P. 1



# OAR Box 1830 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 197 ) IV-C-16

4 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/20087:21:02 AM Sheet 197 of 232P. 2

i ^ 

# (A) UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENC YI \l~^ " •* ° 1 AN N ARBOR . MICHIGA N 4810 5

AP R 2 7 198 9 OFFIC E O F AI R AN D RADIATIO N 

# m m MA Y3198 9 EP AAI R DOCKE T Clarenc e M . Ditlo w Cente r fo r Aut o Safet y 200 1 S Street , NW Suit e 41 0 Washington , D C 2000 9 Dea r Mr . Ditlow : I n respons e t o you r lette r o f Marc h14 , 1989 , enclose d i s an excerp t froma Decembe r 22 , 198 8 EPAmemorandu mentitle d "Onboard an

d Evaporativ e Contro l SystemCos t Estimate s fo r th e Supplementa l Notic e o f Propose d Rulemaking. " I n this , excerp t yo u wil l fin

d EPA' s mos t recen t analysi s o f th e fue l econom y impact s o f onboar d refueling control . Althougha numbe r o f update d value s an

d severa l ne wassumption s hav e gon e into* , th-^s analysis , i t i s never-the-les s a continuatio n ^of ^ tii e methodologyuse d i n th e fue l econom yimpac t analysi s .presented i n th e July , 198 7 Respons e t o Publi c Comment s documen t whichi s als o enclosed . Page s 2-11 3 t o 2-14 3 o f tha t documen t shoul dB e referre d t o a s wel l whe n trying t o mor e full yunderstand EPA' s methodologyi n calculating th e fue l econom yimpac t o f onboard . A s i s explaine d i n th e enclose d excerpt , th e fue l saving s occu r a s a resul t o f th e captur e an d subsequen t utilizatio n o f fue l vapor s i n th e engin e tha t absen t control s wer e merel y release d t o th e atmosphere . Th e fue l vapo r controlle d i s credite d o n an equa l energ ybasi s a s liqui d gasolin e unde r th e assumptio n tha t th e engin e can utiliz e th e vapo r wit hth e same efficienc ya s th e fue l fromth e vehicle' s fue l distributio n system . I n additio n t o thi s fue l econom ybenefit , however , i s a fue l econom

ydetrimen t associate d th e adde d weigh t o f th e vehicl e fo r th e vapo r contro l hardware . Here , however , i s th e majo r differenc e betwee n th e 198 7 analysi s an d th e curren t analysis . Unde r th e assumptio n tha t onboar d refueling contro l i s incrementa l t o volatilit ycontro l an d improve d evaporativ e control , th e majorit yo f th e vehicl e change s require d fo r onboar d woul d hav e alread ybee n require d t o contro l exces s evaporativ e an

d running los s emissions . A s a result , ther e i sP. 3

n o weigh t penalt yassociate d wit honboar d refueling contro l (i t /is applie d t o improve d evaporativ e control) . Thus , instead o f onl ya margina l fue l econom ybenefi t fo r onboar d i f i t i s no t assume d incrementa l t o improve d evaporativ e contro l (a s i n th e 198 7 analysis) , i t become s comparativel ysignificant . I n addition , i t i s wort hnoting tha t th e fue l econom ybenefit s o f onboar d control s mayb e eve n greater . Recen t fue l econom y tren d analyse s an

d projection s sugges t tha t futur e vehicl e fue l economie s mayno t b e a s larg e a s ha d bee n predicted . Thus , onboar d fue l . consumptio n benefit s coul d increas e by approximatel y2 5 percen t ove r th e value s i n Tabl e 1 4 o f th e enclose d excerpt . Th e fue l econom

yimpac t i s significan t t o th e cos t effectivenes s o f onboar d refueling controls , bu t i s never-the-les s smal l relativ e t o overal l fue l economy . Sinc e refueling emission s ar e o n th e orde r o f 5. 4 g/ga l (assuming summe r volatilit ycontro l t o 9 psi ) representing les s tha n 0. 2 percen t o f a gallo n o f gasolin e (adjuste d fo r vapo r energy conten t an

d densit ycompare d t o tha t o f liqui d gasoline) , th e maximu mfue l econom

yincreas e i s limite d t o thi s level . Whil e ther e shoul d b e a smal l increas e i n on-road fue l econom y associate d wit honboar d control , ther e shoul d b e n o impac t o n CAF E fue l economy , sinc e CAF E fue l econom yi s no t measure d a s mile s drive n pe r gallo n o f fue l fromth e tank , bu t i s rathe r calculate d using a mas s balanc e o f th e exhaus t emission s independen t o f wher e th e fue l come s from . Pleas e contac t Pau l Machiel e o f m ystaf f a t (313 ) 668-426 4 i f yo u hav e an

yquestion s regarding th e enclose d analyses .



