# OAR Box 1818

Prepped by OIlie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 2 ) ll-A-1 9 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/6/20083:12:41 PM Sheet 2 of 79 P. 11S5S P. 2 

## "p'-ITll - 

## ^ 7/7 iJT ? 

# SER A Unite d State s Offic e ofAi ran d Radiatio n

Environmenta l Protectio n (ANR-443 ) Agenc yWashington , DC 2046 0 EPA-450/3-87-001 b Jul y198 7 Ai r 

# Draf tRegulatory Impac tAnalysis : Propose d Refuelin g Emissio n Regulation s fo rGasoline-Fuele d Moto rVehicle s — Volum e I I Additiona l Analysi s o f Onboar d Control s J

## EPA-450/3-87-001 b


# Draf tRegulatoryImpac tAnalysis : Propose d Refuelin g Emissio n Regulation s fo rGasoline Fuele d Moto rVehicle s — Volum e I I Additiona l Analysi s o f Onboar d Control s

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

U.S

. ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENCY

Offic e o fAi ran d Radiatio n Washington , DC 2046 0 Jul y198 7P. 4

Thi s reportha s bee n reviewe d byth e Offic e o fAi rQualit yPlannin g an d Standard s an d th e Offic e o fMobil e Sources , EPA , an d approve d fo rpublication

. Mentio n o ftrad e name s o rcommercia l product s i s no tintende d t o constitut e endorsemen to rrecommendatio n fo ruse . Copie s o fthi s reportar e availabl e throug h th e Library Service s Offic e (MD-35) , U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc h Triangl e Park , N.C

. 27711 , o r fro m th e Nationa l Technica l Informatio n Services , 528 5 PortRoya l Road , Springfield , Virgini a22161

.P. 5

1. 0 INTRODUCTIO

N Thi s secon

d volume (Volum

e II ) supplement s th e firs t volum e o f the draf t RegulatoryImpac t Analysi s infulfilling th e objective s o f Titl e 3 - Executive Orde r 1229 1 a s the yappl y t o th e propose d onboard rulemaking . I t provide s a summar yo f th e mor e extensive suppor t analyse s o f onboard cost s an d ai r qualit ybenefit s tha t wer e prepare d inthe cours e o f developing th e propose d regulations . Alternative s t o th e propose d regulation s ar e considere d inVolume I.[l ] Mor e specifically , following thi s introductio n (Chapte r 1 ) , Chapte r 2 o f thi s volume summarize s the economi c impac t o f the propose d rulemaking . I t identifie s th e fixed an

d variabl e cost s t o manufacturer s for system s development , certification , facilitymodifications , an d emissio ncontro l hardware . i t als o addresse s cost s t o consumer s interms 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 the propose d regulation s t o th e natio n b

yyear incurred , an d th e socioeconomi c impac t o f the propose d rulemaking . Th e latte r categor yinclude s a brie f discussio no f th e impact s on th

e 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 onenerg yusage , balanc e o f trade , an d on 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 nonboard contro l strategy , the chapte r goe s on t o analyz e the effec t o f refueling emission s contro l onambien t ozone level s in curren t non-attainmen t areas , i.e . thos e area s no winviolatio no f the Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit yStandard s for ozone . The direc t healt heffect s o f ozon e have bee nfull ydocumente d inothe r EP A publication s an

d s o the

yar e no t included i nthi s analysis .

1- 1P. 6

REFERENCE S FO

RCHAPTE R1 Draf t RegulatoryImpac t Analysis : Propose d Refueling Emissio n Regulation s for Gasoline-Fuele d Moto r Vehicle s — Volume I - Analysi s o f Gasolin e Marketing Regulatory Strategies , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Offic e o f Ai r an

d Radiation , Offic e o f Ai r Qualit yPlanning an d Standard s an

d Offic e o f Mobil e Sources , EPA-450/3-87-001a , Jul y1987 .

1- 2P. 7
2. 0 ECONOMI C IMPAC T I . Introductio n Thi s chapte r assesse s the economi c impac t o f onboar d contro l o f refueling emission s i n term s o f th e cost s t o manufacturers , cost s t o th e 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 . Th e 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 hav e bee n develope d i n greate r detai l tha n i n "Evaluatio n o f Ai r Pollutio n RegulatoryStrategie s for Gasolin e Marketing Industr y- Respons e t o Publi c Comments " (hereafte r referre d t o a s th e "respons e t o publi c comment s document") , an d othe r suppor t documents.[1 ] 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 nthe cost s o f refueling emission s contro l alone . Specifically , the cost s an d credit s involve d i nonboar 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. , system s engineering costs , certificatio n costs , facilit ymodification s an d hardwar e costs , (2 ) cost s t o th e consumer , including firs t pric e increas e an d operating cost s o r savings , (3 ) aggregat e cost s t o th e nation , b yyea r incurred , an

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

m industries , an

d effect s o n energ yusage , balanc e o f trade , o r o n particula r segment s o f th e economy . Dat a fro

m a wid e variet yo f source s wer e utilize d t o develop th e cos t estimate s summarize d i nthi 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 i n197 8 an d 198 3 b

yLero yH . Lindgren . [2,3 ] Retai l Pric e Equivalen t (RPE ) markups , used , t o calculat e cost s t o th e consume r fro mvendo r costs , wer e develope d b yan EPAcontractor.[4 ] Thes e work s hav e bee nsupplemente d wher e appropriat e b

yothe r EPAcontrac t studies , comment s o nth e draf t gasolin e marketing stud yfro mth e automotiv e an d petroleu

mindustries , supplie r quotations , trad e publication s an d previou s estimate s fro m EPAregulatorysuppor t analyses . Mos t o f th e estimate s o f vehicl e mile s travele d (VMT ) an d fue l consumptio n dat a use d i nassessing operating cost s wer e obtaine d fro

m EPA' s M0BILE 3 emissio nfactor s an d fue l consumptio n models . Additiona l vehicl e usag e dat a came fro m th e Departmen t o f Commerc e "Truc k Inventoryan d Us e Survey " (TIUS ) an

d an SAE pape r o nfue l econom ydon e b

yEPA . [5,6 ]

2- 1P. 8

Vehicl e sale s estimate s ar e base d o nth e Dat a Resource s Incorporate d 25-yea r "Trendlong " projections.[7 ] Th e dieselizatio n rate s applie d t o thes e projection s t o obtai n gasoline-fuele d vehicl e sale s estimate s ar e fromth e M0BILE 3 model . I n determining cost s t o th e industry , consumers , an d aggregat e cost s t o the 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 nportion s o f th e analysi s cost s mus t b e discounte d t o reflec t th e time valu e o f money . System s engineering an d certificatio n costs , fo r example , ar e relativel yshor t ter m an d ar e likel yt o b e incurre d an

d recovere d earl yi nth e regulatio nimplementatio n 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 ndat e fo r th e 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

m an d 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 showthe highes t annua l cost s an d wil l b e discounte d t o reflec t the time 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 n198 6 dollars . II . Cost s t o Manufacturer s Cost s to . manufacturer s ca n b e divide d int o tw o genera l categories , fixed 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 no f emissio n contro l component s ca n begin . A s such , the yar e relativel yindependen t o f productio nvolumes . 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 th e necessaryemissio n contro l hardware . The yar e directl ydependen t o nproductio nvolume an d ar e expresse d o na pe r vehicl e basis . Th e fixe d cost s wil l b e amortize d an d adde d 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 sourc e fo r thi s sectio ni s th e respons e t o publi c comment s document . [1 ] Fo r additiona l detai l o n bot h fixe d an

d variabl e costs , th e reade r i s referre d t o thi s document . A . Fixe d Cost s A s state d above , th e fixe d cost s involve d i n onboar d contro l o f refueling emission s includ e 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 varysomewha t betwee n vehicl e classes , howeve r ligh t dut yvehicle s (LDVs ) an d ligh t dut ytruck s (LDTs ) hav e th e same certificatio n procedure s

