emissions standard
Starting odometer
(×1000 miles)
Engine Family
Year
Vehicle
Disp
Config
NMOG
CO
NOX
E0
E15
Southwest Research Institute
2000 ...
2002 ...
2002 ...
Chevrolet Silverado .........
Nissan Frontier ................
Dodge Durango ...............
5.3
2.4
4.7
V8
I4
V8
YGMXT05.3181 ....
2NSXT02.4C4B ....
2CRXT04.75B0 ....
Tier 1/LDT 3 ....................
NLEV (LEV) .....................
Tier 1/LDT 3 ....................
0.460
0.130
0.460
6.4
5.5
6.4
0.98
0.5
0.98
111
95
71
112
91
60
0.055
0.090
0.090
4.2
4.2
4.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
77
93
78
77
88
81
0.090
0.090
4.2
4.2
0.3
0.3
106
103
95
85
Transportation Research Center
2003 ...
2003 ...
2003 ...
Toyota Camry ..................
Ford Taurus .....................
Chevrolet Cavalier ...........
2.4
3
2.2
I4
V6
I4
3TYXV02.4HHA ...
3FMXV03.0VF3 ....
3GMXV02.2025 ....
ULEV ...............................
NLEV (LEV) .....................
NLEV (LEV) .....................
Environmental Testing Corp
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
2000 ...
2000 ...
Honda Accord ..................
Ford Focus ......................
2.3
2
I4
I4
For testing purposes, at least two
vehicles of the same model were
matched to prevent confounding of the
data by differences in vehicle attributes.
Specifically, the test group, engine
displacement, evaporative emissions
control family, model year, powertrain
control unit calibration, axle ratios,
wheel size, and tire size were
constrained to be identical within a
vehicle set. Physical inspections of the
vehicles were conducted to eliminate
obviously problematic vehicles (such as
those with gross fluid leaks, obvious
and excessive body damage, etc.).
Odometer reading was also used to
identify candidate vehicles with the
goal of restricting the difference in
odometer readings within a vehicle set
to a maximum of 10,000 miles in order
to facilitate data comparisons between
the vehicles. One vehicle from each set
was aged on E0, one was aged on E15,
and each vehicle was tested on both E0
and E15. Additional vehicles were aged
on E20 or E10.23
The assignment of a particular vehicle
to a particular fuel was random and was
accomplished prior to conducting any
emissions tests on the vehicles.
Obtaining suitable matched sets of
vehicles was challenging for several of
the older model year vehicles for the
simple reason that these were older
vehicles with various driving histories.
As a result, there were a few instances
where it was necessary to test vehicles
with mileages that were not within the
10,000 mile odometer range target for
matched vehicles in order to obtain a
suitably-matched set of vehicles.
23 As
discussed previously, EPA relied on the
vehicles using E15 and E0 for aging and test results,
as that allows the emissions impact of the candidate
fuel to be compared to the emissions impact of the
fuel used for testing for compliance with the
certification standards.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 Jan 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
YHNXV02.3PF3 ...
YFMXV02.0VF3 ...
NLEV (LEV) .....................
NLEV (LEV) .....................
ii. DOE Catalyst Study Results
As noted above, the results from the
DOE Catalyst Study for MY2001–2006
light-duty motor vehicles confirm the
engineering analysis that long-term use
of E15 is not expected to lead to
significant emissions increases or
contribute to those vehicles exceeding
their exhaust emission standards over
their FUL. Emission test results and the
applicable emission standards 24 for the
vehicles aged on E0 (‘‘E0 vehicles’’) and
the vehicles aged on E15 (‘‘E15
vehicles’’) at the start, middle, and end
of the test program are shown in Tables
IV.A–2 and 3. There were no trends or
patterns that appeared fuel related. No
significant increases in long-term
exhaust emissions were observed with
the E15 vehicles. Furthermore, the test
results show that the vehicles aged and
tested on E15 did not have significantly
higher emissions than the vehicles aged
and tested on E0, and some vehicles’
emissions actually decreased on E15.
Overall, the exhaust emission test
results across test vehicles were
generally similar with regard to
deterioration and failure rates to the test
results observed for the Tier 2 vehicle
test fleet (which included some MY2005
and 2006 motor vehicles) and discussed
in the October Waiver Decision.
All E15 vehicles except one were
below their emissions limits at the end
of the test. One E15 vehicle exceeded its
non-methane organic gas (NMOG)
emissions limits at the end of the test
program. The vehicle, a 2000 Honda
Accord, was just above its FUL NMOG
standard after 50,000 miles of aging.25
24 Total hydrocarbons (THC), non-methane
hydrocarbons (NMHC), non-methane organic gases
(NMOG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and carbon
monoxide (CO).
25 In general, EPA may take action to compel a
manufacturer to recall and remedy a problem after
determining that a substantial number of properly
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The exceedance of the NMOG standard
did not appear to be related to E15 since
the NMOG emissions of the E0
counterpart motor vehicle also exceeded
the standard after only 25,000 miles of
aging. Two other E0 motor vehicles
(2003 Chevy Cavalier and 2003 Toyota
Camry) also failed the NMOG standard
but their E15 counterpart did not.
All motor vehicles except for the E0
Accord were below their carbon
monoxide (CO) emissions limits at the
end of the test. One end-of-test program
data point for the E15 Frontier was over
the standard but the test point average
was well below the standard. All motor
vehicles were below their oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) emissions limits at the
end of the test program.
Testing of older motor vehicles did
pose challenges since they had
relatively high mileages and their
maintenance and driving histories were
not well known. As a result, test results
for these motor vehicles showed greater
variability than the results for the newer
motor vehicles of the Tier 2 test fleet.
There were also mechanical issues to
address during mileage accumulation.
Considering the higher variability
expected in this situation, there were
generally small changes in emissions
(both increases and decreases) with
mileage accumulation for most of the
motor vehicles (with the exception of
the Honda Accord samples) with no
indication of significant deterioration of
the exhaust emission control system,
including the catalyst, due to E15.26 The
maintained and operated vehicles fail to conform to
EPA standards in actual use. EPA will use the
information from the DOE test program to help it
identify future vehicle test classes as part of its
overall vehicle compliance program.
26 The exhaust emissions of some vehicles
actually decreased over the course of the testing
program. There are a few possible reasons for this
result. For example, ‘‘TOP TIER Detergent Gasoline’’
was used during the aging cycles. With unknown
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
4671
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices
relative durability of exhaust emissions
control performance is particularly
notable given the high mileage of the
test vehicles at the end of testing. The
results from the DOE test program thus
provide compelling support for the
conclusion that the long-term use of E15
will not cause or contribute to MY2001–
2006 light-duty motor vehicles
exceeding their exhaust emission
standards over their FUL.
TABLE IV.A–2—E15 EMISSION TEST RESULTS COMPARED TO THE RESPECTIVE CERTIFICATION STANDARDS AT START,
MIDDLE, AND END OF TEST
Year
Make
Model
Cert Standard
THC
NMHC
NMOG
CO
NOX
N/A ...........
Pass .........
N/A ...........
N/A ...........
N/A ...........
N/A ...........
N/A ...........
Pass .........
Pass ..........
N/A ............
Pass ..........
Pass ..........
Pass ..........
Pass ..........
Pass ..........
N/A ............
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass ..........
N/A ............
Pass ..........
Pass ..........
Pass ..........
Pass ..........
Pass* ........
N/A ............
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass ..........
N/A ............
Pass ..........
Pass ..........
Pass ..........
Pass ..........
Fail ............
N/A ............
Pass* ......
Pass ........
Pass ........
Pass ........
Pass ........
Pass ........
Pass ........
Pass ........
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
E15 Start of Test Program Pass/Fail Results
2002
2002
2003
2003
2003
2000
2000
2000
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Nissan .............
Dodge ..............
Chevy ..............
Ford .................
Toyota .............
Ford .................
Honda ..............
Chevy ..............
Frontier ....................
Durango ...................
Cavalier ...................
Taurus .....................
Camry ......................
Focus .......................
Accord .....................
Silverado ..................
NLEV(LEV) .....................
Tier 1/LDT3 ....................
NLEV(LEV) .....................
NLEV(LEV) .....................
ULEV ..............................
NLEV(LEV) .....................
NLEV(LEV) .....................
Tier 1/LDT3 ....................
N/A ..........
Pass ........
N/A ..........
N/A ..........
N/A ..........
N/A ..........
N/A ..........
Pass ........
E15 Middle Test Program Pass/Fail Results
2002
2002
2003
2003
2003
2000
2000
2000
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Nissan .............
Dodge ..............
Chevy ..............
Ford .................
Toyota .............
Ford .................
Honda ..............
Chevy ..............
Frontier ....................
Durango ...................
Cavalier ...................
Taurus .....................
Camry ......................
Focus .......................
Accord .....................
Silverado ..................
NLEV(LEV) .....................
Tier 1/LDT3 ....................
NLEV(LEV) .....................
NLEV(LEV) .....................
ULEV ..............................
NLEV(LEV) .....................
NLEV(LEV) .....................
Tier 1/LDT3 ....................
N/A ..........
Pass ........
N/A ..........
N/A ..........
N/A ..........
N/A ..........
N/A ..........
Pass ........
N/A ...........
Pass .........
N/A ...........
N/A ...........
N/A ...........
N/A ...........
N/A ...........
Pass .........
E15 End of Test Program Pass/Fail Results
2002
2002
2003
2003
2003
2000
2000
2000
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Nissan .............
Dodge ..............
Chevy ..............
Ford .................
Toyota .............
Ford .................
Honda ..............
Chevy ..............
Frontier ....................
Durango ...................
Cavalier ...................
Taurus .....................
Camry ......................
Focus .......................
Accord .....................
Silverado ..................
NLEV(LEV) .....................
Tier 1/LDT3 ....................
NLEV(LEV) .....................
NLEV(LEV) .....................
ULEV ..............................
NLEV(LEV) .....................
NLEV(LEV) .....................
Tier 1/LDT3 ....................
N/A ..........
Pass ........
N/A ..........
N/A ..........
N/A ..........
N/A ..........
N/A ..........
Pass ........
N/A ...........
Pass .........
N/A ...........
N/A ...........
N/A ...........
N/A ...........
N/A ...........
Pass .........
* Indicates that average of composites met standards, but one test result exceeded standard.
TABLE IV.A–3—E0 EMISSION TEST RESULTS COMPARED TO THE RESPECTIVE CERTIFICATION STANDARDS AT START,
MIDDLE, AND END OF TEST
Year
Make
Model
Cert Standard
THC
NMHC
NMOG
CO
NOX
N/A ...........
Pass .........
N/A ...........
N/A ...........
N/A ...........
N/A ...........
N/A ...........
Pass .........
Pass ..........
N/A ............
Pass ..........
Pass ..........
Pass* ........
Pass ..........
Pass ..........
N/A ............
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass ..........
N/A ............
Pass* ........
Pass ..........
Pass ..........
Pass ..........
Fail ............
N/A ............
Pass ........
Pass ........
Pass ........
Pass ........
Pass ........
Pass ........
Fail ..........
Pass ........
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
E0 Start of Test Program Pass/Fail Results
2002
2002
2003
2003
2003
2000
2000
2000
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Nissan .............
Dodge ..............
Chevy ..............
Ford .................
Toyota .............
Ford .................
Honda ..............
Chevy ..............
Frontier ....................
Durango ...................
Cavalier ...................
Taurus .....................
Camry ......................
Focus .......................
Accord .....................
Silverado ..................
NLEV(LEV) .....................
Tier 1/LDT3 ....................
NLEV(LEV) .....................
NLEV(LEV) .....................
ULEV ..............................
NLEV(LEV) .....................
NLEV(LEV) .....................
Tier 1/LDT3 ....................
N/A ..........
Pass ........
N/A ..........
N/A ..........
N/A ..........
N/A ..........
N/A ..........
Pass ........
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
E0 Middle Test Program Pass/Fail Results
2002
2002
2003
2003
2003
2000
2000
2000
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Nissan .............
Dodge ..............
Chevy ..............
Ford .................
Toyota .............
Ford .................
Honda ..............
Chevy ..............
Frontier ....................
Durango ...................
Cavalier ...................
Taurus .....................
Camry ......................
Focus .......................
Accord .....................
Silverado ..................
aging conditions and fuel quality prior to the testing
and mileage accumulation, some vehicles may have
become cleaner between the start of the test and the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 Jan 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
NLEV(LEV) .....................
Tier 1/LDT3 ....................
NLEV(LEV) .....................
NLEV(LEV) .....................
ULEV ..............................
NLEV(LEV) .....................
NLEV(LEV) .....................
Tier 1/LDT3 ....................
N/A ..........
Pass ........
N/A ..........
N/A ..........
N/A ..........
N/A ..........
N/A ..........
Pass ........
N/A ...........
Pass .........
N/A ...........
N/A ...........
N/A ...........
N/A ...........
N/A ...........
Pass .........
midpoint of the test due to the detergent additives
in the aging fuel. In addition, the standard Road
Cycle used for the mileage accumulation may have
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
helped restore catalyst activity in some vehicles if
they were never driven hard enough (high speed
and/or high load) during previous aging.
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
4672
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices
TABLE IV.A–3—E0 EMISSION TEST RESULTS COMPARED TO THE RESPECTIVE CERTIFICATION STANDARDS AT START,
MIDDLE, AND END OF TEST—Continued
Year
Make
Model
Cert Standard
THC
NMHC
NMOG
CO
N/A ...........
Pass .........
N/A ...........
N/A ...........
N/A ...........
N/A ...........
N/A ...........
Pass .........
Pass ..........
N/A ............
Fail ............
Pass ..........
Fail ............
Pass* ........
Fail ............
N/A ............
Pass ........
Pass ........
Pass ........
Pass ........
Pass ........
Pass ........
Fail ..........
Pass ........
NOX
E0 End of Test Program Pass/Fail Results
2002
2002
2003
2003
2003
2000
2000
2000
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Nissan .............
Dodge ..............
Chevy ..............
Ford .................
Toyota .............
Ford .................
