P. 1



# OAR Box 1830
Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 25 ) IV-B-2 1

Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/20087:20:52 AM Sheet 25of 232P. 2 

# A-87-1 1

Compilatio n o f Analytica l Chart s
Fo r Onboar d and Stag e I I

Marc h 199 2P.3

.

i 

# 1

I I na "ecen t EP A

stud y o ngasolin e volatilit y an devaporativ e emis
sions , severa l strategie s fo r th e contro l o f exces s evaporativ e emis
sion s wer e evaluate d(I-A-66) . On e o f thes e strategies , referre dt o a s th e vehicl e contro l approach , i s t o increas e th e volatilit y o f th e certificatio nfue l fro m 9. 0 t o 11. 5 ps i an

dmak e othe r tes t procedur e change s t o requir e improve dpurg e capability . Thi s woul drequir e vehicl e manufacturer s t o improve evaporativ e emissio ncontro l system s t o captur e andpurg e a large r evaporativ e load . Thi s woul dhav e Implication s fo r onboar dcosts , sinc e onboar dsystem s an dth e refuelin g tes t procedur e woul daccomplish , a t leas t t o som e extent , th e sam

e ends . Fo r example , vehicl e exces s evaporativ e emissio ncontrol s implemente d concurrentl y

wit honboar dwoul dreduc e cost s i narea s suc ha s caniste r size , purg e control , an dcertification . Therefore , th e cos t o f th e onboar dsystem

incrementa l t o th e cost s associate dwit hth e contro l o f

exces s evaporativ e emission s ca nb e estimate db

y subtractin g th e cost s associate dwit hth e vehicl e exces s evaporativ e contro l approac h(taken fro m th e volatilit y

study mentione dabove ) fro

m th e onboardhardwar e estimate s provide dearlier . Th e calculation s o f th e Incrementa l onboar d post s ar e show

nbelow . HDG

V cost s ar e discusse dmor e full y i nth e followin g section .

Onboar dHardwar e Cost s Incrementa l t o

1989-199 3

1994-199 9

2000 + Exces s Evaporat l



### LD V $20.0 0 2.9 0 

### 17.1 0
17.7 0 2.0 0 15.7 0
16.3 0 2.0 0 

### 14Y30 v e Emissio n

LDT * $27.2 0 3.8 0 

### 23.4 0
24.2 0 2.6 0 

## 2U o 22.6 0 2.6 0 

### 20.O U Contro l

HDGV * $34.8 0 4.2 0 30.6 0
29.8 0 3.5 0 26.3 0
29.4 0 3.5 0 

### 25.9 0 Th e Incrementa l onboard.hardware cost s (botto m lin e value s above )
ar e th e cost s used t o calculat e th e tota l incrementa l onboar d cos t an d
cos t effectivenes s value s discusse d elsewhere i n thi s document

.
Sinc e onl ya singl e cos t i s give n fo rth e vehicl e evaporativ e emis

sio n contro l syste m improvement s fo rLDT' s an

d HDGV's , th e weighte d averag e LD

Tan d HDG

V onboar d hardwar

e cost s ar e shown

. 2-10 8P. 4



### TABL E 1-1

. OZONE NONATTAINMEN T AREA S CLASSIFIE D MODERAT E OR ABOVE

Extreme Lo s Angeles-Sout h Coas t Ai r Basin , C A Sever e Baltimore , M D Chicago-Gary-Lak e County , IL-I N Houston-Galveston-Brazoria , TX Milwaukee-Racine , W I Ne wYork- NNe wJer-Long Is. , NY-NJ-C T Philadelphia-Wilm-Trent , PA-NJ-DE-MD Sa n Diego , CA Southeas t Deser t Modifie d AQMA , C A Ventur a Co , CA

Seriou s Atlanta , G

A Bato n Rouge , L

A Beaumont-Por t Arthur , TX Boston-Lawrence-Worceste r (E.MA) , MArNH E l Paso , T X > Greate r Connecticu t Muskegon , M I Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester , NH Providenc e (Al l RI) , R I Sacrament o Metro , C A Sa n Joaqui n Valley , CA Sheboygan , W I Springfiel d (Western MA) , M A Washington , DC-MD-V A Moderat e Atlanti c City , N

J Charleston , W

V Charlotte-Gastonia , NC Cincinnati-Hamilton , OH-K Y Cleveland-Akron-Lorain , O H Dallas-For t Worth , TX Dayton-Springfield , OH Detroit-Ann Arbor , M I Grand Rapids , M I Greensboro-Winsto n Salem-High Point , N C Huntington-Ashland , WV-K Y Kewaune e Co , W I Kno x & Lincol n Cos , M E Lewiston-Auburn , M E Louisville , KY-I N Manitowo c Co , W I Miami-For t Lauderdale-W