2- 2P. 9

an d quit e simila r fue l systems an d can therefor e b e groupe d together . Heavy-dut ygasolin e vehicle s (HDGVs ) hav e similar , bu t larger , systems an d differen t certificatio n procedures . Estimating -cost s for HDGV s require s some differen t analysi s than tha t neede d for LDV s an d LDTs . 1 . Ligh t Dut yVehicle s an d Ligh t Dut yTruck s System s engineering cost s ar e thos e incurre d i ndeveloping a n onboard systemtha t i s integrate d wit hth e othe r relate d vehicle/engin e systems . Thi s include s incorporatio no f th e onboard system

int o othe r vehicle/engin e system s (e.g . fue l system , packaging ) a s wel l a s consideratio n o f safet yan d othe r emissio n contro l requirements . Insome case s thi s i s a straightforward engineering designproblem , i n other s sucha s vehicl e safet yor emission s control , i t involve s no t onl y design , bu t als o follow-o ntesting 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 th e systems engineering costs . Cost s involve d woul d generall yinclud e engineering designan 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 above mentione d safetytesting 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 systemsafetyprovision s woul d b e abou t $34,00 0 pe r bod

yconfiguration , o r approximatel y$6. 9 millio n fleetwide.[8 ] Sinc e th e 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 caneasil yb e include d i nth e tota l system s engineering cos t pe r family . Accordingly , i n th e respons e t o publi c comment s document , EPAestimate s a tota l system s engineering cos t fo r LDV s an d LDT s (including safet ycosts ) a t 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 b

yth e projecte d numbe r o f familie s (approximatel y 14 0 LD V an d 6 5 LDT ) result s i n a n estimate d cos t o f $20. 4 millio n fo r LDV s an d $9. 5 millio nfo r LDTs . Amortizing thes e cost s fo r five year s a t 1 0 percen t pe r yea r an d dividing b

y projecte d sale s during th e perio d provide s anamortize d cos t pe r vehicl e o f $.4 5 pe r LD V an d $.6 9 pe r LDT , including $.1 2 pe r vehicl e fo r fue l systemsafet ycompliance . Certificatio n cost s includ e th e cost s o f vehicl e buildup , mileag e accumulatio nfor LDV s an d LDT s ondurabilit yan d emissio n dat a vehicles , an d emission s testing fo r durabilit y an d emissio n dat a vehicles . Th e EPAestimate d cos t pe r famil y fro mth e respons e t o publi c comment s documen t 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

2- 3P.1 0

regardles s o f newstandard s mus t b e deducte d t o determin e th e ne t cos t o f the refueling regulations . Multiplying th e cos t pe r famil yb

y9 0 percen t o f th e projecte d LD V an d LD T familie s yield s a certificatio n cos t o f approximatel y$2 6 millio nfo 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 . System s engineering an d certificatio n effort s wil l requir e some expansio n o f and/o r improvemen t t o manufacturers ' testing facilitie s i n orde r t o accommodat e the additiona l testing required . Comment s submitte d b yth e Moto r Vehicl e Manufacturer s Associatio n(MVMA ) containe d anestimat e o f $734,00 0 pe r manufacture r fo r additiona l equipmen t an d testing space.[9 ] Absen t an yothe r reasonabl e estimate s o f th e requirements , the respons e t o publi c comment s documen t 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 som e 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 , EPAwil l assume tha t al l manufacturer s wil l mak e the abov e investmen t i n additiona l facilities , fo r a tota l industrycos t o f approximatel y$2 6 million . Thi s result s i n an amortize d cos t pe r vehicl e o f approximatel y$.30 . 2 . Heavy-Dut yGasolin e Vehicle s Du e t o th e wid e rang e o f HDG V size s an

d applications , i t i s necessaryt o firs t categoriz e th e HDG V flee t i nterm s o f key fuel/vapo r systemparameter s (vehicl e length , chassi s design , number/siz e o f fue l tank(s) , etc. ) befor e manufacture r cost s can b e determined . Th e mos t convenien t breakdow no f th e HDG

V flee t i s int o weigh t classe s base d o ngros s vehicl e weigh t (GVW ) rating . Whil e th e HDG V flee t i s traditionall ybroke n dow n int o seve n GV

Wclasse s (Ilb-VIII ) insufficien t dat a wa s availabl e a t th e time o f th e respons e t o publi c comment s documenttl ] t o accuratel ydescrib e th e HDG V flee t i n term s o f seve n differen t groups . I t wa s known , however , tha t abou t ninet ypercen t o f al l HDGV s fal l int o on e o f thre e weigh t classes : Clas s li b(8501-10,00 0 lbs GVW) , Clas s V I (19,501-26,00 0 lbs GVW) , an d Clas s VI I (26,001-33,00 0 lb s GVW ) . I t wa s als o know ntha t abou t 7 5 percen t o f thes e vehicle s fal l int o Clas s lib . Therefore , a relativel y simplifie d analysi s wa s performe d whic hassume d tha t 7 5 percen t o f al l HDGV s canb e classifie d a s Clas s li btrucks , an d al l remaining HDGV s ca n b e classifie d a s Clas s V I vehicle s sinc e Clas s VI I vehicle s ar e quit e simila r t o Clas s V I vehicles . Finally , i t shoul d b e note d tha t Clas s li btruck s ar e essentiall yheav

yLDT s an

d canbenefi t directl yfro mth e transfe r o f LD T technology . System s engineering cost s fo r th e Clas s li bvehicle s shoul d b e th e same a s for LDTs , i.e. , $.69/truck , sinc e they ar e al l mad e b

yLDT manufacturer s an d canthu s tak e advantag e

2- 4P.1 1

o f th e LDT work . I n 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 V I HDG

V refueling emission s ar e likel yt o presen t additiona l contro l problems . Th e emissio nload s ar e likel yt o b e greater , du e t o th e large r fue l tank s tha t ar e typicall y foun d o nthes e vehicles . Also , mos t o f th e heavie r HDGV s currentl yhav e ope n loo p carburete d fue l systems , whic hwoul d hav e mor e difficult ywit hpurg e contro l thanth e closed-loo p fue l system s wit helectroni c engin e control s tha t ar e mor e commo n o n LDV s an d LDT s an

d ar e expecte d o n man yClas s li b 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 b e note d tha t th e 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 th e Clas s li bHDGVs . I nth e respons e t o publi c comment s document , EPAestimate s a cos t o f $1.5 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 $0.8 9 pe r vehicle . Equivalen t tota l system s engineering cost s canb e obtaine d b

ysumming th e ne t presen t valu e o f th e $.6 9 Clas s li bcos t an d the $1.5 0 Clas s V I cos t multiplie d b yth e respective projecte d sale s fo r th e two classe s fo r 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 system s 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 ncontro 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 th e potentia l interdependenc e betwee nth 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 a t $1. 6 millio ndollars . Evaporativ e emissio nrecertificatio 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 bthroughV I HDGV s an d certificatio n i s b yengineering evaluatio n fo r th e heavie r HDGVs . Using th e developmen t cost s presente d i nth e 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 .

2- 5P . 1 2

Eve n thoughabbreviate d certificatio n procedure s have bee n propose d fo r HDG

V refueling , som

e cost s woul d stil l b e incurre d fo r durabilit yassessmen t an d demonstratio n o f system performanc e - o n emissio n dat a vehicles . However , thes e cost s woul d b e incrementa l t o thos e incurre d 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 incurred fo r exhaus t an

d evaporativ e recertification , an d emissio ndat a vehicl e testing i s estimate d t o cos t $900 0 pe r family/system combinatio nfor testing an d mileag e accumulation . Assuming thre e primaryHDG V manufacturer s an d th e same numbe r o f refueling an

d evaporativ e family/systemcombination s (i.e . 23 ) th e tota l certificatio n fo r refueling i s estimate d t o b e $357,000 . Summing th e estimate d cost s fo r exhaust , evaporative , an d refueling certification , th e tota l industr ycos t 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 ne wstandard an d amortize d ove r vehicle s sol d i nth 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 for Clas s li bvehicle s wil l b e essentiall yth e 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 V I vehicle s wil l als o requir e ne wo r modifie d facilitie s fo r certification . Thus , whil e th e additiona l facilit y requirement s mayb e minimal , th e $.3 0 pe r vehicl e estimate d fo r LDV s an

d LDT s i s als o extende d t o HDGVs . Thi s provide s an 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 I n summary , th e projecte d manufacturers ' fixe d 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 o nan 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 th e manufacturers . Refueling contro l hardwar e cost s fo r individua l component s ar e relativel yth e same fo r an yvehicl e class/subgroup , bu t tota l systemcost s var ysomewha t depending o n th e typ e o f contro l system , th e numbe r o f fue l tanks , an d th e vehicl e fue l tank capacity . Abrie f descriptio no f th e onboar d contro l systeman d a summaryo f th e individua l

2- 6Tabl e 1 Fixe d Cost s t o Manufacturer s (Million s o f Dollars ) P.1 3

LD V LDT HDG V System s Engineering Certificatio n Facilit yMod s Tota l 20. 4 26. 0 17. 9 64. 3 Amortize d

System s Engineering Certificatio n Facilit yMod s Tota l 9. 5 11. 0 8. 1 28. 6 Cost s pe r Ve h (Dol l LD V 0.4 5 0.6 1 0.3 0 1.3 6 ars )

