17 42 All Vah 1.392 1.131 0.132 0.01* 0 > 093 0.011
-------
I

-------
txh«u.)t coi
fxfaaqjt HOXf
11.97
1.13
14
1
.03
.32
21.1*
2.02
18.18
1.33
. 20.38 • 1.44
3.95 1.09 "
1.81 11.17 24
1.24 , 8.5* 0
.81
.78
OCal P?l'Ir7i?olrin' ** ?£*.'*"* Mi"» 'l2/l/«> Sui^o.li.^'c'r.dit.
ocal. raar. 2020 t/H rrogrnt Yaa Asbiant T«p, 37. i / ,7.1 / 37.! (r> Ragioni LOW
^ESuEHS1, £ «*•«**••• «—• 20.8 / 27.3 / 20.9 Al^uda",1 -1oV rt.
Olndolan. rual " • , Minima Ta«p, 72. ,r. «axiau« ta«o, 92 
o -,., _ Lo^-r^r- 2iS» "sg • -w-. «/•- - ir^v^a "1
VMT Mixt
ziv rzact!
19
0
' 0
OConipojlta eai»iion
Hon-Hath 1C i
Cxhauat HC:
Ivaporat Kt
Rafual L BCl
Runing L SCt
Kjting L BCl
Cxhauat cot
Cxhauat HOXi
1 cnhanead iVk.
.1
0
0
0
0
0
11
1
.9
.373
.00 »
Factor*
.39
.77
.21
.01
.39
.02
.82
.00
0.
0.
(<*>
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
13.
1.
,f^
207
00 %
I/Mil.)
62
98
23
03
39
02
83
17
19.
0.

2.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
20.
1.
^
08*

38
34 .
24
03
32
02
95
82


1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0,
19.


34
14
23
03
43
02
70
0.

3.
1,
0.

0.
22.
3.
034 0.002

71 0.30
78 0.30
19
07
8*
03
4* - 1.44
37 1.0*
1*.« 19.9 TT.
0.003 0.084 . 0.

0.8* 2.03 3.
0.89 2.03 1.
3.


0.
1.81 11.17 .24.
• 1-24 8.3* 0.
7—
004

81
93
34


42
81
78
13. 433
1.797
All Vah



1.672
1.019
0.242
0.018
0.374
0.018
13.142
1.860
  MOKLISa (28-«ar-93)
  OI/M program «alaetadt

  0    start yaar (January 1)i
      Fra-1981 ttn rtringaney  ratal
      rtcit modal  yaar cov«radi
      talt aodal yaar eovaradi
      »ai»ar  rata  (pra-19»l)t
      waitrar  rata  (1S«1 and navarM
      cc«plianca Ratal
      Inipaetloa typat
      Inipaotioa fraqaaaoy
      v.biol* typaa coraradl
                                           1999
                                            20%
                                           198*
                                           2020
                                            3.%
                                            3.%
                                           98.%
                                           Taat Only
                                           Annual
                                           LOOV - raa
                                         LDGT1 - Yaa
                                         UK3T2 - Yaa
                                           ItKJV - Ha
                                           IH240 taa«
                                      20.000   WOxt
      1991 • latac ttn. tare typai
      outpoint*, ici    o.aoo   cot   i
 orunotional Caae* rrogra* Oaaoripeio*!
 OCbaek start   Modal Yr»  vaklola Claaaa* Corarad
        (Jaal)  Covarad    LO8V   loatl  LOOM  H3OV
                                                       2.000
                                                          tn»paotio
  fraaa 1999    19«3-202O  Ya»
  Fur?a 1994)    1988-2020  Yaa
  AT*   19(3    19*1-2020  Yaa
 OAlr poai> >y>tam diaablaaHatai
  rual Inlae raatrtetor di*a61a
  (OK dttablaaaKti
  FCV lyitaa dliablaanatai
 OMon.
 0
                                                                  Aaaoml
                                                                 Annual
                                  Yaa    Yaa.    l*s  Ta«c only
                                  Yaa    Yaa    Ma  taat Omly
                                  Yaa    Yaa    Ha  Taat Only
                                      M>   Catalyrt rawralai
                                 atai Yaa  Tailpipa l*ad dapoatt taati
                                      M>   IraporatlTa *yatam dlaablaai
                                      Ma   tttaaiaa; oaa oap«i
                                                                            99.0*
                                                                            9«.0»
                                                                            9«.0%
                                                                               Yaa
                                                                               Ma
                                                                               Ma
         kaaa 1C i»io. factor..
 OKmiaaiea. factor* ara aa of July Imk. ef feaa iadica^a^"5ST
 ocil  PYaar7la "***" ia l"* *"Or* Mia» (l»/l/*2) Oat.
                   Anti-tan, rragraau Yaa     oparating
                    Karorxralatad oaat Ha
 Oaaaallaa rual.
                        rariad l nvrt 10.3
 o  vah.  Typai       LDOV     LDOTI     LDOW
                                                                   / 27.3 /
                                                                            87.1  (r) Kagioat tow
                                                                            20.4   Altltndat  300.
 Vak.  Spaadat      TTTt—
     VMT MIX!       O.S7S     0.207
   2tv rraett       0.00 %    O.OO %
OCoapoaita IBiaaioa ractora  (Oai/MU«»
Hon-t»ata aci
txhanat  Kt
Cvaporat let
Kafual L ICt
Runing L let
mting L *ei
txhauat  COt
Cxhauat HOXi
0.80
0.37
0.0*
0.01
0.12
0.02
8.92
0.83
 0.8*
 0.9»
 0.0*
 0.03
 0.0*
 0.02
10.i«
 0.91
                                        0.08»
 1.20
 I.OS
 0.0*
 0.03
 0.10
 o.oa
IS. 27
 1.3*
 0.9*
 0.77
 0.0*
 0.03
 0.0*
 0.02
11. (»
 1.0*
 3. ft
 1.91
 1.0*
 0.07
 0.5*
 0.03
22.9*
 3.7*
                                                                      0.30
                                                                      0.30
                                                                      1.44
                                                                      1.0*
                                                                                0.4*
                                                                                0.4*
                                                                                1.91
                                                                                1.24
                                                                                          2.01
                                                                                          2.01
                                                                                         11.17
                                                                                          8.5*
 9.42
 1.85
 3.IS
 3.42
24.41
 0.7*
                                                                                                           All vak
 1.07*
 3.801
 0.121
 0.01*
 0.113
 a. 01*
10.411
• 1.47*
^"^^^?T^^^^!;^*S^^/^^^a^"'1*.-w'?r.dita
QCal. Yaart 2O3O         V/M •.—.^^H^.  ir*~       .	^^	^ _. _ _         -^-~
orad rhaaa 1 rual

o  vah. rypat
                         Z/M
                       farlo* t  »»»t
                             uxm
                                    Ya«
                                    Yaa
                                    Yaa

                                    10.»
                                     LOOTS
                                              oparating Modat
                                                  	1 Claaat
                            rariad 2 RVT:
                                          87.1
                                          20.4
                                          C
                                           72.
                                           8.0
                                                                     87.1 / 87.1
                                                                     27.3 / 20.8
                                                                   (D
                                                                .
                                                            cxav
                                                                      LDDV
                                                                                 (T)  Kagloat Law
                                                                                   Altitudai  30O.
                                                                                              92.
                                                                                             19(1
                                                                          rariod 2 stazt Yrt
 vah. spaadai
     VMI Kixi      0.571
   ztv rracti      o.oo »
ocoKpoaita CMi».loa raotora
 won-Matk «Ci
 Cxhauat  ici
 Cvaporat 1C;
 Rafual L let
 Runing L Kt
 Kiting L Kt
 Ixhanat  COt
 Cxhauat next
                   0.87
                   0.4*
                   0.0*
                   0.01
                   0.0*
                   0.02
                   7.2*
                   0.93
                            0.207
                            O.OO %
                           (OB/KUa)
                            0.73
                            0.33
                            0.6*
                            0.02
                            0.07
                            0.02
                            *.29
                            0.91
                                        0.0**
                    1.09
                    0.90
                    0.0*
                    0.03
                    0.0*
                    0.02
                   12.2*
                    1.3*
                                                            0.034
                                                                      0.002
                                                                                o.oo*
                     0.34
                     0.8*
                     0.0*
                     0.03
                     0.07
                     0.02
                     9.4*
                     1.0*
                     3.09
                     1.68
                     0.90
                     0.0*
                     0.42
                     0.03
                    17.0*
                     3.7*
                                                                                 .81
                                                                                  24
                                                                                          0.0*4
                                                                                          2.03
                                                                                          2.03
                                        11.17
                                         8.3*
                                                   4.90
                                                   1.73 •
                                                   2.73
                                         0.42
                                        20.**
                                         0.7*
          0.934
          0.713
          0.09*
          0.017
          0.0*7
          0.01*
          8. 90S
          1.47*
 LXV paaaa-ia
OCal. Yaaxi 2020
orad rn2 (Vapor)
                     ' ** °* JttJLT 1J* "' taa isdleata4 oaJLaadu y«ar.
                     !• 1M4 «»OT» aalaa}  (U/l/92) Ouioaaoa Maa» Cradlta
                        t/M rrevrawli Yao       »aaUaa« Twapt  17.1  /  87.1  /  87.1
                  Aatl-taai. rraozaau Yae
                   Karoaolatad Oaai Ma

                       rariad 1 KVTi 10.5
                                             oparatiaa:
                                                              20.8/27.3/20.*   Altitudai   300.  r«.

