p. 1



# OAR Box 1818 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 60 ) II-F- 2 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/6/2008 3:12:45PM

Sheet 60of 79P. 2



## TE-F-X



# 6ER * DRAF

T Unltt d Stara t Environm-anti l Protactio n Agtnc y 

# /4-^- n
Office e fAi ran d Radiatio n (ANR-443 ) Waaftington , DC 2046 0 

# FIL E COP

Y

Ai r 

# Draf tRegulator yImpac t Analysis : Propose dRefuelin g Emissio nRegulatio nfo r199 0 an dLate rModelYea r Gasoline-Fuele dMoto r Vehicle s

Volum eI

I Additiona lAnalysi s o f Onboar dControl s

VP. 3

•- I 

# Draf tRegulator y Impac t Analysis : Propose dRefuelin g Emissio nRegulatio nfo r 199 0 an dLate r

Mode lYea r Gasoline-Fuele dMoto r Vehicle s Volum eII Additiona lAnalysi s o f Onboar dControl s

OFFIC E O F AI R QUALIT YPLANNIN G AN D STANDARD S AN D OFFIC E O F MOBIL E SOURCE S

U.S

. ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENCY

Offic e ofA, ran d Radiatio n Washington , D

C 2048 0P. 4

1. 0 INTRODUCTIO

N Thi s secon

d volume (Volume II ) supplement s th e firs t volume o f the draf t RegulatoryImpac t Analysi s i n fulfilling the objective s o f Titl e 3 - Executiv e Orde r 1229 1 a s theyappl y t o th e propose d onboard rulemaking . I t provide s a summaryo f the mor e extensiv e suppor t analyse s o f onboard cost s and ai r qualit ybenefit s tha t wer e prepare d i n th e cours e o f developing the propose d regulations . Alternative s t o th e propose d regulation s ar e considere d in Volum e I . Mor e specifically , following thi s introductio n (Chapte r 1) , Chapte r 2 o f thi s volume summarize s th e economi c impac t o f the propose d rulemaking . I t identifie s th e fixe d an d variabl e cost s t o manufacturer s fo r system s development , certification , facilit ymodifications , an d emissio n contro l hardware . I t als o addresse s cost s t o consumer s i n term s o f bot hfirs t pric e increas e for hardwar e an d operating cost s or savings . Finally , the chapte r summarize s aggregat e cost s o f th e propose d regulation s t o the natio n b yyea r incurred , an d the socioeconomi c impac t o f the propose d rulemaking . Th e latte r categoryinclude s a brie f discussio n o f th e impact s o n the financia l statu s o f manufacturer s an d componen t vendors , effect s on sale s an d employmen t i n the automotiv e an d petroleu

m industries , effect s on energ yusage , balanc e o f trade , an d o n particula r segment s o f th e economy . Chapte r 3 summarize s th e ai r qualit ybenefit s o f th e propose d rulemaking . Beginning wit ha brie f characterizatio n o f refueling emission s potentiall ycontrollabl e b ya n onboar d contro l strategy , the chapte r goe s on t o analyz e th e effec t o f refueling emission s contro l o n ambien t ozon e level s i n curren t non-attainmen t areas , i.e . thos e area s no wi n violatio n o f the Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit yStandard s fo r ozone . Th e direc t healt heffect s o f ozon e hav e bee n full ydocumente d in othe r EPA publication s an

d s o theyar e no t include d in thi s analysis .



### 1- 1P. 5

REFERENCE S FOR CHAPTE R 1 Draf t RegulatoryImpac t Analysis : Propose d Refueling Emissio n Regulation s fo r 199 0 an d Late r Mode l Yea r Gasoline-Fuele d Moto r Vehicles , Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Offic e o f Ai r an d Radiation , Repor t tt , Decembe r [MO],1986 .



### 1- 2P. 6

2. 0 ECONOMI C IMPACT I . Introduction Thi s chapte r assesse s th e economi c impac t o f onboard contro l o f refueling emission s in terms o f th e cost s t o manufacturers , cost s t o the consumer , tota l cos t t o th e natio n an d the overal l socioeconomi c impac t o f th e propose d regulations . The purpos e o f thi s chapte r i s t o summariz e an d assembl e int o on e comprehensiv e analysi s thos e cos t element s tha t have bee n develope d i n greate r detai l tha n in Volum e 1 o f the draf t RI Aan d othe r suppor t documents.[1 ] Th e reade r wishing mor e detai l o n the variou s aspects , o f th e cost s o f onboard contro l i s referre d t o th e appropriate

- section s o f thos e documents . I n additio n t o controlling refueling emissions , properl y designe d an

d teste d onboard contro l system s als o hav e th e potentia l t o contro l exces s evaporativ e emissions . However , othe r approache s t o controlling exces s evaporativ e emission s ar e being evaluate d separately , s o thi s analysi s wil l focu s primaril yo n the cost s o f refueling emission s contro l alone . Specifically , the cost s an d credit s involve d i n onboar d contro l o f refueling emission s describe d her e ar e incrementa l t o vehicle-base d exces s evaporativ e contro l costs . Thi s chapte r i s organize d int o four section s (1 ) cost s t o manufacturers , i.e. , systems engineering costs , certificatio n costs , facilit ymodification s an d hardwar e costs , (2 ) cost s t o the consumer , including firs t pric e increas e an d operatin g cost s or savings , (3 ) aggregat e cost s t o th e nation , b yyea r incurred , an

d (4 ) socioeconomi c impact s o f the regulations . The latte r woul d includ e an yeffect s the propose d regulation s migh t hav e o n manufacturers ' or vendor s financia l status , effect s o n sale s an d employmen t in th e automotiv e an d petroleu

m industries , an

d effect s on energ yusage , balanc e o f trade , o r on particula r segment s o f th e economy . Dat a froma wid e variet yo f source s wer e utilize d t o develo p th e cos t estimate s summarize d in thi s chapter . Th e primarysource s fo r th e hardwar e cos t estimate s a t th e vendo r leve l ar e studie s don e in 197 8 an d 198 3 b

yLeroyH . Lindgren . [2,3 ] Retai l Pric e Equivalen t (RPE ) markups , use d t o calculat e cost s t o th e consume r fro mvendo r costs , wer e develope d b ya n EP Acontractor.[4 ] Thes e work s hav e bee n supplemente d wher e appropriat e b

yothe r EP

Acontrac t studies , comment s on th e draf t GM S fro

m th e automotiv e an d - petroleu

m industries , supplie r quotations , trad e publication s -an d previou s estimate s fro mEP Aregulatorysuppor t analyses . Mos t o f the estimate s o f vehicl e mile s travele d (VMT ) an d fue l consumptio n dat a use d i n assessing operating cost s wer e obtaine d fromEPA' s MOBILE 3 emissio n factor s an d fue l consumptio n models . Additiona l vehicl e usag e dat a came fro mth e Departmen t o f Commerc e "Truc k Inventoryan

d Us e Survey " (TIUS ) an d a n SA E pape r o n fue l econom ydon e b

yEPA.[5,6 ] Vehicl e sale s estimate s ar e base d o n the Dat a Resource s Incorporate d 25-yea r "Trendlong " projections.[7 ] Th e dieselizatio n rate s applie d t o thes e 2- 1P. 7

projection s t o obtai n gasoline-fuele d vehicl e sale s estimate s ar e fro m th e M0BILE 3 model . Th e heavy

- dut ygasolin e vehicl e (HDGV ) portio n o f the cos t analysi s ha s bee n update d fromtha t foun d i n th e Summar

yan d Analysi s o f Comment s t o the GM S based o n th e mor e in-dept hanalysi s containe d in an EP Atechnica l report.[8 ] I n determining cost s t o the industry , consumers , an d aggregat e cost s t o th e nation , variou s cos t element s mus t b e amortize d ove r differen t period s o f time , an d i n portion s o f the analysi s cost s mus t be discounte d t o reflec t th e time valu e o f money . System s engineering an d certificatio n costs , for example , ar e relativel yshor t ter man d ar e likel yt o b e incurre d an

d recovere d earl yi n th e regulatio n -implementation period . Thes e cost s wil l therefor e b e amortize d ove r a five yea r perio d 1990-1994 , assuming a 199 0 implementatio n dat e fo r the propose d regulations . Th e othe r fixed costs , thos e fo r modificatio n an

d constructio n o f testing facilities , ar e longer-ter

mand wil l b e amortize d ove r a te n yea r perio d 1990-1999 . Variabl e cost s wil l b e aggregate d ove r th e initia l five-yea r perio d t o sho wthe highes t annua l cost s an d wil l b e discounte d t o reflec t the tim e valu e o f money , wher e necessary . Th e standard te n percen t discoun t rat e wil l b e used , an

d al l fixed cost s wil l b e amortize d a t a 1 0 percen t interes t rate . Al l cost s ar e expresse d i n 198 6 dollars . II . Cost s t o Manufacturer s Cost s t o manufacturer s ca n b e divide d int o two genera l categories , fixe d an d variabl e costs . Fixe d cost s represen t capita l expenditure s tha t mus t b e mad e befor e productio n o f emissio n contro l component s ca n begin . A s such , the yar e relativel yindependen t o f productio n volumes . Thes e cost s includ e system s engineering costs , certificatio n cost s an d facilitie s modifications . Variabl e cost s represen t th e vendo r cos t o f the necessaryemissio n contro l hardware . The yar e directl ydependen t o n productio n volume an d ar e expresse d on a pe r vehicl e basis . Th e fixed cost s wil l b e amortize d an d added t o variabl e cost s t o provid e a tota l uni t cos t t o th e manufacturer . Th e basi c source s for thi s sectio n ar e th e GM S Summaryan d Analysi s o f Comment s fo r LDVs and-LDTs , an d th e HDG

V Technica l Repor t mentione d previously.[1,8 ] Th e latte r repor t contain s EPA' s mos t recen t estimate s o f HDG V contro l costs , update d fro m the preliminaryestimate s foun d in th e GM S Summaryan d Analysi s o f Comments . Fo r additiona l detai l on bot hfixe d an d variabl e costs , the reade r i s referre d t o thes e tw o documents . A . Fixe d Cost s A s state d above , the fixe d cost s involve d in onboar d contro l o f refueling emission s include system s engineering an d certificatio n costs , an d th e cos t o f tes t facilitie s modifications . Thes e cost s ca n b e expecte d t o var ysomewha t betwee n vehicl e classes , howeve r light dut yvehicle s (LDVs ) an d light dut ytruck s (LDTs ) have th e same certificatio n procedure s an d quit e simila r fue l system s an d ca n therefor e b e groupe d 2- 2P. 8

together . Heav

ydut ygasolin e vehicle s (HDGVs ) hav e similar , bu t larger , system s an d differen t certificatio n procedures . Estimating cost s fo r HDGV s require s som e differen t analysi s tha n tha t neede d fo r LDVs an d LDTs . I . Ligh t Dut yVehicle s an d Ligh t DutyTruck s System s engineering cost s ar e thos e incurre d in developin g a n onboard syste

mtha t i s integrate d wit hthe othe r relate d vehicle/engin e systems . Thi s include s incorporatio n o f th e onboar d systemint o othe r vehicle/engin e system s (e.g . fue l system , packaging ) a s wel l a s consideratio n o f safetyan d othe r emissio n contro l requirements . I n som e case s thi s i s a straightforwar d engineering design problem , i n o-ther s suc ha s vehicl e safet yo r emission s control , i t involve s no t onl y design , bu t als o follow-o n testing an d evaluation . At thi s poin t EPAha s littl e dat a on whic ht o bas e a fir m estimat e o f the system s engineering costs . Cost s involve d woul d generall yinclud e engineering design an d development , procuremen t an

d modificatio n o f prototyp e hardwar e an d tes t vehicles , an

d th e actua l testing an d evaluatio n o f th e systems . Th e abovementione d safet ytesting an d evaluatio n woul d als o b e included . EPAbriefl yexamine d thes e latte r cost s an

d conclude d tha t th e cos t fo r ensuring complianc e wit h th e applicabl e fue l syste msafetyprovision s woul d b e abou t $34,00 0 pe r bod

yconfiguration , o r approximatel y$6. 9 millio n fleetwide.[9 ] Sinc e the numbe r o f bod yconfiguration s i s roughl yequa l t o th e projecte d numbe r o f refueling families , thi s cos t can easil yb e include d in th e tota l system s engineering cos t pe r family . Accordingly , i n the Summaryan d Analysi s o f Comments , EP Aestimate s a tota l system s engineerin g cos t for LDV s an d LDT s (including safet ycosts ) at abou t $146,00 0 pe r refueling famil y(assume d t o b e simila r i n numbe r t o th e curren t evaporativ e emission s family ) . Multiplying by the projecte d numbe r o f familie s (approximatel y14 0 LD V an d 6 5 LDT ) result s in an estimate d cos t o f $20. 4 millio n fo r LDVs an d $9. 5 millio n for LDTs . Amortizing thes e cost s for five year s at 1 0 percen t pe r yea r an d dividing b

yprojecte d sale s during th e perio d provide s an amortize d cos t pe r vehicl e o f $.4 9 pe r LD V an d $.6 9 pe r LDT , including $.1 2 pe r vehicl e for fue l systemsafet ycompliance . Certificatio n cost s includ e th e cost s o f vehicl e buildup , mileag e accumulatio n for LDV s an d LDT s o n durabilit yan d emissio n dat a vehicles , an d emission s testing for durabilit y an d emissio n dat a vehicles . The EPAes-timate d cos t pe r famil y fro mthe Summaryan d Analysi s o f Comment s i s $181,00 0 fo r durabilit yvehicle s an d $28,00 0 fo r emissio n dat a vehicles . Althougha tota l recertificatio n woul d likel yb e necessary becaus e o f th e refueling regulations , th e estimate d 1 0 percen t o f th e flee t tha t normall yundergoe s certificatio n eac hyea r regardles s o f ne wstandard s mus t b e deducte d t o determin e th e ne t cos t o f th e refueling regulations . Multiplyin g th e cos t pe r famil yby9 0 percen t o f the projecte d LDV an d LD T familie s yield s a certificatio n cos t o f approximatel y$2 6 millio n fo r LDV s an

d $1 1 millio n fo

r LDTs . Th e amortize d cos t pe r vehicl e i s $.6 1 fo r LDVs an d $.7 7 fo r LDTs .

