UNITED ST ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC Y NAT I ONAL VEH I C L E A N D F UEL E M I SSIONS LABORATORY 2565 PLYMO UTH ROAD ANN ARBOR , MICHIGAN 48105 & 2498
MEMORANDUM AuglN8,2013 OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATIO N SUBJECT : EPA, A llian ce, a n d G l o b a l A utom akers Me e tin g o n Iss u es Re l a t e d to T i er 3 Cert Fue l a nd t h e CAFE "R" Fac t or FROM: Glenn W. Passavan t, Office of Tra n sportat i on a n d Air Quality TO: Pu bli c Docke t E P A-HQ-OAR-2 011 -0 1 3 5 In r espo n se to a request from t h e A ll iance of Automob i le Manu facture r s (Alliance) a n d t he Associa ti o n of Global Auto make r s (GA) EPA met with rep resentat i ves of these g r oups i n A n n A rb or to fo ll ow -up o n t h e ir co mm e n ts o n the Tie r 3 NPRM ( Jul y 1 , 2 0 1 3) re l ate d to t h e "R" f actor. T he meet i ng was hel d on A u gus t 7, 20 1 3. A li st of attendees is attac h ed. EPA prov i ded t he attac h ed presentat i o n . It laid out a co n cept developed b y EPA staff ( nea r t e rm opt i o n ) w hi c h cou ld p o t ent i a ll y c r ea t e a reg ul a t ory co n str uc t w hi c h wo ul d a ll ow fo r m a nu fact ure r s t o c o n t i nue CAFE test in g o n Ind ole n e (E O ) w h i l e con ductin g e mi ss ion s test i ng o n a d iffere nt certification f uel. I f adopted, th i s co n cept wou l d stay in p l ace at least u n t i l EP A took a final ac t ion on an "R " va lu e c h ange (assu m i n g EPA cha n ges ce rti ficatio n fue l sp e ci fi cat i o n s in Tie r 3) . The presentatio n a l so prov i de d a background o n the iss ue re l ated to t he va lue for th e "R" fac t o r itse lf a nd upd ated EPA's a n a lys i s based o n in fo rm at i on rece ntl y rece i ved f r om Oak Ridge Nationa l Labo r atory. There was a live ly a n d co n st ructive exc hange on bo th to p ics. EPA asked t h e A ll iance/ GA t o p rovide us i n p ut and fee d back on the po t entia l near t e rm co n cept. Both EPA a nd the manufacturers agreed to co ndu c t furt her analys i s of the dat a u sed in th e "R" fac t or a n a lysis i ncludin g th e effec t of po t e nti a l ot he r c han ges to T i er 3 c e rtifi cat i o n fu e l.

### M~{t**k~ ol~q~**  

# . : Yo. T}, F( t . ..

### \~**Je.:.:.** 

## . 

# , u J**~.U Ot**  

## . ,;-. 

## R '-l , Y\. <\ l

## ~~**~ ..vJ~**  

## h-
' :"""I .J. M

_ , _, \(**·~ ·~**  ·! 

# Gre d rc Z.:**~ A-M~r** **_oav..:f:O** _:

### &-r~_ ':" rE- 

### N 

### fP J

! _

AJ

### f:!i7



## -------- . ( Y' t4fsf-v-- _**tJrY:t lf:** 



## _

.. - --- -·- ··

## .j**Uavi'd!. ~~** **i** )i..r _· . 

## , , _. -;-J e. _**~** 

### y I C,J;;:l,. (0 

## -·**'~-** 

## .i\.v V'.i 

# u**~** 

## l i 1
- 

## k 

# -- ·· ··**f~~Ael ~** 

. -**~ ~**  

# S
----u...kz.. fVI A-H- N 6 ub**~1** 

### ft-sS t.rle

. DO;vA L D 

### tJA G 'I

### :-::3**bc_PiAC h**  I

.! ' e c; ,:...