. Pal m Beach , F L Montere yBay , CA Nashville , TN Parkersburg , W

V Phoenix , A Z Pittsburgh-Beave r Valley , PA Portland , M E Raleigh-Durham , N C Reading , PA Richmond-Petersburg , V A Sal t Lak e City , U T Sa n Francisco-BayArea , CA Sant a Barbara-Sant a Maria-Lompoc , CA S t Louis , MO-I L Toledo , O H

Source : 5 6 Federa l Registe r 56692 , 4 0 CF R 81 , Ai r Qualit y

Designations ; Fina l Rule

. Novembe r 6 , 1991

.

1- 5u £ 2 i.»jwy»iwB!W!aaM B nnwiii s ini B P. 5

TABL E 2-2
. GASOLIN E THROUGHPU T PERCENTAGE S OF NATIONA L TOTAL FO ROZON E NONATTAINMENT AREA S CLASSIFIE D MODERAT E O RABOV E

Nonattainmen t Area s Percentag e o f Nationa l Throughpu t Nonattainmen t Area s Percentag e o f Nationa l Throughpu t

Extreme

Lo s Angeles-Sout hCoas t Ai r Basin , C A

Baltimore , MO Chicago-Gary-Lak e County , IL-I N Houston-Galveston-Brazoria , T X Milwaukee-Racine , U I Ne w York- N New Jer-Lon g Is , NY-NJ-C T

Atlanta , G

A Bato nRouge , L

A Beaumont-Por t Arthur , TX Boston-Lawrence-Worceste r (E.MA) , MA-N H E l Paso , TX Greate r Connecticu t Muskegon , MI

Atlanti c City , N

J Charleston , W

V Charlotte-Gastonia , NC Cincinnati-Hamilton , OH-KY Cleveland-Akron-Lorain , O H Dallas^For t Worth , TX Dayton-Springfield , O H Detroit-An nArbor , M I GrandRapids , M I Greensboro-Winsto nSalem- HPoint , NC Huntington-Ashland , WV-KY Kewaune e Co , U I Knox& Lincol nCos , ME Lewiston-Auburn , ME Louisville , KY-I N Manitowo c Co , W I 4.8 1
Sever e 0.9 9 2.5 2 1.6 4 0.5 2 4.9 7

1.1 8 0.2 7 0.1 8 2.4 0
0.1 7 1.2 6 0.0 5 PhUadelphia-Vilm-Trent , PA-NJ-DE-MD

Southeas t Deser t Modifie dAQMA , C A Sa nDiego , C

A Ventur a Co , C

A

Seriou s

Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester , N H Sa nJoaqui nValley , C

A Providenc e (Al l RI) , R I Sacrament o Metro , C

A — Sheboygan , WI Springfiel d(Wester nMA) , M A Washington , DC-MD-V

A 1.9 1 a 0.8 6 0.2 3

13.6 4

0.1 3 0.9 8 0.3 5 0.7 3 0.0 0 0.3 1 1.1 2

9.1 3
Moderat e ':
0.1 2 0.1 2 0.2 5 0.6 0 1.1 0 1.6 3 0.3 5 1.7 6 0.2 5 0.3 0 0.0 9 0.0 1 0.0 3 0.0 8 0.3 4 0.0 3 Miami-For t Lauderdale-W . Pal m Beach, F L Montere y Bay , C A Nashville , TN Parkersburg , W

V Phoenix , AZ Pittsburgh-Beave r Valley , P A Portland , ME Raleigh-Durham , NC Reading , P

A Richmond-Petersburg , V A Sal t Lak e City , U T Sa nFrancisco-Ba y

Area , C A Sant a Barbara-Sant a Maria-Lompoc , C A S t Louis , MO-I L Toledo , O H 1.5 2
0.2 3 0.3 7 0.0 7 0.8 4 0.8 6 0.1 7 0.2 6 0.1 3 0.0 7 0.3 0 2.1 6 0.1 3 1.0 6 0.2 0

15.5 0

Source : Nonattainmen t designation s fro m 5 6 F R5669 2 (Se e Tabl e 1-1 ) Gasolin e consumptio npercentage s estimate dusin g 198 5 NED s fue l us e repor t

* Gasolin e consunptio nno t reporte dbecaus e the consumptio nfo r thi s are a andth e L A Sout hCoas t Ai r Basi n consumptio ncite dabov e overlap , andsufficien t informatio ni s no t i nth e databas e t o allow proportio n thi s area' s consumptio nfro m the L A consunption .



