P. 1



# OAR Box 1830 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 173 ) IV-C-140 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/2008 7:21:00 AM Sheet 173 of 232

# 0^1- 

# n P. 2 

# TX-c-iW

| J^Z , ? UNITED'STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y \ .<f

WASHINGTON

. D.C

. 2045 0 wOC T2 7 !9B b

TH E ADMINISTRATO R

Th e Honorabl e Joh

n D . Dingell , Chairma n Subcommitte e o n Oversigh t an d Investigation s Committe e o n Energ

yan d Commerc e U.S . Hous e o f Representative s Washington , DC 2051 5 Dea r Mr . Chairman : I a m writing in respons e t o you r letter s o f Septembe r 1 5 an d Octobe r 14 , 1988 . First , I wil l respon d t o the question s i n the Septembe r lette r relate d t o EPA' s proposal s fo r fue l volatilit yan

d onboar d refueling controls . M yresponse s ar e numbere d according t o you r Questions . A t the en d o f thi s lette r I discus s the issue s raise d i n you r Octobe r 1 4 letter . 1 . Th e firs t se t o f ouestion s concerne d the Nationa l HighwayTraffi c Safet yAdministration' s (NHTSA ) reviewo f ou r ne wonboard safet ystud yan d howthi s impact s the timing o f the Supplementa l Notic e o f Propose d Rulemaking (SNPRM) . Adraf t SNPR M wa s sen t t o th

e Offic e o f Managemen t an d Budge t (OMB ) fo r revie won Septembe r 15 , 1938 , prio r t o receip t o f NHTSA' s comment s an

d als o prio r t o receip t o f you r lette r o f tha t day . We . d o no t fee l tha t thi s actio n wa s i n an ywa ypremature . W e neve r intende d t o repropos e befor e receiving NHTSA' s analysis . Th e inten t o f th e reproposa l i s t o mak e bot h our reanalysi s o f tn e safet yissu e an d NHTSA' s comment s availabl e fo r publi c revie wan

d commen t an

d als o t o asses s othe r change d circumstances . Therefore , we believe d al l non-safet yportion s o f th e packag e coul d be reviewe d b yOMB a t tha t time . Yo u kno w tha t OM B returne d th e packag e t o u s pending receip t o f the NHTS Acomments , a

n actio n whic h w

e believ e wil l unnecessaril y delayissuanc e o f the SNPRM . A s yo u have reauested , a copyo f tha t packag e (draf t preambl e an d reaulations ) i s include d a s a n enclosure . W e respectfull yreques t tha t yo u no t releas e thes e draf t document s t o outsid e parties .P. 3



### -2

- 2 . I n additio n t o addressing safet yconcerns , th e SNPRM contain s a variet yo f tes t procedur e change s i n respons e t o comment s receive d indicating th e need t o bette r contro l exces s evaporativ e an

d runnin

g los s emissions . Th e change s t o th e earlie r tes t procedure s ar e outline d in a tabl e a t th e beginning o f th e enclose d regulations . Thes e change s an d th e reason s fo r the

mar e als o discusse d in mor e detai l i n the preamble . Whil e intereste d partie s wer e sen t notic e o f thes e revision s t o the originall ypropose d tes t procedure s o n Septembe r 1 , 1988 , th e SNPR M provide s EP

Aa read

ymean s t o includ e thes e matter s i n th e publi c hearin g planne d following publicatio n o f tha t notice . 3 . A s yo u note d i n you r letter , EPAdesire s t o appl y th e propose d evaporativ e tes t procedur e change s t o methanol-fuele d vehicle s a s wel l a s gasoline-fuele d vehicles . Although EPAha

