92185 00890

User Manual: 92185

Open the PDF directly: View PDF PDF.
Page Count: 8

Download92185 00890-92185
Open PDF In BrowserView PDF
July 2, 2014
Miriam Lederer
Federal Trade Commission
Office of the Secretary
Room H-113 (Annex N)
600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20580
RE:

Fuel Rating Rule Review, 16 CFR Part 306, Project No. R811005

Dear Ms. Lederer,
The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) is pleased to submit the attached comments in
response to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) proposed amendments to the Rule for
Automotive Fuel Ratings, Certification and Posting that would provide guidance for
ethanol/gasoline blends and would allow an alternative octane rating.
RFA is the leading trade association for America’s ethanol industry. Its mission is to advance
the development, production, and use of the fuel ethanol by strengthening America’s industry
and raising awareness about the benefits of renewable fuels. Founded in 1981, RFA serves as
the premier meeting ground for industry leaders and supporters. RFA’s 300-plus members are
working to help America become cleaner, safer, more energy secure and economically vibrant.
As an initial matter, FTC’s proposal appears to overlook the fact that industry needs related to
specifications, standard practices, regulatory language, and labeling for ethanol/gasoline blends
have been addressed through the actions of standards development organizations and
regulatory entities. These bodies, which include ASTM and the National Conference on Weights
and Measures (NCWM), have adopted numerous changes to ethanol/gasoline blend
specifications and other technical provisions since FTC first sought comment on updating
automotive fuel ratings in 2009. As currently constructed, the FTC proposed amendments would
conflict with a number of these advancements by ASTM, NCWM and other bodies. We believe
FTC should recognize and adopt these changes—many of which have already been
implemented broadly across the fuels industry—before moving forward with any modifications to
the Fuel Rating Rule. Our attached comments provide a detailed review of pertinent updates
undertaken by consensus-driven standards setting bodies, including ASTM and NCWM.
Further, FTC’s proposal to disclose the percentage ethanol content in ethanol/gasoline blends
to the nearest interval of 10 poses important challenges for the marketplace that FTC apparently

has not considered. In many cases (particularly those involving “ethanol flex fuels” meeting
ASTM D5798), this element of the proposal could conflict with existing industry marketplace
practices and standards.
RFA is also concerned by FTC’s proposal requiring the inclusion of language stating “May Harm
Other Engines” on labels for ethanol/gasoline blends intended for use in Flex Fuel Vehicles
(FFVs). We believe such a warning is superfluous, speculative, and prejudicial. FFVs and
ethanol flex fuels have been in the market for nearly two decades. During this time, labels
advising drivers that flex fuels are for use in FFVs only have sufficiently informed consumers
and adequately deterred misfueling. We are not aware of any credible evidence showing that
misfueling has been a problem at flex fuel dispensers, nor are we aware of any concrete
scientific evidence that one-time inadvertent misfueling does in fact cause significant and
irreparable “harm” to engines. Still, to the extent FTC proceeds with the proposed language, the
Commission should be consistent and require similar language on labels for other fuels.
Finally, we support FTC’s proposal to maintain the current certification scheme used by
blenders of ethanol fuel blends for pump labeling; the ethanol content can continue to be
declared via letter (or product transfer documents) to ensure ethanol content pump labeling is
appropriate. We believe the current certification scheme used by blenders has proven accurate
and efficient.
In closing, we encourage FTC to review and integrate the important advancements by ASTM
and NCWM before finalizing amendments to the Fuel Rating Rule. We further recommend
reconsideration of the proposed labeling language and ethanol content disclosures. RFA’s
recommendations for FTC are attached.

