[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 9 (Thursday, January 14, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2054-2065]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32972]



[[Page 2053]]

Vol. 81

Thursday,

No. 9

January 14, 2016

Part III





Federal Trade Commission





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





16 CFR Part 306





 Automotive Fuel Ratings, Certification and Posting; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2016 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 2054]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 306

RIN 3084-AB39


Automotive Fuel Ratings, Certification and Posting

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'' or ``Commission'').

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commission issues final amendments to its Rule for 
Automotive Fuel Ratings, Certification and Posting (``Fuel Rating 
Rule'' or ``Rule'') by adopting rating, certification, and labeling 
requirements for certain ethanol-gasoline blends. The amendments 
further the Rule's goal of helping purchasers identify the correct fuel 
for their vehicles.

DATES: The amendments published in this document will become effective 
July 14, 2016. The incorporation by reference of certain publications 
listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal 
Register as of July 14, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Relevant portions of the proceeding, including this 
document, are available at www.ftc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. Michael Waller, (202) 326-2902, 
Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 
Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 
20580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    On April 4, 2014, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (``2014 NPRM'') requesting comments on: (1) New rating, 
certification, and labeling requirements for gasoline blends with more 
than 10 percent ethanol (``Ethanol Blends''); and (2) an alternative 
method to determine the fuel rating of gasoline (``octane rating'').\1\ 
After considering the comments received in response as well as 
Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') decisions related to ethanol 
blends, the Commission now issues final ethanol fuel amendments.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Federal Trade Commission: Automotive Fuel Ratings, 
Certification and Posting: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 79 FR 
18850 (Apr. 4, 2014).
    \2\ EPA's decisions permitted the use of ethanol blends between 
10 to 15 percent concentration (``E15'') for 2001 and newer 
conventional vehicles. In 2010, the EPA approved E15 for 2007 and 
newer conventional vehicles. Environmental Protection Agency: 
Partial Grant and Partial Denial of Clean Air Act Waiver Application 
Submitted by Growth Energy to Increase the Allowable Ethanol Content 
of Gasoline to 15 Percent; Decision of Administrator (``EPA Waiver 
Decision I''), 75 FR 68094 (Nov. 4, 2010). Then, it expanded its 
approval to 2001 and newer vehicles based on additional test data. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Partial Grant of Clean Air Act 
Waiver Application Submitted by Growth Energy to Increase the 
Allowable Ethanol Content of Gasoline to 15 Percent; Decision of the 
Administrator (``EPA Waiver Decision II''), 76 FR 4662 (Jan. 26, 
2011). EPA soon thereafter promulgated complementary regulations 
providing ``labeling requirements for fuel pumps that dispense E15 
to alert consumers to the appropriate and lawful use of the fuel.'' 
Environmental Protection Agency: 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; Final Rule (``EPA 
Final Rule to Mitigate Misfueling''), 76 FR 44406 (July 25, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained below, the final amendments require that entities rate 
and certify all ethanol fuels to provide useful information to 
consumers about ethanol concentration and suitability for their cars 
and engines. Responding to the comments, the final amendments provide 
greater flexibility for businesses to comply with the ethanol labeling 
requirements, and do not adopt the alternative octane rating method 
proposed in the 2014 NPRM.
    This document first provides background on the Fuel Rating Rule. It 
then summarizes comments in response to the 2014 NPRM regarding ethanol 
blend ratings and labeling as well as octane rating testing. Finally, 
it provides the Commission's analysis and final rule.

II. Background

A. The Fuel Rating Rule

    The Commission first promulgated the Fuel Rating Rule, 16 CFR part 
306 (then titled the ``Octane Certification and Posting Rule''), in 
1979 pursuant to the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (``PMPA''), 15 
U.S.C. 2801 et seq.\3\ The Rule originally applied only to gasoline. 
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 amended Title II of the PMPA to extend 
the Commission's authority, requiring it to determine automotive fuel 
certification and posting requirements for all liquid automotive fuels, 
including ethanol-gasoline blends.\4\ Pursuant to these amendments, the 
Commission expanded the Rule to cover ``alternative liquid fuels'' in 
1993, including ethanol blends below 70 percent concentration.\5\ 
However, the current Rule's non-exhaustive list of alternative liquid 
fuels does not expressly include these ethanol blends.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Federal Trade Commission: Automotive Fuel Ratings, 
Certification and Posting: Final Rule, 44 FR 19160 (Mar. 30, 1979).
    \4\ Section 1501(b) of Public Law 102-486, 106 Stat. 2776, 2996 
(codified at 15 U.S.C. 2821(6), (17)-(18)). The statute defines the 
term ``automotive fuel'' to mean liquid fuel of a type distributed 
for use in any motor vehicle. Section 1501(b) of Public Law 102-486, 
106 Stat. 2776, 2996-7 (codified at 15 U.S.C. 2821(6)).
    \5\ Federal Trade Commission: Automotive Fuel Ratings, 
Certification and Posting: Final Rule (``1993 Final Rule''), 58 FR 
41356, 41358 (Aug. 3, 1993).
    \6\ 16 CFR 306.0(i)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For covered fuels, the Rule mandates methods for rating and 
certifying, as well as posting the ratings at the point of sale. For 
most alternative fuels,\7\ the rating is ``the commonly used name of 
the fuel with a disclosure of the amount, expressed as a minimum 
percentage by volume, of the principal component of the fuel'' (e.g., 
``Methanol/Minimum 80% Methanol'').\8\ Any covered entity, including a 
distributor, that transfers a fuel must certify the fuel's rating to 
the transferee either by including it in papers accompanying the 
transfer or by letter.\9\ The Rule further requires retailers to post 
this fuel rating by adhering a label to the retail fuel pump and 
provides precise specifications (e.g., content, size, color, and font) 
for these labels.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Rule requires rating biodiesel fuels by the percentage 
of biodiesel or biomass-based diesel in the fuel.
    \8\ 16 CFR 306.0(j)(2).
    \9\ 16 CFR 306.6.
    \10\ 16 CFR 306.10, 306.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Procedural History

    In March 2009, as part of a systematic review of the FTC's rules 
and guides, the Commission solicited general comments on the Fuel 
Rating Rule.\11\ After reviewing those comments, the Commission 
published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in March 2010 (``2010 NPRM'') 
proposing three amendments addressing ethanol fuels.\12\ First, the 
proposed amendments would have required ratings disclosing an ethanol 
blend's ethanol concentration (e.g., 40 percent ethanol), rather than 
the ``principal component'' concentration. Second, the proposed 
amendments would have required retailers to post labels disclosing a 
blend's ethanol content by displaying a broad range of 10 to 70 percent 
ethanol, a narrower range (e.g., 30-40 percent ethanol), or a specific 
percentage. Finally, the proposed amendments would have required all 
ethanol fuel labels to disclose ``may harm some vehicles'' and ``check 
owner's manual.'' In the 2010 NPRM, the Commission explained that 
``[t]his additional information should assist consumers in identifying 
the proper fuel for their vehicles.'' \13\ In April 2011, the 
Commission published

[[Page 2055]]

final amendments providing an alternative method of rating gasoline 
octane and making other minor changes to the Rule.\14\ At that time, 
the Commission declined to adopt final ethanol amendments, noting that 
it needed additional time to consider ethanol labeling in light of 
comments received in response to the 2010 NPRM and a recent EPA 
decision permitting the use of certain ethanol blends between 10 and 15 
percent concentration (``E15'') in newer conventional vehicles.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Federal Trade Commission: Automotive Fuel Ratings, 
Certification and Posting: Request for Public Comments, 74 FR 9054 
(Mar. 2, 2009).
    \12\ Federal Trade Commission: Automotive Fuel Ratings, 
Certification and Posting: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 75 FR 
12470 (Mar. 16, 2010).
    \13\ 2010 NPRM, 75 FR at 12474.
    \14\ Federal Trade Commission: Automotive Fuel Ratings 
Certification and Posting: Final Rule, 76 FR 19684 (Apr. 8, 2011).
    \15\ Id. at 19689.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In April 2014, the Commission published a second NPRM proposing 
that ethanol blend labels disclose the exact percentage of ethanol, or 
a percentage rounded to the nearest multiple of ten.\16\ The proposal 
also required that the label state ``Use Only in Flex-Fuel Vehicles/May 
Harm Other Engines.'' \17\ In addition, to prevent consumer confusion 
and avoid unnecessary burden on industry, the proposed rule exempted 
EPA-approved E15 (``EPA E15'') from the Rule's labeling requirements. 
Finally, the 2014 NPRM proposed allowing octane ratings determined by 
infrared spectrophotometry.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 2014 NPRM, 79 FR 18850, 18859.
    \17\ Id. at 18857.
    \18\ Id. at 18861.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comments in Response to the 2014 NPRM

    Many comments received in response to the 2014 NPRM supported the 
need for new labeling and testing methods.\19\ However, commenters 
suggested several modifications, including defining gasoline to include 
E15, an octane label for Ethanol Blends, an alternative label for 
Ethanol Blends of 51 to 83 percent, and referee testing methods for 
octane ratings determined through infrared spectrophotometry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The Commission received 357 comments in response to the 
2014 NPRM. These comments are located at: http://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/initiative-555.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Proposed Definition of ``Ethanol Blend'' and Exemption for EPA E15