### 2- 8

ntuuMmim.mmmmmiimmimsiUlSKIt 

# mmmP. 6

TABL E 2-3 . ESTIMATE DGASOLIN E CONSUMPTIO N B YSTAT E FO R MODERAT E AN DABOV E OZON E NONATTAINMEN T AREA S

4

. 

# i ; I ;

• * * STAT E

ALABAM A ALASK A ARIZON A ARKANSA S CALIFORNI A COLORAD O CONNECTICU T DELAWAR E DISTRIC T O F COL . FLORID A GEORGI A HAWAI I IDAHO ILLINOI S INDIAN A IOW A KANSA S KENTUCKY LOUISIAN A MAIN E MARYLAND MASSACHUSETT S MICHIGA N MINNESOT A MISSISSIPP I MISSOUR I MONTAN A NEBRASK A NEVAD A NE W HAMPSHIR E NE W JERSE Y NE W MEXIC O NE W YORK NORT HCAROLIN

A NORT HDAKOT A OHI O OKLAHOM A OREGON PENNSYLVANI A RHOD E ISLAND SOUT HCAROLIN

A SOUT HDAKOT A TENNESSE E TEXA S UJA H VERMON T VIRGINI A WASHINGTON WES T VIRGINI A WISCONSI N WYOMING
NATIONWID E
SOURCES : | TOTA L 199 0 | THROUGHPU T I (100 0 gal ) (1 )

I 2,120,44 4 I 274,13 3 | 1,678,47 0 I 1,264,42 7 I 13,304,35 9 1 1,547,26 1 I 1,445,68 1 I 347,02 6 I 175,79 9 1 6,212,14 9 I 3,571,61 6 I 388,76 9 I 491,66 3 I 5,224,72 8 1 2,696,32 9 I 1,376,51 0 1 1,251,10 1 I 1,850,61 0 I 2,024,45 5 I 611,39 4 I 2,157,15 1 I 2,433,95 3 I 4,371,05 3 I 2,077,58 1 I 1,265,06 2 I 2,752,48 3 | 444,34 9 I 795,51 5 I 651,81 8 | 510,13 7 | 3,547,00 6 | 811,42 9 I 6,119,25 4 I 3,337,49 9 | 352,20 0 | 5,765,78 8 I 1,712,49 2 | 1,366,54 6 I 4,733,85 2 | 381,05 7 | 1,618,04 4 | 393,89 6 | 2,613,63 7 | 8,859,49 2 | 734,34 4 | 290,64 1 | 3,027,84 2 I 2,311,13 1 I 835,29 8 I 2,123,14 6 I 262,11 3

I 116,512,73 3 PERCENTAG E O F THROUGHPU T IN MODERAT E ANDABOV E OZON E NONATTAINMEN T AREA S (2 )


### O X O X 57 X O X 94 X O X 100 X 

### 77 X 100 X 

### 31 X 40 X O X O X 61 X 12 X O X O X 26 X 14 X 58 X 86 X 100 X 

### 55 X O X O X 34 X O X O X O X 61 X 98 X O X 49 X 28 X O X 50 X O X O X 49 X 100 X 

### O X O X 16 X 45 X 45 X O X 13 X O X 27 X 35 X O X 43 X MODERAT E AND

ABOVE OZON E NONATTAINMEN T 199 0 THROUGHPU T (100 0 gal ) 

### 0

0 964,83 3 

### 0 12,477,10 1 

### 0 1,445,68 1 266,20 2 175,79 9 1,904,70 8 1,442,49 1 

### 0 0 3,197,68 6 325,16 1 

### 0 0 479,44 9 286,31 5 353,10 1 1,849,06 0 2,433,95 3 2,389,55 9 

### 0 0 943,20 4 

### 0 0 0 312,60 3 3,482,55 6 

### 0 3,020,51 0 948,25 3 

### 0 2,860,05 1 

### 0 0 2,315,21 3 381,05 7 

### 0 0 417,73 9 3,958,25 0 332,91 5 

### 0 393,67 5 

### 0 224,21 3 746,39 6 

### 0
50,327,73 5 (1 ) Federa l Highwa y

Administration , Monthl y Gasolin e Report s A s Reporte din199 1 NP N Factboo k (2 ) Preliminar y

estimat e base don1987-8 9 desig nvalue s o r 1988-9 0 desig nvalue s fo r a few area s 