                                                                                        aaai   92.  (F)
                                                                          'arlod  2 Mazt  Yri  19*1

-------
I

-------
o v*jh. Typ«i > LOW LDQTI
*
V*lla • 3p*J*>
OI/H program .alaatadl

0    Start yaar  (January 1)i
     Pra-1981 HYR itringanoy ratal
     rlr.t modal yaar ooraradi
     Laat modal yaar co-raradt
     wairar rata (pra-19*l)i
     ffatvar rata U9«l and  aamr) i
     Compliance Ratal
     Inapaetiom typal
     £n.paotioa fraqoaaay
     vabiola typaa eeraradi
     1981 4 latar KTK taat typai         tKS4a tact
     cutpotat*, ici    o.aoe   cat   2o.04»   momt
OFunotional Chaok Program Oaaorlpttomc
ochaek start   Modal Yra  Vaklel* eiwwaw Corarad
       IJanl)  Co
                                          20%
                                          1986
                                          2020
                                          3.%
                                          3.%
                                          94.%
                                          Taat oaly
                                          Anaul
                                          LIXJV - r«a
                                        UMRl - Yaa
                                        LOOT* - Yaa
                                                          Xofpaetiom
                                                       rypa      Praq
 Praaa 1994
 purga 19**    1*«*>-MM  Yaa
 ATT   1983    im-40t*> Ya»
OAlr pump .yrtam rltiatllamaatai
 rual inl.e —-*rtrt««f -tt«a«tla
 ISR diiablamaatl
 PCV ly.tam dt«akl<
                                               Ho
      Taat only
      Taat only
      Taat Only
                                                                 Annual
                                                                 Annual
                                                                 Annual
                                Ya»   Yaa
                                Yaa    Yaa
                                Yaa    Yaa
                                    Bo
                               mtai 1'aa  Tailpipa  l.ad aapo.lt  taati
                                    *>   ITaporatira  ayatam dliablamaatai
                                                 gaa  oapai
OKoa-mataam* K .aa.aiam faoCara iaalod* avaporattva K amta.toa  faotora.
                          Rata

                          94.0%
                          96.0%
                          94.0%
                             Yaa
                             Ho
                             Ho
                             M
oimtMtoa caetora ax* aa o< July lai ol tba ladieatad ealandar yaar.
 LtV pha.«-in baaiaa ia 19*4 ualaa;  (12/1/92) autdasea ttamo Cradlti
ocal. Yaari 2020
OSa.aliaa Pual..

0  Vaa. Tvpai
vak.
    VMT Mtxi
  ZIV Praoti
                        :/M Program! Yaa
                  Anti-tarn. Program! Yaa
                   Rafoanlatad 9aat no
                       Parted 1 KV*|
                   LOOV     LDOT1
                                    10.5
                                     LIXTR
  Ambiaat Taapi
oparating Modal

  Minimum Tampi
  Parted 2 KVTi
    LOST      1C
                                                                            87.1
                                                                            20.4
                                                                                (P)  Ragtoai
                                                                                 Altitudai
                                                               72.
                                                               8.7
                        Parted 2 start Yri
                       V      LDD*
                                           Lo*
                                            30O.
                                                                                             n.
                                                                                            1992
                   0.575
                   0.00 %
ocompoatta tmtaatem raotora
 Hen Mata ICl      0.2*
 Zxaaoat  1C:      o.o*
 Iv.por.c ici      o.o*
 Rafaal L ICi      0.01
                             0.207
                             O.OO %
                             (Om/MUa)
                             0.2*
                             0.07
                             0.0*
                             0.03
                                      1.2*
                                      l.Oi
                                      0.0*
                                      0.03
0.5*
0.37
0.0*
0.03
              3.6*
              1.91
              1.0*
              0.07
0.30
0.30
0.6*
0.6*
                                                                                          0.0*4
2.01
2.03
                             Pt.



                              MB     All Vak

                             U.I     	
                              O.OO4
3.42
1.61
3.11
0.464
0.392
0.121
0.01*

-------

-------
Kuala? L ac:
R«tia» L act
txhauat CO:
Exhaiut HOXi



0.12 0.09
0.02 . , 0.02:
3.84 4.3*
0.2* 0.39
0.19
9.92
13.27
LtV phaia-ia baaiaa la 1994 Miaa; (12/1/92)
ocal. raar: 2020 I/M rrograat raa
Aatl-ta». Program: Va« '
Rafomiatad Saat Yaa
orad Phaia 1
0 vah. Typa:
'VKT Mix:
ZtV rract:
. OConpoaita fm
Hen-Math act
Ixhauat ac:
cvaporat ac:
Rafual L act
Runina L act
Rating L ac:
Ixhauat cot
Cxhauat HOXI
rual
Pariod 1 KVTt
LDOV LDOTl

0.373 0.207
0.00 % 0.00 »
19.3
LDOT2
9.09
= 0 . 02
7.79
0.88
Suidanea
Anbiaat
Opa rating
Mlniaaai
Pariod
LOST
m 	
0.099
9. 39
9. 93
22.88
3. 78


1.44
1.09
Maan cradit*
Taapt 37.1 / 87.1 /
Modal 20.8 / 27.3 /
Claia: c
Taapt 72.
2 KVTt 8.0
HDCV
o!934



87
20


1.81 11.17
1.24 8.38
.1 ir) mgiont LO*
.8 Altitudai 300
(r) Mariana Taapt 92.
Pariod 2 Start rrt 1992
LDOV LOOT .BDDV
ii.i
0.002

m rn —
0.005 0.084


0.42
24.81
0.7*
rt.
C)
. MC
19. i
0.004

- 0

.113
9.91*
8.327
1.93*

All



Vah


l»»ion ractora (OB/Mila) , .





0.24 0.24
0.09 0.04
0.08 0.98
0.01 0.02
0.09 0.07
0.02 0.92
3.07 3.89
0.28 0.3*
0.90
0.0*
0.03
0.0*
0.92
12.2*
1.39
LEV phaaa-ia bagina IB 1994 uaiaa; (12/1/92)
OCal. Yaart 2929 I/M Program fat
Anti-taa. Program: tarn
Raforaulatad Gaat No
orad rk2 (Vapor)
9 vah. Tvpat
Vah. Spaadat
VMT ttLxt
Z*V rract i
OCoapoaita Cai
Hon-Hath act
ixhauat act
Ivaporat act
Rafual L 1C!
Kuala* L act
Katiaf L act
Ixhauat cot
txhauat MOSt


Parlod 1 KVTt
LDOV Leon
im — im —
9.575 0.207
0.00 % 0.00 *
10.5
LDOT2
19.<
0.0*9
0.49
0.31
0.94
9.93
9.97
9.92
8.23
9.8*
suidaaca i
Aabiaat
oparating
3.99
1.8*
9 . 90
0. 04
0. 42
0. 93
17.9*
3.78
0.50
0.30



1.44
1.09
«aao cradits
Taapt 97.1 / 87.1 /
Hodat 29.8 / 27.3 /
Mialana Taapt 72.
Pariod 2 KVT: 7.5
LOOT' . SDOV
— — —

im —
9.934





0.89 2.03
0.89 2.03



1.81 11.17
1.24 8.5*
97.1 (F) Raaiont Lev
20.4 Altitudai 500.
ir» Maxima* Taa*» 92.
rariod 2 Start Yrt 1992
LOOV LOOT aoov
ITTJ —
0.002


14 | 4 1 J
*'»• t9t a
0.009 0.0*4
4.90
1.73
2.73


0.42
20.94
0.78
rt.

