P. 1



# OAR Box 1830 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 234 ) IV-C-19

5 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/2008 9:00:23 AM Sheet 234 of 236P. 2

Tr-'" K • f ) • : UNITE DSTATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y 

# /\-w-u

iv - 

# (M «

NO V 

### 6 199 3 Honorabl e Joh

nD . Dingel l Chairman , Subcommitte e o n Oversight an

dInvestigation s Committe e o

nEnerg y an dCommerc e U.S . Hous e o f Representative s Washington , D.C . 2051 5 Dear Mr . Chairman : Thi s i s inrespons e t o you r letter of Augus t 4 , 199 3 regardin

g onboar

drefuelin

g vapor recover

y (ORVR) . I woul dfirs t lik e t o respon

dbriefl y

t o th e thre e point s raise dinthe firs t portio no f th e statement enclose dwithyou

r letter ; replie s t o you r specifi c question s are containe dinthe enclosur e t o thi s letter . First , wit hregar

dt o th e financia l statu s o f the automobil e industry , th

e Environmenta l Protectio nAgency

(EPA ) always has % an dwil l continue t o consider th e financia l healtho f the | automobil e industr

y i nit s regulator

y activities . I t i s a ke y consideratio

ninprovidin

g complianc e flexibility wher e possibl e an dappropriate . Balancin g cos t impact s an

denvironmenta l benefit s i s always a nimportant consideratio ni nregulator

y decisions . Intha t sam e vein , a s EP

A develop s the fina l ORV R rul e w e wil l complet e a detailedassessment o f cost s tha t woul d b e incurre

db y bothindustr

y an dth e natio na s a whole , an

dwil l striv e t o desig

nth e mos t flexible , efficient an dcos t effectiv

e -progra m possible . Anothe r poin t discusse dinthe firs t portio no f you

r letter refer s t o the applicability o f the ORV

Rrequirement t o light-duty truck s (LDTs;| , tiea^-dtity vehicle s (HDVs) , an dvehicle s powered b y fuel s <^|j>£y

£ -fj^n^gksdline . W e not e your comment s regardin g the intgn^j^|^^^^|L|i. : ;Ai r Ac t (CAA ) an dyour suggestio

ntha t EP A d^^mB^^^K^f^teiidinct the ORV

Rrequirement s t o the vehi.c)3^»Bs»»»rasLlL"^eW"abov e t o a later date . EP A ha s received siniWat^^mBMtMs&m a number o f th e aut o manufacturer s a s well . 

### A H abou t Gpjfrsti 1 ^ tshe j • 

### s:e.us3B:<alii nmor edetai lbelow , LDT s an dHDV

s us e nation' s gasolin eeac hyea r an d ^en^ag eo f

al lrefuelin g emissions
. I f
r 

### Bh*i«s%ie'reenteag> "wlri'

Tget.^verj i large r

i n fgh-if;i«e>nit^Gqntr ; 

### i'buti6 nt o the " refuelin g HE5 

### " arid^the^sertiousjie^ s ^oc

- *fene > ozon e > 

### wrTeirl ,

### er^teh

< 

### ese»v t 

### e ®33a ? $$& @M£93?MS^
. 

## JJKHUKHSBSKL .*4

rcoKcuiwfMcgt" j^mm&?mi^w"tiaK *m t > SYMBO L SURNAM E ) DAT E ) i** 

## h

•••••••••••••>••• • •••#«»• • ••••«*««*«« i 3 i. err j"* > " " T •«•«•*•••« « ••>-*••