Honda ..............
Chevy ..............
Frontier ....................
Durango ...................
Cavalier ...................
Taurus .....................
Camry ......................
Focus .......................
Accord .....................
Silverado ..................
NLEV(LEV) .....................
Tier 1/LDT3 ....................
NLEV(LEV) .....................
NLEV(LEV) .....................
ULEV ..............................
NLEV(LEV) .....................
NLEV(LEV) .....................
Tier 1/LDT3 ....................
N/A ..........
Pass ........
N/A ..........
N/A ..........
N/A ..........
N/A ..........
N/A ..........
Pass ........
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
* Indicates that average of composites met standards, but one test result exceeded standard.
b. EPA Analysis
Since the earliest days of gasolineethanol blends, many test programs
have been carried out on light-duty
motor vehicles and trucks to quantify
the immediate emissions impacts of
blending ethanol into gasoline. The
common theme across these various test
programs is that, consistent with
combustion theory, the enleanment of
the air-to-fuel (A/F) ratio caused by the
oxygen in ethanol leads to an immediate
reduction in HC and CO emissions and
a corresponding increase in NOX
emissions. While other factors influence
this, such as the combustion
characteristics of the ethanol itself,
other changes that occur in the gasoline
when ethanol is added, and the test
conditions under which the emissions
are measured which can cause some
variations in study results, the bottom
line is that the immediate emissions
changes from increased levels of ethanol
are fairly well known.
More recent data and information 27
show that (1) newer motor vehicles
exhibit similar immediate emission
impact trends as the data and modeling
show for older motor vehicles, and (2)
the immediate emission impacts of E15
continue to show the same trends as E10
with the effects being slightly larger for
E15 due to its higher ethanol content
and therefore the increased enleanment
due to its higher oxygen content. Thus,
MY2001–2006 light-duty motor vehicles
are expected to have immediate
emissions impacts similar to MY2007
and newer, and MY2000 and older,
light-duty motor vehicles, and the
magnitude of the E15 impact is expected
to be relatively small. As the analysis in
the October Waiver Decision for Tier 2
vehicles shows, non-methane
hydrocarbon (NMHC) and CO emissions
are expected to decrease for MY2001–
2006 light-duty motor vehicles while
NOX emissions are expected to increase
between 5 and 10% (depending on how
other fuel properties change). This
estimated impact is based on
extrapolation from E10 modeling using
the Agency’s Predictive Models.28
Although the overall weight of the
available data shows that E15 will cause
a small immediate increase in NOX
emissions, the issue is whether such
increases, by themselves or in
combination with long-term durability
effects, would cause or contribute to
MY2001–2006 light-duty motor vehicles
to exceed their emissions standards.
Given the relatively small magnitude of
the immediate NOX emissions increase
in relation to the large compliance
margins that motor vehicle
manufacturers have traditionally built
in to the products they certify, and the
lack of any significant increase in NOX
emissions deterioration with E15 in
comparison to E0, it is reasonable to
expect that E15 will not cause or
contribute to compliant MY2001–2006
light-duty motor vehicles exceeding
their emissions standards.
Available information on the
compliance margins of MY2001–2006
light-duty motor vehicles indicates that
these vehicles have compliance margins
even larger than the average compliance
margin manufacturers typically provide.
Average compliance margins projected
during certification for MY2001–2006
light-duty motor vehicles are shown in
Table IV.A–4.29
27 CRC E74b, DOE Pilot Study, DOE Catalyst
Study, and the RIT Study, all of which are
discussed at length in the October Waiver Decision.
28 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.
29 Based on data submitted to EPA’s Certification
and Fuel Economy Information System and
available on the EPA Web site at https://
www.epa.gov/otaq/crttst.htm.
2. Immediate Exhaust Emissions
Instantaneous or immediate impacts
of a fuel or fuel additive are those that
are experienced essentially immediately
upon switching from the original fuel.
The immediate exhaust emission
impacts of interest are any that are
caused by E15 in comparison to the test
fuel on which motor vehicles are tested
for compliance with the applicable
standards (E0). Immediate exhaust
emission impacts must be taken into
consideration along with the long-term
or durability emission impacts
discussed in the previous section in
assessing the waiver.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
a. Growth Energy’s Submission and
Public Comment Summary
As mentioned above, Growth Energy’s
submission and the information
supplied by commenters regarding
immediate exhaust emission impacts of
E15 on light-duty motor vehicles were
not specific to the model year of the
motor vehicles. For more information,
including a detailed discussion of
Growth Energy’s submission and
summary of public comments on
immediate exhaust emission impacts,
refer to section IV.A.2 for MY2007 and
newer light-duty motor vehicles and
IV.C.3.b.ii for MY2000 and older lightduty motor vehicles of the October
Waiver Decision.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 Jan 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
4673
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices
TABLE IV.A–4—AVERAGE CERTIFICATION COMPLIANCE MARGIN (PERCENT BY POLLUTANT) FOR MY2001–2006 LIGHTDUTY MOTOR VEHICLES
Percent Compliance Margin by Pollutant
NMOG
MY2001–2006 Tier 2 & NLEV .........................................
MY2001–2003 NLEV .......................................................
MY2001–2003 Tier 1 LDT 3 & 4 .....................................
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Data collected from EPA’s IUVP also
show large compliance margins for
light-duty motor vehicles operating in
real-world conditions. Based on data
from IUVP testing of MY2001–2006
light-duty motor vehicles as of August
2010, the average compliance margin
was 56%, 69%, and 76% for
hydrocarbons (NMOG, NMHC, and
Total HC), NOX, and CO, respectively.
These large certification program and
in-use testing compliance margins
indicate that MY2001–2006 light-duty
motor vehicles on average would absorb
the immediate emissions impact of E15
on NOX emissions without exceeding
the applicable emission standards.
In addition, the results of the recently
completed DOE Catalyst Study provide
direct evidence that MY2001–2006
light-duty motor vehicles would
accommodate the immediate impact of
E15 on NOX emissions and still comply
with applicable standards. While the
Catalyst Study was carried out to assess
long-term (durability) exhaust emissions
impacts, the immediate emission
impacts of ethanol are also captured in
the testing. All of the motor vehicles
tested for the MY2001–2006 program
continued to comply with their NOx
emission standards at FUL despite both
the immediate and durability impacts of
E15 on emissions. The results from the
DOE test program thus support the
conclusion that the immediate
emissions impact of E15 will not cause
or contribute to MY2001–2006 lightduty motor vehicles exceeding their
exhaust emission standards over their
FUL.
B. Evaporative Emissions
Assessment of the impact of E15 on
evaporative emissions compliance
requires consideration of the applicable
evaporative emissions standards to
which the particular motor vehicles
were certified. There are now five main
components of motor vehicle
evaporative emissions that are
addressed by standards: (1) Diurnal
(evaporative emissions that come off the
fuel system as a motor vehicle heats up
during the course of the day); (2) hot
soak (evaporative emissions that come
off a hot motor vehicle as it cools down
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 Jan 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
51%
49%
N/A
NMHC
Total HC
N/A
N/A
74%
after the engine is shut off); (3) running
loss (evaporative emissions that come
off the fuel system during motor vehicle
operation); (4) permeation (evaporative
emissions that come through the walls
of elastomers in the fuel system and are
measured as part of the diurnal test);
and (5) unintended leaks due to
deterioration/damage that is now largely
monitored through onboard diagnostic
standards.
As with exhaust emissions, emission
control improvements adopted in
response to applicable regulatory
requirements are important to the
consideration of the potential impact of
a fuel or fuel additive on evaporative
emissions, both immediate and longterm. EPA has set evaporative emission
standards for motor vehicles since 1971.
During the ensuing years, evaporative
standards have continued to evolve,
resulting in technology and designs that
achieve additional evaporative
emissions reductions. A number of
regulatory actions occurred by MY2001
that placed an emphasis on the control
of evaporative emissions and on realworld testing of motor vehicles, which
in turn led to changes in evaporative
emission control systems. These
regulatory changes together with test
data and information and analysis
concerning compliance margins support
the conclusion that MY2001–2006 lightduty motor vehicles operated on E15
would generally continue to comply
with evaporative emission standards
and likely achieve actual evaporative
emission levels somewhat lower than
what they currently experience when
operated on in-use fuel.
1. Immediate Evaporative Emissions
a. Growth Energy’s Submission and
Public Comment Summary
Growth Energy’s submission and the
information supplied by commenters
regarding immediate evaporative
emission impacts of E15 were not
specific to the model year of the motor
vehicles. For more information,
including a detailed discussion of
Growth Energy’s submission and
summary of public comments regarding
immediate evaporative emissions, refer
to section IV.A.3 for MY2007 and newer
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
N/A
N/A
80%
NOX
65%
71
73
CO
Overall
75%
78
71
63%
66
74
light-duty motor vehicles and IV.C.3.c
for MY2000 and older light-duty motor
vehicles of the October Waiver Decision.
b. EPA Analysis and Test Programs
As discussed in the October Waiver
Decision, prior to MY1999, evaporative
emissions standards addressed diurnal
and hot soak emissions, but the test
procedures for determining compliance
did not require control of running loss
and permeation emissions. These latter
emissions became subject to control
with the enhanced evaporative
emissions requirements and were fully
phased in for light-duty motor vehicles
and light-duty trucks by MY1999. These
requirements included both new
emission standards and new test
procedures: The two-day and three-day
diurnal tests with new canister loading
procedures, and a running loss test.
Prior to the enhanced evaporative
requirements, the diurnal evaporative
emissions test was only 1 hour and
there was no running loss measurement.
The longer diurnal measurement and
the addition of the running loss test
made the control of emissions from both
permeation and running losses more
critical. In addition to the new
procedures, the regulatory useful life of
covered vehicles was extended from 5
years/50,000 miles to 10 years/100,000
miles for light-duty motor vehicles.
Along with the enhanced evaporative
emissions requirements, EPA
introduced the On Board Diagnostic
(OBD) requirements for evaporative leak
detection monitors; those requirements
were fully phased in with MY1999.
OBD required motor vehicles to detect
a leak equivalent to 0.040 inch in the
fuel or evaporative emissions system.
Beginning in MY2001, EPA allowed
manufacturers to comply with
California OBD regulations, which
required motor vehicles to detect a leak
equivalent to a 0.020 inch. While not
required federally, according to EPA
certification data for MY2001–2006,
many manufacturers developed one leak
detection system that complied with the
more stringent California requirement
for use in vehicles for sale in all 50
states.
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
As described in the exhaust emissions
section above, CAP2000 took effect
beginning with MY2000 and was
designed to place more emphasis on inuse performance of vehicle emission
controls, including the fact that vehicles
operate nationwide on different
available fuels. In particular, CAP2000
introduced the IUVP program, which
requires manufacturers to perform
exhaust and evaporative emissions tests
on customer in-use vehicles. These tests
must be performed at low and high
mileage intervals. This emphasis on
real-world vehicle testing prompted
manufacturers to consider different
commercially available fuels (including
E10) when developing and testing their
emissions systems. Also under
CAP2000, manufacturers are required to
focus on using an effective durability
process for predicting in-use
deterioration as part of the process of
certifying vehicles as complying with
applicable evaporative emission
standards. For this process,
manufacturers are required to use fuel
representative of commercial gasoline
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 Jan 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
that will generally be available at retail
outlets for the mileage accumulation on
their durability demonstration vehicles.
Based on the enhanced evaporative
emission standards and test procedures,
the CAP2000 requirements, and the
OBD leak detection requirement, our
engineering assessment is that
regulatory changes prompted
manufacturers to make the evaporative
emission systems of MY2001–2006
light-duty motor vehicles, in
comparison to prior model year
vehicles, more compatible from an
emissions perspective with fuels that
would be encountered in the
marketplace, including ethanol blends.
As such, MY2001–2006 light-duty
motor vehicles generally would be
expected to include design elements
that would better control evaporative
emissions than prior model year
vehicles when fueled on ethanol blends,
moving in the direction of the design
elements implemented for Tier 2.
It should also be noted that for
MY2004–2006 Tier 2 vehicles,
manufacturers were required to use E10
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4725
for the full mileage accumulation period
used in the certification durability
demonstration process to demonstrate
evaporative emissions durability. In
addition, Tier 2 evaporative emissions
standards were significantly lower (over
a 50% reduction). These Tier 2
requirements prompted manufacturers
to further change materials to those with
improved permeation barriers with
ethanol. For purposes of the evaporative
emissions discussion below, it is
important to note that a large percentage
of MY2004–2006 motor vehicles
certified to Tier 2 evaporative emission
standards should be able to use E15
without adverse impacts on their
evaporative emissions for the reasons
given in the October Waiver Decision.
The analysis in today’s decision of the
potential E15 impact on evaporative
emissions focuses on light-duty motor
vehicles that are certified to enhanced
evaporative emission standards (preTier 2 standards). Figure IV.B–1 shows
the fleet percentage by evaporative
emissions standard level for MY2001–
2006 light-duty motor vehicles.
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
EN26JA11.007</GPH>
4674
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices
i. Coordinating Research Council Test
Programs—Results
EPA examined available test data and
other information to evaluate whether
expected enhancement to evaporative
emissions control systems were in fact
sufficient to permit MY2001–2006 lightduty motor vehicles to operate on E15
without significant adverse impact on
immediate evaporative emissions.
In section IV.A.3 of the October
Waiver Decision, EPA discussed the
impact of ethanol on diurnal emissions
as a result of ethanol’s effect on fuel
volatility absent countervailing changes
to fuel or emission controls. EPA
reviewed the CRC E–77 test programs 30
and found they support the conclusion
that evaporative emissions (excluding
permeation) measured on the diurnal
test with E10 and E20 are likely to be
comparable to those with E0, at the
same RVP. This conclusion also applies
to E15 by interpolation. Testing
performed on E0, E10, and E20 shows
that diurnal emissions, with the
exception of permeation, are a function
of the volatility of the fuel, not the
ethanol content. As a result, EPA
concluded that for Tier 2 vehicles E15,
with adequate control of volatility,
would not adversely affect vehicles’
diurnal evaporative emissions with the
possible exception of permeation
emissions. This conclusion is applicable
to MY2001–2006 light-duty motor
vehicles as well as to MY2007 and
newer light-duty motor vehicles.
