Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle Engines; Refueling Emission Regulations for Light-Duty Vehicles and Light-Duty Trucks; Final Rule ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 86, 88, and 600 [AMS-FRL-4831-6] RIN 2060-AC64
Federal RegisterApr 6, 1994
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
SUMMARY: This document contains EPA's final rule implementing the
control of vehicle refueling emissions through the use of vehicle-based
systems. It applies to light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks. The
rule applies to all fuels used by a vehicle, and includes special
provisions for vehicles/fuels judged to be inherently low in refueling
emissions. For light-duty vehicles, the requirements begin in the 1998
model year, and phase in over three model years. In the 1998 model
year, 40 percent of each manufacturer's light-duty vehicles must meet
the requirements. This increases to 80 percent in the 1999 model year
and rises to 100 percent in model years 2000 and later. A special
provision for phase-in is also included for small volume manufacturers
of light-duty vehicles.
This requirement also applies to light-duty trucks. For light-duty
trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 0-6000 lbs, the
requirement begins in model year 2001 and phases-in over three model
years at the same rate as applied to light-duty vehicles. For light-
duty trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 6001-8500 lbs, the
requirement commences in model year 2004 and phases-in over three model
years at the same rate as light-duty vehicles. The rule does not apply
to heavy-duty vehicles.
This rule also establishes certification requirements covering test
procedures for integrated and non-integrated control system designs, a
refueling emission standard of 0.20 g/gallon and other related
certification requirements and provisions. Finally, the rule contains
enforcement provisions related to liability, Selective Enforcement
Auditing and nonconformance penalties.
EFFECTIVE DATES: This final rule is effective on May 6, 1994.
The new information collection requirements contained in 40 CFR
parts 86 and 88 applying to 1998 and later model year vehicles have not
been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and are not
effective until OMB has approved them. EPA will publish a technical
amendment in the Federal Register once the information collection
requirements are approved.
ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this final rule are contained in
Public Docket No. A-87-11, located in the Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street SW., Washington, DC, 20460 and is available for public review in
room M-1500. Relevant materials may also be found in Public Docket No.
A-84-07, established in support of EPA's assessment of air pollution
regulatory strategies for the gasoline marketing industry. The dockets
may be inspected from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, except
for government holidays. Under 40 CFR part 2, a reasonable fee may be
charged by EPA for copying docket materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James G. Bryson, U.S. EPA (RDSD-12),
Special Regulatory Projects Branch, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI
48105, Telephone: (313) 741-7828.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Description of the Rule
A. Applicability
1. Application of the Refueling Emission Standard to LDVs
2. Extension of the ORVR Requirement to LDTs
3. Heavy Duty Vehicles
4. Applicability to California Vehicles
5. Fuels Covered
B. Implementation
1. Leadtime, Effective Model Year and Phase-in Requirements
2. Small Volume Manufacturers
3. Inclusion of Inherently Low Refueling Emission Vehicles
C. Refueling Emission Test Procedures and Standard
1. Refueling Emissions Test
2. Integrated System Preconditioning
3. Non-Integrated System Preconditioning
4. Seal Test
5. Cap Removal Emissions
6. Spitback Test
7. Nozzle Geometry Standards
8. Level of the Standard
D. Safety of ORVR Systems
1. Background
2. Test Procedure/Safety
3. DOT Consultation
4. EPA Assessment
5. Safety Reviews
6. Alternative Control Technologies
E. Certification Provisions
1. General
2. Fees
3. Fuel Economy
F. Onboard Diagnostics Requirements
G. Enforcement and In-Use Performance
1. Liability Periods
2. Selective Enforcement Audit Testing
3. Nonconformance Penalties (NCPs)
4. In-Use Performance
III. Public Participation
IV. Regulatory Impact Analysis
A. Environmental Impact
B. Costs of Control
C. Cost Effectiveness
D. Other Benefits
E. Benefit-Cost Ratio
V. Consultation with DOT
VI. Judicial Review
VII. Statutory Authority
VIII. Executive Order 12866
IX. Compliance With the Regulatory Flexibility Act
X. Information Collection Requirements
List of Key Acronyms
AA Attainment Area
AAMA American Automobile Manufacturers Association
AIAM Association of International Automobile Manufacturers
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAA CAA Amendments
DoT Department of Transportation
FMVSS Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
GVWR Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
HDV Heavy-Duty Vehicle
LDV Light-Duty Vehicle
LDT Light-Duty Truck
LLDT Light LDT
HLDT Heavy LDT
NAA Non-Attainment Area
NCP Nonconformance Penalty
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NPV Net Present Value
ORVR Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RPE Retail Price Equivalent
RVP Reid Vapor Pressure
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
I. Background
On August 19, 1987, EPA published in the Federal Register a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the control of vehicle refueling
emissions (52 FR 31162). The proposal described the need for these
controls as well as the conclusions of an EPA study of gasoline
marketing emissions comparing the relative merits of the two available
control technologies: Systems incorporated into the gasoline dispensing
pump system design (known as Stage II vapor recovery) and systems
incorporated into the design of the vehicle (known as onboard refueling
vapor recovery (ORVR)) (see Public Docket A-84-07). Based on this
study, along with EPA's analysis and response to public comments
published in documents separate from the NPRM (Evaluation of Air
Pollution Regulatory Strategies for Gasoline Marketing Industry--
Response to Public Comments (II-A-20), Draft Regulatory Impact
Analysis: Proposed Refueling Emission Regulations for Gasoline-Fueled
Motor Vehicles, Vols. I and II) (II-A-18, 19), and technical support
documents related to ORVR test procedure (II-A-08) and ORVR vehicle
safety (II-A-17), EPA proposed to require refueling emission control
through ORVR systems. The above mentioned studies are available in
public docket A-87-11. All future references of this nature can be
found at the cited location in public docket A-87-11 unless otherwise
indicated.
Subsequent to the publication of the NPRM, EPA held a public
hearing in October 1987, followed by an extensive public comment period
which closed in February 1988. Comments were analyzed by EPA and key
issues were assessed. As a result, EPA determined that the final
rulemaking should be delayed pending the resolution of safety concerns
expressed by both the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) (part of the Department of Transportation (DoT)) and a number
of the commenters. The final rule was further delayed when it became
evident that Congress would address issues concerning refueling
controls in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA).
The 1990 Amendments revised section 202(a)(6) of the CAA to read as
follows:
Within 1 year after the date of the enactment of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990, the Administrator shall, after consultation
with the Secretary of Transportation regarding the safety of
vehicle-based (`onboard') systems for the control of vehicle
refueling emissions, promulgate standards under this section
requiring that new light-duty vehicles manufactured beginning in the
fourth model year after the model year in which the standards are
promulgated and thereafter shall be equipped with such systems.
Subsequent to the enactment of the CAAA, EPA continued its
consultation with DOT/NHTSA related to the potential safety concerns
regarding the implementation of vehicle-based refueling emission
controls. In July 1991, NHTSA completed an updated safety study
entitled ``An Assessment of the Safety on Onboard Refueling Vapor
Recovery Systems''. On September 3, 1991, EPA published an additional
Federal Register notice (56 FR 43682) releasing the NHTSA report for
public review and seeking further comment on key issues involved with
ORVR controls, most notably on circumstances that had changed since the
publication of the NPRM. The notice also described and sought comment
on a document entitled ``Summary of Changed Circumstances'', which
discussed statutory changes, technology development, and potential
modifications to the refueling test procedure.
EPA held a public hearing on September 26 and 27, 1991, and public
comments were received for 30 days thereafter. After reviewing these
comments, EPA continued its consultation with NHTSA. Based on the
outcome of the consultation, EPA determined that ORVR controls should
not be required at that time. The Agency took this step because it
concluded, after consultation with NHTSA and after considering the
conclusions of NHTSA's safety study, that ORVR controls posed
``unreasonable'' safety risks relative to Stage II systems. A Federal
Register notice detailing the decision and the supporting rationale was
published on April 15, 1992 (57 FR 13220).
EPA's action was challenged by representatives of the petroleum
refining, gasoline marketing, environmental and consumer auto safety
communities. They argued that section 202(a)(6) of the CAA created a
non-discretionary duty to promulgate ORVR standards for LDVs. The court
agreed, holding that EPA had no choice but to promulgate such
standards, and that the entire safety analysis in the April 15, 1992
notice was flawed because of the comparison with Stage II technology, a
comparison not allowed by the text of the statute. NRDC v. EPA, 983 F.
2d 259, 261, 269-71 (D.C. Cir. 1993). The court stated further, in
dicta, that the record did not establish that all ORVR systems present
inherent and unreasonable safety risks. Id. at 261, 270. The court set
aside the April 15, 1992 Agency action, and ordered EPA to promulgate
regulations requiring vehicle-based refueling controls on LDVs in
accordance with the CAA.
The petitioners further moved the court for an order requiring EPA
to issue ORVR requirements by a particular date. Before the court
ruled, EPA and the petitioners entered into a settlement agreement
whereby the Agency agreed to promulgate such rules by January 22, 1994
(58 FR 33813, June 21, 1993).
Subsequent to the court's decision, EPA published two Federal
Register notices (May 27, 1993, 58 FR 30731 and June 17, 1993, 58 FR
33418) seeking public comment on the key issues that had changed since
the last public comment period. EPA also held a public hearing on these
issues on July 22, 1993, and solicited comments for 30 days thereafter.
EPA has analyzed these additional comments, and has revised its
proposed regulations accordingly. To support this rule, two key
documents, a Final Regulatory Impact Analysis and a Summary and
Analysis of Comments have been completed and are available for review
in the public docket.
The remainder of the document is divided into sections. Section II
describes the various aspects of the rule as listed in the Table of
Contents above, and provides rationale for the approaches being
implemented. Section III describes the long and extended public
participation in the rulemaking process and previous study. Section IV
summarizes the Regulatory Impact Analysis. Finally, sections V through
X describe various aspects of the rule with regard to compliance with
various administrative requirements such as the Regulatory Flexibility
Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act.
II. Description of the Rule
A. Applicability
1. Application of the Refueling Emission Standard to LDVs
Section 202(a)(6) of the Act mandates that EPA promulgate
requirements for new light-duty vehicles (LDVs) to be equipped with
ORVR systems. In the August 1987 NPRM, EPA proposed that ORVR
requirements apply to LDVs and, in this rule, is finalizing that LDV
portion of the original NPRM, consistent with the statutory
requirements. The model year, phase-in, certification and other
requirements for LDVs are discussed in sections B through F, below.
2. Extension of the ORVR Requirement to LDTs
Under the authority provided in Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air
Act (CAA), EPA is applying the ORVR requirement to light-duty trucks
(LDTs). EPA is finalizing portions of that proposal in today's rules.
Each manufacturer's LDTs will have to meet the refueling emission
requirements under the phase-in schedule and compliance program for
trucks described in the Implementation section below.
In reaching this decision, EPA has conducted a detailed analysis of
the need for and desirability of extending the requirement beyond the
LDV class. The analysis is detailed in the supporting Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA) available in the public docket. The key points are
summarized below.
First, the rule affects pollutants which ``cause or contribute to
air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health or welfare'' (Section 202(a)(1)). Hydrocarbons, as ozone
precursors, have long been an essential object of emission control
strategies (both vehicles and non-vehicles). Ambient ozone is an
irritant that adversely affects pulmonary membranes, lung tissues, and
lung functions, and is also associated with adverse ecological effects.
Refueling emissions also contain benzene, a Group A human carcinogen.
The gasoline vapors themselves also adversely affect public health and
welfare.
Second, and perhaps most compelling, is the large amount of
refueling emissions which arise from these LDTs. In 1990, trucks
represented about 33 percent of the gasoline used by highway motor
vehicles. Using American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA)
figures, retail truck sales have increased at a compound annual rate of
4-5 percent over the past ten years, and this growth is projected to
continue well into the next century. This increase in sales and market
fraction has led to an increase in the gasoline used by trucks. The
fraction of gasoline used by LDTs is projected to increase to 37
percent by 2000 and continue at that level or higher in the future.
Thus, the percentage of the refueling emissions inventory attributable
to LDTs is large and is expected to increase in the future.
Another way to look at the magnitude of the emissions from LDTs is
the equivalent gram per mile (g/mi) emission rate attributable to their
uncontrolled refueling emissions. As shown in the RIA, taking into
account Phase II RVP control and the RVP effects of reformulated
gasoline, the nationwide uncontrolled refueling emission rate during
the ozone season for LDTs is about 0.22 g/mi. These are large emission
rates in contrast to those controlled by other strategies being
implemented under the 1990 CAAA and being considered by the states in
their State Implementation Plans. A good example is the Clean-Fuel
Fleet requirements under section 246 of the CAA and the Low Emission
Vehicle program being implemented in California and perhaps in other
states. In these cases the equivalent emission reductions are in the
range of 0.12 to 0.18 g/mile.
Third, EPA believes that ORVR controls are technologically feasible
for LDTs. Reports and other materials submitted to the docket over the
past several years as well as comments by the regulated industry
indicate that prototype ORVR systems have been installed on a number of
passenger cars and light trucks (IV-A-06, IV-D-682, 680, 682, 685, 688,
864, 701, 712, 718, 719, 720, 721, IV-E-50, 73). As is now the case
with evaporative control systems, we anticipate that the control
technology used for LDT ORVR systems will be very similar to that
applied to LDVs. Although there are some differences between LDV and
LDT fuel systems (e.g., tank size in some larger LDTs), the general
fuel system concepts, designs, and configurations are very similar. In
addition, vehicles in both classes must meet the recently promulgated
enhanced evaporative emission control requirements beginning in the
1996 model year. As with LDVs, EPA anticipates that the same
evaporative emission control technology can be applied to control
refueling emissions in LDTs. To ensure that the enhanced evaporative
control system canister and purge system can be applied to ORVR
controls, EPA is applying the same refueling emission test procedure
approach to LDTs as is being applied to LDVs. The only significant
design difference will be the need for some form of a fillneck seal.
However, with the anticipated liquid seal approach this requires at
most a minor fillneck modification and does not involve new hardware.
While there are vehicle-to-vehicle differences in fuel system
designs, these affect both the evaporative and refueling emission rates
for a given vehicle/fuel system design. To EPA's knowledge there is
nothing unique about the design or function of LDT fuel systems
relative to LDVs which would suggest that the test procedure approach
being applied to LDVs would not be equally effective for LDTs in
accomplishing the goal of allowing the widespread use of integrated
enhanced evaporative/refueling emission control systems. Although
uncertainty has been expressed, no commenter provided data or even a
substantiated argument to support the view that the test procedure
modifications would not be equally effective in facilitating LDT use of
integrated enhanced evaporative/refueling control systems. In fact,
testing conducted by the Coordinating Research Council (CRC-APRAC
Project VE-6) (IV-D-565) and EPA (II-A-06) indicate no significant
difference between LDV and LDT uncontrolled refueling emission rates.
As is the case for LDVs, the refueling test procedure approach
described above should allow the widespread use of integrated
refueling/evaporative control systems for LDTs. Thus, since there is no
problem with applying enhanced evaporative control systems to LDTs,
there should be no problem with integrated evaporative/ refueling
control systems.
The benefits of applying the ORVR requirements to LDTs exceed the
costs of the requirement. Since EPA believes, and the manufacturers'
comments indicate, that most vehicles will use an integrated
evaporative/refueling control system, the incremental costs of LDT ORVR
controls are relatively small. As detailed in the RIA, EPA's cost is
comprised of added hardware (mostly an improved vent/rollover valve and
larger diameter vapor line) and short term development costs (for
emissions and safety certification, facility modification hardware/
tooling modifications, and systems engineering) minus the fuel recovery
credit. The size of the fuel recovery credit depends on the amount of
vapor captured. This in turn depends on the fuel used, the emissions
rate (g/gal), and the presence or absence of Stage II vapor recovery.
Taking all of these factors into account, and assuming Stage II
controls in most of the ozone NAAs, the cost estimate for LDTs/HDVs are
shown below in Table 1.