    The 2014 NPRM proposed including E15 in the definition of ``Ethanol 
Blend,'' but not requiring retailers to post a separate FTC fuel rating 
label for EPA E15.\20\ The Commission intended its proposal to 
facilitate coverage of all concentrations of ethanol blends above 10 
percent and to help consumers quickly identify ethanol blends at 
pumps.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See 40 CFR 80.1501; see also 2014 NPRM, 79 FR at 18865.
    \21\ 79 FR at 18857.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters, including fuel manufacturers, a state 
regulator, and an ethanol industry group, urged the FTC to exclude E15 
from the definition of Ethanol Blends altogether.\22\ For example, 
Tesoro suggested that ``Ethanol Blend'' be defined as ``a mixture of 
gasoline and ethanol containing more than 15 percent ethanol'' and that 
the definition of ``gasoline'' include concentrations below 15 percent, 
i.e., E10 and E15.\23\ According to Tesoro, these changes would subject 
E15 to the Rule's octane labeling and certification requirements for 
gasoline.\24\ Moreover, defining E15 as gasoline would exempt E15 from 
the ethanol blend labeling requirements and prevent an overlap with 
EPA's E15 regulations.\25\ According to Tesoro, ``all E15 is subject to 
the EPA Misfueling Mitigation rule.'' \26\ Phillips66 agreed and added 
that all Ethanol Blends below 16 percent are subject to EPA regulations 
on blendstock and finished gasoline, including ``vapor pressure, 
sulfur, benzene, etc.'' \27\ It argued that defining gasoline to 
include E15 would avoid ``confusion and conflict with EPA regulations 
and requirements.'' \28\ API worried that the 2014 NPRM exemption for 
EPA E15 ``may allow a supplier to differentiate `EPA-approved E15' from 
`non-EPA-approved E15' and, for the latter, avoid'' the EPA's 
requirements.\29\ Thus, it concluded that the FTC Rule should exclude 
E15 from the definition of Ethanol Blends.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Phillips66 comment at 1; Renewable Fuels Association 
(``RFA'') comment at 1-2; Tesoro comment Att. 1 at 1-2; American 
Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (``AFPM'') comment at 2-3; 
American Petroleum Institute (``API'') comment at 2; BP Products 
North America (``BP Products'') comment at 1; Chevron comment at 2; 
Marathon Petroleum Corporation (``Marathon'') comment at 1-2; 
Tennessee Department of Agriculture (``TN Dept. Ag.'') comment at 2-
3.
    \23\ Tesoro comment Att. 1 at 1-2; see AFPM comment at 2-3; API 
comment at 2; BP Products comment at 1; Chevron comment at 2; TN 
Dept. Ag. comment at 2-3.
    \24\ Tesoro comment Att. 1 at 2.
    \25\ Id.
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Phillips66 comment at 1.
    \28\ Id.
    \29\ API comment at 2; see also Marathon comment at 2.
    \30\ API comment at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Tennessee Department of Agriculture (``TN Dept. Ag.'') 
and the National Conference of Weights and Measures (``NCWM'') urged 
the Commission to refer to Ethanol Blends as ``Ethanol Flex Fuel 
Blends'' or ``Ethanol Flex Fuel.'' \31\ TN Dept. Ag. explained that the 
relevant ASTM International (``ASTM'') standard for ethanol fuel 
blends, ASTM D5798, recognizes ``Ethanol Flex-Fuel'' as the most 
standardized term for ``higher level'' ethanol blends (i.e., blends 
from 51 to 83 percent volume ethanol).\32\ Additionally, TN Dept. Ag. 
explained that the term ``Ethanol Flex Fuel'' is consistent with NCWM's 
definition of ethanol blends.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ TN Dept. Ag. comment at 1-3; NCWM comment at 6.
    \32\ TN Dept. Ag. comment at 1-2 (referring to ASTM 
International D5798 Standard Specification for Ethanol Fuel Blends 
for Flexible-Fuel Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines).
    \33\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Octane Rating for Ethanol Blends

    Although the 2014 NPRM did not propose an octane rating for Ethanol 
Blends, eight commenters suggested that the Commission require one to 
prevent misfueling, ensure fuel quality, or bolster ethanol's 
competitiveness.\34\ Two state regulators and ethanol industry groups 
asserted that, without such a rating, consumers could not choose the 
EPA E15 appropriate for their vehicle.\35\ The California Department of 
Food and Agriculture (``CA Dept. Ag.'') explained that ``[v]ehicles 
manufactured after 2001 also have varying octane requirements, and 
requiring use of the US EPA label alone does not ensure that consumers 
will purchase a fuel that meets their vehicle's needs.'' \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Tesoro comment at 1, Att. 1 at 5-6; Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers and Association of Global Automakers (``AAM/AGA'') 
comment at 4-5; National Automobile Dealers Association (``NADA'') 
comment at 3; American Coalition for Ethanol (``ACE'') comment at 2; 
TN Dept. Ag. comment at 1; California Department of Food and 
Agriculture (CA Dept. Ag.) comment; Growth Energy comment at 2; 
Davis comment.
    \35\ ACE comment at 2; Growth Energy comment at 2; TN Dept. Ag. 
comment at 1; CA Dept. Ag. comment.
    \36\ CA Dept. Ag. comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Automotive manufacturing groups argued for an octane rating for 
Ethanol Flex Fuels of less than 51 percent ethanol: ``Consumers have 
come to expect and have a right to know the octane rating of the fuel 
offered for sale . . . . The correct octane rating for the vehicle is 
provided in the vehicle owner's manual and therefore the correlating 
octane information should be available from the rating on the retail 
pump.'' \37\ These commenters added, however, that ``at this point an 
octane AKI posting for Ethanol Flex Fuel (E51-83%) as defined by ASTM 
International is not yet practically feasible given variable 
composition.'' \38\ The NADA, an automobile dealers group, suggested 
that retailers display octane ratings for

[[Page 2056]]

all automotive fuels: ``[c]onsumers often and wisely consider a fuel's 
octane rating when making appropriate vehicle fueling decisions, 
whether or not an ethanol blend is involved.'' \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ AAM/AGA comment at 4.
    \38\ Id. at 4-5.
    \39\ NADA comment at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other commenters argued that an octane rating is important for 
communicating ethanol's benefits. Ethanol proponents Growth Energy and 
ACE noted that ethanol's high octane rating represents an important 
advantage for ethanol.\40\ ACE explained that ``[c]lean and high octane 
is one of ethanol's greatest competitive advantages in the marketplace, 
and while nothing in the rule would preclude a marketer from posting 
the octane rating of E15, ACE believes this proposal gives oil 
companies the power to prevent their branded marketers from displaying 
the higher octane rating of E15.'' \41\ The TN Dept. Ag. added that 
``[r]equiring the [octane rating] as the legal Automotive Fuel Rating 
for E15 will benefit the consumer and both the ethanol and petroleum 
industries by maintaining a level playing field for marketing the 
various grades of gasoline and gasoline-ethanol blends.'' \42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Growth Energy comment at 2; ACE comment at 2.
    \41\ ACE comment at 2.
    \42\ TN Dept. Ag. comment at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tesoro and automaker groups argued for certification and display of 
octane rating to ensure the quality of the gasoline used for Ethanol 
Flex Fuels.\43\ AAM/AGA explained that, ``[an] octane rating label will 
also support compliance/enforcement to be sure the correct octane 
tracks with the blend [Ethanol Flex Fuel], and is not inappropriately 
low due to lower octane BOB ([Gasoline] Blendstock for Oxygenate 
Blending) used'' in the blending.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Tesoro comment at 1, Att. 1 at 5-6; AAM/AGA comment at 4-5.
    \44\ AAM/AGA comment at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Proposed Ethanol Blend Pump Labeling

