EO12866_E15 Misfueling Mitigation Measures Rule 2060-AQ17 Final Rulemaking Document_2011/03/28

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
 40 CFR Part 80
 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0448; FRL-XXXX-X]
 RIN 2060-AQ17

 Regulation To Mitigate the Misfueling of Vehicles and Engines With Gasoline Containing Greater Than Ten Volume Percent Ethanol and Modifications to the Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline Programs

 AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

 ACTION:  Final Rule.
 _______________________________________________________________________

 SUMMARY:  In two recent actions under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA granted partial waivers that allow gasoline containing greater than 10 volume percent (vol%) ethanol up to 15 vol% ethanol (E15) to be introduced into commerce for use in model year (MY) 2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles, subject to certain conditions.  In today's action, EPA is establishing several measures to mitigate misfueling of other vehicles, engines and equipment with E15 and the potential emissions consequences of misfueling.  Specifically, the rule prohibits the use of gasoline containing more than 10 vol% ethanol in vehicles, engines and equipment not covered by the partial waiver decisions.  The final rule also requires all E15 gasoline fuel dispensers to have a specific label when a retail station or wholesale-purchaser consumer chooses to sell E15.  In addition, the rule requires that product transfer documents (PTDs) specifying ethanol content and Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) accompany the transfer of gasoline blended with ethanol, and a survey of retail stations to ensure compliance with E15 labeling, ethanol content and other requirements.  The rule also modifies the Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) program by making changes related to the use of E15.

 DATES: This final rule is effective on [insert date], 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

 ADDRESSES:  EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0448.  All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov web site. 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 electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, 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 legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566 - 1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566 - 1742.

 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Robert K. Anderson, Office of Transpiration and Air Quality, Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 1310 L St., N.W., Washington, D.C.; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

 Does this Action Apply to Me?

 Entities potentially affected by this action include those involved with the production, importation, distribution, marketing, or retailing of diesel fuel and production of gasoline.  Categories and entities affected by this action include:

 Category
 NAICS[1] Codes
 SIC[2] Codes
 Examples of Potentially Regulated Entities
 Industry
 Industry
 Industry
 Industry

 Industry
 Industry
 324110
 325193
 424710
 424720

 454319
 447190
 2911
 2869
 5171
 5172

 5989
 5541
 Petroleum Refineries
 Ethyl alcohol manufacturing
 Petroleum bulk stations and terminals
 Petroleum and petroleum products merchant wholesalers
 Other fuel dealers
 Gasoline service stations
 Marine service stations
 Truck stops

 This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action; however, other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected.  To determine whether your entity is affected by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria of Parts 79 and 80 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations.  If you have any question regarding applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Outline of This Preamble

I. Executive Summary
	A.  Proposed Rule
	B.  Final Mitigation Measures
	C.  Other Mitigation Measures
	D.  Emissions Impacts of the Rule
	E.  Related Regulatory Changes
	F.  Liability Issues
II. Background
      A. Statutory Authority
      B. E15 Partial Waivers
      C. The Proposed Misfueling Mitigation Measures Rule
      D. Reasons for the Actions in this Rulemaking
III.  Misfueling Mitigation Program
			A.  Misfueling Prohibition
      B.  Labeling Requirements
      1.  Proposed approach
      2. Consideration of Comments
            a.  Choice of Word for Warning
               b.  Description of Motor Vehicles That Can Use E15
               c.  Statements About Prohibition and Damage
            d.  Addressing Non-English Speakers
            e.  Portable Containers
            f.  Color, Size, Shape, Font, and Placement of the Label
            g.  Separate Labels for Different Levels of Ethanol
		3.  Final Pump Labeling Requirements
       C. Product Transfer Document Requirements
				1.  PTD Requirements Downstream of the Point of Ethanol Addition
				2.  PTD Requirements Up to and Including the Point of Ethanol Addition
      3.  General PTD Requirements
      D.  Ongoing Implementation Survey
      	1. Proposed Approaches and Consideration of Comments
                  a. General Survey Comments
                  b. Survey Option 1
                  c. Survey Option 2
      2. Final Survey Requirements
      E.  Program Outreach
      F.  Other Misfueling Mitigation Measures
      	1.  Need for More Mitigation Measures
      	2.  Specific Suggestions for Additional Mitigation Measures
      		a. Distinctive Hand Warmers for E15 Dispensers
      		b. Keypad/Touch Screen Information/Confirmation
      		c. Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)
      		d. Requiring the Continued Availability of E10 and/or E0
      G.  Modification of the Complex Model and VOC Adjustment Rule
      	1.  Proposed Approach and Consideration of Comments
                  a.  Representation of VOC Emissions from Permeation in the Complex Model
      		b.  Representation of NOx and Toxic Emissions in the Complex Model
                  c.  Adequacy of the Guerreri/Caffrey Study Used to Justify Modification of the Complex Model
                  d.  Representation of Other Renewable Fuels and Fuel Additives at Levels in the Complex Model
                  e.  Modification of the VOC Adjustment for RFG in Chicago and Milwaukee
		2. Final Approach Concerning the Complex Model and the VOC Adjustment Rule
IV. Other Issues Addressed by Commenters
      A.  Cost of Compliance
      B.  The Applicability of the Statutory 1.0 psi RVP Waiver to E15
	C.  RVP and E15 Underground Storage Tank Transition
      D.  Credit for RFG Downstream Oxygenate Blending
      E.  Compliance, Enforcement and Warranty
		1.  Proposed Approach
      2.  Consideration of Comments
      	a. Prohibited Acts and Liability Provisions
      	b. Emissions Warranty Issues for Vehicles, Engines, and Equipment
      	c. Other Issues Outside of CAA Jurisdiction
		3.  Final Requirements
      F.  Technical Basis for the Rule
      G.  The Effect of the Rule on the Misfueling Mitigation Conditions of the Partial Waivers
      H.  E15 Emissions and Anti-backsliding
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
      A.  Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
      B. Paperwork Reduction Act
      C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
      D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
      E.  Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
      F.  Executive Order 13175
      G.  Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
      H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
      I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
      J.  Executive Order 12898:  Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.
	K.  Congressional Review Act
VI.  Legal Authority and Judicial Review
	A.  Legal Authority
	B.  Judicial Review

I.  Executive Summary

      In today's final rule, EPA is establishing several measures to mitigate the potential that E15 might be used to fuel vehicles, engines and equipment for which E15 has not been approved for introduction into commerce.  These regulations are being issued in conjunction with EPA's two recent decisions to grant partial waivers for E15 under section 211(f)(4) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).  The partial waivers allow the introduction into commerce of E15 for use in model year (MY) 2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles (cars, light-duty trucks and medium-duty passenger vehicles).  The E15 partial waivers impose a number of conditions designed to help ensure that E15 is introduced into commerce for use only in MY2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles and in flexible-fueled vehicles, and not for use in any other vehicles, engines or equipment.  Some of the regulatory provisions in this action parallel those waiver conditions and are expected to be a more efficient way to minimize in-use emission increases that might result from misfueling with E15.  The misfueling mitigation measures adopted today ensure that fuel providers have a strong incentive to properly blend and label E15 and consumers have a strong incentive to avoid misfueling.  By effectively addressing the potential for misfueling, the measures should also have the benefit of facilitating the successful introduction of E15 into commerce.

      A. Proposed Rule

      EPA proposed four regulatory provisions to address concerns about potential misfueling:  (1) a prohibition against the use of gasoline containing more than 10 vol% ethanol in vehicles, engines and equipment not covered by the partial waiver decisions, specifically MY2000 and older motor vehicles, heavy-duty gasoline engines and vehicles, on and off-highway motorcycles, and nonroad engines, vehicles, and equipment; (2) labeling requirements for fuel pumps that dispense E15 to alert consumers to the appropriate and lawful use of the fuel; (3) the addition to product transfer documents (PTDs) of information regarding the ethanol content of, or the level of ethanol that may be added to, fuel being sold to retail stations or wholesale purchaser-consumers so that E15 may be properly blended and labeled; and (4) an ongoing implementation survey requirement to ensure that E15 is in fact being properly blended and labeled (75 FR 68044, Nov. 4, 2010).  EPA explained that it has used such strategies to implement several fuels programs over the past 30 years, and that the proposed measures should effectively mitigate misfueling and the associated emissions impacts while enabling the use of E15 in appropriate motor vehicles.  The E15 misfueling mitigation waiver conditions and a substantial consumer education and outreach effort will also contribute to achieving this result.  The Agency asked for comment on its proposed requirements and on several other options, including whether additional misfueling mitigation measures might be appropriate.
      EPA received over 80 comments from fuel providers, manufacturers of vehicles, engines and gasoline-powered equipment, boat owners, States, and environmental groups.  While a number of comments raised continuing concerns with EPA's decision to grant the partial waivers, all acknowledged the importance of an effective misfueling mitigation program and provided thoughtful suggestions about how the Agency's proposed regulations might be improved or supplemented.

      B. Final Mitigation Measures

      After carefully considering the public comments, we are finalizing the four proposed misfueling mitigation measures with a number of changes designed to enhance their effectiveness and more carefully tailor them to their purpose.  Specifically, we are adopting the prohibition on misfueling.  The comments we received were generally supportive of the prohibition in view of EPA's decision to deny the E15 waiver request for MY2000 and older light-duty motor vehicles, heavy-duty gasoline engines and vehicles, motorcycles and nonroad products because of the emissions increases that could result if E15 (or higher gasoline-ethanol blends) were used, particularly over time, in those vehicles, engines and products.  With adoption of the misfueling prohibition, gasoline and ethanol producers, distributors, retailers and consumers have a legal obligation not to make, distribute, sell or use gasoline containing more than 10 vol% ethanol for or in vehicles, engines and equipment not covered by the partial waiver decisions.
      To provide consumers with information at the pump to avoid misfueling, we are adopting an E15 pump label that reflects many commenters' suggestions and our consultation with consumer labeling experts at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).  Before EPA issued its partial waiver decisions, FTC had proposed labels for gasoline-ethanol blends containing more than 10 vol% ethanol to address issues within its jurisdiction.  Commenters on our proposed E15 label urged us to work with FTC to develop a coordinated labeling program to avoid multiple, potentially conflicting labels.  Commenters also recommended that we seek advice from labeling experts.  In developing today's final labeling requirements, we consulted with FTC consumer labeling experts and other staff about effective label design and potential coordination with FTC labels.
      EPA's final E15 label incorporates public and FTC staff suggestions for more simply and effectively communicating the information consumers need to avoid misfueling with E15.  The label also adopts FTC's color scheme for alternative fuel labels and other aspects of the design of FTC's proposed gasoline-ethanol blend labels so that the two agencies' labels could work together as a coordinated labeling scheme for gasoline-ethanol blends containing more than 10 vol% ethanol.  We believe that the final E15 label provides consumers with the key information they need about the appropriate use of E15.
      Today's rule also includes PTD and implementation survey requirements that have been revised and refined in response to public comments to better accomplish their purpose.  We are requiring that PTDs provide more pertinent information, and we are providing more flexibility in how that information is conveyed to help ensure that fuel producers, distributors and retailers have the information they need to properly blend, track and label E15.  For surveys of whether E15 is being properly blended and labeled, we are providing options that allow the businesses involved to match the geographic scope of an ongoing survey to their business plans and to share the cost of surveys among themselves as they see fit.  We are also requiring that surveys collect RVP information for fuel samples labeled as E15 to help ensure implementation of the waiver condition that E15 be limited to 9.0 psi RVP in the summertime.  In the aggregate, these measures will provide strong incentives for fuel providers to properly blend and label E15 and for consumers to avoid misfueling.
      Relatedly, we are adopting our proposed interpretation that CAA section 211(h)(4) provides a 1.0 psi RVP waiver and related compliance provision only to gasoline-ethanol blended fuels containing between nine and 10 vol% ethanol, in light of the terms and legislative history of the relevant statutory provisions.