ME
i j j
19.8
0.004
0
'0
0
0
0
0
3
1

All


.382
.382
.09*
.017
.087
.01*
.225
.03*

Vak


••ion raetors (Sm/KUa)




0.22 0.22
0.0* 0.07
0.08 9.95
0.01 9.92
9.97 9."9*
0.92 9.03
3.81 4.54
0.25 0.37
1.21
1.05
9.09
0.03.
0.0*
0'.02
19.19
1.37
Lav pha»a-ln baola* in 1994 uaiaa; (12/1/92)
ocal. raart 2020 I/M Program: Taa
Aatl-taa. rroqraat Yaa
Katoraulatad Oaat Ho
OCA RTO (Vapor)
0 Vak. Typat
Vak. spaadai
VMT Mixt
ztv rraott
OCoapoaita Kai
Hon-Hath act
Ixhauat act
Evaporat act
Katual L act
Rualaa; L act
Ratiag L act
Ixhatut cot .
txhatut tract
LtV phaaa-ia



••i.




Parlod 1 KVTt
LDOV toon
i*.4 1J.4
0.375 0.207
0.00 » 9.00 *
aa raetora (aa/Mila)
9.1* 0.20
0.0* 0.07
0.05 0.09
0.01 0.02
0.04 0.04
0.92 9.02
3.81 4.54
0.25 0.37
10.5
UXJT2
|5.|
0.09»

1.1*
1.05
0.94
0.03
0.04
0.02
19.19
1.37
9.53
9.37
9.93
0 . 03
9.0*
0.03
7.72
0.47
Suldaaao M
Aabiaae
Oparatiaf
MlnijauB
3.01
1.85
0. 7*
9.0*
0.30
9.03
20.8*
3.93
9.50
9.5O


1.44
Was cradit*
Taa*)t «7.1 / 87.1 /
Modal 20.* / 27.3 /
Taa»i 72.
Pariod 2 KVTi 8.9
LDOV aoov
-^— —


0.4*
0.37
9.99
9.92
9.04
0.02
7.72
0.47
TTTI —
9.934

2.75
1.8*
9.8*
9.99
9.1*
9.03
20.8*
3.95
O




•7.
20.

0.** 2.03
9.8* 2.03


i.'«r~ 11.17
1.24 4.5*
1 (r) ttavfloai Low
( Altitadat 30O.

4.73
1.85
2.4*

0.42
24.41
9.7*
rt.
IW\
Pariod 2 ttart rrt 1993
LDOV LOOT tDOV ME
ii.|
O.OO2

0.50
0.50


1.44
1.0*








0.005 9.0*4

9.4* 2.03
0.8* 2.93


1.41 11.17
1.24 8.3*
TT"T™"
19.8
0.004

4.44
1.95
2.17


24.41
0.7*
0.379
9.390
9
0
089
01*
9.084
9.91*
8.233
1.03*


All



9.
9.
9.
9 .
0.
0.
8.
I.


Vak



337
39O
072
91*
942
01*
233
03*
ST an aa oc July lat of tka iadioataal nala.i 72.
KVTt 9.9
acov
tT7T~'
0.034

3.71
1.78
1.19
0.97
0. 84
0.03
22.49
3.57
/ *7.l /
/ 27.3 /
(r)
»7.
20.

1 (f) »a«tomi Lev
« Altltavat 3OO.
MasiAi^ ¥«••• av
rariod 2 start rrt 19*1
LDOV LOOT aOOV
11. |
0.002

0.3O
0.30

1.44
1.09






^•( | TT7T"" "
0.90* g.'g*4

0.4* 2.93
0.8* 2.93

1.81 11.17
1.24 8.94
rt.
(rt
ME
I J J
iv. a
0.004

5.81
1.89
3.34

9.42
24.41
9.7*


All



9.
9.
9.
gp

9 .
9.
. • 8.
9.


Vak



845
34*
133
01*

127
01*
159
9*7

-------

-------

  Regulatory Intact Analysis
   Clean  Fuel Fleet Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Office of Air and Radiation
     Office  of Mobile  Sources
            June, 1994
                                    V-6-01

-------

-------
                        Table of  Contents

  Introduction   . ; . . .
                                                             1
 Chapter 1:     Industry Overview
      1 . 1  Introduction
      1.2  Projected Number * of' Affected 'Fleet* Vehicles'. '.'. '.'.  4
           j.. ii. i  Approach	
                                                             4
           1.2.2  Estimates of Clean-Fuel Fleet'vehicles! .'.*  7
                1.2.2.1  Light-Duty....	       7
                1.2.2.2  Heavy-Duty	!! !'!	  8
                1.2.2.3  Conclusions.'	] [ * •] [	  g
           1.2.3  Limitations of the Analysis.. '.'.'.'.'.'..'.'.'.'.'.  9
 Chapter 2:.     Program Costs
      2.1  Introduction
      2 .2  Estimated Costs of LDVs and*LDTS'.'.'.	   12
           I'l'l  ™/?SI *ncremental Acquisition*Costs.'!!.*   13
           2.2.2  LDV/LDT Incremental Operating Costs....     17
           2.2.3  Assumptions and Approach.	       20
           2.2.4  Methodology and Results."..".-..   	   21
      2.3  Estimated Costs of HDVs	!!!!!.'!	   24
           2.3.1  HDV Incremental Acquisition"Costs..'.'.       25
           2.3.2  HDV Incremental Operating Costs	."   26
           2.3.3  Assumptions and Approach	 [ ] "  27
           2.3.4  Methodology and Results. .      	   2a
      2.4  Summary of Total Potential Program Costs.*.'.'.'!.'.".'   29

Chapter  3:      Potential Program Benefits
      3.1  Introduction  	
      3.2  Estimated Emission Benefits of LDVs"and*LDTs!!!1   32
           3.2.1  Combustion Emission Benefits	\'''   32
           3.2.2  Vapor Emission  Benefits	."!!!."!!*   37
      3.3  Estimated Emission Benefits of HDVs.!!!!!!!!!!!!   38
           3.3.1  Combustion Emission Benefits	!!!*"*   38
           3.3.2  Vapor Emission  Benefits	              40
      3.4  Additional Program Benefits	....!!.'.".*!.'   41
           3.4.1   Potential  Energy Impacts  .........!!!**"*   42
           3.4.3   Other Potential Impacts	!!!!!!!!!"!!!   42

Chapter  4:      Cost Effectiveness
     4.1  Introduction	                          ,.
     4.2  Methodology	'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'	  44
     4.3  Cost Effectiveness Results....!.'.']!.".'.'!!	  45
     4.4  Summary		 .    	*	  4^

Chapter 5:     Conclusions	      4g

-------

-------
                   List  of Figures and  Tables
FIGURE 1-1:
FIGURE 1-2:
FIGURE 1-3:
FIGURE 1-4:
FIGURE 2-1:
FIGURE 2-2:
 TABLE  1-1:
 TABLE  1-2:
 TABLE  1-3:
 TABLE  1-4:

 TABLE  1-5:

 TABLE  1-6:

 TABLE  1-7:

 TABLE 1-8:



 TABLE 2-1:
 TABLE 2-2:
 TABLE 2-3:

 TABLE 2-4:

 TABLE 2-5:

 TABLE 2-6:

 TABLE 2-7:
 TABLE 2-8:

 TABLE 2-9:

 TABLE 2-10:

 TABLE 2-11:

 TABLE 2-12:
                 LDV and LOT CFFVs in use.
                 Heavy-Duty CFFVs  in use.
                 Total CFFVs in use.
                 N^^i^  Conventional Fuel Displacement
                 New and in use LDV/LDT CFFVs .
                 Total Incremental LDV/LDT CFFV Costs.
               1990 Area Fuel Fractions.

                                  Fleet
                                                   Projections
                                                 Projection!?
                                            VQhicle    Population

                                            Vehicl«    Copulation
                                                Heavy-Duty Fleet

              Light-Duty  Vehicle,  Light-Duty  Truck,  Heavy-Duty
              Vehicle Fleet Population Projections.            Y


              Incremental Acquisition Costs For LDV/LDT
              Incremental Fuel Costs For LDV/LDT
                                     Technology Assumptions  For

                                     Technology Assumptions  For

                                                LDT Costs  Under

                                                LDT C°3ts  Under
              Incremental Acquisition Costs For Heavy-Duty CFFVs.
                                               Assumptions   For
              Total Incremental LHDV. and MHDV Fleet  Costs  Under
              scenario A.
              Total Incremental LHDV and MHDV Fleet  Costs  Under
              Total Incremental LHDV and MHDV Fleet Costs  Under
                       O •
                       °f  Pr°jected  Fleet  Program Incremental
TABLE 3-1 (A) :  Light-Duty Emission Standards For Clean-Fuel Fleet
               vehicles.
TABLE 3-l(B):  Light-Duty Truck Emission Standards For Clean-Fuel
               Fleet Vehicles.