2- 3P. 9

System s engineering an d certificatio n effort s wil l requir e som e expansio n o f and/o r improvemen t t o manufacturers ' testing facilitie s i n orde r t o accommodat e th e additiona l testing required . " Comment s submitte d b yth e Moto r Vehicl e Manufacturer s Associatio n (MVMA ) containe d an estimat e o f $734,00 0 pe

r manufacture r for additiona l equipmen t an d testing space.[10 ] Absen t an yothe r reasonabl e estimate s o f the requirements , th e Summaryan d Analysi s o f Comment s use s thi s figur e t o projec t the facilitie s modification s tha t woul d b e required . Althoughi t i s unlikel ytha t al l 3 5 LDV/LD T manufacturer s woul d incur thi s entir e expenditure , i t i s possibl e tha t some large r manufacturer s woul d hav e t o spen d eve n mor e than thi s amount . T o b e conservative , then , EP Awil l assume tha t al l manufacturer s wil l mak e th e above"'investmen t in additiona l facilities , for a tota l industrycos t o f approximatel y$2 6 million . Thi s result s in a n amortize d cos t pe r vehicl e o f approximatel y$.30 . 2 . Heav

yDut yGasolin e Vehicle s Determining manufacture r cost s fo r HDGV s require s a slightl ydifferen t analytica l approac hfro mtha t use d fo r LDVs an d LDTs , du e t o th e wide r rang e o f vehicl e size s an d applications . Fo r the 1990 s an d beyond , HDGV s ca n convenientl y b e divide d int o thre e basi c groups , classe s Ilb/III , V I an d VII/VIII , base d o n gros s vehicl e weigh t (GVW ) rating classes . Abou t 8 0 percen t o f al l HDGVs fal l int o the clas s li bweigh t grou p (i.e. , 8,501-10,00 0 lbs GVW) . Thes e ar e essentiall y heav yLDT s an

d can benefi t directl yfromthe transfe r o f LDT technology . Th e relativel yfew( 8 percent ) clas s II I vehicle s (10,001-14,00 0 lb s GVW ) tha t ar e sol d eachyear , primaril y Clas s Amoto r homes , wil l als o b e include d in thi s group . Thu s clas s Ilb/II I sale s represen t abou t 8 8 percen t o f al l HDGV s expecte d t o b e sol d i n 199 0 an d beyond . Th e remaining 1 2 percen t o f HDG

V sale s consis t o f clas s V I (19,501-26,00 0 lbs . GVW) , an

d classe s VI I an

d VII I (26,00 1 - 33,00 0 lbs . GV Wan d al l heavie r vehicles) . Abou t one-hal f o f thes e vehicle s ar e clas s VI ; the remainde r ar e the heavie r vehicles , whic hwil l be groupe d togethe r a s clas s VII/VII I HDGVs . System s engineering cost s for th e Clas s li bvehicle s shoul d b e th e same a s fo r LDTs , i.e. , $.69/truck , sinc e they ar e al l mad e b

yLDT manufacturer s an d can thu s tak e advantag e o f th e LD T work . In fact , some manufacturer s maychoos e t o certif ypar t o r al l o f thei r clas s li btruck s a s LDTs . Clas s II I HDGVs , whic har e primaril yClas s Amoto r homes , ofte n us e large r fue l tank s than Clas s li bvehicles , eve n thoughthe chassi s an

d drivetrain s ar e quit e similar . Nevertheless , som e additiona l system s engineering wor k suc ha s • improve d purg e system s mayb e require d t o handl e th e increase d emissio n load s associate d wit hth e large r fue l tanks . T o be conservative , EPA estimate s tha t th e cost s for Clas s II I HDGV s wil l b e th e sam e a s estimate d i n the HDG V Technical ' Repor t for large r clas s VI an d VII/VII I vehicles , i.e . $2.0 0 pe r truck , sinc e essentiall y simila r engin e technologyi s used , th e refueling emissio n load s ar e roughl ycomparable , an d th e tes t procedur e i s the same . A weighte d averag e for th e entir e Ilb/II I grou p woul d b e $0.82 . 2- 4P.1 0

Clas s V I an

d VII/VII I HDG

V refueling emission s ar e likel y t o presen t additiona l contro l problems . Th e emissio n load s ar e likel yt o b e greater , du e t o the large r fue l tank s tha t ar e typicall yfoun

d on thes e vehicles . Also , mos t o f the heavie r HDGVs currentl yhave ope n loop carburete d fue l systems , whic h woul d hav e mor e difficult ywit hpurg e contro l tha n the closed-loop fue l system s wit helectroni c engin e control s tha t ar e mor e commo n on LDV s an d LDT s an

d ar e expecte d on man yclas s Ilb/II I vehicles . Some additiona l purg e contro l system s engineering i s thu s likel yt o b e require d for thes e vehicles . Conversely , i t shoul d be note d tha t the curren t H C an d C O exhaus t emissio n standard s fo r thes e vehicle s ar e no t a s stringen t a s thos e tha t appl yt o the clas s Ilb/II I HDGVs . I n the HDG V Technica l Report , EPAestimate s a 'cost^o f $2.0 0 pe r vehicl e t o cove r developmen t o f thes e contro l systems . O n a flee t weighte d basis , th e amortize d cost s o f al l HDG V classe s i s $0.9 6 pe r vehicle . Equivalen t tota l system s engineering cost s ca n b e obtaine d b ysumming th e ne t presen t valu e o f th e $.8 2 clas s Ilb/II I cos t an d th e $2.0 0 classe s V I an d VII/VII I cos t multiplie d b

yth e respectiv e projecte d sale s for th e thre e classe s for th e firs t five year s o f th e regulation . Thi s woul d equat e t o a tota l HDG V systems engineering cos t t o manufacturer s o f abou t $1. 4 million . Contro l o f HDG

V refueling emission s woul d entai l recertificatio n t o th e exhaus t an d evaporativ e emissio n standard s i n additio n t o refueling . Exhaus t emissio n recertificatio n woul d b e necessarydu e t o th e ne wrequiremen t tha t evaporative/refueling emissio n contro l canister(s ) b e connecte d t o th e engin e during testing . Evaporativ e emissio n recertificatio n woul d b e necessarydu e t o th e tes t procedur e change s an

d the potentia l interdependenc e betwee n th e evaporativ e an

d refueling contro l systems . Exhaus t emission s recertificatio n i s estimate d t o cos t $200,00 0 pe r family . Thi s entail s bot hdurabilit yassessmen t an d thre e emissio n dat a engines . Fo r 1986 , HDG V manufacturer s certifie d 8 familie s using 2 3 emissio n dat a engines . Tota l exhaus t emissio n recertificatio n cost s including durabilit y assessmen t ar e estimate d at $1. 6 millio n dollars . Evaporativ e emissio n recertificatio n cost s ar e a bi t mor e difficul t t o estimat e sinc e abbreviate d certificatio n procedure s appl yt o classe s li bthroughVI HDGV s an d certificatio n i s b yengineering evaluatio n fo r the heavie r HDGVs . Using th e developmen t cost s presente d in the origina l HDG V RIA , certificatio n cost s ar e estimate d a t $31,00 0 pe r evaporativ e family/systemcombination . I n 1986 , 2 3 family/systemcombination s wer e certified . Using thes e figures , tota l evaporativ e emissio n certificatio n cost s ar e estimate d a t $713,000 . Eve n thoughabbreviate d certificatio n procedure s hav e bee n propose d for HDG

V refueling , some cost s woul d stil l be incurre d for durabilit yassessmen t an d demonstratio n o f system performanc e o n emissio n dat a vehicles . However , thes e cost s 2- 5P.1 1

woul d b e incrementa l t o thos e incurred during system developmen t an

d exhaus t an d evaporativ e emissio n recertification . Durabilit yassessmen t i s estimate d t o cos t a nomina l $50,"00 0 pe r manufacture r ove r thos e cost s incurre d fo r exhaus t an

d evaporativ e recertification , an d emissio n dat a vehicl e testing i s estimate d t o cos t $900 0 pe r family/system combinatio n fo r testing an d mileag e accumulation . Assuming thre e primaryHDG V manufacturer s an d the sam

e numbe r o f refueling an

d evaporative family/systemcombination s (i.e . 23 ) th e tota l certificatio n for refueling i s estimate d t o b e $357,000 . Summing th e estimate d cost s for exhaust- , evaporative , an d refueling certification , the tota l industr ycost ' i s estimate d a t $2.6 7 millio n dollars . Assuming thes e cost s ar e incurre d i n th e yea r prio r t o th e newstandard an d amortize d ove r vehicle s sol d in th e 5 yea r perio d 1990-1994 , th e pe r vehicl e certificatio n cos t i s $2.00 . Th e fina l fixe d cos t t o manufacturer s o f HDGV s i s fo r modificatio n o f an d improvement s t o tes t facilities . I t i s anticipate d tha t th e requirement s fo r clas s li bvehicle s wil l b e essentiall ythe same a s thos e require d fo r LDTs ; th e same facilit ymayi n fac t serve bot hvehicl e classes . Clas s II I throughV I vehicle s wil l als o requir e ne wo r modifie d facilitie s fo r certification . Requirement s for VII/VII I vehicle s ar e no t a s readil yapparent , however , sinc e certificatio n for th e heavie r model s woul d b e b yengineering evaluation , a s i s th e cas e for curren t evaporativ e systems . Thus , whil e the additiona l facilit yrequirement s mayb e minimal , th e $.3 0 pe r vehicl e estimate d for LDVs an d LDT s i s als o extende d t o HDGVs . Thi s provide s a n additiona l $710,00 0 t o cove r an

yincidenta l modification s tha t mayb e require d fo r HDG V facilities . 3 . Summary In summary , th e projecte d manufacturers ' fixed cost s fo r LDVs , LDTs , an

d HDGV s ar e jus t unde r $9 8 million . Thes e cost s ar e divide d betwee n th e variou s vehicl e classe s fo r system s engineering , certificatio n an d facilitie s modification s a s show n i n Tabl e 1 . Tabl e 1 als o show s thes e fixe d cost s on an amortize d per-vehicl e basis . B . Variabl e Cost s Emissio n contro l hardwar e i s th e primaryvariabl e cos t t o the manufacturers . Refueling control " hardwar e cost s fo r individua l component s ar e relativel yth e same for an yvehicl e class/subgroup , bu t tota l systemcost s varysomewha t depending o n th e typ e o f contro l system , th e numbe r o f fue l tanks , an d the vehicl e fue l tank capacity . Abrie f descriptio n o f th e onboar d contro l systeman d a summaryo f the individua l componen t cost s i s give n below . Thi s i s followe d b ya discussio n o f the keyfactor s whic hca n caus e th e cost s t o vary an d a summaryo f the contro l systemcost s use d i n th e analysis . 2- 6P.1 2

Tabl e l Fixe d Cost s t o Manufacturer s (Million s o f Dollars )

LD V LD T HDG V Tota l System s Engineerin g Certificatio n Facilit yMod s Tota l 20. 4 26. 0 17. 9 64. 3 9. 5

11. 0 8. 1 28. 6 1. 4

2. 7 0.' 7 4. 8 31. 3

39. 7 26. 7 97. 7
Amortize d Cost s pe r Vehicl e

(Dollars ) LDV LD T HDG V System s Engineerin g 0. 4 5 Certificatio n 0.6 1 Facilit yMod s 0.3 0 Tota l 1.3 6 0.6 9 0.7 7 0.3 0 1.7 6 0.9 6