### 2- 9P. 7



### Projecte d Fue l Consumptio n

Year 199 0 199 1 199 2 199 3 199 4 199 5 199 6 199 7 199 8 199 9 200 0 200 1 200 2 200 3 200 4 200 5 200 6 200 7 200 8 200 9 201 0 201 1 201 2 201 3 201 4 201 5 201 6 201 7 201 8 201 9 202 0 NewLDG V

0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0

' 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 1.824
: 3.70 7 4.714 ' 4.79 5

, 4.88 0
'- 4.95 8 5.04 2 5.13 0

• 5.21 7 5.30 6

' 5.39 6 5.486 ', 5.57 8 | 5.67 3 5.76 7 5.84 7 5.94 3 6.04 1 6.14 0 6.24 0 6.32 6 6.41 4 6.50 3 6.59 2 6.68 3 NewLDG T

0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 1.04 3 2.15 5 2.77 7 2.86 2 2.94 3 3.02 7 3.10 7 3.19 2 3.27 7 3.363 3.44 6 3.53 1 3.61 2 3.69 9 3.783 3.863 3.94 6 4.03 6 4.11 7 4.20 8 4.29 2 4.37 7 4.46 4 4.55 1 4.63 9 BaseM4.1F C Ne w HDG V 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.16 2 0.33 8 0.44 1 0.45 9 0.47 8 0.49 6 0.51 5 0.53 4 0.55 4 0.57 3 0.59 2 0.61 0 0.62 9 0.64 7 0.66 5 0.68 5 0.70 3 0.72 1 0.73 9 0.75 7 0.77 2 0.78 7 0.80 2 0.81 7 0.83 2 LDG V 96 +

0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 1.824 6.53 5 12.91 9 19.38 6 25.58 1 31.57 7 37.31 5 42.32 3 46.54 1 50.32 0 53.98 0 57.65 2 61.21 3 64.46 1 67.15 9 69.22 4 71.16 2 72.98 3 74.71 5 76.35 0 77.69 2 78.99 2 80.25 3 81.48 6 82.79 0 LDGT96 +

0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 1.04 3 3.993 8.32 3 12.89 5 17.36 1 21.44 9 25.05 7 27.96 2 30.33 5 32.33 7 34.23 5 36.37 8 38.72 5 41.06 1 43.15 7 44.83 6 46.44 7 48.03 4 49.59 2 51.05 7 52.31 7 53.53 7 54.73 7 55.92 1 57.18 9 HDG V 96 +

0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.16 2 0.60 6 1.26 1 1.95 5 2.63 0 3.31 2 4.00 9 4.66 9 5.26 2 5.77 5 6.23 4 6.75 5 7.33 3 7.91 3 8.43 2 8.90 5 9.32 0 9.72 4 10.10 9 10.46 7 10.76 2 11.04 0 11.30 6 11.55 9 11.84 5 Al l Gas Ve h

89.90 9 90.68 3 91.51 0 92.57 8 93.99 3 95.72 5 97.41 8 99.11 2 100.96 3 102.89 0 105.00 6 107.13 2 109.32 7 111.60 0 113.82 7 116.15 2 118.54 0 120.94 7 123.36 9 125.83 4 128.29 9 130.51 4 133.03 1 135.57 6 138.13 1 140.71 2 142.98 1 145.30 4 147.64 8 150.01 6 152.40 7