LD T 0.6 9 0.7 7 0.3 0 1.7 6 1. 4

2. 7 0. 7 4. 8 icl e HDG V 0.8 9 2.0 0 0.3 0 3.1 9 Tota l

31. 3 39. 7 26. 7 97. 7

2- 7P.1 4

componen t cost s i s give nbelow . Thi s i s followe d b ya discussio n o f th e keyfactor s whic hcan caus e th e cost s t o vary an d a summar

yo f th e contro l systemcost s use d i nth e analysis . A s describe d i n th e Technologica l Feasibilit yportio no f th e gasolin e marketing study , a n onboard systemi s comprise d o f a numbe r o f ne wcomponent s an d modificatio no 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 from 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 HDGV s (Clas s VI ) whic h mayus e mechanica l seals . Apressur e relie f devic e mayb e require d fo r mechanica l seals . 2 . Fil l Limite r - Adevic e insid e th e tan k use d t o clos e th e refueling vapo r line whe n th e tank i s full , eventuall ycausing actuatio n o f o f automati c shut-of f o nth e fue l nozzle . 3 . Vapo r Lin e Closur e Valv e - Avalv e use d t o clos e th e vapo r line during 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 th e 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 o n caniste r locatio nan d whethe r th e systemi s integrate d o r separat e fro m th 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 varywit hfue l tank siz e an d whethe r th e contro l systemi s integrate d o r separate . 7 . Packaging - Hardwar e o r vehicl e modification s t o accommodat e caniste r an d othe r hardwar e onth e vehicle . Cost s varydepending o nvehicl 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 tank an d vehicl e purg e system . Fue l tank modification s wil l b e neede d t o accommodat e th e liqui d sea l an d fil l limiter . Purg e systemmodification s wil l b e neede d t o efficientl ypurg e th e caniste r whil e controlling exhaus t emissions . Thes e cost s ar e amortize d ove r five year s o f production .

2- 8P.1 5

On a pe r vehicl e basis , thre e othe r factor s mayaffec t th e tota l cos t o f th e refueling emissio ncontro l hardware . Thes e includ e th e basi c system approach , th e numbe r o f fue l tanks , an d the capacit yo f th e 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 muse s on e caniste r t o contro l bot hevaporativ e an d refueling emissions . Th e partiall yintegrate d system collect s diurna l evaporativ e an d refueling emission s i non e caniste r an d 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 inon e caniste r an d al l refueling emission s i n another . EPAexpect s tha t al l fue l injecte d vehicle s wil l utiliz e full yintegrate d system s du e t o th e cos t advantag e an d th e low leve l o f non-fue l tank ho t soak emissions . Carburete d vehicle s mayus e partiall yintegrate d or separat e system s du e t o th e nee d t o dea l wit hho t soak evaporativ e 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 assume d t o tak e effect , curren t projection s ar e tha t approximatel y8 8 percen t o f al l LDV s 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 li bHDG V fue l system s ar e likel yt o followth e same spli t a s LDTs . Th e majorit yo f th e heavie r HDGV s (Clas s VI ) 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 li bHDGV 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 y integrate 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 or separat e systems . O n 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 systemrequire s th e necessary contro l hardware . Dua l tank vehicle s coul d us e an yo f th e thre e contro l systemapproache s discusse d above , an d EP A assume s tha t th e mi xo f thes e contro l approache s wil l b e th e same a s describe d abov e fo r bot hsingl e an d dua l tank vehicles . Th e fraction s o f dua l tank vehicle s use d i nthi s analysi s ar e show nbelow . Thes e essentiall yreflec t curren t conditions . LD V 0 % LD T 20 % HDGV : Clas s li b20 % Clas s V I 15 %

2- 9P.1 6 Whil e mos t individua l onboar d hardwar e componen t cost s wil l no t varyamong th e vehicl e models , th e cos t o f th e charcoa l caniste r fo r an ygive nvehicl e mode l wil l vary depending o n th e capacit yo f th e fue l tank . Th e 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 ntur n 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 fo r 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 i n calculating caniste r cost s fo r th e thre e vehicl e classes/subgroup s ar e show ni nTabl e 2 . Base d o n thi s informatio nregarding refueling 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 onboar d 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 o r deale r markup s fo r overhead an d profit . Fo r sak e o f completeness , th e amortize d fixed cost s discusse d previousl yar e als o listed . I t shoul d b e note d tha t th e 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 ca n b e see nfro mTable s 3 an

d 4 , cost s varywit htime t o reflec t bot hth e differen t amortizatio nperiod 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 nb e identifie d fo r LDVs , an

d LDTs , an

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

d beyond . Fo r th e sak e o f brevity , onl yth e tota l cost s ar e show n fo r th e year s afte r 199 4 fo r al l vehicl e classes . Th e cos t difference s ar e base d o nth e following assumptions . Fo r al l vehicles , system s 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 . tank an

d purg e systemmodification s an d packaging ) cost s woul d als o disappea r afte r 5 year s fo r 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 from

th e initia l design inception . Clas s V I HDGV s ar e assume d t o hav e n o packaging cost s an d s o thes e ar e no t reflecte d i n th e 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 fo r LDV s an d LDTs . Fo r LDVs , LDTs,
- an

d HDGVs , facilit ymodification s represen t a longer-term 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 yimprovement s hav e bee naverage d fo r eac ho f th e thre e period s t o determin e caniste r siz e requirement s fo r LDV s an d LDTs . Thes e ar e als o reflecte d i n th e decreasing cost s fo r eac hperiod . Fue l econom ydifference s ar e no t reflecte d i nlong-ter mHDG V costs , sinc e th e 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 7
Tabl e 2 Projecte d Fue l Tank Capacit yB yVehicl e Clas s (Gallons ) 5 Yea r Perio d Vehicl e Clas s 1990-9 4 1995-199 9 2000 + LD V 1 2 1 1 1 0 LDT Singl e Tank 1 6 1 6 1 5 Dua l Tank 3 3 3 2 2 9 HDG V lib-Singl e 2 0 2 0 2 0 lib-Dua l 4 0 4 0 4 0 Vl-Singl e 3 0 3 0 3 0 VI-Dua l 8 0 8 0 8 0

2-1 1Tabl 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 Dut yTruck s

LD V LD T - Singl e Tank LDT - Dua l Tank

K >-12 Category

1990-9 4 Hardwar e Veh . Mod s Subtota l Amortize d Fixe d Cost s Tota l
Clas s Weiqhte d Avg . 1990-9 4 1995-9 9 200 0 + Integrate d

13.2 4 1.0 7 14.3 1
1.3 6 15.6 7

LD V 16.0 1 14.0 0 12.8 7 Par t Int/Sep

15.1 7 1.9 7 17.1 4
1.3 6 18.5 0

LDT-S T 17.7 5 15.5 1 14.2 9 Integrate d

14.5 8 1.0 7 15.6 5
1.7 6 17.4 1

LDT-DT 37.2 3 33.8 2 32.0 8 Par t Int/Sep

16.5 4 1.9 7 18.5 1
1.7 6 20.2 7

Al l LD T 21.6 5 19.1 7 17.8 5 Integrate d

32.3 9 2.3 9 34.7 8
2.1 1 36.8 9 Par t Int/Sep

34.2 1 3.4 4 37.6 5
2.1 1 39.7 6

0 0P.1 9

Tabl e 4 Manufacture r Cost s o f Onboar d Emissio n Contro l Component s

HeavyDut yGasolin e Vehicle s Categor y 1990-9 4 Hardwar e Veh . Mod s Subtota l Amortize d Fixe d Cost s CL . li bHDG V Singl e Tan k Dua l 15.6 6 3 5 1.2 5 16.9 1

2.9 9 2

3 7

2 Tan k 4 3 0 0 4 3

9 9 CL . V I HDG V Singl e Tan k Dua l 28.9 1 6 2 0.7 5 29.6 6

3.8 0 1

6 3

3 Tan k 1 8 5 0 6 8

8 0 Tota l 19.9 0 40.4 2 33.4 6 67.4 8

Clas s Weighte d Avg : 1990-9 4 1995-9 9 200 0 + li b 24.0 0 19.9 1 19.6 1 VI

_ 38.5 6 34.1 6 33.8 6 Al l HDGV 27.6 4 23.4 7 23.1 7

2-1 3P.2 0

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 i n exhaus t an

d evaporativ e emission s certificatio n testing t o th e in-us e leve l o f 11. 5 psi , i n whic hcas e manufacturer s woul d b e force d t o improve thei r curren t emissio ncontro 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 evaporative emissio ncontro l costs . Calculating th e cost s o f onboard control s incrementa l t o improve d evaporativ e system s require s th e subtractio no f th e incrementa l cost s o f th e improve d evaporativ e system s fro mth e onboard cost s presente d i n Table s 3 an d 4 . Thi s i s don e i n Tabl e 5 fo r LDVS , LDTs , HDGVs . Th e cos t o f thes e improve d system s i s take n fro mEPA' s recen t stud yo f gasolin e volatilit y an d vehicl e H C emissions. [ 10 ] 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 o nth e distributio n o f configuration s discusse d earlier . Ill . Cost s t o th e Consume r Th e cos t o f th e propose d regulation s t o th e consume r ca n b e 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 an d 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 adde d t o th e vendo r cos t o f a th e onboard systema 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 i ntota 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 yanestimat 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 th e manufacturer' s cos t pe r vehicl e develope d i nth e previou s section , including amortize d fixed costs , multiplie d b yan RP E markup facto r o f 1.2 6 fo r LDV s an d LDT s an

d 1.2 7 fo r HDGVs . Thes e markup factor s represen t industryaverage s an d wer e develope d b

yan EPAcontracto r using availabl e financia l dat a fo r 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 spanwer e use d i n th e determinatio nt o dampe n th e effect s o f th e busines s cycle . Th e markup facto r include s corporat e overhead 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 . N o deale r overhead i s included , sinc e th e additio n o f emissio ncontro l component s shoul d no t increas e th e dealer' s cos t fo r storing or selling hi s vehicles . Hardwar e

