United States         Air and Radiation        EPA420-R-00-012
           Environmental Protection                  August 2000
           Agency
vxEPA    Effectiveness of OBD II
           Evaporative Emission
           Monitors - 30 Vehicle
           Study
                                    > Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
                                                                   EPA420-R-00-012
                                                                         August 2000
                           of         II
                                  - 30
                                 Martin Reineman
                    Transportation and Regional Programs Division
                       Office of Transportation and Air Quality
                        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                     NOTICE

   This technical report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions or positions.
It is intended to present technical analysis of issues using data that are currently available.
        The purpose in the release of such reports is to facilitate the exchange of
     technical information and to  inform the public of technical developments which
       may form the basis for a final EPA decision, position, or regulatory action.

-------
I. Summary:








From April 1999 through May 2000, EPA conducted a study to evaluate the effectiveness of



onboard diagnostics (OBD II) evaporative emission monitors onji sample of in-use light duty



vehicles and light duty trucks. The purpose of the study was to determine if OBD II technology



is an effective and efficient means of identifying in-use vehicles with excess  evaporative



emissions. The results of this study have been routinely shared at quarterly I/M OBD workgroup



meetings coordinated through the Mobile Sources Technical Review Subcommittee (MSTRS),



authorized under the auspices of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee.







Based on the results from a 30 vehicle test program conducted under contract with Automotive



Testing Laboratories Inc. (ATL) in Mesa, Arizona, EPA has observed the following with respect



to the effectiveness of OBD II evaporative emission monitors on 1996-2000 model year



vehicles.








      1) 22 of 25 OBD II evaporative emission monitors registered diagnostic trouble codes



      (DTCs) when failure conditions were induced.  The 22 vehicles which registered DTCs



      showed no fault codes when the induced failure conditions were removed and the DTCs



      cleared.  In general, these observations suggest OBD II evaporative emissions monitors



      work satisfactorily.







      Three of the vehicles with induced failures equal to or greater than 0.040  inch leaks did



      not illuminate the MIL or register diagnostic trouble codes. Two  of the three vehicles



      were investigated in Ann Arbor using vehicles of identical make,  model, and model year
                                         -2-

-------
and found to perform correctly.  Results from the third vehicle are still being examined.

2) Five vehicles tested with small leaks (less than 0.020 in. diameter) were analyzed
separately. Three of five vehicles calibrated to meet the 0.040 inch OBD leak standard
but tested with a 0.020 inch leak produced a diagnostic trouble code and illuminated the
malfunction indicator light (MIL). This suggests that some OBD systems are quite
robust and have leak detection capability well below the minimum requirement.

3) Three vehicles with induced leaks produced Federal Test Procedure (FTP)
evaporative emissions less than half the levels of the enhanced evaporative emission
standards, suggesting that "maintenance" problems are being identified by OBD even
though they result in emission levels below FTP standards.

4) Based on the effectiveness of OBD II evaporative emission monitors observed in this
study and their advantages (non-intrusive, very time efficient) versus functional I/M
evaporative emission pressure and purge tests, I/M OBD checks are a suitable
alternative to functional I/M checks on 1996 and later model year vehicles which use
evaporative emission monitors.

5) The induced failure results from vehicles built for compliance with Onboard Refueling
Vapor Control (ORVR) standards averaged approximately half the running loss and half
the hot soak plus diurnal levels compared to vehicles designed to meet only the
enhanced evaporative standards.
                                   -3-

-------
       6) This study suggests enhanced and ORVR evaporative emission control systems are




       durable and low emitting relative to the FTP enhanced evaporative emission standards.








       7) Four vehicles showed post repair emission results which exceeded FTP emission
                                                         ;>,



       standards. Reasons for this were investigated on three of the four vehicles and they are




       presented in the Discussion section of the report. The "high" emissions on the fourth




       vehicle were only slightly above standards on the diurnal loss test and because this test




       vehicle could not be retained for further testing, no explanation for the high emissions



       will be provided in this study.
II. Background:








Due to its positive potential and EPA's awareness of difficulties with implementing effective I/M



functional evaporative I/M emission tests, EPA has devoted considerable resources to



understanding and assessing the viability of the OBD II system for detecting emission failures in



in-use vehicles. An EPA draft technical report "Evaluation of OBD for Use In Detecting High



Emitting Vehicles," by Gardetto and Trimble, dated August 2000, presents data and analysis to



conclude that OBD II  e_xhaust monitors function properly and are a technology that may be used



to replace functional exhaust emission tests for 1996 and newer model year vehicles. [1] This



30 vehicle study presents EPA's findings regarding the effectiveness of OBD II evaporative



emissions monitors in detecting emission problems on a sample of light duty vehicles and



trucks. The report is  based on results of a test program conducted for EPA under contract with



Automotive Testing Laboratories Inc. in Mesa, Arizona from April 1999 to May 2000. [2]
                                          -4-

-------
This study did not examine the issue of OBD evaporative emission readiness under in-use
driving conditions. This issue has been, and continues to be, addressed by EPA, in particular,
by analysis of OBD pilot test results from the Wisconsin I/M program on a vehicle/model year
specific basis.  The incidence of OBD (I vehicles with evaporative emission monitors which are
not ready at the time of an i/M test is discussed in an EPA technical report, "Analyses of the
OBD I! Data from the Wisconsin I/M Lanes," by Trimble. [3]
Hi. Objectives of the ATL Study:

The ATL laboratory study had four objectives:

       1) Verify the operation of the evaporative emission monitors in a cross section of in-use
       OBD II vehicles under laboratory test conditions.

       2} Measure evaporative emissions from vehicles with evaporative emission DTCs by
       running the EPA Federal Test Procedure for vehicles designed to meet enhanced
       evaporative emission standards.

       3) Measure evaporative emissions from vehicles which have been repaired to remove
       the DTCs on the same vehicles.

       4) Based on the results of the first three objectives, determine whether OBD II is an
       adequate surrogate for the functional I/M "pressure" and "purge" tests which were
                                         -5-

-------
IV.  Test Protocol

Induced Failure Modes
Based on EPA's inspection of evaporative emission DTCs and their causes, it was suspected
that the majority of evaporative emission failures in OBD vehicles can be attributed to loose gas
caps, but EPA does not, at present, have a source of published data to verify this assertion.
Rather,  it is based on undocumented experience gained during recruitment of OBD II vehicles
for test programs at the EPA National Vehicle Fuels and Emission Laboratory (NVFEL) and
discussions with I/M and OBD experts from domestic vehicle manufacturers.  Rather than
recruit only loose gas cap vehicles as the primary source of "failed" vehicles, it was decided to
procure rental vehicles and induce a variety of failure modes which could occur in the OBD II in-
use fleet.  Inducing failures was thought to be necessary given that evaporative emission
failures are more age than mileage related, and we did not expect to find a variety of real world
failure modes.

Table A-2  in  the Appendix describes the induced faults, the resulting DTCs, the drive cycles
required to satisfy the readiness criteria for both "failure" and "repair" sequences, and a
comment column for more detail on specific vehicle test issues. Although only one set of drive
cycles are listed in Table A-2, both induced failure and post-repair sequences used the same
drive cycles to satisfy readiness criteria and exercise the OBD system. The induced failures in
the 30 vehicle sample included the following:

-------
       Missing gas caps (3)


       Loosening gas caps (2)


       0.040 inch diameter leaks in gas caps or vapor vent lines (11)


       Disabling canister fresh air inlet (1)
                                                         >.

       Disconnecting purge lines (8)


       0.020 inch leaks in gas caps (5)





Each vehicle received only one induced failure condition.  These failure modes are not meant to


represent the variety of real world failure modes, nor are they necessarily representative of the


range of excess emissions which results from real failures. Rather, they were selected because


they are reproducible, they are simple to repair, they are failure modes which a properly


functioning evaporative emission control system should detect, and vehicles with these induced


failures could be used to estimate the relation between the occurrence of an evaporative


emissions DTC and mass measurements of evaporative emissions on the same vehicle.





Induced Leak Size


Under California and Federal OBD  requirements, vehicles equipped with OBD II evaporative


emission monitors for 1996-1999 model years are required to detect leaks of a hole size of


0.040 inches diameter or larger, and detect and identify a malfunctioning purge system.


Beginning in the 2000 model year and phased-in nationwide through the 2002 model year, the


0.040 inch diameter leak check requirement becomes more stringent,  requiring identification of


a 0.020 inch diameter leak. Five vehicles were tested with 0.020 inch  diameter leaks to


examine the robustness of the current systems, and obtain estimates  of the evaporative


emissions from vehicles which might  pass the current OBD II leak check but have leaks that
                                         -7-

-------
may produce emissions above the current FTP standards.

Gas caps with 0.040 or 0.020 inch diameter teaks were supplied by Stant Manufacturing Corp.
and were built with flow tested, precision machined, square edged orifices.  Previous EPA
attempts to produce such small leaks have shown that machining small orifices is not
straightforward. Flow calibration was provided with the orifices used in the gas caps and
therefore EPA is confident the 0.040 and 0.020 inch diameter leaks in the test gas caps are
accurate.

The  presence of induced failures of the evaporative emission systems were verified with
functional "pressure" and "purge" tests. These tests were conducted by measuring pressure
loss  and purge system vacuum through the service port access on OBD evaporative emission
vehicles. Vehicles not equipped with the service port received pre-OBD functional tests.  These
consisted of measuring pressure loss by pressurizing from the fill-pipe and monitoring the loss
of pressure versus time.  Purge system failures were verified by using a roto-meter to check for
no purge flow.  The "pressure" and "purge" tests conducted on vehicles without the service port
were performed by experienced ATL laboratory technicians.

The qualification that the tests were performed by experienced ATL technicians is an important
one because the U.S. vehicle manufacturers have been opposed to EPA's pre-OBD intrusive
functional purge test, and to a lesser degree, the functional pressure test applied at the fuel
inlet. This study took care to avoid adversely influencing the evaporative emission results by
carefully conducting functional evaporative checks on vehicles not equipped with a service port
access.
                                          -8-

-------
Test Procedures
Following inspection for acceptable driveability, braking, and a leak free exhaust system, the
OBD system was checked for readiness status and the presence of DTCs or an illuminated
MIL

Each vehicle's OBD computer was reset to clear codes and show a "not ready" status prior to
FTP testing with an induced failure.  Vehicles were typically operated on chassis dynamometers
to set a DTC and illuminate the MIL  prior to the initial FTP exhaust and evaporative emission
test. Exception to this practice occurred only when a chassis dynamometer was not available,
at which time readiness criteria were satisfied by operating the vehicle over a local surface
street route which approximated the speed time relation of the LA-4 driving schedule.  (The LA-
4, also known as the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) is the first 1372 seconds
of the FTP speed/time driving schedule used for sampling exhaust emissions. Vehicle operated
over the LA-4 typically satisfy enabling criteria and exercise the OBD evaporative emissions
monitors.) Following the tests with the induced failures, each vehicle was repaired by the ATL
technicians.  The OBD system was again reset to clear the fault code and set the readiness
status to a "not ready" state.  The vehicle was then driven to satisfy readiness criteria and
determine if the OBD system correctly showed no DTC code and no illuminated MIL.

The FTP evaporative emission test selected for this study was the three day diurnal procedure
with running loss test.  An abbreviated flowchart of the test procedure for the FTP evaporative
test is presented in Figure A-1 in the Appendix. In general, tests were conducted in accordance
with Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 86, Subpart B, revised July 1, 1998. [4]
Gasoline meeting FTP fuel specifications was used for all exhaust and evaporative emission
                                         -9-

-------
tests. Fuel tank temperature profiles used for the running loss test are the profiles submitted to
EPA during the vehicle certification process.

Deviations from Subpart B test requirements included: 1) using external surface mounted fuel
tank thermocouples (on vehicles with steel fuel tanks) as a surrogate for installing internal
thermocouples, 2) draining the fuel tank by using the vehicle fuel pump instead of Installing a
fuel drain(s) at the lowest point in the fuel tank, and 3) permitting minor deviation from the
requirement that measured and target liquid fuel temperature agreement be within 3 degrees F
during the running loss test,  4) use of the EPA I/M Lookup Table for selecting the chassis
dynamometer inertia and horsepower for the 1996-1998 vehicles,  (Test parameters for the
1999 and 2000 model  year vehicles were obtained from EPA new vehicle certification data.)

Use of external mounted thermocouples instead of installing internal thermocouples is a
common EPA practice in in-use evaporative emission testing.  Without this simplification,
instrumenting the vehicle in strict accordance with the EPA certification requirements for
locating thermocouples and fuel drains can require cutting access panels in the vehicle. ATI's
past practical experience in using surface mounted thermocouples is that this location does not
compromise testing accuracy. Vehicles with plastic fuel tanks used thermocouples installed
through the bottom of the fuel tank.  Any fuel tank modification that compromised the integrity
of the OEM tank was resolved by replacing the fuel tank before the vehicle was returned to the
owner.