• ->-* „ *••«•«««••«••«•• « >••«•••«••«•*•••* •

E f * For m 1320-1 A(1/90 ) Primd en RtcycUd

Paper OFFICIA L FIL E COP Y «U &QPO : 19TO-717-06SP. 3

-2

- assessment , w e nee d t o thoroughl yevaluat e th e cost s an d benefit s o f ORV R control s fo r LDT s an d HDV s including th e impact s o f th e Stag e I I control s i n plac e an d th e othe r benefit s o f refueling controls . You r comment s wil l b e carefull yconsidere d a s w e develo p th e fina l rule . Wit hregar d t o applying thes e requirement s t o vehicle s powere d b

yfuel s othe r tha n gasolin e a s indicate d b ysectio n 202(a)(6) , w e hav e trie d wher e possibl e t o creat e a leve l playing fiel d i n th e marketplac e fo r al l fuel s an d i n thi s regar d t o appl you r emissio n standard s t o al l fuel s equally . Thi s approac h als o provide s manufacturer s informatio n o n emissio n contro l requirement s earl ys o tha t complianc e can b e considere d i n thei r produc t planning . A s a practica l matter , fuel s suc ha s diesel , liqui d petroleu

mga s (LPG) , an

d natura l ga s hav e verylow refueling emission s an d vehicle s using thes e fuel s ar e expecte d t o demonstrat e complianc e withou t a contro l system . W e ar e no wanalyzing comment s o n th e fue l applicabilit y issue s an

d hav e no t ye t mad e a fina l decision . You r thir d poin t deal s wit hth e issu e o f vehicl e safety . A s wa s mentione d i n you r letter , EPAan d representative s o f th e aut o industryhel d technica l discussion s regarding th e relationshi p betwee n th e propose d refueling tes t procedure(s ) an d th e revise d tes t procedur e containe d i n th e recentl ypromulgate d evaporativ e emission s rule . Wha t emerge d fro mthos e discussion s wa s on e option , among severa l w e ar e considering , whic hth e manufacturer s claime d woul d permi t themt o us e an integrate d refueling / evaporativ e emission s contro l system(includin g a singl e caniste r t o captur e bot hrefueling an d evaporativ e emissions ) a s wel l a s a liqui d sea l i n lie u o f a mechanica l sea l i n th e fillneck . Thi s optio n appear s t o addres s man yo f th e safet yconcern s raise d previousl yb yth e manufacturer s an d other s regarding th e potentia l affect s o f ORV R control s o n fue l systemcomplexit yan d th e nee d fo r additiona l vapo r storage . Writte n comment s provide d b yth e aut o manufacturer s indicat e tha t thes e tes t procedur e changes , i f implemented , wil l addres s thei r longstanding concern s abou t ORV

R safety . EPAmus t conside r seriousl yan ytes t procedur e optio n whic hget s th e require d leve l o f emission s contro l an

d als o addresse s th e manufacturers ' concern s abou t vehicl e safety . Th e Nationa l HighwayTraffi c Safet y Administratio n (NHTSA ) staf f hav e bee n thoroughl ybriefe d o n th e matter . Theyar e no wconducting thei r ow n independen t assessmen t o f th e vehicl e safet yimplication s o f th e propose d tes t procedur e changes . Par t I I o f you r lette r addresse s specifi c question s t o th e Agenc yregarding ORVR . Yo u wil l fin d th e Agency' s respons e t o thes e question s i n th e enclosur e t o thi s letter. *P. 4

-3

- I n closing , le t m e assur e yo u o f ou r commitmen t t o full y analyz e al l aspect s o f th e decision s i n th e ORV R rulemaking an

d t o coordinat e wit hNHTSA . A s yo u requested , you r lette r an d thi s respons e wil l b e place d i n th e publi c docke t fo r thi s rule . Sincerely ,

Caro l M . Browne r Enclosur eP. 5

Enclosur e Respons e t o Specifi c Question s 1 . Alternat e ORV

R Technologie s Th e vehicl e manufacturer s hav e indicate d fro mth e outse t tha t thei r inten t wa s t o us e canister-base d ORV R systems . Nearl y al l publishe d developmenta l wor k o n ORV R contro l system s ha s bee n o n canister-base d systems , an d therefor e th e bul k o f th e analysi s i s buil t o n th e likel yus e o f thi s contro l approach . However , EPArecognize s tha t potentia l alternat e contro l strategie s exist . Bladder s ar e use d i n rac e car s an d aircraft , bu t the yserv e primaril ya s a fue l containmen t devic e t o preven t fue l spillag e i n th e even t o f fue l tank damage . Often , thes e bladder s ar e o f heavie r constructio n tha n wha t woul d b e necessary fo r adequat e preventio n o f vapo r generation . A s par t o f th e rulemaking , EPAreceive d severa l comment s o n th e availabilit yan d statu s o f potentia l alternat e contro l strategies . Base d o n th e informatio n nowavailable , ther e i s doub t a s t o whethe r thes e technologie s coul d o r woul d b e use d withi n th e timeframe nowcontemplate d fo r th e introductio n o f ORV R controls . I n th e fina l rule , EPAplan s t o includ e a n assessmen t o f th e developmen t statu s o f thes e alternat e ORV R contro l system s an

