P. 1



# OAR Box 1830 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 23 ) IV-B-1 9
Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/20087:20:52 AM Sheet 23 of 232PJL

y 0 "-*
. f^' l UN,TE ° ^ ^ E ^^ONMENTA U P R OT E CT,O N A GENC Y*"*'! % V*T/

AN N AR BOR
. MICHIGA N 4810 5 ' 7



### DE C 2 2 198 8

MEMORANDU

M

SUBJECT : 

## j AUG - 1 199 1
EP AAI R D l OFFIC E O F AI R AN D RADIATIO N



### Onboar d an

d Evaporativ e Contro l SvstemC o ^i?^?L f 0 r th e 

### Supplementa l Notic e 'o f "rooo s Rulemakin g s t ed

FROM :
TO : THRU : Jea n Schwendeman , Mechanica l Enginee r

Standard s Developmen t an d Suppor t Bra n 

## vvl.^W ^ >—-W*-t.*U*j* v 

### Th e Recor d Glenn w . Passavant , Senio r Projec t Manage r v'-^i^fiu_~4 " standard s Developmen t an d Suppor t Branc h i i 

### = n" d 

### /-n Ryk 

### ? WSki 

### ' Senio r 

### Projec t Manager'/^-- ff? , Stanoard s Developmen t an d Suppor t Branc h ^/fi£^'
Introductio n

fo r Ttl a is



### . memorandu

m describe s i n detai l the ne wcos t estimate s o r ,Zr°, V



### evaporativ e system an d the onboar d refusin g vapo r recoverysystem , a s discusse d i n the Supplementa l Notic e o f Propose d Rulemaking

. Th e analysi s fo r th e 'morove d evaporativ e systemwa s performe d fo r bot h 9. 0 an d U
. 5 ~

o certificatio n fuel
. A s 

### i s discusse d furthe r below , th e onboar d analysi s assume s a 9. 0 ps i RVP certificatio n fue l ° n 

### ° o a 

### ^P. 3



### -2 -

"excess " evaporativ e syste

m - th e vehicle-basedsyste m designe dfo r contro l of evaporativ e emission s a s outline d i nth e propose

d volatility/evaporativ e rulemakin

g (5 2 F

R 31274) . Th

e estimate

dcos t fo

r thi s syste

m wa s calculate

d a s a nincrementa l cos t t o th e curren

t evaporativ

e system . Th e detaile

dcos t analysi s of thi s syste m i s foun

di nth e July , 198 7 Volatility , Draf t Regulator y Impact Analysis.[l ] "improved " evaporativ e syste

m - th e vehicle-basedsyste m designe dfo r contro l of evaporativ e emission s as outline d i nth e supplementa l notic e of propose drulemaking . Thi s syste m woul dbe designe

dt o contro l "runnin

g losses " an

d othe r evaporativ

e emission s not controlle db y either th

e current o

r exces s evaporativ e systems . Th

e estimate

dcos t fo r thi s syste

m wa s calculate

dincrementa l t o th e cos t of tjh e exces s evaporativ e system . "^original " onboar

dsyste

m - th

e vehicle-basedsyste m designe dto contro l refuelin g emission s usin

g hardwar e simila r t o tha t describe

di nth e onboar

dproposa l (5 2 F

R 31162) . Th

e estimate

dcos t fo

r thi s syste

m wa s calculated incrementa l t o th

e cos t o

f th e exces s evaporativ e system . Th e detaile

dcos t analysi s of thi s syste m i s foun

di nth e July , 198 7 "Evaluatio nof Ai r Pollutio nRegulator

y Strategie s fo

r Gasolin

e Marketin

g Industr

y - Respons e t o Publi c Comments".[2 ] "revised " onboar

dsyste

m - th

e vehicle-basedsyste m designe dt o contro l refuelin g emission s usin

g hardwar e Simila r t o tha t describe

di nth e supplementa l notic e of propose drulemaking . The estimate dcos t fo

r thi s syste

m wa s calculate

das a

nincrementa l cos t t o improve d evaporativ

e system

s an dtotall y

replace s th

e origina l cos t estimat e fo

r the onboar

dsystem . Th e origina l onboar

dan dth e exces s evaporativ e emissio

n regulation s (commonly referre

dt o a s th

e Volatility

proposal ) wer e bothpublishedi nthe Federa l Register o nAugus t 19 , 1987 . Th

e onboar

d proposa l wa s develope dt o mandat e recover y of emission s fro

m vehicl e fue l tank s durin g refueling . The exces s evaporativ

e proposa l wa s develope dt o matchin-us e an d certificatio

ngasolin

e RVP s an

dt o contro l evaporativ e emission s relate

dt o insufficient canister purge in-use . Thi s woul db

e done b

y requirin

g th e tes t vehicl e t o star t th e drivin g cycl e (FTP ) wit ha saturate devaporativ

e canister . A t th e tim e o f th

e origina l proposals , EP A full y expected tha t manufacturer s woul dus e integrate drather thanseparat e refuelin

g an devaporativ

e contro l systems . Integrate d system

s woul d provide a degre e of contro l of runnin g losse s an

dother evaporativ

e emission s whichsometime s occu r durin

g in-us e operation , becaus e th e portio

nof th

e canister necessar y t o handl e a loa

dof refuelin

g vapor s i s availabl e t o handl e thes e other ! type s o

f emission s durin g muc hof th

e tim e between^ 4 ^



### -3

- refueljings

. However , man ymanufacturer s hav e indicate d t o EP A tha t unde r th e origina l tes t procedure s theywoul d us e separat e system s whic h mayno t provid e th e extr a degre e o f contro l o f evaporjativ

e an d running los s emission s whic h woul d b e provide d b yan integrate d system
. Sinc e th e origina l proposals , EP Aha s learne d tha t thes e emission s contribut e a muc h large r percentag e t o th e VO C inventor ytha n wa s previousl ythought
. Th e magnitud e o f th e problemmake s i t clea r tha t thes e emission s woul d nee d t o b e controlle d regardles s o f whethe r onboarj d refueling control s ar e required

.

i Becaus e o f thes e developments , th e supplementa l proposal s includ e revision s t o bot h th e onboar d an d evaporativ e proposal s t o ensur e tha t running losse s an d othe r evaporativ e emission s previousl yuncontrolle d unde r th e Federa l Tes t Procedur e woul d b e controlle d b

yeithe r integrate d o r separat e contro l system s i f onboard refueling control s ar e required

. Furthermore , thes e running los s an

d othe r evaporativ e emission s woul d hav e t o b e controlle d b

yth e vehicl e wit h a n improve d evaporativ e system unde r ' the newl ypropose d evaporativ e regulation s eve n i f onboarj d refueling control s ar e no t mandated
. Th e revise d cos t estimate s detaile d i n thi s mem o incorporat e th e effect s o f th e change s t o th e onboar d an d evaporativ e proposal s whic h ar e describe d above
. Th e revise d cos t estimate s ar e als o base d upo n a simplifie d onboar d system concep t develope d ove r th e pas t yea r along wit h simplification s i n thj e refueling tes t procedure
. Thes e simplification s ar e describe d i n th e Supplementa l Notic e o f Propose d Rulemaking

. Becaus e improve d evaporativ e system s coul d potentiall yb e requite d independen t o f onboar d refueling control , th e cost s o f onboar d control s ar e calculate d a s incrementa l t o th e cost s o f improve d evaporativ e controls
. Th e cost s o f bot h o f thes e system s ar e calculate d incrementall yt o th e exces s evaporativ e contrd l systemdescribe d i n th e propose d volatility/evaporativ e rulemaking (5 2 FR 31274)
. Sinc e thi s analysi s i s par t o f a reproposal , th e methodolog yan d value s use d i n th e origina l proposa l wer e change d onl ywher e th e abov e development s mad e i t necessary . Summaryo f Estimate d Cost s Th e cos t estimate s wer e mad e fo r typica l vehicle s fromal l three j gasolin e vehicl e classes : light-dut yvehicle s (LDVs) , lighttdut ytruck s (LDTs) , an d heavy-dut ygasolin e vehicle s (HDGVs)
. Th e same 198 9 projecte d sale s wer e use d a s i n th e origina l onboar d proposal : 11. 2 millio n fo r LDVs , 3.7 1 millio n fo r LDT s an

d 0.38 4 millio n fo r HDGVs
. Thes e resul t i n a sale s weighting o f 73. 2 percen t fo r LDVs , 24. 3 percen t fo r LDT s an d 2. 5 percen t fo r HDGVs
. Asummaryo f th e estimate d cost s fo r th e exces s evaporativ e systems , improve d evaporativ e systems ,

### P. 5

-4

-

an d th e revise d onboar d system s fo r 9. 0 RV P fue l i s show

n i n Table s 1A , IB , an

d 1C , respectively

. I n addition , sinc e thes e ar e incrementa l cost s fo r eac h additiona l leve l o f contro l (a s define d above) , a summatio n i s show n i n Tabl e I D t o indicat e th e tota l increas e i n vehicl e cos t du e t o th e onboard refueling an d evaporativ e contro l proposals
. Al l value s ar e i n retai l pric e equivalent s (RPE ) whic h i s th e pric e see n b yth e consumer . Al l value s ar e als o i n 198 8 dollars
. Negativ e value s indicat e saving s t o the consumer .P. 6

-5

-

Tabl e 1A Exces s Evaporativ e Syste mCost 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 0.0 0 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

Vehicl e LD V LDT HDG V 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 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 Cos t

RecoveryCredi t t o Owne r 12.3 0 20;'6 5 38.7 5 - 2

- 6 - 2 6 1 5 1 0 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 : LD

V 73.2% ; LDT 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
.P. 7



### -6

-

Tabl e 1 C Revise d Onboar d Contro l Syste mCost 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

Recover yCredi t 4.2 0 6.6 5 12.6 0 Ne t Cos t

t o Owne r -3.3 0 -5.1 5 -7.4 0 Sale s Weighte d Ne t Cos t -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 RV

P 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

RecoveryCredi t 16.5 0 27.3 0 51.3 5 Ne t Cos t

t o Owne r -4.0 0 -9.4 0 -30.9 5 Sale s Weighte d Ne t Cos t -6.0 0

Cost s ar e i n RP E fo r 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. 8