The FTP evaporative emission running loss test  requires that the measured fuel tank
temperature track the target temperature within 3 degrees F over the dynamometer driving
                                         -10-

-------
portion of the running loss test (a series of four driving schedules in the order: one Urban



Dynamometer Driving Schedule, two New York City Cycles, a second Urban Dynamometer



Driving Schedule).  In general, the measured fuel tank temperatures denoted as "Actual F"



(induced failure test) or "Actual R" (post-repair test) in Table A-5Jn the Appendix indicate close



agreement with the vehicle manufacturer supplied fuel tank temperature profile. Manufacturer



supplied fuel tank target temperatures and ATL measured temperatures for starting and ending



segments  of the running loss test are summarized in Table A-5 in the Appendix.








Exceptions to meeting the 3 degree tolerance were observed for vehicles 150,154, 184, and



189. The deviations for these vehicles range from slightly over 3 degrees F to about 7 degrees



F. These deviations from the target temperature profile, and the short time of the excursion, as



a matter of engineering judgement are not thought to be important because their effect on



running loss  results is judged to be insignificant
V. Test Fleet







Vehicle Selection



The test vehicle descriptive information is displayed in Table A-1 of the Appendix.  These data



include vehicle make, model, model year, mileage, engine family, evaporative emission family,



whether the vehicle was designed to comply with enhanced evaporative emission standards or



ORVR requirements, and chassis dynamometer test parameters.



The test fleet is characterized as follows:
                                        -11-

-------
       8 vehicle manufactures - Ford (7), GM (7), Honda (3), Isuzu (1), Mazda (2), Mitsubishi
       (1). Nissan (4), Toyota (5)

       5 model years -1996 (2), 1997 (1), 1998 (9), 1999 (16), 2000 (2)

       Mileage range - 5,259 to 116,730

       20 light duty vehicles; 10 light duty trucks and SUVs

       14 enhanced evap systems; 16 onboard refueling vapor recovery systems (ORVR)

       29 rental vehicles; 1 privately owned vehicle

Inspection of the fleet shows the following: the sample is not sates weighted among
manufacturers or car versus truck sales, most vehicles are low mileage, and Chrysler vehicles
are not represented because they used an alternative Federal O8D certification provision in
effect for 1996-1999 model year vehicles, and therefore did not use OBD evaporative emission
monitors in their Federal certified vehicles. Because a sales weighted sample was not required
for this study, flexibility was permitted in obtaining vehicles. Nevertheless, the sample
described  above represents the major vehicle manufactures and, where multiple vehicles were
sampled from a manufacturer, the sample reflects an "approximate" sales ranking.
VI.  Results
                                         -12-

-------
Complete evaporative emission results from the 30 vehicles are presented in Table A-3 In the



Appendix.  Note in Table A-3, that the letters E or R appended to the ATL identification number



designate whether the vehicle is designed to comply with the enhanced evaporative emission



standards,  or the enhanced plus on-board refueling vapor recovery standards, respectively.



These design standards classifications were determined by decoding the evaporative emission



family name which is located on the underside of the vehicle's hood.








DTC and MIL illumination status resulting from the induced failures were separated into two



samples and summarized as follows:








          DTC Response and MIL Illumination from Induced Failures on 25 Vehicles



                   (9 Purge system failures, 16 leaks 20.040 in. diameter)



                         DTC Set: 22  MIL Illuminated: Same 22








           DTC Response and MIL Illumination from Induced Failures on 5 Vehicles



                           {5 gas caps with leaks of 0.020 in.)



                           DTC Set: 3   MIL Illuminated: Same 3








The five vehicles with induced leaks of 0.020 inches were not included in the 25 vehicle stratum



in order to not "penalize" vehicles for finding leaks more stringent than their OBD design



requirements.








An analysis of the purge failure results in Table A-3 shows that specific DTCs registered for



similar induced failures were inconsistent among vehicle manufacturers for faults induced in the




                                         -13-

-------
purge control systems of eight vehicles. Vehicle manufacturers' proposals are under



consideration which would lead to more standardization among DTCs.








Emission results are summarized below in the tables below, stratified as a function of



evaporative emission control design - enhanced evap or ORVR designs, and divided between



the induced failure results (Failures) and the post-repair results (Repairs),  11 vehicles were



certified to the enhanced evap standard and 11 were designed to comply with ORVR



requirements. Tables 1 and 2 divide the evaporative emission results into these strata because



the design of ORVR systems  (larger canisters, larger vapor lines, other unique components to



control refueling loss) may also lead to lower evaporative emission loss. ORVR designs are



manufacturer and vehicle design specific, and although their exact ability to produce inherently



low evaporative emissions with the failure modes used in this study was not investigated, the



data in Table 2 suggest lower evaporative emissions from ORVR control systems when



compared to enhanced control systems (Table 1).








                                       Table 1



     Means fx) and Standard Deviations ($) 11 Enhanced Evaporative Emission Vehicles

Running Loss, g/mi

1 hr Hot Soak Loss, g

Failures
x = 7.86
s = 7.89
x= 10.74
s = 16.12
Repairs
x = 0.02
s = 0.01
x-0.13
s = 0.08
                                         -14-

-------
              High 24 hr Diurnal Loss, g   x- 20.83           x = 0.95(N=10)




                                        s = 17.77           s = 0.87
                                        Table 2



      Means fx) and Standard Deviations fs) for 11 ORVR Evaporative Emission Vehicles








                                         Failures             Repairs



              Running Loss, g/mi         x = 4.51             x = 0.02



                                        s = 5.29             s = 0.01








              1 hr Hot Soak Loss, g       x = 2.89             x = 0.14



                                        s = 3.20             s = 0.07








              High 24 hr Diurnal Loss, g   x = 12.31            x = 0.87



                                        s = 12.00            s * 0.51
Not all vehicles had "fail" and "repair" pairs because not all of the vehicles registered DTCs, and



not all vehicles had valid "repair" results. Therefore, Table 2 presents results from only 22 of



the 30 vehicles.  Repaired results which were not deemed to be valid are described  in the



Discussion section of this report.
                                          -15-

-------
21 of 22 after repair tests produced running loss emissions less than the enhanced running loss



standard of 0,05 g/mi. Although the induced failures were simplistic and easy to rectify, the low



running loss emissions after repairs show that this test sample of in-use vehicles is quite clean,



i.e. below FTP standards.







20 of 21 after repair results showed hot soak plus diurnal (high 24 hour result) emissions less



than the enhanced evaporative emission standard of 2.0 g. This also shows that this sample of



in-use vehicles is low emitting with respect to FTP evaporative emission standards.



The results summarized in Table 3 are the means of the combined repair effects (11 enhanced



vehicles plus 11 ORVR vehicles) in Tables 1 and 2.








                                        Table 3



   Means fx) and Standard Deviations (s) of Repair Effects (Failure - Repair) for 22 Vehicles








              Running Loss, g/mi         x = 6.17             s = 6.78








              1 hr. Hot Soak Loss, g       x = 6.68             s = 12.04








              High 24 hr Diurnal Loss, g    x = 14.18 (N=21)     s= 14.54








The repair effects for 22 evaporative emission repairs were substantial: 6.2 g/mi for the running



loss test, 6.7 g for the hot soak test, and 14.2 g for the high 24 hr result for the diurnal loss test



(21 vehicles). The range among the evaporative emission test results for the induced failures is



large, as evidenced by values of the standard deviation which are equal to or greater than the





                                         -16-

-------
mean.  Emission results of the repaired vehicles did not exhibit the scatter observed by the
"failed" vehicles.

Composite and bag by bag FTP exhaust emission results are summarized in Tables A-3 and A-
4, respectively, in the Appendix,

Based on the results presented in Tables 1-3 above, and follow-up emission testing at ATL on
one vehicle, and on two vehicles at the EPA NVFEL, EPA concludes that, In general, OBD II
evaporative emission monitors accurately identify vehicles with evaporative emission problems,
and the repair effects observed by comparing pre and post repair FTP emission levels are
substantial. These findings satisfy the first three of four objectives of this study,

EPA believes the fourth objective, determining if using an OBD II scan tool to check MIL and
DTC status is an acceptable I/M test for identifying in-use evaporative emission failures, has
also been satisfied. This is based on the observations that 1) vehicles with illuminated MILs
and evaporative emission DTCs have high  emissions when compared against FTP evaporative
emission standards, 2) the OBD scan for evaporative emissions  is accurate and unintrusive,
unlike pre-OBD II I/M functional evaporative emission "pressure" and "purge" checks, which are
often impractical due to the inability to access the evaporative emission system, and/or risk of
damage to the vehicle, and 3) using a scan tool in an I/M environment is very time efficient,
requiring only about 30 seconds to conduct an entire OBD check once the scan tool is inserted
in the data link connector, versus several minutes for functional tests.
                                         -17-

-------
VII. Discussion

OBD and 1/M Gas Cap Tests
Reference [5] contains data that suggest the incidence of gas cap failures on 1998 model year
OBD vehicles, determined using a functional leak test on the gas cap, is over 30 times the
incidence of evaporative emission failures detected by the OBD monitor. Although this study
did not quantify evaporative emissions from real world gas cap leaks, it would  be desirable to
collect such data in the future. Nevertheless, there appears to be an adequate benefit from
conducting a stand alone functional gas cap test as part of the OBD check of the evaporative
emission system.  This is based on examining the emission results from the two vehicles with
0.020 in, diameter leaks in gas caps which were not identified by the OBD system. Even
though the OBD systems in these two vehicles were not designed to find 0.020 in, leaks, EPA
believes the mass emissions from leaking gas caps which are below the 0.020 in. threshold
may still be significant over the in-use operation of the vehicle. Therefore, at present and until
more data are available, EPA is recommending conducting a standard I/M gas cap check in
conjunction with a scan of the OBD II system.

OBD II and I/M Pressure/Purge Tests
This study did not directly compare the effectiveness of OBD II evaporative emission monitors
to the functional I/M pressure and purge tests proposed by EPA in the 1992 I/M rule. The
reasons for this were twofold.

First, the failure criteria for functional I/M pressure and purge tests differ from the criteria used
by OBD II vehicles, and therefore it would require a considerably larger sample than 30 vehicles
                                         -18-

-------
to prove if there are differences between numbers of failures found by either method (identified



independently by either method), and analyze the possible mass emissions reductions which



could result from repairing vehicles identified by OBD II vs. functional testing. Pre-OBD II I/M



pressure tests fail vehicles which lose more than  six inches of water column pressure in two



minutes starting from an initial pressure of six inches of water above ambient pressure. A



vehicle fails the I/M purge test if the system flows less than  1.0 liters of a hydrocarbon and air



mixture when measured at a point between the evaporative emission canister and the engine



intake. The OBD II criteria require identifying vehicles with leaks in the vapor space of an



equivalent hole size of at least 0.040 in. diameter (0.020 in. diameter leak identification is being



phased-in nationwide for light duty vehicles  starting with the 2000 model year).  OBD II criteria



for identifying defective purge systems require that a test be conducted  to determine the



presence of purge flow, such as an actual flow measurement, or indirect indicators of purge



flow such as monitoring changes in air fuel ratio, to prove the canister is being purged. The



OBD checks are performed whenever the vehicle is operated and enabling criteria  have been



satisfied. OBD II requirements for identifying malfunctioning evaporative emission  systems



were developed by the California Air Resources Board in the early 1990's independent of the



EPA I/M 1992 functional pressure and purge tests.







More detailed discussions of the theoretical relationship between the OBD II 0.040  inch



detection requirement and the pre-OBD functional pressure check,  including estimating the



merits of running a functional pressure test on OBD II vehicles with no MIL illuminated or no



DTC, are contained in references [6] and [7].  Based largely on discussions among members of



the MSTRS OBD workgroup, it is likely that  the number of small leaks undetected by OBD II



would be low, repairing such vehicles may be difficult, and conducting dual testing on OBD



                                         -19-

-------
vehicles would be inconsistent with the data collected from this study.








Second, since the 1996 model year, and including some 1995 model year vehicles, vehicles



have been designed to meet the enhanced evaporative emission standards. This standard



resulted in the usage of less permeable and more durable materials, such as hard vapor lines



between the fuel and tank and the canister which are not capable of being clamped without



damage, and use of connectors which either could not be easily removed after vehicle



assembly, or terminated in connections which prevented timely installation of hardware to



conduct a pressure or purge test. Since the 1998 model year, manufacturers have produced



vehicles designed to the FTP ORVR requirements.  In general, vehicles without service ports



can no longer receive a functional pressure test from the flllpipe location due to the presence of



components to prevent liquid fuel spitback and vapor loss during refueling.  Although the



number of OBD II vehicles with evaporative emission monitors but without service ports is not



easily documented, EPA estimates it constitutes a significant number of the OBD II vehicles



equipped with evaporative emission monitors.