### 3/5/9 2P. 8



### Tabl e 3-19 . COMPARISON OF STAG E I I AN DONBOAR DIMPACT S UNDERTW O AVERAG E GASOLIN E RVP' s (33-YEA RANALYSIS )

Regulator y Strateg y

Onboar d (Incrementa l t o Eva p 49-Stat e 6 1 Areas Stag e II a


### Nationwide b



### - Exemp t <2,00 0

- Exemp t <10,OOU

- Exemp t <1U , <5 0
6 1 Areas 0



### - Exemp t <2,00 0

- Exemp t <10,UU U

- Exemp t <10 , <5 0 Stag e I Averag e Annua l VO C Emissio n Reduction , 10 3 

### Mg/y r RVP=12. 6

28U 11 0

230-33 0 210-31 0 180-26 0

83-13 U 78-12 0 66-10 0
31 0 RVP=11. 3

250 9 7

200-30 0 190-28 0 160-23 0

75-12 0 70-11 0 59-8 8
28 0 Annualize d Cost s

Includin g Enforcement , $ Million/y r RVP=12. 6

18 0 180

320-390 d 

### 200-24 0 170-19 0

110-19 0 73-12 0 58-9 2
7 4 RVP=11. 3

19 0 19 0

320-390 d 

### 200-25 0 170-19 0

110-20 0 74-13 0 59-9 5
7 6 Cos t Effectiveness ,

$/M g VO C Reduced RVP=12. 6

85 U 2,17 0

1,660-1,30 0 1,110-86 0 1,060-31 0

1,670-1,35 0 1,140-91 0 1,080-85 0
260 kVP=11. 3

1.U40 2,69 0

1,860-1,46 0 1,260-98 0 1,200-92 0

1,940-1,57 0 1,340-1,06 0 1,260-1,UU U
29U

a 

### In-us e cos t effectivenes s fo rservic e station s o n th e margin s o fexemptio n level s i s a s follows : 2,UUO gal/mo , $13,600-$10,800/Mg ; 10,00 0 gal/mo , $3,20O-$2,30O/Mg ; 50.U0 0 gal/mo , $1,400-51,100/Mg

.
b 

### Range s o fvalue s fo rStag e II-Nationwid e ar e fro m minimal ' enforcemen t (7-yea rphase-in ) t o annua l enforcemen t (3-yea rphase-in)

.

c 

### Range s o fvalue s fo rStag e I I i n nonattainmen t area s ar e fro m minima l enforcement , high

difficult yimplementatio n phase-i n t o annua l enforcement , low-difficult yimplementatio n phase-in

. d 

### Cos t difference s betwee n 12. 6 RV P an d 11. 3 RV

P ar e 2-3%

. Thi s differenc e i s los t i n roundin g th e number

s fo rpresentatio n i n th e table

.



### 3-2 9

## MA Y13198 7

Tabl e 3-20

. 

## RVP IMPACT S ON COS T EFFECTIVENES S O F VO C REDUCTION S IN N A AREA S CONSIDERINGOTHE RBENEFIT S

($/Mg )

6 1 Area s 6 1 Area

s

Onboar d (Incrementa l t o Evap ) ' • N A are a VO

C reductio n |only I n N A areas , i fbenzene Incidenc e reduction s ar e value d a t $7. 5 M

M
I n N A areas . I f$250/M g benefi t fo rA

A reductio n and benzene Incidenc e reductio n 1 s value d a t $7. 5 M M
I n N A areas . I f$250/M g benefi t fo rA

A reduction , and benzen e and >_ C-6 Incidenc e reduction s ar e value d a t $7. 5 M

M
I n N A areas , I f$250/M g benefi t fo rA A reductio n an

d benzene and tota l vapor

s incidenc e reduction s ar e value d a t $7. 5 M M 12. 6 RV P

2,17 0

1.88 0 11. 3 RV

P

2,69 0

2,37 0

1,49 0 1,98 0

85 0 1,26 0

[Benefit] 3 [Benefit] 9

Stag e I I (Exempt<10,000 )
N A are a VO

C reductio n onl y I n N A areas , I fbenzene Incidenc e reduction s ar e value d a t $7. 5 M

M i I n N A areas . I fbenzene an d

_ > C-6 Incidenc e reduction s ar e value d a t $7. 5 M

M
I n N A areas . I fbenzene an d tota l vapor

s incidenc e reduction s ar e value d a t $7. 5 M M High-Lo wDifficulty 0
I n 2 7 o r6 1 Area

s I n 2

7 o r6 1 Area

s 

### 12.5 m 1,140-91 0

1,030-80 0

750-52 0

[Benefit] 3 11. 3 RV P 1,340-1,06 0

1,210-94 0

890-62 0

[Benefit] 3

3 [Benef1t ] •Benefit s outweig h th e costs

. D Rang e fro m minima l enforcemen t wit h hig h difficult yimplementatio n phase-i n t o annua l enforcemen t wit h lowdifficult yimplementatio n phase-in

.



### 3-3 0P.1 0 

# i

2 § rt i ;• §

•;

- 

### 1 ii v

1 1 •

1 •• 1 i :

1 ' '
•i : 1 i *

.

1 * •*

. 1 i : \ ' • 

# 1

v 

# i i ! v i i i i i i i i i | i i i 1 < \ i\ \ \ i :

. \ '. : X

- 

### i i \ 

### i i '

. • •i
**

. V I

• •1 r i t '

\ ''• ' \ * 1 I * 1 t 1 \ •\



### o o * 

## S S i

3

2

8

r i



### % 'XaaapgggatQ-o

j muSoij

4-5 4