2.0 0 0.3 0 3.2 6P.1 3

A s describe d in th e Technologica l Feasibilit yportio n o f th e GMS , a

n onboard systemi s comprise d o f a numbe r o f new component s an

d modificatio n o f severa l existing components . Thes e ar e describe d briefl ybelow : 1 . Fillpip e Sea l - Use d t o preven t gasolin e vapo r fro m escaping t o th e atmosphere . Liqui d or mechanica l sea l approache s ar e possible . Thi s analysi s assume s al l vehicle s wil l us e liqui d seals , excep t th e larg e HDGVs whic hmayus e mechanica l seals . Apressur e relie f devic e ma yb e require d for mechanica l seals . 2 . Fil l Limite r - Adevic e insid e the tank used " t o clos e the refueling vapo r line whe n the tank i s full , eventuall ycausing actuatio n o f o f automati c shut-of f on th e fue l nozzle . 3 . Vapo r Lin e Closur e Valv e - Avalve use d t o clos e the vapo r line durin g norma l vehicl e operation . Thi s i s a keycomponen t i n rollove r protection . Electroni c or mechanica l approache s ar e possible . 4 . Liquid/Vapo r Separato r - Require d t o decreas e the emissio n loa d t o th e caniste r an d improve caniste r durabilit yb y returning entraine d liqui d fue l droplet s t o th e fue l tank . 5 . Vapo r an

d Purg e Line s - Hose s t o rout e refueling vapo r t o th e charcoa l caniste r an d purge d vapo r t o th e vehicl e fue l system . Ne t cos t depend s on caniste r locatio n an d whethe r the syste mi s integrate d or separat e fro mth e evaporativ e contro l systems . 6 . Charcoa l Caniste r - Serve s a s vapo r storag e device . Cos t an d siz e var

ywit hfue l tan

k siz e an

d whethe r the contro l syste mi s integrate d or separate . 7 . Packaging - Hardwar e o r vehicl e modification s t o accommodat e caniste r an d othe r hardwar e o n th e vehicle . Cost s varydepending o n vehicl e siz e an d type . Thes e cost s ar e amortize d ove r fiv e years . 8 . Modification s - Mino r modification s wil l b e necessaryt o th e fue l tan

k an d vehicl e purg e system . Fue l tan k modification s wil l be neede d t o accommodat e the liqui d sea l an d fil l limiter . Purg e systemmodification s wil l b e neede d t o efficientl ypurg e the caniste r whil e controlling exhaus t emissions . Thes e cost s ar e amortize d ove r fiv e year s o f production . On a pe r vehicl e basis , thre e othe r factor s mayeffec t the tota l cos t o f th e refueling emissio n contro l hardware . Thes e include th e basi c systemapproach , the numbe r o f fue l tanks , an d the capacit yo f the fue l tanks . Thre e basi c contro l system s approache s mayb e used ; integrated , partiall yintegrated , an d separate . Th e integrate d syste m use s on e caniste r t o contro l bot hevaporativ e 2- 8P. M

an d refueling emissions . Th e partiall yintegrate d system collect s diurna l evaporative an d refueling emission s i n on e caniste r and . use s a separat e caniste r fo r capturing ho t soak emissions , th e third approach , th e completel yseparat e system , capture s al l evaporativ e emission s in on e caniste r an d al l refueling emission s in another . EPAexpect s tha t al l fue l injected vehicle s wil l utiliz e full yintegrate d systems du e t o th e cos t advantag e an d th e lo

w leve l o f non-fue l tan k ho t soak emissions . Carburete d vehicle s mayus e partiall yintegrate d or separat e system s du e t o the need t o dea l wit hho t soak evaporative emissions . However , EPA expect s mos t manufacturer s wil l op t fo r partiall yintegrate d systems t o tak e advantag e o f th e availabl e cos t savings . B y1990 , whe n thes e regulation s ar e t o tak e affect: , curren t projection s ar e tha t approximatel y8 8 percen t o f al l LDVs an d LDT s ar e expecte d t o b e fue l injecte d an d 1 2 percen t carbureted . Clas s Ilb/II I HDG V fue l system s ar e likel yt o followth e sam

e spli t a s LDTs . The majorit yo f th e heavie r HDGVs (Clas s VI-VIII ) ar e assume d t o remai n predominantl y carbureted . Thu s 8 8 percen t o f LDVs , LDT s an d Clas s Ilb/II I HDGV s ar e expecte d t o us e integrate d system s an d th e remaining 1 2 percen t o f thes e vehicle s classe s ar e expecte d t o us e partiall yintegrate d systems . Essentiall yal l o f th e heavie r HDGV s ar e assume d t o us e eithe r partiall yintegrate d o r separat e systems . On a pe r vehicl e basis , onboard hardwar e cost s als o depend o n whethe r a vehicl e ha s singl e or dua l fue l tanks . Hardwar e cost s fo r dua l fue l tank vehicle s ar e essentiall ytwic e thos e o f singl e tank s becaus e eac hfue l syste mrequire s th e necessary contro l hardware . Dua l tan k vehicle s coul d us e an yo f th e thre e contro l syste mapproache s discusse d above , an d EPA assume s tha t th e mi xo f thes e contro l approache s wil l b e the sam e a s describe d abov e for bot hsingl e an d dua l tan

k vehicles . Th e fraction s o f dua l tan k vehicle s use d i n thi s analysi s ar e show n below . Thes e essentiall yreflec t curren t conditions . LD V 0 % LDT 20 % HDGV : Clas s lib20 % Clas s II I 40 % Clas s VI 10 % Clas s VI I 19 % Clas s VII I 100 %

2- 9P.1 5

Whil e mos t individua l onboard hardwar e componen t cost s wil l no t varyamon g the vehicl e models , th e cos t o f th e charcoa l caniste r fo r an ygive n vehicl e mode l wil l vary depending oi

t th e capacit yo f the fue l tank . The cos t o f a refueling emission s contro l caniste r i s a functio n o f th e require d contro l systemcapacit ywhic hi n turn depend s upo n th e siz e o f th e fue l tank . EPAestimate d flee t averag e fue l tank size s for th e thre e vehicl e classes/subgroup s base d o n a minimu mdriving rang e an d th e fue l econom yimprovement s tha t ar e expecte d t o occur betwee n 199 0 an d 2000 . Th e projecte d fue l tank capacitie s use d in calculating caniste r cost s fo r th e thre e vehicl e classes/subgroup s ar e show n i n Tabl e 2 . Base d o n thi s informatio n regarding 'refuelin g contro l hardwar e an

d thos e factor s whic hinfluenc e tota l pe r vehicl e cost , Table s 3 an

d 4 presen t onboard cost s fo r LDVs , LDT s an d HDGVs . Thes e ar e manufacture r (vendo r level ) cost s an d d o no t reflec t manufacture r or deale r markup s fo r overhead an d profit . Fo r sak e o f completeness , th e amortize d fixe d cost s discusse d previousl yar e als o listed . I t shoul d be note d tha t the cost s presente d i n Table s 3 an d 4 ar e incrementa l t o th e cos t o f curren t evaporativ e emission s systems . A s can b e seen fro mTable s 3 an

d 4 , cost s varywit htime t o reflec t bot hth e differen t amortizatio n period s fo r fixe d cost s an

d changing caniste r size s du e t o projecte d fue l econom y improvements . Thre e distinc t cos t period s ca n b e identifie d for LDVs , an

d LDTs , an

d HDGVs : 1990-94 , 1995-99 , an d 200 0 an

d beyond . Fo r the sak e o f brevity , onl yth e tota l cost s ar e show n for th e year s afte r 199 4 for al l vehicl e classes . Th e cos t difference s ar e base d o n the following assumptions . Fo r al l vehicles , systems engineering an d certificatio n cost s ar e assume d t o b e full yamortize d during th e firs t 5 years , i.e . b y 1994 , an

d ar e no t reflecte d thereafter . Vehicl e modification s (i.e . tan

k an d purg e systemmodification s an d packaging ) cost s woul d als o disappea r afte r 5 year s for LDVs , LDT s an d clas s li b HDGVs , a s ca r an

d truc k design s begi n t o incorporat e onboar d control s fro

mthe initia l desig n inception . Clas s V I - VII I HDGVs ar e assume d t o hav e no packaging cost s an d s o thes e ar e no t reflecte d i n the 1990-9 4 initia l cos t estimates . Tank an d purg e systemmodificatio n cost s woul d als o dro p ou t afte r five year s fo r HDGVs , jus t a s theyd o for LDV s an d LDTs . Fo r LDVs , LDTs , an

d HDGVs , facilit ymodification s represen t a longer-ter m investmen t an

d ar e assume d t o b e full yamortize d afte r 1 0 years . Therefor e theyar e no t include d afte r 1999 . Projecte d fue l econom yimprovements.hav e bee n average d for eacho f th e thre e period s t o determin e caniste r siz e requirement s fo r LDVs an d LDTs . Thes e ar e als o reflecte d i n the decreasing cost s fo r eachperiod. . Fue l econom ydifference s ar e no t reflecte d in long-ter m HDG V costs , sinc e the projecte d improvement s ar e sligh t an d hav e a minima l effec t o n system costs .

2-1 0P.1 6

» i

Tabl e 2 Projecte d Fue l Tan

k Capacit yByVehicl e Clas s (Gallons ) 5 Yea r Perio d Vehicl e Clas s 1990-9 4 1995-199 9 200 0 + LD V 1 2 1 1 1 0 LDT Singl e Tan

k Dua l Tan

k
HDG V Ilb/III-Singl e Ilb/III-Dua l Vl-Singl e VI-Dua l Vll/VIII-Singl e VII/VIII-Dua l 1 6 3 3

3 0 60/7 0 4 0 8 4 3 8 8 8 1 6

3 2

3 0 60/7 0 4 0 8 4 3 8 8 8 1 5

2 9

3 0 60/7 0 4 0 8 4 3 8 8 8P.1 7

A s wa s mentione d previously , properl ydesigne d an d teste d onboard contro l system s als o hav e th e capacit yt o contro l th e exces s evaporativ e emission s cause d b yth e highe r volatilit yo f commercia l fuels . However , thes e exces s evaporativ e emission s coul d b e controlle d b yincreasing th e RVP o f th e fue l use d in exhaus t an

d evaporativ e emission s certificatio n testing t o the in-us e leve l o f 11. 5 psi , i n whic hcas e manufacturer s woul d b e forced t o improve thei r curren t emissio n contro l systems . Thu s i t i s appropriat e t o evaluat e onboard refueling contro l cost s incrementa l t o exces s evaporativ e emissio n contro l costs . Calculating th e cost s o f onboard control s incrementa l t o improve d evaporativ e system s require s the subtractio n o f th e incrementa l cost s o f th e improve d evaporativ e system s fromth e onboard cost s presente d in Table s 3 an d 4 . Thr s i s don e i n Tabl e 5 for LDVS , LDTs , HDGVs . Th e cos t o f thes e improve d system s i s take n fro m EPA' s recen t stud yo f gasolin e volatilit y an d vehicl e H C emissions . [ 11 ] Fo r th e sak e o f brevit yonl ya singl e cos t i s show n fo r eac hvehicl e class . Thi s cos t i s a weighte d averag e base d on th e distributio n o f configuration s discusse d earlier . Ill . Cost s t o the Consume r Th e cos t o f the propose d regulation s t o th e consume r ca n be divide d int o two genera l categories : firs t pric e increas e an d operating costs . Th e firs t pric e increas e consist s o f hardwar e costs , amortize d manufacture r fixe d cost s and th e retai l pric e equivalen t (RPE ) markups . Th e RP E reflect s th e variou s overhead an d profi t markup s tha t ar e added t o th e vendo r cos t o f a the onboard syste ma t th e manufacture r an d deale r levels . Th e secon d category , operating costs , consist s o f maintenanc e an

d in-us e inspectio n costs , i f any , plu s an y chang e in tota l lifetime fue l cost s du e t o increase d o r decrease d fue l consumptio n rates . Eac ho f thes e i s discusse d below , followe d b

yan estimat e o f th e ne t lifetime consume r cost . A . Firs t Pric e Increas e Th e tota l firs t pric e increas e t o th e consume r consist s o f the manufacturer' s cos t pe r vehicl e develope d i n th e previou s section , including amortize d fixe d costs , multiplie d b yan RP E marku p facto r o f 1.2 6 for LDV s an d LDT s an

d 1.2 7 fo r HDGVs . Thes e marku

p factor s represen t industr yaverage s an

d wer e develope d b

ya n EP

Acontracto r using availabl e financia l dat a for th e domesti c aut o an d truc k manufacturer s an d thei r dealers . [4 ] Dat a covering a te n yea r time spa n wer e use d i n the determinatio n t o dampe n th e effect s x> f th e busines s cycle . The markup facto r include s corporat e overhea d an d profi t plu s deale r profi t an d othe r expense s fo r interes t an d sale s commissions . No deale r overhea d i s included , sinc e the additio n o f emissio n contro l component s shoul d no t increas e the dealer' s cos t for storing or selling hi s vehicles . Hardwar e cost s an

d amortize d cost s fo r certificatio n an d facilitie s modification s ar e marke d u p using thes e factors . However ,

2-1 2Tabl e 3 Manufacture r Cost s o f Onboar d Emissio n Contro l Component s

Ligh t Dut yVehicle s an d Ligh t DutyTruck s

LD V LDT - Singl e Tank LD T - Dua l Tank Category 1990-9 4 Hardwar e Veh . Mod s Subtota l

AJIJO I t ;.*..-

J FlXc U-.'uSt- S Integrate d

13.2 4 1.0 7 14.3 1
1.3 6 Par t Int/Sep

15.1 7 1.9 7 17.1 4
1.3 6 Integrate d

14.5 8 1.0 7 15.6 5
1.7 6 Par t Int/Sep

16.5 4 1.9 7 18.5 1
1.7 6 Integrate d

32.3 9 2.3 9 34.7 8
2.1 1 Par t Int/Sep

34.2 1 3.4 4 37.6 5
2.1 1 Tota l 15.6 7 18.5 0 17.4 1 20.2 7 36.8 9 39.7 6
Clas s Weighte d Avg . 1990-9 4 1995-9 9 200 0 + LD V 16.0 1 14.0 0 12.8 7 LDT-S T 17.7 5 15.5 1 14.2 9 LDT-DT

37.2 3 33.8 2 32.0 8 Al l LD T

21.6 5 19.1 7 17.8 5Tabl e 4 Manufacture r Cost s o f Onboar d Emissio n Contro l Component s

Heav yDut yGasolin e Vehicle s Category 1990-9 4 Hardwar e Veh . Mod s Subtota l Amortize d Fixe d Cost s CL . Ilb/II I

Singl e Tank 22.3 9 1.0 3 23.4 2
3.1 6 HDG

V Dua l Tank 51.1 2 2.1 7 53.2 9
3.2 9 CL . V I HDG V Singl e Tank Dua l Tank 31.6 3 .7 2 32.3 5
4.8 8 67.2 6