2-1 4P.2 1

Tabl e 5 Onboard Hardwar e Cost s t o Manufacturer s (Incrementa l t o Cost s for Contro l o f Exces s Evaporative Emissions )

1990-9 4 Hardwar e cos t

Less : exces s evap . cos t Incrementa l cos t 1995-9 9 Hardwar e cos t

Less : exces s eva

p cos t Incrementa l cos t 200 0 + Hardwar e cos t

Less : exces s eva

p cos t Incrementa l cos t LD V

11.3 5 LDT

15.8 6 HDG

V $16.0 1 -2.2 5 13.7 6 14.0 0 -1.5 2 12.4 8 12.8 7 -1.5 2 $21.6 5

-2.9 8 18.6 7 19.1 7 -1.9 9 17.1 8 17.8 5 -1.9 9 $27.6 4

-3.2 8 24.3 6 23.4 7 -2.7 0 20.7 7 23.1 7 -2.7 0 20.4 7

Incrementa l t o cos t o f curren t evaporative contro l systems . Incrementa l t o cos t o f improved evaporative contro l systems

capabl e o f controlling exces s evaporative emissions .

2-1 5cost s an d amortize d cost s for certificatio n an d facilitie s modification s ar e marke d up using thes e factors . However , using th e marku

p methodologydevelope 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 th e tota l cos t afte r th e RP E marku p ha s bee napplied . Tabl e 6 show s th e firs t pric e increas e t o th e consume r whe nonboard 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 i n th e respons e t o publi c comment s document , a n onboard systemshoul d no t requir e an yadditiona l maintenanc e ove r th e curren t evaporativ e emissio ncontro l system . Also , n o in-us e inspection s o f onboard systems ar e likely , sinc e evaporativ e system s ar e generall yno t inspecte d in curren t program s an

d tampering rate s ar e relativel ylow . Therefore , n o increase s i n operating cost s relate d t o onboard system maintenanc e or in-us e inspection s ar e expected . However , some chang e i nlifetime operating cost s ar e expecte d a s a resul t o f th e positiv e fue l consumptio nbenefi 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 b yth e onboar d system . A s wa s mentione d previously , a properl ydesigne d an d teste d onboar d system woul 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 o r totall y eliminat e th e exces s evaporativ e credit . Th e lifetime chang e i n fue l consumptio nresulting 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 hth e onboard system . Th e gros s recoverycredi t i s determine d b ycalculating th e 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 yth e fue l econom

ypenalt yresulting fro mth e sligh t weigh t increas e associate d wit hth e onboar d system . Th e weigh t penalt ywa s determine d using th e estimate d weigh t o f anonboar d system togethe r wit ha weight/fue l consumptio nsensitivit yfactor . Usin g thi s approach , th e ne t chang e i nfue l consumptio n i n eac hyea r o f th e 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 th e monetaryvalu e o f th e recoverycredit . Thes e value s wer e the n discounte d a t 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 same term s a s th e RPE .

2-1 6Tabl e 6 Cost s t o th e Consume r Onboar d Refuelin g Emission s Contro l P.2 3

Costs ; 1990-94 : LD V Firs t Pric e Increase : Refuelin g FP I 17.1 7 Less : Refuelin g Credit s (4.24 ) Ne t cos t t o consume r $12.9 3 Costs : 1995-1999 : Refuelin g FP I 15.7 1 Less : Refuelin g Credit s (3.85 ) Ne t cos t t o consume r $11.8 6 Costs : 200 0 & Beyond : Tota l Refuelin g FP I 14.2 9 Less : Refuelin g Credit s (3.53 ) Ne t cos t t o consume r $10.7 6 Dua l Tan k Clas s li bClas s LD T LD T HDG V V I HDG V

18.3 9 (6.50 ) $11.8 9 42.8 2

(3.35 ) $39.4 7

17.0 1 40.0 8 (6.31 ) (3.22 ) $10.7 0 $36.8 6

15.4 7 37.8 9 (5.93 ) (3.09 ) $9.5 4 $34.8 0 26.0 2 44.2 9 (11.70 ) (23.10 ) $14.3 2 $21.1 9

21.8 6 39.9 6 (11.20 ) (22.70 ) $10.6 6 $17.2 6

21.4 8 39.5 8 (11.00 ) (22.60 ) $10.4 8 $16.9 8

Mino r difference s betwee n th e cost s presente d i n thi s tabl e an d thos e presente d i n th e respons e t o publi c comment s documen 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 .

2-1 7P.24
_ Thi s analysi s wa s conducte d for th e five vehicl e classes/subgroup s being evaluate d her e fo r th e thre e time period s mentione d earlie r for th e hardware , ie . 1990-1994 , 1995-1999 , "an

d 200 0 an

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

n i n Tabl e 6 . C . Ne t Consume r Cost s Th e ne t lifetime consume r cost s for onboar d contro l ar e show n i n Tabl e 6 . I n thi s tabl e the 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 recover ycredits . Ne t cost s ar e show nfor th e five vehicl e class/subgroup s an d the 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 include th e fixe d cost s t o manufacturer s for system s engineering , certificatio n an d facilit ymodifications , plu s th e cos t t o th e consume r fo r hardware , les s th e fue l recoverycredits . I ncalculating thes e costs , th e ne t amount s fro mTabl e 6 , adjuste d t o remov e th e amortize d fixed costs , wer e multiplie d b yth e projecte d sale s show ni n Tabl e 7 . Th e 1988-9 4 aggregat e cost s ar e show n i n Tabl e 8 (undiscounted ) an d Tabl e 9 (discounted ) b yth e yea r theyar e expecte d t o b e incurred . Atota l discounte d cos t i s als o show

n fo r eac hvehicl e class , representing a lum p su m paymen t a s o f th e 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 for al l thre e classes . Al l cost s befor e th e yea r th e standard i s assume d t o tak e effec t (1990 ) ar e fo r system s engineering , certification , an d facilit ymodifications ; 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 an d facilit ymodification s cost s wil l b e incurre d i n198 8 whil e al l certificatio n cost s wil l b e incurre d i n 1989 . Al l o f th e cost s show ni nTabl e 9 ar e discounte d a t 1 0 percen t pe r yea r t o 1990 , th e firs t mode l yea r o f th e standard . A s show ni n th e table , th e tota l discounte d cos t t o th e natio n fo r the propose d refueling regulation s (i n 198 6 dollars ) i s abou t $89 2 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 theymayhav e o nmanufacturers ' cas hflow , sale s an

d employment , energ yusage , balanc e o f trade , an d o n particula r group s o f individual s or segment s o f th e economy . Th e overal l impac t o f th e propose d regulation s o n 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 the y ar e incurred . Wit hcurren t computerize d inventorycontro l systems , manufacturer s ar e no t expecte d t o b e require d t o maintai n large , expensiv e part s inventorie s during th e cours e

2-1 8Tabl e 7 Projecte d Gasoline-fuele d Vehicl e Sale s

(Million s o f Vehicles ) 1990-200 0 P.2 5

Yea r LDV 1 199 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 LDT 1

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 HDGV 2

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 .

2-1 9P.2 6

Tabl e 8 Aggregat e Incrementa l Cost s o f Onboar d Refueling Control s (Million s o f Dollars 1 ) Undiscounte d Calenda r Yea r LDGV s LDGT s HDGV s Tota l Cost s 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 17.6 0

11.0 0 57.0 0 56.5 5 55.9 5 54.7 0 53.3 5 2 . 1 0

2.7 0 4.7 0 4.6 5 4.6 0 4.6 5 4 . 7 0 58.0 0

39.7 0 188.6 0 188.1 0 187.4 5 185.1 0 182.7 0 Rounde d t o th e neares t 0.0 5 million .