d propose d emission s standard s an d tes t procedure s fo r methanol-fuele d vehicle s in 1986 , a t th e time o f the Augus t 198 7 propose d evaporativ e tes t procedur e revision s no fina l decisio n ha d bee n mad e o n th e adoptio n o f the methano l standards . Thi s i s wh ymethanol-fuele d vehicle s wer e no t specificall yaddresse d in th e Augus t 198 7 proposal . However , i t nowappear s tha t fina l actio n ma ybe take n o n th e methanol-fuele d vehicl e standard s in th e nea r future . Sinc e the inten t o f the methano l regulation s wa s tha t the ybe essentiall ythe same 'a s thos e fo r • gasoline-fuele d an d diese l vehicles , wher e applicable , w e ar e proposing tha t th e evaporativ e tes t procedur e revision s appl yt o methanol-fueled , a s wel l a s gasoline-fuele d vehicles . 4 . Concerning leadtime reauirement s fo r implementing onboar d controls , we have alway s maintaine d ou r commitmen t t o provid e adequat e leadtime t o allo wsaf e an d effectiv e onboar d implementation . However , w e hav e no t include d a specifi c revise d lead-time estimat e in ou r SNPR M becaus e a t thi s tim e we fee l a fina l decisio n on leadtime woul d bes t be mad e afte r al l the safet yissue s an d question s abou t potentia l systemdesign s ar e clearl ydefine d an d resolved . Thus , th e fina l decisio n o n leadtime requirement s wil l be addresse d during the Fina l Rul e development . 5 . Ther e ar e thre e area s o f "significantl ychange d circumstances " whic h affec t th e cost s an d benefit s o f ou r proposals . Thes e ar e th e implementatio n o f Stag e I I i n Ne w York , Ne wJerse yan d St . Louis , the revise d lis t o f ozon e non-attainmen t areas , an d revise d onboar d hardwar e costs . Al l thre e o f thes e change d circumstance s ar e addresse d i n th e SNPRM . Th e analysi s o f the firs t tw o show s thei r effec t o n cost s an

d benefit s t o be minimal . Th e onl ysignifican t chang e t o cost-effectivenes s come s fro mth e revise d onboar d hardwar e costs . Onboar d nowha s onl ya ver ysmal l increas e i n hardwar e cos t comoare d t o evaoorativ e controls . Thi s increas e i n cos tP. 4

-3

- i s mor e tha n offse t b ythe saving s associate d wit h the recovere d refueling vapor s ove r the lifetim e o f the vehicle , resulting in a ne t negativ e cos t effectiveness . Al l thre e o f thes e change d circumstance s ar e discusse d i n detai l i n th e SNPR M preamble . 6 . I n respons e t o you r questio n concerning th e emissio n benefit s o f onboar d controls , Stag e I I controls , evaporativ e controls , an

d fue l volatility , w e hav e no t analyze d th e benefit s fo r eac h yea r yo u have reouested . However , we hav e analyze d th

e near-ter

m(1995 ) an

d lon g ter m (2010 ) benefit s o f thes e program s relativ e t o th e newbaseline . Th e result s o f thi s analysi s ar e summarize d in Tabl e 6 (p . 79 ) o f the enclose d SNPR M preamble . Whil e Stag e I I doe s no t appea r o n thi s table , th e magnitud e o f the benefit s fo r bot h onboar d an d Stag e I I remai n unchange d fro mth e value s presente d i n the origina l proposal , wit h onboar d havin g slightl yhighe r benefit s .tha n Stag e I I du e t o highe r in-us e efficiency . 7 . W e full yinten d t o conside r an

ycomment s w e receiv e regarding ou r onboar d systemdesign . Meeting s hav e alread y bee n hel d wit h Ford an d Genera l Motor s t o discus s thei r earl y testing . Ful l presentatio n o f the syste m desig n wil l als o b e include d a s par t o f the SNPR M an d we expec t t o receiv e mor e comment s following it s publication . 8 . I n you r lette r yo u aske d a numbe r o f question s concerning running losses . Running losse s resul t fro man increas e in th e temperatur e o f th e fue l tan

k whil e the ca r i s bein g driven . Th e greate r th e ambien t temperature , the temperatur e ris e o r the fue l volatility , th e greate r the runnin g losses . Th e temperatur e ris e i s a functio n o f the lengt h o f the drive , wit h longe r drive s causing large r increase s i n temperatur e (often a s hig h a s 25°F) . Th e temperatur e ris e ca n als o be a functio n o f vehicl e configuration , sinc e som e design s expos e th e fue l tan k mor e directl yt o hea t source s than others . Amajo r sourc e o f hea t i s ho t ai r leaving th e engin e compartment , wit h th e exhaus t systeman