    Commenters disagreed about the proposed fuel pump label for Ethanol 
Blends. Some supported the Commission's proposal and others urged more 
detail and precision in the label disclosure, while still others sought 
less detail and precision. Finally, many commenters argued that there 
is no label that would be sufficient to prevent misfueling and, 
therefore, opposed the Commission's proposal.
1. Required Label Statement
    Commenters, including petroleum retailers and industry groups, auto 
manufacturing groups, ethanol producer groups, and a state regulator, 
all supported inclusion of ``Use Only in Flex-Fuel Vehicles'' on the 
label.\45\ Few commenters, however, supported the ``May Harm Other 
Engines'' language without change.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ RFA comment at 5; AAM/AGA comment at 2; Iowa Renewable 
Fuels Association (``IRFA'') comment at 2; AAM/AGA comment at 2; ACE 
comment Att. (May 20, 2010 comment at 3); Petroleum Marketers and 
Convenience Stores of Iowa (``PMCSI'') comment; Outdoor Power and 
Equipment Institute/National Marine Manufacturers Association 
(``OPEI/NMMA'') comment at 14; CA Dept. Ag. comment; Growth Energy 
comment at 1; Marathon comment at 3; Davis comment. Phillips66, 
Tesoro, AFPM, API, and NCWM suggest ``For Use in Flexible Fuel 
Vehicles (FFV) Only.'' Phillips66 comment at 2; Tesoro comment Att. 
1 at 3; AFPM comment at 4; API comment at 3; NCWM comment at 4; BP 
Products comment at 1; Chevron comment at 1.
    \46\ See Center for Auto Safety (``CAS'') comment at 1; CA Dept. 
Ag. comment at ] 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ethanol producer groups argued ``May Harm Other Engines'' is 
scientifically unsubstantiated and unduly harmful to the ethanol 
industry.\47\ For example, RFA stated that it is ``not aware of any 
credible evidence showing that misfueling has been a problem at flex 
fuel dispensers that simply advise the consumer'' that the fuel is for 
flex-fuel vehicles only.\48\ IRFA reported that there have been no 
reports of misfueling, and ACE stated ``that there has been little, if 
any, harm or damage reported'' from misfueling.\49\ According to RFA, 
``the proposed language . . . does not appear to be based on scientific 
evidence and would undoubtedly deter some [flex-fuel vehicle] drivers 
from purchasing the fuel[.]'' \50\ IRFA added, ``[n]o scientific 
evidence exists to prove that any vehicles may be harmed [by flex-fuel 
blends].'' \51\ Ethanol groups also described the phrase as unfair 
because labels for other fuels (e.g., diesel) do not include this 
language.\52\ Growth Energy added that the phrase is vague, does 
nothing to prevent misfueling, and ``further confuses the consumer.'' 
\53\ It suggested an alternative phrase: ``Attention . . . Not Approved 
for Other Engines.'' \54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ RFA comment at 5; see also IRFA comment at 2; ACE comment 
at 1; Growth Energy comment at 1. These groups reiterated concerns 
raised in their comments to the March 16, 2010 NPRM, available at 
https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/initiative-335.
    \48\ RFA comment at 5.
    \49\ IRFA comment at 1; ACE comment at 2.
    \50\ RFA comment at 5.
    \51\ IRFA comment at 2.
    \52\ RFA comment at 5-6; IRFA comment at 2; ACE comment at 1.
    \53\ Growth Energy comment at 1.
    \54\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conversely, some commenters viewed ``May Harm Other Engines'' as 
too weak. Citing concerns such as misfueling, automobile performance, 
warranty coverage, damage to small engines, and consistency with NCWM's 
label, the NCWM, gasoline manufacturers and retailers, automobile 
manufacturers, a regulator, and two individual commenters suggested 
adding ``Check Owner's Manual'' or ``Consult Vehicle Owner's Manual for 
Fuel Recommendations.'' \55\ AFPM and other commenters explained that 
NCWM's suggested label for ethanol blends includes the phrase ``Check 
Owner's Manual.'' \56\ Retailers expressed concern about liability 
under laws that prohibit misfueling and suggested that the label 
contain an ``advisory word'' such as ``Attention.'' \57\ Similarly, 
other commenters proposed adding ``Warning'' or ``Caution'' to the 
label.\58\ Commenters also highlighted harm to engines from misfueling 
and advocated for: ``Do Not Use in Other Engines May Cause Harm;'' \59\ 
and ``Don't Use in other Vehicles, Boats, or Gasoline Powered Engine. 
It May Cause Damages;'' \60\ among others.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Phillips66 comment at 2; Tesoro comment Att. 1; AFPM 
comment at 3; Chevron comment at 1; BP Products at 1; API comment at 
3; AAM/AGA comment at 3; PMCSI comment; NCWM comment at 6; OPEI/NMMA 
comment at 19; TN Dept. Ag. comment at 2; McComas comment; Lori 
Jacobson comment.
    \56\ AFPM comment at 4; Tesoro comment Att. 1; Phillips66 
comment at 2; NCWM comment at 4, 6.
    \57\ National Association of Convenience Stores/Society of 
Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (``NACS/SIGMA'') comment 
at 3-4.
    \58\ AAM/AGA comment at 3; OPEI/NMMA comment at 19.
    \59\ OPEI/NMMA comment at 14; AAM/AGA comment at 2-3; see NADA 
comment at 2 (suggests replacing ``May Harm Other Engines'' with 
``Do Not Use in Other Engines'').
    \60\ Mississippi State Chemical Laboratory (``MSU Chem. Lab.'') 
comment.
    \61\ Pipkorn comment (``I think the label should include a large 
print warning on the ethanol fuel pumps that ethanol fuels will 
cause harm, damage and possibly destroy your engine and fuel 
systems!''); Scally comment (``Since ethanol is known to damage 
engines, why don't you just say that at the pumps? That would be 
much more understandable for the general public.''); Seldon comment 
(``Any labels for gasoline containing E-15 can only honestly say 
`POISON for gasoline engines'--DO NOT USE!''); Haines comment (``Do 
Not Use--May Cause Engine Damage.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AAM/AGA added that `` `May Harm . . .' does not convey the intended 
absolute prohibition on its use for non-flex-fuel equipment, whereas 
`Do Not Use . . .' is a clear, simple instruction.'' \62\ AAM/AGA 
further expressed ``strong concerns about the risks for consumers from 
misfueling vehicles with ethanol blends,'' including mechanical damage 
on engine parts and the fuel pump as well as improper illumination of 
the malfunction indicator light (``MIL'') that will reduce consumer 
confidence in this

[[Page 2057]]

diagnostic tool.\63\ AAM/AGA included letters from 12 automakers about 
the potential for damage to automobiles from ethanol blends above 10 
percent ethanol. In these letters, the automakers expressed concern 
about vehicle damage not covered by vehicle warranties and reduced fuel 
efficiency.\64\ Marathon argued for the word ``damage'' in lieu of 
``harm,'' which it considers an insufficient warning to owners of small 
engines, motorcycles, and other non-flex fuel vehicles.\65\ Groups 
representing motorcycle, marine, and other small engine manufacturers 
and users also cited evidence of engine damage from ethanol blends.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ AAM/AGA comment at 3.
    \63\ Id. at 5.
    \64\ Id. at 6-7 and attachments.
    \65\ Marathon comment at 3.
    \66\ OPEI/NMMA comment at 3-7; American Motorcyclist Association 
(``AMA'') comment at 1-2. Individual commenters also expressed 
support for AMA's comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, some commenters proposed changes to the color of the 
labels and size of the fonts. For example, AAM/AGA recommended 
increasing the font sizes of the language on the labels to ``ease 
reading them.'' \67\ API and supporting commenters recommended a larger 
label, matching the size of the EPA's E15 label.\68\ NCWM proposed 
larger type than the 2014 NPRM and greater flexibility for retailers in 
the placement of particular components of the label on fuel pumps as 
well as colors and font styles.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ AAM/AGA comment at 3.
    \68\ API comment at 4; see also Phillips66 comment at 1; Chevron 
comment at 1; BP Products comment at 1.
    \69\ NCWM comment at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Ethanol Percentage Disclosure
    Three commenters supported the FTC's proposed ethanol percentage 
label disclosures.\70\ Seven called for more precise disclosures.\71\ 
Thirteen urged the FTC to permit less precise disclosures, such as a 
single label for 51 to 83 percent ethanol blends.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ CAS comment at 1; PMCSI comment; Davis comment.
    \71\ AAM/AGA comment at 2; NADA comment at 2; OPEI/NMMA comment 
at 21; Berendts comment; Brink comment; Miller comment; Theisen 
comment.
    \72\ Phillips66 comment at 2; RFA comment at 4; Tesoro comment 
Att. 1 at 3-4; API comment at 3; ACE comment at 2; NCWM comment at 
3-4; TN Dept. Ag. comment at 3; CA Dept. Ag. comment; NACS/SIGMA 
comment at 1-3; BP Products comment at 1; Chevron comment at 2; 
Marathon comment at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters supporting more precise disclosures argued for 5 percent 
increments, instead of the 10 percent increments in the proposal. They 
claimed that the narrower range would allow retailers to use 
commercially available ethanol blend dispensers without confusing or 
deceiving consumers.\73\ AAM/AGA added that ``[u]sing units of 5 avoids 
the potential perception that FTC's proposed units of 10 somehow 
inhibit the ability to market an E25 fuel [albeit the proposed 
regulatory language in the NPRM allows the option for labeling the 
exact % ethanol content in proposed Sec. 306(12)(a)(4)(A)].'' \74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ AAM/AGA comment at 2; OPEI/NMMA comment at 21. Other 
commenters argue that more precise disclosures would be ``safer for 
consumer use'' or provided no explanation. See Theissen comment; 
Berendts comment; Brink comment; Miller comment.
    \74\ AAM/AGA comment at 2 (brackets included in original text).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most commenters who proposed less precise disclosures \75\ 
generally supported the National Conference for Weights and Measures 
(``NCWM'') proposal to allow businesses to round the ethanol content to 
the nearest ten percent for ethanol blends below 51 percent ethanol 
(``Mid-level Blends'') and post a single label for blends from 51 to 83 
percent (``High-level Blends'').\76\ These commenters explained that 
engines will not cold-start during winter months if the ethanol 
concentration is too high. As a result, High-level Blends contain a 
changing ratio of ethanol to gasoline during colder months to ensure 
performance and compliance with ASTM International (``ASTM'') 
specifications.\77\ Commenters worried that manufacturers and sellers 
of High-level Blends would, therefore, incur high costs resulting from 
constantly changing labels and that these changes would cause customer 
confusion. For example, the Renewable Fuels Association (``RFA'') 
stated that ``[a] requirement to change the label every time the 
ethanol content fluctuates would be burdensome, costly, and 
confusing;'' moreover, simultaneously posting ``multiple labels for 
every possible variant of ethanol content in the `ethanol flex fuel' 
offered at the pump . . . would only confuse consumers about the actual 
ethanol content of the fuel.'' \78\ TN Dept. Ag., which supported 
rounding ethanol content to the nearest 10 percent for Mid-level 
Blends, argued that some retailers will choose not to sell ethanol or 
blend lower amounts of ethanol to avoid the burden of re-labeling High-
level Blends seasonally.\79\ They further explained that selling only 
lower blends would be counter to the intent of the Energy Independence 
and Security Act of 2007 \80\ to increase the availability of 
alternative fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ Phillips66 comment at 2; RFA comment at 4; Tesoro comment 
Att. 1 at 3-4; API comment at 3; ACE comment at 2; NCWM comment at 
3-4; TN Dept. Ag. comment at 3; CA Dept. Ag. comment; NACS/SIGMA 
comment at 1-3; BP Products comment at 1; Chevron comment at 2; 
Marathon comment at 2.
    \76\ Citing the high cost of changing labels, NACS/SIGMA argued 
for a single label for ethanol blends below 51 percent and another 
label for blends between 51 and 83 percent. NACS/SIGMA comment at 1-
3.
    \77\ According to Phillips66, ``[t]he ASTM specification varies 
seasonally to ensure continued vehicle performance with changing 
ambient temperatures. In order to meet the seasonal specification 
changes, the ethanol volume is varied.'' Phillips66 comment at 2.
    \78\ RFA comment at 4; see also AFPM comment at 3; Tesoro 
comment Att. 1 at 2-3.
    \79\ TN Dept. Ag. comment at 3.
    \80\ Pub. L. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Convenience store groups and fuel marketers also urged less 
precision, advocating for a single label for Mid-level Blends.\81\ 
According to them, many retailers cannot know the ethanol content 
within 10 percent because they do not blend their own fuels and mix 
fuel deliveries with preexisting fuel in their storage tanks. They 
explained, ``[e]ven if retailers are in a position to make this 
determination, requiring them to constantly shift the labels on their 
blender pumps (E20 one day, E40 another day, etc.) would be exceedingly 
burdensome and have little offsetting benefit to the consumer.'' \82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ NACS/SIGMA comment at 2-3.
    \82\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Opposition to Additional Labeling
    The American Motorcyclist Association (``AMA'') and 72 individual 
commenters argued that the proposed label would be ineffective. 
According to AMA, ``another label on a blender pump that already has 
many labels will not be sufficient to avoid misfueling and could be 
easily overlooked.'' \83\ Instead, AMA recommends ``physical barriers 
in the fueling nozzle/receptacle, as was provided when the nation went 
from leaded to unleaded fuel.'' \84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ AMA comment at 3.
    \84\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Infrared Testing Method for Octane Rating