. .**-o~** ...... ,.s**~ct ~q**  

### k t?. t)a . ... ,...,**·~.J.:J.LS )** **~** ):1 ' • 7i'l"'it

## J**~~~ ['** **e__ ~~~** **~~ d** **~ Jf!./~~~**  

## ce. 

# & t-:1 .**(1.4 /f** **.** 

## E- 61 

## VVJ**( (**  V\N {l1

### 6.**() ~** **~~** 

# ef?A- 1**~** 

## Cf;:t _ 

# C h

r : .Z:S / -4' 61" ']**Cla-w.6 ,ro** **.z~ +.;;@.**  

### C4k&.. c. N<.c< 

# cr ...(., :**~i ~~~** **"'- ·-d** **~-"~~ t:** **f.' e~** **~· C.C** **'::'** _ '**/l ~o...w-q.@_~~~ctC\.~~** **~** C. O U\_**L(Jv ~)** **i-,~ .** **de~:- '~**  

## It\ (t) .**~(hJ. ~~** **' )e.** **nn ~**  S l j _.e- {lc o @**Vw ~t** **:r }**  tA

### ti**~ ~** **~ ~~~** **.t <0**  f¥1

### -to~\-~'{-C..~~**@.~~ 4M~.c~**  Yh

## ,-**~/)'\. ~**  

## "' w "'**~ e/'?4~:J**  of/ 

# S

: ·(:c**J_ ~i** **:;~['!; 'J~**  d<rn 

# ..tJ ??") 

# J &. 

## J' "' , e 0771 

### -::Ib 1.-0 

### v t 

### c.. \-:\-**~** 'FVR. 

### D • c o 

### tvJ

# Fuel Economy R-Factor: Discussion of ORNL Program and Overall R-Factor Value EPA - Alliance-Global ·Automakers R-Factor Discussion August 

# 7, 2013 U.S. EPA Presentation

U . S . EPA- S t aff Draft Onl y - Do Not Q u o te or C it e- F or Di s cuss i o n Pur poses On l y

# Overview • Regulatory and Interim Options to Address R-Factor • Historic and Recent R-Factor Estimates • Alliance Re-Analysis of EPAct Study • EPA Response to Alliance Re-Analysis of EPAct Study • Overview of ORNL Study • EPA Review of Recent ORNL Study • Overview and Analysis of All R-Factor Estimates • Summary
0 8/07/2013 U.S. EPA - S ta ff D r aft O n ly - Do Not Qu o te o r C i t e - Fo r D i scussi on Pu rposes On l y 2

# Regulatory and Interim Options to Address R-Factor: R-Factor in The Preamble to the Tier 3 NPRM • The T3 NPRM contained text concerning the effects of a potential certification test fuel changes on C02, CAFE and labeling and the

. need to address these programs. • The T3 NPRM also acknowledged the "R" factor issue, but indicated that it was not directly or fully a certification test fuel change issue.

- The docket included an EPA memo entitled "Analysis of the Effects of Changing Fuel Properties on the EPA Fuel Economy Equation and RFactor". 

## • The T3 NPRM indicated that if action were ultimately taken to change the "R" factor it would be done in a later action .

- No specific value was discussed in the Preamble or regulations.

- No timing for a future action was indicated. 

## • Regs written to address long term goal that FE/C02 will at some point be based on EXX and not EO cert fuel. 08/07/2013 U.S. EPA - S ta ff Draft O n ly- Do Not Qu o te or Cite - Fo r D iscuss ion Pu r poses Only 3

# Regulatory and Interim Options to Address R-Factor: Near Term Process
• It is clear that manufacturers want EPA to take immediate action on the Rfactor.

- Make a change in the Tier 3 FRM.

- Adjust the "R" factor value upward to 1. 

## • We cannot act on 11 

## R" factor in Tier 3.

- Notice/comment issues

- Coordination with NHTSA 

## • Staff is working a plan which would permit use of indolene (EO) for CAFE/GHG testing (assuming we change cert fuel to EXX) until R factor is addressed .

- Adjust proposed reg text related to fuel use requirements for various tests .

- Address test burden related to using different fuels

- Resolve timing for future action. 