Table 1.--Estimated Per-Vehicle Costs of ORVR Systems in LDTs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hardware ($/ Develop ($/ Operating cost Short term net Long term net
Vehicle group vehicle) vehicle) (NPV) cost cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDT.............. $4.79 $2.65 -$3.70 $3.74 $1.09
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For vehicles operating in nonattainment areas (NAAs), the recovery
credits are smaller and the short and long term net costs increase by
about $3 per vehicle over those in the table above.
As was discussed above, LDTs represent over 33 percent of the
nation's gasoline consumption. With the test procedure and control
system approach mentioned above, EPA expects that the in-use control
efficiency of LDT ORVR systems will exceed 95 percent. Incremental to
Stage II controls, LDT ORVR controls would provide a nationwide average
annual emission reduction of 115,000 tons between 1998 and 2020.
Reductions in NAAs with Stage II controls are large as well. With no
Stage II phase-out, the average annual emission reduction in the NAAs
is 31,000 tons. If Stage II is phased out when ORVR is in widespread
use (2010), the average annual emission reduction in the NAAs
attributable to LDT controls increases to 68,000 tons. These
incremental reductions in NAAs are large relative to the other control
options available.
As is discussed below, reductions in refueling emissions have value
in all areas of the country. However, the main focus of the ORVR
requirement is to provide ozone NAAs additional reductions to assist
them in complying or maintaining compliance with the ozone standard.
Thus, the important areas to consider are those which are not now in
compliance with the ozone standard. At present there are 54 marginal or
worse ozone NA areas, which represent about 54.9 percent of the
nationwide highway gasoline consumption. Of these 54 areas, about 43
now have, or are expected to have, Stage II vapor recovery systems in
place. Since ORVR controls are required on all LDVs, and Stage II vapor
recovery is (or will be) in place in most moderate or worse ozone NAAs,
the key comparison to be made is (1) retaining Stage II controls in the
moderate or worse ozone NAAs solely for the purpose of controlling LDT/
HDV refueling emissions, versus (2) requiring ORVR controls for LDTs
and possibly HDVs, assuming the Stage II control that is or will be in
place. This comparison provides a worst case perspective on the LDT/HDV
cost effectiveness, since benefits outside NAAs are ignored and planned
Stage II is assumed to continue after the ORVR requirement is
promulgated.
As is described in the RIA, EPA has conducted the analysis for both
the Stage II retention and ORVR options. The cost effectiveness of
retaining Stage II solely for the purpose of controlling LDT/HDV
refueling emissions is about $3400 per ton. The cost effectiveness of
the LDT ORVR controls incremental to the Stage II now in place is about
$200 per ton if Stage II is phased out when ORVR control is in
widespread use (2010) and only about $700 per ton if Stage II is never
phased out. Under either scenario the cost effectiveness of the ORVR
option is attractive. Thus, even with the Stage II controls, it is more
cost effective to require ORVR controls on LDTs than to retain Stage II
solely for controlling LDT/HDV refueling emissions.
In addition to the VOC emission reduction benefits cited above, LDT
ORVR controls have other benefits. These benefits have not been
considered in the calculations above, but would further enhance the
attractiveness of LDT ORVR. LDT ORVR controls would result in an
average annual fuel savings equivalent to about 31 million gallons of
gasoline per year between the period 1998 and 2020 assuming no Stage II
phase-out, and about 43 million gallons per year if Stage II is phased
out. In addition, there will be health benefits as a result of
reductions in air toxic emissions. Best estimates are the avoidance of
2-3 cancer incidences per year as a result of lower refueling benzene
emissions. Additional cancer avoidances are possible depending on the
assumption regarding the toxicological impact of the remainder of the
constituents of the gasoline vapor. Reductions in potential non-cancer
health effects and welfare benefits such as reduced crop and material
damage due to ozone would occur as well.
In summary, EPA has decided to implement ORVR controls for LDTs for
several reasons: Their contribution to the VOC inventory is significant
and there is a need for additional VOC reductions to address air
quality concerns, the control is technologically feasible and
inexpensive, there are additional valuable benefits, and, as discussed
in the RIA, the cost effectiveness is very attractive, especially when
compared to other programs being implemented and under consideration.
The analysis shows that the cost effectiveness of implementing ORVR
controls for LDTs is superior to retaining Stage II controls for the
same purpose. The overall benefit to cost ratio for LDT ORVR is about
1.5. If the application of ORVR controls to LDVs and LDTs allows
phaseout of Stage II controls in the future, the cost savings
attributable to Stage II operations/ maintenance which would no longer
occur would make the average annual costs of ORVR controls negative (an
average annual savings of over $40 million). Based on the cost
effectiveness analysis and benefit-cost ratio, one could also justify
implementing LDT ORVR controls incremental to Stage II controls.
However, the long-term retention of Stage II would seem problematic
since it would be needed only for heavy-duty vehicles.
3. Heavy Duty Vehicles
In the NPRM, EPA proposed to require ORVR controls for all HDVs.
However, as discussed below, this requirement is not being finalized in
this rulemaking.
Information available to EPA indicates that an HDV ORVR system
would be conceptually similar to those applied LDVs and LDTs and the
initial costs should be relatively small. However, motor vehicle
manufacturers have argued that the design and production of ORVR
systems for HDVs would be considerably more difficult than for LDVs and
LDTs. Commenters have maintained that the technological step from
light-duty technology is greatest with regard to HDVs which have the
largest fuel tanks and different fuel/vapor system component designs
and configurations than many smaller LDTs. Comments regarding
incomplete HDVs expressed concern that secondary manufacturers would
improperly modify or incorrectly complete the vehicle fuel system
(which is usually not fully installed for incomplete HDVs) and perhaps
affect the proper function of the manufacturer-provided ORVR system.
Concern was also expressed that secondary manufacturers might not have
the expertise to correctly install the ORVR systems in all cases. In
each case the primary manufacturer may have legal liability for
potential problems. It is also worth noting that many HDVs are also
produced by the primary manufacturer as an incomplete HDVs, perhaps
compounding the concern.
EPA recognizes the manufacturers' strong concerns about ORVR
implementation issues that are unique to HDVs, and agrees that in many
cases the application of ORVR controls to HDVs would be more difficult
than for LDTs. Oftentimes the fuel and vapor control systems are
differently configured than those on LDTs and the fuel tanks are larger
and of different design. The large number of commercial applications
for HDVs leads to a larger number of unique body/chassis designs (e.g.,
12 passenger vans, crew cabs, long bed pick-ups, dual wheel axle
trucks) and thus a larger number of different fuel system
configurations. Another significant difference is that the engine in
the HDV would be certified separate from the ORVR system and thus there
are additional challenges in matching the canister purge provided by
the engine with the needs of each ORVR system. The manufacturers'
comments discussed above lay out the special concerns for incomplete
HDVs, including potential legal liabilities for the primary
manufacturer. Finally, it should be noted that unlike LDVs and LDTs EPA
is not aware of any prototype ORVR-equipped HDVs.
Given these concerns, the effort needed to implement LDV and LDT
ORVR systems, the relatively small number of gasoline-fueled HDVs, and
the fact that the application of ORVR standards to HDVs is
discretionary, EPA is not finalizing the portion of the NPRM which
applies to HDVs.
Even without implementing HDV ORVR requirements at this time, the
ORVR program still provides significant benefits. When viewed as a
percentage of sales, ORVR still applies to 91 percent of all gasoline-
fueled trucks and 97 percent of all gasoline-fueled vehicles.
Similarly, control is still achieved over 86 percent of all gasoline-
fueled truck refueling emissions and 94 percent of all gasoline vehicle
refueling emissions. Thus, EPA's final decision that ORVR requirements
are not required for these vehicles does not significantly reduce the
effectiveness of the ORVR program.
4. Applicability to California Vehicles
As discussed further in the summary and analysis of comments,
today's final rule implements a federal standard applicable to all
vehicles sold in the United States. Based on the language in section
202(a)(6) of the Act, EPA considers refueling emissions control to be
an evaporative standard. Although California has motor vehicle
standards in place for model year 1998 and beyond, including
evaporative emission standards, to date EPA has issued no section
209(b) waivers which consider a federal ORVR refueling program when
evaluating the protectiveness, in the aggregate, of those standards.
However, EPA interprets section 209(b)(3) to provide that once a
section 209(b) waiver is granted, compliance with the state program is
deemed compliance with the federal program standards. (See 42 FR 3193,
January 17, 1977). To the extent that a new federal standard is
established subsequent to a waiver, such standard will be considered in
a waiver reconsideration or future waiver request consideration. EPA is
making no finding at this time how stringency, in the ORVR context, may
be considered in a waiver proceeding, should one occur. (It should be
noted that EPA in this notice is restating its consistent
interpretation for the convenience of rulemaking participants, and does
not intend to reopen for reconsideration the issue of the effect of
existing section 209(b) waivers on post-waiver regulations.)
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) staff has held one
workshop to discuss the proper application of refueling control
(November 2, 1993). CARB is considering three courses of action:
adopting the federal ORVR rule, adopting a California-specific ORVR
rule, test, or standard, or maintaining that California's current motor
vehicle program, taken in the aggregate, is at least as stringent as
the federal program notwithstanding the lack of ORVR controls. If
California submits a waiver request for its evaporative emission
control program applicable to model year 1998 or thereafter, which does
not include federal ORVR requirements, EPA will decide at that time
whether California's motor vehicle program is at least as protective as
the federal program.
5. Fuels Covered
In the September 1991 and May 1993 notices, EPA specifically
solicited comments on applying the ORVR requirements to highway motor
vehicles powered by fuels other than gasoline. Consistent with EPA
policy on fuel neutrality and establishing a consistent set of
requirements for all fuels, today's rule requires that LDVs and LDTs
operating on any fuels be capable of meeting the refueling emission
standard described below. It applies to vehicles certified under both
40 CFR part 86 and 40 CFR part 88. Although many commenters stated that
the refueling standard should not apply to vehicles operating on diesel
fuels, the section 202(a)(6) requirement by its terms applies to all
LDVs regardless of the type of fuel used. (In contrast, section 202(k)
requires evaporative emission controls only for ``gasoline-fueled motor
vehicles''.) However, EPA has attempted to tailor the refueling
emission certification requirements to the fuel used.
Manufacturers of vehicles capable of operating on gasoline,
alcohol, or gasoline/alcohol blends must show that these vehicles
comply when refueled with such fuels through testing as described later
in this preamble. This requirement applies to dedicated neat alcohol
fuel vehicles and vehicles using alcohol blends. Bi-fuel or dual-fuel
vehicles must meet the requirements on both fuels. Flexible-fueled
vehicles must meet the requirements on all fuel combinations. At the
present time the only alcohol fuel affected is methanol.
However, a waiver of emission testing requirements is available for
those vehicles/fuels which are considered to be inherently low in
refueling emissions. EPA believes that a general engineering evaluation
approach is acceptable for diesel vehicles and diesel fuels for several
reasons. Diesel fuel today has a Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of less than
one pound per square inch (psi) (7 kPa) and diesel engines today do not
raise the temperature of fuel in their tanks substantially more than do
gasoline engines (less than 130 deg.F under most conditions). For
these reasons, the vapor space over the fuel in diesel tanks has a very
low concentration of fuel vapor compared to that in gasoline tanks and
thus displacement refueling emissions are low. EPA thus expects diesel
fuel vehicles to meet the refueling emission standard without a control
system.
Under this approach, the vehicle manufacturer's certification
application must include a statement that there is nothing about the
vehicle, its fuel system, or fuel that is counter to EPA's assessment
as discussed above, and the manufacturer's certification that the
vehicle meets the refueling emission standard (even without a control
system).
EPA retains the opportunity to test vehicles to ensure that they
comply with the emission standard during certification confirmatory
testing, Selective Enforcement Audits, and in-use testing. EPA also
retains the right to retract the engineering evaluation option for
diesel vehicles if the RVP of in-use diesel fuel increases or is
expected to increase beyond 1 psi (7 kPa) or a significant increase in
fuel tank temperatures is expected.
Since exhaust and evaporative emission requirements now exist for
all new methanol-fueled (neat and blend) vehicles, these shall be
required to comply with the ORVR standards under the same phase-in
schedule as gasoline-fueled vehicles. EPA expects that these vehicles
will use a technology similar to that used to comply with the
evaporative emission requirement.
The refueling control requirement will be applied to other
dedicated, dual-fuel, bi-fuel, and flexible-fuel vehicles using other
fuels (e.g., dedicated and hybrid electric vehicles, ethanol and
ethanol blends, compressed and liquid natural gas, liquified petroleum
gas) as regulations covering these fuels are implemented in the future.
Lead time, safety, and other factors will be considered in the course
of these actions. Full testing and engineering evaluation certification
options will be considered.
B. Implementation
1. Leadtime, Effective Model Year and Phase-in Requirements
Section 202(a)(6) of the Act specifies a four model year lead time
before ORVR requirements are to become effective for LDVs (``vehicles
manufactured beginning in the fourth model year after the model year in
which the standards are promulgated''). After this four-year lead time,
a three-year phase-in period begins, during which 40 percent, 80
percent, and 100 percent, respectively, of each manufacturer's sales of
new LDVs will need to meet the ORVR requirements. Today's action is
occurring early in the 1994 model year. Thus, ORVR requirements for
LDVs will become effective with the 1998 model year. At least 40
percent of each manufacturer's LDV sales will need to meet ORVR
requirements in model year 1998, 80 percent for model year 1999, and
100 percent for model years 2000 and later.
Since the application of ORVR requirements to LDTs is under the
general authority in section 202(a)(1), the specific lead time and
phase-in requirements of section 202(a)(6) do not automatically apply.
Rather, the standard ``shall take effect after such period as the
Administrator finds necessary to permit the development and application
of the requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the
cost of compliance `` (Section 202(a)(2)).
As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, EPA believes that the
nature of ORVR technology for LDTs will be very similar to that for
LDVs and that the cost of controls, incremental to the cost of enhanced
evaporative emission controls, is minimal. EPA also does not believe
that ORVR controls for LDTs present different safety issues than
canisters on LDVs where there is now general consensus that there are
no unreasonable risks. We therefore believe that the lead time required
for developing these systems could be similar regardless of vehicle
class.
While several commenters requested a delay in the LDT ORVR
requirement, commenters did not indicate that it was not technically
feasible to develop ORVR controls for LDTs during this timeframe.
However, comments from the vehicle manufacturers did express a concern
that resource and facility constraints would make simultaneous
development of ORVR systems for LDVs and all trucks problematic. They
have also indicated that design, development and some in-use experience
with ORVR systems on passenger cars would be helpful in the design of
LDT systems.
EPA has concluded that the resource and facility concerns expressed
by the manufacturers and the desirability for in-use experience with
ORVR systems can be balanced against the need for emission reductions
by beginning the phase-in of ORVR requirements for LDTs after the
program for LDVs has been fully implemented. In the mid-to-late 1990's
gasoline-powered vehicle manufacturers will need to respond to new
evaporative emission requirements, cold CO exhaust emission standards,
and California and Clean Fuel Fleet exhaust emission standards among
others. Most of these requirements apply to all three vehicle classes
and entail several hundred vehicle/engine families. Under the statutory
requirement the manufacturers will need to comply with LDV ORVR
requirements in the same timeframe. And while complying with the
enhanced evaporative and ORVR requirements simultaneously using an
integrated control system reduces the burden relative to separate
approaches for LDTs, a delay for LDTs is not unreasonable given the
already existing requirements. This trade-off is also acceptable in the
short-term since Stage II refueling controls are or will be in place in
many ozone NAAs. However, for the reasons discussed above, EPA believes
that ORVR controls are the preferred long term approach for control of
refueling emissions from LDTs.
Therefore, the requirements promulgated today for LDTs will be
implemented in two stages. The first stage will cover LDTs with a GVWR
of 6,000 or less (LLDT), the second will cover LDTs with a GVWR of
6,001 to 8,500 lbs GVWR (HLDT). LLDTs represent about 70 percent of LDT
sales. HLDTs represent the remaining 30 percent. For LLDTs, the ORVR
requirement will begin implementation in the 2001 model year and will
phase in over three model years according to the same percentages as
LDVs. For HLDTs, the ORVR requirement will begin implementation in the
2004 model year and will phase in over three model years according to
the same percentages as LDVs (40/80/100). This schedule will permit the
development and application of cost-effective, economically achievable
technology, as required by section 202(a)(2) and will still allow
consideration of the Stage II phaseout provisions of section 202(a)(6)
of the CAA in the long term.