1.4 4 68.7 0
4.8 8 CL . VII/VII I

Singl e Tank 30.4 8 .7 2 31.2 0
4.8 8 HDG

V Dua l Tank 64.7 7 1.4 4 66.2 1
4.8 8 Tota l 26.5 8 56.5 8 37.2 3 73.5 8 36.0 8 71.0 9
Clas s Weighte d Avg : 1990-9 4 1995-9 9 200 0 + lib/ ' 3 3 2 9 2 8 [I I .1 8 .1 5 .7 7 V I 40.8 6 35.4 9 35.2 1 VII/VII I

43.7 8 38.3 2 38.1 8 Al l HDG

V 34.2 7 30.0 8 29.7 8P.2 0

Tabl e 5 Onboard Hardwar e Cost s t o Manufacturer s (Incrementa l t o Cost s fo r Contro l o f Exces s Evaporativ e Emissions )



### LD V LD

T HDG

V 1990-9 4 Hardwar e cost 1 Less : exces s evap . cos t Incrementa l cost 2 1995-9 9 Hardwar e cost 1 Less : exces s eva

p cos t Incrementa l cost 2 200 0 + Hardwar e cost 1 Less : exces s eva

p cos t Incrementa l cost 2 $16.0 1 -2.2 9 13.7 2 14.0 0 -1.5 1 12.4 9 12.8 7 -1.5 1 $2 1

- 3 '1 8 1 9

- 1 1 7 1 7

- 1 6 5 0 2 6. h 1 7 9 8 1 9 8 5 .9 8 $34.2 7

-3.2 8 30.9 9 30.0 8 -2.7 0 27.3 8 29.7 8 2.7 0 11.3 6 15.8 7 27.0 8

1 Incrementa l t o cos t o f curren t evaporativ e contro l systems . 2 Incrementa l t o cos t o f improve d evaporativ e contro l system s capabl e o f controlling exces s evaporativ e emissions .P.2 1

using the markup methodolog ydevelope d b

yLindgre n fo r EPA , system s engineering cost s ar e essentiall yR& D an d ar e no t subjec t t o RP E markups , bu t rathe r ar e added t o the tota l cos t afte r the RP E marku p ha s bee n applied . Tabl e 6 show s th e firs t pric e increas e t o the consume r whe n onboard cost s ar e evaluate d incrementa l t o exces s evaporativ e emissio n contro l costs . B . Operating Cost s A s discusse d in th e GM S analysis , an onboar d systemshoul d no t requir e an

yadditiona l maintenanc e ove r th e curren t evaporative emissio n contro l system . Also , no in-us e inspection s o f onboard system s ar e likely , . sinc e evaporativ e system s ar e generall yno t inspecte d i n currenf'program s an d tampering rate s ar e relativel ylow . Therefore , n o increase s in operating cost s relate d t o onboar d system maintenanc e o r in-us e inspection s ar e expected . However , some chang e i n lifetime operating cost s ar e expecte d a s a resul t o f th e positiv e fue l consumptio n benefi t realize d fro

m th e fue l recoverycredits . Fue l recoverycredit s accompan

ybot hth e recoveryo f refueling an d exces s evaporativ e emissions , bu t thi s analysi s wil l addres s onl yth e refueling emission s whic har e capture d byth e onboar d system . A s wa s mentione d previously , a properl ydesigne d an d teste d onboar d systemwoul d als o hav e th e capacit yt o contro l exces s evaporativ e emissions , bu t alternativ e strategie s fo r controlling exces s evaporativ e emission s mayreduc e or totall y eliminat e th e exces s evaporativ e credit . Th e lifetime chang e in fue l consumptio n resulting fro mth e recoveryo f refueling emission s actuall yi s th e differenc e o f two effects : th e gros s recoverycredi t les s th e effec t o f th e weigh t penalt yassociate d wit hthe onboar d system . Th e gros s recoverycredi t i s determine d b ycalculating the gasolin e equivalen t o f th e tota l mas s o f refueling vapor s captured , the n multiplying thi s figur e b yth e presume d vapo r combustio n efficiency . Thi s recoverycredi t mus t the n b e reduce d b ythe fue l econom

ypenalt yresulting fro mth e sligh t weigh t increas e associate d wit hthe onboar d system . Th e weigh t penalt ywa s determine d usin g th e estimate d weigh t o f an onboar d syste m togethe r wit ha weight/fue l consumptio n sensitivit yfactor . Usin g thi s approach , the ne t chang e i n fue l consumptio n in eac hyea r o f the vehicl e lif e wa s determine d an d the n multiplie d b

yth e valu e o f a gallo n o f gasolin e ($0.98 ) t o ge t the monetaryvalu e o f th e recoverycredit . Thes e value s wer e the n discounte d at 1 0 percen t t o th e firs t yea r o f th e vehicle' s lif e t o ge t a monetaryvalu e i n th e sam e term s a s th e RPE . Thi s analysi s wa s conducte d for th e si xvehicl e classes/subgroup s bein g evaluate d her e fo r th e thre e time period s mentione d earlie r for the hardware , ie . 1990-1994 , 1995-1999 , an

d 200 0 an

d beyond . Th e result s o f the analysi s ar e show

n i n Tabl e 6 . 2-1 4Tabl e 6 Cost s t o the Consumer ' Onboar d Refueling Emission s Contro l

Costs : 1990-94 : Firs t Pric e Increase : Refueling FP I Less : Refueling Credit s Ne t cos t t o consume r LD V
17.1 7 (4.24 ) $12.9 3 LD T

18.3 9 (6.50 ) $11.8 9 Dua l Tank

LD T
42.8 2 (3.35 ) $39.4 7 Clas s lib / Clas s Clas s VII /

II I HDG V V I HDG

V VII I HDG

V
37.8 4 47.0 1 50.9 0 (11.48 ) (16.43 ) (21.75 ) $26.3 6 $30.5 8 $29.1 5 Costs : 1995-1999 : Refueling FP I Less : Refueling Credit s Ne t cos t t o consume r Costs : 200 0 & Beyond : Tota l FP I Refueling F Less : Refueling Credit s Ne t cos t t o consume r 15.7 1 (3.85 ) $11.8 6

P I 14.2 9 (3.53 ) $10.7 6 17.0 1

(6.31 ) $10.7 0

15.4 7 (5.93 ) $9.5 4 40.0 8

(3.22 ) $36.8 6

37.8 9 (3.09 ) $34.8 0 33.0 3

(10.87 ) $22.1 6

32.6 5 (10.75 ) $21.9 0 41.4 6

(16.13 ) $25.3 3

41.0 8 (15.74 ) $25.3 4 45.2 4

(21.15 ) 24.0 9

44.8 6 (20.67 ) $24.1 9

1 Mino r difference s betwee n the cost s presente d i n thi s tabl e and thos e presented ' i n the GM S S & Ao f Comment s o r the HDG V Technica l Repor t ar e du e t o rounding . Cost s ar e incrementa l t o exces s evaporativ e emission s contro l costs . >P.2 3

C . Ne t Consume r Cost s Th e ne t lifetime consume r cost s for onboard contro l ar e show n i n Tabl e 6 . In thi s tabl e th e cost s associate d wit hth e firs t pric e increas e ar e partiall yoffse t b yth e ne t presen t valu e o f th e recoverycredits . Ne t cost s ar e show n for th e si x vehicl e class/subgroup s an d th e thre e time period s mentione d previously . IV . Aggregat e Cost s t o th e Natio n Aggregat e cost s t o th e natio n includ e the fixe d cost s t o manufacturer s fo r system s engineering , certificatio n an d facilit ymodifications , plu s th e cos t t o -the ^consume r fo r hardware , les s th e fue l recoverycredits . I n calculating thes e costs , th e ne t amount s fromTabl e 6 , adjuste d t o remove th e amortize d fixed costs , wer e multiplie d b yth e projecte d sale s show n i n Tabl e 7 . Th e 1988-9 4 aggregat e cost s ar e show n in Tabl e 8 (undiscounted ) an d Tabl e 9 (discounted ) b yth e yea r the yar e expecte d t o b e incurred . Atota l discounte d cos t i s als o show

n for eac hvehicl e class , representing a lum p su m paymen t a s o f the yea r th e standard s ar e effective . Cost s ar e show n fo r LDVs , LDTs , HDGV s an d a tota l fo r al l thre e classes . Al l cost s befor e th e yea r th e standard take s effec t (1990 ) ar e fo r system s engineering , certification , an d facilit y modifications ; al l cost s fo r 199 0 an d subsequen t year s ar e fo r hardwar e costs , les s fue l recoverycredits . I t i s assume d tha t al l system s engineering and facilit ymodification s cost s wil l b e incurre d i n 198 8 whil e al l certificatio n cost s wil l b e incurre d i n 1989 . Al l o f the cost s show n i n Tabl e 9 ar e discounte d at 1 0 percen t pe r yea r t o 1990 , th e firs t mode l yea r o f the standard . A s show n in th e table , th e tota l discounte d cos t t o th e natio n for th e propose d refueling regulation s (i n 198 6 dollars ) i s abou t $90 9 million . IV . Socioeconomi c Impac t Th e socioeconomi c effect s o f th e propose d regulation s includ e an

yimpac t theyma yhave o n manufacturers ' cas hflow , sale s an

d employment , energ yusage , balanc e o f trade , an d on particula r group s o f individual s o r segment s o f th e economy . Th e overal l impac t o f th e propose d regulation s on manufacturers ' cas hflowi s expecte d t o b e minor . Hardwar e cost s ar e recoupe d b yth e manufacturer s during th e yea r they ar e incurred . Wit hcurren t computerize d inventorycontro l systems , manufacturer s ar e no t expecte d t o be require d t o maintai n large , expensiv e part s inventorie s during the cours e o f th e manufacturin g year , s o th e onl ysignifican t negativ e impac t o n manufacturers ' cas hflowwoul d come fromthe fixe d costs , i.e . system s engineering , certificatio n an d facilitie s modifications . Althoughthes e cost s woul d eventuall yb e recovered , theywoul d likel yb e incurre d during th e two year s prio r t o the effectiv e mode l yea r o f th e regulations , whe n ther e woul d b e n o directl yoffsetting revenue s received . Assuming tha t al l o f the fixe d cost s woul d b e incurre d i n the

2-1 6P.2 4

Tabl e 7 -Projected Gasoline-fuele d Vehicl e Sale s

(Million s o f Vehicles ) 1990-200 0
Yea r LDV 1 LDT 1 HDGV ' 199 0 199 1 199 2 199 3 199 4 199 5 199 6 199 7 199 8 199 9 200 0 + 11. 2

11. 2 11. 2 11. 1 11. 0 10. 8 10. 9 11. 0 11. 0 11. 0 11. 0 3.7 1 3.6 8 3.6 4 3.5 6 3.4 7 3.3 5 3.4 0 3.4 3 3.4 5 3.4 6 3.4 8 0.38 4

0.38 1 0.37 9 0.38 1 0.38 3 0.38 4 0.38 5 0.38 8 0.39 2 0.39 6 0.40 0

1 Base d o n DR I "Trendlong " Projections , Fall , 198 4 Long Ter mReview , Dat a Resources , Inc. , 198 4 2 Se e Referenc e 11 .P.2 5

Tabl e 8 Aggregat e Incrementa l Cost s o f Onboard Refueling Control s (Million s o f Dollars 1 ) Undiscounte d Calenda r Yea r LDGVs LDGT s 17.6 0 11.0 0 57.0 0 56.5 5 55.9 5 54.7 0 53.3 5 Rounde d t o th e neares t 0.0 5 million . 198 8 198 9 199 0 199 1 199 2 199 3 199 4 38.3 0

26.0 0 126.9 0 126.9 0 126.9 0 125.7 5 124.6 5 HDGV s 2.1 0 2.7 0 8.8 0 8.7 0 8.6 5 8.7 5 8.7 5 Tota l Cost s

58.0 0 39.7 0 -i92.7 0 192.1 5 191.5 0 189.2 0 186.7 5P.2 6

Tabl e 9 Aggregat e Incrementa l Cost s o f Onboar d Refueling Control s (Million s o f Dollars 1 ) Discounte d 199 0 Calenda r Yea r LDGV s LDGT s 198 8 198 9 199 0 199 1 199 2 199 3 199 4
Tota l 46.3 5