### CHARLE S L . GRAY , JR . Charle s L . Gray , Jr . Directo r Emissio n Contro l TechnologyDivisio n Enclosure s

6973 WP. 4

UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENC Y

AN N ARBOR . MICHIGA N 4810 5 

### DE C 22I98 8 OFFIC E O F AI R AN D RADIATIO N

MEMORANDU

M SUBJECT : Onboar d an d Estimate s for Rulemaking Evaporativ e Contro l System' Cos t

the Supplementa l Notic e o f Propose d

FROM : TO : THRU : Jean Schwendeman , Mechanica l Enginee r

Standard s Developmen t an d Suppor t Bran

c The Recor d Glen n W . Passavant , Senio r Projec t Manag e Standard s Developmen t an d Suppor t Branc h •X' < •'. t '-it. '

r

### yJLrtti&M***^
Richard A . Rykowski , Senio r Projec t Manag e Standard s Developmen t an d Suppor t Branc h 

# * # S

Introductio n Thi s memorandu

m describe s i n detai l th e newcos t estimate s for the improve d evaporativ e systeman d the onboard refueling vapor , recover

ysystem , a s discusse d i n the Supplementa l Notic e o f Propose d Rulemaking . The analysi s for the improve d evaporativ e syste

mwa s performe d for bot h9. 0 an d 11. 5 ps i RVP certificatio n fuel . A s i s discusse d furthe r below , the onboard analysi s assume s a 9. 0 ps i RVP certificatio n fuel . The estimate s wil l be show n a s incrementa l cost s fo r eac h additiona l leve l o f control . Th e cost s fo r "improved " evaporativ e system s ar e incrementa l t o thos e fo r "excess " evaporativ e system s an d the revise d cost s for onboard system s ar e incrementa l t o bot ho f these . For thi s memorandum , eac ho f the differen t contro l level s ar e define d a s follows :P. 5 

### -5

-
Tabl e lA Exces s Evaporativ e SystemCost s (Incrementa l t o Curren t Evap') * 9. 0 ps i RVP Certificatio n Fue l Vehicl e LD V LD T HDG V Vehicl e

Cos t Increas e 1.4 5 1.8 5 3.3 5 weigh t

Penalt y o.o o 0.0 0 0.0 0 Fue l Ne t Cos t

RecoveryCredit* * t o Owne r N.A . N.A . N.A . Sale s Weighte d Ne t Cos t 1.4 5 1.8 5 3.3 5 1.6 0

Tabl e I B Improve d Evaporativ e SystemCost s (Incrementa l t o Exces s Evap) * 9. 0 ps i RVP Certificatio n Fue l Vehicl e LD V LD T HDG V Vehicl e .

Cos t Increas e 9.6 5 13.4 0 11.2 5 Weigh t

Penalt y 0.5 0 1.1 5 0.6 0 Fue l Ne t Cost .

RecoveryCredi t t o Owne r 12.3 0 20.6 5 38.7 5 -2.1 5

-6.1 0 -26.9 0 Sale s Weighte d Ne t Cos t -3.7 0

* * Cost s ar e i n RP E fo r 198 8 dollar s rounde d t o th e neares t nickel . Sale s Weights : LDV 1 73.2% ; LD T 24.3% ; HDG V 2.5% . Th e tota l fue l recoverycredi t o f exces s evaporativ e system s woul d b e th e resul t o f an yvehicl e change s an d als o o f matchin g certificatio n an

d in-us e fue l RVPs . I t i s difficul t t o determin e th e portio n o f th e credi t du e solel yt o vehicl e changes , s o non e ar e use d here .