Provisions of 40 CFR 86.085-1(b) permit manufacturers to certify
HDVs with a GVWR of 8,501-10,000 lbs GVWR as LDTs. This option will
remain in effect for refueling controls. HDVs certified under this
option would be treated as HLDTs for purposes leadtime, phase-in and
sales compliance determination.
EPA does not view the provisions of section 202(a)(3) as applying
to refueling controls, as that provision was probably intended to apply
only to exhaust emission standards, as did its predecessor provision.
However, even if it did apply, this section would provide for at least
four years of leadtime. Since EPA is allowing this much leadtime for
HLDTs anyway, designating section 202(a)(2) or 202(a)(3) as authority
for HDV leadtime has no practical significance here.
2. Small Volume Manufacturers
Today's rule includes a short-term provision for small volume
light-duty vehicle manufacturers. Several small volume manufacturers
commented that, as a practical matter, they cannot phase in their
compliance due to their small size and limited product lines. Small
volume manufacturers also claimed that they sometimes rely on control
technology developed by larger manufacturers to develop their
compliance strategies, and this would not be possible if they must
comply at essentially the 100 percent of sales level before the larger
manufacturers. R&D cost concerns were cited as obstacles as well.
EPA believes that these comments state valid concerns. As is
described in three recent Federal Register notices, EPA has allowed
small volume manufacturers to delay compliance to the last model year
of the phase-in: in the Tier 1 exhaust emission standard rule (June 5,
1991, 56 FR 25724), the cold CO exhaust emissions rule (July 17, 1992,
57 FR 31888), and the enhanced evaporative emission standards rule
(March 24, 1993, 58 FR 16003), and has decided to allow the same
accommodation for the ORVR requirement for light-duty vehicles. This
provision is included, not only for the reasons raised by the
manufacturers, but also because it would be inconsistent to face ORVR
compliance before evaporative emission compliance when the comments
indicate that most manufacturers plan to use integrated refueling/
evaporative control systems and these are desirable for both cost and
safety reasons. In addition, requiring phased compliance for these
manufacturers effectively denies them the opportunity Congress intended
to phase in the control technology. (Cf. State of Ohio v. EPA, 997 F.
2d 1520, 1535 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (de minimis exception to seemingly
literal statutory language can be allowed where failure to allow the
exception frustrates a Congressional goal or leads to absurd results)).
Thus, small volume manufacturers of light-duty vehicles, as defined in
40 CFR part 86, may delay compliance to model year 2000 (i.e., the
third model year of the phase-in), but must comply with 100 percent of
sales in that and subsequent model years. Because of the additional
leadtime EPA is affording to LDTs, the Agency is not implementing this
small-volume manufacturer provision for these vehicles.
3. Inclusion of Inherently Low Refueling Emission Vehicles
As was discussed in the May 1993 notice, vehicles meeting the
refueling emission standard because they are inherently low in
refueling vapor emissions (those certified without a control system
using the engineering evaluation option), and thus are waived from
testing, cannot be counted in either the vehicles complying or base
sales figures in determining compliance with the sales requirements of
the statute. Compliance for these vehicles is to be calculated
separately.
C. Refueling Emission Test Procedures and Standard
This final rule includes test procedures for the measurement of
refueling emissions and a corresponding emissions standard by which to
judge the adequacy of ORVR control system designs. The test procedures
accommodate integrated system designs, which control both refueling and
evaporative emissions with a common vapor storage unit, as well as non-
integrated system designs, which do not share vapor storage units.
The test procedures for these two types of control systems,
although different in some ways (explained below), involve the same
basic steps: Load the storage canister with hydrocarbon vapor, drive
the vehicle to provide opportunity for canister purge, and refuel the
vehicle while measuring emissions (see Figures 1 and 2). The first two
steps together are referred to as the preconditioning phase and are
discussed in detail further on in this section.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
TR06AP94.000
TR06AP94.001
BILLING CODE 6560-P-C
1. Refueling Emissions Test
The procedure for the refueling step is common to both integrated
and non-integrated systems. It involves disconnecting the vapor line
from the fuel tank to the canister, draining the fuel tank, refueling
with test fuel to 10 percent of the nominal tank capacity, soaking the
vehicle for 6 to 24 hours at 803 deg.F
(26.71.7 deg.C), reconnecting the vapor line, and fueling
the vehicle with test fuel at 671.5 deg.F
(19.40.8 deg.C) in a sealed enclosure (SHED) while
measuring emissions. Fueling is performed at a rate of 4 to 10 gallons
per minute (15.1 to 37.9 liters per minute) and is terminated at the
first automatic shutoff that occurs after a quantity of fuel has been
pumped equal to at least 85 percent of the nominal tank capacity.
One of the key issues raised in the July 1993 hearing and the
subsequent comment period concerned the test temperature specifications
for the dispensed fuel and the residual in-tank fuel, both of which
have a major impact on the refueling vapor generation and therefore on
ORVR system designs. Hearing participants discussed the merits of
setting the test dispensed fuel temperature at 67 deg.F (19.4 deg.C)
while maintaining the residual in-tank fuel temperature specification
of 80 deg.F (26.7 deg.C). Previous proposals had included a dispensed
fuel temperature specification of 81-84 deg.F (27.2-28.9 deg.C).
Comments were received on both sides of this issue. The
manufacturers supported the test temperature specifications discussed
at the July 1993 hearing. They believed these specifications would
enable the canisters planned for meeting the enhanced evaporative
emission requirements to also capture refueling emissions and would
facilitate the use of liquid seals as an option to mechanical seals in
the fillneck. Manufacturers commented that this would provide much
needed design flexibility and alleviate their safety concerns. The
American Petroleum Institute (API) and the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC) supported the 81 deg.-84 deg.F dispensed temperature
range proposed earlier. They expressed concern that 67 deg.F is not
representative of actual dispensed fuel temperatures on high ozone days
and therefore might lead to a situation where the test procedure does
not adequately represent in-use conditions with the result that
refueling emissions are controlled inadequately in use.
EPA's goal in establishing test parameters is to ensure that the
combination of test conditions results in designs that will achieve a
very high level of control in use. Therefore, the representativeness of
any one test parameter, such as dispensed fuel temperature, is of less
concern than the net effect of the total test. For example, in-use RVPs
in many parts of the nation during the summer months are lower than
that specified in the test. What is important is the combined effects
of the key parameters during an in-use refueling event. EPA's analysis
of in-use effectiveness described in the Regulatory Impact Analysis and
Summary and Analysis of Comments indicates that these test conditions
will yield designs that achieve in-use control in excess of 95 percent
during the ozone season in the NAAs (even assuming the accuracy of data
showing that one region of the country has dispensed fuel temperatures
within or exceeding the 81 deg.-84 deg.F range, a potentially
questionable assumption, as explained in the next paragraph). Based on
this analysis and the manufacturers' comments, EPA has concluded that
the test specifications being finalized in this action are appropriate.
The dispensed gasoline temperature parameter discussed in the NPRM
was derived using limited survey information on in-use refueling
events. The 81 deg.-84 deg.F dispensed temperature value in the NPRM
was driven by refueling events in the Southeastern U.S. These dispensed
fuel temperature values are seven or more degrees higher than any other
region of the country. There is no obvious technical reason why the
Southeastern U.S. values were so much higher than those found in other
regions of the country. Thus, there is some possibility that they may
be unrepresentative, in which case the 67 deg.F temperature
used in the refueling test is even more representative. (EPA is not
completely disavowing the Southeastern U.S dispensed fuel data, since
it is the only data available to EPA at this time. The Summary and
Analysis of Comments contains an analysis of the sensitivity of the in-
use effectiveness of the ORVR requirement to this dispensed temperature
value.)
2. Integrated System Preconditioning
The nature of integrated systems allows for a corresponding
integration of ORVR and evaporative emission preconditioning
procedures. This integration is desirable because of potential test
resource savings. A major revision of the evaporative emission test
procedure was completed recently and will be implemented beginning in
the 1996 model year (58 FR 16002, March 24, 1993).
EPA proposed three integrated system preconditioning options for
the refueling test in the May 1993 Federal Register notice. Option A
places the refueling test after the exhaust emissions portion of the
supplemental evaporative emissions test procedure. Option B places the
refueling test after the running loss portion of the evaporative
emissions test sequence. As a logical extension to this option, EPA
also proposed Option B1, which adds more driving to Option A in order
to allow for more purging of the canister, similar to Option B, while
avoiding the complexities of the Option B running loss procedure.
EPA has selected Option B1, based on the above-described advantages
and the support for this choice expressed by commenters. This procedure
follows the supplemental evaporative emission test preconditioning
procedure, involving an initial fuel tank drain and fill with
certification test fuel to 40 percent full, a 12 to 36 hour soak at
68 deg. to 86 deg.F (20 deg. to 30 deg.C), a preconditioning drive
over one Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) cycle, another fuel
tank drain and fill to 40 percent, a canister preconditioning step
detailed below, and then the exhaust emissions test. At this point the
refueling test departs from the evaporative test sequence. Instead,
additional driving is conducted to provide more opportunity for
canister purge. This driving consists of a UDDS cycle followed by two
New York City Cycles (NYCC) and then by another UDDS. This driving
schedule corresponds to the driving specified for the evaporative
running loss test, though not at the same high temperatures. After the
driving, the above-described refueling procedure is conducted.
The canister is preconditioned by loading it with a 50/50 mixture
of butane and nitrogen, at a rate of 40 grams of butane per hour, until
2 grams of hydrocarbons are emitted from the canister (referred to as
the 2-gram breakthrough point). Alternatively, the canister can be
loaded to this point with gasoline vapors by conducting repeated
diurnal heat builds. All detailed aspects of the supplemental
evaporative emission test procedure, up through the exhaust emission
test, apply to integrated ORVR system testing as well (58 FR 16002,
March 24, 1993). The three test sequences (full 3-diurnal evaporative,
supplemental evaporative, and refueling) may be performed in any order
and exhaust emissions measurements from any of the three may be
considered valid. If either evaporative emission sequence has been
conducted before the refueling test, the fuel tank drain and fill and
vehicle soak that precede the one UDDS preconditioning drive in the
refueling test sequence may be skipped.
3. Non-Integrated System Preconditioning
Non-integrated ORVR systems store only refueling vapors and
therefore warrant a preconditioning drivedown of 85 percent of the fuel
tank capacity before being subjected to the 85 percent refueling event.
This driving consists of repeated UDDS cycles, either on a track or on
a dynamometer, until a volume of fuel equal to 85 percent of the fuel
tank nominal capacity has been consumed. During the actual refueling
test, the vehicle will be filled to at least 95 percent of tank
capacity, as is the case for the integrated system. If manufacturers
exercise the option to do less driving in certification testing, EPA
may perform subsequent confirmatory and in-use testing using the same
reduced driving schedule.
At its discretion, EPA may test non-integrated systems with a
partial refueling test procedure. This procedure helps to ensure
control in those in-use refueling events in which less than a tankful
of fuel is pumped. Because the non-integrated system test allows a
nearly complete drivedown of the fuel tank capacity, thus enabling
purge design strategies that inappropriately minimize purge during the
exhaust emissions test, EPA considers the partial refueling test
necessary. It also allows EPA to assess the basic question of whether
the system has the capacity to handle a partial fill, a common
refueling event in use.
In this partial fill test, following the loading of the canister
with butane and fueling of the vehicle to 95 percent of the fuel tank
capacity, the vehicle will be driven some integer number of UDDS cycles
such that some amount of fuel between 10 and 85 percent of the fuel
tank capacity is consumed. After a one to six hour soak, the vehicle
will be subjected to the refueling emissions measurement test with no
intervening drain and fill. The fuel pumped in the test will be a
metered amount, corresponding to the amount consumed in the drive. This
amount will be based on the vehicle's fuel economy, as determined at
certification.
4. Seal Test
Also at its discretion, EPA may perform a seal test of integrated
and non-integrated designs, aimed at verifying the integrity of
fillpipe seals and vapor lines. This test eliminates consideration of
potential canister emissions by thoroughly bench purging the canister
prior to the refueling event. The canister preconditioning and
preparatory driving are therefore likewise eliminated, although EPA may
perform the test procedure up through the exhaust emission test (in
order to obtain this measurement) and then conduct the bench purge and
refueling test. Failure of the seal test would be considered equivalent
to failing the full refueling emissions test and the same standard
would apply to both.
5. Cap Removal Emissions
In the May 1993 Notice, EPA requested comment on including a test
to measure and control the ``puff loss'' emissions from a pressurized
fuel tank when the fuel cap is removed for refueling.
In addition to refueling emissions, vehicles can have emissions
when the fuel cap is removed from a pressurized fuel tank before the
refueling event. Although these emissions potentially warrant control,
EPA does not view them as ``refueling'' emissions for purposes of
section 202(a)(6), since they precede a refueling and are more akin to
evaporative emissions. EPA in fact proposed, but did not finalize, such
a cap-off test in the evaporative emissions NPRM (55 FR 1914, January
19, 1990) rather than in the ORVR NPRM. Thus Congress would not have
been considering such emissions when it enacted the 95 percent minimum
control standard in section 202(a)(6) in the 1990 CAAAs.
Manufacturers commented that the puff loss test would provide no
additional control over that achieved by the refueling test and the
evaporative emissions rule requirement that tanks pressurized to over
10'' (25 cm) H2O be vented to the canister upon cap removal. EPA
disagrees with this assessment. The refueling test does not measure
emissions from cap removal directly after vehicle operation. The
evaporative emissions requirement allows for the venting of tank
pressures under 10'' H2O to the atmosphere. These emissions can be
appreciable. General Motors (GM) calculated that the puff loss from
venting a 10 percent full, 20 gallon (76 liter) tank at 10'' H2O
would be about 3 grams. EPA agrees with this estimate but disagrees
with the contention that this is minor, given that this same vehicle
would only be allowed to emit a little over 3 grams during the
refueling test.
GM also argued that the execution of a cap-off test involving a
warm-up drive followed immediately by a cap-off step in a SHED would be
complex and formidable. EPA agrees with GM's contentions that hot soak
emissions could confuse the puff loss measurement and that the time
required to move a vehicle from a dynamometer cell to a SHED and remove
the cap would be overly long compared to the actual in-use event, which
typically involves less than a minute from key-off to cap-off. These
two concerns would affect the measured emissions in opposite directions
and would make it difficult to ascertain a puff loss emission
corresponding to the in-use event.
EPA remains concerned about puff loss emissions, particularly
considering that the new evaporative emission control requirements may
prompt manufacturers to rely more heavily on pressurized tank designs
in the future. However, EPA believes it necessary to defer action on
this issue so that an effective test procedure can be developed,
involving more complete public participation. Therefore, EPA is leaving
this portion of the rulemaking open for now and intends to take up this
issue as part of the planned further action on pressurized designs
announced in the evaporative emissions control final rule (58 FR
16012). However, it should be noted that the enhanced evaporative
emissions rule will require controls for systems whose pressure exceeds
10 inches H2O, and thus control is already in place for these
extreme situations.
6. Spitback Test
EPA believes, and manufacturers' comments indicate, that vehicles
would not be expected to comply with the refueling emission standard if
they emitted significant spitback emissions during the refueling test.
Fuel spilled on the side of the vehicle or in the SHED when the fuel
nozzle shuts off will evaporate and be included as part of the
refueling emissions. In recognition of this effect, this final rule
also waives the spitback testing requirement for vehicles being
certified to meet the ORVR requirements. Similar to the provision for
``inherently low refueling emission vehicles'' discussed above,
manufacturers can, at their option, certify as part of the
certification application, that they agree with EPA's assessment
regarding the effect of spitback emissions on the ability to pass the
refueling emission standard and that their vehicle passes the spitback
test standard. Of course, manufacturers may elect to comply with the
spitback test in lieu of using this waiver option.
Compliance with the spitback standard is still required, and EPA is
retaining the spitback test and standard promulgated in the enhanced
evaporative emissions control rule (58 FR 16002, March 24, 1993). EPA
may conduct or require manufacturers to conduct the spitback test to
demonstrate compliance should concerns over vehicle spitback arise.