## • Attempt to reach technical consensus on R factor value.
08/07/2013 U.S. EPA- Staff Draft On l y - Do Not Quote or Ci te - Fo r Discussi on P ur poses On l y 4

# Regulatory and Interim Options to Address R-Factor: Potentia/Interim Changes for Emission Testing on EXX (until an EPA 

# "Rn factor action is completed) • Allow FE and GHG testing (done as a set) on EO even if criteria pollutant emission testing is on EXX.

- Revise proposed §86.113 - 04(2)(i)(B) and §86.113 - 077(a)(l)). 

## • Expand §86 . 113-07(a)(S) such that during transition period, it only requires vehicles to pass criteria pollutants on the emissions cert fuel (EXX) even if it uses EO for FE testing.

- AECD/Defeat Device policy still applies 

## • Only need to do EDV on EXX for criteria pollutants; not required to use this value in FE as is currently done.

- Should use EO data from dual testing on EDV for fuel economy
0 8/07/ 2013 U .S. EPA - S ta ff D r aft Only- Do N o t Quote o r C i t e- For Di scus s i o n Pu r poses On l y 5

# Regulatory and Interim Options to Address R-Factor: Potentia/Interim Changes for Emission Testing on EXX (until an EPA 

# URN factor action is completed) · 

# • Litmus on EXX for labeling tests, but also allow the use of 

# EO .

- Manufacturer calculations only; not submitted/included in EPA database (Verify) due to R-Factor concerns on EXX

- SG/CWF/NHV calculation method for EXX to be provided in guidance letter 

# • Same fuels used for certification must be used on IUVP for criteria pollutants and GHG.

08/ 0 7/2 013 U.S . EPA- Staff Draft Only- Do Not Quote or C it e- For Discussion Purposes On l y 6

# Historic and Recent R - Factor Estimates Below is a tab l e showing all the R-Factor estimates that have currently been proposed and generated based on actual test programs .
1983 1987 1993 2013

0 8 /07/2013 

### 0.866-0.93 (EPA} 0.6 (GM/Ford)
0.93 (Auto/Oil Study) 0.86 (EPAct E0-10} 0.93 (EPAct all data) 0.94 (V4 dataset)
U.S. EPA- Staff Draft Only- Do Not Quote

or Cite- For Discussion Purposes Only 

### 1 . 0 (Mfr. Preference)

7

# Alliance Re-Analysis of EPAct Study
• Alliance pointed out a possible outlier/ erroneous heating value reported by SwRI for EPAct fuel 25 {E20) that was used in EPA's initial R-factor analyses • Alliance re-analyzed data · without this suspect fuel and arrived at R = 0.96

-Cited as supp . orting R-factor value of 

# 1.0

08/07/2013 U.S. E PA- Staff D raft O n ly- Do Not Quote or Cite- For Discussion Purposes O nl y 8

# EPA Response to Alliance Re-Analysis of EPAct Study
• In June, EPA updated its EPAct Study R - factor calculations to use round-robin heating values instead of SwRI values in emission test data files (compare slides 10 

# & 11) • For the ElO analysis, some results for individual vehicles moved around slightly, but the weighted test fleet average (0.86) did not change from the docket memo • For the E20 analysis, results shifted substantially higher for most vehicles, mov i ng the average from 0.82 to 0.93

- According to a t-test, R-factor for E20 vs. EO group is now significantly different from the 

## ElO vs. 

## EO group
08/ 0 7/20 13 U.S. EPA- S taff D ra ft Only- Do Not Q u ote or C i te -For Discussion P urposes Only 91.1 

## EPAct Phase 3 Fuel Economy R-values by vehicle 1 0.9 I ..._, I 0.8 I '- Y I '- e i' l _......-- , ......_.. I J/T**I** J • 0.7 ElO avg 

## = 0.86 E20 avg 

## = 0 . 82 0.6**+------- --** **-- ----** **---- ----------** **+- ----** **------ ----** **------ --** **---- --** **--** 0.5 