### -7 -

Fou r value s ar e show

nfo r eac hleve l o f contro l an deac h vehicl e class : vehicl e cos t increase , weigh t penalty , fue l recover y credit , an

dne t cos t t o th

e consumer . The vehicl e cos t increas e reflect s th e additiona l "sticke r price " fo

r a typica l vehicl e wit hth e indicate

dadditiona l leve l o f emissio n control . The weight penalty reflect s th

e sligh

t increas e i

n vehicl e weight du

e t o th

e additiona l emissio ncontrol s an

di s quantifie

di nterm s o f th e cos t of th

e additiona l fue l consumed b y th e vehicl e over it s lifetim e du e t o thi s additiona l weight; . The fue l recover y credi t i s th

e saving s i

nlifetim

e fue l cost s du

e to th

e consumptio

nof recovere

dfue l vapor s b

y th e erigine . Th

e ne t cos t t o th

e owner i s th

e summatio

no f th

e vehicl e cos t increas e an dth e weight penalt

y les s th

e fue l recover y credit . Th

e weightedne t cos t i s th e weightin

g o f th e ne t cost s o f LDVs , LDTs , an dHDGV s b y th e fractio

no f tota l sale s of th

e vehicl e class . Th e sam e sale s fraction s are use d her e as thos e detaile di nVolum e I I o f th e Refuelin

g Control s Draf t Regulator

y Impac t Analysis.[3 ] A summar

y of th

e estimate

dcost s of exces s evaporativ e system s an d improve

d evaporativ

e system

s fo r 11. 5 RV

P fue l i s show ni nTable s 2

A an d2B , respectively . A summatio

ni s show

n i nTabl e 2C . Onc e again , al l value s ar e RPE s i

n198 8 dollars . Th e weight penaltie s an dfue l recover

y credit s wer e no t calculate

d fo r th e revise

donboar

dsystem

s usin g 11. 5 RV

P fuel . Thi s i s becaus e onl y th e vehicl e cost s of exces s evaporativ

e an dimprove

devaporativ

e system

s wer e neede

dt o determin

e th e cos t effectivenes s of evaporativ e an dvolatility controls . Tha t analysi s showe dtha t it appeare dt o be cos t effectiv

e t o limi t in-us e fue l t o 9. 0 RVP . Becaus e of tha t result , the cost s of onboar dsystem

s wer e calculate d incrementall y

t o improve

devaporativ

e system

s only a t 9. 0 RVP . Discussio

nof Improve

dEvaporativ

e System

s Existin g evaporativ

e system

s are onl y

designe

dto handl e typica l diurna l an

dhot soa

k emission s generate dunde r average temperature condition s an da t average frequencie s of occurrence . Th

e improve

devaporativ

e syste

m woul dhav

e th e capacit y t o handl e thes e type s of evaporativ e emission s whe n the y are generate

dunder mor e extrem e condition s suc

ha s th

e hig htemperature s typica l of ozon e violatio

ndays an

dthe multipl e diurnal s whichoccu r if a vehicl e i s not use dfo r severa l consecutiv e days . Th

e improve

devaporativ

e system

s woul dals o hav

e th e capacit

y t o handl e runnin

g losse s whichar e cause db y hig hroa dtemperature s an

dhot fue l returne

dfro m th e engin e compartment whichheat s an dsometime s eve

nboil s th

e fue l i nthe fue l tank . A t present , i

nman y fue l syste

m designs , a larg

e amoun t of thes e fue l tan k vapor s lea

k into th

e atmosphere .P. 9



### -8

-
Tabl e 2 A Exces s Evaporativ e SystemCost s (Incrementa l t o Curren t Evap) * 11. 5 ps i RVP Certificatio n Fue l Vehicl e Vehicl e Cos t Increas e LD V 5.0 5 LD T 6.2 5 HDG V 9.3 5

Tabl e 2 B Improve d Evaporativ e SystemCost s (Incrementa l t o Exces s Evap) * 11. 5 ps i RVP Certificatio n Fue l

Vehicl e LD V LDT HDG V

Tabl e 2 C Tota l Cost s fo r Evaporativ e SystemChanges * 11. 5 ps i RVP Certificatio n Fue l
Vehicl e LD V LD T HDG V Veh i Lcl e Cos t Increas e 2 6 3 7 3 4 7 5 9 0 8 0

Vehicl e Cos t Increas e 3 1 4 4 4 4 8 0 1 5 1 5

Notes : 11. 5 ps i RVP certificatio n fuel
. Cost s ar e i n RP E fo r 198 8 dollar s rounde d t o th e neares t nickel

.P.1 0



### -9 -
Ibprove d evaporativ e system s ar e abl e t o captur e thes e additiona l emission s i f significantl y large r canister s ar e use d tha nthos e found onexistin g evaporativ e contro l systems . Th e siz e o f th e caniste r ha s a larg e effec t o nsyste

m cost , a s wel l a s or i syste

m effectiveness . EPA ha s bee nanalyzin g th e relationshi pbetwee nth e caniste r siz e an dth e operationa l characteristic s o f th e purg e syste m an dthroughthi s effor t ha s develope d a ne w

caniste r sizin g model . Th e new mode l make s us e o f instantaneou s drivin g schedul e speed s an dacceleration s i n contras t t o averag e values . Wit hthi s procedure , interaction s betwee ndrivin g patterns , purg e contro l an dflo w rate , fue l tank vapo r generatio nan dcharcoa l adsorptio ncharacteristic s ar e mor e realisticall y simulated . Change s i nth e caniste r load an dth e quantit y

o f hydrocarbon s purge dfro m th e caniste r ar e predicte d a s a functio no f time . Th e mode l i s detaile di nth e P T Mode l Descriptio nandUser s Guide.[4 ]
EP A estimate s tha t canister s onLDV s wil l increas e fro m 1. 3 liter s (L ) for exces s evaporativ e system s t o 2. 7 L wit h9. 0 RVP certificatio nfue l fo r improve devaporativ e systems . Th e 1. 3 L siz e o f th e exces s evaporativ e caniste r i s th e averag e o f curren t LD

V evaporativ e canister s a s wa s determine di na surve y detaile di nEPA' s Volatilit y Draf t Regulator y Impac t Analysis , [l l Th e 2. 7 L averag e siz e for LD V improve d evaporativ e system s i s base dupo nth e ne w model . Similarly , i f 11. 5 RV

P certificatio nfue l i s used , canister s o nLDV s ma y increas e i nsiz e fro m 2. 1 L t o 9. 3 L . I naddition , fue l coolin g strategie s ma y b e require dt o minimiz e boiling . Th e caniste r size s fo r th e variou s system s o nLDT s an

dHDGV s wer e derive dfollowin g th e sam e analysi s a s th e LDVs . EP A expect s tha t mos t LD V an d LD T manufacturer s wil l instal l th e improve d evaporativ e caniste r i nth e rea r o f th e vehicle . Thi s are a ofte nha s mor e spac e tha ntha t whic hi s availabl e i nth e engin e compartment . Sinc e nearl y al l LDV s an

d LDT s ar e fue l injecte dther e i s no nee dt o plac e th e caniste r i nth e engin e compartmen t t o captur e carbureto r bowl-ven t vapors . HDG

V manufacturer s wil l probabl y continu e t o plac e thei r canister s i nth e existin g location s o nthei r vehicle s becaus e o f th e greate r amoun t o f packagin g spac e available . Th e numbe r an

dsiz e (diamete r an d length ) o f vapo r line s goin g t o an

d fro m th e caniste r ca nals o affec t wher e canister s ar e placed . Canister s locate di nth e rea r o f th e vehicl e ar e close r t o th e fue l tank , whic hwil l minimiz e th e siz e o f th e vapo r line betweenth e fue l tank an dcanister . Wit hth e dominanc e o f fuel-injecte d vehicles , th e vapo r lin e betweenth e caniste r an

dcarbureto r bowl(s ) i s no longe r neede dan d therefor e i s n o longe r a consideratio nfor caniste r placement . Canister s wil l stil l nee d a purg e line , bu t thi s lin e woul db e approximatel y

th e same siz e an d follo

w th e same routin g fro m th e rear-mounte d caniste r t o th e engin e compartmen t a s th e existin g vapo r lin e betwee nth e fue l tan k an dth e front-mounte dP.1 1

-10 -
canister . Th e feasibilit y o f rear-mounte dcanister s i s supporte d b

y Genera l Motor s whic hi s alread y placin g evaporativ e canister s i ntha t locatio nonthei r W-body ca r line . Manufacturer s wil l hav e t o improve the purg e system i n orde r t o handl e the increase d caniste r vapo r load . EP A expect s tha t manufacturer s wil l increas e th e purg e rat e an dwil l contro l the purg e wit hfrequenc y modulate dsolenoi dvalves . EPA expecte d thes e valve s t o b e use do nal l vehicle s t o contro l exces s evaporativ e emission s i f certificatio nfue l wen t t o 11. 5 RVP . However , du e t o th e muc hgreate r quantit y o f vapor s whic h wil l b e handle d by improve devaporativ e systems , EP A no w expect s tha t frequenc y modulate d solenoi dvalve s wil l b e use d o nal l vehicle s regardles s o f whethe r th e certificatio nfue l i s 9. 0 or 11. 5 RVP . Thes e change s i nth e evaporativ e syste m increas e th e vehicl e cost s t o contro l evaporativ e emissions . However , thes e change s als o resul t i na reduce d incrementa l vehicl e cos t allocate d t o th e onboar dcontro l o f refuelin g emissions . Discussio no f Revise d Onboar d System s EPA' s concep t o f th e hardwar e require dfo r a nonboar d syste m ha s change dbetwee nth e tim e o f th e origina l proposa l an dth e supplementa l proposal . Base do nadditiona l analysi s an dSyste

m testing , EP A

learne dtha t the propose donboar d syste m coul d b e simplified . Thi s concep t chang e resulte di na significan t reductio ni nthe estimate dsyste m cost . Th e majo r change s i nth e revise donboar dcontro l syste m "concept sinc e th e origina l proposa l ar e liste d below . 1 . Canister s wil l b e locate di nth e rea r o f th e vehicle s instea do f i nth e engin e compartment s (for LDV s an d LDT s only) . Thi s wil l allo w a smalle r diamete r an dshorte r vapo r lin e t o b e use d tha ntha t fo r a front-mounte d canister . Thi s locatio ni s consisten t wit hth e improve devaporativ e syste m discusse d above . Th e estimate s o f th e refuelin g contro l caniste r size s hav e change d sinc e th e origina l proposa l becaus e th e new modellin g technique s use d t o siz e th e improve devaporativ e canister s wer e als o applie d t o refuelin g canisters . Anothe r chang e i nth e analysi s sinc e the origina l proposa l i s tha t EP A assume d virtuall y

al l vehicle s wil l b e fuel-injecte db y th e time tha t thes e proposal s ar e implemented . Onfue l injecte dvehicles , vapor s ar e onl y

collecte d fro

m th e fue l tank rathe r tha nfro m bot hth e fue l tan k an dth e carbureto r ven t bowl . Wit hth e fue l tank a s th e sol e sourc e for vapors , i t wa s assume dtha t al l vehicle s wil l us e integrate dsystem s (one caniste r fo r bot h refuelin g an

devaporativ e emission s control ) fo r cost , desig n an d safet y

reasons .P.1 2

-11 -

2 . Vapor s wil l b e route dfro m th e topo f th e fue l tank throug ha vent/rollove r valve , rathe r tha nfro m th e fillneck . Thi s chang e greatl y simplifie s th e propose donboar dsystem . Th e existing externa l ven t lin e betwee nth e fue l tank an d fillnec k openin g ca nthenb e eliminated . I naddition , th e fillnec k mounte d valv e describe di nth e origina l proposa l i s no longer ! needed . However , th e vent/rollove r valv e use dfor evaporativ e emission s woul dhav e t o b e modifie dt o accommodat e a 1 0 gp

m fue l dispensin g rat e an dwoul dals o hav e t o incorporat e a fil l limitin g function . 3: . Th e existin g fillnec k wil l provid e a liqui dsea l withou t th e us e o f a J-tub e (o nLDVs , LDTs , an

dligh t HDGVs) . EP A ha s don e testin g whic hsupport s thi s concept . Th e heavie r HDGVs , especiall y

thos e wit hsaddle-tanks , wil l stil l nee dsom e hardwar e change s t o provid e a seal . 4 . Liquid/vapo r separator s wil l no t b e require dwit h th e adven t o f onboar d systems . Thi s remain s t o b e a manufacturer s desig noption , a s i s th e cas e oncurren t vehicles . 5 . Anti-spitbac k valve s wil l b e use dt o improv e refuelin g safety . Som e manufacturer s ar e alread y startin g t o instal l thes e device s i nthei r produc t lines . A s previousl y

stated , thes e change s i napproac han dsyste

m concep t resulte d i na reductio ninth e estimate dcos t for onboar dsystems . A detaile d discussio no f th e revise dcos t estimat e fo

r bot honboar d an d improve devaporativ e system s now follows . Detaile d Discussio no f th e Cos t Analyse s Th e cos t analyse s hav e bee nupdate di nth e area s whic h wer e affecte d by

th e change s mad e i nth e propose devaporativ e contro l regulation , change s i nth e onboar dcontro l syste m concept , an

d i nth e caniste r sizin g model . Value s no t affecte d b y thes e change s wer e adjuste dfo r inflation , bu t ar e otherwis e identica l t o th e value s use d i nth e origina l proposals . Th e mark-u p facto r representin g manufacture r an ddeale r profi t i s stil l 1.2 6 for LDV s an d LDTs , an

d 1.2 7 for HDGVs . Th e adjustmen t for inflatio nwa s base do nth e rati o o f Consume r Pric e Indexe s (CPI ) for ne w car s a s recorde di nMVM A Moto r Vehicl e Fact s & Figure s '86 . A t th e time o f th e analysis , CPI s wer e onl y availabl e throug h1986 . Usin g th e 198 6 inde xo f 224. 4 an dth e 198 4 indexo f 208.5 , th e inflatio n fo r a ne w

ca r betwee n198 4 an d198 6 wa s foun

dt o b e 7. 6 percen t (224. 4 divide d b y 208.5) . Thi s sam e rat e wa s als o use dt o estimat e the inflatio nbetwee n198 6 an d1988 . Th e tota l inflatio nbetwee n198 4 an d 198 8 i s therefor e 15. 8 percent .P.1 3