d recirculate d fue l als o contributing . O n ho t summe r day s typica l o f high-ozon e levels , thi s temperatur e ris e cause s curren t volatilit yfue l t o literall y boi l in th e tank . Dependin g o n the vehicl e design , sufficien t vapor s ar e generate d t o fulfil l the engine' s tota l fue l reauirements . Mos t manufacturer s caus e th e pressur e o f th e fue l tan

k t o ris e abov e atmospheri c pressur e a t leas t somewha t b yrestricting th e flowthrough the vapo r ven t lin e t o th e charcoa l canister . I f the pressur e ris e i s larg e enough , i t ca n significantl yreduc e the amoun t o f vapor s generated . However , thi s techniqu e run s the ris k tha t th e pressur e wil l ris e abov e th e releas e pressur e o f th e fille r nec k cap o r othe r relie f valve , causin g larg e amount s o f vapor s t o be release d directl yt o th e atmosphere . Base d o n EPA' s running los s testing , suc h venting appear s t o b e a commo n occurrence .P. 5

-4

- I t i s no t ye t clea r howthe typ e o f fue l metering system affect s tan

k temperatur e an

d the resulting vapo r production . Th e greates t differenc e i n runnin g losse s appear s t o b e du e t o th e design o f th e canister/fue l tan k purg e system . Some vehicle s ar e abl e t o rout e essentiall yal l thei r running losse s t o the engin e wit h littl e or no effec t o n exhaus t emissions , eve n wit h high volatilit yfuel . Other s d o not . Fue l injectio n woul d ten

d t o have an advantag e her e ove r carburetion , du e t o it s greate r precisio n i n fue l metering . EPAha s teste d 1 6 vehicle s ove r the roa d t o determin e representativ e fue l tan k temperature s ove r variou s ambien t an d driving conditions . Using thi s information , EPAteste d 1 2 curren t technolog

yvehicle s fo r running losse s unde r a wid e variet yo f ambien t temperatures , tri p length s an d fue l volatilities . Testing i s nearl ycomplet e o n a n additiona l 4 curren t an

d 6 olde r technolog ylight-dut yvehicle s an d 9 curren t technolog

ylight-dut ytrucks . EPA' s SNPR

M include s a provisio n tha t prohibit s running losse s in-us e i n muc h the same wa ytha t w e no wprohibi t crankcas e emissions . N o tes t procedur e i s provided , no r testin g required . EPAdi d thi s t o avoi d the nee d t o performa lengthene d exhaus t emissio n tes t insid e o f a SHE D a t elevate d temperatures . Also , give n a detaile d descriptio n o f the operatio n o f al l vent s o n th e fue l tan k an d th e purg e rat e t o the engine , i t i s a straightforwar d engineerin g tes t t o determin e whethe r running losse s wil l occu r o r not . Al l o f thi s i s discusse d in mor e detai l i n the enclose d SNPRM package . EPA' s regulation s have lon g provide d fo r th e inclusio n o f runnin g losse s along wit h diurna l an d hot-soa k emission s i n determinin g complianc e wit h the 6 an d 2 gra

mevaporativ e standards . I n fact , running losse s ove r the FT P ( 9 RVP fuel , a n 1 1 mil e trip , relativel ylo wtemperature ) ar e probabl ya t o r nea r zer o today . Th e proble mi s tha t the curren t FT P i s no t representativ e o f high-ozon e da ytemperatures , in-us e fue l volatilit yno r drivin g pattern s likel yt o produc e running losses . Th e fac t tha t a numbe r o f th e vehicle s teste d had no runnin g losse s ove r the mos t extreme condition s teste d o n 9 RV P wit h no exhaus t emissio n effec t give s u s grea t confidenc e tha t the technolog

yexist s t o contro l suc h emission s an d nee d onl y be applie d in th e desig n an d developmen t process . Eve n o n 11. 7 RV P fuel , a coupl e o f vehicle s ha d essentiall yno running losse s an

d showe d no increas e in exhaus t emission s ove r th e extreme s o f ambien t temperatur e an d tri p length . Thus , running losse s appea r controllabl e eve n wit h 11. 7 RV P fue l using curren t technology , though th e tas k woul d certainl ybe mor e difficul t tha n wit h 9 RVP fuel .P. 6