From EPA observations and discussions with vehicle manufacturers, only OBD II vehicles



which are equipped with the evaporative emission "service port" are capable of conducting a



functional I/M pressure or purge test. In an I/M environment this would most safely and



efficiently require a bi-directional scan tool which can also be used for directly reading the MIL



status and DTCs. Therefore it appears that the service port is best used in  the vehicle service



industry to diagnose evaporative emission failures and confirm  repairs.








Some I/M stakeholders have been concerned about not having the capability of testing an OBD




                                         -20-

-------
vehicle which has a "not ready" status at the time of the I/M OBD check. In order to alleviate
this concern, the MSTRS workgroup issued a consensus position stating it is acceptable to
conduct an I/M leak check of the evaporative emission system on OBD II vehicles using the
service port, or a method approved by vehicle manufacturers, |f .such functional tests are
determined to be cost effective for the specific I/M program. [8]  EPA will issue separate
guidance on this and  other implementation issues in the near future,

ATI Vehicles which had Difficulty Illuminating MILs and/or High Post-Repair Evaporative
Emissions
Three vehicles, Nos.  150, 155, and 182, had difficulty illuminating MILs and registering DTCs
after faults were induced in the evaporative emission control system. Three other vehicles,
Nos. 153, 188, and 192, had high levels of running loss and/or hot soak plus diurnal emissions.
This section summarizes the concerns with those vehicles, and where resolution of the issue(s)
was reached, this is also presented. A more detailed discussion of these six vehicles is
presented in the Appendix.

Vehicles with Difficulty Illuminating MILs - Two Mazda vehicles, Nos. 150 and 182 (1998 Mazda
626s), and Ford vehicle No. 155, a 1999 Mercury Tracer, had difficulty illuminating MIL lights
and setting  DTCs  during the period ATL had possession of the vehicles.

Vehicle Nos. 150 and 182 - The Mazda 626s had considerable difficulty illuminating  MILs when
a gas cap was removed (Vehicle 150), and when tested with a gas  cap with a 0.040 inch leak
(Vehicle 182). Vehicle 182 was specifically recruited to investigate  the problems observed
earlier with vehicle 150.  When ATL again had difficulty setting the MIL light and producing a
                                         -21-

-------
DTC, EPA asked for Mazda's assistance to determine why vehicle 182 was not responding to



the induced failure condition.








After considerable investigation by Mazda and EPA technical staff, including two test programs



in Ann Arbor, Ml, it was determined that the Mazda vehicles did respond correctly when missing



or leaking gas caps were installed and two similar Mazda 626s were driven on a chassis



dynamometer and driven on local road routes in the Ann Arbor area.  However, during the



investigation it was determined that Mazda had neglected to list a change in engine load



enabling criterion. It appears that the 1998 Mazda 626 may be sensitive to an individual's



driving behavior, and this affects the ability of the vehicle to exercise the evaporative emission



monitor.  Ultimately, it was unknown why ATI's experiences with the Mazda 626, in particular



vehicle 182, were different from EPA's results in Ann Arbor.








Analysis of OBD data from the Wisconsin I/M program also verified that the 1998 Mazda 626



did not have an  abnormal "not-ready" rate at the time the OBD system was examined as part of



the Wisconsin IM240 test.








Vehicle No. 155 - ATL was not able to set a MIL light on a 1999 Mercury Tracer when a leaking



gas cap was installed.  After several attempts to set the MIL, EPA contacted Ford technical staff



and requested their assistance.  Ford suggested the vehicle be driven over their steady state



driving cycle (unlike most OBD monitors which are designed to be run using cold start FTP



driving cycles, Ford requested and received approval  from EPA to use an evaporative emission



monitor which functions when driven at steady  state conditions) even though ATL did use



steady state driving when attempting to illuminate the MIL and set a DTC. Ford also requested




                                        -22-

-------
the tank be filled to 80% of capacity versus the standard 40% fuel fill for cold start FTP testing.








The suggestions by Ford did not exercise the monitor and the vehicle had to be returned to the



rental agency because the initial phase of the 30 vehicle study ended. No resolution for the



difficulty with this vehicle was reached and EPA is continuing to examine the OBD evaporative



emission monitor on the 1999 Mercury Tracer and the Ford Escort.








Vehicles with High Post-Repair Evaporative Emissions



Three vehicles, Nos. 153, 188, and 192, had suspiciously high post-repair evaporative



emissions relative to either the FTP running loss standard and/or the FTP hot soak plus diurnal



loss standard.  Given that the vehicles were relatively new and the "repairs" to the vehicles



were very straightforward and were not likely to be the source of high evaporative emissions,



considerable effort was expended in examining these three vehicles.








Honda Vehicle Nos. 153 and 188 - Vehicles 153 and 188 are 1999 Honda 2.3 liter Accords. A



number of actions were taken by ATL to examine the reasons for the running loss, and high hot



soak plus  diurnal loss emissions for the post-repair test on vehicle 153. The first phase of the



ATL contract period expired before the emissions results could be explained, and therefore



vehicle 188 was recruited to further examine results for vehicle 153.








When high evaporative emissions were again observed with vehicle  188 and ATL diagnostic



investigations did not find a cause for the results, EPA requested technical assistance from



Honda.
                                         -23-

-------
Honda staff made multiple visits to ATL to confirm the original post-repair results and also to



examine in detail a number of differences between ATI's and Honda's equipment and



procedures for instrumenting the fuel tank, and supplying heat to the fuel tank during the



running loss test,  Honda collected test results in Japan by replicating the systems and



procedures used by ATL,  Later,  Honda returned to ATL and ran tests using procedures and



equipment similar to those used for Certification testing of the Accord in Japan. When using a



Honda-like system at ATL, running loss results were below FTP standards.








Honda concluded it was the combination of improper thermocouple placement in the fuel tank



and an ATL heating system which produced localized and excessive heating of the fuel tank



that lead to erroneously high evaporative emission results on vehicles 153 and 188.








EPA plans to investigate the test procedure issues in greater detail because both ATL and



Honda claim to be following the requirements in the CFR related to thermocouple placement



and heating system design and control.








Ford Vehicle No. 192 - Vehicle 192 is a 1998 3.8 liter Ford Windstar which produced hot soak



plus diurnal emissions above the 2.0 gram standard.  Because ATL diagnosis of the vehicle and



test equipment did not produce an explanation for the high emission result, Ford technical staff



were invited to offer their assistance. Ford had a number of concerns regarding  the ATL test



procedure and equipment, but no obvious engineering explanation was provided which  would



suggest ATL's results were erroneous.








Ford did not wish to visit ATL and more closely examine the  vehicle, test equipment, and




                                         -24-

-------
procedures, but they did offer to supply a Wlndstar fuel tank to ATL which was instrumented in



a manner similar to a Certification test configuration. EPA decided not to conduct tests with the



tank offered by Ford because it would have required access panels be cut in the floor of the



vehicle to accommodate the protruding thermocouples and fuel drains which are typically used



in testing of Certification prototype vehicles. The vehicle was then released to the rental



agency because the second phase of the test program came to an end.








EPA asked if Ford would test a similar Windstar at their Dearborn, Ml Certification facility and



they have agreed to do this during the month of August.








Although exact explanations for the difficulty in illuminating MILs was not provided for the three



vehicles discussed above, explanations would likely be determined if more time and resources



were devoted to studying them. Of equal or greater concern is the possible emissions



sensitivity to differences in laboratories' running loss equipment and test procedures. These



issues require more attention.
VIII. Conclusions







1)  In general, OBD II evaporative emission monitors operated properly on a 30 vehicle sample



of OBD II vehicles. This conclusion is based on the proper performance of the OBD system



when evaporative emission failures were induced, the absence of codes or illuminated MILs



when the failures were removed, and analysis of the FTP,
                                         -25-

-------
2) Based on the observations above, and given the impracticality of using functional t/M (pre-
OBD) purge and fillpipe pressure checks on OBD vehicles, OBD II evaporative emissions
checks are a suitable replacement for functional evaporative emission I/M tests.
                                                        >,
3) Based on data from the Wisconsin I/M program that show over 30 times as many OBD
vehicles fail the stand alone gas cap test as compared to setting an evaporative emission DTC,
EPA recommends that gas cap testing continue for OBD I/M checks.

4) The emissions data show, in general, OBD II vehicles with evaporative emission DTCs and
illuminated  MILs exceed FTP evaporative emission standards, while vehicles without DTCs and
illuminated  MILs are below FTP evaporative emission standards. The repair effects associated
with performing I/M evaporative tests using scan tools and OBD II technology, appears to be
substantial.
IX.  Recommendations

The following recommendations are based on this study;

1) It is desirable to conduct emission tests on a larger sample of OBD II vehicles, including
vehicles designed to comply with the California Air Resources Board (CARS) 0.020 inch leak
check requirements. Future test programs should include more real world evaporative emission
failures and also include real world repairs.
                                        -26-

-------
2) Given the testing issues raised in analyses of the Mazda, Honda, and Ford vehicles, it would



be useful to conduct a study of the evaporative emission sensitivity to thermocouple location



and fuel tank heating system design.
X. Acknowledgments








Completion of this study would not have been possible without the assistance of the vehicle



manufacturers whose vehicles comprised the 30 vehicle sample: Ford, General Motors, Honda,



Isuzu, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, and Toyota. These manufacturers provided timely



assistance in locating fuel tank temperature profiles for the running loss test and also  in



addressing vehicle specific testing issues.
                                         -27-

-------
X!.  References








1 Gardetto, E, Trimble, T; "Evaluation of OBD for Use In Detecting High Emitting Vehicles,"



EPA Technical Report, August 2000








2 Data from EPA Work Assignments 3-12 and 0-4, SHED Tests on OBD II Evap Vehicles, EPA



Contract No. 68-C99-241 - Automotive Testing Laboratories; 1999-2000








3 Trimble, T; "Analyses of the OBD II Data from the Wisconsin I/M Lanes," EPA Technical



Report, August 2000








4 Subpart B,  Part 86, Protection of the Environment, Code of Federal Regulations, Revised July



1, 1998








5 Data submitted to EPA from the Wisconsin I/M program for 1996-1999 model years, July



2000








6 Reineman, Martin; "EPA Position on Conducting Functional I/M Tests on OBD Vehicles",



memo to FACA t/M OBD Sub-group Members, 7 April, 2000








7 Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers; "I & M Evaporative System Pressure Check and OBD



II Inspection," 13 January, 2000




                                       -28-

-------
8 Reineman, Martin, and Mow, Vince; "Issue: Conducting Functional Pressure Tests on OBD



Vehicles," Position statement presented to FACA OBD 1/M Workgroup, 19 April, 2000








9 Reineman, Martin, Regional and State Programs Division; "Tests with Mazda 626s", EPA



memo to An/on Mitcham, Vehicle Programs and Compliance Division, 9 November, 1999



(Business Confidential)








10 Mitcham, An/on, "1998 Mazda 626 Evaporative Monitor Road Evaluation", EPA report,



November, 1999  {Business Confidential)








11 Motohashi, Masa, Mazda North American Operations; "Summary of Mazda/EPA OBD II



Road Test", report submitted to Arvon Mitcham, Vehicle Program and Compliance Division, 17



November, 1999  (Business Confidential)








12 Raney, David; Cover Letter and Report, "Test and Research Report - Investigation of High



Evaporative Emissions from 1999 Accord at ATL"  Ref.  No. AHPRO-E00008, submitted to



Martin Reineman, EPA, July 27, 2000








13 Reineman, Martin; personal conversations with Harry Diegel, Principal Engineer, Vehicle



Environmental Engineering, Surveillance and Compliance Dept, Ford Motor Company, 2 June,



2000
                                       -29-

-------
Appendix
   -30-

-------
                       Selected Results from Individual Vehicles







Mazda Vehicles 150 and 182 - Vehicles 150 and 182 are 1998 Mazda 626s with identical



engine and evaporative emissions families. In Table A-2, results from vehicle 150 with a



missing gas cap show that three cold start LA-4s, two cold start FTPs, one cold start five minute



45 mph steady state, and one hot start 20 minute 60 mph steady state cycle were run in an



attempt to set the evaporative emission monitor to "ready", set a DTC, and illuminate a MIL.  Ail



cold starts were preceded by an overnight soak at 75 F. Following the last steady state cycle,



the MIL was still not illuminated but a code 0455 (large leak) was recorded in the continuous



memory of the OBD system. The vehicle was then FTP tested. Following installation of the



gas cap, two cold start LA-4s, two cold start steady states, and one cold start FTP were run to



set the evaporative emission monitor to "ready" and observe the MIL and DTC status. At the



end of this sequence the evaporative emission monitor was still not ready but the vehicle was



FTP tested in its "repaired" state.