d whethe r suc hsystem s woul d b e feasibl e o r availabl e fo r 1998 . 2 . Refueling Emission s fro mLDT s an

d HDV s I n you r question , yo u reques t justificatio n o f th e statemen t tha t light-dut ytruck s (LDTs ) accoun t fo r one-third o f th e tota l refueling emission s an d heavy-dut yvehicle s (HDVs ) fo r anothe r fiv e percent . EPAconducte d a n analysi s t o asses s th e amoun t o f gasolin e currentl yuse d b yLDT s an

d HDVs . Th e estimat e wa s drawn primaril yfro

mEPA' s M0BILE4. 1 Fue l Consumptio n Mode l whic h project s vehicl e registrations , mile s travelle d an d fue l efficienc yt o determin e th e fue l consumptio n o f certai n vehicl e classe s i n th e overal l moto r vehicl e fleet . Othe r source s suc h a s Departmen t o f Energ y(DoE ) publication s wer e consulte d a s well .P. 6

-2

- Th e tota l annua l refueling emissio n inventoryfo r car s an d truck s nationwid e i s presente d i n th e following table :

199 0 Refuelin

g Emission s Vehicl e Typ e

LDV s LDT s HDV s Total : Fue l Consumption , Nationwid e (1 0 gal. ) 68.7 5 (62.7% ) 33.7 5 (30.8% ) 7. 2 (6.5% ) 109. 7 Emissions , Nationwid e (100 0 Metri c Tons ) 30 2 15 1 3 2 48 5 Analysi s conducte d fo r 199 0 indicate s tha t refueling emission s accoun t fo r approximatel y4 percen t o f th e highway mobil e source s VO C inventoryan d thu s abou t on e t o tw o percen t o f th e entir e VO C inventory . Clearl yth e relativ e contributio n wil l var yove r time wit hfactor s suc ha s growt hi n th e numbe r o f sources , vehicl e mile s travelled , an d a phase-i n o f variou s emissio n contro l programs . Th e relativ e contributio n o f LDT s an d HDV s wil l increas e i f th e recen t tren d i n sale s increase s i n thes e classe s o f vehicle s continue s o r LD V fue l econom

yimproves . Percentage-wis e thes e estimate s wil l varysomewha t fro m nonattainmen t are a t o nonattainmen t are a depending o n are a specifi c factor s an d o n environmenta l conditions , fue l an d flee t characteristics , an d th e mi xo f mobil e an d stationarysources . 3 . Refueling Emission s fro mAlternative-Fue l Vehicle s Base d o n curren t informatio n w e d o no t expec t refueling emission s fro

m alternativ e fue l vehicle s t o presen t a problem . I n mos t cases , th e refueling emission s fro mnon-gasolin e fuel s ar e muc hles s tha n fo r gasoline . Give n th e natur e o f thes e fuel s an d th e fue l systems , w e expec t tha t man ynon-gasoline / alternative-fue l vehicle s wil l b e abl e t o compl ywit hth e ORV R standar d withou t additiona l contro l hardwar e (sucha s thos e tha t operat e o n diesel , electricity , natura l gas , an d LPG) . However , thi s doe s no t necessaril ydiminis hth e nee d t o appl yth e ORV R requiremen t t o thes e vehicles . Fo r example , a wel l designe d refueling systemfo r a compresse d natura l ga s (CNG ) vehicl e woul d hav e nea r zer o refueling emission s i f th e vehicle/refueling lin e interfac e take s int o accoun t th e nee d t o contro l refueling emissions . Absen t th e us e o f a refueling approach , suc ha s aP. 7