-12 -
Th e improve

d evaporativ

e an donboar

dsyste m cos t analysi s i s discusse

di ndetai l accordin g to th

e followin

g thre e categories : hardwar e costs , development costs , an drecover

y credits . Withi neac ho f thes e categories , a separat e discussio

nwil l be made fo r th e improve

devaporativ

e cost s incrementa l t

o th e exces s evaporativ e cost s an

dth e revise

d onboar dcost s incrementa l t o th e improve

devaporativ

e costs . Th e colst s describe

d belo w are fo r al l gasolin

e LDVs , LDTs , an

d HDGVs . Note s are mad e wher e th

e value s onl y

refe r t o a subse t of thi s group . A . Hardware Cost s 1 . Introductio

n Th e hardwar e component s discusse dfo r th e improve

d evaporativ

e syste

m are : canister , vapo r lines , purg e valve , vent/rbllove r valve , an dfue l cooling . N o additiona l cos t wa s allocate

dfo r EC Umodifications . It wa s assume dtha t th

e ne t cos t [allocate

dfo r reprogrammin

g th e EC Ui nthe origina l volatility

proposa l (i.e. , exces s evaporativ e control ) wa s sufficient fo

r the tota l change s i nth e system . Tabl e 3 summarize s th

e cost s fo

r th e improve

devaporativ

e system

s incrementa l t

o exces s evaporativ e system

s fo r LDVs , LDT s (singl e an

ddua l fue l tank) , an dHDGV s (singl e an

ddua l fue l tank) . Value s ar e show nfo r both9. 0 an

d11. 5 ps i RV

P certificatio

nfuel . Th

e cost s are i

nRP E an

dhav e beenrounde

d t o th e neares t nickel . Th e hardwar e component s discusse dfo r th e revise

donboar

d syste m are the : canister , vapo r lines , vent/rollove r valve , anti-spitback valve , an dsea l assembly

(HDGVs) . Th

e revise

d onboar dcontro l syste

m cost s are show

ni nTabl e 4 an

dar e incrementa l to thos e incurre dfo r improve

d evaporativ

e system

s (Tabl e 3) . Th

e canister cost s are fo r canister s designedfo r 9. 0 ps i RV

P certificatio

nfuel . Th

e cost s are i

nretai l pric e equivalent s (RPE) , whic hinclude s th

e markup s fo

r manufacture r an ddeale r profits . Al l value s hav e beenrounde

dt o the neares t nickel . the origina l onboar dan dvolatility

proposal s use

d tw o different approache s fo r analyzin

g th e hardwar e require dfo r HDGVs . Th e volatility proposa l groupe

dal l HDGV

s together . The onboar

danalysi s represente dHDGV s as Clas s liban dClas s VI vehicles , wher e Clas s libvehicle s represente d7 5 percent of th e HDG V flee t an

dClas s VI vehicle s represente d2 5 percent of th e fleet . Th

e liban

dV I vehicle s wer e further distinguished as hayin

g either singl e o

r dua l fue l tanks . Eighty percent of th e Clas s li

bvehicle s hav

e singl e fue l tanks , whil e 2 0 percen t hav e dua l tanks . Eighty-fiv e percent of th

e Clas s VI vehicle s hav e singl e fue l tank s compare dt o 1 5 percent withdua l tanks .Tabl e 3 Improved Evaporativ e Syste m Hardwar e Cos t (i

nRPE , 198 8 $) *

Item

9.0RV P Caniste r $3.8 0 Vapo r Line s 0.2 0 Purg e Valv e 1.0 5 Vent/Rollove r Valv e 3.8 0 Fue l Coolin g Syste

m 0.0 0 EC U Mods* * 0.0 0 LD V 11.5RVP $15.6 5 0.2 0 0.0 0 3.8 0 6.3 0 0.0 0 LDT- S

9.0RV P 11.5RVP $5.5 0 $21.6 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 1.0 5 0.0 0 3.8 0 3.8 0 0.0 0 6.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 Vehicle/Certificatio n
LDT- D 9.0RV P 11.5RV

P $11.0 0 $43.1 0 0.4 0 0.4 0 1.0 5 0.0 0 7.5 5 7.5 5 0.0 0 6.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 Fue l
HDGV- S 9.0RV P 11.5RVP $2.5 0 $17.3 5 1.1 0 1.1 0 1.0 5 0.0 0 3.8 0 3.8 0 0.0 0 6.3 5 0.0 0 0.0 0 HDGV- D 9.0RV P $7.0 0 2.1 5 1.0 5 7.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 11.5RV P $39.4 0 2.1 5 0.0 0 7.6 0 6.3 5 0.0 0
Tota l $8.8 5 $25.9 5 $10.5 5 $31.9 0 $20.0 0 $57.3 5 $8.4 5 $28.6 0 $17.8 0 $55.5 0

* * Incrementa l t o Exces s Evaporativ e System . Cos t previousl y

allocatedt o Exces s Evaporativ e System .

IP.1 5

-14 -

Tabl e 4 Onboar dSyste

m Hardwar e Cos t (i n RPE , 1938$) * Componen t , Remov e Ext' l Ven t Lin e Vent/Rollove r Valv e Anti-Spitbac k Valve* * Vapo r Lin e Sea l Assembl y Carbo n Canister** * LD V -1.6 0 0.6 5 0.3 5 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.2 5 LDT- S -1.6 0 0.6 5 0.3 5 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.4 5 LDT- D -3.2 0 1.3 0 0.7 0 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.9 0 Ilb- S

-1.9 0 0.6 5 0.3 5 1.2 0 0.0 0 0.9 0 Ilb- D

-3.8 0 1.3 0 0.7 0 2.4 0 0.0 0 1.7 5 VI- S

0.0 0 0.6 5 0.3 5 2.3 0 4.2 0 1.4 0 VI- D

0.0 0 1.3 0 0.7 0 4.6 0 8.4 0 3.5 0 Tota l -0.1 5 0.0 5 0.1 0 1.2 0 2.3 5 8.9 0 18.5 0

* Incrementa l t o Improve d Evaporativ e System
. * * Som e 'vehicle s alread yhav e thi s hardware
. Conservativ e estimate

. ** * Canisite r size d fo r 9. 0 ps i RV PP.1 6

-15 -

Th e analysi s for th e supplementa l proposa l use dth e Clas s li ban

dClas s V I HDG V breakdow

nwher e i t wa s possible . However , t o calculat e incrementa l cost s for improve d evaporativ e systems , th e Clas s li ban dClas s V I value s ha dt o be weighte d int o single-tank HDGV s an ddual-tan k HDGVs . Thi s weightin g wa s base d o nth e ratio s use di nth e origina l onboar d analysis . Sinc e Clas s li ban dClas s V I represen t 7 5 an d2 5 percen t o f th e HDG V fleet , weightin g th e previousl y state d singl e an

ddua l tank percentage s b y clas s implie s tha t 8 1 percen t o f HDGV s ar e singl e tank whil e 1 9 percen t ar e dua l tank . O f th e single-tan k HDGVs , 7 4 percen t ar e Clas s li bwhil e 2 6 percen t ar e Clas s VI . O f th e dual-tan k HDGVs , 7 9 percen t ar e li bwhil e 2 1 percen t ar e Clas s VI . 2 . Caniste r Cos t Th e analysi s o f th e improve devaporativ e an drevise d onboar dprojecte dsystem s utilize dth e new caniste r sizin g mode l an

d typica l fue l tank sizes . Th e purg e rat e use dwa s 2 0 cubi c fee t pe r LA- 4 fo r LDV s an d LDTs , an

d1 8 cubi c fee t pe r chassi s cycl e fo

r HDGVs . Th e fue l tan k sizes , whic haffec t caniste r size , wer e th e sam e a s thos e use di nth e origina l proposal . th e mode l use dt o estimat e caniste r cos t a s a functio no f caniste r siz e i s th e sam e a s tha t use di nth e origina l proposals . Charcoa l cos t wa s stil l estimate dt o b e $1.4 0 pe r pound. ! Thi s valu e wa s no t inflate ddu e t o a curren t pric e rang e o f $1.0 0 t o $1.5 0 give nb y charcoa l manufacturers . Th e cost s use d i nestimatin g th e caniste r shel l wer e increase db y 15. 8 percen t t o accoun t for inflation . Tabl e 5 show s th e fue l tank sizes , caniste r sizes , an d caniste r cost s for th e exces s evaporative , improve devaporativ e an drevise donboar dsystems . Th e incrementa l cost s ar e als o shown . Al l o f th e value s i nTabl e 5 ar e fo r 9. 0 ps i RVP certificatio nfuel . Cost s for 11. 5 ps i RV P certificatio nfue l ar e i nTabl e 6 for the exces s an dimprove devaporativ e systems . Fo r th e caniste r siz e estimate s for 11. 5 RVP certificatio nfue l i t wa s assume dtha t manufacturer s woul d develo p fue l coolin g system s t o reduc e vapo r generatio ni n orde r t o avoi dusin g a neve nlarge r canister . Th e vapo r generatio nrat e i s ver y larg e wit h11. 5 RV P fue l becaus e th e fue l tan k temperature s reache ddurin g th e revise dtes t procedur e approac hth e boilin g poin t o f th e many lighte r hydrocarbo ncomponent s whic hmak e u p11. 5 RVP fuel , andth e percentag e o f lighte r hydrocarbo ncomponent s i s greate r a t 11. 5 RVP tha nat 9. 0 RVP .Vehicle * LD V LDT- S LDT- D Ilb- S Ilb- D VI- S VI- D HDGV- S HDGV- D Fue l tan k Size(Gal ) 12. 2 16. 3 Tw o at 16. 3 2 0 Tw o a t 2 0 3 0 Tw o a t 4 0

—
— RevisedG

Caniste r Size(L ) 2. 8 4. 1 4. 1 ea 4. 7 4. 7 e a 7. 7 11. 0 e a

—
— Caniste r Cost s inboar d Syste m Tota l Cost**,***($ ) 7.1 4 9.4 7 18.9 4 10.5 1 21.0 1 15.4 8 41.1 6

—
— Tabl e 5

(198 8 $) , 9. 0 ps i RV P Improved Evaporativ e Sys Caniste r Size(L ) 2. 7 3. 9 3. 9 4. 3 4. 3 7. 0 10. 1

—
— Tota l

Cost**,***($ ! 6.9 5 9.1 2 18.2 4 9.8 2 19.6 4 14.3 6 38.4 2 11.0 0 23.5 8 Exces s Evaporativ e Syste m Caniste r Tota l Size(L ) Cost»*($ ) 1. 3 3.9 2 1. 7 4.7 5 1. 7 9.5 0

