16 CFR Part 306; Automotive Fuel Ratings, Certification and Posting; Project No. R811005 #00228

Submission Number:
00228
Commenter:
Jaime Valdes-Pages
State:
Florida
Initiative Name:
16 CFR Part 306; Automotive Fuel Ratings, Certification and Posting; Project No. R811005
As a owner of automobiles, motorcycles and the usual household outdoor power equipment, I am appalled that the EPA cares so little about the consumer - business and personal. Over the many year of ethanol use, I have experienced many incidents that have been clearly attributable to ethanol. There are three categories that concern me in regards to ethanol:1 MPG Efficiency - it is less efficient than pure gasoline and there is no saving anywhere along the line - so we are paying more; 2 - Reduced overall gasoline use - As stated in #1, because it is less efficient, we are using more gasoline - again no gasoline use reduction; 3 - Equipment damage - It causes damage and performance deterioration to any engine, even those that are "Flex fuel" rated. One would think that the EPA would want to consider how the consumer is negatively impacted, yet its stand that the opposite is true. With all the data available to prove the many issues surrounding ethanol blending, there is now sufficient (and growing) evidence to prove that ethanol has only helped the farmers of corn for ethanol use. As the EPA has (technically) nothing to gain, it does not make sense to continue supporting a policy that is not consumer-friendly. I (and many others) are opposed to the continued support of this policy and requests that the EPA rescind its support and return to pure gasoline for consumers. Our representatives are aware of this and we will continue to push back.