-3

- . dry-coupling , refueling emission s coul d b e greate r than necessary fo r an otherwis e clean vehicl e technology . Thus , th e presenc e o f a n ORV R standar d wil l hel p t o assur e th e us e o f readil yavailabl e refueling hardwar e fo r alternativ e fueled vehicles . 4 . Analyse s o f Safet yIssue s fo r ORV R Control s fo r Non-Gasolin e Fuele d Vehicle s A s wa s mentione d abov e mos t non-gasolin e fue l vehicle s ar e no t likel yt o requir e additiona l contro l system s an d thu s shoul d hav e n o adde d safet yimplication s du e t o th e ORV R requirements . Severa l fuel s (sucha s M8 5 an d E85 ) ar e expecte d t o us e technolog

ysimila r t o gasoline-fuele d vehicles . At thi s poin t w e are no t awar e o f an yuniqu e safet yissue s whichwoul dappl y t o thes e vehicles . Give n th e significanc e o f vehicl e safet y concerns , shoul d suc hissue s aris e a s thes e technologie s develop , theywoul d receiv e carefu l consideration . 5 . Consultatio n wit hDO E regarding ORV R i n Ligh t o f th e Energy Polic yAc t an

d Executiv e Orde r Alternative-Fue l Vehicl e Program s EPAmaintain s a continuing dialogu e wit hth e Departmen t o f Energ y(DoE ) regarding alternativ e fue l vehicle s (AFVs) . A s par t o f our coordinatio n unde r th e Clean Fue l Flee t provision s o f Sectio n 24 6 o f th e CAA , a majo r focu s o f our discussio n wit hDo E centere d o n "th

e developmen t o f a progra mt o integrat e AFV s int o th e federa l vehicl e emissio n contro l program . A s wa s discusse d i n m yrecen t lette r regarding Inherentl yLo wEmissio n Vehicles , th e inherentl ylownatur e o f th e vapo r emission s fro m man y alternative-fue l vehicle s wa s a keypoin t i n th e vehicle/fue l technolog

ydeliberation s whic hoccurre d wit hDo E an d other s a s par t o f th e discussion s o f th e Federa l Flee t Conversio n Tas k Force . However , sinc e w e expec t tha t mos t o f thes e vehicle s wil l no t nee d additiona l contro l hardwar e t o pas s a refueling emissio n standard , th e ORV

R requiremen t wa s no t an issue . 6 . Fift yStat e Standar d an d California' s S20 9 Waive r EPAoriginall y

propose d tha t th e onboard requirement woul d appl yt o vehicle s sol d i n al l 5 0 states . However , i n earl y January199 3 th e stat e o f Californi a wa s issue d a waive r unde r Sectio n 20 9 o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t fo r it s Lo wEmissio n Vehicl e Program . A t tha t tim e a n onboard requiremen t wa s no t unde r consideratio n b

yEPA , an

d contro l o f refueling emission s wa s no t considere d i n th e waive r decision . A s wa s state d i n th e May199 3 Federa l Registe r notice , th e issu e o f whethe r Californi a standard s satisf yth e criteri a o f Sectio n 20 9 i s no t par t o f th e on-boar d rulemaking , bu t rathe r woul d b e considere d i n a sectio n 20 9 waive r proceeding , wit hconsideratio n o f leadtime an d othe r factors . 58FR AT 3073 3 (Ma y27 , 1993) .P. 8

-4

- 7 . StatutoryDeadlin e an d Truck s Th e 199 0 CA

AAmendment s cal l fo r th e LD V ORV R requiremen t t o b e implemente d fou r mode l year s afte r th e mode l yea r i n whic hth e standar d i s promulgate d wit ha thre e yea r phase-in : 40 , 80 , an d 10 0 percent . A s w e nowconceiv e th e program , th e phase-i n woul d begi n i n th e 199 8 mode l yea r an d ful l phase-i n woul d b e require d b yth e 200 0 mode l year . EPA' s ne wevaporativ e emissio n rules , whic happl yt o LDVs , LDTs , an d HDVs , ar e t o b e implemente d o n a simila r bu t no t identica l time line . Phase-i n woul d begi n wit h 199 6 model s a t 2 0 percent , wit h4 0 percen t i n 1997 , 9 0 percen t i n 1998 , an

