92185 00890

July 2, 2014

Miriam Lederer

Federal Trade Commission

Office of the Secretary

Room H-113 (Annex N)

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

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

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

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.

1

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

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.

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

2

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

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 6.6

:

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.

3

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

volume.

Finally, the ASTM octane rating analytical methods, D2699-12a Standard Test Method for

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.

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.

4

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%

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.

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 “mid-

level 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.

5

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

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 FLEX-

FUEL VEHICLES,” we believe the proposed language stating “MAY HARM OTHER ENGINES”

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.

As stated above, RFA believes the language stating “MAY HARM OTHER ENGINES” is

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

to a large automaker.

6

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.

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.