-------

-------
 TABLE 3-1(C):


 TABLE 3-2:
 TABLE 3-3:


 TABLE 3-4:


 TABLE 3-57'


 TABLE 3-6:


 TABLE 3-7:
 TABLE 3-8:
 TABLE 3-9:


 TABLE 3-10:


 TABLE  3-11:


 TABLE  3-12:


TABLE 3-13:
TABLE 4-1:
TABLE 4-2:
TABLE 4-3:


Attachment A
                Lifetime Emission  Factors for Light -Duty Vehicles
                and trucks froom MOBILESa Modelling
                Number of In-Use Clean-Fuel Fleet LDVs/LDTs

                r?ifr£n ^nlentories «d NMOG and NOx Benefits From
                Clean-Fuel Fleet LDVs and LDTs

                                    BSnefits  Fr™ Clean-Fuel Fleet
                ?lelt Vehlcies Benef±t3 From Light-Duty Clean-Fuel

                                       Medi- Heavy-Duty  Emission
                1998 Heavy-Duty Engine Emission Standards.
                Number of In-Use Clean-Fuel Fleet LHDVs/MHDVs.
                Flllt
                    Beneflts

               Benefita From Heavy-Duty Clean-Fuel

               " FUel DlaPla-d ** th. Clean Fuel

Gallons  of Petroleum-Based Fuel  Displaced in the
Clean-Fuel Fleet /Progr»-by -Alternative Fuels!


Clean-Fuel Fleet LDV/LDT Cost Effectiveness.
Clean-Fuel Fleet LHDV/MHDV Cost Effectiveness.
Overall Clean-Fuel Fleet Program Cost Effectiveness

-------

-------
                           Introduction
  ''*.  J^ clean -Air Act  Amendments  of  1990   (CAA)  remii™ *•*<*
                                                             *


 Description of the Clean Fuel Fleet P
                                                 are set  forth  in
 afie
 owners in certain areas with air-qualit  problems will  b
                                                          b
these  categories.   At  this  time,  the  Denver-Boulder  area
a?sorclasifiMthH  Only affected CO-nonattainment ara wch is not
also classified as an ozone nonattainment area.

     According to the CAA,  the CFFV purchase requirements of the
morrv^hSSi7 t0H ^^^ ^d government-owned fleTts hTvlng ten or
more vehicles which  are  operated in a covered area and which are
   n^             residence at night are not considered capable of
and LT?hr* i7 fUeled UnlSSS they are' in fact' centrallj fueled
    rSrthSr^f^'T ^ject ^ the program's requirements.  The
    further restricts the regulations to fleet vehicles which are

-------

-------
  iff  one  of three  classes  for  which  CFFV  »-s.—4- ^-- ^-i--
                                     rsvsr -
in  1398     olUrfl^r6^e*l^f°* C°Vered fleets are to begin
in  .L»yo.    For  fleets  of  light-duty vehicles  and  trueki   ?*<*
purchase requirements are phasld in over  a three yTat pe7fod ' sue?
        P-erC1eonoto°f thS vehicles Purchased in 1998 must  be  CTF^s  50
        in 1999'  *nd 7° Percent  thereafter.   For HDV fleetJ  the
        C
     r                                       .             ee    the
 2H PUhrChaSe  ^f^irement  begins and remains at  spercent   £
 meet  the  purchase  requirements  the  vehicles  must  meet  the
 S™iCS V°W ^^ vehicle    emission  st^dards    New
 CFFVs may be purchased to meet these requirements or conventional
 vehicles may be converted  to  LEVs  in compliance with thlvehicle
 conversion and certification regulations promulgated by EpI
      As  an  incentive  to  fleet  operators  participatina
 program  the  CAA specifies that  fll clean-Pfuel  vJhicSs
 S £ v    2°V^ed fleetS are t0 be exemPt from time-of-day, day-
 «32? '  Iddit^f 1t«"Po«l"baaed transP<~tation control me^ures
 c?SJ ™H^          incentive and flexibility are provided by a
 CFFV credit program,  which permits  fleet  owners who  exceed the
 SSSLST* requirements  to  earn credits  commensurate  with the
 incremental  emission benefits  provided.  These credits can be used

                                  or  can be  sold  to
buvs                ** ^ene5ated' for example, when a fleet owner
buys CFFVs earlier than required, buys more CFFVs than required in
?h?r?£ YTe™'  °r ^UyS  CFFVS  Which meet  tighter emission ^andards
E^is eatlf?^iremenirS'. In SUpP°rt °f these credit Provisions?
d«£in«rf  *«^5  ot»9 ®misaxo.n  standards for two CFFV categories
defined in  the CAA, in  addition to the  basic LEVs:    Ultra  Low-
Emission Vehicles  (ULEVs)  and  Zero-Emission Vehicles  (ZEVs)    The
SKS^^Vf gen«5ate and  sel1  credits  is expected  to provide a
market-based incentive for earlier CFFV purchases and for purchases
of alternative-fuel vehicles,  without decreasing the  overall  air
quality benefits of the fleet  program.                 overaij.  air

     While the CAA provides the overall program framework described
above,  the  Clean  Fuel  Fleet  Program  is  to be   established,
administered,  and enforced by  the  individual  states which contain
the affected areas.  Each  state is to incorporate its plans for the
program in its State Implementation Plan  (SIP)  and to  submit  this

-------

-------
 SIP  revision to EPA for approval by May, 1994.  Alternatively, a
 state  may choose to opt out of the fleet program by  substituting
 other  measures  for  achieving comparable  air quality improvements.

     EPA's  general  role in. the fleet  program is  to establish
 emission  standards  for the  various   CFFV   categories  and  to
 promulgate guidelines and regulations further defining the credit,
 vehicle conversion, and TCM exemption provisions which states must
 incorporate  in  their programs.   In addition to providing guidance
 for  the  state-implemented  provisions,   however,  EPA has  also
 established  a  program  under  federal  administration which  is
 expected  to  encourage  voluntary purchases  of  Inherently  Low-
 Emission Vehicles (ILEVs) for fleet use.   By definition, ILEVs are
 vehicles  which  have extremely  low "evaporative emissions (if any)
 and  which emit  significantly  less oxides  of  nitrogen  (NOx)  as
 compared  with other  CFVs.   Under  this  federal program,  ILEVs
 bought by covered fleets will be exempt from transportation control
 ordinances which restrict the use  of specific traffic  lanes to
 high-occupancy  vehicles  (HOVs).   EPA  believes  that  offering
 exemptions  from  HOV  lane  restrictions  in   order   to  motivate
 voluntary ILEV  purchases will help to further  the goals  of the
 Clean Fuel Fleet Program.

 Organization of the Recrulatorv Support Document

     The remainder, of this document  analyzes the expected economic
 and environmental impacts of  the Clean Fuel Fleet Program.  Chapter
 1 presents an overview of the fleet industry and provides estimates
 of the number of fleets and  vehicles  potentially affected by the
program.  Chapters  2  and 3  analyze"the program7s potential costs
 and  environmental/energy benefits  and  Chapter 4 discusses  the
 overall cost  effectiveness of the program. Finally, conclusions of
the analysis are presented in Chapter 5.

-------

-------
                            Chapter 1
                       Industry Overview
 1.1   Introduction
      The industry affected by this regulation is composed of owners
 and  operators of  vehicle fleets.   Unlike most  other regulated
 industries, this industry is very diverse,  with the members linked
 only  by the fact  that  they own and  operate  fleets  of vehicles.
 They  do not necessarily make the same  product,  perform the same
 services, or even own or operate the same types of vehicles.  Fleet
 owners  and  operators range in size both in terms of revenue and
 number  of  fleet  vehicles,  and  there   is  not  necessarily  a
 correlation between  the  size  of a company and the  size  of its
 fleet.

      To provide a foundation for calculating the expected economic
 and  environmental impacts  of  the  fleet  program,   this  chapter
 presents  estimates of  the  number of fleet  vehicles  which will
 potentially participate in the program.  These population estimates
 are based on  an  EPA  analysis entitled "Estimated Number of Fleet
 Vehicles Affected by the Clean Fuel Fleet Program1".   This analysis
 is available in the public docket and is summarized below.

 1.2  Projected Number of Aff»ct*d Fleet V«hicl««

     To  account  for  changed circumstances  and  newly available
 information, EPA has  revised the fleet vehicle population estimates
 provided  in the original analysis cited  above.   The revisions
 reflect a change  in the nonattainment areas  covered by the program,
 and incorporate more accurate growth rates and updated population
 data and fuel  use data.  A brief summary of  the analysis, including
 revisions,  is presented below.   Limitations of  the  analysis are
 discussed in the final section of this chapter.