Sincerely,

Bob Dinneen
President

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published a proposed rule on April 4, 2014, describing
proposed amendments to the Rule for Automotive Fuel Ratings, Certification and Posting (“Fuel
Rating Rule”). According to FTC, the proposed amendments are intended to “…further the
Rule’s goal of helping purchasers identify the correct fuel for their vehicles.” The Renewable
Fuels Association (RFA) offers the comments below in response to the FTC proposal.
1. Regulatory entities and standards development organizations have adopted
numerous changes to ethanol/gasoline blend specifications, standard practices,
regulatory guidance, and model language since FTC first proposed to update
automotive fuel ratings in 2009. FTC should recognize and adopt these changes
before moving forward with any modifications to the Fuel Rating Rule.
FTC’s proposal appears to ignore the fact that industry needs related to specifications, standard
practices, regulatory language, and labeling have been addressed through the actions of
standards development organizations and regulatory entities. RFA recommends that FTC
recognize and adopt these developments before proceeding with further action on the Fuel
Rating Rule.
a. RFA recommends that FTC adopt the most current version of ASTM fuel
specifications and standards to capture important recent modifications and
developments.
It appears that FTC is proposing to adopt the 2010 versions of various ASTM standards
regarding ethanol/gasoline blends, despite the fact that there are more recent versions
containing important advancements and additional information. The ASTM D02 Petroleum
Products, Liquid Fuels and Lubricants committee has made significant changes to motor fuel
standards that are pertinent to the Fuel Rating Rule. Specifically, the D5798-13a Standard
Specification for Ethanol Fuel Blends for Flexible-Fuel Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines;
D7794-12 Standard Practice for Blending Mid-Level Ethanol Fuel Blends for Flexible-Fuel
Vehicles with Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines; and both standard test methods for
determining the octane number (D2699-12a Standard Test Method for Research Octane
Number of Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel and D2700-12a Standard Test Method for Motor Octane
Number of Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel ) contain important information that should be considered
by FTC as it contemplates potential changes to the Fuel Rating Rule.
The current version of D5798 lowers the allowable denatured fuel ethanol content in “flex fuels”
from 70% to 51% by volume to facilitate blending of ethanol fuel blends that meet seasonal
vapor pressure requirements. Achieving the necessary minimum vapor pressure requirements
of D5798 had previously been challenging due to the continued lowering of the maximum vapor
1

pressure for gasoline. For example, due to the required 7 psi vapor pressure of gasoline in
California, blending E85 in accordance with D5798 to achieve a minimum of 5.5 psi fuel blend
with a minimum 68% ethanol content by volume was impossible. To eliminate this conundrum,
restrictions of the minimum ethanol content by seasonality were removed from the specification
and a universal minimum ethanol content of 51% was incorporated. To mitigate concerns from
flexible-fuel vehicle manufacturers regarding cold weather operability, a fourth volatility class
was developed specific to northern geographies. The Task Force also introduced a new term
for fuel intended for use in flexible-fuel vehicles of “ethanol flex fuel.” We recommend that FTC
utilize the ASTM specification and terminology for “ethanol flex fuel” when addressing
ethanol/gasoline blends containing 51-83% denatured fuel ethanol, rather than the proposed
term “ethanol blend.”
In 2008, ASTM initiated a new task force to develop guidelines for mid-level ethanol fuel blends
(containing above 15% and below 51% denatured fuel ethanol); these fuel blends are restricted
by EPA for use only in flex-fuel vehicles. Over the next several years, the task force discussed
the best path forward for describing the performance needs of mid-level ethanol fuel blends and
how best to communicate these requirements to fuel blenders. The task force successfully
developed and published the D7794-12 Standard Practice for Blending Mid-Level Ethanol Fuel
Blends for Flexible-Fuel Vehicles with Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines in 2012. The D7794
Standard Practice applies to the blending of ethanol fuel blends spanning the ethanol volume
range not covered by either the D4814 Standard Specification for Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel or
the D5798 fuel specification. The Task Force intentionally included recommendations for
identifying and labeling mid-level ethanol fuel blends at retail in Section 6. Blending Procedures,
subsection 6.5 and 6.61:
6.5 It is recommended that Mid-Level Ethanol fuel blends be identified as “Mid-Level
Ethanol Blend.” It is also recommended that the product description name be followed by
the term EXX, where XX represents the nominal percentage of denatured fuel ethanol
and that each fuel dispenser offering Mid-Level Ethanol Fuel Blends provide a
cautionary statement advising the purchaser that the fuel is “For Flexible-Fuel Vehicles
Only.”
6.6 Target ethanol contents for the various mid-level ethanol fuel blends covered by this
practice could follow a general practice of EXX +/- 5 volume %.
RFA led the effort to develop an ASTM document to assist the retail industry with mid-level
ethanol fuel blends being dispensed from retail blender pumps. A blender pump, also known as
a multiple product dispenser, draws two fuels from separate storage tanks and mixes them
together in various percentages to form a variety of fuel choices for the station’s customers.2 We
1

ASTM International, D7794-12 Standard Practice for Blending Mid-Level Ethanol Fuel Blends for
Flexible-Fuel Vehicles with Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines
2
Blending Fuels magazine, Blend Your Own Ethanol, Fall 2010.