d concluding a t 10 0 percen t i n 1999 . Recognizin g ther e mayb e benefit s t o b e gaine d b ymanufacturer s b

yconformin g th e phase-i n schedule s o f LDVs , LDTs , an d HDVs , EPAha s propose d an d requeste d commen t o n treating LDT s an d HDV s th e sam e a s LDV s fo r purpose s o f leadtime an d phase-i n unde r th e ORV R requirement . A s yo u note , th e proposa l t o appl yORV R t o LDT s an

d HDV s i s bein g handle d unde r EPA' s discretionaryauthority . Whethe r thi s leadtime/phase-i n schedul e i s appropriat e o r some adjustment s ar e neede d remain s a n ope n issue . Th e timing relationshi p betwee n th e evaporativ e an d ORV R requirement s i s importan t becaus e th e tes t procedur e optio n favore d b

yth e manufacturer s coul d b e applie d t o al l thre e vehicl e classes . Thus , th e possibilit yo f integrate d evaporative/refueling contro l systemdesign s woul d b e availabl e t o al l thre e classe s an d thu s th e obstacle s t o implementing ORV R fo r LDTs/HDV s woul d b e minimized . Althoughcar s an

d truck s ar e no t identical , i n manyrespect s theyar e verysimilar . Specifically , th e fue l an d fue l vapo r contro l system s o n LDV s an d LDT s ar e ver

ysimilar . Range s i n fue l tank size s overlap an d fue l systemconfiguration s ar e similar . Some vehicl e type s employidentica l parts , suc ha s rollove r valves , canisters , ven t lines , purg e valves . Bot hLDV s an d LDT s ar e evaluate d ove r th e same tes t procedures , an d ar e subjec t t o th e same fue l systemsafet ystandards . Also , a s wa s mentione d above , th e tes t procedur e optio n favore d b

yth e manufacturer s can b e applie d t o LDT s an d HDV s thu s allowing th e contro l systemt o b e size d an d designe d consisten t wit hevaporativ e contro l systemrequirements . Change s wil l mainl yinvolv e a large r diamete r vapo r ven t lin e an d a fillnec k seal . However , ther e ar e some truck s wit huniqu e characteristic s an d thos e wil l requir e carefu l consideratio n a s w e formulat e th e option s fo r th e fina l rule .P. 9

-5

- 8 . Ninetv-fiv e Percen t Contro l Efficiency Yo u asser t i n you r lette r tha t th e May2 7 notic e reopening th e commen t perio d appear s t o reguir e contro l efficienc ybeyon d th e 9 5 percen t mandate d b yth e Clean Ai r Act . I woul d not e tha t th e Ac t require s a minimu m o f 9 5 percen t control , no t a maximu m o f 9 5 percen t an

d i n th e Maynotic e EPApresente d a rang e fo r th e standar d whic hwoul d entai l 9 5 t o 9 8 percen t contro l durin g tes t procedur e conditions . Emphasi s i s give n t o th e importanc e o f tes t procedur e condition s becaus e o f th e natur e o f th e expecte d contro l technology . I t i s importan t t o not e tha t canister s ar e no t proportiona l contro l devices . Theyprovid e veryefficien t contro l up t o thei r design capacity , bu t afte r thi s capacit yi s exhauste d veryhighemissio n level s wil l occur . Give n thi s characteristi c o f th e contro l technology , assuring a hig hleve l o f in-us e efficienc ydurin g th e ozon e seaso n i t i s appropriat e t o conside r setting th e tes t procedur e parameter s (fuel , vapo r pressur e an