     1.2.1  Approach

     Estimates of fleet vehicle population are presented separately
 for LDVs, LDTs,  and  HDVs, with HDVs  further  divided between the
 light and medium subclasses  (HDVs in the  heavy  subclass are not
 included in the program). Within these vehicle classes, estimates
 are provided for  business and utility, state and local government,
 and federal government fleet vehicles.  Business and utility fleets
 include  leased,  managed,  and company-owned  vehicles.   Federal
     Hj.S,.   Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Office  of  Mobile
Sources, "Estimated Number of Fleet Vehicles Affected by the Clean
Fuel Fleet Program," Memorandum from Sheri Dunatchik to Docket A-
91-25, June 11, 1991.

-------

-------
 fleets are comprised of civilian, postal service, and Department of
 Defense vehicles.

      The  approach  used in  estimating the number of CFFVs required
 under the program  was the same for each vehicle class  (LDV, LOT,
 HDV) .  First, through sources  described in the  original analysis,
 the  total number of vehicles operating nationwide in fleets of 10
 or  more  was  derived  for  each  vehicle  class.   To  project  the
 proportion of these  vehicles  which operate in the covered areas,
 the  area  fuel  fraction, i.e.,  the amount of fuel consumed in the
 affected  areas  as  a  fraction  of the total U.S. fuel consumption,
 was  applied to the  nationwide data.   At the  time  the original
 analysis  was conducted, 21 areas having a total  area  fuel fraction
 of .2945  were covered by the program.  Since that time, the areas
 have been redefined,  increasing the number of affected areas from
 21 to 22.  However,  the  total fuel fraction  for  these 22 areas
 actually  decreased from .2945 to  .2904.   This occurred because,
 rather than adding more total  area/  some existing nonattainment
 areas were divided and reclassified.  Furthermore, gasoline usage
 in some of the  covered areas  appears to have decreased2.   The 22
 affected  areas and their respective area fuel fractions is shown in
 Table 1-1.

     The  CAA directs that  only fleet vehicles centrally fueled or
 capable of being centrally fueled be required to comply with the
 fleet program.  To estimate the number  of  fleets in this category,
 EPA made use of  a survey of business car and truck practices, which
 provided  data  on  the  percent  of  respondents purchasing  fuel in
 bulk3.  For the LDV/LDT  analysis,  an  assumption was  made that
 respondents purchasing fuel in bulk also provide central fueling
 facilities  and  that  their vehicles  would use  the  facilities as
 their primary source of fuel.   Using these percentages as central
 fueling percentages and applying them  to  the total fleet vehicle
 estimates  for  the 22 covered areas  yielded estimates  of fleet
 vehicles  which  are   centrally fueled  at their  operating  base
 location.    However,   lack of  information  prevented  EPA  from
 including vehicles which may  be  centrally fueled at  a location
 other than their garage site, such  as a contract fueling point, and
 those which are not centrally  fueled but may be  capable of central
 fueling.     Thus,  projections  of  the  number  of affected fleet
vehicles  may be  underestimated.   Similar  information was  not
 available  for heavy-duty vehicles; therefore,  EPA estimated they
would have a reasonably high  central  fueling  rate  (80 percent)
     2U.S.    Department   of   Transportation,   Federal   Highway
Administration Highway Statistics,  1990, Washington  D.C.:   U.S.
Government Printing Office, September 1990.

     3Runzheimer  International, Survey and Analysis of  Business Car
Policies  &  Costs  1989-1990.  Northbrook,  Illinois:   Runzheimer
International Ltd., 1989.

-------

-------
 considering the  size  and operating  nature of  vehicles  in this
 class.

      Once  the number of centrally fueled vehicles covered by the
 program was estimated,  the number of  clean-fuel  vehicles required
 to be purchased for  the fleet program could be estimated.  First,
 the  total  number of vehicles operating  in  covered fleets in the
 years 1998-2010  was estimated by  applying yearly  growth rates
 (taken  from EPA's MOBILE4 fuel consumption model) to  the projected
 number  of  centrally fueled  vehicles in  fleets  of 10  or more
 operating  in  the 22  covered areas.   The number  of these vehicles
 expected  to  be  newly  registered  was  determined  so that  the
 potential  number of  new CFFVs could be estimated.  The number of
 new  vehicles  registered each  year  includes new vehicles  due to
 fleet growth  and new vehicles due  to replacement.   The original
 analysis specified percentages  of vehicles  expected to leave the
 fleet (those being replaced) and enter the  fleet (the replacement
 plus  growth), depending on the vehicle class and type.  In actual
 fleet practices,  however,  vehicle replacement and acquisition do
 not  necessarily happen  on  a rigid  yearly  schedule.   Thus,  the
 revised projections  of new  fleet  vehicles  have been based on
 monthly growth and  replacement  rates,  decreasing the  margin of
 error in the  projections.   Finally,  from-the estimates of newly
 registered  fleet vehicles,  the total number expected  to  be new
 CFFVs purchased in each year was  determined by applying the CFFV
 phase-in rate required by the CAA for that year.

      In addition to determining the  number of vehicles affected by
 the program,  EPA's  analysis included, estimates  of the amount of
 conventional fuel which would be  displaced  in 1998-2010 assuming
 that all covered fleet vehicles would operate on clean fuels rather
 than  using  conventional gasoline  or diesel  fuels and meeting the
 CFFV standards through advancements  in technology4.  Average annual
mileage estimates and average fuel economy estimates  of each fleet
type  (i.e., business, utility, government) and vehicle class  (taken
 from  a variety  of sources  specific  to each  vehicle class/type as
 specified  in  the original  analysis)  were  applied to  the total
number of  CFFVs estimated  to be in use  each  year to project the
potential number of  gallons of conventional  fuel  which could be
displaced each  year  as  a result of the Clean Fuel  Fleet Program5.
 The results of  these analyses  are provided  below for each of the
three vehicle classes.
     4In this  analysis,  reformulated gasoline, alcohol fuels  (such
as methanol),  compressed natural gas,  liquified petroleum gas, and
electricity are  considered  "clean  fuels".    "Alternative  fuels"
include all of these except for reformulated gasoline.

     Conventional fuel displacement  resulting from  fleet  use of
alternative fuels only  (i.e., clean fuels other than reformulated
gasoline) is discussed in Chapter 3.

-------

-------
     1.2.2  K«timat«» of Cl«an-Fuel Fl««t V«hicle«

          1.. 2. 2.1   Light-Duty  Vehicle/Light-Duty   Truck   Fleet
         V""      -   " Projections        ,

          Tables 1-2  and 1-3 provide estimates of  the  number of
LDV/LDT fleet vehicles  expected to be clean  fueled in  the years
1998-2010.       Projections   are   provided   separately   for
business/utility,  state  and  local  government,   and  federal
government vehicles.   Also presented in the tables  are estimates of
the amount of conventional fuel displaced in each year due to use
of clean fuels by fleet vehicles.

          In  each  table,   the  number  of covered vehicles  is
presented in the column entitled "Total Vehicles".  Of these, the
number  expected to  be  newly  registered is  listed in  the "New
Vehicles" column.  "New CFFVs" represents the number of new vehicle
registrations which are required to be clean-fuel  vehicles  in that
year,  determined by  applying the phase- in  rate to new vehicle
registrations.   "In-Use  CFFVs"  is  the total number of fleet CFVs
projected  to be  operating in  each  year.   This  includes newly
purchased  fleet CFVs as well as a portion of those purchased in
previous years,  based on a weighted  average of replacement rates
estimated  for each fleet type  and vehicle class to account for
fleet  turnover.  The final column of each  table represents the
amount  of  conventional  fuel (millions of gallons) which would be
displaced in each year by the fleet CFV  in-use population,  if all
such CFFVs were operating on and meeting standards through clean
fuels  rather than  operating on  conventional fuels  and  meeting
standards through technology advancements.

          For business/utility fleet vehicles, the number of clean-
fuel  LDVs  and  LDTs  projected  to   be   operating  in   1998  are
approximately 47,000  and 22, 000 respectively.  This will increase
to 240,000  LDVs and 114,000 LDTs by the year 2000.  In the year
2010,  EPA anticipates  nearly  392,000 private LDVS and  331,000
private LDTa could-" potentially be operating on clean fuels.
               regard, to state and local government fleets,  in the
years^ "1998,  200CT,  and  2010,  approximately 9,000,  48,000,  and
128,000- LDVa;^ respectively,  are anticipated to  be operating on
clean fuels;;  For LOTS ,  approximately 3,000,  15,000, and  82,000
vehicles will be operating on clean fuels in 1998, 2000,  and 2010.
For federal government LDVs and LDTs, approximately 2, 000 LDVs and
3, 000 LDTs will be clean-fuel  fleet vehicles in 1998.   This is
expected to rise to nearly 10,000 LDVs and 14,000 LDTs in the year
2000,  and increase to 26,000 LDVs  and 78,000  LDTs by 2010.  The
projections  only  include those vehicles required to be  purchased
under the fleet program,  and do not  include  vehicles  which the
federal government is purchasing under recent executive  orders.