      C.  Other Mitigation Measures

      EPA received a number of comments expressing concern that the proposed misfueling mitigation measures would not adequately mitigate misfueling.  Several of the comments suggested that the Agency issue one or more additional measures in this final rule, although only a few commenters provided specific recommendations.  A later section of this notice reviews those comments and EPA's analysis of several other measures.  Overall, we conclude that the misfueling mitigation measures required by today's rule should be effective, and that requiring additional measures is not necessary or appropriate at this time.
      As explained in the proposed rule, EPA drew on its experience with the recent transition to ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) in developing the E15 misfueling mitigation proposal.  Several commenters contended that the transition to unleaded gasoline that occurred several decades ago provided more applicable lessons, including the need for additional mitigation measures.  After considering those comments, and as fully discussed later in this notice, EPA continues to believe that the misfueling mitigation measures adopted today are reasonable, appropriate and sufficient to address E15 misfueling concerns.  We expect that the E15 label will provide consumers with the key information they need to make appropriate fuel choices, and that the prohibition against misfueling will provide additional incentives for all parties to minimize misfueling.  The PTD and survey requirements will provide fuel blenders, distributors and retailers with the information they need to properly blend, track and label E15 and confirmation that E15 has been properly made and sold.  In addition to these required measures, retailers and other fuel providers may employ any other strategies they believe would further reduce the risk of misfueling under their particular circumstances.  For example, retailers that serve a significant population of boat or small equipment owners can evaluate whether it is appropriate under their circumstances to post signs that specifically address misfueling of those products.  We encourage consideration of additional measures as may be helpful in a fuel provider's specific circumstances.  By taking additional, tailored steps, retailers and other fuel providers can provide examples of other misfueling mitigation measures that may also be effective in reducing the risk of misfueling.
      In deciding what mitigation measures to require at this time, we also considered what we do, and do not, know about the introduction of E15 into the marketplace.  The partial waivers that EPA has granted to E15 do not require that E15 be made or sold.  The waivers merely allow fuel or fuel additive manufacturers to introduce E15 into commerce if they meet the waivers' conditions.  Other federal, state and local requirements must also be addressed before E15 may be sold.  While EPA is working to address issues within its jurisdiction, it is ultimately up to businesses to decide whether, when and how to market E15.  In light of the various decisions that need to be made by various parties, we expect that the transition to E15, like the transition to E10, will occur over several years and begin in some parts of the country before becoming broadly available.  In the process, business decisions will be made about how to market E15 (e.g., the price of E15 and its use for a particular grade of gasoline).
      As the transition to E15 occurs, we plan to work with industry, state, environmental and consumer stakeholders to track developments and evaluate the effectiveness of the mitigation measures required by today's rule.  We are already in the process of working with the ethanol industry and other stakeholders to help establish a public education and outreach campaign to assist fuel producers, distributors, retailers and consumers in understanding how E15 may be made, distributed, sold and used.  Our recent experience with the transition to ULSD fuel shows that a stakeholder-led campaign can work synergistically with labeling requirements and provide another means of providing important information to everyone involved in fuel production, distribution and use.  Establishing a similar campaign for E15 can also provide a forum for identifying and resolving any issues that may develop as E15 moves into the marketplace.

      D.  Emissions Impacts of the Rule

      These misfueling mitigation regulations are issued under CAA section 211(c) to mitigate and minimize the emission increases that would occur if E15 (or a higher gasoline-ethanol blend) is used in vehicles, engines, and products for which the E15 waiver was denied, specifically, MY2000 and older motor vehicles and all heavy-duty gasoline engines and vehicles, motorcycles and nonroad products.  As described below in Section IV.F and in the E15 partial waiver decisions, our assessment of the potential emission consequences of E15 use indicates that the emission-related components of MY2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles are durable for use on gasoline-ethanol blends up to E15.  This conclusion is based on the results of the Department of Energy (DOE) Catalyst Study and other relevant test programs, as well as the Agency's engineering assessment of advances in motor vehicle technology and materials that have taken place in response to a series of important exhaust and evaporative emissions requirements since 2000 and in-use experience with E10.
      Unlike for MY2001 and newer motor vehicles, there is very little, if any, test data with respect to the effect of E15 use in MY2000 and older light-duty motor vehicles and all heavy-duty gasoline engines and vehicles, motorcycles, and nonroad products.  In addition, our engineering assessment for these vehicles, engines, and products identifies a number of emission-related concerns with the use of E15 (or a higher gasoline-ethanol blend).  For motor vehicles, these concerns include the potential for catalyst deterioration or catalyst failure as well as material compatibility issues that could lead to extremely elevated exhaust and evaporative emissions.  For motorcycles and nonroad products, the misfueling concerns include the potential for elevated exhaust and evaporative emissions, as well as the potential for emissions impacts related to engine failure from overheating.  It is not possible to precisely quantify the frequency at which these vehicles, engines, and products might experience problems with the use of E15.  However, we believe that emission-related problems could potentially occur with enough frequency that the avoided emissions increases from reduced or prevented  misfueling would more than outweigh the relatively low cost imposed by the required misfueling mitigation regulations.  The potential emission increases from misfueling warrant today's action, even if a very low percentage of vehicles, engines, and products experience problems.

      E.  Related Regulatory Changes

      In addition to misfueling mitigation measures, today's action also finalizes slight modifications to the Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) and Anti-dumping (conventional) gasoline fuels programs to open the way for refiners and importers to produce and certify gasoline containing up to 15 vol% ethanol.  For gasoline to be sold in the U.S., it must comply with the RFG and Anti-dumping standards.  To comply with the RFG and Anti-dumping standards, the emissions performance of gasoline is calculated using a model, called the Complex Model, which predicts the emissions of regulated pollutants based on the measured values of certain fuel properties.  The equations in the model were limited to an oxygen content of no more than 4.0% by weight in gasoline, which is the maximum possible amount of oxygen in E10.  EPA has modified the Complex Model to allow fuel manufacturers to certify batches of E15 fuel and made a related change to certain volatile organic compound (VOC) standards, in response to comments.

      F.  Liability Issues

      In today's notice, EPA also addresses issues that many commenters raised concerning liability or responsibility for potential consequences of the use of, or transition to, E15.  According to a number of commenters, fuel providers are unlikely to sell E15 until liability issues are resolved.  EPA is not in a position to resolve all of the liability issues raised by commenters, but we do address those within our jurisdiction and clarify the responsibilities of various parties, including fuel producers, distributors, retailers, product manufacturers and consumers, for compliance with misfueling prohibitions and vehicle and engine warranty and other requirements under the Clean Air Act.  In general, we believe the long-standing approach of EPA's fuels programs and warranty regulations to assigning respective responsibilities for compliance with our regulations is also appropriate for E15.  We believe that the required label and other misfueling mitigation measures will minimize consumer use of E15 in other vehicles and products and any liability issues that might arise from or be attributed to misfueling with E15.  A public outreach campaign is expected to reinforce the misfueling mitigation measures.  Also, to the extent fuel providers determine that it is appropriate to further reduce the risk or potential of consumer misfueling, they may take additional misfueling mitigation measures that they believe could be useful in showing they did not encourage or otherwise cause the misfueling.
      With regard to other transition issues within EPA's jurisdiction, we are continuing to make progress in developing guidance for determining whether existing underground storage tank systems are compatible for storing E15.  We also plan to work with stakeholders to monitor and facilitate efforts to address other transition issues involving state, local and other requirements.

II.  Background

	A.  Statutory Authority

	CAA section 211(f)(1) makes it unlawful for any manufacturer of any fuel or fuel additive to first introduce into commerce, or to increase the concentration in use of, any fuel or fuel additive for use in motor vehicles manufactured after model year 1974 unless it is substantially similar to any fuel or fuel additive utilized in the certification of any model year 1975, or subsequent model year, vehicle or engine under section 206 of the Act.
      Section 211(f)(4) of the Act provides that upon application by any fuel or fuel additive manufacturer, the Administrator may waive the prohibition of section 211(f)(1).  A waiver may be granted if the Administrator determines that the applicant has established that the fuel or fuel additive , and the emission products of such fuel or fuel additive , will not cause or contribute to a failure of any emission control device or system (over the useful life of the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, nonroad engine or nonroad vehicle in which such device or system is used) to achieve compliance with the emission standards to which the vehicle or engine has been certified.  In other words, the Administrator may grant a waiver for an otherwise prohibited fuel or fuel additive if the applicant can demonstrate that the fuel or fuel additive will not cause or contribute to engines, vehicles or equipment failing to meet their emissions standards over their useful life.
      EPA previously issued a ``substantially similar'' interpretive rule for unleaded gasoline which allows oxygen content up to 2.7% by weight for certain ethers and alcohols.  E10 contains approximately 3.5% oxygen by weight, which means E10 is not ``substantially similar'' to certification fuel under the current interpretation.  As explained at 44 FR 20777 (April 6, 1979), E10 received a waiver of the substantially similar prohibition by operation of law because EPA did not grant or deny a waiver request for E10 within 180 days of receiving that request.  At the time of the E10 waiver request, CAA section 211(f)(4) provided for waivers to be granted by operation of law, but that aspect of section 211(f)(4) was later removed by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
      Section 211(c)(1) of the Act allows the Administrator, by regulation, to "control or prohibit the manufacture, introduction into commerce, offering for sale, or sale of any fuel or fuel additive for use in a motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or nonroad engine or nonroad vehicle (A) if, in the judgment of the Administrator, any fuel or fuel additive or any emission product of such fuel or fuel additive causes, or contributes, to air pollution or water pollution (including any degradation in the quality of groundwater) that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health or welfare, or (B) if emission products of such fuel or fuel additive will impair to a significant degree the performance of any emission control device or system which is in general use, or which the Administrator finds has been developed to a point where in a reasonable time it would be in general use were such regulation to be promulgated."  The regulations adopted today are pursuant to this authority, as well as the recordkeeping and information collection authority under CAA sections 208 and 114.

      B.  E15 Partial Waivers

	In 2009, Growth Energy and 54 ethanol manufacturers submitted an application under section 211(f)(4) of the CAA for a waiver for gasoline-ethanol blends of up to 15 vol% ethanol.  On April 21, 2009, EPA published notice of receipt of the application and requested public comment on all aspects of the application to assist the Administrator in determining whether the statutory basis for granting the waiver request had been met (74 FR 18228).
      On October 13, 2010, EPA took two actions on the waiver request based on the information available at that time ("October Waiver Decision").  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.  The October Waiver Decision was based on a determination that E15 will not cause or contribute to a failure of MY2007 and newer light-duty motor vehicles to achieve compliance with the emissions standards to which they were certified under section 206 of the CAA over their useful lives.  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).  On January 21, 2011, EPA partially approved Growth Energy's waiver request to allow the introduction of E15 into commerce for use in MY2001-2006 light-duty motor vehicles after receiving and analyzing the completed DOE test data ("January Waiver Decision").
      EPA issued the partial waiver decisions with several conditions.  The conditions apply to the upstream parties subject to the partial waiver (gasoline refiners/importers, ethanol producers/importers, and ethanol blenders that introduce E15 into commerce), and are designed to ensure that when E15 is introduced into commerce, it will only be used in the appropriate light-duty motor vehicles.  Some of the conditions call for the ethanol blenders, fuel manufacturers (gasoline refiners/importers), and fuel additive manufacturers (ethanol producers/importers) to take various actions to control the distribution and use of their product so that E15 is only used in approved motor vehicles.  The partial waiver decisions impose different conditions on the different parties.  Gasoline refiners/importers, ethanol producers/importers, and ethanol blenders that introduce E15 into commerce are all responsible for making sure that appropriate labeling occurs on fuel pumps to mitigate potential misfueling.  However, this condition, in particular, may be difficult for these parties to satisfy given their limited control over actions taken at retail.  These parties are also responsible for conducting fuel pump labeling surveys to ensure that pumps are properly labeled and that the correct ethanol blends are loaded into the appropriate tanks at retail stations.  Gasoline refiners/importers, ethanol producers/importers, and ethanol blenders must also use PTDs to properly document information regarding the ethanol blends to help ensure proper blending and distribution.