2

estimate there are approximately 300 blender pumps in service that are primarily dispensing
mid-level ethanol fuel blends with 20-85% ethanol content. This ASTM Standard Practice is
currently being utilized by state fuel programs as the guideline for regulating mid-level ethanol
fuel blends. It is also being considered for formal adoption into state fuel requirements. RFA
recommends FTC recognize the ASTM D7794-12 standard and the terminology “mid-level
ethanol blends” when addressing flex fuels with ethanol content above 15% and below 51% by
volume.
Finally, the ASTM octane rating analytical methods, D2699-12a Standard Test Method for
Research Octane Number of Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel and D2700-12a Standard Test Method
for Motor Octane Number of Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel were updated in 2012 to include
precision statements on ethanol gasoline fuel blends containing up to 25% by volume ethanol.
RFA encourages FTC to recognize the most current version of these two critical analytical
methods that include the expanded precision statements in the automotive fuel rating rule.
b. RFA recommends adoption of the consensus model language for ethanol
fuel blends developed by the National Conference on Weights and
Measures.
Since 2011, the National Conference on Weights and Measures’ (NCWM) Fuels and Lubricants
Subcommittee (FALS) has been developing proposed language for the NIST Handbook 130 in
the “Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities” and the “Uniform Engine Fuels
and Automotive Lubricants Regulation” sections. The proposed language includes text specific
to the identification and labeling of ethanol fuel blends that can only be used in flexible fueled
vehicles.
NCWM’s FALS is a broad cross section of state regulatory officials and industry representatives
from auto manufacturing, oil refining, ethanol producing and retail fuel marketing. During the
process, there was considerable outreach to stakeholders beyond the FALS members. FALS
gained consensus on the proposed wording for ethanol flex fuel blends in the fall of 2013 and
recommended full and swift adoption of the comprehensive proposal by the NCWM Laws and
Regulations Committee. This language has received no negative comments and is expected to
be approved by the National Conference of Weights and Measures at the Annual Meeting being
held in July 2014. The updated Regulations would first appear in the 2015 version of the NIST
Handbook 130. RFA recommends that FTC adopt identical wording as published in the NCWM
Publication 16 for 2014, L&R Committee 2014 Interim Agenda items 232-6 and 237-9.
2. FTC’s proposal to disclose the percentage ethanol content in ethanol/gasoline
blends to the nearest interval of 10 creates important challenges for the
marketplace that FTC apparently has not considered.

3

In many cases, the proposal to disclose the percentage ethanol content in ethanol/gasoline
blends to the nearest interval of 10 could conflict with existing industry practices and standards.
Further, the proposal could create challenges for the marketplace that were apparently not
considered or addressed by FTC.
The proposal poses challenges to current ASTM specifications. As mentioned previously, the
D5798 specification prescribes the necessary performance criteria for fuel blends with a
minimum of 51% denatured fuel ethanol by volume. Under the FTC proposal, a fuel blended to
the D5798 specification at 51-54% denatured fuel ethanol would be labeled as “50%
ETHANOL/USE ONLY IN FLEX-FUEL VEHICLES/MAY HARM OTHER ENGINES.” However,
a 50% ethanol blend is not supported by the D5798 specification. Thus, the FTC proposal and
existing ASTM specification (already adopted by the fuels industry) are in conflict and this would
create confusion for both the fuel supply chain and the consumer.
Further, the actual ethanol content of “ethanol flex fuel” (i.e., blends containing 51-83% ethanol)
can vary over time at the same retail location. Reasons for the fluctuation in the ethanol content
include blending economics, ambient temperature, and other factors. Thus, for example,
“ethanol flex fuel” at a particular retail location may contain 83% ethanol in the fall, but just 60%
ethanol in the winter. Under the FTC proposal, it is unclear how the retailer would label his
“ethanol flex fuel” dispenser in this situation. Would the retailer be required to change the label
from “80% ETHANOL…” in the fall to “60% ETHANOL…” in the winter? A requirement to
change the label every time the ethanol content fluctuates would be burdensome, costly, and
confusing. Or would the retailer be required to simultaneously post multiple labels for every
possible variant of ethanol content in the “ethanol flex fuel” offered at the pump? Such a
requirement would only confuse consumers about the actual ethanol content of the fuel.
The current version of ASTM D5798 was constructed in a flexible way that allows the ethanol
content of “ethanol flex fuel” to vary with market conditions, weather requirements, and other
factors. We believe FTC’s proposal should respect this intended flexibility and integrate the
specification into any new or modified labeling requirements for “ethanol flex fuels.” This could
be easily accomplished by replacing the current FTC label for E85 (stating “E85/Minimum 70%
Ethanol”) with a new label stating “ETHANOL FLEX FUEL/ Minimum 51% ETHANOL/ USE
ONLY IN FLEX-FUEL VEHICLES.”
RFA is not opposed to the proposal to use 10 percentage point increments on labels for “midlevel ethanol blends.” Under such a labeling scheme blends containing 16-24% ethanol would
be labeled “20% ETHANOL”; blends containing 25-34% ethanol would be labeled as “30%
ETHANOL”; blends containing 35-44% ethanol would be labeled as “40% ETHANOL”; and
blends with 45-50% ethanol would be labeled as “50% ETHANOL.” This would be generally
consistent with current voluntary labeling of mid-level ethanol blends at existing blender pumps.