### -6

- P. 6

Tabl e 1 C Revise d Onboar d Contro l SystemCost s (Incrementa l t o Improve d Evap) * 9. 0 ps i RV

P Certificatio n Fue l Vehicl e LD V LDT HDG V Vehicl e

Cos t Increas e 0.9 0 1.5 0 5.2 0 Weigh t

Penalt y 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 Fue l

RecoveryCredi t 4.2 0 6.6 5 12.6 0 Sale s Weighte d Ne t Cos t Ne t Cos t t o Owne r -3.3 0 -5.1 5 -7.4 0 -3.9 0

Vehicl e LD V LDT HDG V Tabl e I D

Tota l Cost s fo r Onboar d an d Evaporativ e SystemChanges * 9. 0 ps i RVP Certificatio n Fue l Vehicl e Cos t Increas e 12.0 0 16.7 5 19.8 0 Weigh t

Penalt y 0.5 0 1.1 5 0.6 0 Fue l Ne t Cos t

RecoveryCredi t t o Owne r 16.5 0 27.3 0 51.3 5 Sale s Weighte d Ne t Cos t -4.0 0 -9.4 0 -30.9 5 -6.0 0
Cost s ar e in RP E for 198 8 dollar s rounde d t o th e neares t nicke l Sale s Weights : LD

V 73.2% ; LDT 24.3% ; HDG V 2.5% .P. 7 -34 - 1 C . Recover

y Credit s ] 1 )

(i ) Weight Penalty The weight penalty

fo r th e improve

devaporativ

e syste m wa s calculatedusin

g th e sam e metho

das wa s use

di nth e origina l onboar dproposal . Th

e component s whichwer e include dinthe weight calculatio

nar e th e canister , vapor lines , an dth e vapor vent/rollove r valve . A carbo ndensity

of 0.6 6 lb./L . an da bod y weight of 0.44 5 pound s fo r a 1. 5 lite

r canister are the sam e value s usedi

nth e origina l onboar

dproposal . The bod y weight of other cylindrica l canister size s i s assume dt o b e proportiona l t o the rati o of the square s of the caniste r t The followin

g discussio

no nrecover

y credit s (weight penalty an dfue l recovery ) i s specifi c fo r eac hsystem . A

ne t recovery,credi t ha s tw o components : a fue l recover y credi t an

d a weight penalty . Th e fue l recover

y credi t account s fo r th e fue l tha t i s save

dwhenfue l vapor s are capturedb y a vapor recover y syste m an dutilized . The weight penalty account s fo

r a los s i

nfue l econom

y due to the sligh t increas e i

nvehicl e weight adde

db y th e vapor recover

y system . The net recover y credi t i s th

e differenc e betweenth e mone y save dfro m fue l recover y an dth e increase

dfue l consumptio ncos t to move a slightly

heavier vehicle . Th e recover

y credit s fo

r exces s evaporativ

e system

s wil l b e discussedfirst . Recover y credit s fo r improve

devaporativ

e system

s an donboar

dsystem

s wil l follow . j 1 . Exces s Evaporativ e Syste m Ther e wa s n

o weight penalty

associate

dwit hth

e exces s evaporativ

e syste

m o f th e origina l volatility proposa l sinc e there wer e n

o change s necessar y invehicl e hardwar e a t 9. 0 RV

P fue l whichwoul dresul t i na weight penalty . The fue l recover y credi t fo

r thes e system

s i s a functio

nof not onl y

change s t o the vehicl e contro l syste m but als o of change incommercia l fue l volatility

(bot hth e matchin

g of in-us e an

dcertification , fue l RV P an dthe RV

P leve l at whichthi s i s done) . The portion of th e exces s evaporativ e fue l recover

y credi t due solel y t o vehicl e control s i s difficul t t o determine . Also , i f the exces s evaporativ

e fue l recover

y credi t i s included , thenthe increas e i nlifetim e fue l cos t t o th e vehicl e owner due t o commercia l fue l volatility contro l mus t als o be included . Sinc e the purpos e of thi s analysi s i s onl y t o determine vehicl e contro l syste

m cost s an

dnot volatility

contro l costs , the exces s evaporativ

e fue l recover

y credi t wa s not include dhere . 2 . Improve

dEvaporativ

e System

s The ne t recover

y credit s fo

r th e improve

devaporativ

e syste

m wer e calculatedfo r 9. 0 ps i RV

P fuel . The weight penalty wil l be discussedfirst .