7. Nozzle Geometry Standards
In the NPRM, EPA asked for comment on the need for fuel nozzle
geometry standards as part of an ORVR program, and suggested that auto
makers and nozzle manufacturers undertake a voluntary initiative to
develop national consensus standards in this area. This initiative is
being undertaken under the auspices of the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE). An SAE technical committee, comprised of auto maker,
fuel nozzle manufacturer, and other representatives, is considering
revisions to SAE standard J285 ``Gasoline Dispenser Nozzle Spouts''.
It is important that nozzles used in the design and testing of
ORVR-equipped vehicles be similar to those found in use. Should this
committee reach consensus on fuel nozzle geometry specifications, EPA
will use a nozzle meeting this standard in all refueling emissions
compliance testing, if the nozzle manufacturers agree to adopt these
specifications for future retail and commercial fuel nozzles and the
auto manufacturers design their ORVR systems to accommodate a nozzle
with this geometry. If no standard is developed for nozzle geometry or
if the above agreements cannot be reached, EPA will use any
commercially available nozzle in its testing.
8. Level of the Standard
This final rule adopts a refueling test standard of 0.20 grams of
hydrocarbon emissions per gallon (g/gal) of fuel pumped (0.053 g/
liter). This standard applies to all vehicle classes covered by this
rule and covers the full useful life. Setting the standard at this
level ensures that the standard that meets the statutory requirement to
provide a minimum emission capture efficiency of 95 percent, as
discussed below.
The August 1987 NPRM included a proposed refueling emission
standard of 0.10 g/gal (0.026 g/liter) of fuel pumped, which at that
time represented about a 98 percent emissions reduction from
uncontrolled levels. Subsequently, the 1990 CAAA called for a refueling
emission standard representing at least a 95 percent reduction over
uncontrolled levels. EPA determined that this reduction corresponds to
a standard of about 0.25 g/gal (0.066 g/liter) and requested comment in
the May 1993 notice on the setting of a standard in the 0.10 to 0.25 g/
gal range.
Manufacturers supported a standard of 0.20 g/gal, arguing that this
standard would satisfy the CAA minimum requirement while providing for
full useful life compliance and design flexibility. API and other
commenters felt that a standard providing a 98 percent level of control
is justified based on demonstrated and cost effective technology.
After analyzing the comments and the projected in-use emission
impacts, EPA has selected a standard of 0.20 g/gal. This standard was
chosen because it meets or exceeds the statutory minimum requirement
and, since it is representative of most refueling situations reasonably
likely to occur (Cf Edison Electric Institute v. EPA, 2F.3J 438, 446-47
(D.C. Cir. 1993)). At the same time, it meets the manufacturers' need
for adequate design margin and flexibility. As is discussed in the
Summary and Analysis of Comments, the nature of the canister-based
control technology is such that setting the standard at a lower level
would not be expected to achieve additional emission reductions in use.
Systems will need to be designed for essentially zero emissions, with
the standard providing an allowance for vehicle and test variability.
It may also enhance the use of liquid fillneck seals which are
projected to have lower costs, good in-use performance, and present no
safety concerns.
D. Safety of ORVR Systems
1. Background
Section 202(a)(6) of the 1990 CAA Amendments (as well as its
predecessor provision) requires EPA to consult with the Secretary of
Transportation regarding the safety of vehicle-based (ORVR) systems for
the control of vehicle refueling emissions. EPA began this consultation
in the Spring of 1986, prior to the NPRM, and the consultation has
continued throughout the various stages of this rulemaking. DoT was
represented by NHTSA throughout this process. A record of this
consultation and the various analyses conducted by EPA and NHTSA to
assess the safety issue is available in the public docket and is
discussed in the April 15, 1992 Federal Register notice regarding ORVR
controls (57 FR 13220). Early in the consultation process, NHTSA raised
concerns about the safety of ORVR canister systems, and throughout the
various stages of the rulemaking, safety has been a central issue in
the public comments and in the deliberations on the ORVR rulemaking.
Unresolved concerns regarding the safety of ORVR canister systems (at
least relative to Stage II systems) delayed promulgation of the NPRM
prior to the 1990 CAAAs and, in April 1992, led EPA to decide not to
require ORVR controls at that time. Given the concerns raised about
vehicle safety, it is important to address the potential safety
concerns as part of the implementation of the ORVR requirement.
2. Test Procedure/Safety
The safety comments regarding ORVR canister systems focused
primarily on the concern that ORVR systems would increase fuel system
complexity and that this would create vehicle safety risks. Many
manufacturers' comments on the NPRM indicated that the test procedure,
as proposed in 1987, would force the use of non-integrated (separate)
systems for refueling and evaporative emissions control. They
characterized these systems as making the fuel vapor control system
more complex than current evaporative control systems, thus creating
the potential for a safety risk.
As noted earlier, the DC Circuit held that the consultation
requirement in section 202(a)(6) does not alter EPA's duty to issue
ORVR requirements. After the decision was issued and after publication
of EPA's May 27, 1993 Federal Register notice (58 FR 30731), EPA held
technical discussions with representatives of AAMA regarding the ORVR
test procedure (See items IV-E-101,102,105,106 in the public docket for
this rulemaking). The purpose of these discussions was to identify
potential changes to the ORVR test procedure which, if enacted, would
facilitate the use of an integrated evaporative/refueling control
system approach with a liquid seal in the fillneck. (As was discussed
above, in March 1993, EPA published a final rule requiring enhanced
evaporative controls on gasoline-powered LDVs, LDTs, and HDVs. The
enhanced evaporative requirements will lead to an increase in the size
of the canister used to capture evaporative emissions, an upgrade in
the purge system capabilities, as well as other system changes and
improvements.) An integrated system approach would allow manufacturers
to make use of the upgraded evaporative control hardware (common carbon
canister, purge system, vapor hoses, etc.) as part of their ORVR
control strategy and thus address both system complexity and cost
issues. This approach would be used in lieu of the non-integrated
control system approaches which were characterized as being complex and
potentially less safe.
ORVR test procedure changes which would ease the use of integrated
evaporative/refueling control systems with liquid fillneck seal
approaches were identified. EPA explained this option at the July 22,
1993 public hearing and requested additional public comment.
Auto manufacturer comments supported this approach. For example,
Chrysler Corporation's comments indicated:
``Chrysler believes that the proposed AAMA revisions to the test
procedure and the 0.20 g/gal. standard will allow Chrysler to design
safe, efficient ORVR systems.''
Ford Motor Company's comments stated:
``Ford recommends that EPA adopt the test procedure changes and
standards outlined by AAMA at the Hearing on July 22, 1993, and
contained in the attached comments. These changes should allow for
the design and development of a canister-based, integrated refueling
and evaporative emissions system which is less complex than a
nonintegrated system and which addresses the safety issues raised in
previous rulemakings. These procedural changes along with others
identified in the comments should allow EPA, in consultation with
NHTSA, to find that integrated systems do not present an
unreasonable risk to automotive safety.''
General Motors expressed similar views:
``The ORVR test procedure changes described in these comments
are critical to permitting manufacturers to develop ORVR systems for
passenger cars that minimize or eliminate any adverse impact upon
motor vehicle safety.''
And, in summary, an October 13, 1993 AAMA letter to NHTSA stated
that:
``We believe this procedure will allow the use of an integrated
ORVR/evaporative emissions system including a common carbon
canister. An integrated ORVR/evaporative emissions system will allow
manufacturers to design and build safe, efficient ORVR systems.''
Comments by other manufacturers also supported this position.
Accordingly, this rule enacts the test procedure option identified
above. It is supported by AAMA, the Association of International
Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM), and the individual manufacturers and,
according to their comments, minimizes their longstanding vehicle
safety concerns.
3. DOT Consultation
In response to the changed circumstances since it's prior safety
analysis, DoT/NHTSA undertook an independent assessment of vehicle
safety concerns associated with ORVR systems. In November 1993, NHTSA
completed a study entitled ``An Assessment of Onboard Refueling Vapor
Recovery System Safety''. This document reexamined the conclusions
raised in their July 1991 study, upon which EPA relied heavily on its
April 1992 decision not to require ORVR controls.
In this recent study, NHTSA revisited the principal findings of its
July 1991 report to consider the positive safety impacts of the test
procedure changes and other changed circumstances. The NHTSA report,
which is available in the public docket, reached the following general
conclusion regarding ORVR safety:
``Basically, there were three principal areas of concern pointed
out in the July 1991 report: the increased size of vapor canisters
to hold the fuel vapors, the mechanical complexity of the ORVR
system, and the ability of the ORVR system to safely manage and
purge the increased volume of vapors.
As discussed above, technical developments, and test procedure
and regulatory changes that have occurred since the July 1991 safety
assessment, have had the net effect of reducing the safety concerns
raised in the July 1991 report. The majority of vehicle
manufacturers have stated that it is now possible to design safe
ORVR systems that will function properly under all operating
conditions. However, there still remains some small unquantifiable
increase in safety risk due to the addition of the ORVR systems.
This risk is unquantifiable since there are no data upon which to
base a numerical estimate.''
Thus, NHTSA views the changed circumstances, including the final
test procedure and the use of integrated systems, as addressing many of
their previous concerns. They also acknowledge that absent actual data
they cannot determine the level of risk, and thus conclude that risks
are unquantifiable. While the NHTSA report contained a brief assessment
as to why trucks might be different than cars and stated that truck
prototype systems and field tests for truck ORVR systems would be
beneficial, no special safety risks were cited for using ORVR canisters
to control LDT/HDV refueling emissions.
4. EPA Assessment
EPA is withdrawing its April, 1992 finding that ORVR canisters pose
unreasonable safety risks. First, that determination was based on an
improper comparison with Stage II controls. NRDC v. Reilly, 983 F. 2d
at 271. Considered on their own, ORVR canisters do not appear to pose
significant safety risks. Indeed, as the Agency noted in 1987, this
appears to be particularly true for integrated evaporative/refueling
control systems--which now appear to be the preferred control system.
Second, EPA is swayed because NHTSA has reviewed the safety of ORVR
systems in light of recent developments and subsequently has withdrawn
most of the adverse conclusions in the 1991 report. NHTSA also
indicates (1993 Report pp. 17-24) that some of its remaining concerns
can be addressed by choosing proper designs for canister systems. As
noted above, EPA has taken NHTSA's views strongly into account
throughout the course of this rulemaking, and accordingly is influenced
by NHTSA's more positive outlook on ORVR canister safety.
The record further indicates that installation of ORVR canisters
can have some positive impacts on safety. See EPA's ``Summary and
Analysis of Comments on the Potential Safety Implications of ORVR
Systems'' (IV-H-04). Safety benefits include removal of the external
fuel vapor vent line from the fillneck of these vehicles, the expected
move of the canister from the engine compartment to the rear of the
vehicle, the resultant shortening of the vapor vent line, and the
capture of fuel vapor previously vented at the service station during
refueling. All of these actions directionally reduce the risk of
vehicle fires in crash and non-crash situations.
In sum, given that the manufacturers indicate that integrated
evaporative/refueling control systems minimize their safety concerns,
NHTSA's significant reduction in concerns, EPA's longstanding view of
the safety of integrated refueling/evaporative control systems and the
safety benefits of ORVR controls, EPA has decided to withdraw its April
15, 1992 finding (57 FR 13230-13231). Specifically, EPA concludes that
onboard canister controls do not pose an unreasonable risk to public
safety. ORVR canister systems are not inherently unsafe.
Several commenters expressed concern about applying the ORVR
requirement to trucks and incomplete vehicles (i.e., those produced by
secondary manufacturers). However, for the most part, EPA does not
believe the technical circumstances here to be substantially different
than for LDVs. All trucks, including those produced by secondary
manufacturers, are subject to the enhanced evaporative emission
requirements and will have to upgrade their control systems in response
to these new requirements. Also, the ORVR test procedure for these
vehicles, as for LDVs, would facilitate the use of integrated
evaporative/ refueling control systems. Potential safety concerns of
vehicles completed by secondary manufacturers should not be
substantially different for integrated enhanced evaporative/refueling
control systems than they are for enhanced evaporative control systems
alone. This is especially the case for those incomplete vehicles
delivered to the secondary manufacturer with a complete fuel system as
are most incomplete LDTs. Also, the potential safety benefits of ORVR
systems would accrue to trucks and secondary manufacturer vehicles as
well as to LDVs. Thus, EPA believes the safety concerns, if any, to be
similar to those for LDVs. In fact, while the manufacturers opposed
extending the ORVR requirement to trucks on several grounds, none
indicated that safe truck ORVR systems were not possible.
In any event, EPA's decision not to finalize ORVR requirements for
HDVs (both complete and incomplete HDVs) at this time and to delay LDT
implementation for three years or more should minimize any remaining
safety concerns about ORVR systems for trucks (IV-H-23).
5. Safety Reviews
Nonetheless, EPA is very sensitive to the uncertainties expressed
by NHTSA, and plans a program to implement its authority to ensure safe
systems. Sections 202(a)(4) and 206(a)(3)(A), (B) of the CAA give EPA
broad authority to address the safety of emission control systems.
Section 202(a)(4) reads:
Effective with respect to vehicles and engines manufactured
after model year 1978, no emission control device, system, or
element of design shall be used in a new motor vehicle or new motor
vehicle engine for purposes of complying with standards prescribed
under this subsection if such device, system, or element of design
will cause or contribute to an unreasonable risk to public health,
welfare, or safety in its operation or function.
and section 206(a)(3)(A), (B) reads:
(A) A certificate of conformity may be issued under this section
only if the Administrator determines that the manufacturer (or in
the case of a vehicle or engine for import, any person) has
established to the satisfaction of the Administrator that any
emission control device, system, or element of design installed on,
or incorporated in, such vehicle or engine conforms to applicable
requirements of section 202(a)(4).
(B) The Administrator may conduct such tests and may require the
manufacturer (or any such person) to conduct such tests and provide
such information as is necessary to carry out subparagraph (A) of
this paragraph. * * *
This authority has been implemented for more than ten years. The
Code of Federal Regulations Sec. 86.084-5(b) requires that any system
installed on a new motor vehicle to enable such a vehicle to conform to
standards shall not in its operation, function, or malfunction result
in any unsafe condition endangering the motor vehicle, its occupants,
or persons or property in close proximity to the vehicle. Furthermore,
Sec. 86.091-23(d) requires that manufacturers certify that the vehicles
for which emission certification is requested conform to the
requirements of Sec. 86.084-5(b). The manufacturer must also agree to
provide descriptions of the tests conducted, the results of such tests,
and other information upon which that determination is based. Presently
this safety certification is submitted in the application for
certification which manufacturers must submit for every vehicle model
they plan to produce for commerce in the United States. EPA intends to
use this authority and the approach described above to implement the
ORVR requirement. See also NRDC v. Reilly, 983 F.2d at 267 (ultimate
issue of safety is to be addressed at certification).
The ultimate responsibility for ORVR system safety (both design and
performance in use) rests with the manufacturers. As part of the
application for certification, manufacturers will be required to make
the declarations prescribed in Sec. 86.091-23 (d). During review of the
certification application, EPA will study the design of the vehicle's
ORVR system, its on-vehicle configuration and operation, and will
consult directly with NHTSA on these applications. Special
consideration will be given to the potential concerns raised in the
course of the rulemaking process such as component locations, materials
used in the components, and connections between components. For
canister-based systems, items of special interest will include canister
location and shell construction, canister/vapor hose access for I/M
testing, vapor hose routing and wall thickness, integrity of
connections, and proximity of potential ignition sources. In addition,
manufacturers will want to consider concerns raised in past NHTSA
safety assessments. The November 1993 NHTSA report makes it clear that
proper design is critical in system safety performance.
As was mentioned above, EPA could ask for any or all of the
information supporting the manufacturer's safety assessment and EPA
will consider all information presented by the manufacturer in this
assessment whether it is based on testing, engineering analysis, or
some other source. As is present practice, EPA expects that
manufacturers will conduct engineering risk assessments and component,
system, and vehicle tests to assess the safety of various ORVR system
designs and on-vehicle configurations and make any modifications or
devise and implement the engineering solutions needed to address
potential problems.