## +- ------ ---- -- ---------- ---- ------ ------ ------ ---- ------ -- -------- -+- wtd ElO vs EO

--- wtd E20 vs EO

Results based on EO & E20 fuel groups 0.4**+- --~** **--~-- -r--** **~--~ ---,--** **r- --** **.--- ~--~** **--~ --** **-- -r--~** **-- --**  CCOB CIMP CSIL DCAL FlSO FEX P FFOC HC I V HODY JLIB NAL T SOUT TCAM TCOR TSIE This chart shows the R-factor calculated from the weighted dataset as in the previous slideJ then adds a linefor E20. A t-test suggests there is no difference between the two sets of values. ORIGINAL PLOT FROM DOCKET MEMO J MARCH 2013 08/07/2013 U.S. EPA- Staff Draft On l y- Do Not Quote

. or Cite- F or D i scuss i o n Purpose s Only 101.1 

## EPAct Phase 3 Fuel Economy R - values by Vehicle 1 .0 

### I • • fi • • I\ o.9 

### I • e '\ 

### I I \ \ I I \ - I**~._** 

### ""-**~** 

### \ 0.8 I • \ I \ I**~ ~** **~** 0.7 0.6 0.5
0.4 ElO 

### avg 

## = 0.86 E20 

### avg 

## = 0.93 Results based on EO & E20 fuel groups CCOB CIMP CSIL DCAL FlSO FEXP FFOC HCIV HODY JLIB NALT SOUT TCAM TCOR T SI E ...,_ ElOwtd

--- E20wtd

This chart shows the R-factor calculated from the weighted dataset as in the previous slide , then adds a line for E20. A t-test suggests there is a difference between the two sets ofvalues . PLOT UPDATED WITH ROUND ROBIN HEATING VALUES, JUNE 2013 08/ 0 7/2013 U.S . EP A - S taff D raft Only - Do Not Qu ote or Cite- For D i scussion Pu r poses Only 11

# EPA Response to Alliance Re-Analys . is of EPAct Study
• EPA also updated its analysis to include a linear regression of 

# MPG on heating value for each vehicle

- Slope of this line can be used to calculate R-factor for all or a subset of fuels and vehicles

- This is the method the All i ance suggested and has been used in the past 

# • Results are very similar to the fuel grouping method previously used (see slide 

# 13)

0 8 /07/2013 U.S. EPA - Sta f f D ra ft O n l y - Do Not Q u o t e or C i te - Fo r D iscussion P u rp o ses On l y 1 21.1
1.0
0.9 0.8 0.7
0 . 6
0.5
0.4 

## EPAct Phase 3 Fuel Economy R - Values by Vehicle

i 22 · .----- ---- ------ -- -------- -- ------ ------ EPAct Phase 3 Impala 21 I •**-~** •**~ ~**  

# - - v. 0 .0002x+ 0.8823 R'=0. 9 09 19+-
-- -- --.----- -- .- ------ .------- .- ---- --, 105000 1075 00 110000 112500 11 5000 1 17 5 00 Net Hellinc Value , Btu/ c ol E0-10 avg 

## =0.84 A ll fue l s avg 

## = 0.92
Res u lts based on slope of line through all tests onfu els listed CCOB C I M P CSJ L DCA L Fl SO FEX P FFOC H CIV HODY JLIB NAL T SOUT TCAM TCOR TSJE**~** EO-ElO o nl y -11- A II fuels

This chart s how s the R-factor c alculated by the slope method . First a linear regression is made for FE ver s us heating valuefor each vehicle, then the high and low heating values are used to calculate predicted FE values . Those FE and heating values are then used in the standard R-factor equation . The inset plot is an example ofthe slope fit for the Impala, where the red dots are E20 fuels. 08/07/2013 U.S. EPA- Staff Draft Only- Do Not Quote or Cite- For D i scussion Purposes On l y 13

# Overview of ORNL R-factor Analysis • Used DOE V4 dataset

- V4 study was commissioned by DOE 

### in 2007 to examine emission controls durability of vehicles operating on mid-level ethanol blends 

## • 18 vehicle models tested with 4 different ethanol levels {EO/E10/E15/E20)

- 59 vehicles tested total, covering PCs and LOTs MY 2002-2009 • 5 models tested on a l l four ethanol l eve l s • 13 models tested on three ethano l levels 