    Commenters generally supported allowing infrared spectrophotometry 
(``IR Testing'') to establish an octane rating, citing reduced 
production and enforcement costs.\85\ Specifically, the Commission's 
proposal would have allowed octane ratings from infrared 
spectrophotometers that are correlated with ASTM D2699 and D2700 and

[[Page 2058]]

conform to ASTM D6122 (``Standard Practice for the Validation of the 
Performance of Multivariate Infrared Spectrophotometers'').\86\ In 
support, some commenters noted that gasoline producers and regulators 
already use such spectrophotometric testing.\87\ Others suggested that 
the Rule permit additional techniques, including Raman 
spectrophotometry.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ Phillips66 comment at 1; Lima comment at 1; Tesoro comment 
Att. 1 at 4-5; CAS comment at 2; AFPM comment at 5; AAM/AGA comment 
at 9; API comment at 4-5; Chevron comment at 1; MSU Chem. Lab. 
comment; Marathon comment at 4; Davis comment.
    \86\ 2014 NPRM, 79 FR at 18865. The Commission received 22 
comments on this issue.
    \87\ TN Dept. Ag. comment at 2; see also Gibbs comment.
    \88\ Lima comment at 2; Tesoro comment Att. 1 at 4-5; AFPM 
comment at 5; Chevron comment at 1; Travers comment; Botelho 
comment; Demsey comment; Parsley comment; McDaniel comment; Smith 
comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, even these commenters argued that should the Rule provide 
for IR Testing, it must identify ASTM D2699 and D2700 as ``referee'' 
tests in case of a dispute over the reliability of testing results.\89\ 
Some of these commenters questioned the reliability of IR Testing and 
noted that, unlike D2699 and D2700, IR Testing identifies the 
components of fuel, not its actual performance. AFPM, a petrochemical 
manufacturers group, explained: ``All correlative test methods such as 
infrared and others must relate the results obtained (i.e., spectra 
inferred octane) to the engine test methods as required in ASTM D4814 
for gasoline certification.'' \90\ AFPM concludes that the purpose of 
correlative methods ``is only to predict the standard method results 
[from ASTM D2699 and D2700],'' which have been used to classify 
gasoline for ``over 60 years.'' \91\ It adds that ``[r]eplacing this 
combustion-based technology testing with a chemical make-up test 
technology [such as infrared spectrophotometry] may or may not be fully 
functional or directly applicable to today's fuels or automobile 
needs.'' \92\ BP Products and an individual commenter urged the FTC not 
to include these methods until ASTM endorses correlative methods 
specifically for octane rating.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ Phillips66 comment at 1; Tesoro comment Att. 1 at 4-5; AFPM 
comment at 5; AAM/AGA comment at 9; API comment at 4-5; Chevron 
comment at 1-2; TN Dept. Ag. comment at 2; Marathon comment at 4; 
Davis comment. Many commenters pointed out that the 2014 NPRM cited 
outdated ASTM standards and urged the FTC to adopt the most recent 
standards. RFA comment at 1; API comment at 5; BP Products comment 
at 1; NCWM comment at 4; Chevron comment at 1; TN Dept. Ag. comment 
at 2; Gibbs comment.
    \90\ AFPM comment at 6; see also Gibbs comment.
    \91\ AFPM comment at 6.
    \92\ Id.; see Tesoro comment Att.1 at 4-5; Gibbs comment.
    \93\ BP Products comment at 1; Gibbs comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Rule Amendments

    After considering the record, the Commission now issues final Rule 
amendments regarding the rating, certification, and labeling of ethanol 
fuels. These amendments include modifications in response to the 
comments. Specifically, the final amendments: (1) establish specific 
rating and certification requirements for Ethanol Blends with ethanol 
content above 10 percent to a maximum of 83 percent (``Ethanol Flex 
Fuels''); (2) modify the ethanol fuel labeling to permit a single pump 
label for High-level Blends; and (3) do not adopt infrared 
spectrophotometry as a method to determine octane rating for gasoline.

A. Definitions and Exemption for EPA E15

    To establish requirements for rating, certifying, and labeling 
gasoline-ethanol blends, the 2014 NPRM proposed defining ``Ethanol 
Blends'' as ``a mixture of gasoline and ethanol containing more than 10 
percent ethanol.'' \94\ The NPRM, however, exempted EPA E15 from the 
Rule's labeling requirements, because it is subject to EPA labeling 
requirements. The final amendments retain this definition and 
exemption, but replace the proposed term ``Ethanol Blends'' with 
``Ethanol Flex Fuels.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ 2014 NPRM, 79 FR at 18865.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Though some commenters agreed that E15 should be exempt from the 
Rule's ethanol labeling, they urged the Commission to require an octane 
rating label for E15. Specifically, they suggested that the Commission 
include E15 in the Rule's definition of gasoline, which currently 
includes gasoline-ethanol blends of up to 10 percent ethanol. Doing so 
would require E15 pumps to have octane rating labels. These ratings, 
according to automotive manufacturer and dealer groups, state 
regulators, and ethanol industry groups, would help consumers choose 
fuels appropriate for their vehicles, bolster ethanol's competitiveness 
as a high-octane fuel, and ensure that Ethanol Flex Fuels are composed 
of appropriate quality gasoline.
    The Commission has not adopted these suggestions. First, as 
discussed in the 2010 NPRM and the Commission's 1993 rulemaking, an 
octane rating likely would not provide useful information to consumers 
and may deceive them about the suitability of Ethanol Flex Fuels for 
their vehicles.\95\ Ethanol naturally boosts the octane rating in 
Ethanol Flex Fuels, and consumers may mistakenly equate octane with 
fuel quality.\96\ Thus, this higher octane rating may mislead consumers 
to believe that such fuels are better for conventional gasoline 
engines. Second, according to automakers, using E15 may void vehicle 
warranties regardless of model year, except for certain vehicles 
manufactured since MY2012 as ``E15 capable.'' \97\ Third, by exempting 
EPA E15 from the labeling requirements, but not from the other Rule 
requirements, e.g., the certification provisions, the Rule ensures 
distributors and retailers have accurate ethanol concentration 
information, but does not burden retailers or confuse consumers with 
two separate E15 pump labels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ 2010 NPRM, 79 FR at 18857; 1993 Final Rule, 58 FR at 41361.
    \96\ 1993 Final Rule, 58 FR at 41361.
    \97\ See AAM/AGA comment at 5, 7. If EPA E15 and E15 capable 
vehicles become prevalent, the Commission may consider whether 
retailers must post an octane label for EPA E15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, using the term ``Ethanol Flex Fuels'' is consistent with 
NCWM's and ASTM's use of ``Ethanol Flex Fuels'' for ethanol blends up 
to 83 percent.\98\ Harmonizing these terms should alleviate consumer 
confusion. Including concentrations above 83 percent, however, would be 
inappropriate because automakers have not certified such blends for 
flex fuel vehicles or conventional automobiles, and Section 211(f) of 
the Clean Air Act prohibits their use as an automotive fuel.\99\ If 
this changes, the Commission will consider appropriate amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ TN Dept. Ag. comment at 2-3; NCWM comment at 5; see also 
ASTM D5798.
    \99\ 42 U.S.C. 7545(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Rating and Certification