28.6 0 126.9 0 115.3 5 104.8 5 94.5 0 85.1 0 601.6 5 21.3 0

12.1 0 57.0 0 51.4 0 46.2 5 41.1 0 36.4 5 265.6 0 HDGV s

2.5 5 3.0 0 8.8 0 7.9 0 7.1 5 6.5 5 6.0 0 41.9 5 Tota l Cost s

70.2 0 43.7 0 192.7 0 174.6 5 158.2 5 142.1 5 127.5 5 909.2 0 Rounde d t o th e neares t 0.0 5 million .tw o year s prio r t o the effectiv e dat e o f the standards , th e

averag e cos t pe r yea r woul d b e les s than $5 0 million . Thi s represent s les s tha n one-hal f o f on e percen t o f th e cas houtlay mad e b yth e domesti c industr yduring 198 0 an d 198 1 fo r modernizatio n an

d downsizing.[13 ] Th e effec t o f thes e regulation s on sale s an d employmen t i s als o expecte d t o b e minimal . Th e firs t pric e increas e t o consumer s i s onl y0. 1 t o 0. 2 percen t o f th e averag e cos t o f a ne wvehicl e for LDVs , LDT s an d HDGVs . B

ycontrast , the annua l pric e increase s fo r newvehicle s have bee n man ytime s thes e percentage s i n recen t years , eve n in time s o f ver ylow inflation . Th e impac t o f suc hincrease s o n consume r deman d fo r vehicle s i s commonl yexpresse d i n term s o f th e pric e elasticit y o f demand , ie . th e reductio n i n sale s corresponding t o an increas e i n price . EP Aha s determine d a pric e elasticit y,o f demand o f -1. 0 fo r LDVs & LDT s an d -0. 9 t o -0. 5 (averag e o f -0.7 ) for HDGVs.[1,11 ] Th e resulting decreas e i n demand woul d thu s b e -. 1 t o -. 2 percen t for LDVs , LDT s an d HDGVs . However , a rea l questio n arise s a s t o whethe r i t i s appropriat e t o appl y thi s price/demand mode l t o suchsmal l pric e increases . Tnus , althoughi t i s conceivabl e tha t consume r demand , an d consequentl ysales , coul d b e affecte d slightly , i t i s highl y unlikel yan

d no t measurable . Accordingly , th e impac t o n employmen t i n th e aut o industryshoul d als o b e minimal . I n fact , some additiona l employmen t i n the manufactur e o f onboar d contro l hardwar e i s likely . Thi s employmen t woul d occur i n th e traditiona l aut o industr ybu t woul d als o exten d t o supplier s o f activate d carbon , vapo r lines , an d othe r components . Onboar d control s coul d resul t i n a sligh t decreas e i n th e demand fo r gasoline , du e t o th e fue l recoverycredits . However , th e saving s involve d ar e smal l i n compariso n t o th e projecte d gain s i n fue l econom yduring th e perio d i n questio n withou t th e credits , or t o the norma l fluctuation s i n consume r demand du e t o othe r factors . Asligh t reductio n i n deman d fo r gasolin e coul d i n turn resul t i n a sligh t decreas e in th e demand fo r importe d oi l an d perhap s a

n improvemen t i n th e nation' s balanc e o f trade , bu t thi s woul d likel yb e offse t b y th e pric e increas e on importe d vehicles . An yeffec t o n employmen t i n th e petroleu mindustr

ywoul d als o b e negligible . I n conclusion , th e overal l socioeconomi c impac t o f thes e regulation s i s expecte d t o b e minimal . Barring a significan t recessio n i n th e lat e 1980' S aut o an d truc k manufacturer s ar e expecte d t o hav e n o troubl e underwriting th e capita l investmen t required . Vehicle s sale s shoul d no t b e impacte d measurably , an d employmen t i n the automotiv e an d relate d industrie s may increas e slightly . Thes e regulation s ar e no t expecte d t o hav e an yne t effec t o n th e balanc e o f trade .

2-1 8REFERENCE S FOR CHAPTE R 2. 0 1 . "Draf t RegulatoryImpac t Analysis : Propose d Refueling Emissio n Regulation s for 199 0 an d afte r Mode l Yea r Gasoline-Fuele d Moto r Vehicles , Volume 1 , Analysi s o f Gasolin e Marketing RegulatoryStrategies , U.S . EPA , OAR , [MO ] 1987 . 2 . "Evaluatio n o f Ai r Pollutio n RegulatoryStrategie s fo r Gasolin e Marketing Industry, " EPA-450/3-84-012a , U.S . EPA , OAR , July , 1984 . 3 . "Cos t Estimation s for Emissio n Control-Relate d Components/Systern s an d Cos t MethodologyDescription, " LeroyH . Lindgren , Rat han

d Strong fo r U.S . EPA , 1978. ' .., ••* — 4 . Draf t "Manufacturing Cos t an d Retai l pric e Equivalen t o f Onboar d Vapo r RecoverySystem for Gasolin e Filling Vapors, " LeroyH . Lindgre n fo r API , 1983 . 5 . "Updat e o f EPA' s Moto r Vehicl e Emissio n Contro l Equipmen t Retai l Pric e Equivalen t (RPE ) Calculatio n Formula" , Jac k Faucet t Associate s for U . S . EPA , 1985 . 6 . "197 7 Censu s o f Transportation , Truc k Inventoryan d Us e Survey" , U.S . Departmen t o f Commerce , Burea u o f th e Census , 1980 . 7 . "Ligh t Dut yAutomotiv e Fue l Economy...Trend s Thr u 1985" , Murrel l et . al. , SAE Technica l Pape r Serie s K850550 , 1985 . 8 . "U.S . Long Ter mReview , Fal l 1984" , Dat a Resources , Inc. , 1984 . 9 . "Feasibility , Cos t an d Cos t Effectivenes s o f Onboar d Vapo r Contro l Fo r Heavy-Dut yGasolin e Vehicles, " Holber t an d Laing , U . S . EPA , OAR , OMS , 1986 . 10 . Memorandu

m"Cos t o f Cras hTesting t o Assur e Fue l SystemIntegrit yfor Onboar d Systems, " Johnso n t o th e Record , EPA , OAR , OMS , August , 1986 . 11 . Comment s o f th e Moto r Vehicle s Manufacturer s Associatio n o f the U.S. , Inc . o n EPARepor t "Evaluatio n o f Ai r Pollutio n RegulatoryStrategie s fo r Gasolin e Marketin g Industry, " MVMA , Publi c Docke t A-84-07 , I-H-127 , 1984 . 12 . "Stud

yo f Gasolin e Volatilit yan d Hydrocarbo n Emission s fromMoto r Vehicles, " U . S . EPA , OAR , OMS , 1985 . 13 . "RegulatorySuppor t Document , Revise d Gaseou s Emissio n Regulation s fo r 198 5 an d Late r Mode l Yea r H D Engines, " U . S . EPA , OAR , OMS , 1983 . 14 . "Draf t RegulatoryImpac t Analysi s an d Oxide s o f Nitroge n Pollutant-Specifi c Study, " U . S . EPA , OAR , OMS , 1984 . 2-1 9P.2 9

3. 0 ENVIRONMENTA

L IMPACT : Ozon e Ai r Qualit y I . Introduction Thi s chapte r evaluate s th e effect s on ambien t ai r qualit y associate d wit himplementing a 0.1 0 gra mpe r gallo n (g/gal ) refueling emissio n standard for 199 0 an d late r mode l yea r light-dut yvehicles , light-dut ytrucks , an d heavy-dut yvehicle s tha t us e gasolin e fuel . Th e following sectio n serve s a s th e backgroun

d fo r the remainde r o f th e chapter . I t include s a brie f characterizatio n o f th e emission s associate d wit hth e refueling process , a discussio n o f thos e emission s whic har e potentiall ycontrollabl e wit honboard contro l technology , an d the interactio n betwee n refueling emissio n jcontrol s an d concurren t reduction s in exces s evaporativ e emission s from moto r vehicles . The las t sectio n evaluate s th e relativ e effec t o f controlling refueling an d exces s evaporativ e emission s o n ambien t ozon e level s in selecte d urban area s currentl yi n violatio n o f the Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit yStandard (NAAQS ) for thi s pollutant . Th e actua l advers e effect s o f ozon e o n ma n an d the environmen t wil l no t be describe d i n thi s section , sinc e thes e effect s hav e bee n full ydocumente d elsewhere.[1,2 ] In general , thi s chapte r ha s a relativel ynarro wfocus . Th e ambien t ai r qualit yanalyse s containe d herei n hav e a muc h mor e limited rang e than th e emissio n inventoryanalyse s presente d i n Volume l o f th e draf t RegulatoryImpac t Analysi s (draf t RIA) . The analyse s o f thi s chapte r examin e onl ythos e non-Californi a urban area s tha t wer e in non-attainmen t statu s for th e ozon e standard on th e basi s o f 198 3 design values . A detaile d evaluatio n o f variou s nationa l emissio n reductio n scenario s i s containe d in th e firs t volume o f th e draf t RIA , an d i s no t repeate d here . Also , thi s chapte r doe s no t addres s the carcinogeni c potentia l o f gasolin e vapors . Again , thi s topi c i s thoroughl ydiscusse d in the firs t volume o f th e draf t RIA . Reader s wishing t o obtai n furthe r informatio n o n th e aforementione d subject s shoul d se e th e appropriat e section s o f thi s document . II . Genera l Descriptio n o f the Emission s Associate d wit h Refueling an

d th e Us e o f Onboard Control s A . Refueling Emission s Gasolin e vapor s ar e compose d o f variou s hydrocarbo n (HC ) compounds . During th e vehicl e refueling process , thes e vapor s ar e emitte d fro

ma variet yo f sources. . Th e majorit yo f th e refueling emission s (i.e. , about ' 9 0 percent ) ar e H C vapor s displace d fro

mthe vehicle' s fue l tan k b yth e incoming gasoline . Th e mas s o f vapo r whic hescape s pe r uni t o f gasolin e dispensed , o r the emissio n factor , i s dependen t o n severa l variables , including : ( D th e temperatur e o f the dispense d

3- 1P.3 0

fuel , (2 ) th e differenc e betwee n th e temperatur e o f th e dispense d fue l an

d th e fue l tank , an d (3 ) the volatilit yo f th e fuel.[3 ] Thes e highl yconcentrate d vapor s ar e emitte d fromth e vehicle' s fillnec k directl yint o th e breathing zon e o f th e perso n performing th e refueling operation . I n additio n t o displacemen t losse s fro mth e vehicl e tank , ther e ar e tw o secondar ysource s o f emission s associate d wit h refueling . Th e firs t i s spillage , du e t o "splas hback " fro m the fil l pip e or the escap e o f som e liqui d fromth e dispensing nozzl e whe n withdraw n fro mth e fil l pipe . Th e secon d i s the escap e o f vapo r from the ven t o f the servic e station' s undergroun

d tank following refueling . A s fue l i s pumpe d int o the vehicle' s fue l tank , ambien t ai r i s draw n int o th e servic e station' s tank throughit s tank vent . Thi s "fresh " ai r cause s fue l in th e tank t o evaporat e unti l an equilibriu m concentratio n i s reestablishe d betwee n th e vapo r an d th e liquid . A s thi s proces s take s place , the tota l volume o f th e ingeste d ai r i n th e underground tan k increase s somewhat , an d the exces s volume i s emitte d fro mth e ven t i n the for mo f H C emissions . Thes e latte r two source s eac haccoun t fo r abou t 5 percen t o f th e tota l emission s associate d wit hthe refueling process , a s describe d i n the firs t volum e o f th e draf t RIA . Th e tota l refueling emissio n facto r i s expresse d a s th e mas s o f H C emitte d pe r gallo n o f dispense d fue l (g/gal) , an d varie s fro

mregio n t o regio n du e t o difference s i n temperature s an d fue l volatility . A s a n example , using nationa l averag e temperatur e value s an d nationa l averag e estimate s o f futur e volatilit ylevel s base d on histori c trends , th e tota l emissio n facto r for al l thre e source s i s 6. 6 g/gal.[3 ] B . Emission s Potentiall yControllabl e b yOnboar d Technolog

y Onboar d control s functio n during a refueling operatio n b y sealing the vehicle' s fillnec k an d the n routing th e displace d vapor s t o a storag e canister , wher e the H C molecule s ar e adsorbe d ont o the surfac e o f activate d charcoal . Whe n the vehicle' s engin e i s started , fres hai r i s drawn throughthe caniste r t o purg e th e HC molecule s fro mth e charcoal . Th e resulting vapo r i s transferre d t o th e fue l metering systeman d subsequentl yburne d i n th e engine . Test s hav e show n tha t properl ydesigne d an d operating onboar d system s ar e capabl e o f controlling abou t 9 9 percen t o f th e displacemen t vapors.[4 ] (Th e contro l effectivenes s valu e wa s revise d upwar d fro mthe 9 7 percen t use d i n th e ga s marketing stud ybase d on mor e recen t tes t data. ) O f thos e emission s no t captured , nearl yal l escap e fro mth e fillnec k (i.e. , 9 5 percent) . Th e remainde r (i.e. , 5 percen t appea r t o b e emitte d fromth e canister , whic htypicall y i s locate d i n th e engin e compartment .

3- 2P.3 1

Onboard contro l technolog ywil l als o hav e th e effec t o f eliminating one o f the tw o secondarysource s o f emission s associate d wit hrefueling mentione d previously , tha t o f "splas h back. " Thes e emissions , whic hresul t fro m the spillag e an

d subsequen t evaporatio n o f liqui d gasoline , shoul d b e significantl yreduce d throughth e design o f th e propose d tes t procedure . Th e primarycaus e o f fue l spillag e i s dispensing o f th e fue l a t to o rapi d a rate , relative t o wha t th e vehicl e fillnec k i s abl e t o accept . Th e propose d tes t procedur e specifie s a maximu mfue l dispensing rat e o f 1 0 gallon s pe r minute . Th e draf t regulation s accompanying today' s proposa l specif ythi s sam

e maximu

mfue l flowrat e a s an in-us e standard , a s wel l a s being par t o f th e tes t procedure . Since , t o b e abl e t o mee t th e propose d standard , n o fue l spillag e can b e tolerate d during certificatio n testing o f th e onboar d system , EPAbelieve s tha t spillag e du e t o hig hfueling rat e wil l b e eliminate d throughfue l flowrat e restriction s and-standardize d design o f fue l deliverynozzles . O f course , spillag e fro msuc h cause s a s nozzl e malfunction s wil l no t b e affecte d b yth e ne w procedures . The othe r secondarysourc e o f refueling-relate d emissions , emptying losse s fro mservic e stations ' underground storag e tanks , wil l no t b e affecte d b yonboar d contro l technology . The overal l in-us e efficienc yo f capturing displacemen t vapor s wil l b e somewha t les s tha n 9 9 percent , du e t o th e effect s o f tampering on some vehicles . Tampering i s primaril y expecte d t o tak e th e for mo f remova l or disconnectio n o f th e canister . I n suchinstances , the displacemen t losse s rever t t o th e uncontrolle d level , bu t ar e re-oriente d spatially . Wit h tampere d systems , th e majorit yo f th e vapor s woul d b e emitte d a t th e locatio n o f th e missin g o r disconnecte d canister , rathe r tha n fro

mth e fillnec k int o the breathing zon e o f th e perso n dispensing , th e fuel . A n issu e tha t i s intimatel yassociate d wit hth e implementatio n o f a n onboard refueling standar d i s th e interactio n betwee n the requisit e contro l technologyan d th e eliminatio n o f exces s evaporativ e emission s frommoto r vehicles . Evaporativ e emission s ar e primaril ya combinatio n o f breathing losse s fromth e vehicle' s fue l tank , du e t o diurna l temperatur e changes , an d losse s fro

mthe carbureto r bowl , fue l lines , an

d fue l tank tha t occur a s th e resul t o f residua l hea t fromth e engin e an d exhaus t systemafte r th e engin e i s turne d off . Presently , gasoline-fuele d vehicle s mus t b e certifie d t o certai n evaporativ e emissio n standard s prio r t o mas s productio n an d sale . Th e contro l technolog yuse d t o reduc e evaporativ e emission s t o the require d level s i s .similar in design an d functio n t o tha t describe d abov e fo r onboard refueling hardwar e (i.e. , carbo n canisters) . However , dat a fromEPA' s emissio n facto r progra

mindicat e tha t man yin-Us e vehicle s fai l t o compl ywit hthe applicabl e standards . Th e principl e caus e o f