* ^P. 8 -35

- radii . (The squar e o f th e radiu s fo r a 1. 5 L canister , assuming th e heigh t t o b e equa l t o th e diameter , i s 38. 5 cm 2 ) . Table s 11 Aan d 11 B sho wth e calculation s fo r th e chang e i n caniste r weight s betwee n th e improve d an d exces s j evaporativ e systems . Th e calculation s showing th e chang e i n ' weigh t du e t o th e increase d diamete r o f th e vapo r line s ar e j show n i n Table s 12 Aan d 12B . Ther e i s n o differenc e i n weight ' ] betwee n th e improve d evaporativ e vapo r vent/rollove r system! valv e an

d th e revise d onboar d systemvalve . Also , EP Adi d no t J subtrac t th e weigh t o f an ypossibl e curren t systemven t valv e i fromtha t o f th e improve d evaporativ e valv e s o tha t th e ful l ' valv e weigh t wa s allocate d t o th e improve d evaporativ e system . Th e same weigh t wa s use d a s tha t whic hwa s measure d fo r th e valv e o n th e origina l onboar d proposa l system . Thi s i s a conservativ e estimat e sinc e th e origina l onboar d valv e wa s a heavie r fillnec k mounte d valv e mad e o f stee l whil e th e improve d evaporativ e valv e i s plasti c an d mounte d o n th e tank . Th e value s belo whav e bee n weighte d b ysale s fo r singl e an d dua l fue l tanks . tTabl e H A Evaporativ

e Syste m Caniste r Weights , LDVs an dLDTs ; 9. 0 ps i RV

P fuel . Caniste r Carbon+ Caniste r Bod y Siz e Weigh t Materia l Weigh t Tota l Caniste r Weight LDVs Exces s Evaporative Syste m 1. 3 L ImprovedEvaporative Syste m 2. 7 L 0. 9 lbs . 0. 4 lbs . 1. 3 lbs .

1. 8 lbs . 0. 7 lbs . 2. 5 lbs . Incrementa l Caniste r Weight fo r Improve

dEvaporative Syste m 1. 2 lbs . LDT s Singl e Tank Exces s Evaporative Syste m 1. 7 L ImprovedEvaporative Syste m 3. 9 L 1. 1 lbs . 0. 5 lbs . 1. 6 lbs .

2. 6 lbs . 0. 8 lbs . 3. 4 lbs . Incrementa l Caniste r Weight fo r Improve

dEvaporative Syste m 1. 8 lbs . Dua l Tank Exces s Evaporative Syste m 2 § 1. 7 L ImprovedEvaporative Syste m 2 @3. 9 L 2. 2 lbs . 1. 0 lbs . 3. 2 lbs .

5. 2 lbs . 1. 6 lbs . 6. 8 lbs . Incrementa l Caniste r Weigh t fo r Improve

dEvaporative Syste m 3. 6 lbs . i U l I

LD T Weighted(singl e an ddual ) = (80%)(1. 8 lbs. ) +(20%)(3. 6 lbs ) = 2. 2 lbs .Tabl e 11 B Evaporative Syste

m Caniste r Weights , HDGVs ; 9. 0 ps i RV

P fuel . Caniste r Carbo n-l - Caniste r Bod

y = Tota l Caniste r Siz e Weigh t Materia l Weight Weigh t Exces s Evaporativ

e Syste m 4. 0 L 2. 6 lbs . 0. 9 lbs . 3. 5 lbs . (Fro m Origina l Volatilit y Proposal . Averag e o f al l HDG V classes , an

dbot h singl e an

ddua l tanks ) ImprovedEvaporative Syste m Clas s li b Singl e Tank4. 3 L 2. 8 lbs . 0. 9 lbs . 3. 7 lbs . Dua l Tan

k2 @4. 3 L 5. 6 lbs . 1. 8 lbs . 7. 4 lbs . Weighte d(Singl e an dDual ) = (80%)(3. 7 lbs ) + (20%)(7. 4 lbs ) = 4. 4 lbs . Clas s li bIncrementa l Caniste r Weight for ImprovedEvaporative Syste m =4.4-3. 5 =0. 9 lbs . Clas s VI Singl e Tan

k7. 0 L 4. 6 lbs . 1. 2 lbs . 5. 8 lbs . Dua l Tan

k2 @10. 1 L 13. 4 lbs . 3. 2 lbs . 16. 6 lbs . Weighte d(Singl e an dDual ) = (85%)(5. 8 lbs. ) + (15%)(16. 6 lbs ) = 7. 4 lbs . Clas s V I Incrementa l Caniste r Weight for Improve