4. 0 4. 0 9.0 5

18.0 9

Vehicle * LD V LDT- S LDT- D Ilb- S Ilb- D VI- S VI- D HDGV- S HDGV- D Incrementa l Cos t ($) , Onboard> Improved Vendo r RPE*** * 0.1 9 0.2 3 0.3 5 0.4 4 0.7 0 0.8 8 0.6 9 0.8 7 1.3 7 1.7 4 1.1 2 1.4 2 2.7 4 3.4 8 Incrementa l Improved Vendo r 3.0 3 4.3 7 8.7 4

—.
—
—
— Cos t ($) ,

> Exces s RPE*** * 3.8 2 5.5 1 11.0 2

—
—
—
— 1.9 5 5.4 9 2.4 8

6.9 7 O N I

* "S " = Singl e fue l tank . "D " = Dua l fue l tanks . * * Tota l caniste r cos t . for vehicle . Fo r vehicle s wit hdua l tanks , thi s cos t include s bot h canister s (on

e canister pe r fue l tank) . ** * The caniste r cost s for revised onboard an d improve

d evaporativ

e system

s include a n additiona l cos t fo

r dus t cap s ($0.2 5 pe r canister for LDVs , LDT s an d Clas s li bHDGVs , $0.3 0 for Clas s V I HDGV

s at th e vendo r level. ) *** * RP E = Retai l Pric e Equivalen t (26 % markup fo r LDVs an

d LDTs , 27 % marku

p for HDGVs) .Tabl e 6

Vehicle * LD V LDT- S LDT- D Ilb- S Ilb- D VI- S VI- D HDGV- S HDGV- D Fue l tan k Size(Gal ) 12. 2 16. 3 Tw o a t 16. 3 2 0 Tw o a t 2 0 3 0 Tw o a t 4 0 Caniste r Cost s (198 8 $) , 11. 5 ps i RV P Improve d Evaporativ

e Syste m Exces s Evaporativ e Syste m Caniste r Size(L ) 9. 3 13. 2 13. 2 13. 2 13. 2 21. 0 29. 4 Tota l

Cost**,***($ ) 17.9 4 23.8 2 47.6 4 23.8 2 47.6 4 35.0 6 93.1 5 26.7 4 57.2 0 Caniste r

Size(L ) 2. 1 2. 7 2. 7

6. 4 6. 4 Tota l

Cost**($ ) 5.5 1 6.7 1 13.4 1

13.0 9 26.1 7 Incrementa l Cos t ($ ) Improve d> Exces s Vendo r 12.4 3 17.1 1 34.2 3

13.6 5 31.0 3 RPE*** *

15.-66 - 21.5 6 43.1 3

17.3 4 39.4 1

* * * "S " = Singl e fue l tank . "D " = Dua l fue l tanks . Tota l caniste r cos t for vehicle . Fo r vehicle s wit hdua l tanks , thi s cos t include s bot h canister s (on

e caniste r pe r fue l tank) . ** * Th e caniste r cost s for revise d onboard an

d improve

d evaporativ

e system

s includ

e a n additiona l cos t fo r dus t cap s ($0.2 5 pe r caniste r for LDVs , LDT s an d Clas s li bHDGVs , $0.3 0 fo r Clas s V I HDGV s a t th e vendor level. ) *** * RP E = Retai l Pric e Equivalent (26 % marku p for LDV s an

d LDTs , 27 % marku

p fo r HDGVs) . i

0 0P.1 9

-18 -

Dus t cap s wer e adde d t o LD V andLD T canister s becaus e i t i s assume dtha t the y woul db e locate di nth e rea r o f th e vehicle , makin g the m mor e pron e t o dir t fro m th e road . Th e cos t o f thes e dus t cap s wa s estimate dt o b e $0.2 5 pe r caniste r at the vendo r level . Althoug hHDG V canister s ar e assume dt o remai ni nthei r presen t locatio ni nth e engin e compartment , dus t cap s wer e adde d i norde r t o mak e a conservativ e cos t estimate . Thes e dus t cap s wer e estimate dt o cos t $0.3 0 pe r caniste r at the vendo r level . 3 . Vapo r Line s Th e vapo r line s ar e use d t o rout e fue l vapor s betwee nth e fue l tank , canister , engine , etc . I nth e origina l onboar d proposal , EPA

assume dtha t al l vapo r line s wer e mad e o f epichiorohydri n(ECO ) rubbe r tubing . Wit hfurthe r investigation , EP A ha s learne d tha t manufacturer s frequentl y us e welde dstee l tubin g wit hrubbe r connectin g pieces . EP A ha s therefor e modifie d it s cos t analysi s t o includ e stee l tubing . A vendo r provide dcos t pe r foo t price s fo r large-scal e sale s o f tern e coated , weldin g stee l tubing , havin g a wal l thicknes s o f 0.02 8 inches . Value s wer e give nt o a tent ho f a cen t accurac y

for 5/16-inc han d 3/8-inc hO.D . tubing . Price s for othe r tub e size s wer e obtaine db y extrapolatin g fro m thes e give nprice s an

d the nroundin g t o th e neares t penny . Th e result s ar e give nbelow :

Stee l Tubin g Vendo r Cos t (198 8 $ ) 5/16 " I.D . = $0.10/ft . 3/8 " I.D . = $0.11/ft . 1/2 " I.D . - $0.14/ft . Th e cost s fo r rubbe r tubin g wer e obtaine dfro m th e origina l onboar dproposa l wit hanadjustmen t mad e for inflation . Th e cost s fo r 1/ 2 an d5/16-inc htubin g wer e obtaine dfro

m a graphica l curv e fi t o f th e l/4-inch , 3/8-inch , an d5/8-inc hvalues . Th e result s fo r th e rubbe r tubin g cos t ar e give nbelow :

Rubbe r Tubin g Vendo r Cos t (198 8 $ ) 1/4 " I.D . » $0.31/ft . 5/16 " I.D . = $0.34/ft . 3/8 " I.D . - $0.37/ft . 1/2 " I.D . = $0.46/ft . 5/8 " I.D . =

» $0.58/ft . i . Externa l Ven t Lin e Th e externa l ven t lin e i s presentl y use do nvehicle s t o allo w vapor s t o escap e fro m th e fue l tan k durin g refueling . Th e us e o f externa l ven t line s allow s fo r th e fillpip e t o b e smalle r i ndiamete r sinc e i t onl y need s t o handl e fue l flo wP.2 0

-19 -
instea dof fue l an

d vapor flow . Withth e contro l syste

m describe

di nth e supplementa l onboar d proposal , refuelin g vapor s wil l be route dou t o f th e to p o f th e fue l tan

k t o the onboar drefuelin

g canister . Becaus e o f thi s ne

w routing , th

e externa l vent lin

e wil l n

o longe

r b e needed . Thi s lin e ca n therefore b

e remove

d fro m future vehicle s wit ha correspondin g cos t savings . Th e externa l vent lin e fo r LDV s an dLDT s wa s assume

dt o hav e a 1/2-inc

hI.D. , b

e thre e feet long , an db e compose

dof a one-foo t lon

g stee l midsectio

nan dtw o one-foo t lon

g rubber connector s o

nbothends . Clearl y ther e ar

e variation s o

nthes e size s an

dthi s desig

nwhichcoul dlea d t o som

e smal l cos t variations . Th

e cos t o

f th e externa l vent lin e fo r LDV s an d LDT s wa s calculate

d a s follows :

2 ' Rubber @ $0.46/f t 1 ' Stee l @ $0.l4/f t 4 Clamp s @ $0.0 5 eac h $ 0

$ 0 $ 0 $ 1 $ 1 9 2 1 4 2 0 2 6 .5 9 Tota l Marku p(b y 1.26 ) $1.5 9 + $1.6 0

Fo r clas s li

bHDGVs , a 1/2-inc hI.D. , three-foo t rubber lin e wa s assumed . The rubber lin e allow s fo r mor e flexibility fo r second-stage manufacturers . Th e resultin

g cos t wa s calculate

das follows : 3 ' Rubber @ $0.46/f t = $1.3 8 2 Clamp s @ $0.0 5 eac h= $0.1 0 Tota l $1.4 8 Marku p(b y 1.27 ) $1.8 8 + $1.9 0

I t wa s assume

dthat the fillneck s o nClas s VI HDGVs currentl y

hav e a large enoug

hdiameter t o allo w vapor ventin

g without usin

g a nexterna l ven t line . Therefor e ther e woul d be n o cos t saving s associate dwit hthi s part . ii . Canister Relate dVapo r Line s Th e canister require s tw o vapor line s fo

r prope r syste

m operation : 1 ) th

e vapor ven t lin

e fro m th e fue l tan

k t o the canister fo

r vapo r loading , an

d2 ) th

e purg e lin

e fro m the canister to th

e engine fo

r canister purging . Th e siz e (length an ddiameter ) of th

e vapo r line s i s dependent o nth e caniste r location , th

e vapor flo

w rate , an

dth e allowe

dpressur e drop . Th e cos t depend s onth e size , the materia l usedan dthe constructio

nof th

e line . EP

A expect s bothth

e onboar

dan d improve devaporativ

e canister s t o be locate dinth e rear o f the vehicl e fo

r LDVs an

d LDTs . Therefore , ther e wil l be a shor t vapor vent lin

e betweenth

e fue l tan

k an dcanister , but a lon g purg e line . I

ncomparison , EP

A expecte

d exces s evaporativ eP.2 1

-20

-
canister s t o b e locate d i n th e fron t o f vehicles , a s the y typicall yar e fo r curren t systems
. I n thi s case , th e vapo r ven t line betwee n th e fue l tank an d caniste r i s long , bu t th e purg e line i s relativel yshort
. EPAsize d th e vapo r line s fo r th e improve d evaporativ e an d th e revise d onboar d system s base d upo n th e expecte d flo wrate s an d allowe d pressur e drops
. Fo r LDV s an d LDTs , th e purg e lin e o n th e improve d evaporativ e systemi s expecte d t o hav e th e sam e diameter , length , material s an d constructio n a s th e fue l tank vapo r ven t lin e o f th e exces s evaporativ e system
. Therefore , an ydifferenc e i n vapo r lin e cost s betwee n th e two system s i s du e t o th e differenc e betwee n th e improve d evaporativ e fue l tank vapo r ven t lin e an d th e exces s evaporativ e purg e line

. The yar e expecte d t o hav e th e same length , material s an d constructio n bu t th e improve d evaporativ e fue l tan k vapo r ven t lin e mus t b e o f a large r diamete r tha n th e exces s evaporativ e purg e line

. Fo r th e onboar d system , th e improve d evaporativ e purg e lin e i s expecte d t o b e o f adequat e siz e fo r purgin g th e onboar d canister

. Therefore , th e onl ychang e i n vapo r lin e cost s betwee n th e onboar d an d th e improve d evaporativ e syste m result s fro

mth e nee d t o increas e th e diamete r o f th e improve d evaporativ e fue l tan k vapo r ven t lin e t o b e adequat e fo r th e refueling vapo r flowrate
. Fo r HDGVs , EPAassume d tha t ther e i s enough spac e availabl e i n th e engin e compartmen t fo r improve d evaporativ e and/o r onboar d syste mcanisters

. I t wa s als o assume d tha t th e excess ; evaporativ e systempurg e lin e i s adequatel ysize d fo r improve d evaporativ e an d onboar d systems
. However , ther e ar e incrementa l vapo r lin e cost s fo r improve d evaporativ e an d onboar d system s becaus e large r diamete r fue l tank vapo r ven t line s ar e necessaryt o handl e th e greate r flowrate s o f vapors . Th e cos t calculation s fo r vapo r line s fo r onboard , improve d evaporative , an d exces s evaporativ e system s ar e show n i n Tabl e 7 fo r LDV s an d LDTs , an

d i n Tabl e 8 fo r HDGVs
. Fo r LDV s an

d LDTs , combination s o f variou s diamete r stee l an d rubbe r vapo r line s ar e assumed
. Fo r HDGV s al l rubbe r tubin g wa s used
. Variation s i n thes e desig n approache s ar e possibl e whic h woul d eithe r slightl yincreas e o r decreas e cost
. Directionally , mor e us e o f stee l woul d decreas e cost s whil e mor e us e o f rubbe r woul d increas e costs
.P.2 2