### (ElO omitted)



### - Replicate testing was performed for each ethanol level 

## • Emission measurements were taken prior to, in the middle of, and at the end of full useful life aging on an assigned blend • R-Factor Results: 0.94 

## {+/-) 0.04 for full data set

- 0 . 96 (+/-) 0 . 04 if one vehicle with questionable results is omitted from the dataset (2007 Honda Accord)
08/07/2013 U.S. EPA - S ta ff D r a ft O n ly - Do N o t Q u o te or C i te - F or D i s cuss i on Pu r pose s On l y 1 4

# EPA Review of ORNL R - Factor Analysis • EPA reviewed the 

# ORNL report and talked with one of the authors, focusing on suitability of the data for Rfactor analysis • Identified some sources of uncertainty and key design differences relative to the EPAct study:

- Potential influence of fuel tank carryover during fuel changes

- Uncertainty in fuel heating value measurements

- Potential influence of test cycle (FTP vs. LA92)

- Imbalance of ElO certification fuel test results vs ElS and E20 fuel test results

- Omission of questionable results for 2007 Honda Accord



# - Each ofthese is discussed more in the following slides 08/ 07/20 13 U.S . EPA - S t aff Draft On ly - Do Not Quote o r C i te - For Discussion Purposes Only 1 5

# EPA Review of ORNL R-Factor Analysis: 

# Potential influence of fuel tank carryover • Fuel carryover would make NHVs closer together for different test fuels, which could influence resulting R-factor • The ORNL program used a sequence of two drain/fills for all vehicles when changing test fuels • EPAct investigated carryover, and used three drain/fills on most vehicles, including several models that were also used by ORNL
08/07/2013 U.S. E PA - S ta ff Dra ft O n l y- Do N o t Qu o t e or Cit e - F o r D i scus s ion Purposes Only 16

# EPA Review of ORNL R-Factor Analysis: 

# Uncertainty in fuel heating value measurements • NHV has a first order impact on R-factor calculations • ORNL adjusted the measured heating values for some TRC test fuels based on engineering judgement • While this may have been justified, it highlights the fact that · the V4 fuel properties were based on single measurements • EPAct NHV values resulted from multiple measurements from a round robin process

08/07/2013 U.S. EPA- St aff Dra ft On l y- Do Not Quote or C i te - For Di s cus s ion Purposes Only 1 7

# EPA Review of ORNL R-Factor Analysis: 

# Potential influence of test cycle (FTP vs. LA92} • No large datasets varying test cycle as a control parameter • Expect primarily two factors may influence R-value: cold operation and aggressive driving

- Both are transient modes representing relatively low-efficiency operation • LA92 cycle contains higher speeds and accel rates than FTP, and its composite result weights cold operation more than FTP

- May explain difference in results seen here

08/07 / 2 0 13 U.S. EPA- Sta ff Draft Only - Do Not Quote or Cite- Fo r Disc u ssi on Purposes O n l y 1 8

# EPA Review of ORNL R-Factor A

_ nalysis: 

# Imbalance of E10 

# certification fuel test results versus E15 

# and E20 

# fuel test results
• The ORNL R-factor analysis had 31 E10 and 216 E15+E20 • In contrast, EPAct had 295 E10**t~sts** 

# and 312 E15+E20 

# tests .

- As a result, EPAct has nearly lOx as many ElO observations, and one third more for the mid - level blends.

- In total, EPAct had about 50% more tests (930 vs about 600) . 