Because vehicle 150 did  not illuminate a MIL or produce a DTC, EPA contacted technical staff



at Mazda and began to jointly investigate whether there was a design problem  with the OBD



evaporative emission monitor, or there were test protocol or vehicle instrumentation issues



which might explain the apparent problems with the OBD system.  Meetings were held among



Mazda and EPA technical staff members, and a series of dynamometer and road tests were



conducted in Ann Arbor, Ml on two 1998 Mazda 626s identical to vehicle 150.  EPA also



analyzed data from the Wisconsin IM240 program to determine if 1998 Mazda  626s had high



incidences of being "not ready" at the time of the I/M test. The results of these investigations




                                         -31-

-------
and analyses are summarized in references [9], [10], and [11].








Reference [9] describes the results of a test program run on chassis dynamometers at the EPA



NVFEL. One vehicle was instrumented to record a series of real time engine and evaporative



emission control parameters.  These parameters were recorded by using a custom powertrain



control module (PCM) and Mazda's auxiliary on-board data recording system.  Discussions with



Mazda and inspection of the identification numbers on the PCM confirmed the custom PCM



was identical to the production unit with the exception of its  ability to output parameters to an



on-board data collection system. One vehicle was tested with a missing gas cap and the other



vehicle was tested with a gas  cap with a 0.040 in. diameter  teak. Results from reference [9]



show the OBD  evaporative emission monitors performed properly by illuminating Mils and



setting DTCs on the second cold LA-4 driven with each vehicle.








Reference [10] describes a test program conducted at the EPA NVFEL which evaluated the



ability of the evaporative emission monitor to detect a missing gas cap when the same vehicles



used for the dynamometer study were driven over a series of road routes in the Ann Arbor area.



This study showed that when  the two vehicles were driven over a variety of road routes with



several different drivers, Mils and DTCs were observed on 6 of 13 road trials.  Reference [10]



also describes the result of an analysis of data from the Wisconsin l/M test program.  A check



of the readiness status at the  time of the Wisconsin l/M test on 152 Mazda 626s during the



period August,  1998 through July,  1999 showed a "not ready" condition for only four vehicles.



The analysis did not examine  the reason for the not ready status, but even if the evaporative



emission monitor was the reason for all four vehicles being  "not ready", this is not judged to be



a significant concern. Based  on the dynamometer and road test programs at the NVFEL, and




                                        -32-

-------
an analysis of the Wisconsin data, EPA concluded the Mazda 626 OBD evaporative emission



monitors operated acceptably.








Reference [11] is an engineering report submitted by Mazda describing the need for an



additional enabling criterion. This report requests a "change in load < 4,0/sec" enabling



criterion be added to their 1998 model year OBD application description.  This criterion is based



on the change in load fraction, expressed as a decimal from 0 to 1,0 during a period of 50



msec. The load fraction is based on the ratio of measured engine air flow divided by the air



flow at a maximum load condition, and thus the numerator is dimensionless. The enabling



criterion specifies that the rate of change in engine load must be less than a certain value.  The



enabling criterion added by Mazda implies that a driver should operate the vehicle in a "smooth



manner" to obtain more frequent operation of the evaporative emission monitor.








During the period when the EPA was investigating the two Mazdas in Ann Arbor, ATL began



testing a second Mazda 626. Vehicle 182 experienced difficulty in setting codes and



illuminating MILs when tested with a Q.Q40 in. diameter leak in the gas cap, and also had high



evaporative emissions in its "repaired" FTP test. The test history with vehicle 182 can be



observed by examining the Fault, MIL, Code, Drive Cycle to Set Code, and Comments columns



in Table A-2, and the emission results in Table A-3. Table A-3 uses the labels F1, R1, F2, and



R2 to designate the first series of "failed" and "repaired" FTP tests, and the second series of



"failed" and "repaired" tests, respectively. The identifier "Diag" refers to a diagnostic test which



was performed to investigate reasons for the high evaporative emissions.








Note in Table A-2 that vehicles  182,183, and 184 used several road driving cycles while




                                         -33-

-------
attempting to illuminate Mils or produce DTCs,  This occurred because ATL was installing a



dynamometer in their laboratory and construction limited the access to and usage of their other



dynamometers.








No MIL or DTC were present following two cold start LA-4s when vehicle 182 was driven on a



road route with a 0,040 in. diameter leak in the gas cap. When the fault was removed and the



FTP repeated,  the running loss emissions were high. The cause for the high evaporative



emissions was investigated and attributed to an inaccurate measurement of the fuel



temperature which caused the fuel to be heated excessively, thereby generating high quantities



of hydrocarbon vapor during the running loss test. The emission results in Table A-3



designated as "Diag" shows that correcting the over heating condition by using internal fuel tank



thermocouples lowered the running loss emissions below the 0.05 g/mi standard.








Given that the previous emission tests, F1 and R1 were now suspect, the vehicle was rerun



with a 0.040 gas cap leak. No MIL or DTCs were observed after the second cold start even



though the evaporative emission monitor status was "ready."  A second FTP test was run with



the leaking gas cap, and these are reported as F2 in Table A-3.  A second FTP test was run



with the fault removed and these results are  reported as R2 in Table A-3. The gas cap was



then removed and two cold LA-4s were run on the dynamometer.  The MIL illuminated and



DTC 0455 (large leak) was registered.  One more attempt was made to illuminate a MIL and set



a DTC with a 0.040 in. leak in the gas cap by running a series of cold start LA-4s, but after the



third LA-4, no MIL was illuminated and no DTC was observed.








There are no obvious reasons for the apparent differences in MIL illumination and  DTC




                                         -34-

-------
response between the ATL and Ann Arbor investigations.  EPA suspects the evaporative



emission monitor in the 1998 Mazda 626 may not be easy to exercise during transient driving,



although EPA reported more success in Ann Arbor in illuminating MILs and registering DTCs



with induced faults.  Neither of the Mazda vehicles tested at ATL, were judged to have



accurately identified a 0.040 inch leak, and therefore they constitute two or the three vehicles



which did not illuminate MILs or register DTCs, Similarly, because they did not illuminate MILs,



these vehicles did not qualify for inclusion in Tables 1- 3, which required that they illuminated



MILs, set DTCs,  and did not have questions concerning the validity of the evaporative emission



results presented in Table A-3, particularly the post-repair tests.








Vehicles with High Post-Repair Evaporative Emissions



Two Honda vehicles, Nos. 153 and 188, had high evaporative emission results for the post



repair FTP tests. Two Ford vehicles, Nos. 155 and 194, also had high evaporative emissions



for the post repair FTP tests.








Honda Vehicles 153 and 188 - Vehicle 153 is a 1999 Honda Accord LX with a 2.3 liter engine.



This vehicle produced high evaporative emissions during the running loss, and subsequently in



the hot soak and diurnal portions of the FTP, The fault induced in vehicle 153 was a



disconnected purge line which was blocked at the end of the disconnection and also at the



connection on the purge valve.  Given the simplistic failure mode, there appears little likelihood



that the vehicle was not restored to its original configuration for the "repaired" mode test.  Unlike



the problems described above for the Mazda vehicles, the OBD system had no difficulty In



illuminating the MIL and setting a DTC.
                                         -35-

-------
A number of actions were taken by ATL to investigate the causes of the apparent high



evaporative emissions first observed during the second bag of the first LA-4 cycle of the running



loss driving schedule.  They included checking for leaks, checking the adsorption efficiency of



the canister by purging, loading, and weighing the canister, checking for adequate purge



volume by installing a flowmeter, probing for sources of hydrocarbon vapor while driving a



series of three I_A-4s with the vehicle on a chassis dynamometer, probing for vapor sources



when the vehicle was placed in the SHED after the series of LA-4s, and checking the



performance of a two way control valve in the vapor control system.  No cause for the high



evaporative emissions was found and the vehicle had to be returned to the rental agency when



the contract period expired at the end of September, 1999,








The contract work with ATL was begun again in October, 1999,  Given the unexplained



difficulties with vehicle 153, another 1999 Honda Accord, vehicle 188, was recruited for the



study.  188 was identical to vehicle 153 but used a 0.040 in. diameter leak in the gas cap as the



induced failure condition.  Again, post-repair FTP results showed high levels of evaporative



emissions starting with the fourth  bag (2nd NYCC) during the running loss test.  The hot soak



and diurnal loss results were also high compared to the 2,0 g FTP evaporative emission



standard.








A second set of tests with and without the induced fault were run, this time using thermocouples



located in the fuel liquid, as opposed to the earlier test which attached thermocouples to the



exterior fuel tank surface. These tests are identified as F2 and R2, respectively, in Table A-3.



Although each FTP test sequence suggested lower running loss emissions (significantly lower



for the  repaired tests, 6.43 g/mi vs. 0.66 g/mi), the "repaired" test results still exceeded  FTP




                                         -36-

-------
standards.  Analysis of the data showed hydrocarbon breakthrough occurred at the end of the



sixth bag (second bag of the second LA-4) of the running loss driving schedule.








Honda conducted an extensive effort to find a cause for the high evaporative emissions



reported during the post-repair FTP tests of vehicle 188. [12]  Honda staff reviewed the second



by second temperature versus time profile during the running loss tests of vehicle 188, and



visited ATL to examine differences in test equipment between ATL and their certification test



facility in Japan.








On April 4 and 5, Honda witnessed a running loss test that confirmed the previously reported



high emissions. This series of tests used certification conditions for the dynamometer inertia



and road load horsepower.  These values were higher than the previous load settings, 3375 vs.



3250 pounds, and 7.8 vs. 5.2 horsepower. The running loss result, 0.38 g/mi was lower than



earlier results,  but still much higher than the 0.05 g/mi. standard.  During the visit to ATL,



Honda speculated that the location of the thermocouples in the fuel tank and the design and



position of the ATL fuel tank heating system may have lead to localized tank heating and



therefore higher evaporative emissions.








Honda conducted a baseline running loss test at their certification facility Japan on a similar



Accord. This test produced a running loss result of 0.022 g/mi, well under the 0.05 g/mi



standard.  Next, they located thermocouples in positions similar to those used by ATL in their



initial tests, and also duplicated the design of the ATL fuel tank heating system at their



certification test facility in Japan. A running loss result of 0.031 g/mi was obtained following



these modifications. Honda noted that their "simulated ATL system" did not control liquid  or




                                         -37-

-------
vapor temperature to within the CFR requirements, but given the higher vapor and liquid



temperatures relative to the certification target profiles, Honda stated the evaporative emission



control system was designed with a significant margin of safety.







Honda stated that the thermocouple positions used by ATL to monitor the interior fuel



temperature were not in strict accordance with the CFR requirement for a "mid-volume" positron



at a 40% fill level of nominal tank capacity, [4]







A second series of FTP tests were conducted at ATL on May 15 and  16 using a tank heating



system designed to approximate the system used for certification testing in Japan. These tests



also used a Honda supplied fuel tank with internal thermocouples located at the positions used



by Honda in their certification tests.  The outlet area of the new air supply was slightly larger



than the outlet area of the standard ATL system (approximately 187 in2 vs. 157 in2) and the



modified system at ATL simulated the supply duct in Japan with respect to its location under the



fuel tank. The outlet area of the modified system  was restricted to achieve an adequate supply



velocity.  This was one of several design compromises which were made at ATL because the



air flowrate was higher in Japan with similar duct sizes. Reference (12] includes photographs



which show the original and modified systems at ATL and in Japan.







The net effect of the modifications to the ATL heating system and use of a fuel tank with



different positions for the thermocouples was to produce FTP running loss below the FTP



standard, 0.019 g/mi, and low hot soak emissions. Honda concluded it was the combination of



improper thermocouple placement and a heating system which produced  localized and



excessive heating of the fuel tank which produced the erroneously high evaporative emission



                                        -38-

-------
results on vehicles 153 and 188.








EPA desires to conduct follow-up testing on these vehicles to quantify the localized heating



condition and the sensitivity to thermocouple placement on running losses, as the standard



system used by ATL has been successfully used on many different vehicle/fuel tank



combinations without adversely affecting a vehicle's evaporative emission results. It  is



important to note that both Honda's and ATI's running loss fuel tank equipment meet the CFR



requirements.








Ford Vehicles 155 and 192 - Vehicle 155 is a 1999 model year Mercury Tracer with 2.0 liter



engine.  The Ford OBD evaporative emission monitor operates under steady state conditions



unlike most evaporative emission monitors which are designed to operate on cold LA-4 and/or



cold start FTP driving cycles. A gas cap with a 0.040 in.  leak was installed and combinations of



LA-4s and steady state cycles were run to illuminate a MIL and set a DTC. A cold LA-4



followed by a cold steady state did not illuminate the MIL.  The OBD system was reset, and a



cold LA-4, cold start steady state, and hot start LA-4 sequence did not illuminate the MIL,



although the evaporative emission  monitor had completed its leak check.  The FTP test was



then run with the leaking gas cap followed by the post-repair FTP.