The impact of gasoline volatility on
diurnal evaporative emissions led EPA
to condition the introduction of E15 into
commerce for MY2007 and newer lightduty motor vehicles on E15 having no
more than 9.0 RVP during the
summertime period when RVP is
controlled. For the same evaporative
emission control reasons, EPA is
applying the same RVP limit condition
to today’s waiver for use of E15 in
MY2001–2006 light-duty motor
vehicles. As EPA explained in the
October Waiver Decision, the CRC E–77
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
30 Enhanced Evaporative Emission Vehicles (CRC
Report: E–77–2), March 2010, and Evaporative
Emissions from In-Use Vehicles: Test Fleet
Expansion (CRC Report: E–77–2b), June 2010.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 Jan 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
test program indicated that as the
volatility of the fuel increased, the
number of motor vehicles which
experienced canister emissions
breakthrough also increased, with three
of five enhanced evaporative vehicles
experiencing canister breakthrough at
10.0 psi RVP. These elevated diurnal
emissions with increased volatility are
expected, since the increased volatility
of 10.0 psi versus 9.0 psi fuel results in
roughly a 25% increase in evaporative
vapor generation that must be captured
by the canister, beyond the amount of
vapor generation that must be captured
during evaporative emission testing
using E0 fuel. The canister breakthrough
measured in the CRC E–77 program was
enough to cause these enhanced
evaporative vehicles to exceed their
evaporative emissions standard on E10
fuel. It should be noted, however, that
the CRC diurnal tests were done on a
more severe temperature cycle of
65 °F—105 °F (California cycle), as
opposed to the federal requirement of
72 °F—96 °F. These test results
nonetheless confirm the expectation
that ethanol blends with volatility
higher than 9.0 psi RVP during the
summer will lead to motor vehicles
exceeding their evaporative emissions
standard in-use.
At the same time, the Agency is not
aware of any data showing that motor
vehicles would continue to meet their
evaporative emissions standards when
tested using E15 with an RVP greater
than 9.0 psi. Given the significant
potential for increased evaporative
emissions at higher gasoline volatility
levels and the lack of any data to
indicate this would not cause a problem
with compliance with the standard, the
E15 waiver can only be considered in
the context of E15 that maintains the
same volatility as required of the E0 test
fuel. As long as the volatility of the fuel
does not exceed 9.0 psi during the
summer, diurnal emissions from E15 are
not anticipated to cause the motor
vehicles to exceed their evaporative
emissions standards in-use.
As a related but separate matter, as
discussed in section IX of the October
Waiver Decision, EPA interprets CAA
section 211(h)(4) as limiting the 1.0 psi
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4675
waiver to gasoline-ethanol blends that
contain 10 vol% ethanol, including
limiting the provision concerning
‘‘deemed to be in full compliance’’ to the
same 10 vol% blends. This
interpretation is consistent with how
EPA has historically implemented CAA
section 211(h)(4) through 40 CFR
80.27(d), which provides that gasolineethanol blends that contain at least 9
vol% ethanol and not more than 10
vol% ethanol qualify for the 1.0 psi
waiver of the applicable RVP standard.
EPA has invited comment on this issue
in the Misfueling Mitigation NPRM (75
FR 68044, 68061 (November 4, 2010)).
E15 does not appear to raise any
issues with respect to hot soak and
running loss emissions from MY2001–
2006 light-duty motor vehicles, for the
same reasons applicable to MY2007 and
newer motor vehicles. Data from the
CRC E–77 test programs suggest that
there may be some correlation between
hot soak and running loss 31 emissions
and ethanol content, but the impact is
small, of questionable statistical
significance, and may be related to
permeation that occurs during the
testing (Figures IV.B–2 and 3). While
there was an increase in the measured
hot soak and running loss emissions
with the E10 fuel compared to the E0
fuel, the emissions from the E20 fuel
were comparable to the emissions from
the E0 fuel, and lower than the
emissions from the E10 fuel. We expect
by interpolation that emissions from
E15 would be between the emissions
from E10 and E20 and that any
emissions increase would be too small
to result in evaporative emission
standard exceedances.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
31 Running loss emissions measured in the CRC
E–77 programs did not use the certification cycle.
The study was focused on the worst case for
permeation emissions and therefore used back-toback LA92 cycles to increase the tank temperature
with more aggressive driving. The certification
cycle, which uses the Urban Dynamometer Driving
Schedule, followed by a two-minute idle, two New
York City Cycles followed by a two-minute idle,
and another Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule
followed by a two-minute idle, has many stops and
starts, making it more difficult to purge the canister.
There was no canister breakthrough measured
during running loss tests in the study.
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices
17:27 Jan 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
EN26JA11.008</GPH>
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
4676
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 Jan 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
4677
EN26JA11.009</GPH>
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices
4678
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices
As described in the October Waiver
Decision, while the CRC E–77 test
programs were valuable in assessing
diurnal emissions, their primary
purpose was to allow the quantification
and modeling of evaporative emissions
from permeation separate and apart
from the other evaporative emissions for
E0, E10, and E20. Some key findings of
the test programs were that (1) gasolineethanol blends can significantly
increase permeation emissions
compared to pure gasoline; and (2)
permeation emissions are a function of
the presence of ethanol in the gasoline
irrespective of concentration (especially
in the E6 to E20 range). Consequently,
results for E15 would be anticipated to
be comparable to those for E10 and E20
having the same RVP.
ii. Coordinating Research Council Test
Programs—Analysis
We believe CRC E–65 and E–77 test
results are useful for indicating the
potential magnitude of permeation
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 Jan 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
emission increases for the vehicles in
the test programs as well as for the
MY2001–2006 motor vehicle fleet. The
CRC E–65 and E–77 test programs
covered a large segment of the MY2001–
2006 light-duty motor vehicle fleet (high
sales volume models). While the test
programs used unique test procedures
designed to isolate the effects of ethanol
on permeation,32 we have no reason to
believe that the test procedures are more
or less stringent than the federal test
procedures in measuring permeation,
since permeation is affected much more
by the ethanol content of the fuel than
by changes in temperature and fuel
volatility. Therefore, while the overall
results of the CRC E–65 and E–77 test
programs cannot be directly compared
to federal emission standards, the
observed impacts on permeation are
appropriate to use for generally
32 For example, the California diurnal
temperature profile of 65 to 105 °F and fuel with
an RVP of 9 psi were used.
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
assessing potential evaporative emission
increases from E15.
For pre-Tier 2 MY2001–2006 lightduty motor vehicles, the results of the
CRC test programs indicate that the
permeation emissions of these vehicles
are likely to increase with use of
ethanol-gasoline blends to a greater
extent than is expected for MY2007 and
newer motor vehicles.33 The issue thus
becomes whether the increase will
cause or contribute to MY2001–2006
light-duty motor vehicles exceeding
their evaporative emission standards.
We used the results of the CRC test
programs to estimate the increase in
evaporative emissions from the
permeation effect of an E10–20 fuel (and
therefore E15 by interpolation) for
vehicles in the programs, since they
represent a large segment of the national
fleet. We began by averaging the results
of the CRC E–65 and E–77 programs
together for each of the models tested
33 Compare Figure IV.B–4 in today’s notice with
Figure IV.A–3 in the October Waiver Decision.
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
EN26JA11.010</GPH>
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
4679
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices
given the limited sample size of each
program and the fact that ethanol
content alone, versus RVP or the
specific ethanol volume percentage of
the fuel, has the greatest effect on
permeation. Then, we calculated the
permeation change (E0 to E10–20) for
each vehicle model.34 Next, we added
that vehicle model’s permeation
increase to the vehicle model’s
projected evaporative emission level (as
determined for certifying compliance
with emission standards) to estimate
what the vehicle model’s projected
evaporative emissions would be if
operated on E15. The results of this
analysis show that all of the vehicle
models tested in the CRC programs
would meet their evaporative emissions
standard even with the calculated
permeation increase (Figure IV.B–1).
Hence, while the permeation impact of
E10 and E20, and therefore E15 by
interpolation, on these vehicle models is
projected to be larger than for E0, the
vehicle models also have very large
compliance margins that would allow
them to still meet their evaporative
emission standards on E15.
TABLE IV.B–1—ENHANCED EVAPORATIVE VEHICLES PERMEATION MEASURED IN CRC E65 AND E–77(B)
MY
1999
2001
2001
2004
2000
2001
2000
2002
2004
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
E0
7 psi
(mg)
Make & model
Honda Accord ....................
Toyota Corolla ...................
Dodge Caravan ..................
Ford Escape ......................
Mitsubishi Galant ...............
Toyota Tacoma ..................
Honda Odyssey .................
Nissan Altima .....................
Toyota Highlander* ............
367
383
398
494
603
91
458
1172
294
E0
9 psi
(mg)
E10
7 psi
(mg)
E10
10 psi
(mg)
628
500
406
1102
706
............
............
1500
202
1260
1783
1087
524
895
............
............
2583
............
1548
1794
1406
492
828
............
............
2777
............
E20
9 psi
(mg)
Avg.
E0
(mg)
1103
1775
1548
752
751
508
1765
1959
451
498
441
402
798
655
91
458
1336
249
Avg.
E10
and
E20
(mg)
1304
1784
1347
589
824
508
1765
2439
157
Delta
E0 to
E10–
20
(mg)
806
1343
945
¥209
170
418
1308
1103
............
Cert
Level
(g)
1.0
0.4
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.4
0.7
0.8
0.3
Projected
Emissions
(g)
1.8
1.7
1.9
0.7
0.8
0.8
2.0
1.9
0.4
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
*Tier 2 vehicle
As noted above, the vehicles tested in
the CRC programs represent a broad
cross-section of the national light-duty
motor vehicle fleet, so our analysis
indicates that most MY2001–2006 lightduty motor vehicles would still meet
applicable evaporative emission
standards if operated on E15. However,
the test programs were not fully
representative as they included no
General Motors models or larger lightduty trucks. Thus, there may be some
vehicles in the fleet with smaller
compliance margins such that the
impact of permeation could increase
their total evaporative emissions beyond
the standard to which they were
certified.
Even if a small number of vehicle
models might exceed evaporative
emission standards in-use when
operated on E15, we believe that a
waiver is appropriate for two reasons.
One, any increase in evaporative
emission standard exceedances is
expected to be limited since all the CRC
motor vehicles tested continued to meet
their evaporative emission standards
and those motor vehicles represent a
large segment of the national fleet. In
past waiver decisions, EPA has applied
statistical tests that are failed if the fuel
or fuel additive being considered would
increase the number of motor vehicles
exceeding their emissions standard by a
significant amount. For example, see the
discussion of the Petrocoal Waiver in
MVMA v. EPA, 768 F.2d 385, 399 (DC
Cir. 1985) (‘‘Petrocoal Waiver, 46 FR at
48,978. The Deteriorated Emissions Test
is designed to provide a 90 percent
probability of failure of the test if 25
percent or more of the vehicle fleet
tested would fail to meet emission
standards using the waiver fuel or fuel
additive.’’). This was based on EPA’s
longstanding interpretation that the
criteria in CAA section 211(f)(4) could
be met where a fuel or fuel additive
would not cause or contribute to a
‘‘significant’’ number of motor vehicles
in the national fleet failing their
emission standards. See MVMA, 768
F.2d at 391 (‘‘This burden, which
Congress has imposed on the applicant,
if interpreted literally, is virtually
impossible to meet as it requires proof
of a negative proposition, i.e., that no
vehicle will fail to meet emission
standards with respect to which it has
been certified. Taken literally, it would
require the testing of every vehicle.
Recognizing that Congress contemplated
a workable waiver provision, mitigation
of this stringent burden was deemed
necessary. For purposes of the waiver
provision, EPA has previously indicated
that reliable statistical sampling and
fleet testing protocols may be used to
demonstrate that a fuel under
consideration would not cause or
contribute to a significant failure of
emission standards by vehicles in the
national fleet.’’) The statistical tests used
by EPA were intended to identify
failures of a statistically significant
number of motor vehicles resulting from
the fuel or fuel additive itself as
opposed to other non-fuel related
causes. Consequently, the statistical
tests do not bar a waiver for a fuel or
fuel additive that would increase the
number of motor vehicles exceeding
their applicable emission standards by
an amount smaller than the statistical
tests were designed to confidently
discern. While EPA is not applying
those statistical tests in this case, they
represent the Agency’s past judgment
that a possible increase in a limited
number of motor vehicles exceeding
their applicable emission standards is
not necessarily a basis for denying a
waiver request.
In this case, the CRC test data indicate
that the large majority of MY2001–2006
vehicle models have compliance
margins adequate to meet their
evaporative emissions standard when
operated on E15. EPA’s engineering
assessment is that the degree of control
of permeation emissions from E15
exhibited in the CRC test programs
(although less than the degree of control
exhibited by Tier 2 vehicles) and the
size of compliance margins likely result
in large part from the response to EPA’s
regulatory changes discussed above.
34 We also averaged the ethanol blends together
to compare to E0. As noted above, the effect of
ethanol blends on permeation emissions is
essentially constant across E6, E10 and E20, so it
is appropriate to average the emissions increases
resulting from the different blends to obtain a more
robust result.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 Jan 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
4680
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices
Manufacturers were improving their
evaporative emissions systems so they
would be more effective at controlling
evaporative emissions from in-use fuels,
including fuels containing ethanol. The
regulatory changes also generally
applied to the kinds of vehicles not
included in the CRC test program, so
similar levels of permeation emission
control and compliance margins could
also be expected in those vehicles.
There is thus the possibility of, at most,
limited emission standard exceedances
in the MY2001–2006 light-duty motor
vehicle fleet with the use of E15,
considering the results of the CRC test
programs, EPA’s analysis using the
compliance margins of those vehicles,
and the expectation of similar emissions
levels and compliance margins for other
MY2001–2006 vehicles. This judgment
is based on all of the information before
the Agency, including the engineering
assessment discussed above.