# • Calibration differences near the limits of fuel trim likely create more variability in the E20 results

- R-factor is very sensitive to fuel economy measurement

08/07/2013 U.S. EPA - Staff Draft O n ly- Do Not Quot e or Cite- For Discussion Purposes On l y 1 9

# EPA Review of ORNL R-Factor Analysis: 

# Removal of questionablefuel economy results • OR · NL removed the results for the 2007 Honda Accord since the 

# "FTP

# fuel economy results showed unexpected variability that resulted in R factors that were deemed to be illogical and**unrepeatable~"** 

# although no single issue with the vehicle was established. • EPAct dataset had some vehicles with R-values <0.8 · • Difficult to defend on a statistical basis (see next slide)

08/07/2013 U.S . EPA - Staff D r aft On l y - Do N ot Qu o te or C i te - For Discussion Pur poses Only 20

# ... 

# s u 

# "'**~** 1. 60 1. 40
ex: 1.20**~** ' iii 

## 8. 

# g 1. 00 u "'C CIJ 

# ... .s:

. !!» 0. 80

## ~ Q.

.....**~** 0 . 6 0 0 . 40 

## EPA Review of ORNL R-Factor Analysis: 

# Removal ofquestionablefuel economy results

Values are average values pe r vehide for all fuels and all test i ntervals for the V4 program . Error b a rs are 95% co n fidence i ntervals for e a ch veh i d e .

!..?:,**~"'** 

### to**(&~** $'**~** . 

### to**~,0 ~.,** **~** -1\.<.**~"'** fb**<,~ ~"'** **{7** !..'&**~** c..O**~ ~** **~** (§>**~~ ~** **~'I>** §-**_,~ (}~** **~0 0~** **~'\- ~'I>** **~- ~'l$** **~<'"- ~~c.;** **9>~ ~<7**  

### d !o() Q.;§**~(,0 ~e**  9> ""

'1>**~0 ~0,** **..e~o ~+q**  r:S>"**ro'~ ~"''I>**  .c..v**~** '),rS> ,...,<§5**,..,~** 

## #**'),~** r§>"" 

### rSl"'**~** 

### ') '),<§5**'),~ ~** **"~** 

## #'**~ ,..,~**  

### ,.._rS>**,..rS>~** ,.,§lO;

08/07/2013**~ ~** **~,..,~ "~**  

### "" Figure 2. Average R factor for each veh i cle model. Source : ORNL R e port #ORNL/TM - 2013/198 , pg _ 9 U-S. EPA - Staff Draft On l y - Do Not Quo t e

or C i te- For D i sc u ssion Purposes On l y 21

# EPA Review of ORNL R-Factor Analysis • Bottom line:

- Both EPAct and ORNL analyses leave questions about accuracy and relevance of resulting R-values • EPAct has a larger dataset across the ethanol blend levels, so expect a more precise R-factor estimate • EPAct was also designed as a fuel effects study with . attention to key details like fuel carryover and fuel analysis • V4 data is on the FTP cycle, which may be expected to produce different results from LA92



# - Reasonable to consider both in a quantitative analysis

0 8/07/ 2013 U.S. EPA - Staff Draft On ly - Do N ot Quote or C i te - For Discussion Pu rp oses On l y 22

# Summary
• Focusing on more recent studies, EPA's current thinking is that available data would support an R

# factor value of 0.9

08/07/2013 

### R-Factor Values from Data 0.6 GM 1985 study 0.933 EPA 1987 Rule theoretical calculation 0.866 EPA 1987 Rule theoretical calculation (discounted) 0 .93 19 0.86 EPAct Study**(EO~ElO** 

### data) 0.92 EPA re-analysis of EPAct Study (all fuels) 0.94 ORNL V4 dataset 0.96 ORNL V4 - datas et w i th lowest vehicle omitted
U.S . EPA- Sta ff Draft Only - Do Not Quote

or C i te- For Discuss i on Purposes Only 23

# Summary
• Determine best process and arena to revise R-factor

- Tier 3: Not proposed! Only requested comment in preamble

- EPAct R-Factor technical memo included in Tier 3 docket to spur comment, not to indicate regulatory direction/intent 

# • Best course of action: Separate rulemaking to address this and any other fuel economy equation technical amendments • In the interim or future, we welcome any data from the OEMs that can add to or enhance the currentlyavailable, R-Factor dataset

08/07/2013 U.S. EPA- S ta ff D r af t O n l y - D o N o t Qu o te or Cite- F or Discu s s ion Purp o ses Only 24