2-2 0P.2 7
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 HDGV s Tota l Cost 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 4 1 . 1 0 36.4 5
265.6 0 2.5 5

3.0 0 4.7 0 4.2 0 3.8 0 3.5 0 3.2 0
24.9 5 70.2 0

43.7 0 188.6 0 170.9 5 154.9 0 139.1 0 124.7 5
892.2 0 Rounde d t o th e neares t 0.0 5 million .

2-2 1o f the manufacturing year , s o th e onl ysignifican t negativ e

impac t o nmanufacturers ' cas hflowwoul d come fro mth e fixe d costs , i.e . systems 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 tw o year s prio r t o th e effective 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 th e fixe d cost s woul d b e incurre d i nth e two year s prio r t o the effectiv e dat e o f th e 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 than 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.[11 ] Th e effec t o f thes e regulation s o n 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 fo r LDVs , LDT s an d HDGVs . B

ycontrast , th e annua l pric e increase s fo r newvehicle s hav e bee nman ytime s thes e percentage s i n recen t years , eve ni n time s o f verylow inflation . Th e impac t o f suc hincrease s o n consume r demand fo r vehicle s i s commonl yexpresse d i nterm s o f th e pric e elasticit y o f demand , ie . th e reductio ni n sale s corresponding t o an increas e i nprice . EPAha s determine d a pric e elasticit yo f deman d o f -1. 0 fo r LDV s & LDT s an d -0. 9 t o -0. 5 (averag e o f -0.7 ) fo r HDGVs.[1,12 ] Th e resulting decreas e i ndemand woul d thu s b e -. 1 t o -. 2 percen t fo r 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 . Thus , althoug hi 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 nth e aut o industryshoul d als o b e minimal . I n fact , some additiona l employmen t i nth e 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 na sligh t decreas e i nth e deman d fo r gasoline , du e t o th e fue l recoverycredits . However , th e saving s involve d ar e smal l i ncompariso n t o th e projecte d gain s i n fue l econom yduring th e perio d i nquestio n withou t th e credits , or t o th e norma l fluctuation s i n consume r demand du e t o othe r factors . Asligh t reductio ni n demand fo r gasolin e coul d i n turnresul t i na sligh t decreas e i nth e deman d fo r importe d oi l an d perhap s animprovemen t i nth 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 mindustrywoul 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

2-2 2expecte d t o hav e n o troubl e underwriting the capita l investmen t

required . Vehicle s sale s shoul d no t b e impacte d measurably , an d employmen t i n th e automotiv e an d relate d industrie s ma y increas e slightly . Thes e regulation s ar e no t expecte d t o hav e an yne t effec t o n the balanc e o f trade .

2-2 3P.3 0

REFERENCE S FORCHAPTE R2. 0 1 . "Evaluatio no f Ai r Pollutio n RegulatoryStrategie s for Gasolin e Marketing Industr y- Respons e t o Publi c Comments, " U.S . EPA , OAR , July , 1987 . 2 . "Cos t Estimation s fo r Emissio n Control-Relate d Components/System s an d Cos t Methodolog

yDescription, " LeroyH . Lindgren , Rat han

d Strong for U.S . EPA , 1978 . 3 . Draf t "Manufacturing Cos t an d Retai l pric e Equivalen t o f Onboard Vapo r RecoverySystem for Gasolin e Filling Vapors, " LeroyH . Lindgre nfo r API , 1983 . 4 . "Updat e o f EPA' s Moto r Vehicl e Emissio nContro l Equipmen t Retai l Pric e Equivalen t (RPE ) Calculatio n Formula" , Jac k Faucet t Associate s fo r U . S . EPA , 1985 . 5 . "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 . 6 . "Ligh t Dut yAutomotiv e Fue l Economy...Trend s Thr u 1985" , Murrel l et . al. , SAE Technica l Pape r Serie s #850550 , 1985 . 7 . "U.S . Long Ter mReview , Fal l 1984" , Dat a Resources , Inc. , 1984 . 8 . Memorandu

m "Cos t o f Cras hTesting t o Assur e Fue l SystemIntegrit yfo r Onboar d Systems, " Johnso n t o th e Record , U.S . EPA , OAR , OMS , August , 1986 . 9 . Comment s o f th e Moto r Vehicle s Manufacturer s Associatio n o f th e U.S. , Inc . o nEPARepor t "Evaluatio no f Ai r Pollutio n RegulatoryStrategie s fo r Gasolin e Marketing Industry, " MVMA , Publi c Docke t A-84-07 , I-H-127 , 1984 . 10 . "Stud

yo f Gasolin e Volatilit yan d Hydrocarbo n Emission s fromMoto r Vehicles, " U . S . EPA , OAR , OMS , 1985 . 11 . "RegulatorySuppor t Document , Revise d Gaseou s Emissio n Regulation s fo r 198 5 an d Late r Mode l Yea r HD Engines, " U . S . EPA , OAR , OMS , 1983 . 12 . "Draf t RegulatoryImpac t Analysi s an d Oxide s o f Nitroge n Pollutant-Specifi c Study, " U . S . EPA , OAR , OMS , 1984 .

2-2 4P.3 1

3. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT : Ozon e Ai r Qualit y I . Introductio n Thi s chapte r evaluate s th e effect s o nambien t ai r qualit y associate d wit himplementing a 0.1 0 gra m pe r gallo n(g/gal ) refuelin

g emissio n standard fo r light-dut yvehicles , light-dut y trucks , an

d heavy-dut yvehicle s tha t us e gasolin e fuel . Th e propose d refueling standard i s assume d t o tak e effec t wit hth e 199 0 mode l year . Th e following sectio nserve s a s th e backgroun

d fo r th e 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 ncontrol s an d concurren t reduction s inexces s evaporativ e emission s fro m moto r vehicles . Th e 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 i nselecte d urba n area s currentl yi n violatio n o f th e Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit yStandar d (NAAQS ) for thi s pollutant . Th e actua l advers e effect s o f ozon e o nma n an d the environmen t wil l no t b e describe d i nthi s section , sinc e thes e effect s hav e bee nfull ydocumente d elsewhere.[1,2 ] I n 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 thanth e emissio ninventoryanalyse s presente d i n Volume 1 o f th e draf t RegulatoryImpac t Analysi s (draf t RIA) . Th e analyse s o f thi s chapte r examin e onl ythos e non-Californi a urba n area s tha t wer e i nnon-attainmen t statu s fo r the ozon e standard o nth 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 i n th e firs t volum e 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 th e carcinogeni c potentia l o f gasolin e vapors . Again , thi s topi c i s discusse d i nth e firs t volum e o f th e draf t RIA . Reader s wishing t o obtai n furthe r informatio n on th e aforementione d subject s shoul d se e th e appropriat e section s o f thi s document . I t i s importan t t o not e tha t th e following analysi s wa s don e t o estimat e trend s i nozon e attainmen t fo r th e grou p o f urban area s i n th e sample . I t use s VO C emissio ninventorydat a fro mEPA' s Nationa l Emissio nDat a Systeman d no t city-specifi c inventor

ydata . I n addition , an up-t o dat e assessmen t o f th e implementatio n o f stationarysourc e regulation s fo r eac hare a wa s no t made . Therefore , the analysi s shoul d b e viewe d a s indicating probabl e change s i nth e magnitud e o f th e ozon e nonattainmen t probleman d no t a s a predictio n o f attainment/nonattainmen t fo r specifi c urba nareas .

3- 1P.3 2

II . Genera l Descriptio no f the Emission s Associate d wit h Refueling an

d th e Us e o f Onboar d 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

m a variet yo f sources . Th e majorit yo f th e refueling emission s (i.e. , abou t 9 0 percent ) ar e H C vapor s displace d fro

mth e vehicle' s fue l tank 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 nsevera l variables , including : (1 ) th e temperatur e o f th e dispense d 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 ) th e volatilit yo f th e fuel.[3 ] Thes e highl yconcentrate d vapor s ar e emitte d fro m th 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 two secondarysource 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 th e fil l pip e or th e escap e o f some liqui d fro mth e dispensing nozzl e whe n withdraw nfro mthe fil l pipe . Th e secon d i s th e escap e o f vapo r fro mthe ven t o f th e servic e station' s undergroun

d tan k following refueling . A s fue l i s pumpe d int o th e vehicle' s fue l tank , ambien t ai r i s draw nint o th e servic e station' s tan

k throughit s tan

k vent . Thi s "fresh " ai r cause s fue l i nth e tank t o evaporat e unti l a nequilibriu

m concentratio ni s reestablishe d betwee nth e vapo r an d th e liquid . A s thi s proces s take s place , th e tota l volume o f th e ingested ai r in th e underground tank increase s somewhat , an d th e exces s volume i s emitte d fro mth e ven t i n th e 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 hth e refueling process , a s describe d in th e firs t volume o f th e draf t RIA . Th e tota l refueling emissio nfacto r i s expresse d a s th e mas s o f H C emitte d pe r gallo no f dispense d fue l (g/gal) , an d varie s fro

mregio n t o regio ndu e t o difference s i ntemperature s an d fue l volatility . A s a nexample , 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 o n histori c trends , th e tota l emissio n facto r fo r 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 nduring a refueling operatio nb y sealing th e vehicle' s fillnec k an d the n routing th e displace d vapor s t o a storag e canister , wher e th e H C • molecule s ar e adsorbe d ont o th e surfac e o f activate d charcoal . Whe nth e vehicle' s engin e i s started , fres hai r i s draw nthroughth e