3- 3P.3 2

thes e failure s i s tha t in-us e fue l typicall yha s a highe r volatilit ytha n the fue l specifie d fo r certificatio n testing . Th e increased amount s o f evaporativ e H C cause d b yhighe r in-us e volatilitie s canno t b e adsorbe d b ycurren t charcoa l caniste r systems . Thes e additiona l H C vapor s escap e int o the atmospher e a s exces s evaporativ e emissions . Th e Agenc yi s presentl yconsidering a variet yo f strategie s aime d a t assuring in-us e complianc e wit hevaporativ e emissio n standards . Whil e n o decisio n ha s bee n made , on e alternative i s t o mak e relativel ysimpl e change s t o th e curren t evaporative emissio n tes t procedure s an d t o increas e th e volatilit yo f certificatio n fue l t o b e mor e representativ e o f in-us e level s (i.e. , certificatio n fue l volatilit yequal s in-us e fue l volatility) . Thes e revision s basicall ywoul d resul t i n large r canister s and differen t purg e rates . Sinc e onboar d technolog

yinclude s a large r charcoa l caniste r than i s necessaryt o contro l evaporativ e emissions , eve n assuming t'h e revisio n o f tes t fue l volatility , an d becaus e refueling normall ywoul d no t coincid e wit hth e occurrenc e o f evaporativ e emissions , i t i s possibl e t o contro l exces s evaporativ e losse s b yintegrating the requisit e control s wit hthe refueling contro l systema t littl e additiona l cost . I n orde r t o illustrat e th e effect s o f sucha program , th e analyse s presente d i n the remainde r o f thi s chapte r wil l includ e a scenari o tha t combine s th e contro l o f refueling emission s plu s exces s evaporativ e emissions , in additio n t o a scenari o tha t evaluate s onl ythe contro l o f refueling emissions . Ill . Ai r Qualit yAnalysi s Th e NAAQ S for ozon e require s tha t the fourt hhighes t dail y maximu mone-hour measure d concentratio n no t excee d 0.1 2 part s pe r millio n (ppm ) i n an ythree-yea r period . O n th e basi s o f ozon e ai r qualit ymonitoring dat a collecte d i n 1982 , 1983 , an d 1984 , whic har e th e mos t recen t complet e dat a available , ther e ar e 7 3 urban area s in violatio n o f thi s standard.[5 ] Twelv e o f thes e 7 3 non-attainmen t area s ar e located i n California . A s alread ydiscussed . Stag e I I vapo r recoverysystem s ar e currentl ybeing use d in nearl yal l o f California , an d i t i s unclea r whethe r thes e system s wil l continu e t o b e use d or i f theywil l b e discontinue d i n favo r o f onboar d controls . Becaus e o f thi s uncertainty , onl yth e 6 1 non-Californi a urba n area s liste d "

" in Tabl e 1 ar e include d i n th e ai r qualit y analysis . Thi s simplifie s th e analysi s withou t affecting th e resulting conclusions . Preliminaryai r qualit yanalyse s in suppor t o f thi s chapte r wer e performe d using 198 2 a s the bas e year . (A s i s explaine d furthe r i n the sectio n o n ai r qualit ymethodology , bas e yea r dat a require d a s inpu t fo r EKM Ainclud e emissio n inventorie s an

d design values , a measur e o f ambien t ozon e

3- 4P.3 3

concentrations. ) Wit h198 2 a s th e bas e year , EPAfoun d 4 7 non Californi a urba n area s (standard metropolita n statistica l area s (SMSAs) , or grouping s o f SMSAs int o metropolita n areas ) t o hav e design value s o f 0.1 3 part s pe r millio n (ppm ) o r greater , thu s indicating ozon e non-attainmen t status . Seve n Californi a areas , al l o f the m urban , als o me t thi s criterion . EPA include s al l non-Californi a urba n area s wit hdesign value s o f 0.1 3 pp mor greate r in it s modeling o f futur e ozon e ai r quality . Th e analyse s presente d i n th e remainde r o f thi s chapte r have bee n update d t o us e 198 3 a s th e bas e year . I n additio n t o mor e recen t base-yea r emissio n inventories , thi s mean s tha t the design value s use d ar e based o n ozon e ai r qualit ymonitoring dat a collecte d i n 1982 , 1983 , an d 1984 . (The 198 2 design value s ar e base d o n 1981 , 1982 , an d 198 3 monitoring , data. ) Ther e i s anothe r significan t differenc e in th e ai r qualit y analysi s using 198 3 a s the bas e year , relativ e t o previou s analyses . Thi s refinemen t involve s th e us e o f differen t set s o f design value s for th e determinatio n o f non-attainmen t statu s an d fo r inpu t dat a t o EKMA . Thi s i s discusse d i n mor e detai l i n Sectio n III.A.6 . o f thi s chapter . Applying th e sam

e tes t a s wa s use d i n th e preliminary analyse s t o th e newe r design values , EPAfoun d tha t th e numbe r o f urba n area s i n non-attainmen t statu s had increase d from5 4 ^'- * (4 7 non-California ) in 1982 , t o 7 3 (6 1 non-California ) i n 1983 . Thi s increas e i n th e numbe r o f urba n ozon e non-attainmen t area s betwee n 198 2 an

d 198 3 indicate s th e nee d for furthe r reduction s i n emission s o f ozon e precursors . Ozon e ai r qualit ymodeling i n recen t years , using design value s from the earl y1980s , ha s consistentl yprojecte d stead yimprovement s i n ambien t ozon e concentration s an

d a paralle l decreas e in th e numbe r o f non-attainmen t areas . Th e mos t recen t design values , base d on 1982-8 4 ai r qualit ymonitoring data , sugges t tha t thi s projecte d "improvemen t trend " i s no t occurring . Thi s situatio n ha s widesprea d implication s fo r EPA' s ozon e complianc e strategie s an

d post-198 7 policies , mos t o f whic har e beyond the scop e o f discussio n in thi s chapter. * Th e Administrato r announce d EPA' s newfour-phas e ozon e complianc e strateg yin a speec ht o th e Ai r Pollutio n Contro l Association' s Jun e 198 6 annua l meeting . Th e basi c four phase s are : (1 ) improve th e effectivenes s o f existing regulation s an

d programs ; (2 ) adop t additiona l nationa l policie s an

d contro l measures ; (3 ) demonstratio n o f attainmen t o f the ozon e NAAQS ; and.(4 ) sustaine d Progres s Program s (fo r thos e area s unabl e t o .attai n an d demonstrat e complianc e wit hthe ambien t ai r qualit ystandar d despit e implementatio n o f the firs t thre e phases) . Onboar d contro l o f vehicl e refueling emissions , a s a nationa l contro l measure , i s on e componen t o f Phas e I I o f thi s strategy . 3- 5Tabl e 1 6 1 Non-Californi a Urba n Ozon e Non-Attainmen t Area s an d Associate d Desig n Value s (ppm ) P.3 4

Are a EP ARegio n l Bosto n Metropolita n Are a Greate r Metropolita n Connecticu t Ne wBedford , M A Portland , M E Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester , NH-M E Providence , R I Springfield , M A Worcester , MA 82-8 4 DV s

0.1 9 0.2 3 0 . Vf 0.1 5 0.1 3 0 . 1 6 0 . 1 9 EKMA

DV s

0.1 8 0.1 8 0.1 9 0.1 0 0.0 9 0.1 5 0.1 7 0 . 1 4 0 . 1 2 EP ARegio n 2 Atlanti c City , N J Ne wYor k Metropolita n Are a Vineland-Mi1lvi1le-Bridgeton , N J EP ARegio n 3 Allentown-Bethlehem , P A Baltimore , M D Erie , P A Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle , P A Lancaster , P A Philadelphi a Metropolita n Are a Pittsburgh , P A Reading , PA Richmond-Petersburg , V A Scranton-wilke s Barre , P A Washington , DC-MD-V A York , P A EP ARegio n 4 Atlanta , GA Birmingham , A L Charlotte-Gastonia-Roc k Hill , NC-S C Chattanooga , TN-GA Huntington-Ashiand , WV-KY-O H Louisville , KY-I N Memphis , TN-AR-M S Miami-Hialeah , F L Nashville, . T N Tampa-St . Petersb * .eanwater , F L 0.1 9 0.2 3 0.1 4

0 . 1 5 0 . 1 7 0 . 1 3 0 . 1 3 0 . 1 4 0 . 1 8 0 . 1 4 0 . 1 3 0 . 1 4 0 . 1 3 0 . 1 6 0 . 1 3 0.1 5

0.2 4 0.1 4

0 . 1 4 0 . 1 7 0 . 1 3 0 . 1 3 0.0 9 0.2 0 0 . 1 4 0 . 1 3 0 . 1 4 0.1 3 0 . 1 7 0 . 1 3

0 . 1 7 0 . 1 5 0 . 1 3 0 . 1 3 0 . 1 4 0 . 1 5 0 . 1 3 0 . 1 3 0 . 1 3 0 . 1 3 0 . 1 7

0 . 1 5 0 . 1 3 0 . 1 3 0 . 1 4 0 . 1 5 0 . 1 3 0 . 1 3 0 . 1 3 0 . 1 3Tabl e 1 (cont'd ) P.3 5

Are a 82-8 4 DV s EP ARegio n 5 Akron , O H Canton , O H Chicag o Metropolita n Are a Cincinnat i Metropolita n Are a Cleveland , O H Dayton-Springfield , O H Detroit , M I Gran d Rapids , M I Indianapolis , I N Milwauke e Metropolita n Are a Muskegon , M I EP ARegio n 6 Bato n Rouge , L A Beaumont-Por t Arthur , T X Brazoria , T X Dallas-For t Wort hMetropolita n Are a E l Paso , T X Galveston-Texa s City , T X Houston , T X Lak e Charles , LA Longview-Marshall , T X Ne wOrleans , LA Sa n Antonio , T X Tulsa , O K EKMA DV s

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 3 2 0 1 5 1 4 13

- 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 7 1 4
1 7 2 1 1 4 1 6 1 7 1 7 2 5 1 5 1 5 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 3 2 5 1 7 1 4 1 3 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 7 1 4

0.1 5 0 . 1 4 0.1 3 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 1 5 0 . 1 5 0 . 1 4 0 . 1 3 1 7 2 1 1 4 1 6 1 7 1 7 2 5 1 5

EP ARegio n 7 Kansa s City , MO-K S St . Louis , MO-I L EP ARegio n 8 Denve r Metropolita n Are a Sal t Lak e City-Ogden , U T EP ARegio n 9 Phoenix , A Z 0.1 4 0.1 7 0 . 1 4 0.1 5 0 . 1 5 0 . 1 4

0 . 1 7 0 . 1 4 0 . 1 5 0 . 1 5On e issu e raise d b ythi s information , however , concern s the validit yo f EPA' s usua l assumption s concerning th e rat e o f implementatio n an

d the efficiencyo f "reasonabl yavailabl e contro l technology " (RACT ) on stationarysource s o f ozon e precurso r emissions , in the for mo f volatil e organi c compound s (VOC) . Thi s i s discusse d at greate r lengt hi n section s III.A.6 . an

d 7. , below . A , Ai r Qualit yMethodolog y Futur e ambien t ozon e concentration s i n specifi c urba n area s ar e estimate d using the Empirica l Kineti c Modeling Approac h(EKMA) . Thi s mode l utilize s a serie s o f ozon e isopleth s depicting downwin d ozon e concentration s a s a functio n o f initia l non-methan e hydrocarbo n (NMHC ) an. d oxide s o f nitroge n (NOx ) concentrations , th e difference s betwee n initialan

d subsequen t NMH C an d NO xemissio n inventories , meteorologica l conditions , an d reactivit yo f the precurso r mix , i n additio n t o concentration s o f ozon e an d precursor s transporte d fro

mupwind areas . I t shoul d b e noted , however , tha t EKM

Aa s use d b

yEPAi s a nationwide-averag e model . I n othe r words , the onl ycity-specifi c informatio n use d a s inpu t dat a for the mode l ar e the base-yea r ambien t ozon e concentration s (design values ) an d th e emissio n inventorie s fro mwhic hfutur e concentration s ar e projected , an d th e NMHC:NOxratios . Meteorologica l condition s an d othe r inpu t dat a ar e hel d constan t fo r al l th e urba n area s modeled . Reference s 6 an

d 7 contai n additiona l informatio n o n th e us e o f EKMA . Th e initial , o r base-year , emissio n inventorie s use d i n the mode l ar e base d on th e informatio n containe d i n EPA' s Nationa l Emission s Dat a System(NEDS) , whic hi s compile d b yth e Agency' s Offic e o f Ai r Qualit yPlanning an d Standard s (OAQPS) . Th e NED S inventor

yinclude s emission s fro m bot hstationaryan d mobil e sources . Th e mos t recen t emission s compilatio n i s fo r calenda r yea r 1983 , an d i s referre d t o a s th e 198 3 base-yea r inventory . Stationarysourc e inventorie s fo r an yfutur e yea r ar e compute d b

yth e mode l using anticipate d growt hand retiremen t rates , along wit hestimate s o f emissio n contro l efficiency . Similarly , futur e inventorie s ar e constructe d fo r mobil e source s using th e emissio n facto r ratio s (base-to-futur e years ) an

d annua l compound VMT growt hrate s for eac hvehicl e class , derive d fro mEPA' s MOBILE 3 Emissio n Facto r Mode l and M0BILE 3 Fue l Consumptio n Model , respectively . Th e specifi c stationarysourc e estimate s an d assumption s use d in th e mode l fo r thi s analysi s ar e the same a s thos e tha t wer e use d i n EPA' s recen t repor t o n in-us e fue l volatilit yan d evaporativ e emission s (hereafte r referre d t o a s th e volatilit y study).[8 ] Becaus e thes e mode l input s ar e full ydescribe d i n tha t document , theyar e no t repeate d here . Th e volatilit y stud yals o evaluate d baselin e an d exces s evaporativ e contro l