    The final rule contains amendments related to rating and 
certification. First, consistent with the 2014 NPRM, the final 
amendments require an ethanol content rating for all Ethanol Flex 
Fuels. Previously, the Rule rated ethanol blends with the common name 
of the fuel and the percentage of the principal component of the fuel 
(e.g., E85/``Minimum 70% Ethanol''). As a result, the Rule required 
rating ethanol blends below 50 percent ethanol concentration with the 
fuel's gasoline concentration, not its ethanol concentration (e.g., 
E45/``Minimum 55% Gasoline''). Generally, ethanol contains less energy 
per gallon than petroleum-derived gasoline.\100\ Consequently, the 
higher the ethanol concentration, the lower the fuel

[[Page 2059]]

economy. Therefore, by disclosing the ethanol concentration, the label 
does not incorrectly convey that the fuel has the same fuel economy as 
gasoline. No commenter opposed this change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ See Hyde comment to 2010 NPRM; AMA comment at 7 & atts. 
Honda Letter at 2, Chrysler Letter at 2, BMW Letter at 2, & GM 
Letter at 2; Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy 
Laboratory, Effects of Intermediate Ethanol Blends on Legacy 
Vehicles and Small Non-Road Engines, Report 1--Updated study, at 
xvii. Golden, Colorado. February 2009. Available at http://energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/downloads/effects-intermediate-ethanol-blends-legacy-vehicles-and-small-non-road.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Commission adopts the 2014 NPRM proposal to allow 
transferors to certify fuel content through a letter to the transferee. 
For most other alternative fuels, a certification letter remains valid 
if a transferred fuel has the same or a higher concentration of the 
principal fuel component because an increase in concentration will not 
trigger label changes. In contrast, an increase or decrease in the 
concentration for Ethanol Flex Fuels may trigger new disclosures by 
changing the ethanol concentration of the fuel. For example, if a 
fuel's ethanol concentration increased from 26 percent to 38 percent, 
the label, as discussed below, must disclose a higher concentration 
level. Therefore, a certification letter will only remain valid as long 
as the transferred fuel contains the same percentage of ethanol as 
previous fuel transfers covered by the letter. No commenter objected to 
this proposal.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ Tesoro suggested that the FTC consider requiring 
certification of the octane rating for gasoline blendstock intended 
for blending with oxygenates, such as ethanol. Tesoro comment Att. 1 
at 5-6. The Rule, however, does not require an octane rating for 
ethanol blends above 10 percent, and therefore will not require a 
certification for the gasoline used in Ethanol Flex Fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Labeling

    As explained below, the final amendments adopt the proposed ``Use 
Only in Flex-Fuel Vehicles/May Harm Other Engines'' language, but 
modify the ethanol percentage disclosures proposed in the 2014 NPRM. 
Specifically, retailers must post labels with exact ethanol 
concentrations or round to the nearest multiple of 10 for Mid-level 
Blends. For High-level Blends, however, they may post the exact 
concentration, round to the nearest multiple of 10, or label the fuel 
as ``51% to 83% Ethanol.''
1. Required Label Statement
    As proposed in the 2014 NPRM, the final rule requires that ethanol 
labels disclose ``Use Only in Flex-Fuel Vehicles/May Harm Other 
Engines,'' despite objections both that ``May Harm Other Engines'' is 
too narrow and that it is overbroad. No commenters opposed the proposed 
``Use Only in Flex-Fuel Vehicles.'' \102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ As discussed in Section III.C.3. supra, some commenters 
recommended physical barriers between gasoline and Ethanol Flex Fuel 
nozzles or pumps to prevent misfueling. However, the PMPA does not 
authorize the FTC to mandate such barriers. Thus, the Commission 
does not analyze this recommendation further.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission reaches the same conclusion as in the 2014 NPRM--
objections to the proposed text are unconvincing and not supported by 
the record.\103\ First, there are significant risks, including engine 
damage and legal liability, associated with misfueling. The record 
demonstrates that Ethanol Flex Fuels may cause engine malfunction, 
engine damage, damage to the vehicle's emissions system, or other 
problems in conventional automobiles Model Year (``MY'') 2000 or older, 
motorcycles, small engines, and non-road engines, including marine 
engines.\104\ The EPA permits E15 use only in MY2001 or newer 
automobiles \105\ because it determined that Ethanol Flex Fuels may 
damage emissions systems and engine components of other engines.\106\ 
Moreover, AAM/AGA submitted letters from 12 automakers stating that E15 
may also harm MY2001 or newer automobiles.\107\ These automakers also 
expressed concern that damage from ethanol may not be covered by 
warranty.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ 2014 NPRM, 79 FR at 18858-59.
    \104\ Id.; see discussion of comments from gasoline 
manufacturers and retailers, automobile manufacturers, and other 
similar comments in Section III.C.1. supra.
    \105\ EPA Waiver Decision II, 76 FR at 4662.
    \106\ EPA Waiver Decision I, 75 FR at 68097-98, 68103; see also 
EPA Final Rule to Mitigate Misfueling, 76 FR at 44414-15, 44439.
    \107\ AAM/AGA comment at 7 and Atts. The automakers included 
Chrysler, Ford, GM, Mercedes-Benz, Honda, Mazda, Toyota, Nissan, 
Volkswagen, Volvo, BMW, Hyundai, and Kia Motors.
    \108\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, ``May Harm Other Engines'' is not confusing. By stating 
``Use Only In Flex-Fuel Vehicles'' and ``May Harm Other Engines,'' the 
label clearly and accurately explains: (1) The fuel's suitability for 
consumers' cars and (2) that misfueling risks harm to non-flex-fuel 
engines, but not that it will necessarily harm all such engines. 
Moreover, because the disclosure clearly distinguishes between flex-
fuel vehicles and ``other'' (i.e., non-flex fuel) engines, it should 
not cause flex-fuel vehicle owners to fear that use of ethanol blends 
would harm their engines.
    Third, the Commission disagrees that the disclosures are unfair 
because they apply only to ethanol blends. Ethanol blends present a 
different challenge than other automotive fuels. Specifically, most 
fuels present consumers with a binary choice (e.g., engines either 
operate on diesel fuel or not). In contrast, when choosing a gasoline-
ethanol blend, consumers must determine the appropriate ethanol 
concentration because different makes and models of gasoline-powered 
engines operate on differing ranges of ethanol concentration. For 
example, ethanol blends up to 10% ethanol concentration (i.e., E10) are 
appropriate for almost all gasoline-powered automotive engines, but E15 
may only be appropriate for MY2001 or newer automobiles and Flex-Fuel 
Vehicles. Furthermore, higher blends (e.g., E20, E30, or E85) are only 
appropriate for Flex-Fuel Vehicles. Accordingly, the challenge of 
choosing the appropriate ethanol concentration is more likely to lead 
to misfueling than the binary choice between a gasoline-ethanol blend 
and another automotive fuel, such as diesel. A label, therefore, that 
delineates between different blends (e.g., E20, E30, or E85) is 
appropriate for ethanol, but unnecessary for other fuels.
    As courts have repeatedly held, agencies may limit rules to those 
areas where they have observed a problem.\109\ Similarly, agencies need 
not take an all-or-nothing approach to regulation but may proceed 
incrementally.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ See, e.g., Pharm. Research and Mfrs. of Am. v. FTC, 790 
F.3d 198, 206 (D.C. Cir. 2015); Illinois Commercial Fishing Ass'n v. 
Salazar, 867 F.Supp.2d 108, 118-19 (D.D.C. 2012) (upholding rule 
banning commercial fishing but allowing recreational fishing, where 
commercial fishing posed the greater risk to endangered fish.).
    \110\ Investment Co. Inst. v. CFTC, 891 F. Supp. 2d 162, 187 
(D.D.C. 2012) (``[A]gencies, like legislatures, do not generally 
resolve massive problems in one fell regulatory swoop.'') (quotation 
omitted); City of Las Vegas v. Lujan, 891 F.2d 927 (D.C. Cir. 1989) 
(``[A]gencies have great discretion to treat a problem 
partially.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, the Commission disagrees with the argument that the 
disclosures need additional or different language, such as ``Warning,'' 
``Check Owner's Manual,'' or more information about potential harm from 
misfueling. The label's orange color and placement on the fuel pump 
should sufficiently attract consumer's attention, making ``Warning'' or 
similar language unnecessary. Moreover, when displayed together, the 
phrases ``Use Only in Flex-Fuel Vehicles'' and ``May Harm Other 
Engines'' simply and unambiguously inform consumers that they can use 
ethanol blends in their flex-fuel vehicles and does not require the 
extra step of consulting an owner's manual.
    Finally, as explained in the 2014 NPRM, the disclosures fall 
squarely within the Commission's statutory authority under the PMPA to 
prescribe labels disclosing fuel ratings.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ 2014 NPRM, 79 FR at 18860-61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Ethanol Disclosure
    The final rule adopts tiered labeling for Ethanol Flex Fuels 
because this