ORVR-equipped vehicles would have to meet the applicable FMVSSs,
including FMVSS 301 related to Fuel System Integrity. As noted above,
NHTSA is considering amending the latter to address ORVR system safety.
However, section 206(a)(3)(B) of the CAA provides EPA with broad
latitude to require manufacturers to conduct tests or provide other
information as may be needed to determine if an ORVR system meets the
vehicle safety requirements prescribed in section 202(a)(4).
In the May 27, 1993 Federal Register notice, EPA asked for comment
on whether any specific tests or other information should be required
up front as part of the certification process and, if so, what
information and in what form would be most appropriate. No commenter
provided input on this point and, given the resolution of the safety
issue, EPA has decided not to require any specific information at this
time.
In the same notice, EPA also asked comment from auto manufacturers
and other interested parties on the desirability of developing a
process, after promulgation of the final rule, through which there
could be a dialogue with EPA and NHTSA on design questions related to
the in-use safety of ORVR systems. Manufacturers' comments indicated
that resolution of the safety issue as part of the rule was most
important, and they expressed little interest in establishing a
dialogue at this time. EPA remains willing to work with the auto
manufacturers in this area at any time in the future.
Although ultimate safety determinations must await the
certification process, EPA wishes to repeat that it knows of nothing
that would preclude the certification of properly designed ORVR
canister systems on LDVs and LDTs. EPA stresses that it has never
determined for purposes of certification under section 206 that any
specific ORVR system (including ORVR canisters) would present an
unreasonable risk to public safety within the meaning of section
202(a)(4), 58 FR 30740-30741. Consequently, the potential existence of
means other than canisters to control refueling emissions should not
preclude certification of properly-designed canister-based control
systems.
6. Alternative Control Technologies
As part of the technical analysis supporting the NPRM, EPA
indicated that control technologies such as collapsible fuel bladders
and cloth impregnated with activated carbon absorbers were potential
alternatives to carbon canisters. As part of the technology assessment
for this final rule, EPA reviewed the record of the rule to see what
options had been put forth and to assess what progress had been made in
applying these technologies to vehicle fuel systems. The collective
determination from the review was that, in some cases, parties have
pursued development of these technologies for other applications, such
as aircraft fuel systems and chemical protection suits, but that less
overall progress has been made in applying these technologies to
automotive applications. In some cases no progress was made, and the
technical feasibility of these designs therefore remains problematic.
In one case commercial development was dependent on industry or
government support. While EPA cannot arbitrarily preclude the use of
any control system design approach, EPA concludes that such
alternatives are not generally likely to be available for production
application in the time frame when manufacturers must begin to install
ORVR systems on their vehicles. The potential existence of these
alternative control approaches does not preclude certification of
properly designed canister-based ORVR controls.
E. Certification Provisions
1. General
Today's action modifies the certification process by adding the
requirement for demonstrating compliance with refueling emission
standards according to the prescribed phase-in schedule. This action is
expected to have no direct impact on manufacturers' fuel economy
programs. The following paragraphs summarize EPA's certification and
fuel economy requirements with regard to ORVR controls.
The regulations promulgated in this action provide new definitions
for refueling families and refueling emission control systems. For LDVs
and LDTs, manufacturers will normally perform a refueling test on one
emission-data vehicle per refueling emission control system and submit
this test data (low altitude data) to EPA for possible confirmatory
testing. Data submitted to EPA should include the exhaust emissions
data from the exhaust emissions test which is contained in the
refueling test sequence. The data should demonstrate compliance with
all applicable emission standards. Manufacturers may submit high
altitude test data to EPA for possible confirmatory testing, or provide
a statement in the application for certification that vehicles will
comply with applicable emission standards at high altitude. Note that
this action requires manufacturers to perform exhaust and evaporative
emission tests using pre-loaded canisters. Also note that vehicles
inherently low in refueling emissions can be certified using an
engineering evaluation approved by the Administrator in lieu of
testing.
After the testing has been completed, manufacturers typically
submit to EPA an application for certification, containing information
about the vehicles intended for production, emission test data used to
support certification, statements of compliance with emission standards
and device safety, and other information required by EPA. This action
will require manufacturers to provide refueling information in their
application for certification. To determine compliance with applicable
emission standards, this action requires the refueling emission test
data to be adjusted by an additive deterioration factor, developed by
the manufacturer using good engineering judgement to assure that
vehicles will comply in actual use for the useful life of the vehicle/
engine. Should EPA have any concerns about the safety of the ORVR
refueling system used by the manufacturer, certification may be delayed
or denied, under section 202(a)(4) and 206(a)(3) of the CAA. This
should not happen, however, with properly designed systems.
2. Fees
EPA-incurred costs associated with the certification program can be
recovered in the Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program (MVECP)
fee program (see 40 CFR part 86, subpart J). Today's action is likely
to increase the amount of the MVECP fee which is collected during the
certification process since the Agency's burden is expected to
increase. As discussed in the Fee Updating Procedure section of the
Fees final rule, (57 FR 30049, July 7, 1992), EPA will periodically
review its fees. During that fee updating process, the Agency intends
to assess the additional burden incurred due to this action, and if, as
a result of the review, EPA determines that there has been a
significant change in the MVECP costs, a proposal to revise the fee
schedule will be published in the Federal Register. Thus, manufacturers
will be provided with sufficient notice and comment period prior to any
changes in the amount of the fee collected.
3. Fuel Economy
This action does not have any direct impact on fuel economy
labeling, Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE), or gas guzzler data
submission requirements. Because the changes to the test procedure
promulgated in this action may affect fuel economy measurements,1
EPA will not require use of the new procedure for fuel economy testing.
Therefore, to generate city fuel economy values, manufacturers may use
the previously established Federal Test Procedure or may optionally use
the pre-loaded canister test procedures established in this action
(which are essentially the same test procedures established in the
enhanced evaporative emission final rule, ref. 58 FR 16002, March 24,
1993). EPA will normally use the same procedure for confirmatory
testing as used by the manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The fuel economy measurements may be affected because
vehicles will now be tested with pre-loaded evaporative/onboard
canisters. Purging these canisters during the city and highway tests
could affect the air/fuel ratio of the engine which, in turn, could
affect the measured fuel economy values for the test vehicle. EPA
expects the effect to be minimal, although it is possible that
measured fuel economy values could change for some vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Onboard Diagnostics Requirements
Today's action extends the existing provisions for onboard
diagnostic (OBD) systems to ORVR equipment. (The final rule for the
existing program was published February 19, 1993, 58 FR 9468). ORVR
systems are very similar to evaporative systems and this action
requires that the OBD performance requirements which currently apply to
evaporative systems apply on LDVs and LDTs also to ORVR systems, both
integrated and non-integrated.
As with the current OBD program for evaporative-only systems, OBD
monitoring of the ORVR system is not mandatory. However, the same
approach to in-use testing will be used. That is, any in-use vehicle
with evaporative emissions of 30 g/test or higher measured over the
first 24 hours of the three-day diurnal from the revised evaporative
test procedure will be flagged for further evaluation. That evaluation
will consist of making any necessary repairs to ensure system
integrity, and then making a 0.04 inch (1 mm) orifice anywhere within
the system. To demonstrate compliance, operating the vehicle in this
condition over the full FTP must cause the malfunction indicator light
(MIL) to illuminate. A failure of the OBD system to signal a problem
could contribute to a decision to initiate a recall action. While a
system operating in such a manner (i.e., without the MIL going on) may
not detect a malfunction related solely to refueling events, EPA
nevertheless believes that such a system will be sufficient if it
detects general problems with vapor and purge system integrity.
For integrated ORVR systems, manufacturers can use the same OBD
systems they use to monitor evaporative systems. For non-integrated
systems, both the evaporative and refueling sides of the system will
need to be monitored. It should be possible for the same technology to
be used for both monitoring tasks in most cases. For example, a
strategy that uses engine vacuum to draw a certain minimum level of
vacuum or uses a small pump to generate a positive pressure in the
entire vapor system could include a non-integrated ORVR canister in the
monitoring as well. For both integrated and non-integrated systems, EPA
believes this approach will result in an adequate level of certainty
that key potential malfunctions in ORVR systems will be identified and
repaired. Since a 0.04 inch orifice would emit only about 3 grams of
hydrocarbon vapor in a normal refueling event, this approach will
assure a high level of in-use control.
G. Enforcement and In-Use Performance
1. Liability Periods
In accordance with the CAAA of 1990, ORVR controls for new LDVs
must have useful lives of 10 years or 100,000 miles (160,000 km) or the
equivalent, with recall testing allowed up to 7 years or 75,000 miles
(120,000 km) or the equivalent, whichever occurs first (CAA section
202(d)(1); 42 U.S.C. 7521(d)(1)). LDTs with loaded vehicle weight up to
3,750 pounds (1,700 kg) have the same useful life requirement as LDVs.
All other LDTs have a useful life requirement of 11 years or 120,000
miles (190,000 km) or the equivalent, whichever occurs first. Pursuant
to section 207(i), expected designs for ORVR controls are not
``specified major emission control components,'' because they cost less
than $200. Therefore, unless more expensive components are utilized,
manufacturers need only warrant them for 2 years or 24,000 miles
(39,000 km) or the equivalent, whichever occurs first. If, at some time
in the future, the Administrator should determine that the ORVR
controls are ``specified major emission control components,''
manufacturers must warrant them for 8 years or 80,000 miles (130,000
km) or the equivalent, whichever occurs first (CAA section 207(i)(2);
42 U.S.C. 7541(i)(2)).
2. Selective Enforcement Audit Testing
Pursuant to CAA section 206(b), the Administrator is authorized to
test new motor vehicles in order to determine whether vehicles being
manufactured do in fact conform to the regulations with respect to
which a certificate of conformity was issued. Therefore, LDVs and LDTs
that are certified to meet the refueling emission standard are subject
to this standard in a Selective Enforcement Audit (SEA).
In the 1987 NPRM, EPA discussed two testing issues which resulted
from performing the refueling test on newly built motor vehicles. The
first issue regarded the possible influence of new vehicle background
evaporative emissions (i.e., hydrocarbon emissions from such things as
the fresh paint on a new vehicle which has not fully cured) on
refueling emission measurements. Historically, EPA has not conducted
SEA testing for evaporative emissions due to the relatively large non-
fuel background emissions emitted from newly built vehicles. However,
EPA expected that background emissions would not significantly affect
refueling emission measurements because the actual time for background
evaporative losses to occur would be very short (refueling emission
measurements have a duration of less than five minutes). Also,
refueling measurements would be taken at an ambient temperature of
approximately 80 deg. F, so fuel and non-fuel evaporative emissions
would not be increased by heating of the tank, engine, or other
subsystems, as would occur during the usual evaporative emissions test.
However, to address any concerns over the effects of background
emissions, EPA proposed an additional SEA testing procedure where
background emissions would be measured and then subtracted from the
refueling emissions measurement. This additional procedure would be
used if manufacturers provided evidence that newly built vehicle
background emissions would significantly exceed in-use vehicle
background emissions, which were intended to be included in the
refueling standard.
Because manufacturers' comments raised concerns about conducting
the refueling test without measuring for background emissions, and
about the extra time needed for the measurement, this final rule will
include the new vehicle background emissions measurement proposed in
the 1987 NPRM as an optional procedure. However, this decision must be
made before SEA testing is conducted. It will apply to all vehicles
tested. EPA realizes that when this background procedure is performed,
in-use background emissions, which are included in the refueling
standard, will also be subtracted from the refueling measurement. At
this time, EPA has no way of separating new vehicle background
emissions from in-use background emissions. For purposes of SEA testing
only, both may therefore be subtracted off. Background emissions from
the refueling measurements during in-use testing will not be subtracted
since the standard includes measurement of such emissions and there is
no concern regarding the higher background emissions from new vehicles.
Additionally, upon approval by EPA, a manufacturer may develop and use
its own background emissions measurement procedure for use during SEA
testing. Revisions to 40 CFR part 86, subpart G, Sec. 86.608 (for LDVs)
and to subpart K, Sec. 86.1008 (for LDTs) incorporate this additional
procedure.
The second issue pertained to the unstabilized condition of the
vapor storage canister(s) prior to SEA testing. In the NPRM, EPA
proposed that the canisters of SEA vehicles be stabilized through a
bench procedure, prior to refueling emissions testing, to help account
for any large differences that may exist between an unused canister and
a broken-in (aged) canister.
Most manufacturers commented that artificially aging canisters
prior to emissions testing using either the procedure in the 1987
proposal or the evaporative emissions rulemaking is inconsistent with
SEA testing and that performing the aging process would significantly
add to the time needed to complete testing. This would make it
difficult to conduct the correct number of tests per twenty-four hour
period as proposed by Sec. 86.608(g) for LDVs and Sec. 86.1008(g)(3)
for LDTs. Additionally, several manufacturers indicated that if their
vehicles were to undergo the entire refueling test procedure (with all
of the necessary preconditioning drive-downs), the vehicles may
accumulate too many miles to be sold as new.
EPA agrees that the proposed bench-aging procedure, as well as the
updated procedure, adds significant time to SEA testing and, therefore,
this final rule does not include an artificial aging procedure. EPA
would have preferred to include an aged canister in the SEA test
requirement, but at this point sees no practical way to incorporate the
aged canister requirement and also address the manufacturers' concerns.
Manufacturers are required to perform the complete refueling test with
new canisters for both integrated and non-integrated designs. However,
if manufacturers still have concerns about conducting the required
number of tests per twenty-four hour period or accumulating too much
mileage, they may, upon EPA approval, perform the seal test described
in Section C above, for either integrated or non-integrated designs,
during an SEA. The seal test is aimed at verifying the integrity of
fillpipe seals and vapor lines and eliminates consideration of
potential canister emissions by thoroughly bench purging the canister
prior to the refueling event. The canister preconditioning and
preparatory driving are also eliminated, allowing manufacturers to
complete testing without the additional mileage accumulation associated
with the full test. Finally, the same 0.20 g/gal standard would apply
and failure of the seal test would be considered equivalent to failing
the full refueling emissions test.
During an SEA, manufacturers will test selected SEA vehicles until
a pass or fail decision has been reached for both the exhaust emission
test and the refueling test. The 0.20 g/gal refueling standard is
subject to 40 percent Acceptable Quality Level, which is the same
criteria used for exhaust emissions.
3. Nonconformance Penalties (NCPs)
In the regulations governing NCPs (40 CFR 86.1103-87), EPA
specifies the criteria which must be met before an NCP will be made
available for a new emission standard applicable to any subclass of
heavy-duty vehicles (i.e., vehicles with a GVWR in excess of 6000 lbs,
including the LDTs with a GVWR between 6,001 and 8,500 lbs. which are
covered in this regulation (HLDTs)). As described in those regulations,
an NCP may be established for a new emission standard if substantial
work will be required to meet the new standard and a technological
laggard is likely to exist. Substantial work means the application of
technology not previously used in a vehicle class or subclass or the
significant modification of existing technology or design parameters.
While ORVR systems have not been used to control refueling
emissions on HLDTs and HDVs, EPA does not believe that an ORVR
requirement constitutes substantial work as defined in the NCP
regulations nor does EPA believe that a technological laggard will
exist in the vehicle groups. The ORVR system is expected to be a minor
extension of existing evaporative emission control technology rather
than the application of new technology or the significant modification
of existing technology or design. EPA expects manufacturers would use
activated carbon for storage of refueling vapors and air stripping for
regeneration, just as are now used in evaporative emission control
systems on LDTs and heavy-duty gasoline vehicles. The purge systems
will essentially be the same as those used for evaporative controls.
While there may be some subjective disagreement on whether
``substantial work'' will be involved in meeting the standard, EPA
believes all the manufacturers of HLDTs will be able to comply with the
standard and that no technological laggard will exist. EPA recognizes
that effort will be required to equip the HLDTs with ORVR systems, but
the control technology required is well defined and available to all
affected manufacturers. Furthermore, this regulation provides a
generous leadtime and control is phased in over a three-model-year
period. Both of these factors will provide relief to any manufacturer
who is having difficulty. In addition, the adopted test procedures
address the manufacturers' technical concerns and should negate the
need for an NCP for any manufacturer.