           As  a result of replacing conventional fleet vehicles with

-------

-------
 CFFVs,  an estimated  44 million gallons  of conventional fuel  is
 expected to  be displaced  from  clean-fuel LDVs  in 1998.    The
 majority (84 percent) of fuel displacement would result from use of
 clean fuels by privately owned fleet  vehicles.   In the  years  2000
 and 2010,  conventional fuel  displacement  from LDVs would increase
 to   227   and   410   million   gallons,   respectively*     For  LDTs,
 conventional  fuel  displacement would be  an estimated  22 million
 gallons  in 1998, increasing  to 124  and 419  million gallons  in the
 years 2000  and 2010,  respectively.   Again,  the  majority   (86
 percent)  of fuel displacement would result from use of clean fuels
 by  privately  owned LDTs.        ..  '

      Fleet vehicle population and fuel displacement projections for
 light-duty vehicles and trucks combined is shown in Table 1-4.   EPA
 anticipates there will  be nearly  86,000 new light-duty  clean-fuel
 vehicles and trucks at the start of the program in 1998,  displacing
 approximately  66 million gallons of  conventional fuel.  In the  year
 2000, a total of about 441,000 fleet LDVs/LDTs will be operating on
 clean fuels,  including approximately 209,000  new CFFVs  acquired
 that year. These vehicles could displace about 351 million gallons
 of  conventional fuel.    By  2010,  over 263,000  newly-registered
 light-duty clean-fuel vehicles and  trucks will contribute to  over
 one million light-duty  CFFVs  in operation?-  potentially  displacing
 approximately  829 million gallons of  conventional fuel.

          1.2.2.2  Heavy-Duty Vehicle Fleet Projections

          The  fleet  program  covers  only  the  light and  medium
 subclasses of heavy-duty vehicles  (LHDVs and MHDVs).   LHDVs  are
 generally  defined  as vehicles  in classes lib  through V weighing
 8,500-19,500  Ibs.  GVWR.   Most of these vehicles  are 8,500-12,000
 Ibs.  GVWR.    MHDVs are  generally defined  as  class  VI vehicles
weighing 19,500-26,000  Ibs. GVWR.

          Fleet   vehicle  population  projections    and    fuel
displacement  estimates  are  presented  in  Table  1-5 forH LHDVs  and
Table 1-6  for MHDVs.   For privately-owned  fleets, EPA estimates
nearly 7rOOO LHDVa will, be CFFVs when the prograift takes effect In
1998.  By the/yearai-  200Q and 2010,  the  number  of private fleet
LHDVs operatingonclean fuels will have increased to 21,000  and
54,000,  resp«Gtivelyv -   For   state  and local  government fleets,
approximate^ 1,400, 4/200, and 11,000  LHDVs will be clean  fueled
in  1998,  20:00, and 2010, respectively.   The number  of federal
government fleet CEVs will be approximately  250,  750, and 1,900  in
each of those  years.

       .   EPA  anticipates  there  will  be  approximately  9,000
privately-owned clean-fuel fleet MHDVs in 1998, 27,000 in the  year
2000, and 49,000 in 2010.  Among state and local, government fleets,
approximately  1,800 MHDVs will be  clean fueled in 1998.    This
number is expected to rise to over 5,000 vehicles  in the year  2000
and nearly 10,000 in 2010. The data suggest  only about 300 federal

               ':    -'    -  -''     8      .      .  •      '•'.   :. .    •  .

-------

-------
^••;i^-;i3|
government: fleet MHDVs will be clean  fueled in. 1998, potentially
rising to ««arly;-95(l-in the-year 2000  and., reaching about  1,700 in
2010.  ~How federal participation in the fleet  program will
likely increase-'duetto purchase-Requirements of recent executive
orders".    -^      _  ~_-     -  ~  ~ " - *  ~  ~~  -_     "*         '•-•/  '-'
         -s~?,^~'^f-'^r-'''?^~.'.^^!£^^'£^                  "V^-^'^-^Y^v^^"?*^            " "''  '",-- i-~'-••', . "' "*• '" -"
         jj*i&j$^tt^                                    operation ;:in
         -''-''''---•^'-'ix&£*l^£$-;:mill^p;u|.aition  and  fuel
                            For'""-'. examplia^^"conventional •.' fuel
                                                   CFFV emission -
                                                            clean
                                                           A ; -more
                                     is

-------

-------
                                                                                 .

                                ^
                                             --'   '-"      ••  *'•-" - •--"----.- •- -~-—-'
                                  '^?£iii^?£^^
•"•-••v^£ire£!^^:3^eii?^                          ~j**yv,j. v«s-at ^fiey; ^nav-et^rawer
•^ i^3*|^pP»^^Sl«^^:^l^^4as^;ttpys>: - -135*3, '^a^aS^SfS^iM-au^
-"1^:;:':->s:*ai«eti^H1a^tessax(Siiidedb:-j;'t^enA:*htt-.: ^«^i^v.arf:''-^t^^fc^v-i^ii-i^^;iJ:-^"aS:^:&^i::;--.-;.-. ••-
                                                      9;;rco^?-da:i"$EEpr^Bpfe.	

                                        iicfe,!4n ;:^he"f -ciafei;;^ E^luii^:;Sb£^^h^ae
                                          ....       	fie«t    '  		

                                 fe«p^
                                 '"'     *-~-  --          s "  ' - :- •• "~ " ~ " ""• "• -"-'"i"-- «-«•'•.*- -'  • -  ---
 -,^-,-:i^^™«Sajw^xp>v,^^^|^o:^

 -• f -^- -••»«a^^fe---*-K^--i^*^«^-^*S^^.-:.;^


                                      _  „,   -:S"^--:^^<^^i?^ay^Si^

                                    fe^^^—R*^*.*. •'••pvaK^^^-^^'c^^f^^^^^^r^-'-. ••: \s

                                                  -- " J' *a«Ai!w"S&i^t^                    r- '-"*
                                                                                             ."..J!
                                                Ker^^

                                                     v''
                                                                      Sajg|ii^:^|Qt^ii^.'^;:v.;;^^
                                                         :
v Vff^rfffi?* 6JtefebmofeS;»^ Meefe-i^io^sfe-'ici&fe::'" R^oii^a^^^-^^^^^T^^

•••  '-"v-^j^^SS^^^^SS^S                  .^*APlili^^l^^r-iv---^^


 •.V•; ••^-::?5VTaC^1^9^-;^^^^6^4^fc,-rv--.--.-.:-:--,^~.>''.--T•"'•%::•.*«.•-. .

-------

-------
representative  of  fleet  central  fueling  statistics  (contract
fueling arrangements not included), (3) the lack of available data
regjarding centralfueling percentages and replacement rates used in
HBV rfleet pW-jegtions,,  (4) the 'unavailability of data  on'vehicles
which ritay be capable of central  fueling,  and (5)  the neglect of
potential improvements in corporate average fuel economy ovet time.

     The fleet  vehicle population projections  presented in this
chapter, combined with cost estimates related to clean-fuel vehicle
purchase and operation, yield estimates of the costs of the  fleet
program.  These vehicle-related costs  and potential program  costs
are presented in the next  chapter.
                                11

-------

-------
 2.1  Introduction
                            Chapter 2
                          Program  Costs
 *-ho ^    J  ? *? XJ is not possible to project with certainty how
 the clean-fuel fleet vehicle market will develop.  Fleet operators
 will  have many  factors  to  consider  in  making their  purchase
 decision?.  For some fuels, fleet operators may be limited by tnJ
               cognations  that original  equi/ment  manufacturers
                °         tO ** clean-fuel f^et vehicle emission
             Tn
™   K  %      addition,   aftermarket  conversion  kits will" be
              S0n  vehclefu*l c
                                                                 e
 w    ™H <-         veh.icle/fu*l combinations, and fleet operators
 will need to consider the relative cost and operating attributes of
 such conversions compared to new OEM vehicles.  Fuel availability
 S?J?£a* Wil1 
-------
I

-------
 electric vehicles, maintenance costs are projected to be half those
 of  a conventional vehicle  and are  reflected  in the  acquisition
 costs  rather  than  in operating  costs  so as  to  simplify  the
 calculations,  making only fuel costs  necessary to be  considered
 when calculating operating costs.   Acquisition  and  operating costs
 were not  readily available  for LDTs.   However, because in many
 cases their engine/fuel system design and operation are similar to
 LDVs, the incremental acquisition and operating costs estimated for
 LDVs are also  applied to LDTs  in this  analysis.  Estimates  of the
 incremental acquisition  and operating  costs of LDVs and LDTs are
 provided below.