-5

- 9 . Enclose d i s a cop yo f the briefing yo u requeste d whic h wa s presente d t o m e o n Augus t 19 , 198 8 b ythe Offic e o f Ai r an d Radiatio n (OAR) . Th e thre e option s whic h wer e presente d t o m e ar e outline d o n th e fina l thre e page s o f the briefing along wit h the majo r point s o f discussion . Volatilit y control s wer e include d in al l thre e option s whil e exces s evaporativ e tes t procedur e revision s wer e include d i n the secon d an d third options . Finally , refueling control s wer e include d onl yi n the thir d option . Becaus e thi s briefing documen t wa s prepare d fo r interna l Agenc ydeliberations , w e reques t tha t yo u no t releas e i t t o outsid e parties . 10 . A s yo u mayknow , w e have electe d t o procee d wit h th e third optio n (volatility , exces s evap . an d onboard) . You r understandin g tha t thi s choic e wa s selecte d ove r th e secon d option s (volatility , an d exces s evap . only ) o n th e basi s o f petroleu

mindustr

yoppositio n an

d tes t procedur e cost s i s no t correct . Bot h o f thes e consideration s ar e identifie d in th e briefing , bu t wer e no t deciding factors . Ou r reasoning fo r including onboar d control s in ou r strateg yi s tha t onboar d provide s additiona l emission s benefit s a t a ne t negativ e cos t relativ e t o exces s evaporativ e controls . Considerin g th e magnitud e an

d urgenc yo f the ozon e problemi t i s difficul t t o justif yno t implementing onboar d control s give n thes e circumstances . 11 . I n you r lette r yo u raise d som e comment s b

yGenera l Motor s (GM ) o n ou r onboar d systemdesign . G M state d tha t ou r system' s lac k o f pressur e control s appeare d inconsisten t wit h ou r desir e t o contro l exces s evaporativ e emission s including running losses . W e d o no t agre e v/it h thi s position . Give n NHTSA' s experienc e wit h fue l spurting du e t o pressurize d fue l tanks , we believ e tha t pressurize d system s ar e no t necessaril y the bes t wa

yt o contro l thes e emissions , bu t rathe r volatilit y controls , sufficien t vapo r storag e capacit yan d improve d purging mechanism s ar e appropriate . Give n GM' s sensitivit yt o fue l system

safet yissues , w e ar e surprise d t o se e G M advocating th e us e o f pressurize d fue l tank s t o suppres s running losses . I t i s als o wort h noting tha t the revise d evaporativ e tes t procedur e doe s no t preclud e th e us e o f pressurize d fue l tanks , bu t require s tha t suc h system s b e designe e t o preven t the venting o f gasolin e vapor s whil e th e vehicl e i s running o r whe n th e fue l cap i s remove d fo r refueling . 12 . Th e questio n o f the leadtime require d i n orde r t o implemen t volatilit ycontrol s fo r th e summe r o f 198 9 i s something w e hav e bee n lookin g a t closely . Base d upo n comment s fro mpetroleu

mrefiners , we believ e tha t publicatio n o f the fina l rul e b

yearl y198 9 wil l provid e sufficien t leadtime . W e understand tha t i t i s critica l tha t volatilit ycontrol s ar e i n plac e fo r the nex t ozon e seaso n an d yo u ca n be assure d tha t w e ar e committe d t o making tha t happen .P. 7