The regulations also permit consideration of NCPs for other
emission standards, for which NCPs are not already provided, if the
standards become more difficult to meet as a result of a new standard.
However, as the test procedure is structured, EPA does not believe that
manufacturers will encounter significant additional difficulty in
maintaining compliance with exhaust or evaporative emission standards
as a result of the ORVR requirement.
In sum, ``substantial work'' will not be required and no
technological laggards are expected. Therefore, EPA will not make NCPs
available for refueling exhaust or evaporative emission standards.
4. In-Use Performance
As in the case of other evaporative emissions, the control of
refueling emissions is highly dependent on vehicle operating and
environmental factors such as vehicle speed and ambient temperature.
EPA recognizes, therefore, that simply passing a test procedure cannot
always ensure vehicle designs that achieve good control in use.
EPA expects that manufacturers will design vehicles that pass the
test and perform well in use. However, in order to best achieve the
statutory goal of a high degree of control efficiency, the Agency will,
if necessary, make full use of existing regulations against defeat
devices. Thus, EPA may deny certification upon determination that a
particular refueling emission control system design constitutes a
defeat device (40 CFR 86.094-16).2 EPA could also invoke the
defeat device regulations in the course or on the basis of the results
of selective enforcement audit (SEA) and recall testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\''Prohibition of Use of Emission Control Defeat Devices,''
MSPC Advisory Circular No. 24, December 11, 1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following discussion, while not necessarily all-inclusive,
provides examples of potential defeat devices related to compliance
with refueling emission standards. EPA's main concern is that some
purge strategies used to pass emission tests may be ineffective over a
wide range of in-use driving patterns. For integrated systems, this
concern will be addressed in the Agency's evaluation of evaporative
system purge strategies during the certification process, as discussed
in the evaporative emissions final rule (58 FR at 16007). The Agency
will extend this evaluation to non-integrated refueling system purge
strategies as well.
This evaluation is intended to identify vehicle designs that,
though capable of passing emission tests, may not function effectively
in use. These would include non-integrated system designs that purge
well during the prolonged warm-vehicle driving allowed in the refueling
test drivedown, but not in the driving patterns involving frequent cold
starts often encountered in use.
EPA also will consider to be defeat devices those designs that
purge at substantially higher rates during high-speed operation than
during low-speed operation, such that they primarily depend on the
high-speed purge to pass emission tests. Even if such designs do pass
the test, they may produce high refueling emissions if they purge
substantially less during typical non-freeway urban driving than during
the refueling test drivedown. Also, designs that shut purge off at any
time for other than safety reasons would be closely examined by EPA for
possible classification as defeat devices.
III. Public Participation
ORVR controls have been under consideration by EPA since the CAAAs
of 1977. The public process, which first began in 1978, has proceeded
through various stages over the past 15 years.
In response to the provisions of section 202(a)(6) of the 1977
CAAAs, EPA initiated a public process in 1978 to receive comments on
the feasibility and desirability of implementing ORVR controls. In
1980, EPA published a technical report which tentatively concluded that
ORVR controls were feasible for LDVs. However, no action was taken at
the time due to concerns over economic difficulties in the auto
industry.
EPA reinstituted its assessment of ORVR controls in 1983 as part of
a broad assessment of the strategies available to control emissions in
the gasoline marketing industry. As part of this study, in August 1984,
EPA published an extensive analysis of the options available to control
refueling emissions including ORVR controls. Supporting documentation
for this analysis are in public docket A-84-07, along with the public
comments received on the ``Gasoline Marketing Study''.
After receiving comments on the study, EPA prepared an in-depth
analysis of the comments, developed further work on several key issues
related to ORVR controls, and conducted enhanced assessments of the
options under consideration. This resulted in a draft Regulatory Impact
Analysis, Response to Public Comments, and related analysis and
documentation related to ORVR controls. This information is also in
public docket A-84-07. A public meeting regarding the ORVR test
procedure was also held during this time frame.
The results of EPA's study of emission control options for the
gasoline marketing industry culminated in an August 1987 proposal to
require ORVR controls on gasoline-powered LDVs, LDTs, and HDVs. A
public hearing was held in October 1987 and the comment period closed
in February 1988. Information supporting the NPRM and comments on the
proposal are in public docket A-87-11. However, due initially to safety
concerns raised by some commenters and later to pending revisions to
the CAA, EPA deferred action on finalizing the ORVR rule.
The 1990 CAAAs contained provisions requiring an integrated program
of LDV ORVR and Stage II controls. In response to the ORVR provisions,
on September 3, 1991 (56 FR 43682), EPA published a Federal Register
notice seeking further comment on the NPRM and the safety issues
related to ORVR controls including a safety assessment prepared by the
DoT. A public hearing was held to receive comment on these issues on
September 26, 27, 1991. The comment period closed in late October 1991.
These comments and related materials are in public docket A-87-11. On
April 15, 1992, EPA published a Federal Register notice (57 FR 13220)
announcing its decision not to proceed with implementing ORVR controls
at that time, based on safety concerns raised by DoT.
Subsequently, a panel of the DC Circuit overturned EPA's 1992
action. EPA then published another Federal Register notice (May 27,
1993, 58 FR 30731) raising issues for public comment and allowing
approximately 90 days for comment. Another public hearing seeking
comment on the NPRM and other changed circumstances was also held. This
hearing was held on July 22, 1993 and comments closed 30 days later.
These comments are in public docket A-87-11 as are EPA materials in
support of the notice.
During the years in which ORVR has been under consideration, there
have been at least five formal opportunities for oral and/or written
public comment. In addition, numerous other public interactions have
occurred on this matter and have been documented and placed in the
docket for public review.
Over the fifteen years of the ORVR public process, EPA has received
hundreds of written comments regarding this requirement. However, many
of the past comments have essentially been addressed by changed
circumstances or other developments. Major issues such as fuel
volatility and improved vehicle evaporative emission controls have now
been decided by regulation, and the control of refueling emissions
using Stage II equipment was addressed by the 1990 CAAAs. Also, many
previous comments in areas such as ORVR costs and test procedures were
factored into subsequent analyses and notices, making only the most
recent set of comments applicable.
The public docket contains a Summary and Analysis of Comments
document which addresses still-relevant issues raised by the
commenters. It generally does not address past comments on issues which
have been resolved by related statutory or regulatory action or through
subsequent published analyses or Federal Register notices. Also, it
does not address comments which were received at one point but later
negated by subsequent comments due to further developments and changed
circumstances. The Summary and Analysis of Comments focuses primarily
on comments received in response to the June 1993 Federal Register
notice and unresolved comments from both the August 1987 NPRM and
September 1991 Federal Register notices.
IV. Regulatory Impact Analysis
As part of the assessment and decision making process regarding
ORVR controls, EPA has prepared an in-depth Regulatory Impact Analysis
(RIA). This RIA is available in the public docket. The RIA assesses the
environmental impact, costs, and cost effectiveness of ORVR controls,
as well as other associated benefits, for the combined LDV and LDT
program described above for a number of scenarios. It also includes a
sensitivity analysis for several key parameters. It should be noted
that the RIA was completed prior to EPA's decision to delay the
requirements for LDTs and to exclude HDVs. These controls were included
in the analysis and were assumed to begin in 1998. EPA expects that
inclusion of these items in the analysis has no significant effect on
the results and does not affect the conclusions which are based on the
analysis. The major findings of the RIA for LDV and LDT ORVR controls
are presented below.
Before discussing these key findings, it is important to note that
EPA analysis has assumed that ORVR controls will apply nationwide to
all vehicle classes. However, the scenarios analyzed focus not only on
the overall nationwide control program, but also on the control in the
ozone NAAs. Furthermore, since Stage II controls are in place or
expected in most of the ozone NAAs, the incremental impacts of ORVR
controls relative to Stage II are assessed as well.
A. Environmental Impact
While refueling emissions control has value whenever it occurs, it
is most critical during the ozone season. The five month ozone season
refueling emission inventory is about 200,000 tons per year; when
annualized, this value increases to approximately 475,000 tons per
year. Refueling emissions vary directly with fuel use and fuel RVP/
temperatures. Approximately 52 percent of refueling emissions occur in
AAs and 48 percent occur in NAAs. Of this 48 percent, about 33 percent
currently are, or are expected to be, subject to Stage II control
equipment. The percentage of gasoline consumption in the NAAs and
covered by Stage II is slightly higher (55 and 44 percent respectively)
than the contribution to the refueling emission inventory, primarily
due to RVP controls.
The emission reductions achieved by ORVR controls depend on the in-
use efficiency of the control system and the area in which the control
is applied. Based on the stringency of the test procedure the full life
useful life certification requirement, and the salutary effect of
Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) programs and onboard diagnostics, EPA
expects very high in-use efficiency from ORVR systems. In the ozone
NAAs, where RVP control and basic and enhanced I/M are prevalent, EPA
expects in-use efficiency of over 95 percent, with a somewhat lower
value in attainment areas due to lack of RVP control and I/M. In the
ozone NAAs, EPA expects in-use efficiency of approximately 97 percent.
The in-use efficiency in attainment areas (which would lack RVP control
and enhanced I/M) is somewhat less, and in some cases is predicted to
be less than 95 percent. The Agency notes, however, that this
prediction is skewed because data for the southeast U.S. indicate that
average dispensed fuel temperature in that region is seven fahrenheit
degrees higher than anywhere else in the country. EPA is basing its
predictions on this information because it is the only available data.
However, the Agency knows of no reason why dispensed fuel temperatures
should be so much higher in this region. If the same range of dispensed
fuel temperatures were used for the southeast region as for the
southwest U.S., the in-use efficiency of properly operating systems in
all areas would be predicted to average 95 percent.
The benefits vary over time and with the scenario analyzed.
Benefits vary over time because of the phase-in of the ORVR requirement
and the need for fleet turnover to occur before full implementation of
ORVR-equipped vehicles occurs. The key variable with regard to
scenarios is the presence and possible phase-out of Stage II controls.
ORVR benefits in NAAs include control over service stations in NAAs
without Stage II, control at service stations which now receive
waivers, and control over vapors missed by Stage II equipment.
For the rulemaking as a whole, neglecting the presence of Stage II
controls, LDV/LDT ORVR would achieve average annual emission reductions
of over 420,000 tons per year. With Stage II phaseout when ORVR and
Stage II would cover the same percent of fuel in use, the average
annual emission reduction is about 378,000 tons. Even if Stage II
controls are retained, an incremental benefit of 285,000 tons occurs
nationwide. Of these reductions, approximately 20 percent occur in NA
areas, with the overall percentage in NAAs increasing substantially if
Stage II is phased out.
B. Costs of Control
ORVR costs of control are comprised of control system hardware
costs plus short term (five year) costs for research, development, and
testing (R,D,& T) minus fuel vapor recovery credits. Costs were derived
incremental to the effects of enhanced evaporative emissions and RVP
control, with the assumption that most vehicles would use integrated
evaporative/refueling control systems with liquid seals in the
fillneck. The retail price equivalent (RPE) for hardware and R,D,& T
costs range from $6-8 for LDVs and LDTs.
Even these small costs are somewhat offset by ORVR fuel recovery
credits. The level of the ORVR recovery credit depends on whether Stage
II equipment is used when refueling. For the nationwide case, which
involves Stage II and non-Stage II areas, the NPV of the recovery
credit ranges from $2-$4 per-vehicle for LDVs and LDTs. Accounting for
these recovery credits, both short and long term net costs are under $5
for LDVs and LDTs.
EPA assessed the net costs of LDV and LDT ORVR controls for three
scenarios. The first (baseline) scenario neglected the presence of
Stage II controls, the second accounted for Stage II controls with
phaseout in 2010, and the third included Stage II with no phaseout. In
each case, the ORVR hardware and R,D,& T costs are the same, but the
recovery credit varies. In the first case the average annual cost is
about -$6 million over the period 1998-2020. With Stage II present and
phasing out in 2010, the average annual costs is $2 million. With no
phase out average annual costs increase to $27 million over the period
1998 to 2020. The 1998 NPV costs (discounted at 7 percent to 1998) for
the same three scenarios are $102 million, $264 million, and $435
million, respectively. In the cases where costs are negative, it is
because the value of the recovery credits exceeds the hardware and R,
D, & T costs.
C. Cost Effectiveness
Using the net present value of the costs and emission reduction
benefits, EPA has calculated the cost effectiveness of LDV/LDT ORVR
controls for the three scenarios mentioned above. For the first case
where Stage II controls are neglected, the cost effectiveness is about
$35 per ton. In the second case where Stage II control is considered,
but phased out in 2010, the cost effectiveness is about $100 per ton.
In the final case where Stage II is not phased out, the cost
effectiveness is about $210 per ton.
When all costs are included in the calculations but only NAA
emission reductions are credited, the cost effectiveness values change.
For the first case discussed above, cost effectiveness value is $70 per
ton. In the second and third scenarios, the cost effectiveness would
increase to about $250 and $775 per ton, respectively.
D. Other Benefits
In addition to the VOC emission reduction benefits cited above,
LDV/LDT ORVR controls have other benefits. ORVR controls would result
in an average energy savings equivalent to 78 million gallons of
gasoline per year between the period 1998 and 2020 assuming no Stage II
phaseout and about 108 million gallons per year if Stage II is phased
out. In addition, there will be health benefits as a result of
reductions in air toxic emissions. Best estimates are the avoidance of
about 5-6 cancer incidences per year as a result of lower refueling
benzene emissions. Additional cancer avoidances are possible depending
on the assumption regarding the toxicological impact of the remainder
of the constituents of the gasoline vapor. Reductions in potential non-
cancer health effects and welfare benefits such as reduced crop and
material damage due to ozone would occur as well.
E. Benefit-Cost Ratio
Comparing the average annual cost and emission reduction benefits
shown in the tables presented in the RIA, if even a minimal dollar
value of $500 per ton is ascribed to the health and environmental
benefits, the dollar benefits of LDV/LDT ORVR controls exceed the
costs. The benefit to cost ratio for NA areas ranges from 1.3 for the
scenario where Stage II is retained to 32 if Stage II is phased out. If
Stage II operating costs which are no longer incurred after Stage II
phaseout are considered, there is an annual average monetary savings of
about $40 million since the costs of operating the Stage II control
technology are eliminated.
V. Consultation With DOT
As required by section 202(a)(6) of the Clean Air Act, EPA has
consulted at length with the Department of Transportation before
promulgating this rule. Interagency review documents are contained in
section IV-H of this rulemaking's docket. In addition, the docket
contains a November 1993 DOT/NHTSA report entitled ``An Assessment of
Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery System Safety'' provided to EPA by
DOT/NHTSA as part of the consultation process.
VI. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, EPA hereby finds that
these regulations are of national applicability. Accordingly, judicial
review of this action is available only by filing a petition for review
in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit within 60 days of publication. Under section 307(b)(2) of the
Act, the requirements which are the subject of today's notice may not
be challenged later in judicial proceedings brought by EPA to enforce
these requirements.
VII. Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for this proposal is provided by sections
202(a) (1) and (2), 202(a)(6), 206, and 301(a) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
7521(a)(1) and (2), 7521(a)(6), 7525, and 7601(a).
VIII. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with
an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or he principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
These final regulations have been reviewed in accordance with
Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the Order the Administrator
has assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory
action.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action''
because this rule has an effect on the long-term implications of
stationary and mobile source controls and requires interagency
consultations. The average annual cost is about $27 million over the
period 1998 to 2020, assuming no Stage II phaseout. If Stage II is
phased out, recovery credits for ORVR systems increase to the point
that average annual costs are only about $2 million (ignoring the
savings in Stage II maintenance). As such, this action was submitted to
OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations will be documented in the public record.