dEvaporative Syste m =7.4-3. 5 =3. 9 lbs . i IP.1 1 -38

- Tabl e 12 A Improve d Evaporativ e SystemVapo r Lin e Weights ; LDVs an d LDT s Ne t incrementa l weigh t o f th e improve d evaporativ e systemvapo r line s i s th e differenc e i n weigh t betwee n th e 3/8 " I.D . fue l tank vapo r ven t lin e o n th e improve d evaporativ e systeman d th e 1/4 " I.D . purg e lin e o n th e exces s evaporativ e system . Exces s Evaporativ e Purq e Lin e 2 ft . o f 1/4 " I.D . Steel : 1 ft . o f 1/4 " I.D . Rubber : 2 ft . 1 ft . X0.0 6 lb/f t = 0.1 2 X0.0 8 lb/f t = 0.0 8

0.2 0 lb lb lb Improve d Evaporativ e Fue l Tank Ven t Lin e 2 ft . o f 3/8 " I.D . Steel : 1 ft . o f 3/8 " I.D . Rubber : 2 ft . X0.1 2 lb/f t 1 ft . X0.1 2 lb/f t 0.2 4 l b 0.12 . l b 0.3 6 l b
Tota l Incrementa l Weigh t LDV s an d LD T Singl e Tank 0.3 6 l b- 0.2 0 lb= 0. 2 lbs . Tota l Incrementa l Weigh t LDT Dua l Tank (80%)(0.2 0 lb ) + (20%)(0.4 0 lb ) - 0. 2 lbs .P.1 2
-39

-

Tabl e 12 B Improve d Evaporativ e SystemVapo r Lin e Weights ; HDGV s Ne t incrementa l weigh t o f th e improve d evaporativ e systemvapo r line s i s th e differenc e i n weigh t betwee n th e 1/2 " I.D . rubbe r fue l tank vapo r ven t lin e o n th e improve d evaporativ e system an d th e 3/8 " I.D . rubbe r fue l tank vapo r ven t lin e o n th e exces s evaporativ e system . Exces s Evaporativ e System Fue l Tank Vapo r Ven t Lin e Clas s lib : Clas s VI : Singl e Tank 3/8" :

Dua l Tank s : Singl e Tank 3/8" : Dua l Tank s : Improve d Evaporativ e System Fue l Tank Vapo r Ven t Lin e Clas s lib : Singl e Tank 1/2 "

Dua l Tank s Clas s VI : 8 ft . X0.1 2 lb/ft , 2 Xsingl e 1 5 ft . X0.1 6 lb/f t 2 Xsingl e 0.9 6 lbs , 1.9 2 lbs . 1. 8 3. 6 lb s lb s

Singl e Tank 1/2" : Dua l Tank s : 8 ft . X0.1 6 lb/f t 2 Xsingl e 1 5 ft . X0.1 6 lb/f t 2 Xsingl e Tota l Incrementa l Weigh t o f Vapo r Line s Clas s lib : Singl e Tank : 1.2 8 lbs . - 0.9 6 lbs .

Dua l Tank : 2.5 6 lbs . - 1.9 2 lbs . Weighted : (80%)(0.32 ) + (20%)(0.64 ) Clas s VI : Singl e Tank : 2. 4 lbs . - 1. 8 lbs .

Dua l Tank 4. 8 lbs . - 3. 6 lbs . Weighted : (85%)(0.6 ) + (15%)(1.2 ) 1.2 8 lbs
. 2.5 6 lbs
. 2.4 0 lbs
. 4.8 0 lbs
.

0.3 2 lbs
. 0.6 4 lbs
. 0.4 0 lbs
. 0. 6 lbs
. 1. 2 lbs
. 0 . 7 lbs
. 