[[Page 2060]]

approach provides consumers with the information needed to choose 
appropriate fuels without placing an undue burden on retailers. First, 
for Mid-level Blends (ethanol concentrations above 10 percent, but no 
greater than 50 percent), retailers may post the exact percentage or 
round to the nearest multiple of 10 (e.g., ``40% Ethanol'').\112\ 
Second, for High-level Blends (concentrations above 50 percent, but no 
greater than 83 percent), retailers may post the exact percentage of 
ethanol concentration, round to the nearest multiple of 10, or indicate 
that the fuel contains ``51% to 83% Ethanol.'' \113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ For example, retailers can label fuels at 25 and 34 
percent concentrations as 30% Ethanol.
    \113\ The label states ``51% to 83% Ethanol,'' even though High-
level Blends include concentrations about 50 percent. An ``Over 50% 
to 83% Ethanol'' label or similar alternative might be more 
specific, but would present consumers with a more complicated 
message in a smaller font, impeding comprehension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Mid-level Blends, the consumer benefits from more precise 
labels outweigh the burden on retailers. Requiring more precise 
disclosures provides flexible-fuel vehicle owners with meaningful 
information about the fuel's suitability for their vehicles without the 
risk of incorrectly conveying that the fuel has the same fuel economy 
as gasoline.\114\ Thus, the precision helps them make informed choices 
about Ethanol Flex Fuels. The Rule, furthermore, mitigates the burden 
of labeling by permitting rounding of ethanol concentration, which 
allows retailers to alter their blends by small percentages without 
changing labels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ See supra Section IV.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, the consumer benefits from more precise labeling of 
High-level Blends do not outweigh the increased burden to retailers. 
Unlike Mid-level Blends, High-level Blends' performance depends on 
weather conditions. As a result, retailers and producers must change 
the ethanol concentration in High-level Blends to maintain performance 
in changing weather conditions and comply with ASTM D5798's standards 
for vapor pressure.\115\ To do so, producers may frequently change 
blends with varying ethanol concentrations.\116\ When retailers place a 
newer blend in their tanks, it mixes with fuel of different ethanol 
concentration from prior deliveries. As a result, retailers may be 
unable to determine a concentration range more precise than 51 to 83 
percent.\117\ More precise labeling, therefore, would require retailers 
to acquire testing technology, regularly test for ethanol 
concentration, and re-label when necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ See supra notes 75-79; see also ASTM D5798 X1.3.
    \116\ NCWM comment at 2.
    \117\ NACS/SIGMA comment at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More precise labeling for High-level Blends, moreover, would have 
less benefit for consumers because it is unlikely that retailers could 
market High-Level Blends differentiated by ethanol concentration. 
According to the TN Dept. of Ag., retailers and producers will market 
``comparable concentrations of [High-Level Blends] at [their] competing 
fuel sites in a given market,'' in order to comply with ASTM D5798 and 
their obligations under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 
2007 to blend increasing amounts of renewable fuels.\118\ Thus, these 
reduced benefits do not outweigh the retailers' increased burden from 
precise labels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ TN Dept. Ag. comment at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Label Specifications
    The final amendments generally adopt the size, font, format, and 
color requirements proposed in the 2014 NPRM, with minor alterations to 
accommodate the additional characters needed for High-level Blend 
labels.\119\ To help effectuate these amendments, 306.12(f) now 
provides sample illustrations of labels for Mid-level Blends and High-
level Blends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ The final amendments also delete the Rule's sample label 
for ``E-100'' (i.e., ethanol not mixed with gasoline) because the 
record does not show any retail sales of such fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters argued for changes to the proposed label's size, 
font size, placement on the pump, or color. The proposed label 
formatting and placement specifications, however, are consistent with 
those in place for most of the alternative liquid fuels covered by the 
Rule, and the record does not support inconsistent treatment for 
ethanol labels. For example, the ethanol industry commented that orange 
is ``associated with danger'' and would put the industry at a 
competitive disadvantage.\120\ However, as explained in the 2014 NPRM, 
orange is the color for all alternative fuels except biodiesel and will 
enable retail consumers to distinguish Ethanol Flex Fuels from 
gasoline. Furthermore, orange's brightness will help ensure that 
consumers notice the label and, therefore, avoid misfueling. Finally, 
EPA's E15 label uses the same orange background. Thus, using orange 
creates a uniform color scheme for all Ethanol Flex Fuels, making the 
label easier for consumers to identify.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ ACE comment Att. (May 20, 2010 comment at 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Octane Rating by Infrared Spectrophotometry

    Contrary to the 2014 proposal, the Commission does not adopt 
infrared spectrophotometry as an approved method to test octane 
rating.\121\ According to the record, infrared testing is an indirect 
method of determining octane rating that is not endorsed by ASTM, nor 
is it as reliable as the methods currently specified by the Rule, 
namely ASTM D2699 and D2700. Furthermore, in the case of a dispute 
involving infrared testing, ASTM D2699 and D2700 must verify the 
results. Therefore, to avoid potential conflict and uncertainty from 
such indirect testing methods, the Commission does not amend its list 
of octane rating testing methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ The amendments do adopt, however, the most current 
versions of the ASTM D4814, D2699, D2700, and D2885.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The certification and labeling requirements announced in the final 
amendments for Ethanol Flex Fuels constitute a ``collection of 
information'' under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 
3501-3521 (``PRA'').
    Consistent with the Rule's requirements for other alternative 
fuels, under the final amendments, refiners, producers, importers, 
distributors, and retailers of Ethanol Flex Fuels must retain, for one 
year, records of any delivery tickets, letters of certification, or 
tests upon which they based the automotive fuel ratings that they 
certify or post.\122\ The covered entities also must make these records 
available for inspection by staff of the Commission and EPA or by 
persons authorized by those agencies. Finally, retailers must produce, 
distribute, and post fuel rating labels on fuel pumps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ See the Rule's recordkeeping requirements, 16 CFR 306.7; 
306.9; and 306.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2014, the Commission discussed the estimated recordkeeping and 
disclosure burdens for entities covered under the Rule and sought 
comment on the accuracy of those estimates. Commenters have not 
disputed those estimates. The Commission has updated those estimates to 
incorporate more recent data for the number of retailers nationwide and 
labor costs. Below, the Commission discusses those estimates.
    The Commission has previously estimated the burden associated with 
the Rule's recordkeeping requirements for the sale of automotive fuels 
to be no more than 5 minutes per year (or 1/12th of an hour) per 
industry member, and no more than 1/8th of an hour per year per 
industry member for the Rule's

[[Page 2061]]

disclosure requirements.\123\ Consistent with OMB regulations that 
implement the PRA, these estimates reflect solely the burden 
incremental to the usual and customary recordkeeping and disclosure 
activities performed by affected entities in the ordinary course of 
business.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ See, e.g., Federal Trade Commission: Automotive Fuel 
Ratings, Certification and Posting: Final Rule on Biodiesel 
Labeling, 73 FR 40154, 40161 (July 11, 2008). Staff has previously 
estimated that retailers of automotive fuels incur an average burden 
of approximately one hour to produce, distribute, and post fuel 
rating labels. Because the labels are durable, staff has concluded 
that only about one of every eight retailers incurs this burden each 
year, hence, 1/8th of an hour, on average, per retailer.
    \124\ See 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the procedures for distributing and selling Mid-Level 
Ethanol blends are no different from those for other automotive fuels, 
the Commission expects that, consistent with practices in the fuel 
industry generally, the covered parties will record the fuel rating 
certification on documents (e.g., shipping receipts) already in use, or 
will use a letter of certification. Furthermore, the Commission expects 
that labeling of Ethanol Flex Fuel pumps will be consistent, generally, 
with practices in the fuel industry. Accordingly, the PRA burden will 
be the same as that for other automotive fuels: 1/12th of an hour per 
year for recordkeeping and 1/8th of an hour per year for disclosure.
    The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') indicates 2,674 ethanol 
retailers nationwide, and the U.S. Energy Information Administration 
indicates 195 ethanol fuel production plants.\125\ Assuming that each 
ethanol retailer and producer will spend 1/12th of an hour per year 
complying with the recordkeeping requirements, the cumulative 
recordkeeping burden for retailers and producers is 223 hours and 16 
hours, respectively. Assuming each ethanol retailer will spend 1/8th of 
an hour per year complying with the disclosure requirements, the 
cumulative disclosure burden for retailers is 334 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ See http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_locations.html (last visited Oct. 28, 2015); http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/ethanolcapacity/ (last visited Oct. 28, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated labor costs are derived by applying appropriate hourly 
cost figures to the estimated burden hours described above. Applying an 
average hourly wage of $11.08 for ethanol retailers,\126\ the aggregate 
recordkeeping and disclosure labor cost for all ethanol retailers 
combined would be $6,172 ((223 hours + 334 hours) x $11.08). Applying 
an average hourly wage of $29.67 for ethanol producers,\127\ their 
cumulative labor costs (recordkeeping) would be $475 (16 hours x 
$29.67). Thus, cumulative labor costs for ethanol retailers and 
producers, combined, would be $6,647 ($6,172 + $475).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ See http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag447.htm (Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, July 2015 Current Employment Statistics, Average Hourly 
Earnings for Gasoline Station Production and Nonsupervisory 
Employees).
    \127\ See http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag211.htm#earnings (Bureau 
of Labor Statistics, July 2015 Current Employment Statistics, 
Average Hourly Earnings for Oil and Gas Extraction Production and 
Nonsupervisory Employees).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Rule does not impose any capital costs for producers, 
importers, or distributors of ethanol blends. Retailers, however, do 
incur the cost of procuring and replacing fuel dispenser labels to 
comply with the Rule. Staff has previously estimated that the price per 
automotive fuel label is fifty cents and that the average automotive 
fuel retailer has six dispensers. The Petroleum Marketers Association 
of American (``PMAA''), however, stated in its comment to the 2010 NPRM 
that the cost of labels ranges from one to two dollars. Conservatively 
applying the upper end from PMAA's estimate results in an initial cost 
to retailers of $12 (6 pumps x $2).
    Regarding label replacement, staff has previously estimated a 
dispenser useful life range of 6 to 10 years. Assuming a useful life of 
8 years, the mean of that range, replacement labeling will not be 
necessary for well beyond the relevant time frame, i.e., the immediate 
3-year PRA clearance sought. Averaging solely the $12 labeling cost at 
inception per retailer over that shorter period, however, annualized 
labeling cost per retailer will be $4. Cumulative labeling cost would 
thus be $10,696 (2,674 retailers x $4 each, annualized).