      C.  The Proposed Misfueling Mitigation Measures Rule

      On October 13, 2010, EPA issued a proposed rule to mitigate misfueling and maximize the likelihood that E15 is used only in vehicles for which its sale is approved.  As we explained, the proposed rule was developed to help ensure that E15 is introduced into commerce for use only in MY2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles and in flexible-fueled vehicles, and not for use in any other vehicles, engines or equipment.  Some of the proposed regulatory provisions parallel the partial E15 waiver decision conditions and were expected to be more effective and efficient than the waiver conditions alone in minimizing in-use emissions increases that could result from misfueling with E15.
       EPA held one public hearing regarding the proposed rule on November 16, 2010, in Chicago, IL.  The public comment period for the proposal ended on January 3, 2011, and approximately 80 public comments were submitted.  Today's final rule contains a brief summary of the major comments received, and our responses, on several topics, including the proposed misfueling mitigation measures, changes to the Complex Model, and other issues discussed in the proposal.  Responses to comments not addressed here can be found in a separate document entitled "E15 Misfueling Mitigation Measures Rule Response to Public Comments" which is available in the public docket for this rule [citation].

      D.  Reasons for the Actions in this Rulemaking

      In granting partial waivers for E15, EPA imposed various conditions on fuel or fuel additive manufacturers that use the waivers, including conditions designed to minimize the potential for misfueling.  EPA realizes that ethanol blenders, fuel manufacturers, and ethanol producers may have difficulty satisfying the conditions outlined in the E15 partial waiver decisions, particularly the fuel pump labeling requirements.  Most retail stations are independently owned and operated, which may make it difficult for the ethanol blenders, fuel manufacturers, and ethanol producers to ensure that labels are properly placed on fuel pumps dispensing E15.  However, under CAA section 211(f)(4), EPA can place conditions on fuel or fuel manufacturers but cannot place conditions directly on other parties in the fuel distribution system.  For example, EPA placed the partial waiver conditions on ethanol blenders, fuel manufacturers, and ethanol producers, the parties subject to the prohibition in section 211(f)(1) and thus the parties that benefit from the partial waiver of that prohibition if they choose to make and distribute E15, and not on retail stations.  This tends to make implementation of the waiver conditions, and thus mitigation of misfueling, more difficult and make distribution of E15 less practicable.
      EPA believes that the provisions adopted in today's final rulemaking (i.e. fuel pump labeling, PTDs, and an ongoing implementation survey), are a direct and effective way to minimize the potential for misfueling.  Under CAA section 211(c), EPA has the authority to adopt appropriate controls or prohibitions on the distribution and sale of fuels and fuel additives to avoid emissions increases.  EPA's use of this authority will do that.  Today's rule adopts provisions that create strong incentives to properly blend and label E15 and avoid misfueling.  It provides EPA with appropriate tools for regulatory oversight of the ethanol blenders, fuel manufacturers, and ethanol producers introducing E15 into commerce.  The new provisions, collectively, will maximize the likelihood that E15 is used only in approved motor vehicles and minimize the potential for emission increases that might otherwise occur.  The specific provisions are discussed in detail in Section III.  By effectively addressing the potential for misfueling, the measures should also have the benefit of facilitating the successful introduction of E15 into commerce.

III.  Misfueling Mitigation Program

      As explained above, CAA section 211(c) authorizes EPA to control or prohibit the distribution of a fuel or fuel additive when it will significantly impair emission control systems or the emission products from that fuel or fuel additive will cause or contribute to air pollution that we reasonably anticipate may endanger public health or welfare.  As described in detail below, EPA is exercising this authority to establish a prohibition on the use of gasoline containing more than 10 vol% ethanol in vehicles, engines and equipment not covered by the partial waiver decisions (i.e., MY2000 and older light-duty motor vehicles, and in all heavy-duty gasoline engines and vehicles, motorcycles and nonroad products) in order to prevent or minimize emission increases that could otherwise occur.  We are also requiring gasoline retail stations and wholesale purchaser-consumer facilities that sell E15 to properly label their E15 pumps.  To effectuate these prohibitions, and to more generally limit the use of E15 to MY2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles, we are also requiring that relevant information be conveyed by PTDs, and that a survey designed to demonstrate compliance with labeling, ethanol content and related requirements be conducted.
      As we described in our proposed rule, there are four important components of an effective E15 misfueling mitigation strategy.  First, a prohibition on misfueling establishes a legal barrier against production, distribution, sale or use of gasoline containing more than 10 vol% ethanol in vehicles, engines and equipment not covered by the partial waiver decisions because of the potential consequences for emissions standards compliance violations by those vehicles, engines and equipment.  The prohibition is broadly applicable, including to consumers.  Second, effective labeling is needed to provide consumers with the information they need to avoid misfueling, including information about the prohibition on misfueling and the potential consequences of misfueling.  To be effective, labeling must be done at the point of sale where the consumer is choosing which fuel to use.  Third, retail stations, wholesale purchaser-consumers and fuel blenders need assurance regarding the ethanol content and RVP of the fuel (or blendstock) that they purchase so they can properly blend, store and label E15 and other fuels.  The use of proper documentation in the form of PTDs has proven to be an effective means of ensuring that retail stations and other fuel providers know what fuel they are purchasing.  Fourth, appropriate labeling and fuel sampling surveys are necessary to ensure implementation of E15 content, RVP and labeling requirements that are in turn important to mitigating misfueling and the emissions consequences of misfueling.  Today's rule adopts provisions covering all of these areas.  The Agency has used this general strategy to implement several fuels programs, including the unleaded gasoline program, the RFG program, and the ULSD program.  The fourth component of an effective misfueling mitigation strategy is public outreach and consumer education.  Our experience has shown that consumers need to be engaged through a variety of media to ensure that accurate information is timely conveyed to the owners and operators of vehicles, engines and equipment.
      EPA proposed establishing a misfueling prohibition and E15 labeling, PTD and survey requirements, and sought comments on those and any additional mitigation measures that might be needed to minimize misfueling with E15.  The following sections of this final rule describe each of the proposed measures, the comments we received about that measure, our response to those comments, and the final decisions we made in light of the comments and other available information.  We also discuss several suggestions that some commenters made for other possible mitigation measures, and our conclusion that no additional measures should be required at this time.

      A.  Misfueling Prohibition

	We proposed to prohibit the use of gasoline containing more than 10 vol% ethanol in vehicles, engines and equipment not covered by the partial waiver decisions, specifically MY2000 and older motor vehicles, heavy-duty gasoline engines and vehicles, on and off-highway motorcycles, and nonroad engines, vehicles, and equipment.  The prohibition is similar in nature to the prohibition on producers of fuels and fuel additives under section 211(f)(1).  However, the prohibition in section 211(f)(1) only applies to these upstream parties.  The proposed prohibition would also apply at the retail level as well as to upstream fuel providers and consumers, so that all parties involved in fueling gasoline-powered products would have a legal obligation to avoid misfueling the vehicles, engines and equipment not covered by the partial waivers.
	Most public commenters that addressed this provision supported it in view of EPA's decision to deny a waiver for introduction of E15 into commerce for use in MY2000 and older motor vehicles, heavy-duty gasoline engines and vehicles, on and off-highway motorcycles, and nonroad engines, vehicles, and equipment.  EPA based its denial on the lack of test data on the effect of E15 on emissions from these products and the Agency's engineering judgment that E15 would likely result in significant exceedances of emission standards by these products.
      Several commenters disputed the needed for a misfueling prohibition because, in their view, E15 would not have adverse emissions consequences for the vehicles, engines and equipment not covered by the partial waivers.  In making this argument, the commenters were essentially taking issue with EPA's decision to deny the E15 waiver for these products.  However, the commenters did not provide, and EPA is not aware of, any new information or analysis that would support a finding that E15 may be used by the vehicles, engines and equipment not covered by the partial waivers without significant adverse consequences for their emission control performance.  We are therefore issuing the misfueling prohibition as proposed.

      B.  Labeling Requirements

      1.  Proposed Approach

      We proposed that gasoline pumps dispensing E15 be labeled and that this label be applied to any pump dispensing gasoline greater than 10 vol% ethanol but not more than 15 vol% ethanol.  We also solicited comment on whether separate labels should be required for other gasoline-ethanol blends to avoid potential consumer confusion.
	Specifically, we proposed that the language on the E15 label have four components: (1) an ethanol content information component; (2) a legal approval component; (3) a technical warning component; and (4) a legal warning component.  We explained that together these four components highlight the critical information that we considered necessary to inform consumers about the appropriate use of E15 and the potential consequences of inappropriate uses.
	The ethanol content information component of the label informs consumers of the maximum ethanol content the fuel may contain.  We proposed that this component of the label read: "This fuel contains 15% ethanol maximum."
	The legal approval component of the label includes information that informs consumers of the types and model years of vehicles for which E15 may be used.  At the time of the proposal, EPA had granted a partial waiver of E15 allowing its sale for use only in MY2007 and later light-duty motor vehicles.  Based on that partial waiver, the Agency proposed that the legal approval portion of the label read as follows:

                                 Use only in:
                         2007 and newer gasoline cars
                       2007 and newer light-duty trucks
                              Flex-fuel vehicles.

      As noted above, EPA later issued a second partial waiver decision that allowed E15 to be introduced into commerce for MY2001-2006 light-duty motor vehicles.  Taken together, the two partial waivers allow E15 to be sold for use in MY2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles, as well as in vehicles designed and certified to run on gasoline and gasoline-ethanol blends as high as E85 ("flex-fuel vehicles").  EPA noted in the proposed rule that if we granted a partial waiver for MY2001-2006 light-duty motor vehicles, we would modify this component of the final label accordingly.
	The technical warning component of the label alerts consumers that use of E15 in other engines, vehicles, and equipment might cause damage to these products.  This warning reflects the results of EPA's analysis of available test and other data and its engineering assessment concerning the potential impact of E15 on emission controls and other aspects of vehicle design, materials and operation that can affect emissions.  EPA proposed the following language: "This fuel might damage other vehicles or engines."  We also proposed that the word "Caution" be placed at the top of the label, and solicited comment on other words that could be used to alert consumers, and specifically asked for comment on the alternative word "Attention."
 	The legal warning component of the label informs consumers that using E15 in a vehicle or engine for which E15 is not allowed violates the Agency's prohibition against misfueling.  Based on the language currently used on the low-sulfur diesel (LSD) label (see 40 CFR §80.570), the Agency proposed that the E15 label read as follows: "Federal law prohibits its use in other vehicles and engines."
	Putting the four components together in a manner intended to attract consumer's attention, the Agency proposed the following E15 label:

      2. Consideration of Comments

	We solicited comments on the above label, where it should be placed and whether labeling should be required for three other levels of gasoline-ethanol blends: (1) E10; (2) blends containing between 15 and 85 vol% ethanol; and (3) E85.  We also sought advice from the FTC's labeling experts and discussed with FTC staff the issue of labeling additional gasoline-ethanol blends, which FTC was considering for other purposes.  We shared with FTC staff the suggestions made in public comments on the proposed E15 label, and they provided us with information about effective label design, recommendations for addressing some of the issues raised in the comments, and assistance in designing the final label.  We also considered the appropriateness of coordinating EPA labels and FTC labels.
      Most of the public comments on the proposed E15 label made specific recommendations for improvement with respect to wording and/or design.  Overall, there was a wide spectrum of suggestions reflecting the different perspectives of ethanol producers, oil refiners, gasoline retailers, and manufacturers and users of vehicles, engines and equipment.  Commenters generally agreed with the need for labels, but differed about how best to alert consumers and provide them with information for avoiding misfueling, without discouraging or chilling appropriate use of E15 in MY2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles.  One commenter also recommended that EPA allow fuel providers to develop and submit for approval an alternative label, a flexibility afforded by the Agency's ULSD program.  Specific suggestions fell into the following categories which are discussed in more detail below:
   * Choice of word for warning
   * Description of vehicles that can use E15
   * Prohibition statement
   * Statement about E15 causing damage
   * Addressing non-English speakers
   * Portable gasoline containers
   * Color, shape, and placement of labels
   * Separate labels for different levels of ethanol

	a.  Choice of Word for Warning

	Commenters were divided between those who believed that use of "CAUTION!" on the proposed label would deter appropriate use of E15, and those who believed that it would not be effective at preventing misfueling.  Two commenters stated that any kind of a warning word may result in skepticism and concern about E15 use in MY2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles, and suggested that no warning word be used.  They argued that the proposed label would not promote the successful introduction of this new fuel into the marketplace.  Other commenters expressed concern that the proposed label was not strong enough and recommended that "WARNING" or "STOP" be used.  In these commenters' opinion, the label on its own must provide for adequate informed consent to prevent misfueling and consumer lawsuits concerning possible damage from misfueling.
	The purpose of today's rule is to mitigate potential misfueling and the emissions increases that could occur as a result of misfueling.  We are therefore exercising our authority to address the emission consequences of misfueling.  The Agency recognizes, however, that while the label needs to effectively communicate to consumers about misfueling, it should avoid deterring E15's use in motor vehicles for which its sale and use is allowed.  We discussed this issue with FTC's consumer labeling experts who advised that the word "ATTENTION" would more likely attract consumer notice without the risk of discouraging appropriate use of the fuel.
      After considering the comments and FTC's advice, we are finalizing use of "ATTENTION" instead of "CAUTION."  Use of "ATTENTION" strikes the right balance between alerting consumers about the improper use of E15 and scaring them away from appropriate use of E15.  FTC staff also suggested that "ATTENTION" be placed at an angle in the upper left corner of the label to help draw consumers' eyes to it (see Section III.A.2. for further details), and we are adopting that placement.  We believe that "ATTENTION" so placed, and in combination with other label information alerting consumers to the potential for damage from misfueling (discussed below), will effectively communicate that care must be taken in fueling with E15 without unduly discouraging its proper use.

   	b. Description of Motor Vehicles That Can Use E15

	Many commenters suggested rewording the label's references to the motor vehicles that can use E15 to clarify and/or streamline those references.  Several also suggested that the label state that E15 is "Approved for use in 2001 and newer vehicles" (emphasis added).  Two commenters noted that use of E15 in flex-fuel vehicles is independent of model year and that flex-fuel vehicles should be listed first.  Some commenters expressed concern that sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and minivans were not explicitly mentioned in the label even though both vehicle types are medium-duty passenger vehicles covered by the partial waivers.  They suggested that there be a consumer-friendly reference for these vehicles.
	We agree with commenters that the language can and should be clarified and streamlined in a way more readily understood by consumers.  The partial waivers allow E15 to be sold for use in MY2001 and newer "light-duty motor vehicles," meaning cars, light-duty trucks and medium-duty passenger vehicles.  Light-duty trucks and medium-duty passenger vehicles are regulatory terms that encompass a range of vehicles including all but the largest pick-up trucks, mini-vans and SUVs.  FTC staff generally advised that the E15 label be as concise as possible since consumers are much less apt to read detailed labels, particularly in the context of routine activities like buying gasoline.  With that in mind, we are finalizing the phrase "2001 and newer passenger vehicles" as the reference to the types of gasoline-fueled motor vehicles that may use E15.  The common denominator of virtually all of the relevant vehicle types is that they are used to transport people.  "Passenger vehicle" is a common term and should be more effective in conveying the types of gasoline-fueled motor vehicles for which E15 can be sold and used.  Since all flex-fuel vehicles are made to use gasoline-ethanol blends up to E85, all may use E15.
        We are leaving the reference to passenger vehicles first in the list of the types of motor vehicles that can use E15.  In most of the country, gasoline-fueled vehicles are much more common than flex-fuel vehicles, and under the partial waiver decisions E15 is approved for use in only MY2001 and newer passenger vehicles.  The reference to passenger vehicles and the model year limitation is thus more relevant and important to more consumers, and so should precede the reference to flex-fuel vehicles.
		We are not adopting the suggestions to include the phrases "approved for use in" or "model year" in referring to the vehicle types that may use E15.  EPA's partial waiver decisions are not approvals for use of E15 in the general sense that term is used; they are waivers allowing E15 to be introduced into commerce for use in certain motor vehicles.  The Agency's role in the waiver proceeding is limited to determining whether E15 meets the criteria for a waiver under CAA section 211(f)(4) and in this rulemaking under section 211(c) to minimizing the potential for any misfueling that might occur.  As for prefacing the reference to 2001 and newer passenger vehicles with "model year," any potential benefit of adding that phrase is outweighed by the risk that the additional wording may decrease the effectiveness of the label.  Consumers are likely to understand the reference to 2001 as indicating model year, and we are mindful that labels with more words are less apt to be read.
      Therefore, today's final rule will require the following language on the label:

   "Use only in
   * 2001 and newer passenger vehicles
   * Flex-fuel vehicles "

	c.  Statements About Prohibition and Damage

	Commenters were generally supportive of the proposed statements on prohibition and damage, but suggested variations in the wording and order of the statements to clarify their scope and meaning.  Most commenters stated that it is essential to include a statement that "this fuel may damage" other vehicles, engines and equipment for consumers to have the information they need to avoid misfueling.  However, several commenters objected to including any damage statement because they believe available information does not support that E15 may cause damage.  In contrast, one commenter argued that the proposed damage statement should communicate that, in the commenter's view, significant physical injuries may result from using E15 in lawn mowers, chain saws, and other equipment.
	A number of commenters noted that the proposal's reference to other "vehicles and engines" would not necessarily convey the various kinds of gasoline-powered equipment that should not use E15.  Specifically, one commenter pointed out that "engine" is not a term that consumers use to describe lawn and garden equipment, boats and other nonroad equipment.  Two commenters suggested using graphic symbols or icons to depict some of the common types of nonroad vehicles and equipment for which E15 use would be prohibited.  One commenter provided sample icons of a boat, motorcycle, chainsaw, lawnmower and snowmobile, each depicted in a circle with a slash or X across the image to convey to consumers that  E15 should not be used in those products.  Along the same lines, one commenter suggested including on the label a list of the various kinds of vehicles, engines and equipment that should not use E15.
      Other commenters provided further suggestions for improving the wording of the damage and prohibition statements.  Three commenters suggested that the label clarify that "Federal law prohibits use in all other vehicles and nonroad engines and equipment."  Another stated that the label should be consistent with other EPA labels and should state: "Federal law prohibits use in all other model year vehicles and engines."  (Suggested additional words in italics.)
	In addition to the prohibition and damage statements, some commenters suggested adding to the label statements that fuel economy would be adversely affected and that consumers should consult manufacturers' fuel recommendations.
 	After considering all of the comments, we continue to believe that a damage statement is necessary and appropriate for the E15 label.  As explained in the October Waiver Decision, EPA denied the E15 waiver request with respect to MY2000 and older light-duty motor vehicles and all heavy-duty engines, motorcycles and nonroad equipment because (1) available data is insufficient to show that E15 would not cause or contribute to a failure by these products to meet emission standards, and (2) our engineering judgment is that E15 may adversely affect the emissions control performance of these products, particularly over time.  The waiver decisions also considered materials compatibility, operability, and maintenance issues related to E15 and their potential impact on emissions.  A statement that E15 use in those products "may cause damage" is consistent with and supported by EPA's technical analysis for its decision to deny the waiver request for introduction of E15 into commerce for use in these products.  Including the damage statement is also critical to the effectiveness of the E15 label, since consumers are more likely to comply with the label's direction if they understand that harm might otherwise occur.
	We do agree with commenters' suggestion that a reference to "equipment" is needed on the label.  The label as proposed used the word "engines" to refer to engines in all nonroad equipment.  After considering the comments, we agree that most consumers think in terms of the types of equipment they own or operate, not the engines that power the equipment.  However, given the extremely broad range of equipment that uses gasoline engines, we believe it would be infeasible and counterproductive to attempt to include even a partial list of the types of products that should not use E15.  As noted above, labels generally need to be brief and succinct to be effective.  Also, a partial list would run the risk of implying that types of equipment not included on the list are suitable for E15 use.  We are therefore choosing the phrase "gasoline-powered equipment" to refer to the many types of equipment that have gasoline engines.  We are also including a reference to boats since many consumers may not consider boats to be either "vehicles" or "equipment."  Moreover, representatives of boat manufacturers and users expressed particular concerns about the potential for, and consequences of, misfueling boat engines.
      We are otherwise combining and revising the wording of the prohibition and damage language on the label to reduce the number of words and increase the directness, and therefore the effectiveness, of the message, in a manner suggested by FTC staff.
      We are not adopting some commenters' suggestions that the label provide a warning that injury might occur if misfueling results in product malfunction.  In considering all the information before the Agency (i.e. test data and other information provided by the waiver applicants and in public comments submitted on the waiver and on the proposed rule), we determined that the information does not provide a clear enough basis for including a separate warning about risk of injury in addition to the warning about the potential for damage.
	We disagree with the suggestion to include statements that fuel economy would be adversely affected and that consumers should consult the manufacturer's fuel recommendation.  The purpose of EPA's label is to prevent misfueling.  Also, the effect of E15 on fuel economy depends on a number of factors (e.g., manner of vehicle operation) that cannot be easily communicated on a label.  Similarly, mention of manufacturers' fuel recommendations may confuse consumers, since E15 only recently received partial waivers allowing its sale for use in certain vehicles.  It is not yet available in the marketplace, and thus would not be specifically referenced in any existing manual or manufacturer's specifications.
	Today's final rule will therefore require the following damage and prohibition message at the bottom of the label:

        "Don't use in other vehicles, boats, or gasoline powered equipment.  It may cause damage and is prohibited by federal law."

	We carefully considered the suggestion to add graphic icons to the label to help convey what products can, or cannot, use E15, and have decided not to require icons for several reasons.  First, the icons suggested for the on-highway vehicles that can, or cannot use, E15 rely on text to convey much of their message.  Those icons also depict a passenger car, which is only one of several vehicle types that can use E15 if from the specified model years.  In addition, the other icons portray only some of the nonroad vehicles and equipment that cannot use E15, raising the issue noted above concerning partial lists:  depicting some equipment but not other equipment may lead consumers to think E15 can be used in the types of equipment not depicted.  Use of multiple icons would also make the label more dense and complicated.
      In light of these considerations, we are not including icons in the final label.  However, fuel providers may post supplemental labels or signs that they believe would be useful for informing their customers.  We are also adopting the suggestion made by one commenter to allow fuel providers to submit to EPA for approval an alternative label.  There are a number of circumstances that may make it appropriate for a retailer to make small changes in the shape or size of the label and/or include additional information. (It should be noted that the addition of information, including icons, would require enlarging the label so that all of the information on the label may be easily read).   To the extent a fuel provider believes icons would be helpful to its customers, it may post them on its own signs and/or develop and submit an alternative E15 label including appropriate icons for EPA consideration and approval.

	d.  Addressing Non-English Speakers

	Two commenters expressed concern that the label needs to accommodate non-English speakers, and pointed out that a relatively high percentage of commercial landscapers that purchase fuel for lawn, garden, and forestry products may not be able to read or comprehend an English-narrative label.  They suggested that the final label should contain generic symbols or icons to clearly and strongly convey the necessary warnings.
	We have addressed the use of icons above, but have also considered whether labels in other languages should be used.  We appreciate the importance of conveying the necessary information to those who do not speak or read English.  However, we are not requiring multi-lingual labels at this time because we do not have enough information to determine under what circumstances one or more additional languages should be added to the label.  The commenters suggesting that labels accommodate non-English speakers did not provide information that would allow us to make these determinations.  Also, a label in two or more languages would necessarily be longer and may detract from the effectiveness of the label as a whole.  We will continue to consider whether bi- or multi-lingual signs would be appropriate, and will work with stakeholders to address this issue through public outreach and education as E15 enters the market.  As noted above, retailers may also post additional labels or signs, including in other languages.  Further, today's rule provides the option of seeking EPA approval of an alternative label that could incorporate languages in addition to English.  Under the regulations, retailers could submit translated versions of the final label to EPA for approval.  Retailers thus have the flexibility to use signs and/or labels conveying information in any language they believe is appropriate for their customers.