### i

j

i-40

- Vapo r Vent/Rollove r Valv e Weigh t LD V LDT : HDG V lib : HDG V VI : (80%)(0.4 ) +(20%)(0.8 )

(80%)(0.4 ) + (20%)(0.8 ) (85%)(0.4 ) + (15%)(0.8 ) 0. 4 lb s 0. 5 lb s 0. 5 lb s 0. 5 lb s Th e tota l chang e i n vehicl e weigh t an d th e corresponding effec t o n fue l econom yca n nowb e calculated . Th e same forma t a s tha t use d i n th e origina l onboar d proposa l wa s used . Componen t LD V Caniste r (Carbon , Body ) Vapo r Line s Valv e Tota l Weigh t (lbs ) Weigh t Multiplicatio n Facto r (1.1 ) Ave . Vehicl e Weigh t (lbs ) Percen t Chang e i n Weigh t Sensitivit yFacto r (dimensionless ) Percen t Chang e i n Fue l Econom y(mpg ) Projecte d Fue l Econom y(mpg ) Projecte d Avg . Lif e (miles ) 

### LD T lib VI 1. 2 lb s 2. 2 lb s 0. 9 lb s 3. 9 lb s 0. 2 0. 4 1. 8 2. 0 3,08 2 0.064 % -0.32 9 0. 2

0. 5 2. 9 3. 2 3,83 2 0.083 % -0.40 2 0. 4

0. 5 1. 8 2. 0 9,25 0 0.021 % -0.40 2 0. 7

0. 5 5. 1 5. 6 22,50 0 0.025 % -0.40 2 -0.021 % -0.033 % -0.009 % -0.010 % 24.6 1 18.4 3 11.1 6 100,00 0 120,00 0 110,00 0 Lifetime Fue l Consumptio n (gal ) 4,06 3 Lifetime Weigh t Penalt y (gal ) 0. 9 6,51 1 

### 2. 2 9,85 7



### 0. 8 6.0 7

110,00 0 18,12 2 1. 8 HDGV s (weighted ) = 1. 1 ga l Th e tota l weigh t penalt ycos t ove r th e lifetime o f th e vehicl e ca n no wb e calculate d usin g th e same discoun t factor s an d yearl yfue l recoveryfraction s a s use d i n th e origina l onboar d proposal . Afue l pric e o f $0.8 2 pe r gallo n i s used , whic hi s th e same a s wa s use d i n th e origina l volatilit y proposal . Thi s pric e doe s no t includ e taxe s an d i s base d upo n a crud e oi l pric e o f $2 0 pe r barrel . Th e resulting weigh t penalt yis : $0.4 8 for LDVs , $1.1 6 fo r LDTs , an d $0.6 0 fo r HDGVs .

* H »

### -41

-

(ii ) Fue l Recover yCredi t Th e fue l recover ycredit s ( $ pe r vehicl e lifetime ) ar e j base d o nth e emissio nfacto r reduction s (gram s H C pe r mile ) j resultin g fro mimprove d evaporativ e contro l systems . Thes e * emissio nfacto r reductions , showni nTabl e 13 , wer e take nfro m] a recen t EP Aanalysis . [5 ] I t wa s assume d tha t 8 0 percen t o f j curren t runnin g los s emission s woul d b e controlle d b yth e implementatio no f improve d evaporativ e controls . Th e tota l \ emissio nfacto r reduction s fo r eac hvehicl e typ e wer e the n| multiplie d b ythei r expecte d lifetim e mileage s discounte d a t a : rat e o f 1 0 percen t (6542 0 fo r LDVs , 8093 2 fo r LDT s and 7171 5 j fo r HDVs ) t o yiel d tota l discounte d lifetim e emissio n• reductions . Thes e emissio nreduction s (assume d t o b e al l [ butane ) wer e the nvalue d a t $290.3 2 pe r to nbase d o nwor k j performe d i nth e origina l volatilit ycontro l proposal . (Thi s j assume s a cos t pe r gallo no f gasolin e o f $0.8 2 an d a combustio n\ efficienc yo f th e hydrocarbo nvapo r equivalen t t o tha t o f liqui d fuel; i.e. , a nevaporativ e recover yfacto r o f 1.0. ) Th e fue l recover ycredit s o na vehicl e lifetim e basi s ar e then : Vehicl e Typ e 9 RV P Fue l 11. 5 RV P Fue l LDV $12.3 1 $42.8 3 LD T $20.6 7 $63.3 5 HDV $38.7 4 $96.0 7 Th e decreas e i nth e credi t wit h9 RV P fue l result s fro mth e fac t tha t a grea t dea l o f evaporativ e emissio nreduction s occu r a s a resul t o f volatilit ycontrol . Thes e volatility-relate d emissio nreduction s ar e no t reflecte d i nth e calculation s above . Th e ne t recover ycredi t fo r th e improve d evaporativ e syste mo f eac hvehicl e typ e i s th e differenc e betwee nth e fue l recover ycredi t and th e weigh t penalt yfo r tha t system . Thes e value s ar e showni nTabl e IB . 3 . Onboar d Syste m Th e ne t recover ycredit s use d i nth e origina l onboar d proposa l wer e adjuste d t o accoun t fo r th e change s mad e i nth e supplementa l proposal . Sinc e th e fue l tan k sizes , and fue l economie s di d no t chang e i nth e reproposal , th e quantit yo f fue l recovere d wa s no t changed . However , th e simplifie d syste m ha s fewe r component s tha nbefor e and eve nresult s i nth e remova l o f th e externa l ven t lin e fo r LDVs , LDT s and Clas s li b HDGVs . Th e caniste r i s onl yslightl ylarge r tha nth e caniste r propose d fo r th e enhance d evaporativ e system . Therefore , EP A consider s th e weigh t penalt yo f onboar d system s incrementa l t o improve d evaporativ e system s t o b e essentiall yzero . I nfact , ther e coul d b e a sligh t weigh t decrease .-42