A second reason that a waiver is
appropriate in this case is that the
environment would likely benefit from,
and in any event would not be harmed
by, the impact of E15 use on evaporative
emissions of MY2001–2006 light-duty
motor vehicles. As explained in the
Misfueling Mitigation NPRM, E10 is
now the pervasive fuel in the national
motor vehicle fuel market. The use of
E10 already results in some permeation
increases, resulting from its ethanol
content, and E15 would cause no greater
permeation emissions than E10. As a
result, permeation emissions from the
use of E15 should not lead to any actual
increase in exceedances of the
evaporative emissions standards in the
in-use fleet of MY2001–2006 light-duty
motor vehicles compared to no use of
E15. In addition, as a result of the CAA’s
1 psi waiver for E10, the use of E10
results in significant additional
evaporative emissions from canister
breakthrough, resulting from the fuel’s
higher volatility at 10.0 psi RVP. Since
a waiver for E15 would not allow RVP
greater than 9.0 psi, the lower volatility
of E15 would lead to significantly lower
evaporative emissions than would
otherwise result from canister
breakthrough with E10. To the extent it
is used in the marketplace, E15 would
likely replace the use of E10.35
Therefore, its use would likely benefit,
and would not harm, the environment
by reducing in-use vehicle evaporative
emissions.36 In these somewhat unique
35 E10 is already the predominant gasoline fuel in
most of the country and it is reasonable to assume
that, if and when E15 is introduced into the
marketplace, it would be in a market where fuel
ethanol is already available and sold as E10.
36 E15 use would also not affect vehicle
manufacturers’ compliance status since in-use
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 Jan 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
circumstances, EPA believes that any
limited number of motor vehicles
exceeding their evaporative emission
standards when using E15 should not be
considered significant for purposes of
determining whether to grant a waiver
under section 211(f)(4).37
This interpretation and approach is
also appropriate as it furthers the goals
of Congress in the recent amendments to
the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)
program under section 211(o). Congress’
purpose in enacting the EISA
amendments to section 211(o) was to
increase the volume of renewable fuel,
including gasoline-ethanol blends, to
improve the nation’s energy and
economic security. Granting a waiver for
E15 is consistent with and advances
these goals. This provides further
support for EPA’s decision that it is
appropriate to grant a partial waiver for
E15 where it would not cause or
contribute to a significant number of
motor vehicles exceeding their
evaporative emission standards,
especially given the fact that E15 use
would not increase, but would likely
reduce, actual in-use evaporative
emissions when compared to E10 use.
2. Long-term (Durability) Evaporative
Emissions
Considering regulatory changes
applicable to MY2001–2006 light-duty
motor vehicles, the Agency believes that
manufacturers generally designed their
enhanced evaporative emission control
systems for long-term exposure to E10
and that the systems should be
compatible and durable with E15 use
over the FUL of the motor vehicle.
As mentioned previously, CAP 2000
requires MY2001–2006 motor vehicle
evaporative emission systems to be
tested on in-use vehicles exposed to
market fuel, including fuels containing
ethanol. Further, in MY1999, along with
testing for recall and other regulatory purposes is
conducted on E0 fuel, and any effect of E15 on
immediate evaporative emissions is transient and
would not affect results of compliance testing on E0
fuel.
37 It is important to note that the relevant
comparison for evaluating whether a fuel or fuel
additive will have an impact on failures of emission
standards is a comparison between the proposed
fuel or additive (here E15) and the fuel on which
vehicles are tested for purposes of determining auto
manufacturers’ compliance with emission standards
(E0). While E15 may result in limited additional
exceedances of evaporative emission standards in
comparison to E0, it will reduce actual in-use
evaporative emissions compared to E10, the fuel it
is expected to replace. We believe it is appropriate
to consider both E15’s limited potential for
increasing exceedances of standards when
compared to E0 fuel, and this real-world
evaporative emissions benefit of E15 in considering
the significance of any such exceedances, in
deciding whether to grant a waiver for E15 use in
MY2001–2006 light-duty motor vehicles.
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
enhanced evaporative emissions
requirements, OBD leak detection
requirements were introduced with the
more stringent California requirement
adopted optionally by manufacturers in
2001 to enable the sale of vehicles in all
50 states with one leak detection
system. To avoid excessive warranty
costs and potential recalls,
manufacturers needed to ensure the
evaporative emissions control and fuel
systems would be compatible with and
durable to market fuel, including fuels
containing ethanol.38 As a result of
these requirements, manufacturers had a
strong incentive to develop evaporative
emission systems that are robust to
market fuels, including fuels containing
ethanol. Manufacturers also design to
account for production variability in
materials and tolerances. Robustness in
the design of these components
provides a safety margin that, according
to the compliance margin data
discussed above, results in vehicles
actually emitting at levels well below
required levels. There is thus an
engineering basis for expecting
robustness in design to allow MY2001–
2006 motor vehicle evaporative
emission systems to maintain durable
emissions control with long-term use of
E15.
Available data from IUVP, EPA’s inuse surveillance program, and
manufacturer emission defect
information reports support that these
vehicles can maintain evaporative
emission control with long-term E15
use. The data are robust given the nature
of these programs. IUVP, as previously
described, requires manufacturers to
perform exhaust and evaporative
emissions tests on in-use vehicles,
including at high mileage, and submit
the data to EPA. EPA itself conducts an
ongoing surveillance program at its Ann
Arbor laboratory to assess vehicle
emissions a few years after vehicles
enter customer service. EPA typically
recruits two- or three-year-old vehicles
from vehicle owners for this program.
These vehicles are chosen for a variety
of reasons, ranging from issues of past
emissions performance to gaining a
better understanding of how new
technologies are working. As for defects,
manufacturers are required to report
38 Manufacturers are required by the CAA to
warrant that their vehicles are free from defects in
materials and workmanship which would cause
such vehicle to fail to conform to applicable
regulations for the two year/24,000 mile warranty
period. These vehicles are also subject to the recall
provisions of Section 207 of the CAA which
requires a manufacture to remedy non-conformities
if the Administrator has determined that a
substantial number of any class or category of
vehicles do not conform to the regulations when in
actual use throughout their useful life.
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices
emission-related defects to EPA. An
emission-related defect is a defect in
design, materials, or workmanship in a
device, system, or assembly, as
described in the approved application
for certification.
Review of the data from these
programs indicates there have been no
detected defects (e.g., leaks from
material softening, swelling, or
cracking) or evaporative test failures
attributable to ethanol exposure over
time for MY2001–2006 light-duty motor
vehicles, notwithstanding the long-term
and expanding use of E10 across the
country. As previously mentioned, E10
has been exclusively utilized as gasoline
fuel in major U.S. cities since as early
as 1996. By 2006, many, if not most,
U.S. major metropolitan areas (for
example, those cities utilizing
reformulated gasoline) were using E10
and close to half of the U.S. gasoline
market was comprised of E10. Now over
80 percent of the U.S. market is E10. For
these periods, EPA is unaware of any
significant problems associated with the
use of the fuel in MY2001–2006 (or
newer) light-duty motor vehicles. The
lack of any reported problems with use
of E10, coupled with the large
compliance margins of most MY2001–
2006 light-duty motor vehicles,
indicates that MY2001–2006 light-duty
motor vehicles generally should be able
to accommodate E15 without exceeding
evaporative emission standards. Even if
a small subset of the MY2001–2006 fleet
experienced some decrease in
evaporative emissions control durability
on E15, it is unlikely to outweigh the
evaporative emission benefits resulting
from E15’s lower volatility compared to
commercially available E10.
Several commenters recommended
that we wait for the results of the CRC
E91 ‘‘Evaporative Emissions Durability
Testing’’ program which is studying the
impact of E10 and E20 on permeation
emissions. The test results are expected
by the end of 2011. The Agency does
not believe it is necessary to await the
program’s results to decide the waiver
request for MY2001–2006 light-duty
motor vehicles. In view of the lack of
ethanol-related problems documented
in our IUVP, in-use surveillance, and
defect report data and information, and
our engineering analysis, we expect that
MY2001–2006 light-duty motor vehicles
are likely to have evaporative emission
control systems with a margin of safety
sufficient to generally enable them to
operate on E15 without experiencing
long-term deterioration. Any
evaporative emission standard
exceedances that might occur are
expected to be small and offset by the
environmental benefit of the evaporative
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 Jan 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
emission benefits of E15 compared to
E10.
C. Materials Compatibility
As explained previously, materials
compatibility is a factor in considering
a waiver request since poor materials
compatibility can lead to serious
exhaust and evaporative emissions
compliance problems not only
immediately upon using the new fuel or
fuel additive, but especially over time.
1. Growth Energy’s Submission and
Public Comment Summary
As with the exhaust and evaporative
emissions sections above, Growth
Energy’s submission and the
information supplied by commenters
regarding materials compatibility
impacts of E15 were not specific to the
model year of the motor vehicles. For
information on Growth Energy’s
submission and public comments on
materials compatibility, refer to section
IV.A.4 for MY2007 and newer light-duty
motor vehicles and section IV.C.3.d for
MY2000 and older light-duty motor
vehicles of the October Waiver Decision.
2. EPA Analysis and Conclusions
The Agency has reviewed the studies
that have shown generally acceptable
materials compatibility in newer motor
vehicles with ethanol up to 10 vol%,
but degradation of certain metals,
elastomers, plastics, and vehicle
finishes with higher dosages.39
However, most of these studies,
including the Minnesota Compatibility
Study, were on component parts using
laboratory bench tests rather than
durability studies of whole vehicle fuel
systems simulating real-world vehicle
use. In addition, there is no way to
correlate the results of the study with
MY2001–2006 motor vehicles. Many
different materials were used over the
years and we do not have data that
shows which manufacturers used which
specific materials at various points in
time.
As the Agency noted in the October
Waiver Decision, newer motor vehicles,
including NLEVs, were designed to
encounter more regular ethanol
exposure compared to earlier model
year motor vehicles. The Agency
believes that the CAP2000 in-use testing
and durability demonstration
requirements as well as the introduction
of OBD leak detection monitors and
enhanced evaporative emission test
procedures have led manufacturers to
design vehicles using materials that will
continue to function properly with
39 SAE J1297, revised July, 2007, Surface Vehicle
Information Report, Alternative Fuels.
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4681
respect to evaporative emissions when
ethanol blends are used. This includes
materials compatible with long-term use
of ethanol blends, as the standards
apply for the useful life of the vehicle,
and the IUVP test program and the OBD
leak detection requirement monitor
compliance throughout the useful life.
As discussed in the long-term
evaporative emissions section of this
notice, data from IUVP, EPA’s in-use
surveillance program, and manufacturer
emission defect information reports
have not detected any failures
attributable to ethanol up to E10. Based
on the Agency’s engineering judgment
and this supplemental information, and
the generally large evaporative
emissions compliance margin for these
vehicles, EPA does not expect that there
will be materials compatibility issues
with E15 that would cause MY2001–
2006 light-duty motor vehicles to
exceed their evaporative emission
standards over their FUL. For exhaust
emissions, the same kind of information
supports the same conclusion. In
addition, the results of the DOE Catalyst
Study support this conclusion, as E15
was used for long-term aging of the
vehicles and the Study did not uncover
any emissions deterioration problems
with E15 in comparison to E0 that
would result in materials compatibility
issues.
D. Driveability and Operability
1. Growth Energy’s Submission and
Public Comment Summary
As with the exhaust and evaporative
emissions and material compatibility
sections above, Growth Energy’s
submission and information supplied by
commenters regarding driveability and
operability impacts of E15 were not
specific to the model year of the motor
vehicles. For information on Growth
Energy’s submission and public
comments on driveability and
operability, refer to section IV.A.5 for
MY2007 and newer light-duty motor
vehicles and IV.C.3.e for MY2000 and
older light-duty motor vehicles of the
October Waiver Decision.
2. EPA Analysis and Conclusions
Our engineering judgment as
confirmed by the results of DOE’s
Catalyst Study is that MY2001–2006
light-duty motor vehicles (NLEV and
some remaining Tier 1 trucks) are
similar enough to MY2007 and newer
Tier 2 motor vehicles in design of the
emissions control systems that the
analysis and conclusions presented in
the October Waiver Decision apply to
MY2001–2006 light-duty motor vehicles
applies. The Agency’s review of the data
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
4682
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices
and information from the different test
programs finds no specific reports of
driveability, operability or OBD issues
across many different vehicles and duty
cycles including lab testing and in-use
operation. Thus, while the potential
exists for some vehicles more sensitive
to ethanol to experience driveability or
operability issues, the frequency is
likely not more than what is currently
experienced in-use today. Therefore, the
Agency does not anticipate that there
will be driveability, operability or OBD
issues with E15 on properly operated
and maintained MY2001–2006 lightduty motor vehicles.
V. Legal Issues Arising In This Partial
Waiver Decision
We fully incorporate by reference
Section IX of the October Waiver
Decision into this decision. Section IX,
entitled ‘‘Legal Issues Arising in This
Partial Waiver Decision,’’ presents
discussion regarding legal issues arising
from issuing these partial waiver
decisions. We incorporate that
discussion here as our rationale is the
same for this decision.
VII. Partial Waiver Decision and
Conditions
Based on all the data and information
described above and in the October
Waiver Decision, the waiver request
application submitted by Growth Energy
for its gasoline-ethanol blend with up to
15 vol% ethanol is partially and
conditionally granted as follows:
(1) The partial waiver applies only to
fuels or fuel additives introduced into
commerce for use in MY2001 and newer
light-duty motor vehicles, light-duty
trucks, and medium duty passenger
vehicles (hereafter ‘‘MY2001 and newer
light-duty motor vehicles’’) as certified
under Section 206 of the Act. The
waiver does not apply to fuels or fuel
additives introduced into commerce for
use in pre-MY2001 motor vehicles,
heavy-duty gasoline engines or vehicles,
or motorcycles certified under section
206 of the Act, or any nonroad engines,
nonroad vehicles, or motorcycles
certified under section 213(a) of the Act.