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires an 
agency to provide a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis with the 
final rule unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ See 5 U.S.C. 603-605.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FTC reaffirms its conclusion that the final amendments will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. As explained in Section V above, the Commission expects 
Ethanol Flex Fuel retailers to spend, at most, 5 minutes per year 
complying with the recordkeeping requirements and 1/8th of an hour per 
year complying with the disclosure requirements. As also explained in 
Section V, staff estimates the mean hourly wage for producers of 
$29.67, and for retailers of $11.08. Even assuming that all ethanol 
retailers are small entities, compliance with the recordkeeping 
requirements will cost producers, individually, an estimated $2.47 
($29.67 x 1/12th of an hour) and cost retailers, individually, an 
estimated $.92 ($11.08 x 1/12th of an hour). In addition, under the 
same assumptions, compliance with the disclosure requirements will cost 
individual retailers an estimated $1.39 ($11.08 x 1/8th of an hour). 
Finally, as discussed in Section V, the Commission estimates annualized 
capital costs of $4 per retailer.
    This document serves as notice to the Small Business Administration 
of the agency's certification of no effect. Nonetheless, the Commission 
has prepared the following analysis.

A. Statement of the Need for, and Objectives of, the Final Amendments

    The Commission adopts these amendments to further the PMPA's 
objective of giving consumers information necessary to choose the 
correct fuel for their vehicles. The emergence of Ethanol Flex Fuels as 
a retail fuel and its likely increased availability necessitate the 
amendments. These amendments provide requirements for rating, 
certifying, and labeling Ethanol Flex Fuels (blends of gasoline and 
more than 10 percent but no greater than 83 percent ethanol) pursuant 
to PMPA, 15 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.

B. Issues Raised by Comments in Response to the Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis

    Commenters did not raise any specific issues with respect to the 
regulatory flexibility analysis in the NPRM.

 C. Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Final 
Amendments Will Apply

    Retailers of ethanol blends will be classified as small businesses 
if they satisfy the Small Business Administration's relevant size 
standards, as determined by the Small Business Size Standards component 
of the North American Industry Classification System (``NAICS''). The 
closest NAICS size standard relevant to this rulemaking is for 
``Gasoline Stations with Convenience Stores.'' That standard classifies 
retailers with a maximum $29.5 million in annual receipts as small 
businesses.\129\ As discussed above, DOE reports 2,674

[[Page 2062]]

ethanol fueling stations.\130\ DOE does not provide information on 
those retailers' revenue and no commenters submitted information about 
this issue. Therefore, the Commission is unable to determine how many 
of these retailers qualify as small businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ See http://www.sba.gov/content/small-business-size-standards (last visited Jan. 15, 2015).
    \130\ See www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/stations_counts.html 
(last visited Oct. 28, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements

    The final amendments make clear that the Fuel Rating Rule's 
recordkeeping, certification, and labeling requirements apply to 
Ethanol Flex Fuels. Small entities potentially affected are producers, 
distributors, and retailers of those fuels. The Commission expects that 
the recordkeeping, certification, and labeling tasks are done by 
industry members in the normal course of their business. Accordingly, 
we do not expect the amendments to require any professional skills 
beyond those already employed by industry members, namely, 
administrative.

E. Alternatives Considered

    As explained above, PMPA requires retailers of liquid automotive 
fuels to post labels at the point of sale displaying those fuels' 
ratings. The posting requirements in the final amendments are minimal 
and, as noted above, do not require creating any separate documents 
because covered parties may use documents already in use to certify a 
fuel's rating. Moreover, the Commission cannot exempt small businesses 
from the Rule and still communicate fuel rating information to 
consumers. Furthermore, the amendments minimize what, if any, economic 
impact there is from the labeling requirements. Finally, because PMPA 
requires point-of-sale labels, the Rule must require retailers to incur 
the costs of posting those labels. Therefore, the Commission concludes 
that there are no alternative measures that would accomplish the 
purposes of PMPA and further minimize the burden on small entities.

VII. Incorporation by Reference

    Consistent with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51, the Commission 
is incorporating the specifications of the following standards issued 
by ASTM International: D4814-15a ``Standard Specification for 
Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel (published August 2015)'' (``ASTM 
D4814-15a''); ASTM D2699-15a, ``Standard Test Method for Research 
Octane Number of Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel (published November 
2015)''; ASTM D2700-14, ``Standard Test Method for Motor Octane Number 
of Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel (published November 2014)''; and ASTM 
D2885-13, ``Standard Test Method for Determination of Octane Number of 
Spark-Ignition Engine Fuels by On-Line Direct Comparison Technique 
(published July 2013).''
    The terms research octane number and motor octane number have the 
meanings provided in ASTM Standard D4814-15a. Standards ASTM D2699-15a, 
ASTM D2700-14, and ASTM D2855-13 provide test methods or protocols for 
determining research octane number or motor octane number of specified 
grades or types of gasoline.
    These ASTM standards are reasonably available to interested 
parties. Members of the public can obtain copies of ASTM D4814-15a, 
ASTM D2699-15a, ASTM D2700-14, and ASTM D2885-13 from ASTM 
International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428; 
telephone: 1-877-909-2786; internet address: http://www.astm.org. These 
ASTM standards are also available for inspection at the FTC Library, 
(202) 326-2395, Federal Trade Commission, Room H-630, 600 Pennsylvania 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 306

    Trade practices, Fuel ratings, Fuel, Gasoline, Incorporation by 
reference.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Trade 
Commission amends title 16, Chapter I, Subchapter C, of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, part 306, as follows:

PART 306--AUTOMOTIVE FUEL RATINGS, CERTIFICATION AND POSTING

0
1. The authority citation for part 306 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 17021.

0
2. Amend Sec.  306.0 by revising paragraphs (b), (i), (j), and (l) and 
adding paragraph (o) to read as follows:


Sec.  306.0  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) Research octane number and motor octane number. These terms 
have the meanings given such terms in the specifications of ASTM D4814-
15a, Standard Specification for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel, 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  306.13) and, with respect to any 
grade or type of gasoline, are determined in accordance with one of the 
following test methods or protocols:
    (1) ASTM D2699-15a, Standard Test Method for Research Octane Number 
of Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel, and ASTM D2700-14, Standard Test Method 
for Motor Octane Number of Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel, (both 
incorporated by reference, see Sec.  306.13) or
    (2) ASTM D2885-13, Standard Test Method for Determination of Octane 
Number of Spark-Ignition Engine Fuels by On-Line Direct Comparison 
Technique, (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  306.13).
* * * * *
    (i) Automotive fuel means liquid fuel of a type distributed for use 
as a fuel in any motor vehicle, and the term includes, but is not 
limited to:
    (1) Gasoline, an automotive spark-ignition engine fuel, which 
includes, but is not limited to, gasohol (generally a mixture of 
approximately 90 percent unleaded gasoline and 10 percent ethanol) and 
fuels developed to comply with the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et 
seq., such as reformulated gasoline and oxygenated gasoline; and
    (2) Alternative liquid automotive fuels, including, but not limited 
to:
    (i) Methanol, denatured ethanol, and other alcohols;
    (ii) Mixtures containing 85 percent or more by volume of methanol 
and/or other alcohols (or such other percentage, as provided by the 
Secretary of the United States Department of Energy, by rule), with 
gasoline or other fuels;
    (iii) Ethanol flex fuels;
    (iv) Liquefied natural gas;
    (v) Liquefied petroleum gas;
    (vi) Coal-derived liquid fuels;
    (vii) Biodiesel;
    (viii) Biomass-based diesel;
    (ix) Biodiesel blends containing more than 5 percent biodiesel by 
volume; and
    (x) Biomass-based diesel blends containing more than 5 percent 
biomass-based diesel by volume.
    (3) Biodiesel blends and biomass-based diesel blends that contain 
less than or equal to 5 percent biodiesel by volume and less than or 
equal to 5 percent biomass-based diesel by volume, and that meet ASTM 
D975-07b, Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  306.13), are not automotive fuels covered by the 
requirements of this part.
    Note to paragraph (i): Provided, however, that biodiesel blends and 
biomass-based diesel blends that contain less than or equal to 5 
percent biodiesel by volume and less than or equal to 5 percent 
biomass-based diesel by volume, and that meet ASTM D975-09b, Standard 
Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  306.13), are not automotive fuels covered by the requirements of 
this Part.
    (j) Automotive fuel rating means--

[[Page 2063]]

    (1) For gasoline, the octane rating.
    (2) For an alternative liquid automotive fuel other than biodiesel, 
biomass-based diesel, biodiesel blends, biomass-based diesel blends, 
and ethanol flex fuels, the commonly used name of the fuel with a 
disclosure of the amount, expressed as the minimum percentage by 
volume, of the principal component of the fuel. A disclosure of other 
components, expressed as the minimum percentage by volume, may be 
included, if desired.
    (3) For biomass-based diesel, biodiesel, biomass-based diesel 
blends with more than 5 percent biomass-based diesel, and biodiesel 
blends with more than 5 percent biodiesel, a disclosure of the biomass-
based diesel or biodiesel component, expressed as the percentage by 
volume.
    (4) For ethanol flex fuels, a disclosure of the ethanol component, 
expressed as the percentage by volume and the text ``Use Only in Flex-
Fuel Vehicles/May Harm Other Engines.''
* * * * *
    (l) Biodiesel means the monoalkyl esters of long chain fatty acids 
derived from plant or animal matter that meet: The registration 
requirements for fuels and fuel additives under 40 CFR part 79; and the 
requirements of ASTM D6751-10, Standard Specification for Biodiesel 
Fuel Blend Stock (B100) for Middle Distillate Fuels, (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  306.13).
* * * * *
    (o) Ethanol flex fuels means a mixture of gasoline and ethanol 
containing more than 10 percent but not greater than 83 percent ethanol 
by volume.