### 3- 8scenario s tha t ar e identica l t o thos e considere d i n thi s

chapter . Rathe r than repea t th e detaile d discussio n o f th e mobil e sourc e input s for thes e scenarios , onl ya fewo f the ke y feature s o f tha t analysis , along wit hth e basi c input s use d t o mode l th e onboard contro l scenari o evaluate d here , ar e describe d below . 1 . Fue l Volatilit y Unde r th e baselin e scenario , th e Rei d vapo r pressur e (RVP ) o f in-us e fue l i s th e maximu msummertime valu e (11. 5 pound s pe r squar e inch ) recommende d bythe American Societ yfo r Testin g an d Material s (ASTM ) in "Clas s C " areas , whic hinclud e mos t area s o f th e countr ywit hsignifican t ozon e ai r gualit y problems . [8 ] Thi s valu e wa s chose n because ' nearl yal l ozon e NAAQ S violation s i n thes e location s occur during th e summertime and , base d o n curren t fue l volatilit ytrends , i t i s expecte d tha t thi s RVP leve l wil l b e reache d b yth e tim e onboar d control s ente r th e marketplace . (In fact , thi s leve l i s alread ybein g exceede d in some areas , at leas t a t times. ) Th e RVP o f th e certificatio n fue l fo r th e baselin e scenari o i s th e currentl yspecifie d valu e o f 9. 0 psi . Unde r th e contro l scenarios , th e RVP o f in-us e fue l i s agai n 11. 5 psi . However , th e RV P o f certificatio n fue l i s assume d t o b e revise d t o equa l tha t o f in-us e fuel . 2 . Fue l Temperature s The mas s o f gasolin e vapor s displace d fro mth e vehicle' s fue l tan

k i s highl ydependen t o n the temperatur e o f th e dispense d fuel , a s wel l a s th e temperatur e o f th e fue l alread y i n the tank . A s mentione d wit hregard t o fue l volatility , mos t ozon e violation s occur during th e summe r months . Therefore , nationa l averag e summertime temperature s for the tw o fuel-relate d temperatur e parameter s ar e appropriat e whe n modeling ozon e ai r quality . Thes e value s ar e 88.2° F an d 78.8° F fo r fue l tank an d dispense d fuel , respectively.[3 ] 3 . Refueling Emissio n Factor s Th e refueling emissio n facto r i s compose d o f thre e parts : vehicl e fue l tan

k displacemen t losses , spillage , an d servic e statio n tank emptying losses . Th e amoun t o f displacemen t vapor s whic hescap e fro m an uncontrolle d vehicl e during th e refueling even t ar e foun d b yusin g th e RVP an d temperature s jus t described , along wit hthe equatio n develope d i n a n EPA technica l repor t tha t relate s thes e parameter s t o displacemen t losses:[3 ] Displacemen t losse s =

-5.90 9 - 0.0949(AT ) + 0.884(T D ) + 0.485(RVP ) -5.90 9 - 0.0949(+9.4 ) + 0.884(78.8 ) + 0.485(11.5 )



### 3- 9Where : T D= temperatur e o f th e dispense d fue l (°F) , A T = T T - T D= differenc e betwee n the temperatur e o f fue l alread

yin th e vehicl e tan k (T T ) an

d dispense d fuel , an

d RVP = Rei d Vapo r Pressur e o f the dispense d fue l (psi) . Th e resulting valu e for the displacemen t losse s componen t o f th e refueling emissio n facto r i s 5. 7 g/gal . A s discusse d in greate r detai l i n referenc e [3] , dat a on th e frequencyan

d magnitud e o f spillag e losse s ar e bot hscarc e an d widel yvariable . EPAha s chose n t o .use 0. 3 g/ga l t o represen t the spillag e portio n o f the refueling enrissio n facto r an d 0. 4 g/ga l t o represen t the emptying losses . Thes e value s ar e take n fro

mVolume 1 o f the draf t RIA . Summing thes e thre e component s yield s the uncontrolle d refueling emissio n facto r b f 6. 4 g/gal . Fo r vehicle s equippe d wit honboard controls , two emissio n factor s ar e use d in th e analysis , depending o n whethe r th e systemi s properl yoperating or ha s bee n tampere d with . Test s o f properl yoperating (non-tampered ) system s hav e show n th e capabilit yt o contro l 9 9 percen t o f th e displacemen t losses.[4 ] A s note d earlie r EPAexpect s tha t implementing onboar d control s wil l als o serve t o reduc e spillag e losses . However , sinc e th e amoun t o f spillag e whic hwil l b e controlle d i s unclea r a t thi s time , EPAha s take n th e mor e conservativ e positio n o f assuming n o reductio n i n spillage . Therefore , adding th e spillag e an d emptying losses , the resulting non-tampere d emissio n facto r i s 0. 8 g/gal . Sinc e ther e ar e no externall yvisibl e change s t o a vehicl e equippe d wit ha

n onboard contro l system , the rat e o f tampering wit hsuc hsystem s i s assume d t o b e n o mor e frequen t tha n tha t occurring wit hcurren t evaporativ e controls , an d wil l tak e onl y th e form s o f remova l or disconnectio n o f the storag e canister . Whe n thi s occurs , emission s woul d rever t t o thei r uncontrolle d leve l (i.e. , 6. 4 g/gal) . MOBILE 3 account s for th e effect s o f tampering b

yutilizing thi s uncontrolle d emissio n facto r wit h appropriat e tampering rate s (se e below) . I t shoul d b e note d tha t th e uncontrolle d emissio n facto r use d t o examin e ambien t ozon e ai r qualit ydiffer s slightl yfro m tha t use d t o evaluat e othe r healt heffect s (i.e. , 6. 4 versu s 6. 6 g/gal).

- Thi s i s th e resul t o f usin g differen t volatilit y an d temperatur e dat a t o estimat e displacemen t losse s fo r the two analyses . A s mentione d above , ozon e violation s ar e primaril ya summe r problem , s o th e emissio n facto r for th e ai r qu'alit yanalysi s i s base d on nationa l summertime averag e values . In contrast , th e emissio n facto r fo r the healt h effect s analysi s wa s derive d using nationa l annua l averag e

3-1 0P.3 9

value s since , unlik e ozon e violations , thes e phenomena ar e no t restricte d t o certai n area s o f th e countr yor t o a specifi c season . Sinc e fue l volatilit yan d fue l temperature s varyove r th e cours e o f the year , th e two resulting emissio n factor s ar e no t equal . •

" I n an yevent , i t shoul d b e note d tha t th e differenc e i n the emissio n factor s i s onl yabou t 3 percent . 4 . Tampering Rate s In th e onboard contro l scenario , the tampering rate s use d i n M0BILE 3 for remova l an d disconnectio n o f th e evaporativ e emission s storag e caniste r ar e als o used t o reflec t refueling caniste r tampering . I t shoul d b e noted tha t th e tampering rate s containe d i n the origina l MOBILE 3 wer e revise d i n th e volatilit ystud

yt o reflec t late r informatior i froii u EPA' s in-us e surveillanc e programs.[8 ] Th e inclusio n o f thes e 198 5 surve y dat a had th e effec t o f slightl yincreasing th e tampering rates , relativ e t o the origina l MOBILE 3 tampering rates . Thes e ne w rates , whic hvarya s a functio n o f vehicl e mileage , have bee n use d i n thi s analysis . Th e tampering rate s use d i n thi s analysi s fo r LDVs an d LDTs , respectively , ar e abou t 2. 5 an d 6 percen t a t 50,00 0 miles , an d abou t 6 an

d 9 percen t a t 100,00 0 miles.[8 ] I t shoul d als o be note d her e tha t wit hth e us e o f a liqui d seal , whic hEP

Aanticipate s wil l b e the dominan t approach , th e vehicl e fillnec k i s no differen t wit hthan withou t a n onboar d contro l system . In fact , th e incorporatio n o f onboar d technolog

ywit hth e liqui d sea l shoul d be virtuall ytransparen t t o the vehicl e owner/operator , thu s presenting no rea l incentive t o tamper . Thus , i t i s assume d tha t whateve r tampering wil l occur a s a resul t o f th e implementatio n o f onboar d control s wil l b e limited onl yt o th e remova l o r disconnectio n o f th e canister , a s note d above . Thi s woul d no t b e the cas e wit hStag e I I contro l systems , or wit honboar d contro l system s using mechanica l fillnec k seals . 5 . Inspectio n an d Maintenanc e Progra m Th e exhaus t emissio n factor s used i n the ai r qualit y analysi s assume th e existenc e o f Inspectio n an d Maintenanc e Program s (I/M ) i n eac ho f th e non-attainmen t area s throughou t th e projectio n period . Thi s assumptio n ha s th e effec t o f slightl ylowering the averag e emissio n factor s assigne d t o thos e vehicle s subjec t t o I/M . Thi s assumptio n wa s mad e i n consideratio n o f th e fac t tha t mos t o f th e high-populatio n area s among th e 6 1 non-Californi a urban , area s modele d eithe r hav e I/Mprogram s in effec t already , .o r hav e suc hprogram s schedule d t o g o int o effec t in th e near , future . I n addition , I/ Mprogram s ar e a fundamenta l componen t o f th e Agency' s recentl yannounce d four-phas e ozone , complianc e strateg y(se e th e introductio n t o thi s section) .

3-1 1P.4 0

6 . Design Value s an d Bas e Yea r Inventorie s A s wa s note d in th e introduction t o thi s section , the inventor

yprojection s an

d ai r qualit yanalyse s i n thi s chapte r us e 198 3 a s th e bas e year . Th e 198 3 design value s ar e base d on ai r qualit ymonitoring dat a recorde d i n 1982 , 1983 , an d 1984 . Thes e design values , whic har e show n i n Tabl e l unde r the heading "82-8 4 DVs, " ar e th e basi s for determining whic hurba n area s ar e i n non-attainmen t statu s for th e ozon e NAAQS . Thes e value s ar e significantl ydifferent , in term s o f th e numbe r o f non-attainmen t areas , tha n the 198 2 design value s tha t hav e bee n use d in previou s EPAstudies . Wher e th e 198 2 design value s indicate d 4 7 non-Californi a urban non-attainmen t areas , th e 198 3 design value s show6 1 suchareas . (The numbe r o f non-attainmen t area s withi n California , whic hare > no t include d i n the analyse s o f thi s chapte r fo r reason s alread ydiscussed , increase d fro

m7 t o 1 2 o n th e sam e basis. ) Some o f th e implication s o f thi s increas e ar e discusse d i n th e nex t section . A s wa s briefl ynote d earlie r i n thi s chapter , two differen t type s o f design value s hav e bee n use d a s par t o f thi s analysis . Thos e design value s discusse d i n th e immediatel y preceding paragraph s an d use d i n the determinatio n o f non attainmen t statu s ar e base d o n the 1982 , 1983 , an d 198 4 monitoring dat a withou t modification . I n othe r words , th e value s shown i n Tabl e 1 unde r the heading "82-8 4 DVs " represen t th e fourt hhighes t one-hou r ambien t ozon e concentration s measure d i n the thre e year s o f monitoring dat a examined . Previou s ozon e ai r qualit yanalyse s hav e use d similaril y define d value s a s a necessaryinput fo r EKMA . In thi s application , the valu e i s interprete d a s th e ambien t ozon e concentratio n i n the bas e year . However , th e ai r qualit y analyse s fo r thi s chapte r include a refinemen t whic hlead s t o th e developmen t o f a second se t o f "design values " being use d t o represen t th e bas e yea r ambien t concentrations . Thes e value s ar e als o show n in Tabl e 1 , unde r th e heading "EKM ADVs. " Thi s secon

d se t o f design value s reflec t modification s tha t attemp t t o tak e int o accoun t th e transpor t o f ozone . Thi s i s accomplishe d bya compute r progra mknown a s MAS H (Multipl e Airshed ) . MAS H use s wind direction s an d th e time s tha t ozon e exceedance s (i.e. , one-hou r concentration s i n exces s o f th e 0.1 2 pp

m NAAQS ) occur t o determin e whethe r a n exceedanc e i s predominantl yth e resul t o f emission s originating i n the loca l area , o r o f emission s originating i n a nearb ymajo r metropolita n are a upwind . I t the n assign s th e measure d ozon e level s t o eithe r th e upwind metropolitan , are a or th e loca l are a a s a functio n o f selecte d criteria.[5 ] I n region s wher e ozon e transpor t i s significan t (e.g. , th e northeaster n par t o f the country) , thi s proces s tend s t o lowe r th e desig n value s in smalle r citie s o r SMSA s an d t o rais e th e desig n value s i n th e large r metropolita n areas . Thes e MASH-processe d design value s