(2) The waiver applies to the blending
of greater than 10 vol% and no more
than 15 vol% anhydrous ethanol into
gasoline,40 and the ethanol must meet
the specifications for fuel ethanol found
in the ASTM International specification
D4806–10.41
(3) The final fuel must have a Reid
Vapor Pressure not in excess of 9.0 psi
during the time period from May 1 to
September 15.
(4) Fuel and fuel additive
manufacturers subject to this partial
waiver must submit to EPA a plan, for
EPA’s approval, and must fully
implement that EPA-approved plan,
prior to introduction of the fuel or fuel
additive into commerce as appropriate.
The plan must include provisions that
will implement all reasonable
precautions for ensuring that the fuel or
fuel additive (i.e. gasoline intended for
use in E15, ethanol intended for use in
E15, or final E15 blend) is only
introduced into commerce for use in
MY2001 and newer light-duty motor
vehicles. The plan must be sent to the
following address: Director, Compliance
and Innovative Strategies Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Mail Code
6405J, Washington, DC 20460.
VI. Waiver Conditions
We fully incorporate by reference
Section X of the October Waiver
Decision into this decision. Section X,
entitled ‘‘Waiver Conditions,’’ provides a
more detailed explanation regarding the
conditions placed on these partial
40 Gasoline in this case may be gasoline
blendstocks that produce gasoline upon the
addition of the specified amount of ethanol covered
by the waiver.
41 ASTM International D4806–10, Standard
Specification for Denatured Fuel Ethanol for
Blending with Gasolines for Use as Automotive
Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel.
E. Conclusions
As described in the preceding
sections, EPA evaluated the potential
impact of E15 with respect to the four
emission-related categories for
MY2001–2006 light-duty motor
vehicles. Based on results from the DOE
Catalyst Study and other information,
coupled with our engineering judgment,
EPA believes the evidence supports the
conclusion that MY2001–2006 lightduty motor vehicles will not exceed
their emission standards over their FUL
when operated on E15. Where there is
a possibility of such exceedances, the
somewhat unique circumstances here
warrant determining that such a
possibility is not significant. Therefore,
EPA is partially granting the waiver for
MY2001–2006 light-duty motor
vehicles.
The October Waiver Decision granted
a partial waiver with respect to MY2007
and newer light-duty motor vehicles,
and today’s decision grants a partial
waiver with respect to MY2001–2006
light-duty motor vehicles. The two
waiver decisions taken together allow
introduction of E15 into commerce for
use in MY2001 and newer light-duty
motor vehicles.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
waiver decisions. We incorporate that
discussion here as our rationale is the
same for this decision.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 Jan 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Reasonable precautions in a plan
must include, but are not limited to, the
following conditions on this partial
waiver:
(a)(i) Reasonable measures for
ensuring that any retail fuel pump
dispensers that are dispensing a
gasoline produced with greater than 10
vol% ethanol and no more than 15 vol%
ethanol are clearly labeled for ensuring
that consumers do not misfuel the
waivered gasoline-ethanol blend into
vehicles or engines not covered by the
waiver. The label shall convey the
following information:
(A) The fuel being dispensed contains
15% ethanol maximum;
(B) The fuel is for use in only MY2001
and newer gasoline cars, MY2001 and
newer light-duty trucks and all flex-fuel
vehicles;
(C) Federal law prohibits the use of
the fuel in other vehicles and engines;
and
(D) Using E15 in vehicles and engines
not approved for use might damage
those vehicles and engines.
(ii) The fuel or fuel additive
manufacturer must submit the label it
intends to use for EPA approval prior to
its use on any fuel pump dispenser.
(b) Reasonable measures for ensuring
that product transfer documents
accompanying the shipment of a
gasoline produced with greater than 10
vol% ethanol and no more than 15 vol%
ethanol properly document the volume
of ethanol.
(c)(i) Participation in a survey of
compliance at fuel retail dispensing
facilities. The fuel or fuel additive
manufacturer must submit a statistically
sound survey plan to EPA for its
approval and begin implementing the
survey plan prior to the introduction of
E15 into the marketplace. The results of
the survey must be provided to EPA.42
The fuel or fuel additive manufacturer
conducting a survey may choose from
either of the following two options:
(ii) Individual survey option: Conduct
a survey of labels and ethanol content
at retail stations wherever your gasoline,
ethanol, or ethanol blend may be
distributed if it may be blended as E15.
The survey plan must be approved by
EPA prior to conducting the survey
plan.
(iii) Nationwide survey option:
Contract with an individual survey
organization to perform a nationwide
survey program of sampling and testing
designed to provide oversight of all
retail stations that sell gasoline. The
42 In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published
on November 4, 2010 in the Federal Register (see
75 FR 68044), EPA proposed a more detailed
labeling, product transfer documents, and survey
plan.
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices
survey plan must be approved by EPA
prior to conducting the survey plan.
(d) Any other reasonable measures
EPA determines are appropriate.
(5) Failure to fully implement any
condition of this partial waiver means
the fuel or fuel additive introduced into
commerce is not covered by this partial
wavier.
These conditions are the same as
those provided in the October partial
waiver for MY2007 and newer lightduty motor vehicles. They have been
modified here only to reflect the
combined model years covering
MY2001 and newer.
This partial waiver decision is final
agency action of national applicability
for purposes of section 307(b)(1) of the
Act. Pursuant to CAA section 307(b)(1),
judicial review of this final agency
action may be sought only in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit. Petitions for review
must be filed by March 28, 2011.
Judicial review of this final agency
action may not be obtained in
subsequent proceedings, pursuant to
CAA section 307(b)(2). This action is
not a rulemaking and is not subject to
the various statutory and other
provisions applicable to a rulemaking.
Dated: January 21, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011–1646 Filed 1–25–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0988; FRL–8856–2]
Pesticide Experimental Use Permit;
Receipt of Application; Comment
Request
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
This notice announces EPA’s
receipt of an application 29964–EUP–
RR from Pioneer Hi-Bred International,
Inc. requesting an experimental use
permit (EUP) for combined and single
trait corn containing one or more of the
following plant-incorporated protectants
(PIPs): (1) [Bt11] Bacillus thuringiensis
Cry1Ab delta-endotoxin and the genetic
material (via elements of vector
pZO1502) necessary for its production
in corn (SYN–BT;11–1), (2) [DAS–
59122–7] Bacillus thuringiensis
Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1 proteins and
the genetic material necessary for their
production (PHP17662 T–DNA) in event
DAS59122–7 corn (Organisation for
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 Jan 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) Unique Identifier:
DAS–59122–7), (3) [MIR162] Bacillus
thuringiensis Vip3Aa20 and the genetic
material necessary for its production
(vector pNOV1300) in event MIR162
maize (SYN–IR162–4), (4) [MIR604]
Modified Cry3A protein and the genetic
material necessary for its production
(via elements of pZM26) in corn (SYN–
IR604–8), (5) [TC1507] Bacillus
thuringiensis Cry1F protein and the
genetic material (plasmid insert
PHI8999A) necessary for its production
in corn event DAS–;15;7–1, and (6)
[MON810] Bacillus thuringiensis
Cry1Ab delta-endotoxin and the genetic
material necessary for its production
(Vestor PV–ZMCT01) in event MON 810
corn (OECD Unique Identifier: MON–
;;81;–6). The focus of the EUP are the
three breeding stacks: (1) MIR604 × 1507
× 59122 × MON 810, (2) MIR604 ×
59122 × MON810, and (3) MIR604 ×
1507. The Agency has determined that
the permit may be of regional and
national significance. Therefore, in
accordance with 40 CFR 172.11(a), the
Agency is soliciting comments on this
application.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before February 25, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0988, by
one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001.
• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental
Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S.
Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket
Facility’s normal hours of operation
(8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is
(703) 305–5805.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–
0988. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the docket
without change and may be made
available on-line at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4683
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through regulations.gov or
e-mail. The regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is
placed in the docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the docket index available
at https://www.regulations.gov. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either in the
electronic docket at https://
www.regulations.gov, or, if only
available in hard copy, at the OPP
Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S–
4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The
hours of operation of this Docket
Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is (703) 305–5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mike Mendelsohn, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P),
Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 308–8715; e-mail address:
mendelsohn.mike@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
This action is directed to the public
in general. This action may, however, be
of interest to those persons interested in
agricultural biotechnology or those who
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 26, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4662-4683]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1646]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0211; FRL-9258-6]
Partial Grant of Clean Air Act Waiver Application Submitted by
Growth Energy To Increase the Allowable Ethanol Content of Gasoline to
15 Percent; Decision of the Administrator
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of Decision Granting a Partial Waiver.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking additional
final action on Growth Energy's application for a waiver submitted
under section 211(f)(4) of the Clean Air Act. Today's partial waiver
allows fuel and fuel additive manufacturers to introduce into commerce
gasoline that contains greater than 10 volume percent ethanol and no
more than 15 volume percent ethanol (E15) for use in model year (MY)
2001 through 2006 light-duty motor vehicles (passenger cars, light-duty
trucks and medium-duty passenger vehicles), if certain conditions are
fulfilled. In October 2010, we granted a partial waiver for E15 for use
in MY2007 and newer light-duty motor vehicles subject to the same
conditions. Taken together, the two waiver decisions allow the
introduction into commerce of E15 for use in MY2001 and newer light-
duty motor vehicles if those conditions are met.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0211. All documents and public comments in the
docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically through
https://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
https://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. The electronic mail (e-mail)
address for the Air and Radiation Docket is: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov,
the telephone number is (202) 566-1742 and the fax number is (202) 566-
9744.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Anderson, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Mailcode: 6405J, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number: (202) 343-9718; fax number: (202) 343-2800; e-mail
address: Anderson.Robert@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. Prior E15 Partial Waiver Decision
B. Waiver Decision for MY2001-2006 Light-Duty Motor Vehicles
C. Conditions on Today's Partial Waiver and Proposed Rule on
Misfueling Mitigation
II. Introduction
III. Method of Review
IV. Analysis for MY2001-2006 Light-Duty Motor Vehicles
A. Exhaust Emissions
1. Long-term (Durability) Exhaust Emissions
a. Growth Energy's Submission and Public Comment Summary
b. EPA Analysis and Durability Studies
i. Description of DOE Catalyst Study for MY2001-2006 Motor
Vehicles
ii. DOE Catalyst Study Results
2. Immediate Exhaust Emissions
a. Growth Energy's Submission and Public Comment Summary
b. EPA Analysis
B. Evaporative Emissions
1. Immediate Evaporative Emissions
a. Growth Energy's Submission and Public Comment Summary
i. Coordinating Research Council Test Programs--Results
ii. Coordinating Research Council Test Programs--Analysis
2. Long-term (Durability) Evaporative Emissions
C. Materials Compatibility
1. Growth Energy's Submission and Public Comment Summary
2. EPA Analysis and Conclusions
D. Driveability and Operability
1. Growth Energy's Submission and Public Comment Summary
2. EPA Analysis and Conclusions
E. Conclusions
V. Legal Issues Arising In This Partial Waiver Decision
VI. Waiver Conditions
VII. Partial Waiver Decision and Conditions
I. Executive Summary
A. Prior E15 Partial Waiver Decision
In March 2009, Growth Energy and 54 ethanol manufacturers
petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) to allow
the introduction into commerce of up to 15 volume percent (vol%)
ethanol in gasoline. Prior to Growth Energy's petition, ethanol was
limited to 10 vol% in motor vehicle gasoline (E10). The petition
requested that EPA exercise its authority under section 211(f)(4) of
the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) to waive the prohibition on the
introduction of E15 into commerce under section 211(f)(1) of the Act.
In April 2009, EPA invited public comment on Growth Energy's waiver
request and received about 78,000 comments. On October 13, 2010, EPA
took two actions on the waiver request based on the information
available at that time (``October Waiver Decision'').\1\ First, it
partially approved Growth Energy's waiver request to allow the
introduction of E15 into commerce for use in MY2007 and newer light-
duty motor vehicles, subject to several conditions. Second, the Agency
denied the waiver request for MY2000 and older light-duty motor
vehicles, heavy-duty gasoline engines and vehicles, highway and off-
highway motorcycles, and other nonroad engines, vehicles, and
equipment. The Agency also deferred making a decision on the waiver
request for MY2001-2006 light-duty motor vehicles to await the results
of additional testing being conducted by the Department of Energy
(DOE).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Partial Grant and Partial Denial of CAA Waiver Application
Submitted by Growth Energy to Increase the Allowable Ethanol Content
of Gasoline to 15 Percent; Decision of the Administrator. See 75 FR
68094, November 4, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Waiver Decision for MY2001-2006 Light-Duty Motor Vehicles
In today's action, EPA is partially granting Growth Energy's waiver
request for MY2001-2006 light-duty motor vehicles based on our analysis
of the available information, including DOE and other test data and
public comments. This partial grant waives the prohibition on fuel and
fuel additive manufacturers and allows the introduction into commerce
of gasoline containing greater than 10 vol% ethanol and no more than 15
vol% ethanol for use in MY2001-2006 light-duty motor vehicles, which
includes passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger
vehicles (large sport utility vehicles).\2\ It is subject to the same
conditions that apply to the partial waiver issued in October for
MY2007
[[Page 4663]]
and newer light-duty motor vehicles. Today's waiver decision together
with the October Waiver Decision means that E15 may be introduced into
commerce, subject to those conditions, for use in all MY2001 and newer
light-duty motor vehicles.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For purposes of today's decision, ``MY2001-2006 light-duty
motor vehicles'' include MY2001-2006 light-duty vehicles (LDV),
light-duty trucks (LDT), and medium-duty passenger vehicles (MDPV),
the same types of motor vehicles as in the October Waiver Decision,
but for the earlier model years 2001-2006.
\3\ It should be noted that a number of additional steps must be
completed by various parties before E15 may be distributed and sold.