Ford engineering staff were notified of the test results. They requested the leaking gas cap be



re-installed, the fuel tank filled to 80% capacity, and a cold LA-4, cold steady state, and second



cold steady state driving cycle be run.  The MIL was still not illuminated after this sequence of



drive cycles, and the vehicle had to be returned to the rental  agency because the initial portion



of the ATL contract period had expired.




                                         -39-

-------
Vehicle 192 is a 1998 Ford Windstar with a 3.8 liter engine. The induced failure was a 0.040 in.



diameter leak between the fuel tank and the canister. One cold start FTP and two cold start



steady state tests illuminated a MIL and produced a DTC. The vehicle received its initial FTP,



the fault was  removed, and after readiness criteria were satisfied, the vehicle was retested on



the FTP. Running loss and hot soak emissions were low, but the vehicle showed high diurnal



emissions on  each of the 24 hour portions of the three day diurnal test sequence, ATL



technicians inspected the vehicle for leaks, and although the initial leak check of the vehicle did



not indicate any leaks, inspection after the post-repair FTP emission test showed a possible



leak at the sending unit seal.  The seal was replaced and the vehicle FTP tested again. These



results are identified as test R2 in Table A-3, and show the vehicle again exceeded the FTP hot



soak plus diurnal standard. The vehicle was again checked for leaks but none were found and



due to time constraints, the vehicle was returned to the rental agency.







EPA again contacted Ford technical staff and requested their assistance in determining why the



vehicle exhibited high levels of evaporative emissions during the diurnal test. Ford requested a



number of details concerning test equipment and test procedures used at ATL.  Ford's



concerns included the possibility that installation of the thermocouples through the bottom of the



tank may have induced trace leaks, the position of the thermocouples in the fuel may have



been incorrect, the diagnostic leak checks completed by ATL  indicated inconsistent results, the



fuel tank heating system did not closely duplicate the heating system used by Ford during



certification testing of the 1998 Windstar, and the dynamometer inertia weight and 50 mph



actual horsepower were  low compared to the certification test parameters.







Ford's concerns are theoretically valid in that significant differences in instrumentation and test




                                         -40-

-------
parameters may influence evaporative emission results, but EPA did not prove that these
concerns, or combinations of them, were responsible for the high diurnal emissions measured
on either of the post-repair FTPs,

The inertia and horsepower for the ATL tests on the 1998 Windstar were based on data from
the EPA I/M Look-up Table.  Certification vehicles, based on engine family groupings, do not
accurately reflect the real world, "as built" fleet, which appear in I/M lanes.  Real world vehicles
are aggregated in the look-up table differently than the methodology certification vehicles
(prototypes) use to represent multiple vehicles. For instance, a vehicle arriving for an I/M test
which appears to be uniquely identified in terms of manufacturer, model year, model  name,
body style, number of cylinders, engine displacement, and transmission may have multiple
combinations of inertia weight and horsepower in the EPA certification records. The  look-up
table is based on selecting the lowest inertia and/or dynamometer horsepower from EPA
certification records when multiple values are listed.  Therefore, the lower vehicle inertia
selected at ATL, 3875 pounds versus 4250 pounds in the certification data, and the lower
horsepower, 7.9 versus 10.0, are not unexpected. Ford staff expressed the view that,
qualitatively, the lower dynamometer conditions would be expected to result in an Incrementally
smaller quantity of purge flow during tests at ATL. It is unknown how this affected the diurnal
loss emissions at ATL.

Because no obvious reason for the high evaporative emissions could be determined, Ford
offered to send ATL a Windstar fuel tank instrumented in a manner identical to a fuel tank used
during the certification of the 1998 Windstar vehicle. It was determined that this would require
that access panels  be cut in the floor of the vehicle to accommodate the protruding
                                         -41-

-------
thermocouples and fuel drains which are commonly present on certification vehicles. Given



that this vehicle was procured from a rental agency, this was unacceptable unless EPA or Ford



were to purchase the vehicle.  Neither party wished to do this and the vehicle was returned to



the rental agency without a determination of a reason(s) for the high diurnal emissions.







EPA asked if Ford would consider running an evaporative emission test on a similar vehicle at



their Allen Park, Michigan certification test facility to demonstrate that, the ATL results



notwithstanding, the 1998 Windstar meets CFR requirements for FTP evaporative emissions.



EPA staff met with Ford and were given a tour of the test equipment and protocols which Ford



used during the certification process for the 1998 Windstar. [13]  Ford has agreed to conduct a



test with the Windstar, and the test is scheduled to be conducted during August 2000. Should



the results of this test show the vehicle meets the evaporative emission standards using CFR



protocols, no further investigation of the discrepancies in evaporative emissions will  likely be



performed.
                                         -42-

-------
                                                          Table A-1
                                                     Vehicle Descriptions
Veh  Model
Make
Honda
Ford
Chevrolet
Toyota
Chevrolet
Nissan
Mitsubishi
Ford
Toyota
Chevrolet
Mazda
Chevrolet
Ford
Honda
Nissan
Model
Civic
Explorer
Tahoe
Camry
Monte Carlo
Altima
Mirage
Taurus
Pickup
Cavalier
626 LX
Lumina
Ranger
Accord LX
Sentra
Disp
liters
2.0
4.0
5
2
3
.7
.2
.1
2.4
1
3
2
.5
.0
.4
2.2
2.0
3
.1
3.0
2
1
.3
.6
Odom
miles
7
116
9
21
7
35
9
49
78
16
21
31
5
12
29
,576
,730
,440
,197
,978
,574
,442
,443
,042
,124
,378
,859
,259
,950
,362
Engine Family
XHNXV01.6CA3
TFM4.028GKFK
XGMXA05
.7186
WTYXV02.2XBA
XGMXV03.4041
WSNXV02.4A3A
XMTXV01 .5GFD
VFM3.0V8GKEK
XTYXT02.4BBH
XGMXV02.2021
WTKXV02
.OVBA
WGMXV03.1041
XFMXT03.32DC
XHNXV02.3PA3
XNSXV01 .
6A1A
Tank Vo
Evap Family gal
XHNXR0099AAD 16.0
TFM1120AYMED
XGMXE0111911
WTYXR0135AK1
XGMXE0095904
WNSXR0110RCA
XMTXR0140A1A
VFM1115AYMEB
XTYXE0095AEO
XGMXR0124912
WTKXR0125BFA
WGMXE0095904
XFMXE0155FBE
XHNXR0130AAA
XNSXR0085RCA
21
30
18
16
15
12
.0
.0
.5
.6
.8
.4
16.0
15
15
.1
.0
16.9
16
19
17
13
.6
.5
.1
.3
I Tank
Material
Metal
Metal
Plastic
Metal
Metal
Plastic
Metal
Metal
Metal
Metal
Metal
Metal
Plastic
Metal
Metal
Dyno Inertia Dyno Load
    Ibs      HP @ 50

   2875       7.5

   4500       11.8

   5625       16.0

   3500       7.3

   3625       6.4

   3000       11.3

   2750       6.4

   4000       3.8

   3125       13.2

   3000       7.0

   3375       7.2

   3625       5.5

   4250       14.3

   2750       6.7

   3000       6.3

-------
155
156
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
99
99
98
00
99
98
98
99
99
00
99
96
98
98
99
Mercury
Toyota
Mazda
Nissan
Mercury
Chevrolet
Ford
Infinity
Honda
Toyota
Toyota
Isuzu
Ford
Chevrolet
Pontiac
Tracer
Sienna
626
Maxima
Gr.Marquis
S-10
F-150
QX4
Accord
Corolla
Tacoma
Rodeo
Windstar
Malibu
Grand Am
2.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
4.6
4.3
4.6
3.3
2.3
1.8
2.4
3.2
3.8
3.1
2.4
12,782
30,611
32,854
6,742
25,678
14,745
73,787
27,453
1 1 ,636
7,592
41,142
77,640
68,892
29,871
21,666
XFMXV02.0VBA
XTYXT03.0XBP
WTKXV02.0VBA
YNSZV03.0A6A
XFMXV04.6VBE
WGMXT04.3183
WFMXT04.6BAA
XNSXT03.3A5B
XHNXV02.3PA3
YTYXV01.8FFA
XTYXT02.4BBH
TSZ3.22JGKEK
WFMXT03.8ABA
WGMXV03.1041
XGMXV02.4024
XFMXR0080BAE
XTYXE0115AE1
WTKXR0125BFA
YNSXR0110RCC
XFMXR0115BAE
WGMXE009504
WFMXE0160BAE
XNSXE0110MBA
XHNXR0130AAA
YTYXR0115AK1
XTYXE0095AEO
TSZ1089AYMEO
WFMXE0140BBE
WGMXR0124912
XGMXR0124912
12.8
21.0
16.9
19.5
19.0
18.5
24.5
21.2
17.2
13.2
15.2
21.9
20.0
15.0
15.0
Metal
Metal
Metal
Metal
Metal
Metal
Metal
Metal
Metal
Metal
Metal
Metal
Plastic
Metal
Metal
ORVR
Enhanced
ORVR
ORVR
ORVR
Enhanced
Enhanced
Enhanced
ORVR
ORVR
Enhanced
Enhanced
Enhanced
ORVR
ORVR
4250
3375
3375
3500
4250
4500
4500
4500
3250
2750
3250
4250
3875
3375
3250
9.5
7.2
7.2
7.9
10.5
14.4
14.6
17.9
5.2
6.2
12.3
16.4
7.9
5.8
5.7

-------
        Table A-3
Composite Emission Results
Veh Failure/ Test
No. Repair No.
140R
141E
142E
143R
144E
145R
146R
147E
148E
149R
F
R
F
R
F
R
F
R
F
R
F
R
F
R
F
R1
R2
F
R
F
R
21060
21306
21173
21246
21571
21618
21253
21613
21589
21639
21677
21743
21663
21705
21791
21857
21970
21888
21993
21913
22006
Composite Emissions, q/mi
HC CH4 CO NOx CO2
0.03 0.03
0.04 0.03
0.15
0.14
0.10
0.09
0.14
0.13
0.12
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.15
0.14
0.16
0.25
0.20
0.18
0.18
0.07
0.09
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.13
0.12
0.14
0.22
0.18
0.15
0.15
0.05
0.08
0.6
1.1
1.1
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.5
1.6
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.7
1.6
1.4
2.5
1.8
2.4
2.1
1.9
1.4
0.04
0.03
0.28
0.49
0.26
0.26
0.24
0.17
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.24
0.19
0.15
0.24
0.43
0.29
0.27
0.30
0.04
0.04
273
282
441
504
618
621
344
329
411
392
355
347
297
291
423
453
420
358
363
360
351
MPG
32.4
31.3
20.1
17.5
14.3
14.3
25.6
26.8
21.5
22.5
24.9
25.5
29.7
30.3
20.9
19.4
21.0
24.5
24.2
24.5
25.1
Running Lo:
Test
No. Grams
21064
21256
21175
21248
21572
21620
21255
21615
21591
21641
21679
21745
21665
21707
21726
21859
21972
21890
21995
21914
22008
220.86
0.28
289.62
0.57
46.35
0.31
118.34
0.17
91.67
0.24
78.87
0.24
0.17
0.18
375.91
77.03
0.21
1.55
0.32
111.79
0.34
ss
qr/mi
12.81
0.02
16.75
0.03
2.69
0.02
6.88
0.01
5.31
0.01
4.57
0.01
0.01
0.01
21.84
4.49
0.01
0.09
0.02
6.52
0.02
Hot Soak
Test
No. Grams
3057
3085
3078
3093
3097
3104
3095
3102
3099
3108
3112
3123
3110
3114
3119
3143
3177
3150
3183
3155
3189
3.91
0.10
2.72
0.25
8.62
0.15
3.62
0.09
54.88
0.11
0.72
0.12
0.07
0.07
23.66
8.28
0.07
0.80
0.13
8.96
0.30
SHED
No.
15
15
15
12
15
14
14
15
14
14
15
12
15
15
15
12
14
11
15
14
3 Day Diurnal Loss
Test 1st 24 2nd 24 3rd 24
No. Grams Grams Grams
3058
3087
3079
3094
3098
3105
3096
3103
3100
3109
3113
3124
3111
3115
3120
3144
Not
3151
3185
3156
3192
21.19
0.51
1.94
2.89
36.70
0.57
29.41
0.29
3.02
0.50
0.67
0.76
0.36
0.32
20.10
0.38
1.77
2.28
34.41
0.43
28.24
0.22
3.81
0.42
2.08
0.79
0.51
0.40
40.30 32.64
1.11 1.41
Performed
3.66
0.24
4.17
1.13
4.22
0.24
5.91
1.56
19.38
0.41
2.28
2.10
33.45
0.40
26.86
0.20
4.78
0.40
3.82
0.80
0.79
0.58
27.61
2.51
5.30
0.24
6.32
1.71