     2.2.1  Light-Duty Vehicle and Light-Duty Truck Incremental
            Acquisition Costs

     A  summary of the incremental  acquisition  costs  of CFVs is
 provided  below  for  vehicles  fueled   by  alcohol,  electricity,
 liquified petroleum  gas  (LPG), and reformulated gasoline.  Costs
 for vehicles fueled by these alternative fuels  were taken from EPA
 Special Reports, the Regulatory Impact Analysis for Reformulated
 Gasoline,  Department  of Energy  Studies,  and  a  California  Air
 Resources Board  (CARB) Staff Report.

     Alcohol-Fuel Vehicles.  Some aspects of dedicated alcohol-fuel
 vehicles lead  to an  increase  in vehicle  costs over conventional
 vehicle costs, while  other aspects result in a cost  savings.  For
 example, reductions  in emission controls, engine cooling system,
 and  engine  size will  result  in cost  savings,  while fuel  system
modifications  will  increase  the  cost.   Considering  both cost
 savings and increases, no overall cost difference between dedicated
 alcohol vehicles and  conventional gasoline vehicles  are expected.
 On the other hand,  flexible fuel  vehicles  (FFVs) require all the
modifications  for  a methanol  engine,  without  achieving the cost
benefits associated  with  an optimized  dedicated methanol engine.
EPA has estimated that FFVs could probably  achieve  a differential
 cost of $300  in commercial production.9  Since  FFVs rather than
dedicated  alcohol  vehicles  are likely to be  produced  in high
volumes by the start of the  fleet program, the  FFV  cost of $300 is
used as the incremental acquisition  cost of alcohol-fuel vehicles
 in this analysis as in the proposed RIA, even though some dedicated
 alcohol-fuel vehicles  are likely.

     CNG and LPG Vehicles.   EPA expects that conventional gasoline
vehicles converted to operate on gaseous fuels  (i.e., CNG and LPG)
 and OEM vehicles dedicated to gaseous fuel use will both be  likely
 options available to fleet purchasers when the program begins.  For
     9"Analysis  of  the  Economic  and  Environmental Effects  of
Methanol as  an Automotive  Fuel,  Office of  Mobile  Sources,  EPA,
September 1989.

                                13

-------

-------
       '                                                          in

  uses cost estimates provded in ?he CNG lLS?i Cp°StS ^°d theref ore
and Light Truofcs," Office of Mobile Scute**, E^V Apri^O.



                                14

-------

-------
 reported in the proposed RIA and above,  but ICF Inc. also reported
 that the CNG fuel price savings to be on average $0.28 compared to
 a  gasoline equivalent price  of  $1.18 per gallon.   The CNG fuel
 price  projected, by ICF Inc.  is  approximately  equal  to  $1.03 per
 gallon CNG equivalent compared to the $1.31 per  gallon conventional
 gasoline  price used  in the  proposed RIA and  later in today's
 analysis.  Furthermore, this  $1.03 per gallon  fuel price is $.06
 less than the $1.09 per gallon projected fuel price used  for CNG in
 the proposed RIA and later in today's analysis.   Thus, in summary,
 compared to the CNG costs provided in the  proposed RIA and above,
 this ICF Inc.  data demonstrates  an increase in CNG vehicle price
 and a decrease in CNG fuel price. Substituting  these ICF Inc. cost
 numbers  into the  cost effectiveness  analysis  of CFFV LDV/LDTs
 results  in a  5  percent more cost effective  program than would
 result with the proposed cost  numbers.  However, at this  time it is
 not possible  to accurately project how the  CNG vehicle and fuel
 market will develop by the year 2000,  and thus,  EPA concludes that
 after  examining the  sensitivity  of the proposed CNG vehicle cost
 projection to  the  other reasonable estimates of future CNG cost,
 the impact on cost effectiveness is not major.   Thus, EPA will use
 the proposed and above CNG cost projections in today's final RIA.

     Electric Vehicles.  One  of the biggest obstacles to electric
 vehicle  (EV)  involvement  in the fleet  program is  the  price
 differential between EVs and equivalent gasoline vehicles.  Current
 electric vehicles are very costly,  primarily due to the cost of the
 battery.   Current  technology  uses a nickel-iron  (Ni-Fe) battery.
 According to the  Interagency  Commission on Alternative  Fuels,  an
 electric passenger car  is expected to  cost   $750  less than  a
 conventional  vehicle,  but  the batteries  are  projected to  cost
 $6,240, for a net vehicle price increase of $5,490. This cost will
 likely decrease once these vehicles are under mass production, but
 the mass production  cost  is  impossible to predict at  this time.
 Maintenance  costs  for  EVs have  been projected to  be  about  50
 percent of those for conventional vehicles.  Discounted to the time
 of purchase,  this cost savings over the life of the vehicle, as in
 the proposed RIA,  yields  a total incremental acquisition cost of
 $3,300.  It should be  noted that a number of entities  across the
 nation  and around the world are  now engaged in research  and
 development  of  battery  technology  and  other  means  to  store
 electrical energy.   One  option  presently  being considered  to
 address the issue of limited  driving range is the hybrid electric
vehicle.  Breakthroughs in such  areas could substantially reduce
 the  price  of  EVs  and increase  their  range  making  them  more
 attractive for fleet use.

   -  As with  CNG  vehicles, EPA  examined  the  sensitivity  of the
 electric vehicle incremental  acquisition cost above.   Data from a
 Sobotka and Company,  Inc.  report  entitled  "Zero Emission Vehicles:
A Review of Emissions,  Costs, and Cost-Effectiveness of Emission
 Reductions,"  and prepared for EPA under contract number 68-W9-0077
 (September 30,  1992),  showed the  incremental acquistion cost (cost

                                15

-------

-------
 increase over life of vehicle) of an electric vehicle to be $7,300
 as compared to a conventional gasoline vehicle.  In addition,  data
 from a recent Transportation Technologies draft report prepared for
 the U.S.  Department of  Energy  entitled  "The  Potential Cost  to
 Purchase and Use  an Electric Vehicle"  (March 10,  1994)  showed the
 incremental acquisition  cost  to be $14,300.   These  incremental
 acquisition costs  are  from $4,000 to  $11,000  higher than those
 costs provided in the proposed RIA and  above,  and thus, these
 higher costs would in turn create a less  cost  effective program
 However,  in  the  proposed  RIA and  above,  EPA estimated that 5
 percent  of  all CFFVs would be  ZEVs,  and  EPA  now believes  this
 projection is possibly overly conservative since it is  unlikely
 that ZEVs will be over 2 percent of the CFFV population.  Thus,  even
 though electric vehicles will most likely cost more than originally
 projected in the  proposed RIA and above, this  higher  incremental
 acquisition cost  is offset by  the conservative ZEV population
 projections reported in the proposed RIA and today.  Moreover,  at
 this time it is not possible to accurately project how the electric
 vehicle  market will develop  by the  year  2000, and  thus,   EPA
 concludes  that after  examining  the sensitivity  of the  proposed
 electric vehicle cost projection to the other reasonable  estimates
 of future electric vehicle costs, the impact on  cost effectiveness
 is not major.   Thus,  EPA  will use  the-electric  vehicle  cost
 projections that  were in the proposed  RIA and above for today's
 final  RIA.

     Reformulated  Gasoline-Fueled Vehiclea.   Finally, with regard
 to vehicles fueled with reformulated gasoline, EPA anticipates  that
 conventional vehicles operating on this fuel, perhaps with the use
 of an electrically heated  catalyst,   will  meet  the clean-fuel
 vehicle emission requirements of  the  fleet program.  If this is the
 case,  the  only additional cost would be that of an electrically
 heated catalyst.   In a Staff Report11 on proposed regulations  for
 low-emission vehicles and clean fuels,  the California Air Resource
 Board  has  estimated   that  gasoline-powered   vehicles  using
 electrically heated catalysts will have the ability  to meet  LEV
 standards.    Their  estimated cost  of  an  electrically  heated
 catalyst,  $170,  is used  as the  incremental  acquisition cost of
 reformulated gasoline vehicles in this analysis.

     EPA  has examined  the  sensitivity of  the  above incremental
 acquisition cost of reformulated gasoline vehicles.  Since the time
 of  the proposed RIA,  data was reported  in  an article in the May
 1994  issue  of Sierra Research's  CVS News  entitled,  "GARB Staff
 Recommends No Changes to LEV Program", that indicated that CARS has
 estimated incremental acquisition cost  of LEVs to  now be  $114.  As
 in the previous Staff Report,  the  cost of an electrically heated
     X13tate   of  California   Air  Resources   Board,   "Proposed
Regulations  for Low-Emission  Vehicles  and  Clean  Fuels,"  Staff
Report, August 13, 1990.