IX. Compliance With the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-602, requires that
Federal agencies examine the impacts of their regulations on small
entities. Under 5 U.S.C. 604(a), whenever an agency is required to
publish a rulemaking, it must prepare and make available for public
comment a regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA). Such an analysis is
not required if the head of an agency certifies that a rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
The requirements for ORVR systems in this regulation apply to motor
vehicle manufacturers. Small LDV manufacturers have been granted a
delayed phase-in of the ORVR requirement and LDT manufacturers have a
longer leadtime than originally proposed. Therefore, I certify that
this rule will not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
X. Information Collection Requirements
Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this rule will be
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An
Information Collection Request document has been prepared by EPA (ICR
#783.32) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, Information
Policy Branch; EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 or by
calling 202-260-2740. These requirements are not effective until OMB
approves them and a technical amendment to that effect is published in
the Federal Register.
This collection of information has an estimated annual reporting
and recordkeeping burden averaging 334 hours per response. These
estimates include time for reviewing instructions, searching existing
data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing
and reviewing the collection of information.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden to Chief, Information Policy Branch; EPA; 401 M Street, SW (Mail
Code 2136); Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC
20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.''
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 86
Administrative practice and procedures, Confidential business
information, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 88
Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 600
Administrative practice and procedure, Electric power, Fuel
economy, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: January 24, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, parts 86, 88, and 600 of
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:
PART 86--CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM NEW AND IN-USE MOTOR
VEHICLES AND NEW AND IN-USE MOTOR VEHICLE ENGINES: CERTIFICATION
AND TEST PROCEDURES
1. The authority citation for part 86 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 202, 203, 205, 207, 208, 215, 216, and 301(a),
Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7521, 7522, 7524, 7525, 7541,
7542, 7549, 7550, 7552, and 7601(a)).
Subpart A--[Amended]
2. A new Sec. 86.001-2 is added to subpart A to read as follows:
Sec. 86.001-2 Definitions.
The definitions of Sec. 86.098-2 continue to apply to 1998 and
later model year vehicles. The definitions listed in this section apply
beginning with the 2001 model year.
Useful life means:
(1) For light-duty vehicles, and for light light-duty trucks not
subject to the Tier 0 standards of Sec. 86.094-9(a), intermediate
useful life and/or full useful life. Intermediate useful life is a
period of use of 5 years or 50,000 miles, whichever occurs first. Full
useful life is a period of use of 10 years or 100,000 miles, whichever
occurs first, except as otherwise noted in Sec. 86.094-9. The useful
life of evaporative and/or refueling emission control systems on the
portion of these vehicles subject to the evaporative emission test
requirements of Sec. 86.130-96, and/or the refueling emission test
requirements of Sec. 86.151-2001, is defined as a period of use of 10
years or 100,000 miles, whichever occurs first.
(2) For light light-duty trucks subject to the Tier 0 standards of
Sec. 86.094-9(a), and for heavy light-duty truck engine families,
intermediate and/or full useful life. Intermediate useful life is a
period of use of 5 years or 50,000 miles, whichever occurs first. Full
useful life is a period of use of 11 years or 120,000 miles, whichever
occurs first. The useful life of evaporative emission and/or refueling
control systems on the portion of these vehicles subject to the
evaporative emission test requirements of Sec. 86.130-96, and/or the
refueling emission test requirements of Sec. 86.151-2001, is also
defined as a period of 11 years or 120,000 miles, whichever occurs
first.
(3) For an Otto-cycle heavy-duty engine family:
(i) For hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide standards, a period of use
of 8 years or 110,000 miles, whichever first occurs.
(ii) For the oxides of nitrogen standard, a period of use of 10
years or 110,000 miles, whichever first occurs.
(iii) For the portion of evaporative emission control systems
subject to the evaporative emission test requirements of Sec. 86.1230-
96, a period of use of 10 years or 110,000 miles, whichever occurs
first.
(4) For a diesel heavy-duty engine family:
(i) For light heavy-duty diesel engines, for hydrocarbon, carbon
monoxide, and particulate standards, a period of use of 8 years or
110,000 miles, whichever first occurs.
(ii) For light heavy-duty diesel engines, for the oxides of
nitrogen standard, a period of use of 10 years or 110,000 miles,
whichever first occurs.
(iii) For medium heavy-duty diesel engines, for hydrocarbon, carbon
monoxide, and particulate standards, a period of use of 8 years or
185,000 miles, whichever first occurs.
(iv) For medium heavy-duty diesel engines, for the oxides of
nitrogen standard, a period of use of 10 years or 185,000 miles,
whichever first occurs.
(v) For heavy heavy-duty diesel engines, for hydrocarbon, carbon
monoxide, and particulate standards, a period of use of 8 years or
290,000 miles, whichever first occurs, except as provided in paragraph
(4)(vii) of this definition.
(vi) For heavy heavy-duty diesel engines, for the oxides of
nitrogen standard, a period of use of 10 years or 290,000 miles,
whichever first occurs.
(vii) For heavy heavy-duty diesel engines used in urban buses, for
the particulate standard, a period of use of 10 years or 290,000 miles,
whichever first occurs.
3. A new Sec. 86.001-9 is added to subpart A to read as follows:
Sec. 86.001-9 Emission standards for 2001 and later model year light-
duty trucks.
Section 86.001-9 includes text that specifies requirements that
differ from Sec. 86.096-9 or Sec. 86.097-9. Where a paragraph in
Sec. 86.096-9 or Sec. 86.097-9 is identical and applicable to
Sec. 86.001-9, this may be indicated by specifying the corresponding
paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.096-
9.'' or ``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.097-9.''.
(a) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.097-9.
(b) introductory text through (b)(5) [Reserved]. For guidance see
Sec. 86.096-9.
(b)(6) Vehicles certified to the refueling standards set forth in
paragraph (d) of this section are not required to demonstrate
compliance with the Fuel Dispensing Spitback standards contained in
Sec. 86.096-9 (b)(1)(iii) and (b)(2)(iii): Provided, that they meet the
requirements of Sec. 86.001-28(f).
(c) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.097-9.
(d) Refueling emissions from 2001 and later model year gasoline-
fueled and methanol-fueled Otto-cycle- and petroleum-fueled and
methanol-fueled diesel-cycle-light duty trucks of 6,000 pounds or less
GVW shall not exceed the following standards. The standards apply
equally to certification and in-use vehicles.
(1) Standards--(i) Hydrocarbons (for gasoline-fueled Otto-cycle and
petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle vehicles). 0.20 gram per gallon (0.053
gram per liter) of fuel dispensed.
(ii) Organic Material Hydrocarbon Equivalent (for methanol-fueled
vehicles). 0.20 gram per gallon (0.053 gram per liter) of fuel
dispensed.
(2)(i) The standards set forth in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii) of
this section refer to a sample of refueling emissions collected under
the conditions as set forth in subpart B of this part and measured in
accordance with those procedures.
(ii) For vehicles powered by petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle engines,
the provisions set forth in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section may be
waived: Provided, that the manufacturer complies with the provisions of
Sec. 86.001-28(f) of this subpart.
(3) A minimum of the percentage shown in Table A01-09 of a
manufacturer's sales of the applicable model year's gasoline- and
methanol-fueled Otto-cycle and petroleum-fueled and methanol-fueled
diesel-cycle light-duty trucks of 6,000 pounds or less GVW shall be
tested under the procedures in subpart B of this part indicated for
2001 and later model years, and shall not exceed the standards
described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. Vehicles certified in
accordance with paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section, as determined by
the provisions of Sec. 86.001-28(g), shall not be counted in the
calculation of the percentage of compliance.
Table A01-09.--Implementation Schedule for Light-Duty Truck Refueling
Emission Testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sales
Model year percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001....................................................... 40
2002....................................................... 80
2003 and subsequent........................................ 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) through (f) [Reserved]
(g) through (k) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.097-9.
4. A new Sec. 86.001-21 is added to subpart A to read as follows:
Sec. 86.001-21 Application for certification.
Section 86.001-21 includes text that specifies requirements that
differ from Sec. 86.094-21 or Sec. 86.096-21. Where a paragraph in
Sec. 86.094-21 or Sec. 86.096-21 is identical and applicable to
Sec. 86.001-21, this may be indicated by specifying the corresponding
paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-
21.'' or ``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.096-21.''.
(a) through (b)(3) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-21.
(b)(4)(i) For light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks, a
description of the test procedures to be used to establish the
evaporative emission and/or refueling emission deterioration factors,
as appropriate, required to be determined and supplied in Sec. 86.001-
23(b)(2).
(b)(4)(ii) through (b)(5)(iv) [Reserved]. For guidance see
Sec. 86.094-21.
(b)(5)(v) For light-duty vehicles and applicable light-duty trucks
with non-integrated refueling emission control systems, the number of
continuous UDDS cycles, determined from the fuel economy on the UDDS
applicable to the test vehicle of that evaporative/ refueling emission
family-emission control system combination, required to use a volume of
fuel equal to 85% of fuel tank volume.
(b)(6) through (8) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-21.
(b)(9) For each light-duty vehicle, light-duty truck, evaporative/
refueling emission family or heavy-duty vehicle evaporative emission
family, a description of any unique procedures required to perform
evaporative and/or refueling emission tests, as applicable, (including
canister working capacity, canister bed volume, and fuel temperature
profile for the running loss test) for all vehicles in that evaporative
and/or evaporative/refueling emission family, and a description of the
method used to develop those unique procedures.
(10) For each light-duty vehicle or applicable light-duty truck
evaporative/refueling emission family, or each heavy-duty vehicle
evaporative emission family:
(i) Canister working capacity, according to the procedures
specified in Sec. 86.132-96(h)(1)(iv);
(ii) Canister bed volume; and
(iii) Fuel temperature profile for the running loss test, according
to the procedures specified in Sec. 86.129-94(d).
(c) through (i) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-21.
(j) and (k) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.096-21.
5. A new Sec. 86.001-22 is added to subpart A to read as follows:
Sec. 86.001-22 Approval of application for certification; test fleet
selections; determinations of parameters subject to adjustment for
certification and Selective Enforcement Audit, adequacy of limits, and
physically adjustable ranges.
Section 86.001-22 includes text that specifies requirements that
differ from Sec. 86.094-22. Where a paragraph in Sec. 86.094-22 is
identical and applicable to Sec. 86.001-22, this may be indicated by
specifying the corresponding paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved].
For guidance see Sec. 86.094-22.''.
(a) through (c) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-22.
(d) Approval of test procedures. (1) The Administrator does not
approve the test procedures for establishing the evaporative or
refueling emission deterioration factors for light-duty vehicles and
light-duty trucks. The manufacturer shall submit the procedures as
required in Sec. 86.098-21(b)(4)(i) prior to the Administrator's
selection of the test fleet under Sec. 86.098-24(b)(1), and if such
procedures will involve testing of durability data vehicles selected by
the Administrator or elected by the manufacturer under Sec. 86.098-
24(c)(1), prior to initiation of such testing.
(d)(2) through (g) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-22.
6. A new Sec. 86.001-23 is added to subpart A to read as follows:
Sec. 86.001-23 Required data.
Section 86.001-23 includes text that specifies requirements that
differ from Sec. 86.095-23 or Sec. 86.098-23. Where a paragraph in
Sec. 86.095-23 or Sec. 86.098-23 is identical and applicable to
Sec. 86.001-23, this may be indicated by specifying the corresponding
paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.095-
23.'' or ``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.098-23.''.
(a) through (b)(1) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.095-23.
(b)(2) For light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks, the
manufacturer shall submit evaporative emission and/or refueling
emission deterioration factors for each evaporative/refueling emission
family-emission control system combination and all test data that are
derived from testing described under Sec. 86.001-21(b)(4)(i) designed
and conducted in accordance with good engineering practice to assure
that the vehicles covered by a certificate issued under Sec. 86.001-30
will meet the evaporative and/or refueling emission standards in
Sec. 86.099-8 or Sec. 86.001-9, as appropriate, for the useful life of
the vehicle.
(b)(3) through (b)(4)(ii) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.095-
23.
(b)(4)(iii) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.098-23.
(c) through (e)(1) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.095-23.
(e)(2) For evaporative and refueling emission durability, or light-
duty truck or heavy-duty engine exhaust emission durability, a
statement of compliance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section or
Sec. 86.095-23 (b)(1)(ii), (b)(3) or (b)(4) (i) and (ii) or
Sec. 86.098-23 (b)(4)(iii), as applicable.
(3) For certification of vehicles with non-integrated refueling
systems, a statement that the drivedown used to purge the refueling
canister was the same as described in the manufacturers' application
for certification. Furthermore, a description of the procedures used to
determine the number of equivalent UDDS miles required to purge the
refueling canisters, as determined by the provisions of Sec. 86.098-
21(b)(5)(v) and subpart B. Furthermore, a written statement to the
Administrator that all data, analyses, test procedures, evaluations and
other documents, on which the above statement is based, are available
to the Administrator upon request.
(f) through (l) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.095-23.
(m) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.098.23.
7. A new Sec. 86.001-24 is added to subpart A to read as follows:
Sec. 86.001-24 Test vehicles and engines.
Section 86.001-24 includes text that specifies requirements that
differ from Sec. 86.096-24 or Sec. 86.098-24. Where a paragraph in
Sec. 86.096-24 or Sec. 86.098-24 is identical and applicable to
Sec. 86.001-24, this may be indicated by specifying the corresponding
paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.096-
24.'' or ``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.098-24.''.
(a) introductory text through (a)(4) [Reserved]. For guidance see
Sec. 86.096-24.
(a)(5) through (a)(7) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.098-24.
(a)(8) through (b)(1)(vi) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.096-
24.
(b)(1)(vii)(A) through (b)(1)(viii)(A) [Reserved]. For guidance see
Sec. 86.098-24.
(b)(viii)(B) through (e) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.096-
24.
(f) Carryover and carryacross of durability and emission data. In
lieu of testing an emission-data or durability vehicle (or engine)
selected under Sec. 86.096-24 (b) or (c), and submitting data therefor,
a manufacturer may, with the prior written approval of the
Administrator, submit exhaust emission data, evaporative emission data
and/or refueling emission data, as applicable, on a similar vehicle (or
engine) for which certification has been obtained or for which all
applicable data required under Sec. 86.098-23 has previously been
submitted.
(g) through (h) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.096-24.
8. A new Sec. 86.001-25 is added to subpart A to read as follows:
Sec. 86.001-25 Maintenance.
Section 86.001-25 includes text that specifies requirements that
differ from Sec. 86.094-25 or Sec. 86.098-25. Where a paragraph in
Sec. 86.094-25 or Sec. 86.098-25 is identical and applicable to
Sec. 86.001-25, this may be indicated by specifying the corresponding
paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-
25.'' or ``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.098-25.''.
(a)(1) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-25.
(a)(2) Maintenance performed on vehicles, engines, subsystems, or
components used to determine exhaust, evaporative or refueling emission
deterioration factors, as appropriate, is classified as either
emission-related or non-emission-related and each of these can be
classified as either scheduled or unscheduled. Further, some emission-
related maintenance is also classified as critical emission-related
maintenance.
(b) Introductory text through (b)(3)(vi)(D) [Reserved]. For
guidance see Sec. 86.094-25.
(b)(3)(vi)(E) through (b)(3)(vi)(J) [Reserved]. For guidance see
Sec. 86.098-25.
(b)(3)(vii) through (b)(6)(i)(E) [Reserved]. For guidance see
Sec. 86.094-25.
(b)(6)(i)(F) Evaporative and refueling emission control system
components (excluding canister air filter).
(b)(6)(i)(G) through (H) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-
25.
9. A new Sec. 86.001-26 is added to subpart A to read as follows:
Sec. 86.001-26 Mileage and service accumulation; emission
measurements.
Section 86.001-26 includes text that specifies requirements that
differ from Sec. 86.094-26, Sec. 86.095-26, Sec. 86.096-26 or
Sec. 86.098-26. Where a paragraph in Sec. 86.094-26, Sec. 86.095-26,
Sec. 86.096-26 or Sec. 86.098-26 is identical and applicable to
Sec. 86.001-26, this may be indicated by specifying the corresponding
paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-
26.'' or ``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.095-26.''or
``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.096-26.'' or ``[Reserved]. For
guidance see Sec. 86.098-26.'' .
(a)(1) and (2) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-26.
(a)(3) introductory text through (a)(3)(i)(A) [Reserved]. For
guidance see Sec. 86.098-26.
(a)(3)(i)(B) through (a)(3)(ii)(B) [Reserved]. For guidance see
Sec. 86.094-26.