3-1 2P.4 1

ar e intende d fo r us e i n ozon e ai r gualit ymodeling , an d ar e no t appropriatel yused i n determining attainmeht/non-attainmen t status . I t shoul d als o b e note d tha t ther e i s relativel ylittl e differenc e i n the two set s o f design values , wit hthe "82-8 4 DV " an d "EKM ADV " being equa l for 4 6 o f th e 6 1 area s modeled . O f th e 1 5 area s wher e th e applicatio n o f th e MAS H progra mled t o a chang e in th e design value , th e valu e use d for inpu t t o EKM Ai s lowe r than th e unmodifie d valu e i n 1 0 o f th e area s an d highe r i n fiv e o f them . Th e area s wit hdifference s betwee n th e two value s ar e concentrate d in th e Northeas t an d along the centra l Eas t Coas t (EP

ARegion s 1 , 2 , an d 3) , wher e manyo f th e SMSA s an d metropolita n area s ar e contiguous . Th e greates t increas e i n design valu e resulting fro mthe MAS H progra

mo-ecur

s fo r th e Chicag o Metropolitan Area . Th e increas e o f 0.0 5 pp mrepresent s a 2 5 percen t increas e ove r th e unmodifie d value , reflecting th e fac t tha t muc ho f th e ozone-precurso r emissio n inventory generate d i n thi s are a i s transporte d downwind befor e i t i s photochemicall yconverte d t o ozone . I n additio n t o th e desig n values , EKM Aals o require s a detaile d inventor

yo f pollutan t emission s in th e bas e yea r b y sourc e category . Fo r ozon e ai r gualit ymodeling , NMH C inventorie s an

d NMHC:NOxratio s ar e required . A s note d above , the inventorie s ar e develope d a s par t o f th e Nationa l Emissio n Dat a System(NEDS) . T o mode l ai r qualit yi n a give n futur e projectio n year , a numbe r o f assumption s mus t b e mad e abou t contro l technology , contro l efficiency , and growt hrates . Fo r example , modelin g the ai r qualit yimpac t o f th e propose d refueling emissio n standar d involve s th e calculatio n o f emissio n factor s fo r refueling emission s fro mal l gasoline-fuele d mobil e source s (light-dut yvehicle s an d truck s an

d heavy-dut yvehicles) , bot h wit han

d withou t onboar d refueling controls . B yholding othe r parameter s constan t i n bot hcase s (i.e. , growt hrates , exhaus t emissio n standards , stationarysourc e contro l efficience s an d growt hrates) , th e effec t o f the propose d refueling emissio n standar d on ozon e ai r qualit yca n b e projected . 7 . StationarySourc e RAC T an d th e FMVC P Th e modeling o f futur e NMH C inventorie s an d ambien t ozon e concentration s involve s looking at emission s frombot hmobil e an d stationarysources . Fo r mobil e sources , the keyinput s includ e th e emissio n factor s (a s calculate d b yMOBILE3 ) an

d vehicl e mile s travelle d (VMT ) growth , rates . Th e emissio n factor s for eac hvehicle/engin e clas s -var yb ymode l year , reflecting th e impac t o f th e Federa l Moto r Vehicl e Contro l Program(FMVCP) , unde r whic hincreasingl ystringen t exhaus t an d evaporativ e emissio n standard s hav e bee n established .

3-1 3P.4 2

EP Aha s develope d a n extensiv e dat a bas e o n th e in-us e performanc e o f mobil e sourc e emissio n contro l technology . Base d on thi s information , th e Agenc yha s a highdegre e o f confidenc e i n th e emission s reduction s projecte d t o resul t from standard s establishe d unde r th e FMVCP . Eve n whe n couple d wit h projecte d VM T growth , th e FMVC P gain s ne t reduction s i n th e mobil e sourc e portio n o f futur e NMH C inventorie s int o th e 1990s . I n th e cas e o f stationarysources , th e two mai n input s require d fo r modeling futur e emission s ar e growt hrate s an d contro l efficiencies . Stationarysourc e NMH C emission s ar e divide d int o si xmajo r categorie s i n EPA' s models.[8,9 ] Fo r some stationarysources , EPAha s define d "reasonabl yavailabl e contro l technologies " (RACT ) an d issued contro l technology guideline s (CTGs) . RACT-base d emissio n controls , fo r thos e categorie s covere d byCTGs , ar e require d t o b e include d a s par t o f eac hstate' s plan for attaining th e NAAQ S fo r ozone . Previou s EPAmodeling result s have always indicate d decreasing emissio n inventorie s an d improving ai r gualit ya t leas t throughthe mi d an d lat e 1980s . Nonetheless , th e mos t recen t ambien t ozon e monitoring dat a indicat e tha t th e projecte d improvement s indee d ma yno t b e occurring . I t i s widel yaccepte d tha t the mobil e sourc e portio n o f th e inventory wil l continu e t o declin e a s a resul t o f flee t turnover , wit ha n increasing fractio n o f th e nationa l flee t being comprise d o f vehicle s subjec t t o the stringen t emissio n standard s takin g effec t i n th e earl yan d mi d 1980s . Sinc e th e FMVC P continue s t o yiel d emissio n reductions , bu t monitoring dat a sugges t th e ozon e ai r gualit ysituatio n i s deteriorating , the assumption s use d in previou s EPAanalyse s concerning th e efficienc yan d timin g o f stationarysourc e RAC T contro l appea r t o hav e bee n overl yoptimistic . EPAi s currentl yattempting t o assembl e a n accurat e dat a bas e o n in-us e RAC T contro l efficiencies . Tha t tas k wil l no t b e completed , however , in time for inclusio n i n thi s analysis . The Agenc yknow s tha t some RACT-base d emissio n reduction s had alread

yoccurre d a s o f th e bas e year ; wha t i s no t know n i s wha t fractio n o f source s subjec t t o RAC T actuall ywer e controlled . No r i s i t known , becaus e o f variou s practica l constraint s o n th e applicatio n o f RAC T controls , wha t fractio n o f th e source s subjec t t o RAC T can actuall yb e expecte d t o b e controlle d in'th e nea r future . Withou t thi s information , th e amoun t o f additiona l RACT-base d contro l stil l availabl e i s als o uncertain . EPAi s attempting t o resolv e thes e question s a s par t o f th e abovementione d reviewo f RAC T controls . Unti l EP A ha s bette r dat a availabl e o n the actua l rat e o f implementatio n an d contro l efficienc yo f stationarysourc e RACT , th e "baseline " scenari o for thi s analysi s assume s no RACT-base d stationarysourc e emissio n reduction s ar e assume d t o occu r afte r th e bas e year .

3-1 4P.4 3

B . Ambien t Ai r Qualit yResult s Table s 2 an

d 3 presen t th e result s o f th e EKMA-base d ai r qualit yprojection s for th e 6 1 urba n area s currentl yi n non attainmen t o f th e ozon e NAAQS . Th e informatio n i n Tabl e 2 i s als o presente d graphicall yin Figur e 1 . Two measure s o f ai r qualit yi n variou s calenda r year s ar e shown : tota l NMH C emissions

- an

d th e numbe r o f non-attainmen t areas . Eac htabl e display s the model' s outpu t fo r th e scenario s analyzed : baselin e (FMCV

P only) , contro l o f exces s evaporativ e emission s only , an

d contro l o f bot hrefueling an d exces s evaporativ e emissions . Acompariso n o f the result s fo r th e thre e scenario s indicate s the incrementa l effect s o f implementing contro l o f exces s evaporativ e emission s an d the n refueling controls . Befor e discussing th e result s for th e contro l scenarios, , i t i s interesting t o briefl yexamin e th e projection s fo r th e baselin e scenari o in eac htable . Generally , th e result s To r thi s scenari o showsignifican t improvement s occur primaril yi n respons e t o the stationaryan d moto r vehicl e emissio n standard s whic halread

yhav e bee n promulgated . However , Tabl e 3 show s tha t a significan t numbe r o f violation s an d non-attainmen t area s continu e t o exis t throughou t the projectio n period . I t als o appear s tha t b yabou t the mi d t o lat e 1990s , th e trend toward decreasing ambien t ozone level s wil l b e reversed , an d ai r qualit ywil l worse n steadil ythereafter . Th e continue d numbe r o f non-attainmen t areas , i n additio n t o th e projecte d deterioratio n i n ai r quality , indicate s th e nee d fo r additiona l H C reduction s t o hel p attai n an d maintai n th e NAAQ S fo r ozon e acros s th e nation . Regarding th e effect s o f th e contro l scenarios , Tabl e 2 show s tha t a s onboard-equippe d vehicle s compris e a n increasing percentag e o f th e moto r vehicl e flee t ove r time , reduction s i n th e non-methan e hydrocarbo n inventor ydu e solel yt o refueling control s chang e from105,00 0 ton s (abou t 1. 5 percent ) i n 1995 , t o 179,00 0 ton s (abou t 2. 1 percent ) in 2010 . I f reduction s in exces s evaporativ e emission s ar e als o included , th e reduction s ar e approximatel ydoubl e thos e amounts . Base d on th e ai r qualit ymodeling result s presente d above , an d in Table s 2 an d 3 an

d Figur e 1 , i t appear s tha t the implementatio n o f onboard refueling standard s fo r gasoline

fuele d LDVs , LDTs , an d HDV s can provid e significan t long-ter m benefit s i n helping t o achiev e an d maintai n the ozon e NAAQS .

3-1 5Tabl e 2 P.4 4

Tota l Non-Methan e Hydrocarbo n Emission s for 6 1 Urban Area s (xlOOO Tons ) Scenari o Baselin e (FMVC P only )

Exces s Eva p Control 2 Refuelin g & Exces s Eva p Contro l 199 0 696 1 (14.2) 1 695 8 (14.2 ) 693 1 (14.6 ) 199 5

692 6 (14.6 ) 682 3 ' (15.9 ) 671 8 (17.2 ) 200 0

725 6 (10.5 ) 7,0,7 4 (12.8 ) 692 8 (14.6 ) 201 0

842 0 (+3.8 ) 816 0 (+0.1 ) 798 1 (1.6 ) Figure s in parenthese s represen t th e percen t chang e (decrease , unles s otherwis e noted) , relativ e t o the 198 3 base-yea r inventor

yo f 8,111. 6 ton s for th e 6 1 areas . N o contro l o f refueling .> -



### a: o

Z c o 

# I I

< 

## o 8. 5 

# ngurel 

# TOTA LIH CINVENTORIE S FOR 6 1 URBA N NON-ATTAINMENTAREA S

198 3 199 0 199 5 200 0 201 0 D BAS E YEAR EXEVAP EVAP&RE F



## IP.4 6

Tabl e 3 Estimate d Numbe r o f Non-Californi a Urban Ozon e Non-Attainmen t Area s Scenari o Baselin e (FMVC P only ) Exces s Evap Control 2 Refueling & Exces s Evap Contro l 199 0 4 7 4 7 4 6 199 5

4 6 4 4 4 0 200 0

4 8 4 7 4 4 201 0

55 l 5 3 5 1 Onl yth e 6 1 non-Californi a area s listed i n Tabl e 3 wer e modeled . Additiona l area s ar e likel yt o b e i n non-attainmen t in 201 0 unde r the "Baselin e (FMVC P only) " scenario . N o contro l o f refueling .REFERENCE S FORCHAPTE R3 P.4 7



### 1 . "Ai r Qualit yCriteri a fo r Ozon e and Othe r Photochemica l Oxidants, " U.S . EPA , ORD , Apri l 1978 , EPA-600/8-78-004 . 2 . "Ai r Qualit yCriteri a fo r Ozon e and Othe r Photochemica l Oxidants, " U.S . EPA , ORD , Jul y1984 , EPA-600/8-84-020A . -, V

3 . "Refuelin g Emission s fromUncontrolle dVehicles, " Dal e S . Rothma nand Rober t Johnson , U.S . EPA , OMS , ECTD , EPA-AA-SDSB-85-6 , Jul y1985 . 4 . America nPetroleumInstitut e unpublishe dtes t data . Presente dt o EP AOffic e o f Mobil e Source s o n Jun e 18 , 198 5 and Augus t 7 , 1985 . 5 . "1982-8 4 Ozon e Desig nValue s fo r Regulator yImpac t Analyses, " Memorandumfro mRichar dG . Rhoads , Directo r o f Monitorin g and Dat a Analysi s Division , t o Charle s Gray , Directo r o f Emissio nContro l Technolog yDivision , Jun e 16 , 1986 . 6 . "Uses , Limitation s an d Technica l Basi s o f Procedure s fo r Quantifyin g Relationship s Betwee nPhotochemica l Oxidant s andPrecursors, " U.S . EPA , OAQPS , EPA-450/2-77-021a , Novembe r 1977 . 12 <, '22 

## fte~<

/S^o'd

### 7 . "Guideline s fo r Us e o f City-Specifi c EKM Ai n y>, c

### A Preparin g Ozon e SIPs, " U.S . EPA , OAQPS , EPA-450/4-80-027 , Marc hI- /u

### "' 1981 . 8 . "Studyo f Gasolin e Volatilit yan d Hydrocarbo n Emission s fro mMoto r Vehicles" , U.S . EPA , OMS , Novembe r 1985 , EPA-AA-SDSB-85-5 . A

3-1 9