These steps include but are not limited to submission of a complete
E15 fuels registration application by the fuel and fuel additive
manufacturers who wish to introduce E15 into commerce, and EPA
review and approval of the application, under the regulations at 40
CFR Part 79. Various state laws may also affect the distribution and
sale of E15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To receive a waiver under CAA section 211(f)(4), a fuel or fuel
additive manufacturer must demonstrate that a new fuel or fuel additive
will not cause or contribute to the failure of engines or vehicles to
achieve compliance with the emission standards to which they have been
certified over their useful life. The information submitted by Growth
Energy was not sufficient to support a waiver covering introduction of
E15 into commerce for use in MY2001-2006 light-duty motor vehicles.
However, key data for responding to the waiver request for MY2001-2006
light-duty motor vehicles was provided by a DOE test program to
determine the effect of long-term use of gasoline-ethanol blends,
including E15, on the durability of emissions control systems,
including catalysts, used in light-duty motor vehicles to control
exhaust emissions (DOE Catalyst Study).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ DOE embarked on the study, in consultation with EPA, auto
manufacturers, fuel providers and others, after enactment of the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which significantly
expanded the federal Renewable Fuel Standard program by increasing
the volume of renewable fuels that must be used in transportation
fuel in order to reduce imported petroleum and emissions of
greenhouse gases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2008, DOE began testing 19 MY2007 and newer light-duty motor
vehicle models, and the resulting test data were an important part of
the basis for EPA's October Waiver Decision, which granted a partial
waiver for use of E15 in those model year and newer motor vehicles. In
2010, DOE began a second phase of its study with eight motor vehicle
models to provide emissions-related data for MY2001-2006 light-duty
motor vehicles. Many of the models were selected for their expected
sensitivity to the effects of long-term use of higher gasoline-ethanol
blends, such as E15, so that any potential emissions problems would be
more likely to become apparent. The test fleet also included several
high-sales volume vehicle models. As a whole, the test fleet was
appropriately composed to provide important information for assessing
the potential impact of E15 on emissions of MY2001-2006 light-duty
motor vehicles.
In view of the ongoing DOE Catalyst Study, the Agency delayed
making a decision on the waiver request for MY2001-2006 light-duty
motor vehicles until the test program was completed and the results
made available to the public. DOE testing was largely completed in
November, and retesting of several models that experienced mechanical
problems unrelated to fuel use was completed in December. The test
results were made available to the public on a rolling basis, with EPA
submitting data to the docket as soon as the data were received and
checked for accuracy and completeness with DOE.
As described more fully in Section IV of this notice, EPA is making
today's decision based on the results of the DOE Catalyst Study and
other relevant test programs, as well as the Agency's engineering
assessment that changes in regulatory requirements affecting MY2001-
2006 light-duty motor vehicles generally led manufacturers to design
and build vehicles able to use E15 without a significant impact on
emissions. Consistent with past waiver decisions, the Agency is making
its decision based on potential effects of E15 in four areas: (1)
Exhaust emissions--immediate \5\ and long-term (known as durability);
(2) evaporative emissions--immediate and long-term; (3) the impact of
materials compatibility on emissions; and (4) the impact of
driveability and operability on emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In past waiver decisions, we have referred to ``immediate''
emissions as ``instantaneous'' emissions. ``Immediate'' and
``instantaneous'' are synonymous in this context.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For MY2001-2006 light-duty motor vehicles, EPA concludes that the
DOE Catalyst Study, other information and EPA's engineering analysis
adequately demonstrate that the impact of E15 on overall exhaust
emissions, including both immediate and long-term, will not cause or
contribute to violations of the exhaust emissions standards for these
motor vehicles. All but one of the vehicles that completed DOE testing
met exhaust emission standards on average after the vehicles
accumulated significant mileage, and were then tested, on E15. Although
one vehicle tested on E15 slightly exceeded one emission standard, the
exceedance does not appear related to fuel use since its counterpart
tested on E0 (gasoline containing no ethanol) exceeded the same
standard. Compliance with emission standards by the E15 test fleet as a
whole is particularly compelling given that the vehicles tested were
older, high mileage vehicles (reflecting their model year), and much of
the testing was conducted at mileages beyond the vehicles' regulatory
``full useful life'' (FUL) of 100,000-120,000 miles, depending on
vehicle type and model year. The test results also show that the
vehicles aged and tested on E15 did not have significantly higher
emissions than the vehicles aged and tested on E0, and some vehicles'
emissions actually decreased on E15. Overall, the test results for
MY2001-2006 are similar to the DOE test results for MY2007 and newer
light-duty motor vehicles, indicating that the earlier model year
vehicles are more like later model year vehicles in their ability to
maintain emission control performance when operated on E15. The DOE
test results thus strongly confirm EPA's engineering assessment that
auto manufacturers responded to regulatory changes applicable to
MY2001-2006 with design changes that made light-duty motor vehicles
capable of maintaining exhaust emissions performance when operated on
mid-level gasoline-ethanol blends, up to and including E15.
With respect to evaporative emissions, EPA concludes that analysis
of test data and other available information and the Agency's
engineering assessment adequately demonstrate for purposes of CAA
section 211(f)(4), with the possible limited exception noted below,
that the impact of E15 on overall evaporative emissions, including both
immediate and durability-related, will not cause or contribute to
MY2001-2006 light-duty motor vehicles exceeding their applicable
evaporative emissions standards, so long as the fuel does not exceed a
Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of 9.0 psi in the summertime volatility
control season.\6\ Analysis of available information suggests, but does
not establish, the possibility that a limited number of vehicle models
with emissions already very close to applicable evaporative emission
standards might exceed the standards in-use if operated on E15.
However, this possibility should be considered in light of information
indicating that use of E15 by those vehicles will, overall, be better
for the environment with respect to in-use evaporative emissions than
would otherwise occur if a waiver were not
[[Page 4664]]
granted. In fact, E15 may result in somewhat lower in-use evaporative
emissions compared to fuel currently sold in almost all of the country
(E10), as a result of differences in the allowable RVP of the two
gasoline-ethanol blends. As such, the possibility of a limited number
of evaporative emission exceedances, under these somewhat unique
circumstances, does not warrant denial of the request for a waiver with
respect to these model year vehicles. Available information on
materials compatibility and driveability also supports a partial waiver
for MY2001-2006 light-duty motor vehicles. Further information and
explanation concerning each of these findings are provided later in
this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ EPA regulates the Reid Vapor Pressure of gasoline sold at
retail stations during the summer ozone season (June 1 to September
15) to reduce evaporative emissions from gasoline that contribute to
ground-level ozone. Gasoline needs a higher vapor pressure in the
wintertime for cold start purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Conditions on Today's Partial Waiver and Proposed Rule on Misfueling
Mitigation
Like the waiver for MY2007 and newer light-duty motor vehicles,
today's partial waiver is subject to several conditions to ensure fuel
quality, limit the fuel's summertime vapor pressure, and mitigate the
potential for other vehicles, engines and products to be misfueled with
E15. Specifically, EPA is placing two types of conditions on the
partial waiver granted today: (1) Those for mitigating the potential
for misfueling of E15 in all vehicles, engines and equipment for which
E15 is not approved; and (2) those addressing fuel and ethanol quality.
All of the conditions are discussed in Section X of the October Waiver
Decision (see 75 FR 68094, 68148 (November 4, 2010)) and are listed
below in Section IV. EPA is applying the same conditions on
introduction of E15 into commerce for use in MY2001-2006 light-duty
motor vehicles that it applied to use of E15 in MY2007 and newer such
vehicles, and for the same reasons, as explained in the October Waiver
Decision. To meet the misfueling-related conditions, any fuel or fuel
additive manufacturer subject to this waiver must obtain EPA approval
of and implement a plan that meets the conditions for ensuring that the
fuel or fuel additive is only introduced into commerce for use in
MY2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles, and not for use in other
on- and off-road vehicles, engines and equipment for which E15 is not
approved. See Section VI below.
To help ensure that E15 is used only in motor vehicles for which it
is approved, EPA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
published concurrently with the October Waiver Decision (``Misfueling
Mitigation NPRM,'' 75 FR 68044, November 4, 2010). In that NPRM, EPA
proposed safeguards to provide the most practical way to mitigate the
potential for misfueling of other vehicles, engines and equipment with
E15. The Agency received many comments in response to the NPRM,
particularly with regard to the proposed misfueling mitigation
measures. EPA is now in the process of considering those comments in
developing final mitigation measures so that vehicles, engines and
products are appropriately fueled if E15 is introduced into commerce.
As noted above, today's waiver decision authorizes, but does not
require, E15 to be introduced into commerce (subject to several
conditions), and a number of additional steps must be taken before that
occurs. In addition, any significant shift in the marketplace from E10
to E15 will take time as producers, distributors and suppliers make the
necessary adjustments. EPA is developing a program of misfueling
mitigation measures that would work in tandem with the various steps
involved in distributing and marketing E15 so that needed safeguards
are timely and effective.
EPA expects that the mitigation measures that are adopted would
satisfy the misfueling mitigation conditions of the partial waiver
decision issued in October and today, and would promote the successful
introduction of E15 into commerce. In addition to the misfueling
mitigation conditions, E15 and the ethanol used to make E15 must also
meet certain fuel and fuel additive quality specifications before it
may be introduced into commerce.
II. Introduction
Section II of the October Waiver Decision includes a comprehensive
review of the relevant CAA provisions and the amendments made to those
provisions by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. It also
describes Growth Energy's waiver application and the public review
process that EPA conducted as part of its consideration of the
application. Today's partial waiver decision fully incorporates by
reference Section II of the October Waiver Decision and provides
additional information as needed to address the potential use of E15 in
MY2001-2006 light-duty motor vehicles.
III. Method of Review
A full explanation of the method of review for waiver requests
under CAA section 211(f)(4) is provided in Section III, Method of
Review, in the October Waiver Decision. We fully incorporate by
reference Section III of the October Waiver Decision into this partial
waiver decision. For convenience, a brief description of our method of
review is provided here.
Section 211(f)(4) clearly places upon the waiver applicant the
burden of establishing that its fuel or fuel additive will not cause or
contribute to the failure of vehicles or engines to meet their assigned
emission standards over their useful lives. If interpreted literally,
however, this burden of proof would be virtually impossible to meet as
it requires the proof of a negative proposition: that no vehicle or
engine will fail to meet emission standards to which it is subject.
Recognizing that Congress contemplated a workable waiver provision, EPA
has previously indicated that reliable statistical sampling and fleet
testing protocols is one approach that could be used to demonstrate
that a fuel or fuel additive under consideration would not cause or
contribute to motor vehicles in the applicable national fleet failing
to meet their applicable emissions standards.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 43 FR 41425 (September 18, 1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has also stated that an applicant may make a demonstration
based upon a reasonable engineering theory regarding emissions effects
and support these judgments with confirmatory testing as an alternative
to providing the amount of data necessary to conduct robust statistical
analyses.\8\ If a reasonable theory exists, based on good engineering
judgment, which predicts the emission effects of a fuel or fuel
additive, an applicant need only conduct a sufficient amount of testing
or provide other data and analysis sufficient to demonstrate the
validity of such a theory.\9\ In making a waiver determination, EPA
reviews all of the material in the public docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See 44 FR 12244 (February 23, 1979).
\9\ See Waiver Decision on Application of E.I. DuPont de Nemours
and Company (DuPont), 46 FR 6124 (February 28, 1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For EPA to grant a waiver, the available information must be
sufficient to answer the essential statutory question of whether the
proposed fuel or fuel additive will impact emission controls such that
it causes or contributes to vehicles and engines exceeding their
emission standards. What specific types of information and analysis may
be relevant for assessing a specific fuel or fuel additive depends in
part on the physical and chemical characteristics of the proposed fuel
or fuel additive and the emission controls it would affect. Applicable
methods of review and the type of information sufficient to make the
required showing thus vary as necessary and appropriate for addressing
the emission control
[[Page 4665]]
issues that a proposed fuel or fuel additive raises. As discussed
below, the grant of a partial waiver in this case is based on a
combination of engineering assessment, test data, and other
information, which together provide a reliable factual and technical
basis for making the judgment required under section 211(f)(4). This
approach is consistent with the discretion provided under the statute
and EPA's recognition in prior waiver decisions that more than one
approach can be used to make the determination required under the
statute, including combinations of test data and engineering
assessment.
As noted previously, the emissions impact analysis for a waiver
request must address the following four major areas \10\: (1) Exhaust
emissions, immediate and long-term; (2) evaporative emissions,
immediate and long-term; (3) materials compatibility; and (4)
driveability and operability. EPA evaluates the emissions impacts in
these four categories individually and collectively in making its
waiver determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 44 FR 12244 (February 23, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhaust and evaporative emissions data are analyzed according to
the effects that a fuel or fuel additive is predicted to have on
emissions over time. A fuel might have only an immediate effect on
emissions (i.e., the emission effects of the fuel or fuel additive are
immediate and remain constant throughout the life of the vehicle or
engine when operating on the waiver fuel). A fuel might instead or in
addition affect the operation of the engine or related emission control
hardware in a physical manner (e.g., operating temperatures, component
interaction, chemical changes, increased permeation, or materials
degradation) that might lead to emissions deterioration over time.
Depending on the type of effect a fuel may have, different types of
testing or other information may be appropriate to evaluate the effect
on emissions.
Materials compatibility issues can lead to substantial exhaust and
evaporative emissions increases. In most cases, materials compatibility
issues show up in emissions testing; however, there may be impacts that
do not show up due to the way the testing is performed or because the
tests simply do not capture the effect.
A change in the driveability of a motor vehicle that results in
significant deviation from normal operation (i.e., stalling,
hesitation, etc.) could result in increased emissions. These increases
may not be demonstrated in the test cycles used for certifying vehicles
as complying with emission standards, but they are present during in-
use operation. For example, a motor vehicle stall and subsequent
restart can result in a significant emissions increase. Further,
concerns exist that vehicles might be tampered with in an attempt to
correct the driveability issue and emissions might increase as a
result.