(a)(3)(ii)(C) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.098-26.
(a)(3)(ii)(D) through (b)(2)(iii) [Reserved]. For guidance see
Sec. 86.094-26.
(b)(2)(iv) Service or mileage accumulation which may be part of the
test procedures used by the manufacturer to establish evaporative and/
or refueling emission deterioration factors.
(b)(3) through (b)(4)(i)(B) [Reserved]. For guidance see
Sec. 86.094-26.
(b)(4)(i)(C) Exhaust, evaporative and/or refueling emission tests
for emission-data vehicle(s) selected for testing under Sec. 86.096-
24(b)(1) (ii), (iii) or (iv)(A) or Sec. 86.098-24 (b)(1)(vii) shall be
conducted at the mileage (2,000 mile minimum) at which the engine-
system combination is stabilized for emission testing or at 6,436
kilometer (4,000 mile) test point under low-altitude conditions.
(b)(4)(i)(D) through (b)(4)(ii)(B) [Reserved]. For guidance see
Sec. 86.095-26.
(b)(4)(ii)(C) Exhaust, evaporative and/or refueling emission tests
for emission data vehicle(s) selected for testing under Sec. 86.094-
24(b)(1) (ii), (iii), and (iv) shall be conducted at the mileage (2,000
mile minimum) at which the engine-system combination is stabilized for
emission testing or at the 6,436 kilometer (4,000 mile) test point
under low-altitude conditions.
(b)(4)(ii)(D) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.095-26.
(b)(4)(iii) [Reserved]
(b)(iv) through (c)(3) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-26.
(c)(4) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.096-26.
(d) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-26.
10. A new Sec. 86.001-28 is added to subpart A to read as follows:
Sec. 86.001-28 Compliance with emission standards.
Section 86.001-28 includes text that specifies requirements that
differ from Secs. 86.094-28 and 86.098-28. Where a paragraph in
Sec. 86.094-28 or Sec. 86.098-28 is identical and applicable to
Sec. 86.001-28, this may be indicated by specifying the corresponding
paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-
28.'' or ``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.098-28.''.
(a)(1) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-28.
(a)(2) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.098-28.
(a)(3) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-28.
(a)(4) introductory text through (a)(4)(i) introductory text
[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.098-28.
(a)(4)(i)(A) and (a)(4)(i)(B) [Reserved]. For guidance see
Sec. 86.094-28.
(a)(4)(i) (C) through (D) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.098-
28.
(a)(4)(ii)(A) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-28.
(a)(4)(ii) (B) through (C) [Reserved]. For guidance see
Sec. 86.098-28.
(a)(4)(iii) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.098-28.
(a)(4)(iv) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-28.
(a)(4)(v) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.098-28.
(a) (5) and (6) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-28.
(a)(7) introductory text through (a)(7)(i) [Reserved]. For guidance
see Sec. 86.098-28.
(a)(7)(ii) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-28.
(b)(1) Paragraph (b) of this section applies to light-duty trucks.
(2) Each exhaust, evaporative and refueling emission standard (and
family emission limits, as appropriate) of Sec. 86.001-9 applies to the
emissions of vehicles for the appropriate useful life as defined in
Secs. 86.098-2 and 86.001-9.
(b)(3) through (b)(6) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-28.
(b)(7)(i) Paragraph (b)(7) of this section describes the procedure
for determining compliance of a new vehicle with evaporative emission
standards. The procedure described here shall be used for all vehicles
in applicable model years.
(ii) The manufacturer shall determine, based on testing described
in Sec. 86.001-21(b)(4)(i)(A), and supply an evaporative emission
deterioration factor for each evaporative/refueling emission family-
emission control system combination. The factor shall be calculated by
subtracting the emission level at the selected test point from the
emission level at the useful life point.
(iii) The official evaporative emission test results for each
evaporative/refueling emission-data vehicle at the selected test point
shall be adjusted by the addition of the appropriate deterioration
factor. However, if the deterioration factor supplied by the
manufacturer is less than zero, it shall be zero for the purposes of
this paragraph.
(iv) The emission value to compare with the standards shall be the
adjusted emission value of paragraph (b)(7)(iii) of this section
rounded to two significant figures in accordance with ASTM E 29-67
(reapproved 1980) (as referenced in Sec. 86.094-
28(a)(4)(i)(B)(2)(ii))for each evaporative emission-data vehicle.
(8)(i) Paragraph (b)(8) of this section describes the procedure for
determining compliance of a new vehicle with refueling emission
standards. The procedure described here shall be used for all
applicable vehicles in the applicable model years.
(ii) The manufacturer shall determine, based on testing described
in Sec. 86.098-21(b)(4)(i)(B), and supply a refueling emission
deterioration factor for each evaporative/refueling emission family-
emission control system combination. The factor shall be calculated by
subtracting the emission level at the selected test point from the
emission level at the useful life point.
(iii) The official refueling emission test results for each
evaporative/refueling emission-data vehicle at the selected test point
shall be adjusted by the addition of the appropriate deterioration
factor. However, if the deterioration factor supplied by the
manufacturer is less than zero, it shall be zero for the purposes of
this paragraph.
(iv) The emission value to compare with the standards shall be the
adjusted emission value of paragraph (b)(8)(iii) of this section
rounded to two significant figures in accordance with ASTM E 29-67
(reapproved 1980) (as referenced in Sec. 86.094-28(a)(4)(i)(B)(2)(ii))
for each evaporative emission-data vehicle.
(9) Every test vehicle of an engine family must comply with all
applicable standards (and family emission limits, as appropriate), as
determined in paragraphs (b)(4)(iv), (b)(7)(iv) and (b)(8)(iv) of this
section, before any vehicle in that family will be certified.
(c) through (d) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-28.
(e) [Reserved]
(f) Fuel dispensing spitback testing waiver. (1) Vehicles certified
to the refueling emission standards set forth in Secs. 86.098-8,
86.099-8 and 86.001-9 are not required to demonstrate compliance with
the fuel dispensing spitback standards contained in these sections:
Provided, that--
(i) The manufacturer certifies that the vehicle inherently meets
the Dispensing Spitback Standard as part of compliance with the
refueling emission standard.
(ii) This certification is provided in writing and applies to the
full useful life of the vehicle.
(2) EPA retains the authority to require testing to enforce
compliance and to prevent non-compliance with the Fuel Dispensing
Spitback Standard.
(g) Inherently low refueling emission testing waiver. (1) Vehicles
using fuels/fuel systems inherently low in refueling emissions are not
required to conduct testing to demonstrate compliance with the
refueling emission standards set forth in Secs. 86.098-8, 86.099-8 or
86.001-9: Provided, that--
(i) This provision is only available for petroleum diesel fuel. It
is only available if the Reid Vapor Pressure of in-use diesel fuel is
equal to or less than 1 psi (7 Kpa) and for diesel vehicles whose fuel
tank temperatures do not exceed 130 deg.F (54 deg.C); and
(ii) To certify using this provision the manufacturer must attest
to the following evaluation: ``Due to the low vapor pressure of diesel
fuel and the vehicle tank temperatures, hydrocarbon vapor
concentrations are low and the vehicle meets the 0.20 grams/gallon
refueling emission standard without a control system.''
(2) The certification required in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this
section must be provided in writing and must apply for the full useful
life of the vehicle.
(3) EPA reserves the authority to require testing to enforce
compliance and to prevent noncompliance with the refueling emission
standard.
(4) Vehicles certified to the refueling emission standard under
this provision shall not be counted in the sales percentage compliance
determinations for the 2001, 2002 and subsequent model years.
11. A new Sec. 86.001-30 is added to subpart A to read as follows:
Sec. 86.001-30 Certification.
Section 86.001-30 includes text that specifies requirements that
differ from Sec. 86.094-30, Sec. 86.095-30 or Sec. 86.098-30. Where a
paragraph in Sec. 86.094-30, Sec. 86.095-30 or Sec. 86.098-30 is
identical and applicable to Sec. 86.001-30, this may be indicated by
specifying the corresponding paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved].
For guidance see Sec. 86.094-30.'' or ``[Reserved]. For guidance see
Sec. 86.095-30.'' or ``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.098-30.''.
(a)(1) and (a)(2) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-30.
(a)(3)(i) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.098-30.
(a)(3)(ii) through (a)(4)(ii) [Reserved]. For guidance see
Sec. 86.095-30.
(a)(4)(iii) introductory text through (a)(4)(iii)(C) [Reserved].
For guidance see Sec. 86.094-30.
(a)(4)(iv) introductory text [Reserved]. For guidance see
Sec. 86.095-30.
(a)(4)(iv)(A) through (a)(12) [Reserved]. For guidance see
Sec. 86.094-30.
(a)(13) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.095-30.
(a)(14) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-30.
(a) (15) through (18) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.096-30.
(a)(19) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.098-30.
(a)(20) For all light-duty trucks certified to refueling emission
standards under Sec. 86.001-9, the provisions of paragraphs (a)(20) (i)
through (iii) this section apply.
(i) All certificates issued are conditional upon the manufacturer
complying with all provisions of Sec. 86.001-9 both during and after
model year production.
(ii) Failure to meet the required implementation schedule sales
percentages as specified in Sec. 86.001-9 will be considered to be a
failure to satisfy the conditions upon which the certificate(s) was
issued and the individual vehicles sold in violation of the
implementation schedule shall not be covered by the certificate.
(iii) The manufacturer shall bear the burden of establishing to the
satisfaction of the Administrator that the conditions upon which the
certificate was issued were satisfied.
(b)(1) introductory text through (b)(1)(i) [Reserved]. For guidance
see Sec. 86.094-30.
(b)(1)(ii)(A) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-30.
(b)(1)(ii)(B) The emission data vehicle(s) selected under
Sec. 86.001-24(b)(vii) (A) and (B) shall represent all vehicles of the
same evaporative/refueling control system within the evaporative/
refueling family.
(b)(1)(ii)(C) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-30.
(b)(1)(ii)(D) The emission-data vehicle(s) selected under
Sec. 86.098-24(b)(1)(viii) shall represent all vehicles of the same
evaporative/refueling control system within the evaporative/refueling
emission family, as applicable.
(b)(1) (iii) and (iv) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-30.
(b)(2) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.098-30.
(b)(3) through (b)(4)(i) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-
30.
(b)(4)(ii) introductory text [Reserved]. For guidance see
Sec. 86.098-30.
(b)(4)(ii)(A) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-30.
(b)(4)(ii)(B) through (iv) [Reserved]. For guidance see
Sec. 86.098-30.
(b)(5) through (e) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-30.
(f) introductory text through (f)(3) [Reserved]. For guidance see
Sec. 86.095-30.
(f)(4) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.098-30.
12. A new Sec. 86.001-35 is added to subpart A to read as follows:
Sec. 86.001-35 Labeling.
Section 86.001-35 includes text that specifies requirements that
differ from Sec. 86.095-35, Sec. 86.096-35 and Sec. 86.098-35. Where a
paragraph in Sec. 86.095-35, Sec. 86.096-35 or Sec. 86.098-35 is
identical and applicable to Sec. 86.001-35, this may be indicated by
specifying the corresponding paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved].
For guidance see Sec. 86.095-35.'' or [Reserved]. For guidance see
Sec. 86.096-35. or ``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.098-28.''.
(a) introductory text through (a)(1)(iii)(B) [Reserved]. For
guidance see Sec. 86.095-35.
(a)(1)(iii)(C) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.098-35.
(a)(1)(iii)(D) through (L) [Reserved]. For guidance see
Sec. 86.095-35.
(a)(1)(iii)(M) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.098-35.
(a)(1)(iii)(N) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.096-35.
(a)(2) heading through (a)(2)(iii)(B) [Reserved]. For guidance see
Sec. 86.095-35.
(a)(2)(iii)(C) Engine displacement (in cubic inches or liters),
engine family identification and evaporative/refueling family
identification.
(a)(2)(iii)(D) through (a)(2)(iii)(E) [Reserved]. For guidance see
Sec. 86.095-35.
(a)(2)(iii)(F) [Reserved]
(a)(2)(iii)(G) through (a)(2)(iii)(K) [Reserved]. For guidance see
Sec. 86.095-35.
(a)(2)(iii)(L) [Reserved].
(a)(2)(iii)(M) through (a)(2)(iii)(N) [Reserved]. For guidance see
Sec. 86.095-35.
(a)(2)(iii) (O) through (P) [Reserved]. For guidance see
Sec. 86.096-35.
(a)(3) heading through (a)(4)(iii)(F) [Reserved]. For guidance see
Sec. 86.095-35.
(a)(4)(ii)(G) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.096-35.
(b) through (i) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.095-35.
13. A new Sec. 86.004-9 is added to subpart A to read as follows:
Sec. 86.004-9 Emission standards for 2004 and later model year light-
duty trucks.
Section 86.004-9 includes text that specifies requirements that
differ from Sec. 86.096-9 or Sec. 86.097-9. Where a paragraph in
Sec. 86.096-9 or Sec. 86.097-9 is identical and applicable to
Sec. 86.004-9, this may be indicated by specifying the corresponding
paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.096-
9.'' or ``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.097-9.''.
(a) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.097-9.
(b) introductory text through (b)(5) [Reserved]. For guidance see
Sec. 86.096-9.
(b)(6) Vehicles certified to the refueling standards set forth in
paragraph (d) of this section are not required to demonstrate
compliance with the Fuel Dispensing Spitback standards contained in
Sec. 86.096-9 (b)(1)(iii) and (b)(2)(iii): Provided, that they meet the
requirements of Sec. 86.001-28(f).
(c) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.097-9.
(d) Refueling emissions from 2004 and later model year gasoline-
fueled and methanol-fueled Otto-cycle and petroleum-fueled and
methanol-fueled diesel-cycle light duty trucks shall not exceed the
following standards. The standards apply equally to certification and
in-use vehicles.
(1) Standards--(i) Hydrocarbons (for gasoline-fueled Otto-cycle and
petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle vehicles). 0.20 gram per gallon (0.053
gram per liter) of fuel dispensed.
(ii) Organic Material Hydrocarbon Equivalent (for methanol-fueled
vehicles). 0.20 gram per gallon (0.053 gram per liter) of fuel
dispensed.
(2)(i) The standards set forth in paragraphs (d)(1) (i) and (ii) of
this section refer to a sample of refueling emissions collected under
the conditions as set forth in subpart B of this part and measured in
accordance with those procedures.
(ii) For vehicles powered by petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle engines,
the provisions set forth in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section may be
waived: Provided, that the manufacturer complies with the provisions of
Sec. 86.001-28(f) of this subpart.
(iii) Heavy-duty vehicles certified as light-duty trucks under the
provisions of Sec. 86.085-1 shall comply with the provisions of
paragraphs (d)(1) (i) and (ii) of this section.
(3)(i) All light-duty trucks of a GVWR equal to 6,000 pounds or
less (100%) must meet the refueling emission standard.
(ii) A minimum of the percentage shown in Table A04-09 of a
manufacturer's sales of the applicable model year's gasoline- and
methanol-fueled Otto-cycle and petroleum-fueled and methanol-fueled
diesel-cycle light-duty trucks of 6,001 to 8,500 pounds GVW shall be
tested under the procedures in subpart B of this part indicated for
2004 and later model years, and shall not exceed the standards
described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. Vehicles certified in
accordance with paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section, as determined by
the provisions of Sec. 86.001-28(g), shall not be counted in the
calculation of the percentage of compliance.
Table A04-09.--Implementation Schedule for Light-Duty Truck Refueling
Emission Testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sales
Model year percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004....................................................... 40
2005....................................................... 80
2006 and subsequent........................................ 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) through (f) [Reserved]
(g) through (k) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.097-9.
14. A new Sec. 86.004-28 is added to subpart A to read as follows:
Sec. 86.004-28 Compliance with emission standards.
Section 86.004-28 includes text that specifies requirements that
differ from Secs. 86.094-28 and 86.098-28. Where a paragraph in
Sec. 86.094-28 or Sec. 86.098-28 is identical and applicable to
Sec. 86.001-28, this may be indicated by specifying the corresponding
paragraph and the statement
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.