3- 2P.3 3

caniste r t o purg e th e H C 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 ntha 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 mth e 9 7 percen t use d i n th e ga s marketing stud ybase d o n 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 fro mth e canister , whic htypicall y i s located i nthe engin e compartment . Onboar d contro l technolog ywil l als o hav e th e effec t o f eliminating on e o f the two 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 th e spillag e an

d subsequen t evaporatio no f liqui d gasoline , shoul d b e significantl yreduce d throughth e designo f th e propose d tes t procedure . Th e primarycaus e o f fue l spillag e i s dispensing o f the 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 same maximu mfue l flowrat e a s a nin-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 canb e tolerate d during certificatio n testing o f th e onboar d system , EPAbelieve s tha t spillag e du e t o highfueling rat e wil l b e eliminate d throughfue l flowrat e restriction s an d standardize d design o f fue l deliverynozzles . O f course , spillag e fromsuc h cause s a s nozzl e malfunction s wil l no t b e affecte d b yth e ne w procedures . Th e 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 . Th e 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 o nsome vehicles . Tampering i s primarily

expecte d t o tak e th e for mo f remova l or disconnectio n o f th e canister . I n suc hinstances , th e 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 the locatio n o f th e missing o r disconnecte d canister , rathe r than fro

mth e fillnec k int o th e 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 anonboard refueling standard i s th e interactio n betwee n th e requisit e contro l technologyan d th e eliminatio no f exces s evaporativ e emission s fro mmoto r vehicles . Evaporativ e emission s ar e primaril ya combinatio no f breathing losse s fro m th e vehicle' s fue l tank , du e t o diurna l

3- 3P.3 4

temperatur e changes , an d losse s fro

m the 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 fro mthe 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 nstandard 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 th e require d level s i s simila r i n designan d function t o tha t describe d above fo r onboard refueling hardwar e (i.e. , carbo n canisters) . However , dat a fro mEPA' s emissio n facto r progra

mindicat e tha t man yin-us e vehicle s fai l t o compl ywit hth e applicabl e standards . Th e principl e caus e o f thes e failure s i s tha t in-us e fue l typicall yha s a highe r volatilit ythan th e fue l specifie d fo r certificatio n testing . Th e increased amount s o f evaporative 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 th e atmospher e a s exces s evaporativ e emissions . Th e Agenc yi s presentl yconsidering a . variet yo f strategie s aimed a t assuring in-us e complianc e wit hevaporativ e emissio n standards . Whil e n o decisio nha s bee nmade , 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 nlarge r canister s an d differen t purg e rates . Sinc e onboard technolog

yinclude s a large r charcoa l caniste r tha ni s necessaryt o contro l evaporativ e emissions , eve n assuming th 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 th e requisit e control s wit hth e refueling contro l systema t littl e additiona l cost . I norde r t o illustrat e th e effect s o f suc ha program , th e analyse s presente d i n th e 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 , i n additio nt o a scenari o tha t evaluate s onl yth e contro l o f refueling emissions . III . Ai r Qualit yAnalysi s A . Selectio n o f Area s fo r Modeling Th e NAAQ S fo r ozon e require s tha t th e fourt hhighes t dail y maximu mone-hour measure d concentratio nno t excee d 0.1 2 part s pe r millio n (ppm ) i n an ythree-yea r period . O nth e basi s o f ozon e ai r qualit ymonitoring dat a collecte d i n 1982 , 1983 , an d 198 4 (or 198 3 design values) , whic hwer e th e mos t recen t complet e dat a available , ther e ar e 7 3 urban area s wit hmeasure d ai r qualit yabove thi s standard.[5 ] Twelv e o f thes e 7 3 non-attainmen t area s wer e locate d i n California . A s alread y discussed , Stag e I I vapo r recoverysystem s ar e currentl ybeing

3- 4P.3 5

use d i n 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 o r i f theywil l b e discontinue d i nfavo r o f onboard controls . Becaus e o f thi s uncertainty. , onl yth e 6 1 non-Californi a urbanarea s listed i n Tabl e 1 ar e include d i n th e ai r qualit yanalysis . Thi s simplifie s th e analysi s withou t affecting th e resulting conclusions . (The specifi c design value s containe d i nTabl e 1 ar e furthe r discusse d i n Sectio n III.B.6. ) B . Ai r Qualit yMethodolog y Futur e ambien t ozon e concentration s in specifi c urba n area s wer e estimate d using th e Empirica l Kineti c Modeling Approac h(EKMA) . Thi s mode l utilize s a serie s o f ozon e isopleth s depicting downward maximu m ozon e concentration s a s a n explici t functio n o f initia l non-methan e hydrocarbo n(NMHC ) an d oxide s o f nitroge n (NOx ) concentration s an d a s implici t function s o f a numbe r o f emission s an d meteorologica l characteristics . Difference s betwee n initia l an d subsequen t emission s a s wel l a s change s i n concentration s o f pollutant s transporte d int o th e modele d are a ar e the nsimulate d t o estimat e change s i nmaximu mozone . I t shoul d b e note d tha t EKMA , a s use d b

yEPAin thi s analysis , i s a nationwide-averag e model . I nothe r words , th e onl ycity-specifi c informatio nuse d a s inpu t dat a fo r th e mode l ar e th e base-yea r ambien t ozon e concentration s (design values ) an d th e emissio ninventorie s fro mwhic hfutur e concentration s ar e projected , an d th e NMHC.'NO xratios . Meteorologica l condition s an d othe r inpu t dat a ar e hel d constan t for al l th e urba n area s modeled . Reference s 6 an

d 7 contai nadditiona l informatio no nth e us e o f EKMA .Th e initial , o r base-year , emissio ninventorie s use d i n th e mode l ar e base d o n th e informatio n containe d i nEPA' 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 inventoryinclude s emission s fro mbot hstationaryan d mobil e sources . Th e mos t recen t emission s compilatio na t th e time o f thi s analysi s wa 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 han d 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 h rate s fo r eac hvehicl e class , derive d fro m EPA' s MOBILE 3 Emissio n Facto r Mode l an d MOBILE 3 Fue l Consumptio nModel , respectively .

3- 5Tabl e 1 P.3 6

Are a 6 1 Non-Californi a Urba nOzon e Non-Attainmen t

Area s an

d Associate d Desig n Value s (ppm ) 82-8 4 DV s EKMA

DV s EP ARegio n 1 Bosto n Metropolita n Are a Greate r Metropolita n Connecticu t Ne wBedford , MA Portland , M E Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester , NH-M E Providence , R I Springfield , MA Worcester , MA 0.1 9 0.2 3 0
. 1 9 0.1 5 0.1 3 0.1 6 0.1 9 0.1 4 0.1 8

0.1 8 0.1 9 0.1 0 0.0 9 0.1 5 0.1 7 0.1 2 EP ARegio n2 Atlanti c City , N

J Ne wYor k Metropolita nAre a Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton , N J 0.1 9

0.2 3 0 . 1 4 0.1 5

0.2 4 0.1 4 EP ARegio n3 Allentown-Bethlehem , PA Baltimore , M D Erie , PA Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle , PA Lancaster , PA Philadelphi a Metropolita nAre a Pittsburgh , P A Reading , PA Richmond-Petersburg , V A Scranton-Wilke s Barre , PA Washington , DC-MD-V A York , PA EP ARegio n 4 Atlanta , GA Birmingham , A L Charlotte-Gastonia-Roc k Hill , NC-S C Chattanooga , TN-GA Huntington-Ashland , WV-KY-O H Louisville , KY-I N Memphis , TN-AR-M S Miami-Hialeah , F L Nashville , TN Tampa-St . Petersburg-Clearwater , F L 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 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 3

3- 6Tabl e 1 (cont'd ) P.3 7

Are a 82-8 4 DV s EKMA

DV s EPARegio n5 Akron , O H Canton , O H Chicag o Metropolita nAre a Cincinnat i Metropolita nAre a Cleveland , O H Dayton-Springfield , O H Detroit , M I Gran d Rapids , M I Indianapolis , IN Milwauke e Metropolita n Are a Muskegon , M I EP ARegio n 6 Bato nRouge , LA 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 , L