-------
150R

151E

152E

153R

154R


155R

156E

182R




183R

184R

185E


186E

F
R
F
R
F
R
F
R
F
R

F
R
F
R
F1
R1
Diag
F2
R2
F
R
F
R
F1
F2
R
F
R
21996
22137
22023
22081
22013
22132
22072
22166
22086
22177

22155
22202
22121
22182
22262
22300
22456
22518
22578
22368
22438
22398
22461
22414
22571
22469
22612
22679
0.14
0.13
0.15
0.14
0.10
0.09
0.07
0.04
0.10
0.10

0.06
0.07
0.21
0.16
0.17
0.15
0.14
0.33
0.16
0.10
0.09
0.33
0.12
0.16
0.15
0.14
0.19
0.18
0.12
0.12
0.13
0.11
0.09
0.09
0.06
0.04
0.08
0.08

0.05
0.07
0.18
0.14
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.32
0.14
0.09
0.08
0.25
0.11
0.13
0.13
0.12
0.16
0.15
1.2
0.9
2.4
2.0
1.6
1.5
2.2
1.6
2.5
2.2

0.5
0.7
1.4
1.3
1.1
1.0
1.2
1.5
1.3
1.1
0.9
6.1
1.9
1.6
1.6
1.6
2.0
1.8
0.23
0.20
0.13
0.15
0.05
0.03
0.06
0.05
0.07
0.08

0.09
0.08
0.22
0.17
0.27
0.23
0.24
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.20
0.06
0.06
0.25
0.26
0.29
0.35
0.37
362
349
380
383
490
491
343
350
300
298

303
305
434
390
346
347
353
354
269
412
412
462
457
491
499
480
537
542
24.4
25.4
23.1
23.0
18.0
18.0
25.7
25.2
29.3
29.5

29.2
29.0
20.4
22.7
25.6
25.5
25.0
24.9
23.9
21.5
21.5
18.8
19.3
18.0
17.7
18.4
16.4
16.3
21999
22140
22026
22083
22015
22134
22074
22141
22088
22179

22157
22204
22123
22186
22264
22302
22458
22520
22557
22370
22440
22400
22463
22416
22548
22471
22614
22681
95.01
0.49
18.43
0.20
0.34
0.13
212.01
164.24
3.50
0.39

0.28
0.31
45.16
0.39
128.00
86.43
0.48
46.40
0.44
16.57
0.26
4.48
1.11
9.29
8.08
0.43
262.43
0.23
5.53
0.03
1.07
0.01
0.02
0.01
12.29
9.51
0.20
0.02
0.18
0.02
0.02
2.62
0.02
7.42
5.02
0.03
2.69
0.03
0.96
0.02
0.26
0.06
0.54
0.47
0.03
15.14
0.01
3184
3230
3196
3215
3193
3228
3210
3231
3216
3241

3234
3249
3223
3244
3255
3262
Not
3301
3313
3277
3288
3281
3293
3283
3310
3295
3325
3343
2.76
0.18
0.98
0.06
0.10
0.05
4.02
2.98
0.14
0.12
0.02
0.09
0.14
6.83
0.08
34.67
11.65
Pert
0.47
0.09
0.67
0.11
0.55
0.11
0.12
1.72
0.05
5.40
0.04
14
11

11
14

12
12

12
11

12
12

12
12

14
15

14
12

12
12

11
12

11
11

12
12
12

12
11
3186
3232

3199
3217

3204
3229

3214
3239

3218
3242

3238
3250

3226
3247
 0.62  0.56  0.69
 0.57  0.62  0.69

 3.59  3.65  6.11
 0.60  0.65  0.73

 0.40  0.42  0.43
 0.33  0.39  0.45

 2.10  3.83  6.03
 1.86  3.29  5.13
 0.84
 0.58

 0.95
 1.46
 0.71
 0.60

 1.06
 1.70
1.12
0.63
0.49
1.25
2.18
37.03 35.45 33.58
 0.37  0.25  0.34
3256   1.68  2.45   4.76
3263   1.35  1.64   2.31
  Not Performed
3301   0.46  0.48   0.65
3314   0.65  0.75   1.15
3278
3289

3282
3294

3284
3311
3296

3326
3344
10.45
 0.78
11.00 11.21
 0.80  0.74
 5.53 14.95 17.44
 0.52  0.48  0.49
 0.55
 3.70
 0.33
 0.53  0.58
 0.45  0.53
 0.37  0.41
 1.63  2.45  4.91
 0.28  0.28  0.27

-------
187E

188R




189R

190E

191E

192E


193R

194R

F
R
F1
R1
F2
R2
R3
F
R
F
R
F
R
F
R1
R2
F
R
F
R
22618
22712
22609
22663
22694
0.13
0.13
0.11
0.06
0.07
0.12
0.12
0.18
0.05
0.06
1.3 0.36
1.3 0.39
0.7 0.01
1.9 0.04
1.5 0.04
567 15.6
586 15.1
287 30.8
339 26.0
335 26.4
Not Performed
22620
22714
22611
22635
22696
22728
272.47
0.43
215.72
111.31
191.01
11.33
Not Performed
22733
22763
22859
22921
22849
22873
22860
22931
22985
22940
23005
22959
23032
0.05
0.06
0.20
0.13
0.15
0.15
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.14
0.16
0.14
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.17
0.11
0.14
0.13
0.10
0.09
0.09
0.12
0.14
0.13
0.09
0.7 0.07
0.5 0.08
3.1 0.18
1.8 0.16
1.2 0.33
1.3 0.33
1.1 0.16
1.0 0.12
0.8 0.11
1.6 0.12
2.4 0.07
0.9 0.24
1.1 0.18
282 31.4
285 31.1
381 23.0
370 23.8
615 14.4
612 14.5
467 19.0
457 19.4
453 19.6
380 23.2
375 23.4
370 23.9
383 23.1
22735
22765
22831
22923
22851
22875
22862
22933
22969
22942
23007
22961
23034
42.22
0.35
101.89
0.38
84.87
0.81
4.16
0.63
0.68
258.60
0.45
1.39
0.41
15.75
0.03
12.55
6.43
11.05
0.66
0.02
2.44
0.02
0.92
0.02
4.90
0.05
0.24
0.04
0.04
14.92
0.03
0.08
0.02
3329
3355
3324
3333
3348
3365

3368
3388
3417
3442
3422
3430
3427
3445
3458
3446
3465
3455
3470
11.54
0.12
21.41
5.34
16.21
2.77
0.14
5.09
0.13
0.92
0.14
1.02
0.28
0.33
0.27
0.28
7.63
0.18
0.42
0.22
12
12

11
12
12
11
12
12

12
12

13
12

13
13
12

12
12

11
12
3357
3357

3324
3335
3351
3366
45.30
 0.85

29.75
 1.83
34.44
 1.14
41.66 40.95
 0.88  0.81
31.75
 2.66
31.86
 1.64
30.65
 4.27
31.73
 2.89
       Not Performed
3370
3389

3419
3443

3424
3431

3428
3445
3458

3447
3466

3456
3471
27.79 25.33 24.62
 0.56  0.24  0.52

10.08 11.69 13.30
 1.48  1.48  1.78

35.58 32.46 30.44
 1.61  1.56  1.55
17.54
 2.38
 2.78
16.73 16.82
 1.94  1.79
 2.68  3.15
 4.35  5.97  6.84
 1.60  1.53  1.44

 2.10  2.10  2.20
 1.48  1.50  1.60

-------
                                                        Table A-4
                                               FTP Exhaust Results:  Bags 1-3
Veh       Failure/
No.  Test  Repair
140 20160   F
    21306   R

141 21173   F
    21246   R
142 21571   F
    21618   R

143 21253   F
    21613   R

144 21589   F
    21639   R

145 21677   F
    21743   R

146 21663   F
    21705   R

147 21797   F
    21857   R

148 21888   F
    21993   R

149 21913   F
    22006   R
THC
0.13
0.15
0.47
0.44
0.34
0.34
0.55
0.54
0.48
0.37
0.30
0.26
0.56
0.51
0.51
0.85
0.70
0.70
0.41
0.31
NMHC
0.13
0.14
0.41
0.38
0.29
0.29
0.52
0.50
0.45
0.34
0.27
0.24
0.51
0.47
0.46
0.77
0.63
0.63
0.37
0.27
•uay i
CO
2.2
4.0
4.9
6.6
6.9
7.5
5.7
6.3
5.4
5.5
4.5
4.2
6.2
5.4
5.9
9.0
10.0
9.1
7.7
5.4
Va/iniy
NOx
0.06
0.00
0.47
1.03
0.59
0.49
0.67
0.56
0.38
0.36
0.43
0.46
0.36
0.38
0.61
0.65
0.53
0.65
0.20
0.17
C02
290
302
463
523
644
646
373
358
412
390
401
406
308
323
427
456
381
382
396
368
MPG
30.2
28.8
18.9
16.6
13.6
13.5
23.2
24.0
21.1
22.3
21.7
21.5
27.8
26.7
20.3
18.8
22.3
22.3
21.7
23.6
THC
0.00
0.01
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.00
NMHC
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.00
uay f.
CO
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.6
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
vy/iniy-
NOx
0.03
0.03
0.17
0.16
0.06
0.10
0.12
0.05
0.02
0.00
0.08
0.13
0.13
0.09
0.08
0.29
0.15
0.13
0.00
0.00
C02
280
289
459
526
637
641
355
334
441
422
342
340
306
294
452
483
368
376
370
362
MPG
31.8
30.8
19.4
16.9
13.9
13.9
25.1
26.6
20.2
21.1
26.0
26.1
29.0
30.2
19.7
18.4
24.1
23.6
24.0
24.5
THC
0.01
0.01
0.08
0.10
0.05
0.04
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.09
0.07
0.14
0.20
0.06
0.06
0.00
0.10
	 L
NMHC
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.06
0.06
0.12
0.17
0.04
0.04
0.00
0.08
jay \j i
CO
0.4
0.3
0.4
1.3
0.5
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.5
1.1
0.5
0.5
0.9
0.9
"j
NOx
0.03
0.04
0.35
0.72
0.39
0.37
0.14
0.11
0.04
0.09
0.26
0.29
0.15
0.11
0.25
0.50
0.30
0.36
0.01
0.01
C02
249
255
391
447
564
564
303
298
354
339
346
315
270
260
364
395
324
324
316
318
MPG
34.7
34.8
22.7
19.8
15.8
15.8
29.2
29.8
25.0
26.2
25.7
28.1
32.7
34.0
24.4
22.4
27.4
27.4
28.1
27.8

-------
150 21916
22137
151 22023
22081
152 22013
22132
153 22072
22166
154 22086
22177
155 21155
22202
156 22121
22182
182 22262
22300
22518
22578
183 22368
22438
184 22398
22463
185 22414
22571
22471
F
R
F
R
F
R
F
R
F
R
F
R
F
R
F1
R1
F2
R2
F
R
F
R
F1
F2
R
0.52
0.52
0.55
0.51
0.38
0.36
0.28
0.27
0.29
0.30
0.21
0.28
0.82
0.64
0.59
0.60
1.37
0.58
0.34
0.35
0.94
0.48
0.62
0.60
0.56
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.45
0.34
0.33
0.25
0.25
0.27
0.29
0.19
0.26
0.75
0.60
0.56
0.03
1.33
0.55
0.32
0.32
0.72
0.42
0.57
0.55
0.52
3.7
2.8
9.4
7.6
6.2
6.0
5.8
6.2
2.9
2.9
2.3
2.7
6.0
5.9
3.8
3.4
5.5
4.3
2.8
4.3
14.0
6.9
6.8
6.3
7.0
0.75
0.70
0.46
0.53
0.21
0.11
0.21
0.20
0.26
0.28
0.29
0.26
0.52
0.40
0.87
0.79
0.85
0.79
0.34
0.40
0.23
0.29
0.86
0.83
0.92
375
368
380
387
509
504
368
374
311
312
327
330
476
427
366
366
375
367
445
446
473
463
508
498
495
23.3
23.8
22.4
22.2
17.1
17.3
23.5
23.2
28.1
28.0
26.8
26.6
18.2
20.3
23.8
23.8
22.9
23.7
19.8
19.6
17.9
18.7
17.1
17.5
17.5
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.21
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.15
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.5
2.9
2.7
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.0
5.7
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.09
0.08
0.03
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.08
0.03
0.11
0.09
0.11
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.08
0.06
375
360
408
409
504
506
352
359
311
309
309
312
440
375
358
355
366
403
427
424
479
477
502
527
491
23.7
24.7
21.8
21.7
17.6
17.6
25.1
24.7
28.2
28.4
28.7
28.4
20.2
23.7
24.8
25.0
24.3
22.1
20.8
21.0
18.2
18.6
17.7
16.9
18.1
0.07
0.06
0.12
0.10
0.07
0.05
0.02
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.03
0.08
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.09
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.02
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.02
0.07
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.02
1.0
0.8
1.7
1.6
1.0
0.8
1.1
0.4
1.2
0.9
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.9
0.7
1.3
1.1
0.8
0.2
1.0
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.10
0.05
0.06
0.12
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.06
0.08
0.09
0.05
0.29
0.24
0.10
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.36
0.27
0.04
0.01
0.15
0.14
0.27
327
313
327
330
449
452
306
314
271
266
273
274
392
391
308
315
317
312
360
363
420
414
459
448
446
27.1
28.3
26.9
26.7
19.7
19.6
28.9
28.3
32.6
33.3
32.5
32.4
22.6
22.7
28.8
28.1
27.8
28.3
24.6
24.5
21.1
21.4
19.3
19.8
19.9

