16 CFR Part 306; Automotive Fuel Ratings, Certification and Posting; Project No. R811005 #00188

Submission Number:
00188
Commenter:
Roger Tompkins
State:
Georgia
Initiative Name:
16 CFR Part 306; Automotive Fuel Ratings, Certification and Posting; Project No. R811005
I've owned motorcycles for 51 years. Since no one has been able to make a rational case that 15% ethanol will not harm a motorcycle's engine and several have made the case that it will, I object to the idea of increasing gasoline's ethanol content. It's bad enough now with 10%. The 10% has definitely affected motorcycle engine performance and longevity. I'd bet that increasing it to 15% would also affect automobile or any other gasoline fueled internal combustion engines. Now, with automobiles becoming increasingly powered by alternate means of propulsion and with an obvious move well underway to dramatically decrease the relative use of gasoline powered engines it seems ridiculous to suddenly make it more difficult for them to function. Maybe forty years ago? And, of course, one has to wonder about the rationality, in this day and age, of using a food source to power a bike or car. It wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out a better use for corn. The whole idea appears to me more nonsense than sense. If the subsidized farmers have a problem with not being able to sell yet more food for fuel let them find new markets or grow other crops. Get real. The markets are out there. If the other subsidized operators throughout the fuel chain object to not being handed yet another gift let them find a new business. They are worthless to me. In short, the idea of increasing the corn content of fuel is absurd in 2014. Back to the drawing board. Roger Tompkins