4

3. RFA opposes the inclusion of the text “MAY HARM OTHER ENGINES” on labels
for ethanol/gasoline blends intended for use in Flex Fuel Vehicles (FFVs). The
proposed text “USE ONLY IN FLEX-FUEL VEHICLES” alone provides sufficient
guidance to consumers about proper use of ethanol/gasoline blends.
In addition to disclosing the percentage ethanol content, FTC proposes to require
ethanol/gasoline blend labels to include the text “USE ONLY IN FLEX-FUEL VEHICLES/MAY
HARM OTHER ENGINES.” While we support the inclusion of the text “USE ONLY IN FLEXFUEL VEHICLES,” we believe the proposed language stating “MAY HARM OTHER ENGINES”
is superfluous, speculative, and prejudicial.
FFVs and ethanol flex fuels have been in the market for nearly two decades. During this time,
labels advising drivers that flex fuels are for use in FFVs only have sufficiently informed
consumers and adequately deterred misfueling. We are not aware of any credible evidence
showing that misfueling has been a problem at flex fuel dispensers that simply advise the
consumer that the fuel is designed for use in FFVs only. The proposed language suggesting
that ethanol flex fuels “MAY HARM OTHER ENGINES” does not appear to be based on
scientific evidence and would undoubtedly deter some FFV drivers from purchasing the fuel,
even if they know their vehicle is designed and warranted for the use of such fuels.
4. If FTC requires inclusion of the text “MAY HARM OTHER ENGINES” on labels for
ethanol/gasoline blends intended for FFVs, it should require that the same text be
included on labels for other fuels intended for specific applications.
As stated above, RFA believes the language stating “MAY HARM OTHER ENGINES” is
unnecessary and prejudicial. Still, to the extent FTC proceeds with the proposed language, the
Commission should be consistent and require similar language on labels for other fuels. In this
proposal, FTC states that it has a responsibility to “provide sufficient information for many
consumers to understand whether the fuel is appropriate for their engines.” However, FTC is
apparently proposing the “MAY HARM OTHER ENGINES” language for ethanol flex fuel and
mid-level ethanol blend labels only. In the interest of consistency, fairness, and protection of all
fuel consumers (i.e., not just non- FFV owners), FTC must give universal consideration to
requiring the inclusion of the “MAY HARM OTHER ENGINES” language on labels for all fuels.
There are many fuels in the marketplace today that “may harm engines” that were not designed
to operate on the particular fuel. For example, gasoline with an octane rating below 87 AKI is
available in the marketplace today, despite the fact that automobile manufacturers warn that use
of such fuel can void warranties and damage engines. Further, inadvertently dispensing diesel
fuel into a spark-ignition engine or vice versa (i.e., gasoline dispensed into a compression
ignition engine) can “void engine warranty” and “cause expensive engine damage…” according
to a large automaker. 3 There is evidence that inadvertently dispensing diesel fuel into gasoline
3

General Motors letter to Wendy Clark, ASTM D02.A0 Subcommittee Chairwoman, June 26, 2012.

5

engines is far more common than misfueling involving ethanol flex fuels. Yet, FTC does not
require—and is not proposing to require—that diesel dispensers or gasoline dispensers display
labels advising consumers that the fuel “MAY HARM OTHER ENGINES” that are not intended
for its use.
Thus, if FTC opts to proceed with the “MAY HARM OTHER ENGINES” language for
ethanol/gasoline blend labels, the Commission must give consideration to universally applying
such warning language to all fuels.
5. RFA supports the exemption of E15 from the proposed modifications to the Fuel
Rating Rule, given that E15 labeling requirements are already addressed through
EPA regulations.
We agree that FTC should exempt “fuel meeting EPA’s E15 waiver from [FTC Fuel Rating Rule]
labeling requirements.” As recognized by FTC, E15 is already subject to labeling requirements
and other provisions intended to prevent misfueling under exiting EPA regulations.
*****
RFA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the FTC proposal and we look forward to
continued discussions with the Commission and other stakeholders on this matter. If you have
questions regarding these comments, please contact Kristy Moore at kmoore@ethanolrfa.org or
Geoff Cooper at gcooper@ethanolrfa.org.

6
Source Exif Data: 
File Type                       : PDF
File Type Extension             : pdf
MIME Type                       : application/pdf
PDF Version                     : 1.7
Linearized                      : Yes
Has XFA                         : No
Tagged PDF                      : Yes
Page Count                      : 8
EXIF Metadata provided by EXIF.tools

Navigation menu