-------
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
22612
22679
22618
22712
22609
22633
22694
22733
22763
22859
22921
22849
22873
22860
22931
22985
22940
23005
22959
23032
F
R
F
R
F1
R
F2
F
R
F
R
F
R
F
R1
R2
F
R
F
R
0.76
0.72
0.51
0.50
0.23
0.22
0.27
0.20
0.22
0.76
0.53
0.57
0.56
0.41
0.39
0.36
0.50
0.64
0.61
0.39
0.70
0.66
0.48
0.47
0.21
0.20
0.25
0.18
0.21
0.68
0.48
0.53
0.53
0.38
0.36
0.34
0.46
0.58
0.58
0.36
9.4
8.4
4.7
4.9
4.1
4.5
4.5
2.4
1.9
13.2
8.2
4.6
5.1
3.7
3.1
3.0
6.8
11.1
4.2
4.1
0.76
0.89
0.94
0.95
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.12
0.20
0.30
0.27
0.79
0.89
0.51
0.38
0.38
0.41
0.27
0.27
0.27
552
549
654
682
354
365
355
291
306
393
384
653
638
474
456
467
383
368
398
391
15
15
13
12
24
23
24
30
28
21
22
13
13
18
19
18
22
22
21
22
.6
.8
.4
.9
.7
.8
.5
.1
.7
.4
.3
.4
.7
.5
.2
.8
.5
.9
.9
.3
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.1   0.17  572    15.5     0.05   0.02
0.0   0.16  567    15.7     0.06   0.04

0.6   0.05  560    15.9     0.03   0.03
0.4   0.07  575    15.5     0.04   0.03

0.6   0.01  335    26.5     0.18   0.18
1.3   0.01  347    25.5     0.01   0.01
1.0   0.01  346    25.6     0.01   0.01

0.3   0.04  297    29.9     0.01   0.00
0.2   0.03  293    30.3     0.01   0.01

0.5   0.12  398    22.3     0.06   0.04
0.1   0.13  384    23.2     0.03   0.02

0.2   0.19  620    14.3     0.04   0.03
0.2   0.10  618    14.4     0.05   0.03

0.1   0.03  492    18.1     0.07   0.06
0.1   0.02  484    18.4     0.06   0.05
0.0   0.01  475    18.7     0.05   0.04

0.1   0.02  406    21.9     0.06   0.04
0.0   0.01  405    22.0     0.06   0.05

0.1   0.23  390    22.8     0.01   0.00
0.3   0.14  408    21.8     0.05   0.05
0.2  0.37  460  19.3
0.3  0.38  490  18.1

0.3  0.52  514  17.3
0.3  0.57  534  16.6

0.7  0.01  387  30.8
0.9  0.03  303  29.2
0.3  0.03  299  29.7

0.2  0.10  246  36.1
0.2  0.10  254  35.0

0.5  0.19  339  26.1
0.2  0.15  333  26.7

0.3  0.24  576  15.4
0.5  0.33  579  15.3

1.2  0.13  415  21.3
1.3  0.11  408  21.7
0.7  0.11  400  22.2

0.3  0.09  330  26.9
0.3  0.04  325  27.3

0.1  0.24  312  28.5
0.3  0.19  328  27.0

-------
                  Table A-2
Induced Failures, MIL and Diagnostic Trouble Code Status
Veh
No.
140
140
141
141
142
142
143
143
144
144
145
145
146
146
147
147
148
148
Fault
Removed the gas cap
Reinstall OEM Cap
Purge system inoperative
Replaced PCM
0.040 in. leak in gas cap
Reinstall OEM cap
0.040 in. leak in vent line
Removed 0.040 in. leak
Blocked purge line
Blockage removed
Vent solenoid line to
atmosphere blocked
Blockage removed
0.040 in. leak in gas cap
Reinstall OEM cap
Purge and tank vent line
disconnected at canister
Lines reconnected
0.040 in. leak in purge line
to fuel tank.
Remove leak
MIL
On
Off
On
Off
On
Off
On
Off
On
Off
On
Off
On
Off
On
Off
On
Off
    Code   Drive Cycles

    P1456   LA-4(1)
    None

    P1451   No drive cycle needed
    None

    P0442   LA-4 (2)
    None

    P0440   LA-4 (2.5)
    None

    P0440   LA-4 (2)
    None

    P0450,   LA-4 (2)
    P1446
    None

    P0442   LA-4 (2)
    None

    P0455   LA-4 (1) SS (1)

    None
    P0446   LA-4 (2)
     None
Comments
True failure.
Removed purge line at throttle body, plug both ends.
Port disconnected from cansiter.  Open to atmosphere.
True failure.
Leak in series between solenoid and fuel tank.

-------
149
149
150
150
151
151
152
152
153
153
154
154
155
155
156
156
182
182
182
182
182
Disconnect purge line at
throttle body
Reinstall purge line
Remove gas cap
Remove gas cap
0.020 in. leak in gas cap
Reinstall OEM cap
0.020 in. leak in gas cap
Reinstall OEM cap
Block purge line
Repair purge line
0.040 in. leak in purge line.
Remove leak
0.040 in. leak in gas cap
Reinstall OEM cap
0.020 in. leak in gas cap
Reinstall OEM cap
0.040 in.gas cap leak
Reinstall OEM cap
0.040 in.gas cap leak
Gas cap removed
2nd 0.040 in.gas cap leak
On
Off
Off
Off
Off
Off
Off
Off
On
Off
On
Off
Off
Off
On
Off
Off
Off
Off
On
Off
P0440
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
P1457
None
P1440
None
None
None
P0440
None
None
None
None
P0455
None
LA-4 (2)
LA-4 (6) FTP (2) SS(1)
SS(2)
LA-4 (3) FTP (1)
LA-4 (1) Steady State (2)
LA-4 (2.5)

LA-4 (2)

LA-4 (4)
Road LA-4 (2)
Road LA-4 (2)
LA-4 (2)
LA-4 (2)
LA-4 (3)
Plugged at both ends.
Continuous code P0455, No MIL.
Line disconnected from purge valve, blocked
at both ends.
Leak between canister and purge valve.
All readiness monitors complete, no MIL.
MIL on after 4th LA-4.
EGR & evap monitors incomplete after 1st drive cycle,
all monitors complete after 2nd. No MIL, no continous
codes, all TIDs and CIDs pass.

All monitors complete after 2nd LA-4.
MIL on during 2nd LA-4.
Vehicle had continuous code P0442 after 1st and 2nd
drive trace. No cont. codes after 3rd drive trace, all
readiness monitors complete, MIL off.

-------
183   0.040 in.leak in line between   On    P0440  Road LA-4 (2)
      canister and fuel tank
      Leak removed from line
183   Remove leak from line        Off
184
184

185
      Gas cap removed
      Gas Cap Installed
On
Off
      0.040 in. leak in line between  Off
      canister and fuel tank
185   Fault removed               Off
185   Reinstall 0.040 leak (metal)    On
None   LA-4 (1)

P0455   Road LA-4 (2) SS (3)
None   LA-4 (1) SS (1)

None   Road LA-4 (1)

None   LA-4(2)GM(1)
P0442   LA-4 (2)
186   Purge hose plugged          On     P0455   LA-4 (2) SS (4)

186   Remove plug from purge line  Off     None    FTP(1)SS(1)
                                                                       MIL on during 2nd road LA-4.
All monitors complete after first dyno LA-4.

Steady state cycles performed on dyno.
Steady state cycles performed on dyno.

All monitors completed during the first road LA-4
No MIL on, no codes.
EGR monitor was reset during GM trace.
Steel adapter put in in place of plastic adapter.
2nd As-Received test performed.

Continuous code P0455 after first drive trace.
MIL on 5 minutes into the 4th steady state trace.
Evap only incomplete monitor after FTP.
187   Loose gas cap
                                 On     P0440   FTP (1) LA-4 (4)
187   Tighten OEM cap

188   0.040 in.gas cap leak
188   Install OEM cap
188   0.040 in.gas cap leak
188   OEM gas cap installed

189   0.020 in.gas cap leak
189   OEM gas cap installed
                                 Off     None   FTP (2)
                                 On
                                 Off
                                 On
                                 Off

                                 On
                                 Off
       P1456
       None
       P1456
       None

       P0440
       None
        LA-4 (2)
        FTP(1)
        FTP (2)
        FTP (1)

        FTP (2)
        FTP (1)
                                      All monitors complete, no
                                      MIL after 1st LA-4. Monitors cleared, cap loosened
                                      1/2 in.  Cold FTP trace driven. All monitors complete
                                      except evap after FTP trace. No continous codes.
                                      Three more LA-4 cycles driven. MIL on 18 minutes
                                      into the 3rd LA-4 trace. (1 FTP + 3 LA-4 cycles to set
                                      MIL on).
Light on 15 minutes into the 2nd LA-4 drive cycle.
All monitors complete after 1st dyno FTP with no fault.

All monitors complete.
All monitors complete.

-------
190
190
191
191
192
192
193
193
194
194
Purge line disconnected at
canister
Reconnect purge line
Loose gas cap
Tighten gas cap
0.040 in. leak between tank
and canister.
Remove fault
Blocked purge system
Reconnect purge
0.020 in. leak in gas cap
Reinstall OEM cap
On
Off
On
Off
On
Off
On
Off
On
Off
P0446   FTP (2)

None   FTP (1)

P0440   FTP (2)

None   FTP (1)

P0442   FTP (1) SS (1)

None   FTP(1)SS(1)

P0440   FTP (2)
None   FTP (3)

P0440   FTP (3)
None   FTP (2)
Vehicle procured with MIL on and fault set.
Evap monitor incomplete, no pending codes after
first FTP.

-------
              Vehicle 150
            Gas Cap Removed
             (No Mil  light)
           Key On Engine Off
~ENGINE SPD	 ORPM
~ECT (0)	 1110F
"VEHICLE SPD	 OMPH
~IGN. TIMING	 0.00
~ENGINE LOAD	 0.0%
~MAF (R)	 1.57gm/s
~TPS (%)	 10 .1%
~IAT (0)	 750F
~FUEL STAT 1	 OL
~FUEL STAT 2	 UNUSED
~ST FT 1	 20.3%
~LT FT 1	 0.0%
~O2S Bl SI	 0 . 010V
~FT O2S Bl SI	 20.3%
~O2S Bl S2	 0.000V
~FT O2S Bl S2	 UNUSED
~MIL STATUS	 OFF
~STORED DTCs	 0
~OBD CERT	 OBD II
    Continuously  Monitored Systems

P0455
EVAP Control System Leak
Detected  (gross leak)
         Fault  Code  Review
No DTCs Reported

-------
             Freeze Frame
          Readiness  States
~MISFIRE MON	 AVAIL
~FUEL SYS MON	 AVAIL
~COMP MON	 AVAIL
~CAT MON	 COMPL
~HTD CAT MON	  N/A
~EVAP MON	 COMPL
~2nd AIR MON	  N/A
~A/C MON	  N/A
~O2S MON	 COMPL
~O2S HTR MON	 COMPL
~EGR MON	 COMPL
	2500 RPM	

~ENGINE SPD	  2510RPM
~ECT (0)	  1220F
"VEHICLE SPD	  OMPH
~IGN. TIMING	  31.00
~ENGINE LOAD	  38.8%
~MAF (R)	  11.27gm/s
~TPS (%)	  12 .9%
~IAT (0)	  750F
~FUEL STAT 1	  CL
~FUEL STAT 2	 UNUSED
~ST FT 1	  -1.5%
~LT FT 1	  -4.6%
~O2S Bl SI	 0.795V
~FT O2S Bl SI	  -7.7%
~O2S Bl S2	 0.000V
~FT O2S Bl S2	 UNUSED

