p. 1



# OAR Box 1171 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 11 ) VII-A- 1 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 4/30/20087:18:32 AM

Sheet 11 of 47P.2

> __ _C P P 

# uss y ^tppcrt 4 

## y UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENC Y AN N ARBOR . MICHIGA N 4810 5 

# "5)r 

# J U B i E 0 WS Q JU N - I I99 4 

### EP AAI R L\.CKE T OFFIC E O F AI R AN D RADIATIO N

Madelin e Burn s Nissa nNort hAmeric a 75 0 17t hStreet , N W Suit e 9 2 Washincrto'n , D C 2000 6

Dea r Ms . Burns : Thi s i s i nrespons e t o you r fa xo f Apri l 11 , 19 Mwhic h containe d a serie s o f question s regardin g implementatio no f th e light-dut yvehicl e an d light-dut ytruc k ORVRrequirements . I wil l respon d t o you r question s i nth e orde r the ywer e presented . 1 Th e ORV Rrul e extend s th e existin g provision s fo r th e OB D ' system s t o ORV Requipment . Th e curren t OB D requirement s appl y t o th ~ ' 98MY , however , manufacturer s ar e allowe d t o us e th e C A OB D H syste mt o satisf yth e federa l requirement s fo r th e '98MY . Conformit ywit hth e Federa l OB D i s require d wit h.h e '99MY . I s i t stil l acceptabl e fo r a manufacture r t o us e a C AOBDI I sjste mo n' 98MYvehicle s i f th e syste mdoe s no t hav e th e JapaSit yt o monito r ORVR ? Doe s th e OB D exemptio nsupersed e th e ORVRmonitorin g requirements ?

ReSP °As e stat- d i nth e preambl e t o th e ORVRfina l rule , th e OB D syste m'mus t monito r ^performanc e o f ORVRV*TM'^^TM 1 TM whethe r th e vehicl e use s Californi a OB D I I o r Federa l OBD . EP A iZTctstS t mos t (i f no t all ) ~»^TM » -" i ^11^*0 ^ ORVR/evaporativ e contro l syste mdesigns . Bot hth e Californi a uuu ?f*tn d federa l OB D system s wil l monito r th e evaporativ e contro l svste mpurge/pressur e functions . Thus , a s a practica l matte r i t i s Z7»f!l*Ters2j B u . : cilifo»i . OB D II*1£B , bu t EP Awil l conduc t a separat e evaluatio nt o determin e i f i t requirements .P. 3

2 . Complianc e A ) Ho wshoul d th e phase-i npercentage s b e calculated ? I n th e curren t Evaporativ e an d Col d C O rules , a manufacture r i s suppose d t o us e th e sale s volum e fo r th e calculatio n bu t i f w e ca ndemonstrat e tha t th e sale s volum e i s simila r t o th e productio nvolume , w e ca nus e th e productio nvolum e t o calculat e compliance . D o th e sam e condition s appl yt o th e ORV Rpercentag e calculation ? Respons e Fo r ORVR , th e Clea nAi r Ac t i s no t specifi c t o thi s point . Thus , EP Awillipermi t manufacturer s t o us e eithe r sale s volume s o r productio nvolume s i ndeterminin g compliance . B . Unde r th e Eva p an dCol dC O rules , i f a manufacture r doe s no t mee t th e percentag e phase-i nrequirement s an dEP Abelieve s tha t th e manufacture r i s makin g a goo dfait heffor t t o mee t th e percentag e phase-i nrequirements , EP Awil l no t see k enforcemen t action . Th e rule s allo wa 10 % margi no f erro r fo r phase-in . D o th e sam e rule s appl yfo r ORVR ? Unde r wha t condition s woul d EP Asee k t o brin g a nenforcemen t action ? Respons e Fo r ORVR , th e Clea nAi r Ac t i s specifi c a s t o th e phase-i n percentages . Th e applicabl e percentage s ar e 4 0 percen t i nth e firs t mode l yea r i nwhic hth e standard s ar e applicable , 8 0 percen t i nth e secon d mode l yea r an d 10 0 percen t afte r th e secon dmode l year . Ther e i s n o margi nfo r erro r allowe db yth e statutor y languag e no r i s ther e a standar d provisio nfo r margi no f error . Nissa nshoul d no t rel yo nenforcemen t discretio nt o cove r any shortfall s belo wthes e percentages . B yth e way , discussion s wit hpersonne l responsibl e fo r th e evaporativ e emissio nrulemakin g indicate dth e sam e polic ywa s i n effec t fo r tha t regulations . However , th e preambl e o f th e Col dTemperatur e C O Regulation s (Jul y17 , 1992 , p . 31890 ) doe s allo wfo r unusua l circumstance s beyon d a manufacturer s contro l (e.g. , a fir e i na productio nplant ) whic hma ypreven t th e manufacture r fro machievin g it s require d phase-i npercentages . I nsuc hcases , i f th e shortfal l i nactua l sale s i s les s tha no r equa l t o 1 0 percen t o f th e phase-i n percentage s an d ther e i s n o indicatio ntha t shortfal l resulte dfro m ba d fait ho nth e par t o f th e manufacturer , EP Ama ythe nexercis e it s enforcemen t discretion . Clearly , EPA' s inten t i s t o allo wfo r circumstance s beyon d a manufacturer s contro l rathe r tha nprovidin g a 1 0 percen t toleranc e t o b e use da s a productio ntarget .P. 4