	e. Portable Containers

	Some commenters expressed concern that the label by itself would not be effective at preventing misfueling of boats and other nonroad vehicles and equipment.  The commenters pointed out that nonroad products are generally fueled from portable containers, which are in turn fueled at the same time and location that motor vehicles are fueled.  The commenters stated that any fuel dispensing nozzle used to fill a motor vehicle could also be used to fill the portable container.  One commenter urged that the labels for pumps dispensing fuels greater than E10 should also warn against those fuels being dispensed into portable containers.
	We considered this suggestion but have decided that prohibiting the dispensing of E15 into portable containers is not necessary or appropriate.  The prohibition established by today's rule extends to misfueling of E15 into nonroad products, including by use of portable containers, so a separate ban on E15 use in portable containers is not needed to effectuate the prohibition.  Banning use of such containers for E15 would also prevent their legitimate use, including in emergencies, for motor vehicles that may fuel with E15.  The outreach campaign being developed can help consumers understand that use of E15 in portable containers is limited to fueling the types of motor vehicles that may use E15.

	f. Color, Size, Shape, Font, and Placement of the Label

	There was general agreement among commenters that labels for gasoline-ethanol blends should be uniform in color, size, and shape for easy identification.  Commenters were divided, however, on what the color and shape should be, with some commenters focused on what combination would stand out and/or be more legible, and others emphasizing coordination with other labels.  Several different color schemes, including FTC's for its proposed gasoline-ethanol blend labels, were suggested.  Shapes other than squares were also urged, with octagonal and triangular shapes specifically recommended since they are already associated with stop and hazard signs, respectively.
      One commenter recommended that rather than requiring a one-size-fits-all label, EPA should allow gasoline marketers to determine the color scheme and appropriate size of the E15 label.  Another commenter specifically cited experience with EPA's ULSD regulations, which did not specify the color and size of the labels required for that program.  This commenter pointed out that while retailers initially welcomed the opportunity to design their own labels, ultimately the lack of consistency in label design resulted in confusion and uncertainty with respect to compliance and enforcement.  The commenter recommended that EPA should adopt specific label size, color, dimension and design requirements similar to those specified for dispenser labels under FTC regulations.
	With respect to placement of the label, commenters generally suggested that labels should be placed directly above, below or next to the E15 pump nozzle or the button a consumer would use to select E15 from among several fuel choices.  One commenter recommended that for pumps that use one hose to dispense several grades of gasoline the label should be on the button for selecting the grade for which E15 is used.  For pumps with multiple hoses, this commenter suggested the label could appear in the same location as the octane ratings for the other hoses (or above/below the octane rating).
	We agree with commenters that the E15 label design should generally be uniform for easy identification and utility.  Significant variations in label design could thwart the goal of associating the label with E15 and making the label readily recognized and understood.  At the same time, we recognize that slight modifications in size or shape may be useful or appropriate for a retailer's particular circumstances.  For example, some slight changes in shape may be necessary to allow the label to be placed where consumers will see it when they are selecting what fuel to buy.  The flexibility afforded by today's regulations will give retailers the option to develop an alternative label that works with their pumps.  However, alternative labels must include the four required components of the E15 label, must be as legible as the required label, and must be similar enough in design that their use would not confuse consumers or undermine the utility of relatively consistent labeling of E15.
	We have decided to use FTC's proposed color scheme and general design so that the two agencies' labels could work together as a coordinated labeling scheme for gasoline-ethanol blends.  FTC recently deferred making a decision on the ethanol labeling portion of their proposed fuel rating rule because more time was needed to address the issue.   FTC's proposal was based in part on existing FTC rules for labeling alternative fuels (see 16 CFR Parts 306 and 309).  Those rules specify the color scheme that the FTC used for its proposed labels for gasoline-ethanol blends.  The FTC's alternative fuel labels provide a generally consistent color scheme for alternative fuels so consumers may readily recognize pumps and other dispensers that deliver those fuels.  In view of the existing FTC rules for alternative fuel labeling and FTC's further consideration of gasoline-ethanol blend labeling, we are adopting the proposed FTC color scheme so that E15 labels may become part of a broader, coordinated scheme for labeling alternative fuels in general and gasoline-ethanol blends in particular.  Consumers are more likely to understand the import of both agencies' labels if they see relatively consistent labels across the relevant types of fuel.  In addition, FTC's proposed labels uses colors, fonts, shape and other design aspects that make its labels noticeable, easily understood, and consistent with labeling conventions.  An E15 label similar in appearance should thus be similarly effective.  We also note that we varied the font size of different parts of the E15 label in light of FTC consumer labeling staff advice that use of larger fonts for the most important information would help draw consumers' attention and make it more likely they would read the label.
	  We agree with the comments that the label should be placed where consumers will see it when they are selecting which fuel to buy.  We recognize, however, that pump designs vary widely and evolve over time.  In particular, pumps that use one hose to dispense several grades of gasoline raise the issue of where to place the label so that it is associated with the selector button for E15 fuel.  Given the wide variety of pumps, we are not specifying the exact placement of the label on every type of pump, but we are requiring that retailers place the E15 label where consumers will see it when they are making their fuel selection.  In the case of pumps with one nozzle dispensing several grades of gasoline, the regulations direct the retailer to place the label above the selector button dispensing E15 or otherwise place it so that it is clear which button is dispensing E15.  Using the flexibility afforded by the regulations for alternative labels, some retailers may want to put a variation of the E15 label on the selector button itself.
	We note also that in response to our request for comment on whether the designation of "E15" be placed at the top of the label, many commenters agreed that this should be done.  Today's rule will require that "E15" be so placed.

      g.  Separate Labels for Different Levels of Ethanol

	Most commenters stated that there is no need to label E0 or E10.  These commenters noted that since the purpose of the rule is to minimize misfueling with E15, EPA labeling should be limited to fuels containing more than 10 vol% ethanol.  Several other commenters recommended labels for E0 and every level of gasoline-ethanol blend (including E10) to provide a comprehensive system for identifying the amount ethanol in the gasoline being sold.
      We have concluded that it is not useful or necessary to label E0 or E10.  Both fuels are prevalent in the market now, and both may be used by virtually all vehicles, engines and nonroad equipment.  Requiring labels for E0 and E10 might help consumers understand the spectrum of gasoline-ethanol blends that are available, but they are not needed to help minimize misfueling.  "E0" and "E10" labels may also cause some confusion.  Many pumps dispensing E10 are already labeled under state law, and adding a new label would be duplicative and may lead some consumers to think that E10 is a new type of gasoline.  We believe that labeling only E15 pumps will help make clear to consumers that E15 is indeed a new and different blend, and that attention needs to be paid to avoid misfueling with it.  Thus, today's rule will not require labels for E0 and E10.
 	Commenters were divided on whether additional labels were needed for E85, for blends between E15 and E85, and for blender-pumps (pumps that dispense a range of gasoline-ethanol blends).  One commenter stated that no additional labels were necessary and that requiring an additional label for these fuels would likely be counterproductive to the consumer education underway in states where mid-level gasoline-ethanol blends and E85 are already available.  Some commenters believed that such labels were necessary, with some favoring labels that indicate a range of ethanol levels and other urging that labels specify the precise, or close to the precise, level of ethanol being dispensed (e.g., E20, E30, E40 and so on.).
      As mentioned above, FTC is considering labels for mid-level gasoline-ethanol blends.  FTC already requires labels for E85 and other alternative fuels.  There are currently about 2,300 E85 pumps and 215 blender pumps dispensing mid- and high-level gasoline-ethanol blends.  These pumps typically have labels or other signage that clearly identifies mid- and high-level gasoline-ethanol blends as such, indicates which nozzle or selector button dispenses those higher blends, and communicates that the blends are for flex-fuel vehicles only.  Most alternative fuel labels subject to current FTC regulations must also use the color scheme that we have adopted for the E15 label.
      In light of these circumstances, we believe that it is sufficient and appropriate for EPA to require labels only for E15 pumps at this time.  There are relatively few pumps dispensing mid- and high-levels of gasoline-ethanol blends, and their current labels and signage are generally designed to attract attention and make clear that the fuel they dispense is for flex-fuel vehicles only.  The E15 label we are requiring will provide appropriate information for E15, and should not lead to misfueling with higher gasoline-ethanol blends.  In our view, an owner of a MY2000 car, for example, is not likely to read the E15 label, learn that it is inappropriate for his or her motor vehicle, move to an E30 or E85 pump, and buy that fuel instead.  Also, as discussed below, the labels that EPA could require in this rulemaking for higher gasoline-ethanol blends could cause consumer confusion.  FTC is continuing to consider labeling for mid-level gasoline-ethanol blends, and we anticipate that the two agencies will continue to consult about ethanol labeling.  (For example, EPA and FTC staff are working to prevent duplicative labeling.)  As we work with our stakeholders to help the public understand the appropriate use of E15, we will share information and insights with FTC for their consideration.
      Since the misfueling prohibition established by today's rule applies to gasoline-ethanol blends greater than E10, and not just E15, EPA considered whether to require a label for higher blends in order to provide information about the prohibition.  We concluded, however, that such labels would more likely confuse consumers than help them avoid misfueling.  The prohibition established in this rule reflects and is based largely on the same information and engineering assessment supporting EPA's decision to deny a waiver for E15 to be introduced into commerce for use in MY2000 and older light-duty vehicles, heavy-duty engines, motorcycles and nonroad engines and equipment.  In this rulemaking, we are not addressing the emissions impact of blends above E15 on MY2001 and newer light-duty vehicles.  Therefore, the misfueling prohibition that we are promulgating in this rule applies only to the vehicles, engines and equipment not covered by the E15 partial waivers.  In this context, any EPA labels for blends greater than E15 would accordingly carry a misfueling prohibition statement that would reference only MY2000 and older light-duty vehicles, heavy-duty engines, motorcycles and nonroad engines and equipment, and not MY2001 and newer light-duty vehicles.  However, such labels might leave the mistaken impression that blends greater than E15 are currently lawful for gasoline-fueled MY2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles, when they are not.  Under CAA section 211(f)(1), those higher blends may be introduced into commerce only for sale for flex-fuel vehicles.  As discussed above, the current labels on pumps dispensing higher gasoline-ethanol blends typically provide that information.  Given the scope of this rulemaking, we have concluded that adopting EPA labels in this rulemaking for higher gasoline-ethanol blends could be confusing and counterproductive.
      In sum, we expect the E15 label will serve EPA's purpose in providing consumers with the information they need to avoid misfueling with E15, and that it is not appropriate to adopt labeling requirements for blends above E15 in this rulemaking.

      3.  Final Pump Labeling Requirements

	Today's final rule requires the wording and general color and design aspects of the label described above.  In addition, we are allowing retailers the flexibility to submit alternative labels to EPA for approval.  Such alternatives may potentially include the addition of icons and other languages, and small changes in shape and size (except to the extent a larger size is necessary to accommodate more information), but must include the four required components of the E15 label.
	We are not requiring labels for other gasoline-ethanol blends.  Thus, only the E15 label is required for pumps dispensing that fuel.
	Placement of the label will depend on the type of pump that is used.  In the case of pumps with one nozzle dispensing several grades of gasoline, the regulations direct the retailer to place the label above the selector button dispensing E15 or otherwise place it so that it is clear which button is dispensing E15.  In the case of pumps with a nozzle for each grade, the regulation directs the retailer to place the label where consumers will see it when they are making their fuel selection.
	The final E15 label is as follows:

      C. Product Transfer Document Requirements

      EPA proposed several additions to existing PTD requirements to provide the information needed for fuel providers to properly blend and label E15 fuel.  EPA has previously established similar requirements for PTDs for reformulated gasoline and blendstocks to help ensure downstream compliance with national RFG standards.  As we explained in the proposed rule, the potential introduction of E15 into the marketplace makes it important to include additional information on the PTDs that accompany the transfer of gasoline and gasoline blendstocks used for oxygenate blending, both for reformulated gasoline and conventional gasoline.  We also noted that the type of additional information needed differs for businesses upstream versus downstream of the point of ethanol addition.  Most commenters agreed that PTD changes are necessary to minimize misfueling and to help ensure downstream compliance with our fuels regulations as E15 enters the market.