- Tabl e 1 3 Emissio n Facto r Reduction s Resulting FromImprove d Evaporativ e Controls,5 ]

9 RV P Fue l LD V LD T HD

V HighTemperatur e Diurna l Evaporativ e Emission s (g/mi ) 0.3 4 0.5 5 1.4 4 Running Losse s (g/mi ) 0.24 8 0.24 8 0.24 8 Tota l Emissio n Facto r (g/mi ) 0.58 8 0.78 9 1.68 8 Discounte d Lifetime Emission s (kg ) 38. 5 64. 6 121. 0 11. 5 RVP Fue l

Discounte d Lifetime Emissio n (kg ) 133. 0 198. 0 300. 2 LD V LD T HD

V j Hig hTemperatur e Diurna l . j Evaporativ e Emission s (g/mi ) 0.6 7 1.0 7 2.8 1 j Running Losse s (g/mi ) 1.37 6 1.37 6 1.37 6 Tota l Emissio n Facto r (g/mi ) 2.04 6 2.44 6 4.18 6P.1 6 -43

- Sinc e ther e i s n o weigh t penalty , th e ne t recoverycredi t i s base d solel yo n th e fue l recoverycredit . Th e fue l cos t wa s adjuste d from$0.98/ga l t o $0.82/ga l i n orde r t o b e consisten t wit hth e valu e use d i n th e origina l volatilit yproposal . Th e discoun t factor s an d yearl yfue l recoveryfraction s use d i n th e origina l proposa l wer e als o applie d i n thi s analysis . Th e fue l recoverycredit s fo r 9. 0 ps i RVP fue l ar e show n i n Tabl e 14 , along wit hth e quantit yo f fue l save d during th e vehicle' s life . Thes e credit s ar e als o show n i n Tabl e 1C .P.1 7
-44

- Tabl e 1 4 Fue l RecoveryCredit s fo r Onboar d Systems * 9. 0 ps i RVP Fue l Saving s Vehicl e (gal/life ) (1988$ ) LD V 7. 8 $4.2 0 LDT 12. 6 6.6 5 HDG V 23. 6 12.6 0 Value s Tes s tha n $1 0 wer e rounde d of f t o th e neares t nickel . Value s greate r tha n $1 0 wer e rounde d of f t o th e neares t dime .P.1 8 

### -45

- Summar y. j Th e cos t analysi s fo r th e supplementa l proposa l fo r . improve d evaporativ e an d onboar d system s wer e change d onl y wher e necessar yt o reflec t ne wrequirements , change s i ndesig n concept s an

d improve d modeling . Component s and othe r cos t area s no t affecte d wer e onl yadjuste d fo r inflatio ns o tha t al l value s ar e i n198 8 dollars . Th e resultin g cos t estimate s represen t "typical " vehicles . Th e actua l cos t fo r individua l model s wil l vary . Asummar yo f th e cost s fo r exces s evaporative , improve d evaporativ e and revise d onboar d system s i s presente d i nth e followin g paragraphs . Thes e syste m cost s wer e show ni nTable s 1 Athroug hID .