-21

-
Tabl e 7

Vendo r Leve l Vapo r Lin e Cost s - LDV s an d LDT s

Exces s Eva

p Purg e Lin e - 3f t < 3 1/4 " 1 f t Rubbe r @ $0.31/f t = $0.3 1 2 f t Stee l a $0.08/f t = 0.1 6 Tota l = $0.4 7 Improve d Evap Fue l Tan k Vapo r Ven t Lin e - 3f t § 3/8 " 1 ft
. Rubbe r 0 $0.37/f t = $0.3 7 2 ft
. Stee l (

3 0.11/f t = 0.2 2 Tota l = $0.5 9 Onboar d Fue l Tank Vapo r Ven t Lin e - 3f t @ 1/2 " 1 ft
. Rubbe r 0 $0.46/f t = $0.4 6 2 ft
. Stee l Q 0.14/f t = 0.2 8 Tota l = $0.7 4P.2 3

-22

-
Tabl e 8

Vendo r Leve l Vapo r Lin e Cost s - HDGV s Clas s lib :

Exces s Evap Fue l Tank Vapo r Ven t Lin e - 8 f t < § 3/8 " 8 f t Rubbe r @ $0.37/f t = $2.9 6 Improve d Eva

p Fue l Tan

k Vapo r Ven t Lin e - 8 f t @ 1/2 ' 8 f t Rubbe r <

3 $0.46/f t = $3.6 8 Onboar d Fue l Tan

k Vapo r Ven t Lin e - 8 f t < 3 5/8 " 8 f t Rubbe r § $0.58/f t = $4.6 4

Clas s VI : Exces s Evap Fue l Tank Vapo r Ven t Lin e - 1 5 f t 0 3/8 " 1 5 f t Rubbe r ®$0.37/f t = $5.5 5 Improve d Eva

p Fue l Tank Vapo r Ven t Lin e - 1 5 f t 9 1/2 " 1 5 f t Rubbe r <

§ $0.46/f t = $ 6.9 0 Onboar d Fue l Tank Vapo r Ven t Lin e - 1 5 f t @ 5/8 " 1 5 f t Rubbe r 0 $0.58/f t = $ 8.7 0P.2 4

-23

-
4
. Vapo r Vent/Rollove r Valv e Modifie d vapo r vent/rollove r valve s ar e neede d fo r bot h th e improve d evaporativ e syste man d th e onboard system
. Man y vehicle s alread

yhav e some for

mo f vapo r vent/rollove r valve
. However , t o mak e a conservativ e estimate , EPAdi d no t subtrac t th e cos t o f an

yexisting valv e from th e cos t o f th e modifie d valv e whe n considering th e incrementa l cost s fo r improve d evaporativ e an

d revise d onboard systems
. Th e valv e require d fo r th e improve d evaporativ e system mus t allo wfue l tan k vapor s t o b e vente d t o th e caniste r an d mus t als o clos e th e ventin g orific e durin g vehicl e rollover
. Th e valv e ma

yals o hav e a

n orific e sealing devic e whic h i s bouyan t i n gasolin e ( a float ) tha t woul d protec t th e vapo r line fro msloshing fuel
. Thi s floa t probabl ywil l no t nee d t o perfor ma fil l limiting functio n sinc e th e orific e o f th e valv e shoul d b e smal l enough t o creat e sufficien t backpressur e t o caus e th e automati c dispensing nozzl e t o shutoff
. Thi s vapo r vent/rollove r valv e i s mounte d i n th e top o f the fue l tank
. Th e onboard systemvalv e wil l hav e a large r diamete r venting orific e i n orde r t o handl e refueling vapo r flowrates , wit h thi s large r diamete r orifice , th e bac k pressur e i n th e tan k wil l probabl yno t b e sufficien t t o caus e automati c nozzl e shutoff
. Th e valv e wil l nee d a fil l limitin g floa t whic h close s of f the ventin g orific e whe n th e tan k i s ful l an

d thereb ycreate s enough backpressur e i n th e tan k t o caus e th e nozzl e t o shutoff
. Th e floa t woul d als o provid e fue l sloshing protectio n fo r th e valve
. Becaus e the mai n orific e o f th e onboard valv e i s close d whe n th e tan k i s full , a smal l secondar

yevaporativ e orific e i s necessaryi n orde r t o allow tan k venting a t tha t fil l level
. Thi s secondaryorific e onl y need s t o b e abou t th e siz e o f some curren t evaporativ e orifice s whic h i s 0.0 5 inche s i n diameter

. An yimprove d evaporativ e syste m valve s whic h hav e fill-limiting function s woul d als o nee d thi s secondaryorifice

. EPAcontacte d a vendo r concerning valv e design an d expecte d cost
. Thi s vendo r presentl ysell s existing vent/rollove r valve s fo r jus t unde r thre e dollars
. Th e existing valv e configuratio n i s expecte d t o b e adequat e fo r th e improve d evaporativ e system(wit h a slightl ylarge r orific e - n o chang e i n materia l cost)
. Ther e i s n o cos t associate d wit h making th e valv e closur e devic e bouyan t (t o accomplis h fil l limitin g and/o r t o provid e fue l sloshing protection)

. Man y evaporativ e systemvalve s currentl yhav e bouyan t shutof f devices

. Thos e tha t don' t coul d switc h fro m on e closur e mechanism , such a s bal l bearings , t o a float
. Thi s woul d no t caus e a n increas e i n cos t an d i n fac t mayb e les s expensive

. EPAtherefor e allocate d a $3.0 0 manufacture r cos t t o th e improve d evaporativ e system valve
. Th e onboar d systemvalv e ha s a slightl ylarge r diamete r orifice , a buoyan t floa t an d th e additiona l secondaryorifice

. Ther e i s n o chang e i n cos t du e t o th e large r orific e o r th eP.2 5

-24 - bouyan t float . However the cos t o f addin

g the secondar

y orific e i s estimate dt o be abou

t $0.5 0 a

t th e manufacturin

g level . The vapo

r vent valv

e fo r th e refuelin

g syste m i s thu s expecte dt o hav

e a manufacturin

g cos t of $3.5 0 a t hig hvolum e production . Table s 3 an d4 sho

w thes e cost s i

nRP E withth

e appropriat e markup . 5 . Anti-Spitback Valv e A liqui dsea l base

donboar

dsyste m suc ha s tha t discusse

d i nthe ; supplementa l notic e ma y require a

nanti-spitback valv e to preven

t fue l fro

m "spitting " back ou t o f th

e fillneck a

t automati c nozzl e shut-of f durin g vehicl e refueling . Som e manufacturer s ar

e alread

y incorporatin

g thes e valve s i

nsom e of thei r vehicl e models . Thi s wil l provid e a nadditiona l safety feature fo

r onboar

dsystem

s ove r present systems . A vendor quoted

1 th e valv e cos t a

t 2 5 cent s plu s tooling . Estimatin g th e toolin g cos t a

t 3 cent s an

dadjustin

g fo r markup , EP

A estimate s tha t th e valve s wil l cos t 3 5 cent s each . Thes e cost s ar e show n i nTabl e 4 . 6i . Sea l Assembl y Onboar d system

s requir e som

e typ e of sea l t o preven t vapor s fro

m escapin

g out th

e fillnec

k durin

g vehicl e refueling . LDVs , LDTs , an dClas s li

bHDGVs typicall y hav e smal l diamete r fillneck s o f adequat e lengt ht o provide a liqui d sea l durin

g refueling . Therefore , n o cos t wa s allocate dfo r sea l hardware . However , Clas s VI HDGV s hav e severa l different fue l tan

k arrangements . Som e of thes e fue l tank s hav e n o fillneck , som

e have shor t fillneck s an dsom e hav e large diameter fillnecks . Th e sealin

g mechanis

m fo r thes e tank s ma

y var y dependin

g o ndesig

nan dlocatio

nconstraints . However , EP A believe s tha t manufacturer s wil l us e the leas t expensiv e method

1 possibl e t o provide a nadequat e sea l an di s therefor e usin g th e sam e valu e as wa s develope di nth e origina l proposa l (adjuste

dfo r inflation) , withou t identifyin g a specifi c sea l design . EP

A expect s tha t man y different approache s coul d be used , bu

t none tha t woul db e mor e expensiv e tha nth e previou s estimat e fo

r a sea l assembl y consistin

g of a mechanica l sea l an da pressur e relie f device . 7 . Purg e Valve I nth e origina l volatility proposal , fo

r eac hvehicl e clas s EP

A estimate

d th e average cos t of improve dpurge valve s whichwoul d be needed t o handl e th e higher purg e rat e necessar y fo r exces s evaporativ e systems . EP

A assume dthat the improve d valv e woul db

e a frequenc

y modulatedsolenoi doperate db y th e ECU . Th

e ful l cos t o

f th e valv e fo r exces s evaporativ e system

s incrementa l t o current evaportiv e system

s wa s calculate

dt o be $0.9 6 i n198 6 dollar s a

t the manufacturer leve l ($1.3 0 i nRPE , 198 8 dollars) . EP A expectedtha t only carburete

dvehicle s woul dnee

d th e improve

dvalve i f 9. 0 RV P fue l wa s used , but tha t al l vehicle s woul dneedit i f 11. 5 RV P fue l wa s used . Therefor e at 9. 0 RV P only th e fractio

nof the ful l cos t of th eP.2 6

-25 -
valv e whic hwa s equivalent t o th e fractio

no f carburete

d vehicle s predicte

dt o b e i nth e flee t i

n199 0 wa s calculatedas a naverag

e fleet cos t ($0.1 8 a t th e manufacturer leve l i n198 6 dollars , $0.2 5 RP E i n198 8 dollars) . Th e ful l cos t of th e valv e wa s assume

dfo r ever y vehicl e a

t 11. 5 RVP . EP A believe s tha t thi s sam e frequenc

y modulate

dsolenoi d valv e wil l be adequat e fo r bothimprove

devaporativ

e an d onboar dsystems . However , it i s expecte dthat thes e system s wil l require th

e improve

dvalv e o nal l vehicle s a

t 9. 0 RV

P instea d o f jus t o

ncarburete

dvehicles . Therefor e th e onl y purge valv

e cos t fo

r improve

dsystem

s incrementa l t o exces s evaporativ

e system

s i s du

e t o allocatin

g th e ful l cos t of th

e valv e t o al l vehicle s a

t 9. 0 RVP . Ther e i s n o incrementa l cos t a t 11. 5 RVP . Ther e i s als o n o cos t fo

r onboar

dsystem

s incrementa l t o improve devaporativ

e system

s fo r thi s component , sinc e th

e sam e purge valv

e woul db

e used . 8 . Fue l Coolin

g Syste m Fo r improve

devaporativ

e systems , it appear s tha t i f 11. 5 RV P fue l i s use

dsom e typ e of coolin

g mechanis

m ma y be require

d fo r th e fue l retur

nlin e i norder t o reduc e th e amount of vapor s bein

g generate

di nth e fue l tan

k durin

g vehicl e operation . Thi s might b e achieve

db y addin g coolin

g fin s t o th e retur nlin e alon g withai r ductin

g o r throug

hsom e other means . EP

A estimate

dth e manufacturer' s cos t fo r thi s mechanis

m (o r som e other simila

r approach ) t o b

e approximatel y fiv e dollars . B . Development Cost s Development cost s are al l cost s other tha ncomponent hardwar e whichfacto r into th

e fina l retai l pric e equivalen t (RPE ) o f the vehicle . Thes e cost s are associate dwit hfue l tan k modifications , vehicl e packaging , assembly , certification , facilit y modification s an dsystem