      1. PTD Requirements Downstream of the Point of Ethanol Addition

      EPA proposed to include on PTDs language indicating the amount of ethanol in the blend and the summertime RVP standards applicable to the blend so that downstream marketers can properly label E15 fuel and avoid commingling fuels that could result in RVP and other violations.  EPA proposed that the following statements be included on PTDs for pure gasoline (E0) and the various gasoline-ethanol blends downstream of the point where ethanol blending takes place:

For E0: ``E0: Contains no ethanol. The RVP does not exceed [Fill in appropriate value]''
For E10: ``E10: Contains between 9 and 10 volume percent ethanol. The RVP does not exceed [Fill in appropriate value]''
For E15: ``E15: Contains up to 15 volume percent ethanol. The RVP does not exceed [Fill in appropriate value]''
For EXX: ``EXX -- Contains up to XX% ethanol.

``EXX'' refers to fuels blends above E15, up to and including E85 and fuel blends below 9 volume percent ethanol.  The maximum potential ethanol content of the fuel would be required to be specified on the PTD in the place of ``XX''.
      Most comments were generally supportive of the language as proposed.  One commenter recommended that the language on PTDs for gasoline-ethanol blends should be simplified and standardized, and should read: "Contains at least ## volume percent ethanol and up to ## volume percent ethanol.  RVP does not exceed ## psi."  EPA agrees that standardizing the language for gasoline-ethanol blends is simpler and easier to understand, and is finalizing changes to the required PTD language for gasoline-ethanol blends to reflect this.  For E0, we are finalizing the language to read as proposed (i.e., "E0: Contains no ethanol"), since the standardized language suggested by commenters contains more information than necessary for gasoline containing no ethanol.
      Another commenter argued that the language "The RVP does not exceed [Fill in appropriate value]" is unnecessary, as the petroleum industry has a long history of distributing gasoline with the correct RVP to the correct area, and E15 will not change this situation.  In contrast, another commenter stated that the proposed requirements to include ethanol content and maximum RVP on the PTD downstream of the point of blending would be beneficial, because it would alleviate the need for additional downstream testing.  After considering the public comments, EPA concludes that, downstream of the point where ethanol blending takes place, information on the maximum ethanol concentration and RVP of gasoline and gasoline-ethanol blends is needed to help ensure that shipments of E15 and other fuel are delivered into the appropriate storage tanks at retail and fleet fueling facilities and not improperly commingled.  The introduction of E15 into the marketplace will increase the complexity of blending, distributing and selling fuel.  The required additions to PTDs will help fuel providers comply with E15 labeling requirements, the summertime RVP requirements for E0, E10 and E15, and the prohibition against misfueling with E15 (including gasoline-ethanol blends greater than 10 vol% ethanol and up to 15 vol% ethanol).  Therefore, EPA is finalizing the requirement that information on the maximum ethanol concentration and RVP of gasoline and gasoline-ethanol blends be included on PTDs downstream of the point of ethanol addition.
	EPA also requested comment on whether additional language on E10 PTDs is needed to inform parties that a blend containing between 9 and 10 vol% ethanol which benefits from the 1.0 psi RVP waiver under CAA section 211(h) may not be commingled with E0 or a gasoline-ethanol blend that contains less than 9 or more than 10 vol% ethanol.  We received comments advocating that EPA require that  PTDs for gasoline-ethanol blends higher than 10 vol% ethanol state that those volumes are not eligible for the 1.0 psi RVP waiver.  One commenter also suggested that, to avoid downstream commingling of E10 and other fuels not eligible for the 1.0 psi RVP waiver, EPA should incorporate additional language into the E10 PTDs stating: "This blend is subject to the 1.0 psi RVP waiver.  Do not blend with gasoline containing anything other than between 9 and 10 vol % ethanol."  EPA has decided to include the suggested language to provide clarity and avert potential instances of improper commingling of fuels eligible for the 1.0 psi RVP waiver and those that are not.  Thus, we are finalizing a requirement that for gasoline-ethanol blends containing between 9 and 10 vol% ethanol, the PTD must state: "The 1.0 psi RVP waiver applies to this gasoline.  Do not mix with gasoline containing anything other than between 9 and 10 vol% ethanol."

      2. PTD Requirements Up to and Including the Point of Ethanol Addition

       EPA proposed that PTDs for gasoline or gasoline blendstock used for oxygenate blending (BOBs) in the manufacture of gasoline-ethanol blends that are subject to summertime RVP controls include the maximum RVP of the BOB to avoid improper blending of E15 or commingling with E15 and other fuels.  We also proposed that such PTDs in non-RFG areas indicate what ethanol concentration is suitable to be blended with the BOB to facilitate ethanol blender compliance with applicable EPA summertime RVP requirements.
	Specifically, we proposed that the following statements be included on the PTDs for BOBs in non-RFG areas:

``Suitable for blending with ethanol at a concentration up to 15 volume % ethanol'' or, in the case of a BOB designed to take advantage of the 1 psi allowance for E10 in 40 CFR 80.27(d)(2):
``Designed for the special RVP provisions for ethanol blends that contain between 9 and 10 volume % ethanol''
``The RVP of this blendstock/base gasoline for oxygenate blending does not exceed [Fill in appropriate value]''

      Comments were generally supportive of the proposed language, although EPA received a comment stating that the requirement to include the RVP of a BOB on the PTD is not useful because regulated parties are already prohibited from releasing a finished product onto the market that exceeds the regional and/or seasonal RVP requirements.  The commenter argued that the proposed requirement overcomplicates an approach that has worked well in the past and that PTD requirements for BOBs should be flexible and need only contain the type and level of oxygenate with which the BOB should be blended, with additional language included at the discretion of the regulated party.  However, while the current approach to compliance with the relevant RVP requirements may work under current conditions, in light of the increasing complexity that will come with the entry of E15 into the market, EPA believes that, upstream of the point where E10 and E15 are manufactured, the maximum RVP is needed on the PTDs for BOBs to facilitate ethanol blender compliance with the applicable EPA summertime RVP requirements.
      In order to help ensure that the proposed blendstock commingling restrictions are observed, we requested comment on whether the following language should be added to the PTD for a BOB designed to take advantage of the 1.0 psi allowance for E10: ``The use of this gasoline to manufacture a gasoline-ethanol blend with less than 9 vol% ethanol or E15 may cause an RVP violation.''  Some commenters argued that the proposed changes to the PTD language do not sufficiently address the consequences of blending additional levels of ethanol in gasoline beyond 10 vol% and that language similar to what EPA proposed should be added to the final regulations.  One commenter stated that the final rule must ensure that PTDs make it clear that any gasoline-ethanol blends above E10 do not receive the 1.0 psi RVP waiver.  The commenter suggested that EPA require the following language on PTDs for fuel for which the waiver does not apply: "Adding ethanol to this product will result in a blend higher than E10 which will not qualify for the one pound waiver."  After considering these comments, EPA has decided to require the additional suggested language on PTDs for BOBs designed to take advantage of the 1.0 psi RVP allowance.  This PTD language will serve to remind blenders that gasoline-ethanol blends containing more than 10 vol % ethanol do not receive the 1 psi RVP waiver.  Furthermore, the PTD language clarifies the proper amount of ethanol with which the associated fuel may be blended.  EPA believes that this additional PTD language will help prevent downstream violations of the RVP requirements for E15 and other fuels.
      In conclusion, for PTDs for gasoline or BOBs up to and including the point of ethanol addition, we are requiring the following language:  ``Suitable for blending with ethanol at a concentration up to 15 vol % ethanol'' or, in the case of a BOB designed to take advantage of the 1.0 psi allowance for E10 in 40 CFR 80.27(d)(2):

``Suitable for the special RVP provisions for ethanol blends that contain between 9 and 10 vol % ethanol.''
``The RVP of this blendstock/gasoline for oxygenate blending does not exceed [Fill in appropriate value] psi.''
 "The use of this gasoline to manufacture a gasoline-ethanol blend containing anything other than between 9 and 10 vol % ethanol may cause a summertime RVP violation."

      3. General PTD Requirements

      We proposed several general PTD requirements so that the specific information discussed above is useful to the various parties involved in fuel production, distribution and marketing.  Specifically, we proposed that on each occasion when any person transfers custody and/or ownership of any gasoline or gasoline blendstock used for oxygenate blending, the transferor would be required to provide the transferee with an appropriate PTD identifying the gasoline/blendstock and its characteristics (as defined below), as well as such general information as the names and addresses of the transferor and transferee, the volume of product being transferred, the location of the product on the date of transfer, and other specific information. We proposed that all parties be required to retain PTDs for a period of not less than five years and provide them to EPA upon request.
      We also proposed that PTDs be required to be used by all parties in the distribution chain down to the point where the product is sold, dispensed, or otherwise made available to the ultimate consumer.  We proposed that PTDs would be required to travel in some manner (paper or electronically) with the volume of blendstock or fuel being transferred.  Additionally, we proposed that product codes could be used to convey the information required as long as the codes are clearly understood by each transferee, but that the full proposed text would need to be included on the PTD for transfers to truck carriers, retailers, or wholesale purchaser consumers.
      We received comments indicating that space is limited on the physical PTDs, and that EPA should allow for the use of abbreviations and the printing of text on the back of the PTD, provided a clear reference to the back is made on the front.  While EPA does require certain language to be included on PTDs, we generally do not specify the form that the PTD must take.  We agree that printing on the back of a PTD is appropriate, provided all the required language is included on the PTD and a clear reference to the printing on the back is made on the front of the PTD.  Therefore, EPA is allowing parties to print required language on the back of the PTD, provided there is a clear reference on the front.  The commenter also suggests the use of "%" in place of "percent" and "vol" in the place of "volume."  EPA agrees that the use of these particular abbreviations is reasonable as they are generally understood by industry, and is allowing for the use of "%" in place of "percent" and "vol" in the place of "volume."
      Finally, we received comments stating that, if product codes can be used on PTDs as proposed by EPA, EPA should also require a product code key on the PTD, as the use of product codes in the current distribution chain has created confusion.  EPA believes that the limitations proposed for the use of product codes are sufficient to prevent confusion, as those parties who might be confused by the use of product codes will not receive PTDs that contain them.  Specifically, the proposed requirement stipulated that product codes may not be included on PTDs for transfers to truck carriers, retailers, or wholesale purchaser consumers, since these parties are more likely to be unfamiliar with the meaning of product codes.  Therefore, EPA is allowing for the use of product codes on the PTD provided the codes are clearly understood by each transferee, and is requiring that the full proposed text be included on the PTD for transfers to truck carriers, retailers, or wholesale purchaser consumers.  Although EPA is not requiring a product code key on PTDs, parties are encouraged to include them whenever it would be useful to others in understanding product codes downstream in the distribution chain.
      The final rule makes the PTD requirements applicable beginning November 1, 2011, to allow sufficient time for all the relevant parties in the fuel distribution chain to comply.  Businesses wishing to begin marketing E15 prior to that date may do so by explaining in the plan required by the E15 partial waiver conditions how the PTD requirements of the partial waivers will be addressed.  (As discussed in a later section of this notice, businesses that introduce E15 into commerce do so under the E15 partial waivers and must comply with the partial waiver conditions.  Today's rule will facilitate compliance with some conditions, but do not supplant them.)  Under the waivers, plans must be submitted to EPA to address the waivers' misfueling mitigation conditions, which include PTD and survey requirements.  Prior to the effective date for compliance with the PTD requirements of today's rule, such a plan should describe how PTDs for gasoline, blendstocks or gasoline-ethanol blends would be utilized by the various parties involved in marketing E15 before the compliance date for today's PTD regulations.  Such a plan could follow the PTD approach finalized in today's rule to help ensure that appropriate labeling of pumps will occur and that compliant fuel will be dispensed.  In this way, a plan for the introduction of E15 may be implemented prior to the compliance date for PTDs as specified in today's rule.