-------
~MIL STATUS	  OFF
~STORED DTCs	 0
~OBD CERT	  OBD II
              Engine  Idle
~ENGINE SPD	  934RPM
~ECT (0)	  1290F
"VEHICLE SPD	  OMPH
~IGN. TIMING	  18.50
~ENGINE LOAD	  30.9%
~MAF (R)	  3.60gm/s
~TPS (%)	  10 .1%
~IAT (0)	  770F
~FUEL STAT 1	 CL
~FUEL STAT 2	  UNUSED
~ST FT 1	  -7.7%
~LT FT 1	  1.6%
~O2S Bl SI	  0.865V
~FT O2S Bl SI	  -6.9%
~O2S Bl S2	  0.000V
~FT O2S Bl S2	  UNUSED
~MIL STATUS	  OFF
~STORED DTCs	  0
~OBD CERT	  OBD II

-------
                  Figure A-1
   FTP Evaporative Emission Test Procedure
            Start
        Fuel Drain, Fill
       9 RVP, 40% full
        Vehkicle Soak
          68 - 86 F
     Pre-conditioning Drive
         One UDDS
        Fuel Drain, Fill
       9 RVP, 40% full
   Canister Pre-conditioning
Enhanced - Purge and load with
1.5 X working capacity w/butane
     ORVR - Load to 2 g
   breakthrough with butane
    Cold start exhaust test
     Hot start exhaust test
Running
Loss Test
UDDS, 2 NYCC, UDDS
@95F
i
Hot Soak
1 hour,

Loss Test
@95F
        Vehicle soak
      Last 6 hrs @ 95 F
   3 Day Diurnal Loss Test
 3-24 hour cycles @ 72-95-72 F
            T
            End
12-36 hours
                                    1 hour max
6-36 hours




10 minutes

4 hours max



7 min. max




6-36 hours

-------
                             Table A-5
Liquid Fuel Temperature at Start or End of Running Loss Segment, Degrees F
Veh
No
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
Fuel
Profile
Target
Actual
Actual
Target
Actual
Actual
Target
Actual
Actual
Target
Actual
Actual
Target
Actual
Actual
Target
Actual
Actual
Target
Actual
Actual
Target
Actual
Actual
Target
Actual
Actual
Target
Actual
Actual
Target
Actual
Actual
Failure/
Repair
F
R
F
R
F
R
F
R
F
R
F
R
F
R
F
R
F
R
F
R
F
R
Initial
95.0
95.5
94.5
95.0
93.8
95.1
95.0
94.7
95.1
95.0
94.5
94.9
95.0
95.7
94.3
95.0
96.3
94.9
95.0
94.7
95.7
95.0
94.1
95.0
95.0
94.3
95.1
95.0
94.1
94.1
95.0
95.1
94.9
Baa 1
101.4
99.6
99.8
99.0
99.0
99.8
97.4
95.9
95.9
97.3
99.6
98.6
99.5
102.0
99.4
102.8
100.8
98.2
100.4
101.0
100.8
101.7
102.9
105.1
97.5
99.6
99.4
98.9
101.2
100.6
99.0
102.0
103.1
Baa 2
111.6
112.7
111.7
109.5
108.6
109.0
103.8
101.4
102.0
104.3
105.9
104.7
108.7
109.0
110.0
111.1
110.5
109.6
110.8
106.4
108.6
114.5
114.5
113.9
103.8
103.5
103.3
106.3
106.2
107.4
106.9
108.4
109.0
Running Loss Segment
2 min Baa 3 Baa 4 2 min
112.1
114.1
112.3
110.9
109.8
109.0
104.4
102.5
103.1
104.7
105.7
105.3
109.1
109.0
110.5
111.7
111.9
110.2
111.1
107.2
109.2
115.7
115.6
114.6
104.7
104.3
104.3
106.9
106.4
109.4
107.5
109.0
109.0
115.3
115.6
115.2
117.3
116.4
116.8
108.4
105.9
107.6
108.7
108.4
108.8
113.1
113.7
114.6
114.6
115.0
115.4
113.8
111.5
114.5
122.3
121.9
122.5
109.3
109.2
109.8
110.6
110.9
111.3
115.9
112.3
112.7
118.0
117.8
118.4
122.2
121.5
123.6
112.3
109.8
111.3
112.2
111.5
112.1
116.3
116.2
116.2
116.4
116.4
118.4
117.5
114.6
117.4
128.1
127.5
127.9
113.7
113.7
113.1
114.6
114.3
113.7
120.9
117.8
120.1
118.4
118.4
117.8
123.0
122.7
124.8
112.8
110.5
111.9
112.7
112.5
111.5
116.7
116.6
116.4
116.6
116.2
118.9
117.6
115.0
116.8
127.9
127.9
128.1
114.6
114.3
113.5
115.2
114.6
117.2
121.6
119.1
120.7
Baa 5
121.2
122.1
122.1
125.8
124.4
125.8
115.1
113.3
114.8
114.8
115.4
114.6
119.7
121.7
120.1
118.3
117.4
119.1
120.5
119.3
120.1
130.5
131.1
131.4
117.6
116.8
115.6
117.6
117.0
116.8
123.1
126.8
130.1
Baa 6
124.8
125.6
125.4
128.9
127.3
127.0
119.3
118.2
118.2
116.8
117.6
117.2
123.6
124.4
124.6
120.6
119.4
120.5
122.5
122.3
122.5
134.2
134.6
135.4
121.4
120.9
120.9
120.5
121.3
121.3
125.5
126.0
125.4
2 min
124.5
124.4
125.4
129.4
128.1
127.9
119.5
118.8
118.6
117.0
117.4
117.2
123.8
125.0
125.0
120.6
118.8
120.9
122.5
121.9
121.5
133.6
135.5
134.6
121.6
121.1
121.5
121.4
120.9
119.5
125.5
124.2
124.0

-------
151


152


153


154


155


156


182





183


184


185



186


187


Target
Actual
Actual
Target
Actual
Actual
Target
Actual
Actual
Target
Actual
Actual
Target
Actual
Actual
Target
Actual

Target
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Target
Actual
Actual
Target
Actual
Actual
Target
Actual
Actual
Actual
Target
Actual
Actual
Target
Actual
Actual

F
R

F
R

F
R

F
R

F
R

F
R

F1
R2
Diag
F2
R2

F
R

F
R

F1
F2
R

F
R

F
R
95.0
93.8
94.3
95.0
94.7
94.1
95.0
94.3
96.9
95.0
93.9
94.1
95.0
94.3
95.3
95.0
94.5
94.7
95.0
94.3
94.5
94.9
95.9

95.0
94.5
95.7
95.0
94.9
93.8
95.0
93.9
94.7
94.3
95.0
96.5
95.3
95.0
95.5
95.1
99.5
99.2
99.6
98.0
97.1
97.1
99.5
100.0
101.2
100.1
105.3
102.8
103.2
102.1
102.3
99.3
98.2
98.6
99.0
100.6
102.0
99.0
99.6

99.2
98.6
98.6
99.1
100.2
101.8
98.1
98.0
97.9
97.7
98.9
100.6
99.0
97.4
99.0
98.4
108.7
108.2
108.0
102.4
103.1
102.7
110.7
109.8
110.4
108.4
112.3
109.0
113.5
112.5
112.3
107.0
106.6
107.2
106.9
107.6
107.4
108.8
108.4

106.3
107.0
107.0
107.7
107.4
107.8
104.8
104.3
105.7
105.1
107.2
106.8
106.6
105.3
104.5
103.1
109.1
108.2
108.6
102.9
103.7
103.5
112.6
110.7
111.3
108.5
112.3
109.0
115.2
115.0
113.9
107.9
107.0
107.6
107.5
107.6
107.6
110.2
109.4

106.8
107.0
107.6
108.7
107.8
108.2
105.2
104.9
104.7
104.9
107.7
107.2
107.4
105.6
106.1
104.1
113.1
112.3
113.5
106.4
106.3
106.6
116.5
116.6
117.4
113.9
113.5
113.7
117.6
118.4
116.6
110.8
109.8
110.7
115.9
114.1
114.6
114.5
113.5

110.1
111.5
112.9
113.3
112.7
113.3
109.2
108.4
108.4
108.6
111.8
111.3
111.1
110.3
110.9
109.8
116.3
116.4
115.8
109.9
112.1
110.0
120.0
121.5
121.3
117.5
118.0
116.8
119.8
120.7
120.7
114.9
114.5
115.2
120.9
119.3
119.7
119.7
119.9

111.3
112.9
114.5
117.8
117.4
116.0
113.8
113.9
113.3
113.7
115.8
114.6
115.2
113.1
113.0
113.7
116.7
116.4
116.0
110.4
110.9
110.5
120.4
121.9
122.1
117.5
117.8
116.6
121.2
121.7
121.5
115.6
114.6
114.6
121.6
121.3
120.7
120.7
120.7

111.0
112.9
114.5
118.4
117.0
117.4
114.0
113.9
114.5
114.5
116.4
115.0
115.6
113.3
114.8
114.3
119.7
119.9
119.9
113.0
112.7
112.3
122.9
124.6
124.6
120.9
121.3
120.7
124.4
125.2
122.7
117.9
118.8
118.6
123.1
123.4
123.6
123.8
125.6

114.4
115.6
117.0
122.0
118.2
121.3
117.5
116.6
117.4
116.8
119.3
117.8
118.8
116.7
117.2
116.6
123.6
123.0
124.6
116.0
116.2
115.4
126.6
126.0
126.2
124.3
123.8
124.2
128.3
128.1
128.1
121.5
121.9
120.3
125.5
125.8
126.0
125.6
126.6

118.0
118.0
119.1
125.3
120.9
126.0
121.5
121.7
121.9
121.5
122.5
120.5
121.7
119.9
119.7
119.7
123.8
124.2
122.9
116.6
117.0
116.4
127.1
126.4
126.0
124.9
124.0
123.8
128.3
128.5
127.9
122.0
121.7
121.1
125.5
127.0
125.6
125.2
126.2

118.5
118.4
117.4
124.9
126.6
126.0
121.6
122.5
121.9
122.5
122.9
121.5
123.0
120.0
120.5
120.9

-------
188




189


190


191


192



193


Target
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Target
Actual
Actual
Target
Actual
Actual
Target
Actual
Actual
Target
Actual
Actual
Actual
Target
Actual
Actual

F
R
F
R

F
R

F
R

F
R

F
R1
R2

F
R
95.0
96.1
95.9
95.3
95.7
95.0
95.9
95.9
95.0
94.1
94.5
95.0
93.9
93.6
95.0
93.6
94.1
94.3
95.0
94.1
94.1
99.5
100.0
100.4
99.4
99.4
98.5
98.6
99.4
97.5
96.7
97.5
100.3
97.5
98.8
97.6
96.1
99.0
97.3
99.9
99.2
99.0
110.7
111.1
110.7
109.8
110.2
104.9
105.1
105.7
103.8
102.0
104.1
109.4
107.4
108.8
104.2
104.3
105.1
105.7
110.7
110.2
109.6
112.6
111.9
110.7
111.3
111.9
105.0
105.7
105.7
104.7
103.9
104.9
110.4
107.8
108.8
104.8
105.9
105.7
106.4
111.0
111.7
110.2
116.5
116.4
116.2
117.4
118.0
108.3
109.2
109.0
109.3
108.4
109.6
114.6
113.1
114.1
108.8
110.4
109.4
110.7
114.8
116.4
115.2
120.0
120.9
119.7
120.1
120.5
111.4
111.7
111.9
113.7
113.1
113.7
118.4
116.8
118.0
112.7
113.1
112.1
113.1
118.5
120.1
119.9
120.4
120.1
119.7
119.9
120.7
111.5
117.7
111.1
114.6
113.7
113.9
119.4
118.0
118.8
112.4
113.3
112.1
114.1
119.2
120.9
120.7
122.9
122.7
123.4
121.3
121.7
114.5
113.7
115.0
117.6
116.0
116.8
120.6
120.7
122.1
115.2
115.2
114.6
115.8
123.1
124.0
122.1
126.6
127.1
127.7
126.0
126.4
118.2
118.9
117.6
121.4
119.9
120.7
123.5
122.9
125.8
119.0
118.8
119.9
118.9
126.7
125.8
126.2
127.1
126.6
127.7
127.0
126.8
118.2
118.9
117.6
121.6
120.3
120.9
123.5
122.5
125.6
119.2
119.9
120.3
119.1
126.7
126.2
127.0
194   Target            95.0   99.6  109.1  109.3  113.1   117.9   118.4   121.5   124.8   124.8
      Actual     F
      Actual     R      95.1   98.8  109.0  110.0  115.6   117.6   118.2   120.7   127.3   127.7

-------