s engineering . Th e development cost s usedi nthi s analysi s are al l basedupo n short-ter

m ( 0 t o 5 years ) cost s t o th e manufacturer . Thes e cost s ar

e recovere

db y th e manufacture r afte r 5 year s (excep

t fo r the cos t of facilit y modifications , whic hi s recovere

d afte r 1 0 years) . I f a long-ter m cos t analysi s wer e done (greater tha

n5 years) , the

nth e ne t cos t of eac

hsyste m woul d decreas e an

dth e cos t effectivenes s woul dincrease . Development cost s wer e calculate dfo r bothth

e .origina l volatility

(exces s evaporativ e systems ) an

dth e origina l onboar dproposals . Th e followin

g discussio

nexplain s an

y change s i

nthes e cost s associate dwit hth

e improve

d evaporativ

e an drevise

donboar

d system

s detaile

di nth e SNPRM . Improve

d evaporativ

e syste

m developmen t cost s ar e show nas incrementa l to exces s evaporativ e cost s an

donboar

dcost s are show

na s incrementa l t o improve devaporativ

e costs .P.2 7

-26

-
1
. Improve d Evaporativ e System s I n th e origina l volatilit yproposal , th e non-hardwar e categoryinclude d cost s fo r certificatio n an d research , development , an

d testing (RD&T)
. Tabl e 9 Asummarize s th e additiona l developmenta l (non-hardware ) cost s du e t o improve d evaporativ e systems
. Al l value s ar e i n retai l pric e equivalent s an

d ar e rounde d of f t o th e neares t nickel

. Eac h o f thes e value s ar e explaine d below
. Packaging cost s aris e whe n hardwar e o r vehicl e modification s mus t b e mad e i n orde r t o accommodat e ne w component s o r an increas e i n th e siz e o f ol d components
. I n th e origina l volatilit yproposal , EP Aassume d tha t n o bod y modification s woul d nee d t o b e mad e t o accommodat e exces s evaporativ e system s an d tha t n o packaging cost s woul d b e incurred

. Som e packaging cost s ma yaris e fo r improve d evaporativ e system s o n LDVs an d LDT s du e t o th e increase d siz e o f th e canister , whic h EPAexpect s t o b e rear-mounted
. EPA estimate s th e amortize d cos t (ove r 5 years ) t o manufacturer s t o b e $0.6 0 pe r vehicl e pe r canister

. Ther e ar e n o spac e constraint s o n HDGV s whic h resul t i n a n increase d packagin g cost
. However , man yClas s li b vehicle s ar e modifie d b y secondarymanufacturer s wh o ma yincur an adde d cos t t o handl e th e ne wsystems
. Therefore , a n adde d cos t o f $0.6 5 a t th e manufacture r leve l wa s adde d fo r singl e tan k Clas s lib s an

d $1.3 5 fo r dua l tank Clas s libs

. Although secondary manufacturer s d o no t modif yman yClas s V I HDG

V vehicl e fue l systems , packaging cost s equa l t o thos e o n Clas s lib s wer e adde d i n orde r t o mak e a conservativ e estimate

. Th e value s show n i n Tabl e 9 Areflec t th e appropriat e RP E marku p value s fo r LDVs , LDT s an

d HDGVs
. EP Adi d no t allocat e a n additiona l cos t t o improve d evaporativ e system s fo r RD&T
. Cost s wer e previousl yallocate d t o exces s evaporativ e system s an d includ e th e cos t o f vehicl e acquisition , engineer s an d technician s salarie s an d testing costs
. Sinc e manufacturer s wil l b e developing on e evaporativ e systempe r vehicl e famil y(rathe r tha n an improve d systemi n additio n t o a n exces s system ) n o additiona l cos t wa s needed
.Tabl e 9A Improve d Evaporativ

e Syste m Developmen t Costs * (inRPE , 1988$ )
Ite m Vehicle/Certificatio nFue l
LD V 9.0RV P 11.5RV

P LDT- S 9.0RV P 11.5RV

P LDT- D 9.0RV P 11.5RV

P HDGV- S 9.0RV P 11.5RV

P HDGV- D 9.0RV P 11.5RV

P Packagin

g 0.7 5 0.7 5 0.7 5 0.7 5 «*_-** • 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 Certification** * 0.0 5 0.0 5 0.0 5 0.0 5 1.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 1.5 0

0.0 0 0.0 5 0.8 5

0.0 0 0.0 5 0.8 5

0.0 0 0.0 5 1.7 0

0.0 0 0.0 5 1.7 0

0.0 0 0.0 5
Tota l $0.8 0 $0.8 0 $0.8 0 $0.8 0 $1.5 5 $1.5 5 $0.9 0 $0.9 0 $1.7 5 $1.7 5

* Cost s ar e incrementa l t o thos e expected for exces s evaporativ e control . Thes e cost s onl y appl y fo r 5 years . * * Cos t previousl y allocatedt o Exces s Evaporativ e System . ** * Cos t t o ad

dtw o diurnal s an

dcap remova l t o FTP .

i

- J

o oP.2 9

-28 -
Certificatio

ncost s increas e i f there i s a nee dt o recertify

previou s mode l yea r vehicle s i

norde r t o compl y

with change drequirements . Certificatio ncost s als o increas e i f change s t o th

e tes t procedur e make i t mor e resourc e intensive . Th e origina l volatility proposa l containe da detailed descriptio

nof th

e analysi s don

e t o develo

pth e cos t t o recertify

vehicle s equippe dwit hexces s evaporativ e contro l system s usin g 9. 0 RV

P tes t fuel . Th

e fractio

no f vehicle s whichmus t b

e recertifie

di s th

e sam e whether vehicle s ar e equippe dwit hexces s o

r improve

devaporativ

e systems . It wa s estimate

d tha t 9 0 percent o

f engin e familie s are carrie dove r fro m the previou s year an ds o recertificatio ncost s wer e applie d t o 9 0 percent of th e fleet . Sinc e th e origina l proposal , EP

A ha s learne

dthat whil e a 9 0 percent carryover ma y be a goo

destimat e fo

r durability

vehicles , th

e fractio

no f emissio ndat a vehicle s whichare carrie d ove r i s closer t o 1 0 percent . Thi s make s EPA' s estimat e conservative , sinc e onl y 1 0 percent o

f thos e vehicle s woul dactually nee dt o be recertified . Refinin g the estimat e a

t thi s tim

e woul dno t hav

e a larg e impact o

nth e tota l cos t sinc e th e certificatio

ncos t i s suc ha smal l fractio

nof it . Thi s change , alon g wit hother improvement s i

nth e estimates , wil l b e made a

t th e tim e o f th

e fina l rule . Th e cos t fo

r certificatio

n(o r recerti f ication ) tes t of vehicle s withimprove devaporativ

e system

s i s greate r becaus e of th e tw o diurnal s whichhav e beenadde

dto th e tes t procedur e fo r separat e systems . Th e tw o diurnal s resul t i na nadditiona l 0.3 5 Federa l Tes t Progra m Equivalent s (FTPEs ) plu s th e cos t of fue l fo r tw o additiona l fill s t o th e 4 0 percent level . Th e additiona l certificatio ncos t wa s calculate dbase dupo nman y of the sam

e assumptions a s wer e use di nth e origina l volatility proposal . On

e significant change i s that th e number of test s per HDG V family wa s reduce

dfro m 5 0 i nth e origina l volatility proposa l to 10 . Thi s i s becaus e th e 5 0 test s i

nth e origina l proposa l actuall y include

dsom e test s fo

r researchan

d development rather tha ncertification . Unlike th

e recertificatio

ncos t calculatio

no f th

e exces s evaporativ

e proposa l whic happlie dto onl y

9 0 percent of th e fleet , the increas e i ncertificatio

ncos t applie s t o th e entir e fleet . Sinc e certificatio ni s done approximatel y one year befor e the vehicle s ca nbe sold , cost s wer e increase db y 1 0 perceiit t o account fo r th e ite m valu e of money . The cos t calculation s fo

r LDV s an dLDT s are show

ninTabl e 9 B whil e th e calculation s fo

r HDGV s ar e show

ni nTabl e 9C . The additiona l cos t pe r vehicl e inRP E rounde dt o th

e neares t nicke l i s $0.0 5 fo r LDVs , LDTs , an

dHDGVs .P.3 0

•29

-

Tabl e 9 B Incrementa l Certificatio n Cos t fo r Improve d Evaporativ e System s

(LDVs , LDTs )

LD V LD T

Cos t o f FTP E 65 0 65 0 198 6 Dollar s ' (From198 7 Volatilit yRIA )
Cos t o f FTP E : 70 1 70 1 198 8 Dollar s
Cos t o f 2 Refueling s a t 12. 2 ga l tan k " * $8.0 0 16. 3 ga l tan k (80 S Single , 40 % fil l ($6.82/gallon ) 20 % Dual ) " * $12.3 0
Additiona l Cos t pe r Tes t $253.3 0 257.6 5

= 0.35(FTPE ) • Fue l Cos t
Durabilit yVehicl e Tests : 10 9 Vehicles/yea r 4 5 vehicles/yea r x 1 3 tests/vehicl e x 1 3 tests/vehicl e x $253.30/tes t x $257.65/tes t $35 9 K $15 1 K
Additiona l Cost fo r Emissio n Dat a Vehicl e Tests : 30 7 Vehicles/yea r 13 3 vehicles/yea r x 2 test/vehicl e x 2 tests/vehicl e x £253.30/tes t x $257.65/tes t -$15 6 K - $ 6 9 K
Su mo f Durabilit yan d Emission s Dat a Cost : $51 5 K $22 0 K
Ad d 10 % fo r 1 yea r tim e Valu e o f mone y$56 7 K $24 2 K
Amortiz e ove r 5 year s a t 10% : $15 0 K $ 6 4 K (Amortizatio n facto r = 0.2638 )
Sale s projection : 11. 2 millio n 3.6 4 millio n Cost/Vehicle : SO.0 1 $0.0 2 Cost/Vehicl e i n RP E Rounde d t o neares t nickel : 30.0 5 $0.0 5P.3 1

-30

-

Tabl e 9 C Incrementa l Certificatio n Cos t for Improved Evaporative Syste m(HDGVs )

Cos t o f FTPE : $62 0 198 6 Dollar ^ (Fro m198 7 Volatilit yRIA )
Cos t o f FTPE : $66 7 198 8 Dollar s Calculat e Averag e HDG V Fue l Tan

k Size :

Cos t o f 2 Refueling s a t 40 % fil l ($0.82/gal ) Additiona l Cos t pe r Tes t

= 0.3 5 (FTPE ) • Fue l Cos t
Tota l Additiona l Cos t Ad d 10 % fo r 1 yea r time : Valu e o f mone

y lib : Single : 2 0 gal
. Dual : 2 9 2 0 gal
.

lib : Weighted : (0.80)(2 0 gal ) •

(0.20H4 0 gal ) = 2 4 gal
. VI : Single : 3 0 gal
. Dual : 2 9 4 0 gal
. Weighted : (.85)(3 0 gal ) •

(.15)(8 0 gal ) = 37. 5 gal
. Av g HDG V Tan k Siz e = (0.75)(2 4 gal ) •

(0.25)(37. 5 gal ) = 27. 4 gal
. $18.0 0

$25 1
($251/test)(1 0 tests/family)(2 3 families ) = $5 8 K $6 4 K

Amortiz e ove r 5 year s a t 10 % $1 7 K (Amortization facto r = 0.2638 ) Sale s Projection : 386,00 0 vehicle s
Incrementa l Cos t pe r Vehicle : $0.0 4
Cos t pe r vehicl e i n RP E Rounde d t o Neares t Nickel : $0.0 5P.3 2