IV. Analysis for MY2001-2006 Light-Duty Motor Vehicles
As described in detail below, DOE and other test data together with
other available information and EPA's engineering analysis support
granting a partial waiver for use of E15 in MY2001-2006 light-duty
motor vehicles. As with EPA's waiver decision for MY2007 and newer
light-duty motor vehicles, the DOE Catalyst Program provided critically
important test data for assessing the ability of MY2001-2006 light-duty
motor vehicles to meet applicable exhaust emission standards if
operated on E15. DOE's test fleet was carefully assembled to be broadly
representative of the national fleet for those model years and to
discern any emission problems that might arise from use of E15. Results
from DOE's testing strongly support a determination that E15 will not
cause or contribute to MY2001-2006 light-duty motor vehicles exceeding
their applicable exhaust emission standards. Analysis of other test
data, including EPA compliance information, combined with EPA's
engineering assessment shows that MY2001-2006 light-duty motor vehicles
should generally be able to meet evaporative emission standards when
operated on E15 so long as the fuel does not exceed a RVP of 9.0 psi in
the summertime volatility control season. In fact, such vehicles should
have somewhat lower evaporative emissions when operated on 9.0 psi E15
than when operated on currently available in-use fuel. Although our
analysis suggests the possibility that a relatively small number of
vehicles already emitting at close to applicable evaporative emission
standards may exceed those standards on E15, that possibility does not
warrant denial of the waiver, particularly in light of the evaporative
emission benefits that 9.0 psi E15 is expected to achieve in comparison
to commercially available in-use fuel.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ As explained later in this notice, EPA has traditionally
interpreted and applied CAA section 211(f)(4) to authorize a waiver
for fuels or fuel additives that statistical analysis shows will not
result in a significant increase in violations of the vehicle
emissions standards. Even if EPA were to adopt a more stringent test
for waiver decisions, it would not apply such a test in these
circumstances, where the actual environmental impact of the fuel is
neutral or positive. In the unique circumstances here, the potential
emissions violation should not be considered significant, given
their actual impact on in-use emissions is neutral or even positive.
Also, since the EPA regulations for determining auto manufacturers'
compliance with emission standards specify use of E0 fuel during
compliance testing, manufacturers' compliance status will not be
adversely affected by any emission failures that might occur in-use
as the result of any immediate emissions impacts of E15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the October Waiver Decision, EPA discussed at length Growth
Energy's request and the information provided by Growth Energy in its
waiver application and by the public in comments on the request. As the
Agency noted, the information provided for light-duty motor vehicles
was generally not specific to model years. EPA described and addressed
that information in discussing its decisions for MY2007 and newer
light-duty motor vehicles and MY2000 and older light-duty motor
vehicles. Rather than repeat the full discussion in the October Waiver
Decision, we incorporate it by reference here and expand on it below as
needed to address MY2001-2006 light-duty motor vehicles.
At the outset of our analysis for MY2001-2006 light-duty motor
vehicles, it is useful to note that our analysis for these model years
is somewhat different from that used for MY2007 and newer light-duty
motor vehicles. DOE's Catalyst Study tested a large number of MY2007
and newer light-duty motor vehicles representing a cross section of the
fleet. The size of the MY2007 and newer motor vehicle test fleet
allowed a statistical analysis of the potential impact of a fuel or
fuel additive on exhaust emissions. DOE's data and EPA's analysis of
that data provided much of the basis for EPA's determination that E15
will not cause or contribute to MY2007 and newer light-duty motor
vehicles failing to meet applicable emission standards. The data and
analysis also confirmed EPA's engineering assessment that regulatory
changes applicable to those model years likely resulted in
manufacturers making design changes that allowed the vehicles to
continue to comply with exhaust emission standards when operated on
E15. For the other factors relevant to waiver determinations (e.g.,
evaporative emissions, materials compatibility), EPA employed
engineering judgment based on and/or confirmed by available
information, including data from DOE and other test programs.
For MY2001-2006 light-duty motor vehicles, DOE tested fewer vehicle
models but selected models for their expected sensitivity to ethanol
blends
[[Page 4666]]
and to achieve broad representation of the national vehicle fleet for
these model years. As a result, while DOE's test fleet does not include
enough vehicles to allow the same statistical analysis conducted for
MY2007 and newer light-duty motor vehicles, it is composed in a way
that provides data that is very informative about the expected effects
of E15 on the in-use fleet, and confirms the engineering assessment
that regulatory requirements applicable to MY2001-2006 light-duty motor
vehicles resulted in emission control improvements sufficient to
maintain compliance with applicable exhaust standards if these vehicles
are operated on E15. For MY2001-2006 light-duty motor vehicles, EPA is
thus utilizing a broad range of evidence relevant to making waiver
decisions under CAA section 211(f)(4) and considering the DOE Catalyst
Study in combination with other available test data and information and
EPA's engineering assessment in determining whether a waiver for these
model years is appropriate.
In evaluating Growth Energy's waiver request with respect to
MY2001-2006 light-duty motor vehicles, EPA considered the potential
impact of E15 on the four relevant emission-related categories listed
previously. The technical issue is whether these motor vehicles would
still meet the applicable emission standards over their fuel useful
life if they operated in-use on E15 and emissions testing was performed
using E15 as the fuel.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Compliance with vehicle and engine standards is determined
for certification and in-use (i.e., recall) purposes using federal
test procedures which include a specified test fuel that is E0. The
purpose of the waiver process under CAA section 211(f)(4) is to
determine whether a vehicle operated on the fuel or fuel additive
for which a waiver is requested (here E15) would meet applicable
emission standards after operating in-use and then testing using
that fuel. In that way, section 211(f)(4) helps protect the emission
control effectiveness of vehicles operated under real-world
conditions, which ultimately determines the amount of emission
reductions achieved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In considering the potential impact of E15 on the four factors, we
focused on MY2001-2006 light-duty motor vehicles subject to pre-Tier 2
emission standards (i.e., the standards in effect before Tier 2
standards applied to all light-duty motor vehicles). As described in
the October Waiver Decision, Tier 2 standards began phasing in with
MY2004 and, according to EPA certification information, were fully
phased in by MY2007 for passenger cars and several categories of light-
duty trucks. EPA expected, and DOE testing confirmed, that Tier 2
standards and related compliance requirements prompted manufacturers to
make changes to vehicles that helped maintain emission control under
real-world conditions, including fueling with E10. The applicability of
Tier 2 standards was thus found to be an important basis for partially
granting the waiver request for MY2007 and newer model light-duty motor
vehicles.
Since Tier 2 standards began to phase in with MY2004, many MY2004-
2006 light-duty motor vehicles are subject to Tier 2 standards. Indeed,
as illustrated by Figure IV.A-1, more than 60% of MY2005, and more than
80% of MY2006, light-duty motor vehicles are certified as complying
with Tier 2 standards. EPA's reasons for partially granting the waiver
with respect to MY2007 and newer light-duty motor vehicles also apply
to MY2004-2006 Tier 2 vehicles. However, in its October Decision, EPA
did not grant the partial waiver with respect to MY2004-2006 Tier 2
vehicles because the Agency expected most vehicle owners for those
model years would not know what emission standards their vehicles are
supposed to meet, and that information is not easily discerned from the
vehicle itself. EPA thus decided to use a model year cut-off for
delineating which model years were covered by the partial waiver. For
purposes of today's decision, though, it is important to note that
MY2004-06 vehicles certified to Tier 2 standards should be able to use
E15 without adverse impacts on their emissions for the reasons given in
the October Waiver Decision. The analysis in today's decision focuses
on light-duty motor vehicles that are not certified to Tier 2
standards.
A. Exhaust Emissions
As described below, a number of regulatory actions took place by
2000 that placed emphasis on real-world testing of motor vehicles,
which in turn led to changes in design of exhaust emission control
systems. Those actions, together with actual compliance information,
provide a strong basis for an engineering assessment that manufacturers
improved exhaust emission controls for MY2001-2006 light-duty motor
vehicles in ways similar in nature to Tier 2 motor vehicles and are
likely sufficient to allow such vehicles to use E15 and still meet
exhaust emission standards. DOE's testing of pre-Tier 2 vehicle models
(including several expected to be sensitive to ethanol's impact on
emissions control) strongly confirms that assessment and demonstrates
that MY2001-2006 light-duty motor vehicles can operate on E15 without
significant impact on exhaust emission control and that E15 is not
expected to cause or contribute to failures to meet applicable exhaust
emissions standards.
1. Long-term (Durability) Exhaust Emissions
The October Waiver Decision describes at length various changes in
regulatory requirements since the 1970s that over time have required
auto manufacturers to design and build increasingly cleaner vehicles
that can maintain their emission control performance over the vehicles'
FUL under real-world conditions. For today's decision, we focus on
those changes that were applicable by or affected MY2001, since those
changes are relevant to any engineering assessment of whether MY2001-
2006 light-duty motor vehicles that are not Tier 2 vehicles would
operate on E15 without significant loss of emission control.
a. Growth Energy's Submission and Public Comment Summary
As mentioned above, Growth Energy's submission and the information
supplied by commenters regarding long-term exhaust emission impacts of
E15 were generally not specific to the model year of motor vehicles.
For a detailed discussion of Growth Energy's submission and summary of
public comments with respect to the impact of long-term use of E15 on
exhaust emissions, refer to section IV.A.1 for MY2007 and newer light-
duty motor vehicles and IV.C.3.b.i for MY2000 and older light-duty
motor vehicles of the October Waiver Decision.
b. EPA Analysis and Durability Studies
By MY2001, the federal National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program
for reducing exhaust emissions was fully phased in for all cars and
light-duty trucks (LDT) up to 6000 lb. gross vehicle weight (GVW) (LDT
1s and 2s) (63 FR 926, January 7, 1998).\13\ This program essentially
adopted the existing California LEV standards (which began phasing in
for California with MY1994) as a national vehicle program. NLEV motor
vehicles were required to meet more stringent emission standards for
emissions of all criteria pollutants,\14\ which in turn required
substantial
[[Page 4667]]
changes to emission control hardware and strategies compared with motor
vehicles certified to the previous Tier 1 standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The program was fully phased in by MY1999 in the Northeast
Trading Region (the region comprised of the states that meet the
conditions specified under 40 CFR 86.1705(d)) within the NLEV
program. The states that opted in include Connecticut, Delaware, the
District of Columbia, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Virginia.
\14\ Criteria pollutants are those pollutants, including
precursors, for which EPA has set National Ambient Air Quality
Standards under CAA section 109.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light-duty trucks from 6001-8500 lb. GVW (e.g., large pickup trucks
and vans, known as LDT 3s and 4s) were not subject to NLEV standards,
and instead transitioned directly from Tier 1 to Tier 2 standards. Many
of the improvements made for smaller light-duty motor vehicles (i.e.,
catalyst designs and washcoat formulation) may have been applied to
these motor vehicles. These motor vehicles also emit at levels
substantially below their applicable federal standard because, as
discussed later in this section, many were also certified to a more
stringent California emission standard. This ``compliance margin,''
which is the difference between a vehicle's certified emission level
and the applicable standard, suggests these heavier light-duty trucks
benefited from at least some of the advances in exhaust emission
controls developed for lighter trucks, and, in any event, can continue
to comply with standards even if operated on E15, as discussed below.
Issuance in 2000 of more stringent Tier 2 standards (65 FR 6698,
February 10, 2000) also affected manufacturers' planning. To comply
with those standards, including compliance over vehicles' FUL,\15\
manufacturers were required to focus on ensuring the durability of the
exhaust and evaporative emission controls of their vehicles under real-
world conditions. Although Tier 2 standards only began to phase in with
MY2004, manufacturers were allowed to earn credit towards compliance
with those standards in earlier model years. As a result, they had a
strong incentive to develop and apply emission control hardware and
strategies resembling future Tier 2 designs to earlier model year
light-duty motor vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ FUL is 100,000 miles for NLEV passenger cars and light-duty
truck category 1; 120,000 miles for NLEV light-duty truck category
2; and 120,000 miles for Tier 1 light-duty truck categories 3 and 4.
Light-duty trucks up to 6000 lbs. GVW are composed of light-duty
truck categories 1 and 2 where category 1 has a loaded vehicle
weight equal to 3,750 lbs. and category 2 has a loaded vehicle
weight greater than 3,750 lbs. Light-duty trucks of 6001-8500 lbs.
GVW are composed of light-duty truck categories 3 and 4 where
category 3 has an adjusted loaded vehicle weight less than or equal
to 5,750 lbs and category 4 has an adjusted loaded vehicle weight
greater than 5,750 lbs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, the transition from Tier 1 to NLEV and then to Tier 2
exhaust standards called for design changes that all moved in the same
direction of increased control of exhaust emissions, through
increasingly sophisticated emissions control systems aimed at reducing
the level of emissions created by the combustion of the fuel in the
engine combined with increased control of these emissions by the
catalyst system. This increasing sophistication was based on better air
fuel ratio control, and increased efficiency, durability and faster
light-off of the catalyst. While Tier 2 standards called for the most
sophisticated engine and catalyst system designs, the NLEV standards
prompted major redesign efforts by manufacturers that were later
expanded and advanced even further to meet, and earn credits towards
compliance with, Tier 2 standards. From an engineering perspective, the
emissions control systems of pre-Tier 2, NLEV vehicles are
significantly more robust than those used in MY2000 and older vehicles
and more like those of Tier 2 vehicles in terms of the degree of
sophistication of engine controls and catalyst technology.