_ 

### Th e estimate d ne t cost s fo r exces s evaporativ e system s I incrementa l t o curren t evaporativ e system s whe n9. 0 RV P fue l i s ] use d ar e $1.45 , $1.8 5 an d $3.3 5 fo r LDVs , LDT s an d HDGV s j respectively . Thes e cost s ar e entirel ydu e t o vehicl e cos t j increase s sinc e ther e i s n o incrementa l weigh t penalt yan d th e I fue l recover ycredi t ca nno t b e include d i nthi s analysi s for . ] reason s alreadyexplained . However , thi s i s conservativ e sinc e som e o f th e recover ycredi t i s attributabl e t o vehicl e \ charges . Th e sale s weighte d net incrementa l cos t fo r exces s ' evaporativ e system s i s $1.6 0 i nRPE . 1 Th e estimate d cos t fo r improve d evaporativ e system s \ incrementa l t o exces s evaporativ e system s i s $9.65 , $13.40 , an d $11.2 5 fo r LDVs , LDTs , and HDGVs , respectively , fo r 9. 0 ps i RV P - j certificatio nfuel . I f th e ne t recover ycredit s ar e included , i th e improve d evaporativ e system s shoul d resul t i na ne t < incrementa l saving s o f $2.15 , $6.1 0 an d $26.9 0 fo r LDVs , LDT s ] and HDGV s respectively ; Th e ne t saving s weighte d b yvehicl e • clas s i s $3.70 . 1 Th e estimate d cos t fo r simplifie d onboar d system s incrementa l t o improve d evaporativ e system s i s $0.90 , $1.50 , an d $5.2 0 fo r LDVs , LDTs , and HDGV s respectivel y(fo r 9. 0 ps i RV P certificatio nfuel) . I f th e ne t recover ycredit s ar e included , th e onboar d system s shoul d resul t i na ne t saving s fo r th e vehicl e owner . Th e estimate d ne t incrementa l saving s ar e $3.30 , $5.1 5 and $7.4 0 fo r LDVs , LDTs , and HDGVs , respectivel y(9. 0 ps i RVP) . Th e ne t incrementa l saving s weighte d b yvehicl e clas s sale s i s $3.90 . Th e tota l vehicl e cost s fo r th e onboar d refuelin g and evaporativ e syste mchange s (bot hexces s an d improve d evaporative ) ar e $12.00 , $16.7 5 an d $19.8 0 fo r LDVs , LDT s an d HDGV s respectivel yincrementa l t o curren t evaporativ e systems . I f th e ne t recover ycredit s ar e include d a ne t saving s i s ! realize d b yth e vehicl e owne r o f $4.00 , $9.4 0 an d $30.9 5 i nth e thre e vehicl e classes . Th e sale s weighte d ne t incrementa l saving s i s $6.00 .-46

- Reference s 1 . Draf t RegulatoryImpac t Analysis , "Contro l o f Gasolin e Volatilit yan d Evaporativ e Hydrocarbo n Emission s from Ne wMoto r Vehicles, " U.S . EPA , Offic e o f Ai r an d Radiation , Offic e o f Mobil e Sources , Jul y1987 . Publi c Docke t A-85-22 , III-B-l . 2 . "Evaluatio n o f Ai r Pollutio n RegulatoryStrategie s fo r Gasolin e Marketin g Industry- Respons e t o Publi c Comments, " U.S . EPA , Offic e o f Ai r and Radiation , Offic e o f Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an

d Standards , an d Offic e o f Mobil e Sources , (EPA450/3-84-012c) , Jul y1987 . 3 . Draf t RegulatoryImpac t Analysis , Propose d Refuelin g Emissio n Regulation s fo r Gasolin e - Fuele d Vehicle s —Volum e I I - Additiona l Analysi s o f Onboar d Control s (EPA-450/3-87-001b) , U.S . EPA , Offic e o f Ai r an d Radiation , Offic e o f Ai r Qualit yPlannin g an d Standards , an

d Offic e o f Mobil e Sources , Jul y1987 . 4 . "PT Mode l Descriptio n an d User s Guide, " Davi d B . Bartus , U.S . EPA , SDSB , Augus t 10 , 1988 . 5 . "Effec t o f Runnin g Losse s an d Exces s Evaporativ e Emission s o n Futur e VO C Emissio n Inventories, " Memorandu m from Richar d Rykowski , EPA/OMS/ECTD/SDSB , t o th e Record , Decembe r 22 , 1988 .

- >

-«<fl J