-31 -

2 . Onboar d System
I nth e origina l onboar d proposal , th e non-hardwar e categor y

include d cost s for fue l tan k modifications , packaging , assembly , certification , facilit y modifications , an dsystem s engineering . Thes e cost s mus t b e change dsinc e th e onboar d syste m desig nha s bee nrevise d an dsinc e onl y

th e cos t incrementa l t o improve devaporativ e syste m developmen t cost s ar e now

allocate d t o th e onboar dsystem . Tabl e 1 0 summarize s th e presen t developmen t costs . Al l value s ar e inretai l pric e equivalent s an

drounde d of f t o th e neares t nickel . Eac ho f thes e value s ar e explaine d below . Wit hth e developmen t o f a simple r onboar dsyste m an dwit h th e change s mad e i nthe evaporativ e proposal , th e cost s fo r fue l tan

k modification s an d for assembl y

n o longe r apply . Th e fue l tan

k i s no longe r bein g modifie dfor a J-tub e an dfil l limiter . Th e onboar dvapor/rollove r valv e ma y requir e a slightl y

large r hol e i nth e fue l tan k tha ntha t require dfor th e evaporativ e vapor/rollove r valv e bu t thi s i s no t expecte d t o resul t i na cos t increase . Therefore , n o cos t wa s allocate d for fue l tan k modifications . Th e origina l assembl y cos t considere dth e additiona l cos t t o instal l th e onboar dcaniste r i nseparat e system s sinc e i t wa s though t tha t carburete d vehicle s migh t hav e separat e system s s o tha t th e evaporativ e caniste r coul db e locate dnea r th e carbureto r whil e th e refuelin g caniste r woul db e locate d nea r the fue l tank . Thi s woul d minimiz e th e siz e an dlengt ho f th e vapo r an

d purg e lines . However , sinc e EP A i s proposin g t o kee p certificatio nfue l at 9. 0 ps i RVP , onboar dcanister s woul d b e smalle r thanoriginall y estimated . I

naddition , nearl y al l vehicle s wil l b e fuel-injecte db y th e tim

e onboar dsystem s ar e required . Th e mos t importan t chang e sinc e th e origina l onboar d proposa l i s tha t improve d evaporativ e syste m canister s woul db e nearl y a s larg e a s integrate devaporativ e an drefuelin g canisters . Thi s make s integrate d system s muc hmor e attractiv e tha nseparat e system s sinc e les s tota l caniste r volum e an d fewe r connectiv e part s ar e necessary . Ther e is , therefore , n o additiona l assembl y cos t fo r installin g onboar dsystem s incrementa l t o tha t fo r improve d evaporativ e systems . Mos t o f th e packagin g cos t o f a nintegrate donboar d caniste r i s already allocate d t o th e improve devaporativ e syste m costs . However , som e vehicl e model s ma y requir e additiona l bod y

modification s for th e slightl y large r onboar d canister . EP A

estimate s thi s cos t t o have anamortize dvalu e (ove r 5 years ) o f 1 0 cent s pe r vehicl e pe r caniste r (i nRPE) . No cos t wa s allocate dfor Clas s V I HDGV s du e t o thei r larg e siz e an d additiona l availabl e space . Cost s wer e conservativel y assigne d t o Clas s li bHDGVs , eve nthoug hi nman y case s adequat e spac e woul db e available .P.3 3

-32

-

Tabl e 1 0 Onboar d SystemDevelopmen t Costs * (i n RPE , 198 8 $ )

Vehicl e Ite mLD

V LDT- S LDT- D Ilb- S Ilb- D VI- S VI- D Tan k Mod s $0.0 0 $0.0 0 $0.0 0 $0.0 0 $0.0 0 $0.0 0 $0.0 0 Assembl y0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 Packaging 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.2 0 0.1 0 0.2 0 0.0 0 o.o o Recertificatio n 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 Facilit yMods* * 0.4 5 0.4 5 0.4 5 0.4 5 0.4 5 0.4 5 0.4 5 System s Engr* * 0.5 0 0.8 0 1.1 0 0.8 0 0.8 0 1.7 5 1.7 5 Tota l $1.0 5 $1.3 5 $1.7 5 $1.3 5 $1.4 5 $2.2 0 $2.2 0

* Cost s ar e incrementa l t o thos e expecte d fo r exces s an d improve d evaporativ e control
. Thes e cost s onl yappl yfo r 5 years , excep t fo r th e facilit ymodification s cos t whic h applie s fo r 1 0 years . * * Same value s a s i n origina l proposal , adjuste d fo r inflation

.P.3 4

-33 -

Th e recertificatio ncost s for onboar dsystem s ar e essentiall y

zer o incrementa l t o thos e expecte dwit h improved/exces s evaporativ e control . EP A expect s th e onboar d an d evaporativ e regulation s t o hav e th e sam e effectiv e dates . Sinc e recertificatio ncost s hav e alread y bee nallocate dt o exces s evaporativ e systems , no additiona l cos t i s neede dhere . EP A als o di d no t includ e a nadditiona l certificatio ncos t fo r th e onboar d tes t procedure . Th e additiona l procedur e for integrate dsystem s wil l b e i nlie uo f th e additiona l diurnal s for th e improve d evaporativ e system s o nseparat e refueling/evaporativ e systems . Sinc e a nadditiona l certificatio ncos t wa s include dthere , non e i s include dfo r th e integrate donboar dsystems . EP A di dno t re-evaluat e th e cos t fo r facilit y modification s for th e supplementa l proposal . Th e valu e use di n th e origina l onboar d proposa l wa s adjuste dfor inflatio nonly , resultin g i na 4 5 cen t pe r vehicl e cos t (i nRPE ) whe namortize d ove r a te nyear-period . EPA als o di dno t re-evaluat e th e system s engineerin g cost s othe r tha nt o adjus t i t fo r inflation . Thes e cost s wer e amortize dove r 5 years . However, sinc e ; th e syste m ha s bee nsimplified , th e origina l cos t i s probabl y

conservative .P.3 5

-34 -

C . Recover y

Credit s Th e followin g discussio no nrecover y credit s (weigh t penalt y

an d fue l recovery ) i s specifi c for eac hsystem . A ne t recovery

credi t ha s tw

o components : a fue l recovery credi t an

d a weigh t penalty . Th e fue l recover y credi t account s fo r th e fue l tha t i s save d whe nfue l vapor s ar e capture db y a vapo r recovery

syste m an d utilized . Th e weigh t penalt y account s fo

r a los s i nfue l econom y du e t o th e sligh t increas e i nvehicl e weight ! adde d b

y th e vapo r recover y system . Th e ne t recover y credi t i s th e differenc e betwee nthe mone y save dfro

m fue l recovery

an d th e increase d fue l consumptio ncos t t o mov e a slightl y

heavie r vehicle . Th e recovery credit s for exces s evaporativ e system s wil l b e discusse dfirst . Recover y credit s fo r improve d evaporativ e system s an donboar dsystem s wil l follow . 1 . Exces s Evaporativ e Syste m Ther e wa s n o weigh t penalt y associate dwit hth e exces s evaporativ e syste m o f th e origina l volatilit y proposa l sinc e ther e wer e n o change s necessar y i nvehicl e hardwar e at 9. 0 RVP fue l whic hwoul d resul t i na weigh t penalty . Th e fue l recover y credi t fo r thes e system s i s a functio no f no t onl y change s t o th e vehicl e contro l system bu t als o o f chang e i ncommercia l fue l volatilit y

(bot hth e matchin g o f in-us e an dcertificatio n fue l RVP an

dth e RVP leve l a t whic hthi s i s done) . Th e portion o f th e exces s evaporativ e fue l recovery credi t du e solel y t o vehicl e control s i s difficul t t o determine . Also , i f th e exces s evaporativ e fue l recover y credi t i s included , the nth e increas e i nlifetim e fue l cos t t o th e vehicl e owne r du e t o commercia l fue l volatilit y contro l mus t als o b e included . Sinc e |th

e purpos e o f thi s analysi s i s onl y t o determin e vehicl e controj l syste

m cost s an

d no t volatilit y contro l costs , th e exces s evaporativ e fue l recover y credi t wa s no t include dhere . 2f . Improve dEvaporativ e System s Th e ne t recover y credit s for th e improve devaporativ e system wer e Calculate dfo r 9. 0 ps i RV P fuel . Th e weigh t penalt y wil l b e discusse dfirst . (i ) Weigh t Penalt y Th e weigh t penalt y fo r th e improve d evaporativ e syste m wa s calculate dusin g th e sam e metho da s wa s use di nth e origina l onboar dproposal . Th e component s whic hwer e include di nth e weigh t calculatio nar e th e canister , vapo r lines , an dth e vapo r vent/rollove r valve . A carbo ndensit y

o f 0.6 6 lb./L . anda bod y weigh t o f 0.44 5 pound s for a 1. 5 lite r caniste r ar e th e sam e value s use d i nth e origina l onboar dproposal . Th e bod y weigh t o f othe r cylindrica l caniste r size s i s assume dt o b e proportiona l t o th e rati o o f th e square s o f th e caniste rP.3 6

-35

-
radii

. (The squar e o f th e radiu s fo r a 1. 5 L canister , 

### assumin g 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 H B showth 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 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 show n i n Table s 12 Aan d 12B
. Ther e i s n o differenc e i n weigh t 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 subtrac t th e weigh t o f an ypossibl e curren t syste mven t valv e fro mtha 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 h wa 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
.LDV s Tabl e 11 A Evaporativ

e Syste m Caniste r Weight s 9. 0 ps i RV

P fuel .
Caniste r Carbo n+ Siz e Weight

Syste m 1. 3 L 0. 9 lbs . re Syste

m 2. 7 L 1. 8 lbs . , LDV s an dLDTs ;

Caniste r Bod

y = Materia l Weight

0. 4 lbs . 0. 7 lbs . Tota l Caniste r Weigh t

1. 3 lbs . 2. 5 lbs . Incrementa l Caniste r Weight fo r Improved Evaporativ e Syste m 1. 2 lbs .
LDT s Singl e Tan

k Exces s Evaporativ

e Syste m 1. 7 L ImprovedEvaporativ e 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 for Improved Evaporativ e Syste m 1. 8 lbs . Dua l Tan

k Exces s Evaporativ

e Syste m 2 § 1. 7 L Improved Evaporativ e 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 Weight fo r Improved Evaporativ e Syste m 3. 6 lbs . i t o O N I

LDT Weighted (singl e an d dual ) = (80%)(1. 8 lbs. ) +(20%)(3. 6 lbs ) =2. 2 lbs .Tabl e 11 B Evaporativ e Syste mCaniste r Weights , HDGVs ;

9. 0 ps i RV P fuel
.
Caniste r Carbo n + Caniste r Bod y= Tota l Caniste r Siz e Weigh t Materia l Weigh t Weigh t
Exces s Evaporativ e Syste m4. 0 L 2. 6 lbs
. 0. 9 lbs
. 3. 5 lbs
. (Fro mOrigina l Volatilit y Proposal
. Averag e o f al l HDG V classes , an d bot h singl e and dua l tanks ) Improve d Evaporativ e Syste m Clas s li b Singl e Tan k 4. 3 L 2. 8 lbs
. 0. 9 lbs
. 3. 7 lbs
. Dua l Tan k 2 § 4. 3 L 5. 6 lbs
. 1. 8 lbs
. 7. 4 lbs
.

Weighte d (Singl e and Dual ) = (80%)(3. 7 lbs ) + (20%)(7. 4 lbs ) = 4. 4 lbs
.

Clas s li b Incrementa l Caniste r Weigh t fo r Improve d Evaporativ e System=4.4-3. 5 =0. 9 lbs
. i Clas s V I Singl e Tan k 7. 0 L 4. 6 lbs
. 1. 2 lbs
. 5. 8 lbs
. Dua l Tan k 2 @ 10. 1 L 13. 4 lbs
. 3. 2 lbs
. 16. 6 lbs
.