A Longview-Marshall , T X Ne wOrleans , LA Sa n Antonio , T X Tulsa , O K 0.1 3 0.1 3 0.2 0 0.1 5 0 . 1 4 0.1 3 0.1 4 0.1 3 0.1 3 0.1 7 0 . 1 4 0 . 1 7 0.2 1 0.1 4 0.1 6 0 . 1 7 0 . 1 7 0.2 5 0.1 5 0.1 5 0.1 5 0 . 1 4 0 . 1 3 0.1 3

0 . 1 3 0.2 5 0.1 7 0 . 1 4 0.1 3 0.1 4 0.1 3 0.1 3 0 . 1 7 0.1 4
1 7 2 1 1 4 1 6 0 . 1 7 0.1 7 0.2 5 0.1 5 0.1 5 0.1 5 0.1 4 0.1 3 EP ARegio n7 Kansa s City , MO-K S St . Louis , MO-I L 0.1 4 0.1 7 0.1 4

0.1 7 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 5 0.1 5 0.1 4

0.1 5 0.1 5

3- 7P.3 8

Th e specifi c stationarysourc e estimate s an d assumption s use d i n th e mode l fo r thi s analysi s ar e th e same a s thos e tha t wer e use d i n EPA' s repor t o nin-us e fue l volatilit yan d evaporative

- 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 scenario 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 no f th e mobil e sourc e input s fo r thes e scenarios , onl ya fewo f th e 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 b yth e America nSociet yfo r Testing 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 qualit y problems.[8 ] Thi s valu e wa s chose nbecaus e nearl yal l ozon e NAAQ S violation s in thes e location s occur during th e summertime and , base d o ncurren 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 ythe time onboar d control s ente r th e marketplace . (I nfact , thi s leve l i s alread ybeing exceede d i nsome areas , a t leas t a t times. ) Th e RV P 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 n11. 5 psi . However , the RVP 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 Th e mas s o f gasolin e vapor s displace d fro mth e vehicle' s fue l tank i s highl ydependen t o nth e 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 th e 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 fo r th e 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 nfacto 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 manuncontrolle d vehicl e during th e refue.lin

g even t ar e foun

d b yusing th e RVP an d temperature s jus t described , along wit hthe equatio n develope d i na n EPA

3- 8P.3 9

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

yi n th e vehicl e tank (T T ) an d dispense d fuel , an

d RVP = Rei d Vapo r Pressur e o f th e dispense d fue l (psi) . Th e resulting valu e fo r th e 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 i n greate r detai l i n referenc e [3] , dat a o n th e frequenc yan

d magnitud e o f spillag e losse s ar e bot hscarc e an d widel yvariable . EPAha s chose n t o us e 0. 3 g/ga l t o represen t th e spillag e portio no f th e refueling emissio nfacto r an d 0. 4 g/ga l t o represen t th e emptying losses . Thes e value s ar e take n fro

mVolume l o f th e draf t RIA . Summing thes e thre e component s yield s th e uncontrolle d refueling emissio n facto r o f 6. 4 g/gal . Fo r vehicle s equippe d wit honboard controls , two emissio n factor s ar e use d i n th e analysis , depending o nwhethe r th e systemi s properl yoperating o r ha s bee n tampere d with . Test s o f properl yoperating (non-tampered ) system s hav e show nth 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 no f assuming n o reductio ni n spillage . Therefore , adding th e spillag e an d emptying losses , th e resulting non-tampere d emissio n facto r i s 0. 8 g/gal . Sinc e ther e ar e n o externall yvisibl e change s t o a vehicl e equippe d wit hanonboar d contro l system , th e 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 o r disconnectio no f th e 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 fo r 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) .

3- 9P.4 0

I t shoul d b e note d tha t th e uncontrolle d emissio nfacto 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 using differen t volatilit y an d temperatur e dat a t o estimat e displacemen t losse s fo r th e two analyses . A s mentione d above , ozon e violation s ar e primaril ya summe r problem , s o th e emissio nfacto r fo r th e ai r qualit yanalysi s i s base d o n nationa l summertime averag e values . I n contrast , th e emissio n facto r for th e healt h effect s analysi s wa s derive d using nationa l annua l averag e 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 countryo r t o a specifi c season . Sinc e fue l volatilit yan d fue l temperature s varyove r the cours e o f th e 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 th e emissio nfactor s i s onl yabou t 3 percent . 4 . Tampering Rate s I n th e onboar d contro l scenario , th e tampering rate s use d i n MOBILE 3 fo r remova l an d disconnectio no f th e evaporativ e emission s storag e caniste r ar e als o use d t o reflec t refueling caniste r tampering . I t shoul d b e note d tha t th e tampering rate s containe d i n th e origina l M0BILE 3 wer e revise d i n th e volatilit ystud

yt o reflec t late r informatio nfro m EPA' s in-us e surveillanc e programs.[8 ] Th e inclusio no f thes e 198 5 survey dat a had th e effec t o f slightl yincreasing th e tampering rates , relative t o th e origina l MOBILE 3 tampering rates . Thes e ne w rates , whic hvarya s a functio no f vehicl e mileage , hav e bee n use d i n thi s analysis . Th e tampering rate s use d i nthi s analysi s fo r LDV s 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 b e note d her e tha t wit hth e us e o f a liqui d seal , whic hEPAanticipate s wil l b e th e dominan t approach , th e vehicl e fillnec k i s n o differen t wit hthanwithou t anonboar d contro l system . I nfact , th e incorporatio no f onboar d technolog

ywit hth e liqui d sea l shoul d b e virtuall ytransparen t t o th e vehicl e owner/operator , thu s presenting n o 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 onboard control s wil l b e limite d 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 th e cas e wit hStag e I I contro l systems , o r 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 nfactor s use d i n th e ai r qualit y analysi s assume th e existenc e o f Inspectio nan d Maintenanc e Program s (I/M ) i n eac ho f th e non-attainmen t area s throughou t the projectio n period . Thi s assumptio nha s th e effec t o f

3-1 0P.4 1

slightl ylowering th e averag e emissio n factor s assigne d t o thos e vehicle s subjec t t o I/M . Thi s assumptio nwa 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 urbanarea s modele d eithe r hav e I/Mprogram s i n effec t already , o r hav e suc hprogram s schedule d t o g o int o effec t i nth e nea r 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 ozon e complianc e strateg y(se e th e introductio n t o thi s section) . 6 . DesignValue s an d Bas e Yea r Inventorie s A s note d earlier , th e design value s an d inventory projection s i n thi s chapte r us e 198 3 a s th e bas e year . Mor e specificall ywit hregard t o design values , two differen t type s hav e bee n use d a s par t o f thi s analysis . Th e designvalue s briefl ydiscusse d i n Sectio n III.A. , an d use d i n th e determinatio no f non-attainmen t status , ar e base d o nth e 1982 , 1983 , an

d 198 4 ai r qualit ymonitoring dat a withou t modification . Thes e value s ar e show n i nTabl e 1 unde r th e heading "82-8 4 DVs " an d represen t the fourt hhighes t dail y maximu mhourl yambien t ozon e concentration s measure d i n th e 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 necessaryinpu t fo r EKMA . I n thi s application , th e valu e i s interprete d a s th e ambien t ozon e concentratio ni n th e bas e year . However , th e ai r qualit y analyse s fo r thi s chapte r includ e a refinemen t whic hlead s t o the developmen t o f a secon d se t o f "design values " bein g use d t o represen t th e bas e yea r ambien t concentrations . Thes e value s ar e als o show ni n Tabl e 1 , unde r th e heading "EKM ADVs. " Thi s secon

d se t o f designvalue 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 b

ya compute r programknow na 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 mNAAQS ) occur t o determin e whethe r anexceedanc e i s predominantl yth e resul t o f emission s originating i nth e loca l area , o r o f emission s originating i n a nearb ymajo r metropolitanare a upwind . I t the n assign s th e measure d ozon e level s t o eithe r th e upwind metropolita nare a o r 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 th e country) , thi s proces s tend s t o lowe r th e design value s i n smalle r citie s o r SMSA s an d t o rais e th e design value s i n th e large r metropolita n areas . Thes e MASH-processe d design value s ar e intende d fo r us e i n ozon e ai r qualit ymodeling , an d ar e no t appropriatel yuse d i ndetermining attainment/non-attainmen t status .