3 . Sea l Tes t I nth e preamble , EP Amention s tha t th e intentio no f th e sea l tes t i s t o verif yth e integrit yo f th e fillpip e seal s and vapo r lines . Nissa nbelieve s tha t thi s ca nb e verifie d throug ha ful l refuelin g test . I nothe r words , i f ther e ar e problem s wit hth e fillpip e seal s an dvapo r lines , th e vehicl e wil l no t compl ywit hth e standard . I s ther e anothe r intentio nfo r th e sea l tes t othe r tha nth e on e mentione d i nth e preamble ? Respons e A s discusse d i nth e preamble , th e sea l tes t i s designe da s a tes t t o verif yth e integrit yo f th e fillpip e seal , vapo r lines , valve s an d othe r fitting s i nth e fue l vapo r contro l syste mbefor e th e canisters . I t wil l als o serv e a s a usefu l screenin g tes t fo r in-us e vehicl e performance . B yroutin g th e fue l vapo r lin e outsid e th e SHED , on e ca nsimulat e a 10 0 percen t effectiv e canister . I f a vehicl e fail s th e refuelin g emissio nstandar di na SHE D tes t unde r thes e conditions , i t woul db e expecte dtha t th e vehicl e woul dals o fai l th e standar d i na ful l refuelin g emissio ncontro l syste m configuratio ni na SHE D test . 4 . D F Calculatio n Ho wshoul d a manufacture r calculat e a separat e D F fo r th e evaporative/refuelin g syste mi nth e cas e o f a nintegrate d system ? Ou r educate dgues s i s a s follows : A ) Manufacture r conduct s evaporativ e emissio ntest s and

~ " refuelin g emissio ntest s a t eac htes t poin t o f durabilit y testing . B ) Manufacture r add s evaporativ e emissio ntes t dat a t o refuelin g emissio ntes t dat a t o ge t "tota l data. " C ) Manufacture r plot s tota l availabl e dat a an dcalculate d DF . Ca nyo u confir mou r understanding ? Respons e I believ e you r understandin g i s incorrect . Ther e ar e separat e evaporative , runnin g los s an drefuelin g emissio nstandards , an d complianc e wit heac hstandar dmus t b e demonstrated . Thus , i t i s expecte d tha t evaporative , runnin g loss , an drefuelin g emissio nDF s wil l b e determine d separatel yi naccordanc e wit happlicabl e regulation s i n86.098-26, . an dth e D F fo r eac hrequiremen t wil l b e applie d t o th e appropriat e emissio nresult s fo r th e dat a vehicle s t o determin e complianc e wit hth e emissio nstandar d