Weighte d (Singl e an d Dual ) = (85%)(5. 8 lbs. ) + (15%)(16. 6 lbs ) = 7. 4 lbs
.

Clas s V I Incrementa l Caniste r Weigh t fo r Improve d Evaporativ e System=7.4-3. 5 =3. 9 lbs
. IP.3 9

-38

-
Tabl e 12 A Improve d Evaporativ e SystemVapo r Lin e Weights ; LDV s 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 tan k 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 Purg e Lin e 2;ft
. o f 1/4 " I.D
. Steel : 2 ft , 1 ft
. o f 1/4 " I.D
. Rubber : 1 ft , X 0.0 6 lb/f t X 0.0 8 lb/f t 0.1 2 lb

0.0 8 lb 0.2 0 l b
Improve d Evaporativ e Fue l Tan

k Ven t Lin e 2 ft
. o f 3/8 " 1 ft
. o f 3/8 " I.D
. Steel :

I.D
. Rubbe r 2 ft
. X 0.1 2 lb/f t

1 ft
. X 0.1 2 lb/f t 0.2 4 l b 0.1 2 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 l b - 0. 2 lbs
. Tota l Incrementa l Weigh t LDT Dua l Tan k (80%)(0.2 0 lb ) + (20%)(0.4 0 lb ) - 0. 2 lbs
.-39

-

Tabl e 12 B Improve d Evaporativ e Syste mVapo r Lin e Weights ; HDGV s

Ne t incrementa l weigh t o f th e improve d evaporativ e system vapo 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 tan

k 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 tan k vapo r ven t lin e o n th e exces s evaporativ e system
.
Exces s Evaporativ e System Fue l Tan

k Vapo r Ven t Lin e Clas s lib : Singl e Tan k 3/8" : Dua l Tank s : Clas s VI : Singl e Tank 3/8" :

Dua l Tank s : 8 ft
. X 0.1 2 lb/ft
. = 0.9 6 lbs
. 2 X singl e = 1.9 2 lbs
. 1 5 ft
. X 0.1 6 lb/ft
. =1. 8 lb s 2 X singl e =3. 6 lb s Improve d Evaporativ e System Fue l Tan

k Vapo r Ven t Lin e Clas s lib : Singl e Tank 1/2 "

Dua l Tank s Clas s VI : Singl e Tank 1/2" :

Dua l Tank s : 8 ft
. X 0.1 6 lb/ft
. = 1.2 8 lbs , 2 X singl e =2.5 6 lbs , 1 5 ft
. X 0.1 6 lb/ft
. = 2.4 0 lb s 2 X singl e =4.8 0 lb s

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 ) 0.3 2 lb s 0.6 4 lb s 0.4 0 lb s 0. 6 lbs
. 1. 2 lbs
. 0. 7 lbs
.-40

- P.4 1

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 correspondin g effec t o n fue l econom ycan 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 LD

T lib V I Caniste r (Carbon , Body ) Vapo r Line s Valv e Tota l Weigh t (lbs ) Weight : 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 ) 1. 2 lb s 0. 2 0. 4 1. 8

2. 0 3,08 2 0.064 %

-0.32 9

-0.021 %

24.6 1 100,00 0 2. 2 lb s

0. 2 0. 5 2. 9

3. 2 3,83 2 0.083 %

-0.40 2

-0.033 %

18.4 3 120,00 0 0. 9 lb s

0. 4 0. 5 1. 8

2. 0 9,25 0 0.021 %

-0.40 2

-0.009 %

11.1 6 110,00 0 3. 9 lb s

0. 7 0. 5 5. 1

5. 6 22,50 0 0.025 %

-0.40 2

-0.010 %

6.0 7 110,00 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 HDGV s (weighted ) = 18,12 2

1. 8 l. l 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 h i s th e sam e 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 fo r LDVs , $1.1 6 fo r LDTs , an d $0.6 0 fo r HDGVs
.P.4 2

-41 - (i|i ) Fue l Recover y Credi t Th e fue l recover y credit s ( $ pe r vehicl e lifetime ) ar e base donth e emissio nfacto r reduction s (grams H C pe r mile ) resultin g fro

m improve devaporativ e contro l systems . Thes e emissio nfacto r reductions , show ni nTabl e 13 , wer e take nfro m a recen t EP A

analysis.[5 ] I t wa s assume dtha t 8 0 percen t o f curren t running los s emission s woul db e controlle db y th 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 db

y thei r expecte d lifetim e mileage s discounte da t a rat e o f 1 0 percen t (6542 0 fo r LDVs , 8093 2 for LDT s an d7171 5 for HDVs ) t o yiel d tota l discounte dlifetime emissio n reductions . Thes e emissio nreduction s (assume dt o b e al l butane ) wer e the nvalue d a t $290.3 2 pe r to nbase donwor k performe d i nth e origina l volatilit y contro l proposal . (Thi s assume s a cos t pe r gallo no f gasolin e of $0.8 2 an da combustio n efficienc y

o f th e hydrocarbo nvapo r equivalen t t o tha t o f liqui d fuel ; i.e. , a nevaporativ e recovery facto r o f 1.0. ) Th e fue l recover y

credit s ona vehicl e lifetim e basi s ar e then : Vehicl e Typ e 9 RVP Fue l 11. 5 RV P Fue l LD V $12.3 1 $42.8 3 LD T $20.6 7 $63.3 5 HD V $38.7 4 $96.0 7 Th e decreas e inth e credi t wit h9 RV P fue l result s fro m th 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 y control . Thes e volatility-relate d emissio nreduction s ar e no t reflecte dinthe calculation s above . Th e ne t recovery credi t for the improve devaporativ e syste m o f eac hvehicl e typ e i s th e differenc e betwee nth e fue l recovery

credi t an

dth e weigh t penalt y for tha t system . Thes e value s ar e show

ni nTabl e IB . 3 . Onboar dSyste m Th e ne t recover y credit s use di nth e origina l onboar d proposa l wer e adjuste dt 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 size s an dfuel * economie s di dno t chang e i nth e reproposal , th e quantit y o f fue l recovere dwa s no t changed . However , th e simplifie dsyste m ha s fewe r component s tha nbefor e an deve nresult s i nth e remova l o f th e externa l ven t lin e for LDVs , LDT s an dClas s li b HDGVs . Th e caniste r i s onl y slightl y

large r tha nth e caniste r propose dfo r th e enhance devaporativ e system . Therefore , EP A consider s th e weigh t penalt y o f onboar dsystem s incrementa l t o improve d evaporativ e system s t o b e essentiall y zero . I nfact , ther e coul d b e a sligh t weigh t decrease .P.4 3

-42 -
Tabl e 1 3
Emissio nFactor Reduction s Resultin g Fro m Improve

dEvaporativ

e Controls[5 ]

9 RV P Fue l LD V LD T HD

V Hig hTemperature Diurna l Evaporativ

e Emission s (g/mi ) 0.3 4 0.5 5 1.4 4 Runnin g Losse s (g/mi ) 0.24 8 0.24 8 0.24 8 Tota l Emissio

nFacto r (g/mi ) 0.58 8 0.78 9 1.68 8 Discounte

dLifetim

e Emission s (kg ) 38. 5 64. 6 121. 0 11. 5 RV P Fue l LD V LD T HD

V Hig hTemperature Diurna l Evaporativ

e Emission s (g/mi ) 0.6 7 1.0 7 2.8 1 Runnin g Losse s (g/mi ) 1.37 6 1.37 6 1.37 6 Tota l Emissio

nFactor (g/mi ) 2.04 6 2.44 6 4.18 6 Discounte

dLifetim

e Emissio n(kg ) 133. 0 198. 0 300. 2P.4 4

-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 recover ycredit

. Th e fue l cos t wa s adjuste d fro

m$0.98/ga l t o $0.82/ga l i n orde r t o b e consisten t wit h th e valu e use d i n th e origina l volatilit yproposal
. Th e discoun t factor s an d yearl yfue l recover yfraction 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 recover ycredit s fo r 9. 0 ps i RVP fue l ar e show n i n Tabl e 14 , along wit h th 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.4 5

-44

-
Tabl e 1 4 Fue l RecoveryCredit s fo r Onboar d Systems *

9. 0 ps i RV

P 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 les 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

.-45

-

Summary
i 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 necessaryt o reflec t ne wrequirements , change s i n desig n concept s an

d improve d modeling

. Component s an d othe r cos t area s no t affecte d wer e onl yadjuste d fo r inflatio n s o tha t al l values , ar e i n 198 8 dollars
. Th e resulting 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 an d revise d onboar d system s i s presente d i n th e following paragraphs
. Thes e system cost s wer e show

n i n Table s 1

Athrough ID
. Th e estimate d ne t cost s fo r exces s evaporativ e system s incrementa l t o curren t evaporativ e system s whe n 9. 0 RVP 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 respectively

. Thes e cost s ar e entirel ydu e t o vehicl e cos t increase s sinc e ther e i s n o incrementa l weigh t penalt yan d th e fue l recover

ycredi t can no t b e include d i n thi s analysi s fo r reason s alread

yexplained

. However , thi s i s conservativ e sinc e some o f the recover ycredi t i s attributabl e t o vehicl e charges

- Th e sale s weighte d ne t incrementa l cos t fo r exces s evaporativ e system s i s $1.6 0 i n RPE
. 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 , an d HDGVs , respectively , fo r 9. 0 ps i RVP certificatio n fuel
. I f th e ne t recover ycredit s ar e included , th e improve d evaporativ e system s shoul d resul t i n a ne t incrementa l saving s o f $2.15 , $6.1 0 an d $26.9 0 fo r LDVs , LDT s an d HDGV s respectively

. Th e ne t saving s weighte d b yvehicl e clas s i s $3.70

. 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 , an d HDGV s respectivel y(fo r 9. 0 ps i RV P certificatio n fuel)
. I f th e ne t recoverycredit s ar e included , th e onboar d system s shoul d resul t i n a 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 an d $7.4 0 fo r LDVs , LDTs , an d 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 refueling an d evaporativ e systemchange s (bot h exces 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 recoverycredit 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 n th e thre e vehicl e classes
. Th e sale s weighte d ne t incrementa l saving s i s $6.00

.P.4 7

-46 -

Reference s

1 . Draf t Regulator y Impac t Analysis , "Contro l o f Gasolin e Volatilit y an d Evaporativ e Hydrocarbo nEmission s fro m Ne w Moto r Vehicles, " U.S . EPA , Offic e o f Ai r an dRadiation , Offic e o f Mobil e Sources , Jul y 1987 . Publi c Docke t A-85-22 , III-B-i . 2 . "Evaluatio no f Ai r Pollutio nRegulator y Strategie s for Gasolin e Marketin g Industry - Respons e t o Publi c Comments, " U.S . EPA , Offic e o f Ai r andRadiation , Offic e o f Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an

d Standards , an dOffic e o f Mobil e Sources , (EPA450/3-84-012C) , Jul y 1987 . 3 . Draf t Regulator y Impac t Analysis , Propose dRefuelin g Emissio nRegulation s for Gasolin e - Fuele dVehicle s — Volum e I I - Additiona l Analysi s o f Onboar dControl s (EPA-450/3-87-001b) , U.S . EPA , Offic e o f Ai r an dRadiation , Offic e o f Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an

dStandards , an

dOffic e o f Mobil e Sources , Jul y 1987 . 4 . "P T Mode l Descriptio nan dUser s Guide, " Davi dB . Bartus , U.S . EPA , SDSB , Augus t 10 , 1988 . 5 . "Effec t o f Runnin g Losse s an dExces s Evaporativ e Emission s o nFutur e VO C Emissio nInventories, " Memorandu m fro m Richar dRykowski , EPA/OMS/ECTD/SDSB , t o th e Record , Decembe r 22 , 1988 .