      D.  Ongoing Implementation Survey

      Consistent with the misfueling mitigation conditions of the E15 partial waivers, EPA proposed that the parties involved in making, distributing and selling E15 be responsible for conducting an ongoing survey of the implementation of the labeling, ethanol content and RVP requirements for E15.  As we explained, the purpose of the survey program is to help ensure that labeling requirements are being met downstream, that the appropriate level of ethanol content is being properly blended and documented in fuel shipments, and that the RVP limitation of the E15 partial waivers is being met.  The survey would also deter violations of the ethanol content, labeling and RVP requirements.
      EPA proposed to provide responsible parties with the flexibility to conduct surveys that reflected the geographical scope of their plans for E15 distribution and sale.  Survey Option 1 would allow an individual or group of gasoline producer(s)/importer(s), ethanol producer(s)/importer(s), and/or oxygenate blender(s) to conduct a local or regional survey if their E15 business plans are limited in geographical scope.  Survey Option 2 would allow responsible parties to conduct a nationwide survey, which would likely become the most efficient option as businesses decide to sell E15 in more parts of the country.  EPA explained that the flexibility afforded by these two options would be appropriate given the likelihood that E15 will gradually expand into the marketplace.  Based on the history of the transition to E10, we expect that sale of E15 will initially begin in a relatively small number of retail stations in a few geographic areas.  In that case, it may make sense for responsible parties to comply with survey requirements via Survey Option 1 to limit costs.  If E15 expands beyond a few areas, Survey Option 2 may become more cost-effective.  The parties involved in selling E15 can thus decide which survey option makes the most sense for their circumstances.

			1.  Proposed Approaches and Consideration of Comments

      a.  General Survey Comments

      In the NPRM, we proposed that ethanol producers/importers, gasoline producers/importers, and oxygenate blenders involved in introducing E15 into the market be responsible for carrying out the proposed survey provisions.  Several commenters stated that it would make little sense to include ethanol or gasoline producers/importers as required participants in the survey given their lack of direct control over relevant regulated activities (e.g. proper labeling at a retail station or blending too much ethanol into gasoline).  These commenters also stated that the proposal would unnecessarily and inappropriately shift EPA's compliance and enforcement obligations onto industry, and that EPA should fund and conduct the survey itself.  Some commenters specifically argued that the sole responsibility of complying with survey requirements should be on ethanol blenders and marketers that choose to blend and market E15.  Some commenters also stated that unlike the RFG and ULSD survey programs, which allow responsible parties to reduce compliance costs and/or help establish alternative affirmative defenses to fuel standard violations, the E15 survey program provides no benefits to the responsible parties and may add an additional level of complexity that would hinder the introduction of E15 into commerce.
      When EPA granted the partial waivers allowing E15 to be introduced into commerce for MY2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles, it placed a survey requirement on the fuel and fuel additive manufacturers (i.e. gasoline manufacturers/importers, ethanol producers/importers, and oxygenate blenders) that introduce E15 into commerce as a waiver condition in order to mitigate misfueling.  Since fuel and fuel additive manufacturers are the parties that are subject to the CAA section 211(f)(4) prohibition that was partially waived for E15, they are the parties that, under the partial waivers of the prohibition, bear the obligation to introduce E15 in a manner that avoids misfueling if they choose to make use of the waivers.  For a similar reason, to minimize the misfueling that might result from the introduction of E15 into commerce for use by some vehicles but not other vehicles, EPA proposed that these parties be subject to the survey requirements under the misfueling mitigation regulations.  This aspect of the proposal also ensures that compliance with the survey requirements of the rule (at 40 CFR 80.1502) would help satisfy the survey conditions of the partial waiver decision.
      After considering the public comments, we have concluded that it is appropriate for the parties involved in making and selling E15 to be responsible for conducting surveys that assess implementation of the E15 partial waiver conditions related to misfueling mitigation.  The partial waivers allow businesses to introduce E15 into commerce for use in MY2001 and newer motor vehicles.  To the extent businesses desire to avail themselves of the opportunity to make and sell E15, they should also bear the cost of monitoring compliance with misfueling mitigation adopted in today's action.  EPA has required regulated parties to conduct surveys in the RFG and ULSD programs if they choose to take advantage of regulatory provisions that provide greater compliance flexibility made possible by the surveys.  For E15, EPA has granted partial waivers that make it necessary for those who take advantage of the waivers to take certain steps to mitigate misfueling and limit RVP and thereby avoid the emission increases and standard exceedances that would otherwise result.  Although the case for surveys in the RFG, ULSD and E15 contexts is not entirely the same, the common, compelling thread is that when regulated parties seek opportunities that may heighten the risk of emission increases, they should be responsible for taking steps to offset or minimize that risk.  In all three cases, surveys are an effective means of reducing risk  -  and at relatively low cost.  Moreover, complying with survey requirements will help responsible parties satisfy waiver conditions and introduce E15 into commerce, and will also help establish an affirmative defense to violations found downstream for upstream parties.  For these reasons, EPA is finalizing the list of responsible parties as proposed.
	EPA also received comments that it should make survey plans and results available to the public.  EPA will make plans and results available in the same manner as it has made plans and data from both the RFG and ULSD survey programs available to the public.  For example, EPA has provided the Clean Diesel Fuel Alliance (CDFA) with quarterly summary data of the performance of the ULSD survey program for publication on the public CDFA website.  EPA is committed to providing timely data to the public and will disseminate E15 survey data through avenues similar to those utilized in previous survey programs.
	Some commenters suggested that EPA should require that surveys include visual monitoring of pumps in order to observe and record customer behavior to determine the rate of actual misfueling.  Other commenters suggested that EPA should conduct its own survey to monitor actual misfueling rates at retail stations.  EPA does not believe that it is necessary to require that surveys include visual monitoring at this time.  As the transition to E15 occurs, we plan to work with industry, state, environmental and consumer stakeholders to track developments and evaluate the effectiveness of the required misfueling mitigation measures, including the prohibition against misfueling with E15.  Also, as noted previously, we are working with ethanol and other stakeholders to help establish a public education and outreach campaign to assist fuel producers, distributors, retailers and consumers in understanding how E15 may be made, distributed, sold and used.  That effort can help identify and resolve misfueling issues that may develop as E15 moves into the marketplace.
      EPA proposed to include the testing of fuel samples for RVP to ensure that E15 being sold at retail stations was in compliance with the RVP condition of the E15 waiver and that an E10 fuel that used the 1.0 psi RVP waiver under CAA section 211(h) was not commingled with E15, which must have a lower RVP in the summertime.  EPA received a number of comments both in favor of and opposed to including RVP testing.  Those who were opposed argued that determining RVP levels of E15 and other fuels was unrelated to misfueling, that existing RVP controls have proven effective over time, and that it was up to EPA to enforce RVP requirements with the aid of states without imposing additional costs on industry.
      EPA continues to believe that it is necessary and appropriate for the surveys to measure the RVP of fuel samples from pumps labeled as dispensing E15.  For E15 to be lawfully sold under the partial waivers, it must have the proper ethanol content, not exceed 9.0 psi RVP in the summertime, and be dispensed from properly labeled pumps.  It is thus appropriate for the surveys to measure the RVP of fuel labeled as E15 in order to determine whether E15 is being properly blended and sold under the partial waivers.  However, EPA believes that the comments opposing RVP sampling for fuels being dispensed from pumps not labeled for E15 have merit.  For example, a fuel with an ethanol content above 10 vol% up to 15 vol% that is dispensed from a pump lacking the E15 label is not covered by the partial waivers, and its sale violates the misfueling prohibition established in  today's rule,  regardless of its RVP.  We also believe that the current controls on summertime RVP established in 40 CFR 80.27 adequately ensure that E0 and E10 meet the applicable RVP standards.  We are therefore limiting the requirement to measure RVP to fuels being sold and labeled as E15.
      One commenter asked that the survey be fair and balanced and not place any undue burdens on small petroleum marketers and retailers.  EPA is committed to not placing undue burdens on small businesses.  Retailers do not have any obligations to conduct a survey; however, they are responsible for complying with E15 labeling requirements if they choose to sell E15, and they are subject to the prohibition against misfueling with E15.  EPA believes that by allowing two survey options, it is providing marketers and other small businesses flexibility to determine which survey method is most practical if they choose to sell E15.

      b.  Survey Option 1

      EPA received many comments about Survey Option 1.  Some commenters argued that Survey Option 1 would not provide the Agency with accurate information to the degree that a nationwide survey would, because a geographically limited survey would not necessarily detect E15 sent beyond the areas covered by the survey.  Some commenters urged that we eliminate Option 1 altogether.  These commenters pointed out that the national ULSD and RFG survey programs have been effective and that there was no reason to deviate from such an approach for E15.
      The Agency continues to believe that Survey Option 1 is appropriate to provide for parties that choose to manufacture, market, or sell E15.  Unlike the ULSD and RFG programs, which regulated the content of fuels that were already distributed and sold, E15 will likely enter the market first in a few areas of country and then gradually expand to other areas over time.  Under these circumstances, it is appropriate to provide businesses that decide to sell E15 in a limited area with the option of developing a relatively localized survey.  EPA believes that Survey Option 1 can provide the same rigor as a nationwide survey for the areas potentially affected by business decisions to sell E15 in a limited area.  Survey Option 1, as finalized today, includes survey requirements (e.g. sampling and testing methods) similar to those applicable to the national survey.  Also, to be approved, surveys under Survey Option 1 will have to take a robust approach to surveying affected areas considering the fuel distribution network for those areas.  EPA provides a similar opportunity to conduct localized or individual surveys under the RFG and ULSD survey programs, and we believe that it is appropriate to provide parties making, marketing and selling E15 the opportunity to choose which approach is most economical and effective in ensuring proper ethanol content and labeling downstream.  We are also clarifying the language at § 80.1502(a) to reflect that a survey program conducted under Survey Option 1 must adhere to requirements for robustness similar to those applicable to a national survey.
      Other commenters argued that Survey Option 1 is overly broad and not practical.  These commenters stated that as written the proposed regulations implied that all gasoline refiners/importers and ethanol producers/importers would have to survey each area their products could enter even though they would have no idea whether their products are being used to blend E15.  In response to these comments, it is important to clarify that the obligation to conduct a survey applies only to those parties that decide to make, distribute or sell E15 or their gasoline or ethanol for use in E15.  Any party that chooses not to manufacture, market, and/or sell E15 does not need to comply with the rule's survey requirements.  Any party that chooses to market ethanol, gasoline, or gasoline blend stock as appropriate for use in E15 is subject to the survey requirement.  If a party wants to use Survey Option 1, the party will need to limit where its fuel or fuel additive is sold and distributed.  If a party does not want to limit the distribution of its product, then Option 1 would likely not be appropriate for that party.  The choice is up to each party considering how the party decides to market their fuel or fuel additive  -  with or without any limitation on its eventual use downstream.  There are many benefits associated with deciding to market a fuel or fuel additive without limitation, but a companion responsibility is to then develop a survey program that is appropriate to the distribution of the product.
      One commenter suggested that a survey of five percent of the stations that sold a responsible party's fuel in a prior year be deemed sufficiently representative. This commenter suggested that for the first year of sampling under Option 1, the responsible party should conduct a survey that represents the higher of either: (1) five percent of the responsible party's estimate of the number of stations that will sell the responsible party's E15 during the first survey year; or (2) five percent of the stations where the responsible party sold fuels containing ethanol the prior year.  This commenter pointed out that five percent was approximately the number of stations EPA proposed be surveyed annually under Survey Option 2.
      EPA does not agree with this approach to determining the minimum number of stations to be sampled.  The Agency chose the number of samples required under Survey Option 2 using an appropriate statistical approach based on the previous performance of the similar ULSD survey program.  The number of samples required under that program, and proposed for Survey Option 2, can fluctuate year to year since the number of samples is based in part on noncompliance rates; therefore, more than five percent of retail stations may need to be sampled in a particular survey year.  Furthermore, the number of samples for a survey conducted under Survey Option 1 can vary considerably depending on the size and scope of the individual survey plan.  Since survey plans should use statistical means to determine the appropriate number of samples needed to comply with the general survey requirements being adopted, the Agency believes it would be inappropriate to specify a minimum number of samples or percentage of stations to be sampled.  The Agency believes that the proposed approach to determining sample size provides appropriate flexibility to responsible parties.  Therefore, EPA is finalizing Survey Option 1 as proposed.