0
3. Revise Sec.  306.5 to read as follows:


Sec.  306.5  Automotive fuel rating.

    If you are a refiner, importer, or producer, you must determine the 
automotive fuel rating of all automotive fuel before you transfer it. 
You can do that yourself or through a testing lab.
    (a) To determine the automotive fuel rating of gasoline, add the 
research octane number and the motor octane number and divide by two, 
as explained by ASTM D4814-15a, Standard Specifications for Automotive 
Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel, (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
306.13). To determine the research octane and motor octane numbers, you 
may do one of the following:
    (1) Use ASTM D2699-15a, Standard Test Method for Research Octane 
Number of Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  306.13), to determine the research octane number, and ASTM D2700-
14, Standard Test Method for Motor Octane Number of Spark-Ignition 
Engine Fuel (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  306.13), to determine 
the motor octane number; or
    (2) Use the test method set forth in ASTM D2885-13, Standard Test 
Method for Determination of Octane Number of Spark-Ignition Engine 
Fuels by On-Line Direct Comparison Technique (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  306.13).
    (b) To determine automotive fuel ratings for alternative liquid 
automotive fuels other than ethanol flex fuels, biodiesel blends, and 
biomass-based diesel blends, you must possess a reasonable basis, 
consisting of competent and reliable evidence, for the percentage by 
volume of the principal component of the alternative liquid automotive 
fuel that you must disclose. In the case of biodiesel blends, you must 
possess a reasonable basis, consisting of competent and reliable 
evidence, for the percentage of biodiesel contained in the fuel. In the 
case of biomass-based diesel blends, you must possess a reasonable 
basis, consisting of competent and reliable evidence, for the 
percentage of biomass-based diesel contained in the fuel. In the case 
of ethanol flex fuels, you must possess a reasonable basis, consisting 
of competent and reliable evidence, for the percentage of ethanol 
contained in the fuel. You also must have a reasonable basis, 
consisting of competent and reliable evidence, for the minimum 
percentages by volume of other components that you choose to disclose.

0
4. Amend Sec.  306.6 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  306.6  Certification.

* * * * *
    (b) Give the person a letter or other written statement. This 
letter must include the date, your name, the other person's name, and 
the automotive fuel rating of any automotive fuel you will transfer to 
that person from the date of the letter onwards. Octane rating numbers 
may be rounded to a whole or half number equal to or less than the 
number determined by you. This letter of certification will be good 
until you transfer automotive fuel with a lower automotive fuel rating, 
except that a letter certifying the fuel rating of biomass-based 
diesel, biodiesel, a biomass-based diesel blend, a biodiesel blend, or 
an ethanol flex fuel will be good only until you transfer those fuels 
with a different automotive fuel rating, whether the rating is higher 
or lower. When this happens, you must certify the automotive fuel 
rating of the new automotive fuel either with a delivery ticket or by 
sending a new letter of certification.
* * * * *

0
5. Amend Sec.  306.10 by revising paragraphs (a) and (f) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  306.10  Automotive fuel rating posting.

    (a) If you are a retailer, you must post the automotive fuel rating 
of all automotive fuel you sell to consumers. You must do this by 
putting at least one label on each face of each dispenser through which 
you sell automotive fuel. If you are selling two or more kinds of 
automotive fuel with different automotive fuel ratings from a single 
dispenser, you must put separate labels for each kind of automotive 
fuel on each face of the dispenser. Provided, however, that you do not 
need to post the automotive fuel rating of a mixture of gasoline and 
ethanol containing more than 10 but not more than 15 percent ethanol if 
the face of the dispenser is labeled in accordance with 40 CFR 80.1501.
* * * * *
    (f) The following examples of automotive fuel rating disclosures 
for some presently available alternative liquid automotive fuels are 
meant to serve as illustrations of compliance with this part, but do 
not limit the Rule's coverage to only the mentioned fuels:

(1) ``Methanol/Minimum __% Methanol''
(2) ``__% Ethanol/Use Only in Flex-Fuel Vehicles/May Harm Other 
engines''
(3) ``M85/Minimum __% Methanol''
(4) ``LPG/Minimum __% Propane'' or ``LPG/Minimum __% Propane and __% 
Butane''
(5) ``LNG/Minimum __% Methane''
(6) ``B20 Biodiesel Blend/contains biomass-based diesel or biodiesel in 
quantities between 5 percent and 20 percent''
(7) ``20% Biomass-Based Diesel Blend/contains biomass-based diesel or 
biodiesel in quantities between 5 percent and 20 percent''
(8) ``B100 Biodiesel/contains 100 percent biodiesel''
(9) ``100% Biomass-Based Diesel/contains 100 percent biomass-based 
diesel''
* * * * *

0
6. Amend Sec.  306.12:
0
a. By redesignating paragraphs (a)(4) through (9) as paragraphs (a)(5) 
through (10), respectively;
0
b. By adding new paragraph (a)(4);
0
c. By removing the illustration of the ``E-100'' label in paragraph 
(f); and
0
d. By adding two illustrations after the existing illustrations in 
paragraph (f).
    The additions read as follows:

[[Page 2064]]

Sec.  306.12  Labels.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (4) For ethanol flex fuels. (i) The label is 3 inches (7.62 cm) 
wide x 2\1/2\ inches (6.35 cm) long. ``Helvetica Black'' or equivalent 
type is used throughout. The band at the top of the label contains one 
of the following:
    (A) For all ethanol flex fuels. The numerical value representing 
the volume percentage of ethanol in the fuel followed by the percentage 
sign and then by the term ``ETHANOL''; or
    (B) For ethanol flex fuels containing more than 10 percent and no 
greater than 50 percent ethanol by volume. The numerical value 
representing the volume percentage of ethanol in the fuel, rounded to 
the nearest multiple of 10, followed by the percentage sign and then 
the term ``ETHANOL''; or
    (C) For ethanol flex fuels containing more than 50 percent and no 
greater than 83 percent ethanol by volume. The numerical value 
representing the volume percentage of ethanol in the fuel, rounded to 
the nearest multiple of 10, followed by the percentage sign and then 
the term ``ETHANOL'' or the phrase, ``51%-83% ETHANOL.''
    (ii) The band should measure 1 inch (2.54 cm) deep. The type in the 
band is centered both horizontally and vertically. The percentage 
disclosure and the word ``ETHANOL'' are in 24 point font. In the case 
of labels including the phrase, ``51%-83% ETHANOL,'' the percentage 
disclosure is in 18 point font, and the word ``ETHANOL'' is in 24 point 
font and at least \1/8\ inch (.32 cm) below the percentage disclosure. 
The type below the black band is centered vertically and horizontally. 
The first line is the text: ``USE ONLY IN.'' It is in 16 point font, 
except for the word ``ONLY,'' which is in 26 point font. The word 
``ONLY'' is underlined with a 2 point (or thicker) underline. The 
second line is in 16 point font, at least \1/8\ inch (.32 cm) below the 
first line, and is the text: ``FLEX-FUEL VEHICLES.'' The third line is 
in 10 point font, at least \1/8\ inch (.32 cm) below the first line, 
and is the text ``MAY HARM OTHER ENGINES.''
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14JA16.000
    

0
7. Add Sec.  306.13 to read as follows:


Sec.  306.13  Incorporation by reference.

    (a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part 
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may inspect all approved material 
at the FTC Library, (202) 326-2395, Federal Trade Commission, Room H-
630, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580, and at the 
National Archives and Records Administration (``NARA''). For 
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    (b) ASTM International (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West 
Conshohocken, PA 19428 telephone: 1-877-909-2786; Internet address: 
http://www.astm.org.
    (1) ASTM D975-07b, Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils,

[[Page 2065]]

published July 2007; IBR approved for Sec.  306.0(i).
    (2) ASTM D975-09b, Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils, 
published August 2009; IBR approved for Sec.  306.0(i).
    (3) ASTM D2699-15a, Standard Test Method for Research Octane Number 
of Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel, published November 2015; IBR approved 
for Sec. Sec.  306.0(b) and 306.5(a).
    (4) ASTM D2700-14, Standard Test Method for Motor Octane Number of 
Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel, published November 2014; IBR approved for 
Sec. Sec.  306.0(b) and 306.5(a).
    (5) ASTM D2885-13, Standard Test Method for Determination of Octane 
Number of Spark-Ignition Engine Fuels by On-Line Direct Comparison 
Technique, published July 2013; IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  306.0(b) 
and 306.5(a).
    (6) ASTM D4814-15a, Standard Specification for Automotive Spark-
Ignition Engine Fuel, published August 2015; IBR approved for 
Sec. Sec.  306.0(b) and 306.5(a).
    (7) ASTM D6751-10, Standard Specification for Biodiesel Fuel Blend 
Stock (B100) for Middle Distillate Fuels, published October 2010; IBR 
approved for Sec.  306.0(l).

    By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-32972 Filed 1-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6750-01-P