d temperatures , etc. ) nea r worst-cas e levels . Th e parameter s specifie d i n EPA' s propose d tes t procedure s reflec t thes e factor s and , i f adopte d i n fina l regulations , ORV R system s woul d b e designe d t o assur e in-us e contro l unde r mos t in-us e conditions . Thus , th e focu s o f th e stringencyissu e i s no t onl yo n th e numerica l leve l o f th e standard , bu t als o o n th e effectivenes s o f th e systemin-use . Give n th e larg e numbe r o f variables , predictin g in-us e effectivenes s i s difficult . However , bot htes t procedur e specification s an d th e emissio n standard nee d t o b e se t t o achiev e a highleve l o f contro l i n th e ozon e seaso n wit hdu e regar d t o safety , cos t an d cos t effectivenes s issues . I f required , LDT s an d HDV s woul d als o b e expecte d t o us e contro l system

approache s simila r t o LDV s an d refueling emissio n rate s ar e primaril ydetermine d b yfue l temperature s and vapo r pressure s rathe r tha n vehicl e specifi c factors . Thus , i t i s reasonabl e tha t the emissio n standard an d requirement s fo r LDT s an d HDV s coul db e th e same a s fo r LDVs . Asmal l variatio n up o r dow n i n the leve l o f th e standard fo r thes e vehicle s woul d no t hav e a significan t effec t o n th e contro l systemdesign . Furthermore , th e tes t procedur e optio n favore d b yth e manufacturer s relaxe s th e tes t condition s somewha t compare d t o othe r option s containe d i n th e May199 3 notic e an d th e 198 7 NPRM . W e hav e receive d comment s whic hclai m tha t th e tes t procedur e optio n favore d b

yth e manufacturer s woul d no t achiev e 9 5 percen t contro l i n use , an

d w e ar e nowassessing thes e comment s a s par t o f th e fina l rul e decisio n making proces s regarding th e tes t procedure .P.1 0
I I

-6

-

9 . Safet yAnalysi s Prio r t o Certificatio n EPAagree s tha t i t i s preferabl e t o resolv e al l safet y issue s prio r t o promulgatio n o f th e fina l rul e i f possible . Base d o n th e comment s provide d b yth e manufacturers , i t appear s tha t i f th e tes t procedur e change s supporte d b yth e automobil e industryar e adopted , th e longstanding vehicl e safet yconcern s o f th e manufacturer s wil l b e substantiall yresolved . However , I shoul d explai n tha t i t i s stil l u p t o EPAan

d NHTS At o independentl yanalyz e th e vehicl e safet yan d environmenta l implication s o f th e propose d tes t procedur e changes . Nonetheless , th e design an d in-us e safet yan

d performanc e o f ORV R system s i s ultimatel yth e responsibilit yo f th e aut o manufacturers . Apar t fro m th e tes t procedur e changes , i f needed , th e possibilit yo f holding th e ORV R system

design/safet ydialogu e discusse d i n th e May199 3 notic e stil l exists . 10 . NHTSA' s Rol e i n th e Developmen t o f th e May27 . 199 3 Notic e Sinc e th e January199 3 cour t decisio n regarding ORV R controls , EPAan

d NHTS Ahav e resume d an d continue d clos e coordinatio n regarding ORV R controls . EPAan d NHTS Ame t i n earl y Apri l t o discus s ke yissue s pertaining t o reopenin g th e ORV R rulemaking process . O n May13 , EP Asen t NHTS Aa copyfo r review . NHTS Areturne d comment s i n a lette r date d May17 , 1993 . Thes e comment s wer e incorporate d int o th e notice . Bot hth e draf t versio n reviewe d b yNHTS Aan

d th e respons e lette r ar e include d i n th e publi c docke t (IV-H-1 6 an d IV-H-17 , respectively) . ANHTS A representativ e serve d a s a panelis t a t th e Jul y2 2 publi c hearing . Ther e hav e bee n additiona l discussion s an d meetin g wit h NHTS Astaf f o n thi s subject . W e wil l continu e thi s clos e coordinatio n wit hNHTS Ai n developmen t o f th e fina l rule .

RDSD:Connell:Passavant:256 5 Plymout hRoad:9/8/93:REFUELIN G Las t Reviewe d b

yChe t France:9/8/93:Contro l No . AL-93-344 8 Reviewe d b

yDZinger:bjr:X27647:ANR-455:9/8/93:WP5.1:AL-344 8