3-1 1P.4 2

I t shoul d als o b e note d tha t ther e i s relativel ylittl e differenc e i n th e two set s o f designvalues , wit hth e "82-8 4 DV " "an d "EKM ADV " being equa l fo r 4 6 o f th e 6 1 area s modeled . O f th e 1 5 area s wher e the applicatio n o f the MAS H programled t o a chang e i n th e design value , th e valu e use d fo r 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 five o f them . The area s wit hdifference s betwee n th e two value s ar e concentrate d i n th e Northeas t an d along th e centra l Eas t Coas t (EP

ARegion s 1 , 2 , an d 3) , wher e man

yo f th e SMSA s an d metropolitan area s ar e contiguous . Th e greates t increas e i n design valu e resulting from th e MAS H programoccur 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 . In additio n t o the design values , EKM Aals o require s NMH C inventorie s an

d NMHC:NOxratios . A s note d above , the inventorie s ar e develope d a s par t o f th e Nationa l Emissio nDat a Syste m(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 , an d growt hrates . Fo r example , modeling the ai r qualit yimpac t o f th e propose d refueling emissio n standard involve s the calculatio n o f emissio n factor s fo r refueling emission s fro mal l gasoline-fuele d mobil e source s (light-dutyvehicle s an d truck s an

d heavy-dut yvehicles) , bot h wit han d withou t onboard 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 th e propose d refueling emissio n standard o n ozon e ai r qualit yca n b e projected . 7 . StationarySourc e RAC T an d th e FMVC P The modeling o f futur e NMH C inventorie s an d ambien t ozon e concentration s involve s looking a t emission s from bot hmobil e an d stationarysources . Fo r mobil e sources , th e key..inputs include th e emissio nfactor s (a s calculate d b yMOBILE3 ) an

d vehicl e mile s travelle d (VMT ) growt hrates . Th e emissio n factor s fo r eac hvehicle/engin e clas s varyb ymode l year , reflecting th e impac t o f th e Federa l Moto r vehicl e Contro l Progra m(FMVCP) , unde r whic hincreasingl ystringen t exhaus t an d evaporative emissio n standard s hav e bee nestablished . EPAha s develope d anextensiv e dat a bas e o nth e in-us e performanc e o f mobil e sourc e emissio ncontro 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 fro m standard s establishe d unde r th e FMVCP . Eve nwhe ncouple d wit h projecte d VMT growth , th e FMVC P gain s ne t reduction s i nth e mobil e sourc e portio n o f futur e NMH C inventorie s int o th e 1990s .

3-1 2P.4 3

I n th e cas e o f stationarysources , th e tw o mai ninput s required 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 divided int o si xmajo r categorie s i n EPA' s models.[8,9 ] Fo r som e 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 ncontrols , fo r thos e categorie s covere d b yCTGs , ar e require d t o b e include d a s par t o f eachstate' s plan for attaining the NAAQ S fo r ozone . Previou s EPAmodeling result s hav e alway s indicate d decreasing emissio n inventorie s an d improving ai r qualit 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 mayno t b e occurring . I t i s widel yaccepte d tha t th e mobil e sourc e portio no f th e inventory wil l continu e t o declin e a s a resul t o f flee t turnover , wit han increasing fractio n o f th e nationa l flee t being comprise d o f vehicle s subject " t o th e stringen t emissio nstandard s taking 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 expecte d improvemen t i n ozon e ai r qualit yi s no t occuring , th e assumption s use d i n previou s EPAanalyse s concerning th e efficiencyan

d timing o f stationarysourc e RAC T contro l appea r t o have bee n overl yoptimistic . Th e 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 knowni 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 nthe 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 i n 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 resolve thes e question s a s par t o f th e abovementione d revie wo f RAC T controls . Unti l EPA ha s bette r dat a availabl e o n th e actua l rat e o f implementatio n an d contro l efficienc yo f stationarysourc e RACT , th e "baseline " scenari o fo r thi s analysi s assume s n o RACT-base d stationar

ysourc e emissio n reduction s ar e assume d t o occur afte r th e bas e year . •C . 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 fo r th e 6 1 urba narea s currentl yi n non attainmen t o f th e ozon e NAAQS . Th e informatio ni n Tabl e 2 i s als o presente d graphicall yi nFigur 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 emission s an

d th e numbe r o f non-attainmen t areas . Eac htabl e display s th e 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

3-1 3P.4 4

emissions . Acompariso no f th e result s fo r th e thre e scenario s indicate s th e incrementa l effect s o f implementing contro l o f exces s evaporative emission s an d the nrefueling controls . Befor e discussing th e result s fo r 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 i n eac htable . Generally , th e result s fo r thi s scenari o showsignifican t improvement s occur primaril yi n respons e t o th e stationaryan d moto r vehicl e emissio n standard s whic halread

yhav e bee npromulgated . 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 th e projectio n period . I t als o appear s tha t b yabou t th e mi d t o lat e 1990s , th e tren d toward decreasing ambien t ozon e level s wil l b e reversed , an d ai r qualit ywil l worse nsteadil ythereafter . Th e continue d numbe r o f non-attainmen t areas , i n additio nt 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 the 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 anincreasing percentag e o f th e moto r vehicl e flee t ove r time , reduction s i n the non-methan e hydrocarbo n inventorydu e solel yt o refueling control s chang e fro m105,00 0 ton s (abou t 1. 5 percent ) i n 1995 , t o 179,00 0 ton s (abou t 2. 1 percent ) i n 2010 . I f reduction s i n 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 o n th e ai r qualit ymodeling result s presente d above , an d i nTable s 2 an d 3 an

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

fueled LDVs , LDTs , an d HDV s canprovid e significan t long-ter m benefit s i nhelping t o achiev e an d maintai nth e ozon e NAAQS .

3-1 4Tabl e 2 P.4 5

Tota l Non-Methan e Hydrocarbo n Emission s fo r 6 1 Urba nArea s (xlOO O Tons ) Scenari o 199 0 199 5 200 0 201 0 Baselin e (FMVC P only )

Exces s Eva p Control ' Refuelin g & Exces s Eva p Contro l 696 1 (14.2) ' 695 8 (14.2 ) 693 1 (14.6 ) 692 6

(14.6 ) 682 3 (15.9 ) 671 8 (17.2 ) 725 6

(10.5 ) 707 4 (12.8 ) 692 8 (14.6 ) 842 0

(+3.8 ) 816 0 (+0.1 ) 798 1 (1.6 ) Figuresi n parenthese s represen t th e percen t chang e (decrease , unles s otherwis e noted) , relativ e t o th e 198 3 base-yea r inventor yo f 8,111. 6 ton s fo r th e 6 1 areas . 2 No contro l o f refueling .

3-1 5P.4 6

- i 3 3- 1

- I o C N

o r a . u i

T - Q ; 

## 2 

# " I
X u

tn C D 

### a

(sDUDsnoi_|_L ) Ad01N3AN I 3HW N 1V10 1P.4 7
Tabl e 3 Estimate d Numbe r o f Non-Californi a Urba n Ozon e Non-Attainmen t Area s Scenari o 199 0 199 5 200 0 201 0 Baselin e (FMVC P only ) 4 7 4 6 4 8 55 ' Exces s Eva p Control 2 4 7 4 4 4 7 5 3 Refuelin g & Exces s Evap Contro l 4 6 4 0 4 4 5 1 Onl yth e 6 1 non-Californi a area s liste d i nTabl e 3 wer e modeled . Additiona l area s ar e likel yt o b e i n non-attainmen t i n201 0 unde r th e "Baselin e (FMVC P only) " scenario . N o contro l o f refueling .

3-1 7REFERENCE S FORCHAPTE R3 1 . "Ai r Qualit yCriteri a fo r Ozon e an d 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 an d Othe r Photochemica l Oxidants, " U.S . EPA , ORD , Augus t 1986 , EPA-600/8-84-020aF . 3 . "Refueling Emission s fro mUncontrolle d Vehicles, " Dal e S . Rothma n an d Rober t Johnson , U.S . EPA , OMS , ECTD , EPA-AA-SDSB-85-6 , Jul y1985 . 4 . "Vehicl e Onboar d Refueling Control, " America n Petroleu

mInstitute , Repor t No . 4424 , Marc h1986 . 5 . "1982-8 4 Ozon e DesignValue s for RegulatoryImpac t Analyses, " Memorandu mfro mRichar d G . Rhoads , Directo r o f Monitoring an

d Dat a Analysi s Division , t o Charle s Gray , Directo r o f Emissio n Contro l Technolog yDivision , Jun e 16 , 1986 . 6 . "Uses , Limitation s an d Technica l Basi s o f Procedure s fo r Quantifying Relationship s Betwee nPhotochemica l Oxidant s an d Precursors, " U.S . EPA , OAQPS , EPA-450/2-77-021a , Novembe r 1977 . 7 . "Guideline s fo r Us e o f City-Specifi c EKM Ai n Preparing Ozon e SIPs, " U.S . EPA , OAQPS , EPA-450/4-80-027 , Marc h 1981 . 8 . "Stud

yo f Gasolin e Volatilit yan d Hydrocarbo n Emission s fromMoto r Vehicles" , U.S . EPA , OMS , Novembe r 1985 , EPA-AA-SDSB-85-5 .

3-1 8