-6

- 13 . A s yo u know , w e ar e currentl yworking har d t o finaliz e th e volatilit yan d onboar d rule s a s soon a s possible . W e fee l tha t thi s i s th e appropriat e cours e o f actio n give n th e urgenc yo f th e ozon e non-attainmen t problem . However , we d o no t inten

d t o compromis e ou r analyse s i n an

yway . Th e SNPR

M packag e wa s initiall ysen t t o OMB fo r reviewafte r completio n o f Red Borde r review . Also , we inten d t o hav e a publi c hearin g an d thirty-daycommen t perio d following th e publicatio n o f th e SNPR M an d wil l addres s al l comment s receive d a s we conside r a Fina l Rule . W e d o no t believ e tha t thi s schedul e in an ywa y compromise s ou r abilit yt o d o a thorough analysi s o f al l relevan t issue s no r d o w e fee l tha t volatilit ycontrol s ca n be finalize d an

ysoone r tha n thi s a s a separat e rule . However , i f unexpecte d delay s develo p a t a late r time , w e ar e prepare d t o separat e ou t an interi mvolatilit ypackag e t o assur e tha t th e firs t phas e o f volatilit ycontro l wil l be i n plac e fo r nex t summer . I n respons e t o you r Octobe r 1 4 letter , I wil l clarif y agai n ou r intention s relate d t o the onboar d reproposal . A s w e state d t o the publi c in th e Augus t 198 7 proposa l an d a s we hav e sinc e explaine d t o you , OMB an d others , w e committe d t o reope n the recor d o f thi s rulemaking whe n th e Agenc yreceive s th e safet ycomment s fro m NHTS Aan

d t o repropos e the rul e fo r commen t t o asses s change d circumstances . A s mentione d previousl yin thi s response , ther e ar e importan t issue s othe r than safet ytha t wil l be addresse d i n the reproposal . I t wa s ou r intentio n t o hav e OM B begi n t o revie wthe non-safet yissue s a s soo n a s possible . Thos e issue s ar e separat e fro

m onboar d safet yand , therefore , wil l no t be affecte d b

ythe NHTS Areview . I n fact , we had informe d OM B staf f o n severa l occasions , mos t recentl yi n a meeting wit h themo n Septembe r 14 , tha t we planne d fo r them t o firs t revie w the part s o f th e reproposa l tha t wer e unrelate d t o onboar d safety . Then , afte r receiving NHTSA' s comments , we woul d sen d themt o OM B an

d th e packag e woul d be complete . W e neve r expecte d OM B t o concu r o n th e packag e befor e NHTSA' s comment s wer e available . A s yo u ca n see , ou r action s wer e thoughtfull y planne d t o mov e the rulemaking forwar d i n a sensibl e manne r full yconsisten t wit h ou r previou s commitments . Subsequen t t o the preparatio n o f the previou s portion s o f thi s response , w e receive d NHTSA' s safet ycomment s o n Octobe r 24 . O n Octobe r 2 5 w e delivere d t o you r offic e a copyo f our Augus t 198 8 safet yrepor t a s yo u requested . W e understand NHTS Aha s give n yo u a copyo f thei r comments . Not e tha t w e ar e placing bot h o f thes e document s i n th e publi c docke t fo r thi s rulemaking an

d making copie s availabl e t o intereste d parties . Further , we ar e nowsending th e entir e SNPR M bac k t o OM B fo r thei r review .P. 8



### -7 -

I nclosing , I woul dlik e t o than

k youfo

r you r concer

ni n thes e matters . W e at EP

A hav e alway s pride

dourselve s o

n performin

g thoroug

han dobjectiv

e analyse s an

do nou r willingnes s t o persever e whe nworkin

g throug

htoug hissues . I firmly believ

e that w

e are continuin

g i ntha t traditio

na s w e wor k towar dth e implementatio

no f fue l volatility an drefuelin

g controls .

Le e M . Thoma s 

### Enclosure s cc : Docke t A-87-1 1 Docke t A-85-2 1 Th e Honorabl e Josep

hR . Wrigh t Jr . Actin g Director , OM

B Th e Honorabl e Charle s A . Bowshe r Comptrolle r General , GA O Th e Honorabl e Diane K . Stee d Administrator , NHTSA