      c.  Survey Option 2

      EPA received many comments about most aspects of proposed Survey Option 2, the nationwide ethanol content and E15 labeling survey.  Several commenters stated that the proposed requirements that a fuel sample be shipped on the same day it is collected, and that the sample be analyzed for ethanol content within 24 hours, are unnecessary to ensure program integrity, are not practically feasible, and create unnecessary additional costs.  We believe that these comments have merit.  We chose 24 hours to be consistent with the fuel sample transport and analysis deadlines required in the ULSD and RFG survey programs.  However, commenters noted that the independent survey association that has conducted the ULSD and RFG survey programs for the past 15 years has shown that it is not practical to find a shipping carrier that will consistently meet the required 24-hour schedule.  One commenter suggested that EPA allow the use of ground shipment service, which takes in general 1-5 days to be received at the lab.  This commenter also pointed out that for testing samples, due to the volume of samples that will need to be analyzed, 72 hours would be a best case scenario, with 10-12 business days being more realistic.
      EPA believes that it should impose practical, cost-effective requirements regarding the shipping and testing of fuel samples collected as part of the surveys.  Therefore, EPA will require that samples be shipped from the retail station to the laboratory for analysis within 5 days.  Additionally, EPA is requiring that samples be analyzed and reported to EPA for both oxygen content and RVP, if applicable, within 10 days of receipt at the laboratory.  These changes will reduce the costs of conducting the survey.  However, EPA is not changing ULSD and RFG survey requirements at this time since we did not propose to make changes to those survey programs in the NPRM.  EPA may adjust the time allotted for shipment and analysis of fuel samples for these programs in an upcoming rulemaking.
      EPA also received comments suggesting that surveys begin only after E15 has achieved a certain level of market penetration considering data from the previous year.  One commenter specifically suggested that the survey year begin on July 1 instead of January 1 of the year E15 is introduced into commerce.  EPA does not believe that it is appropriate for surveys to begin only after E15 has been on the market.  The purpose of the survey is to help ensure that E15 is being properly blended and labeled so that misfueling is minimized.  That purpose needs to be served from the time E15 first enters the market.  Also, we do not believe it is feasible to determine whether an area has exceeded any level of market penetration without accurate survey data upon which to base that determination.  Additionally, the misfueling waiver conditions require that a survey plan be approved by EPA and that implementation of the plan begin before E15 may be introduced into commerce.  EPA believes that it is best to keep the final survey requirements consistent with the misfueling conditions outlined in its partial waiver decisions.
      EPA does not agree that changing the start date of the survey from January 1 to July 1 would be beneficial since, if E15 actually enters the market earlier in the year, the later start date would delay delivery of information needed on a more real-time basis to minimize labeling and other problems that could lead to misfueling.  The survey programs for the other fuel programs have been conducted with a January 1 start date and for a normal calendar year, and there is no reason to believe that an E15 survey could not also be conducted on the same schedule.  Furthermore, the existing and proposed survey programs break surveys down into four quarterly surveys that ensure that EPA is receiving more real-time information on a regular basis that is not tied to any particular start date.  Therefore, EPA is finalizing the survey timing requirements as proposed.
      EPA proposed that a nationwide ethanol content and E15 labeling survey conducted under Survey Option 2 have a minimum of 7,500 samples annually and that the next year's survey sample size be determined by the equation found at 40 CFR 80.1502 based on the previous year's non-compliance rates.  EPA also sought comment on whether it should allow a smaller number of samples in the first years of the nationwide survey in order to reduce burden.  EPA received comments that suggested that EPA should require fewer or more samples than proposed.  For example, one commenter suggested that EPA sample 20 percent of the retail stations nationwide.  Another commenter suggested a reduction in the number of samples in the first year since E15 will not likely be sold at many retail stations the first year it is introduced into commerce.
      The sample size methodology and minimum sample size EPA proposed were based on statistical principles and past survey experience with similar programs.  Reducing the sample size even in the first year would compromise the statistical rigor, and therefore the effectiveness, of the program.  If, as expected, E15 is initially marketed and sold in a limited geographic area, responsible parties that wish to market and sell E15 could take advantage of Survey Option 1 to reduce the required number of samples.  On the other hand, increasing the minimum number of samples does not provide much more information given the large number of samples already required and the substantial increase in costs that a larger number of samples would entail, which would pose an unnecessary burden on responsible parties.  However, as part of the survey plan approval process, EPA will consider whether a higher minimum sample size may be methodologically necessary under some circumstances to maintain the rigor of a nationwide survey program.  In the regulations issued today, EPA is finalizing the sample size methodology and minimum sample size of 7,500 samples per year as proposed.
      One commenter questioned whether proof that a surveyor had been paid must be sent to EPA by the proposed deadline since EPA could bring an enforcement action under the Clean Air Act if the survey was not conducted according to the approved plan.  The Agency believes that the requirements that the survey plan be contracted and paid for in advance are important to ensuring that the required surveys will occur.  EPA has made this a requirement of both the RFG and ULSD survey programs, and the cost of providing proof of payment to the Agency is minimal.
EPA is making changes to the survey provision governing revoking approval of a survey plan to more closely conform to the method provided for in the ULSD regulations of ensuring that survey plans serve their intended purpose and that this goal is fulfilled until the expiration of the plan.   Given the importance of a robust survey for effective implementation of ethanol content, labeling and related requirements, if experience with an approved survey plan proves that it is inadequate in practice, EPA may revoke it.  Before deciding whether to revoke a plan, EPA will generally work with the submitter to make changes necessary to remedy the plan's flaws.  If satisfactory amendments cannot be achieved, EPA may decide to revoke its approval of the survey plan.  In the event a survey plan is revoked, distribution of the E15 authorized for introduction into commerce under the E15 partial waivers based, in part, on the survey plan would have to cease until such time as a replacement survey is approved.
      To ensure that the E15 survey provisions create incentives similar to those created by the ULSD program for developing and implementing effective survey plans, the regulations being promulgated today include a provision for voiding a survey plan ab initio under appropriate circumstances.  If EPA determines that approval of a survey plan was based on false, misleading or incomplete information, or if there is a failure to fulfill or cause to be fulfilled any requirements of the survey, EPA may void ab initio the approved survey plan.  EPA's years of experience in approving applications that authorize distribution of motor vehicles, nonroad vehicles and engines, and fuels based on compliance with applicable Agency regulations confirm the importance of basing approval determinations on information that is true, clearly stated and comprehensive, and on ensuring implementation of the terms of the application.  Given the importance of E15 surveys to effective implementation of E15 misfueling mitigation measures, providing that survey plans may be voided ab initio under appropriate circumstances will help ensure that plans are properly developed, supported and implemented.  E15 distributed based on a plan whose approval was secured with false, misleading or incomplete information, or a plan whose requirements are not fulfilled, was not distributed in compliance with the conditions of the waiver.
      In considering whether it is appropriate to void a survey plan ab initio, EPA will review the information that was submitted in support of the plan.  EPA will regard information that is not true to be false information; information that, while true, may lead a reasonable person to an incorrect conclusion to be misleading information; and information that is missing elements necessary for a full understanding of the information that was presented to be incomplete information.  Survey plans with these kinds of information flaws are inherently unreliable, and effectively prevent EPA from conducting a meaningful review of the survey plan and from basing its decision to approve the plan on complete and accurate information.  Thus, when EPA discovers that its approval of a survey plan was based on false, misleading or incomplete information, EPA may decide to treat its approval as never having been granted.   In addition, as discussed above, EPA is requiring proof of a valid contract for conducting the survey and payment for the survey to be provided to EPA to help ensure that the survey is implemented.  If, despite the fact that EPA receives this proof, the requirements of a survey plan are not fulfilled, EPA may treat the survey plan as never having been granted by voiding it ab initio.  Distribution of E15 under any survey plan that is voided ab initio would have to cease until such time as a replacement survey is approved, and E15 that was distributed based on that plan will be deemed to have been distributed in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 80.1504(a)(2).

      2. Final Survey Requirements

      In today's rule, EPA is finalizing both survey options.  After carefully considering all of the comments received pertaining to the survey requirements, EPA is finalizing Survey Option 1 as proposed.  In additional, EPA is finalizing most elements of Survey Option 2 as proposed.  However, Survey Option 2 as finalized does not require RVP testing of fuel samples from pumps not labeled for E15, and provides more time for the shipping and testing of samples.  Finally, EPA is revising provisions to permit both revoking and voiding ab initio approval of survey plans in appropriate circumstances.

      E.  Program Outreach

	In the NPRM we pointed out that a public education and outreach program for E15 will be important to help mitigate misfueling that could result in increased emissions and vehicle or engine damage.  We also noted that the industry-lead outreach campaign for the ULSD program helped successfully transition the nation to ULSD while mitigating most misfueling.
	Almost all commenters agreed that an effective outreach program would be essential to mitigate E15 misfueling, and some cited the ULSD outreach effort as an example of how EPA and affected stakeholders could work together to aid in the transition to E15 and minimize misfueling.  Recommendations included a dedicated website, use of EPA's online Green Vehicle Guide, use of other media, pamphlets at retail outlets, and consumer interaction via keypad entry at the pump.  There were also comments that EPA should establish and lead the outreach program.
	EPA agrees that public outreach and consumer education are key to effectively mitigating misfueling.  However, we believe that industry needs to take the lead in such efforts.  Our recent experience with the transition to ULSD shows that a stakeholder-led outreach campaign can work synergistically with labeling requirements and provide another means of providing important information to everyone involved in fuel production, distribution and use.  The ULSD outreach program also shows that industry is better situated to coordinate with the parties involved in the production, transport, and marketing of E15.  More importantly, businesses interact with consumers (via advertising, a web site, pamphlets, etc.) about the fuels they sell, and those that decide to sell E15 will need to make decisions about how to promote E15 in a manner that also minimizes misfueling.  As noted previously, the introduction of E15 into the market is likely to start in a limited number of areas and grow over time.  In these circumstances it is even more appropriate that the parties who choose to market this product take the lead in outreach and consumer education in the areas the product is introduced.
      In light of these considerations, EPA believes that primary responsibility for public outreach and education about E15 appropriately rests with the businesses that decide to make and sell E15.  As we did for the ULSD program, we intend to actively assist in the development and implementation of an outreach and education campaign for E15 when it enters the market.  We are already in the process of working with ethanol and other stakeholders to help establish such a campaign.  As that process moves forward, we will help ensure that a broad range of stakeholders are kept informed so they may become involved as they see fit.

      F.  Other Misfueling Mitigation Measures

	In the proposed rule, we explained our expectation that the misfueling mitigation provisions we were proposing would adequately address misfueling mitigation concerns.  We based our expectation on the relatively recent transition to ULSD when similar measures were employed to help minimize misfueling of new vehicles and engines that were designed and built to achieve stringent emission standards when operated on ULSD.  However, we also recognized that there could be other means for addressing misfueling, as suggested by API in its misfueling mitigation measures scoping study.  In the NPRM, we discussed several suggestions covered in API's study and sought comment on those and any other measures that industry or other stakeholders considered necessary or helpful to mitigate misfueling with E15.
	We received many comments recommending that EPA implement or study one or more mitigation measures in addition to those we proposed.  This section contains a brief summary of major comments and our responses to those comments.  It begins with a discussion of the general issue of whether the proposed misfueling mitigation measures are sufficient to mitigate misfueling, and then considers several specific measures suggested by commenters for inclusion in today's final rule.  Responses to comments not addressed in this section can be found in the "E15 Misfueling Mitigation Measures Response to Public Comments."

	1.  Need for More Mitigation Measures