Review of the emission control and related changes made by
manufacturers for MY2001-2006 confirms that the LEV and NLEV programs
involved use of more sophisticated technologies and strategies. From
its decades-long role in certifying and overseeing in-use compliance of
light-duty motor vehicles, EPA is aware that manufacturers made a
number of improvements to reduce emissions at cold start, provide
better fuel control, and make their emission control systems more
durable. These improvements included independent catalysts per bank on
V-engines, higher cell density catalyst substrates with thinner cell
walls for lower thermal inertia/faster light-off, stereo oxygen sensors
on V-engines, and improved catalyst washcoats with improved light-off
and better resistance to thermal deterioration.\16\ In addition,
manufacturers improved oxygen sensor designs for better durability and
improved oxygen sensor heater control strategies to reduce the
likelihood of cracking due to thermal shock. These technologies were
developed even further for Tier 2 vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Close-coupled faster light-off catalysts, faster light-off
oxygen sensors, and more sophisticated cold start strategies enable
faster transition from open loop to closed loop operation for
reduced cold start emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The phase-in of these various exhaust emission control programs for
MY2001-2006 light-duty motor vehicles is shown in Figure IV.A-1. As the
figure illustrates, the percentage of Tier 2 vehicles significantly
increased between MY2004 and MY2006 such that the large majority of the
MY2005 and MY2006 light-duty motor vehicle fleet met the more stringent
standards applicable to MY2007 and newer motor vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Interim Non-Tier 2 refers to MY2004 or newer vehicles not
certified to Tier 2 FTP exhaust emission standards during the Tier 2
phase in period. Interim Non-Tier 2 emission standards included all
of the Tier 2 emission standard bins in addition to bins unique to
the Interim Non-Tier 2 program. The Interim Non-Tier 2 fleet average
NOX standard was 0.30 g/mi compared to the Tier 2 fleet
average NOX standard of 0.07 g/mile. The Interim Non-Tier
2 standards were more stringent than both the NLEV and Tier 1
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4668]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26JA11.006
Another important regulatory change for improving the exhaust
emissions control durability of MY2001-2006 light-duty motor vehicles
was the Compliance Assurance Program (``CAP2000''), which took effect
by MY2000 for light-duty motor vehicles. CAP2000 placed more emphasis
on in-use performance of vehicle emission controls, including the
potential impacts of operation on different available in-use fuels. In
particular, the In-use Verification Program (IUVP) introduced under
CAP2000 requires manufacturers to perform exhaust and evaporative
emissions tests on customer vehicles in the in-use fleet to confirm the
durability projections that manufacturers make at certification. These
tests must be performed at low and high mileage intervals and include
at least one vehicle per test group \18\ at 75% of FUL. This emphasis
on real-world vehicle testing to ensure durable emission controls
prompted manufacturers to consider different commercially available
fuels (including ethanol blends up to E10) when developing and testing
their emissions systems for MY2000 and later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section VI.A of the Misfueling Mitigation NPRM describes the
growing market penetration of E10 over time. In the late 1990s, when
manufacturers were planning for MY2001, national availability of E10
was increasing, and E10 was already the predominant form of gasoline
sold in several major metropolitan areas. For example, by 2000, E10
comprised nearly 15% of the U.S. gasoline market, and for certain major
metropolitan areas such as Chicago and Milwaukee, the gasoline market
entirely shifted to E10 by around 1996. With the advent of CAP2000 and
with E10 pervasive in several major markets, manufacturers had a strong
incentive to plan for ethanol exposure in designing for durable
emissions performance.
Finally, the Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (SFTP) compliance
requirements began to phase in with MY2001 and were fully phased in
with MY2004. These standards further increased manufacturers'
incentives to design emissions controls that would be durable in use
and with exposure to available gasoline-ethanol blends. The SFTP
compliance requirements expanded motor vehicle emission testing to
better represent actual consumer driving habits and conditions by
including the US06 test (a high speed and high acceleration cycle) and
the SCO3 test (an air conditioning test cycle run in a environmental
test chamber at 95 [deg]F). In response to these requirements,
manufacturers developed increasingly robust emissions control systems
capable of withstanding the higher engine and catalyst temperatures
experienced during these more severe cycles without simply relying on
enrichment of the air-to-fuel ratio (which causes increased emissions)
for temperature control. This improved ability to handle higher
temperatures would also help emission control
[[Page 4669]]
systems withstand enleanment \19\ from ethanol use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Enleanment refers to increasing the amount of oxygen in the
mixture of air and fuel that enters the engine for combustion.
Enrichment refers to increasing the amount of fuel in that mixture.
At any one air to fuel ratio, adding ethanol to the fuel adds
additional oxygen to the mixture of air and fuel, tending to enlean
the mixture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another consideration in our engineering analysis is the extent to
which MY2001-2006 light-duty motor vehicles, when tested on E0 (as
required for determining auto manufacturers' compliance with emission
standards), emit at levels below the applicable standards and therefore
have a compliance margin. Compliance margins are generally designed
into motor vehicles by manufacturers to account for possible variations
in production vehicles and changes to vehicle emissions control systems
from actual field usage, such as the type of driving employed and the
type of fuel used. The larger the compliance margin, the more likely it
is that vehicles would accommodate any emissions increases from fueling
with E15 and continue to meet emission standards in-use. As discussed
in more detail later in this decision, a survey of certification data
\20\ shows that the average FUL compliance margin (which accounts for
in-use deterioration) projected at the time of certification for the
entire MY2001-2006 light-duty motor vehicle fleet was approximately
66%. In-use data from the IUVP program indicates that motor vehicles
actually achieved a similar compliance margin when operated in real-
world conditions. The size of the compliance margins for MY2001-2006
light-duty motor vehicles suggests manufacturers were in fact designing
and building motor vehicles that were significantly cleaner than
required as part of a planned migration to technologies capable of
meeting the tighter Tier 2 standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ These data are submitted by manufacturers to EPA's
Certification and Fuel Economy Information System to demonstrate
compliance with the applicable emission standards and are part of
the application process to receive a certificate of conformity. The
CAA requires that all motor vehicles be covered by a certificate of
conformity before they may enter into commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our engineering analysis of the expected impact of
relevant regulatory changes and certification and IUVP data, we believe
that the regulatory changes affecting MY2001-2006 light-duty motor
vehicles prompted manufacturers to design those MY2001-2006 vehicles
using technology similar to the technology used for Tier 2 motor
vehicles. As with Tier 2 motor vehicles, these technology changes would
be expected to maintain the durability of the performance of emission
control systems when motor vehicles are operated on E10 and also allow
the motor vehicles to operate over time on E15 without significant
changes in exhaust emissions. The designs of the emission control
systems of MY2001-2006 light-duty motor vehicles also included a large
compliance margin to address, among other things, variations in in-use
driving patterns and fuels, and this large compliance margin would be
expected to offset exhaust emissions increases that might be associated
with the long-term use of E15. The combination of these factors leads
to the engineering conclusion that the long-term use of E15 by MY2001-
2006 light-duty motor vehicles is not expected to lead to significant
emission increases and to cause or contribute to failures to meet
applicable exhaust emissions standards.
i. Description of DOE Catalyst Study for MY2001-2006 Motor Vehicles
The results of DOE's Catalyst Study for MY2001-2006 light-duty
motor vehicles provide strong confirmation that those vehicles should
be able to operate on E15 and continue to comply with applicable
exhaust emission standards. As described in detail below, DOE selected
vehicle models so that the test fleet would broadly represent the
national MY2001-2006 light-duty motor vehicle fleet and be likely to
reveal any adverse emissions impacts from long-term operation on E15.
DOE also followed all other aspects of the test protocol it used for
MY2007 and newer motor vehicle testing to assure appropriate and
consistent rigor in testing of MY2001-2006 motor vehicles. DOE test
results indicate that the changes manufacturers made to MY2001-2006
light-duty motor vehicle emission controls, calibration, hardware,
etc., in response to regulatory changes in fact resulted in vehicle
exhaust emissions control systems, including the catalyst, that are
capable of withstanding the additional enleanment caused by E15 and
maintaining exhaust emission performance on E15 over the FUL of the
motor vehicles.
To evaluate the actual impacts of E15 on MY2001-2006 light-duty
motor vehicles, DOE tested eight MY2000-2003 motor vehicle models,\21\
including high sales volume models produced by several light-duty motor
vehicle manufacturers. The specific purpose of the program was to
evaluate the long-term effects of E0, E10, E15, and E20 on catalyst
durability of MY2001-2006 light-duty motor vehicles that were subject
to pre-Tier 2 standards (i.e., NLEV or Tier 1). A number of criteria
were used to select motor vehicle models for the program. In
particular, vehicle selection was based on high sales volume models so
that the test fleet would be broadly representative of the in-use
fleet. Since the number of models tested for MY2001-2006 was not as
large as the number tested for newer model years, models were also
selected for expected emissions related sensitivity (particularly in
terms of their ability to apply learned fuel trim from closed loop to
open loop operation \22\) so that the test fleet would be more likely
to include vehicles that would reveal any adverse impacts of E15. In
addition, one-half of the motor vehicle models were selected for their
likely sensitivity to ethanol-gasoline blends as indicated by the
results the Coordinating Research Council (CRC) Mid-level Ethanol
Blends Catalyst Durability Study Screening (E-87-1). CRC is a research
organization comprised of auto manufacturers and oil companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The MY2000 vehicle models selected were representative of
all MY2001 and later pre-Tier 2 vehicles since they were certified
as meeting Tier 1 or NLEV standards.
\22\ See October Waiver Decision Section IV.A for a full
discussion of the relevance of learned fuel trim to waiver
determinations for gasoline-ethanol blends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Testing of all vehicles followed the same protocol as that used for
MY2007 and newer light-duty motor vehicles, although the NLEV or Tier 1
vehicles were all used vehicles with relatively high mileage due to
their age. See Table IV.A-1--Vehicle Attribute Summary for the list of
specific models.
[[Page 4670]]
Table IV.A-1--Vehicle Attribute Summary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Vehicle Summary Engine Emissions standard Starting odometer
-------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- (x1000 miles)
Engine Family -------------------
Year Vehicle Disp Config NMOG CO NOX E0 E15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Research Institute
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000......... Chevrolet Silverado 5.3 V8 YGMXT05.3181............ Tier 1/LDT 3....... 0.460 6.4 0.98 111 112
2002......... Nissan Frontier.... 2.4 I4 2NSXT02.4C4B............ NLEV (LEV)......... 0.130 5.5 0.5 95 91
2002......... Dodge Durango...... 4.7 V8 2CRXT04.75B0............ Tier 1/LDT 3....... 0.460 6.4 0.98 71 60
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation Research Center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003......... Toyota Camry....... 2.4 I4 3TYXV02.4HHA............ ULEV............... 0.055 4.2 0.3 77 77
2003......... Ford Taurus........ 3 V6 3FMXV03.0VF3............ NLEV (LEV)......... 0.090 4.2 0.3 93 88
2003......... Chevrolet Cavalier. 2.2 I4 3GMXV02.2025............ NLEV (LEV)......... 0.090 4.2 0.3 78 81
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Testing Corp
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000......... Honda Accord....... 2.3 I4 YHNXV02.3PF3............ NLEV (LEV)......... 0.090 4.2 0.3 106 95
2000......... Ford Focus......... 2 I4 YFMXV02.0VF3............ NLEV (LEV)......... 0.090 4.2 0.3 103 85
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For testing purposes, at least two vehicles of the same model were
matched to prevent confounding of the data by differences in vehicle
attributes. Specifically, the test group, engine displacement,
evaporative emissions control family, model year, powertrain control
unit calibration, axle ratios, wheel size, and tire size were
constrained to be identical within a vehicle set. Physical inspections
of the vehicles were conducted to eliminate obviously problematic
vehicles (such as those with gross fluid leaks, obvious and excessive
body damage, etc.). Odometer reading was also used to identify
candidate vehicles with the goal of restricting the difference in
odometer readings within a vehicle set to a maximum of 10,000 miles in
order to facilitate data comparisons between the vehicles. One vehicle
from each set was aged on E0, one was aged on E15, and each vehicle was
tested on both E0 and E15. Additional vehicles were aged on E20 or
E10.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ As discussed previously, EPA relied on the vehicles using
E15 and E0 for aging and test results, as that allows the emissions
impact of the candidate fuel to be compared to the emissions impact
of the fuel used for testing for compliance with the certification
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The assignment of a particular vehicle to a particular fuel was
random and was accomplished prior to conducting any emissions tests on
the vehicles. Obtaining suitable matched sets of vehicles was
challenging for several of the older model year vehicles for the simple
reason that these were older vehicles with various driving histories.
As a result, there were a few instances where it was necessary to test
vehicles with mileages that were not within the 10,000 mile odometer
range target for matched vehicles in order to obtain a suitably-matched
set of vehicles.
ii. DOE Catalyst Study Results
As noted above, the results from the DOE Catalyst Study for MY2001-
2006 light-duty motor vehicles confirm the engineering analysis that
long-term use of E15 is not expected to lead to significant emissions
increases or contribute to those vehicles exceeding their exhaust
emission standards over their FUL. Emission test results and the
applicable emission standards \24\ for the vehicles aged on E0 (``E0
vehicles'') and the vehicles aged on E15 (``E15 vehicles'') at the
start, middle, and end of the test program are shown in Tables IV.A-2
and 3. There were no trends or patterns that appeared fuel related. No
significant increases in long-term exhaust emissions were observed with
the E15 vehicles. Furthermore, the test results show that the vehicles
aged and tested on E15 did not have significantly higher emissions than
the vehicles aged and tested on E0, and some vehicles' emissions
actually decreased on E15. Overall, the exhaust emission test results
across test vehicles were generally similar with regard to
deterioration and failure rates to the test results observed for the
Tier 2 vehicle test fleet (which included some MY2005 and 2006 motor
vehicles) and discussed in the October Waiver Decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Total hydrocarbons (THC), non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC),
non-methane organic gases (NMOG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and carbon
monoxide (CO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All E15 vehicles except one were below their emissions limits at
the end of the test. One E15 vehicle exceeded its non-methane organic
gas (NMOG) emissions limits at the end of the test program. The
vehicle, a 2000 Honda Accord, was just above its FUL NMOG standard
after 50,000 miles of aging.\25\ The exceedance of the NMOG standard
did not appear to be related to E15 since the NMOG emissions of the E0
counterpart motor vehicle also exceeded the standard after only 25,000
miles of aging. Two other E0 motor vehicles (2003 Chevy Cavalier and
2003 Toyota Camry) also failed the NMOG standard but their E15
counterpart did not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ In general, EPA may take action to compel a manufacturer to
recall and remedy a problem after determining that a substantial
number of properly maintained and operated vehicles fail to conform
to EPA standards in actual use. EPA will use the information from
the DOE test program to help it identify future