                                16

-------

-------
catalyst  is   used  as  the  incremental   acquisition   cost   of
reformulated gasoline  vehicles  in this  new CARS Staff  Report.
However, at this time EPA believes it is not  possible to accurately
project how the.reformulated gasoline vehicle market will develop
by the year 2000, and thus,  EPA concludes that after examining the
sensitivity of the  proposed  reformulated gasoline vehicle  cost
projection to the other reasonable estimate  of future reformulated
gasoline vehicle cost, the impact  on cost effectiveness  is  not
major.  Thus,  EPA will use the reformulated gasoline vehicle cost
projection that was in  the proposed RIA and above  for today's final
RIA.

     In sum, EPA estimates  an  incremental acquisition cost of $300
for alcohol-fuel vehicles, $2,000 for gaseous-fuel vehicles, $3,300
for  electric   vehicles,   and $170   for  vehicles   fueled  with
reformulated  gasoline   (see  Table  2-1).   Except  for  electric
vehicles,  these  costs assume  that  the  vehicles  are  in  mass
production when the program begins.  This is realistic given that
the State of California LEV program and  California  Pilot Program
are expected  to force  clean-fuel  technology  ahead of  the fleet
program.  Thus, start-up costs such as certification costs can be
expected to be recovered in  the  years between  the start  of the
pilot program and the start of the fleet-program.


     2.2.2  Light-Duty Vehicle and Light-Duty Truck Incremental
            Operating Costs

     As  previously mentioned,   EPA  estimates no   additional
maintenance costs for clean-fuel vehicles above their conventional
counterparts.   For electric vehicles,  a  reduction in maintenance
costs  was  incorporated into the  incremental acquisition cost.
Thus,  the only  factor  considered  here for operating costs is the
annual fuel cost.

     Below, EPA projects future  fuel costs for  alternative fuels
and presents them in terms of a  gasoline  equivalent  pump price.
Prices used in the  analysis were based on estimates of the retail
cost of the fuel in the year  2000.  The gasoline equivalent "pump
prices" for alcohol  fuel, CNG, electricity, LPG, and reformulated
gasoline are discussed below  and summarized in Table 2-2.

     Consistent with the expectation that FFVs will likely be the
most available  option  to fleet  owners when the program begins,  a
projection of the  retail price of M85 in the year 2000 is used in
this analysis  to represent  the  cost of alcohol  fuels.   As in the
proposed RIA,  with foreign natural  gas as the feedstock, the M85
pump price is estimated at  $1.12 per gallon  (gasoline equivalent).
Producing  methanol  using  a  foreign  natural  gas  feedstock and
shipping the methanol  to the  U.S.  is expected to be cheaper than
producing methanol in  the  U.S.  using domestic natural gas as the
feedstock.  It is also anticipated to be  an attractive approach to

                                17

-------

-------
 producing methanol on a large scale for motor vehicle use.

      In the  case of  CNG,  EPA expects  the opposite  scenario  to
 occur, i.e.,  that domestic natural gas is more likely to be used as
 a feedstock rather than foreign natural gas.   A foreign feedstock
 would potentially be more costly because the gas would have to  be
 liquified before being shipped to the U.S. and then converted back
 to a^ gaseous  state.   As in  the  proposed RIA, EPA estimates CNG
 could  be  produced  from  domestic  natural  gas  at  a  gasoline-
 equivalent price of $1.33 per gallon for a dual-fuel  vehicle and
 $1.09 per gallon  for  a dedicated vehicle in the year 2000.  The
 difference between the two pump price estimates is a result of the
 expected  efficiencies of the vehicle  types.   Expecting  that,
 whether by  OEM or  conversion,  gaseous-fuel  vehicles will  more
 likely be designed for dedicated rather than dual-fuel use, the
 dedicated-fuel price of $1.09 is used in this analysis.  Similarly,
 as in the  proposed RIA, the  equivalent  gasoline  pump  price of LPG
 is estimated at $0.73  per gallon for FFVs and $0.62 per gallon for
 dedicated  vehicles, and the dedicated fuel cost of $0.62 is used  in
 this  analysis.12

      As discussed above  in  the  incremental  acquisition  cost
 section, EPA has examined the sensitivity of- the proposed and above
 CNG acquisition  and  operating  costs  projections.   In summary,
 compared to the CNG costs provided in the proposed RIA and above,
 ICF Inc. data demonstrates an increase  in CNG vehicle  price and a
 decrease in  CNG fuel  price. Substituting  these ICF Inc.  cost
 numbers into  the  cost  effectiveness  analysis  of CFFV LDV/LDTs
 results in a  5 percent more cost effective  program than  would
 result  with the  proposed cost  numbers.    However,  as discussed
 earlier,  it is  not  possible  to  accurately project  how  the CNG
 vehicle and  fuel market will develop by the year 2000, and thus,
 EPA concludes that after examining the sensitivity of  the proposed
 CNG cost projections  to the  other reasonable estimates of  future
 CNG costs, the impact  on cost effectiveness is not major.   Thus,
 EPA will use  the proposed and above CNG  fuel cost projections  in
 today's  final RIA.

     Also, EPA examined the sensitivity of the LPG fuel cost  above.
 In  a  recent  ICF Inc.  draft  report  entitled "Life-Cycle Costs  of
 Gaseous  Fuel Fleet Vehicles"  that was prepared for EPA (March 31,
 1994),  data showed  the LPG fuel  price to  be  equivalent  to   a
 gasoline "pump price" of $1.18 per gallon (average  gasoline prices
 averaged across.all grades),  and this price would be approximately
 equal to a $1.31 per gallon LPG equivalent as compared  to the $1.31
per gallon conventional gasoline  price  that was projected in the
     12r
      U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration,
"Annual Energy Outlook  1990  — Long Term Projections",  January,
1990, DOE/EIA-0383(90).  LPG fuel  price projections are based on
this study.
                                18

-------
I

-------
proposed RIA and today's analysis.  Thus,  compared to the LPG fuel
costs provided in the proposed RIA and above ($0.62), this ICF Inc.
data, demonstrates  a  substantial  increase  in  LPG  fuel  price.
Substituting  these  ICF Inc.  fuel  cost  numbers  into the  cost
effectiveness  analysis of CFFV  LDV/LDTs  results  in  a less cost
effective program than would result with the proposed cost numbers.
However, in the  proposed RIA and today's analysis, EPA projected
the LPG population to be from 5 to 10 percent of all CFFVs,  and EPA
now believes this population level is possibly  overly  conservative
and unlikely to occur.  Thus,  the increased LPG fuel price would be
offset by this conservative number of LPG  vehicles  projected to be
in the fleet program.  Moreover, at this time it is not possible to
accurately project how the  LPG fuel market will develop by the year
2000, and thus, EPA concludes that after examining  the sensitivity
of the proposed  LPG fuel cost projection to the other reasonable
estimate  of  future  LPG  fuel  cost,  the   impact  on the  cost.
effectiveness  is  not major.   Thus,  EPA will  use  those  LPG cost
numbers  that  were  reported  in  the proposed  RIA  and above  for
today's analysis.

     As in the proposed RIA,  the estimated "pump price" gasoline
equivalent  of electricity  produced from  conventional resources
(coal, gas) is $1.12 per gallon in the year 2000 according to the
Interagency Commission on Alternative  Fuels,   and the estimated
retail price of  reformulated gasoline  in  the year 2000 is $1.36,
based on  a projected  cost  of $1.31 per  gallon for  conventional
gasoline13.   Estimates  of  this nature are  problematic given the
sensitivity of gasoline fuel prices to many  factors outside of the
refining process.


     In Table 2-2,  the estimated gasoline  equivalent "pump prices"
in the year 2000  for each of  the fuel types  are compared to the
estimated  price  of $1.31  for gasoline  in that  same year,  to
determine the incremental cost of each particular  fuel type.  All
fuels except  for reformulated gasoline represent  a cost  savings
when compared to the estimated price of conventional gasoline in
the year 2000.  Later in this chapter, these  incremental fuel costs
     "13The December  13,  1993 Final Regulatory Impact Analysis for
Reformulated Gasoline estimates the incremental cost of producing
reformulated gasoline over conventional gasoline to be five cents
per gallon.   Since market  forces drive the cost  charged at the
service station, it  is difficult to predict with any certainty what
portion of the  incremental  production  cost might be passed on to
the consumer.  Consequently, this  analysis uses the full five cents
as the  incremental  per-gallon cost  to the  consumer,,  making the
retail pump price of reformulated gasoline $1.36 per gallon.  It
could be less  depending  on the fuel formulation used and the degree
to which  RFG  is in widespread use throughout  the nonattainment
areas.

                               19

-------

-------
are combined with  in-use  fleet  vehicle population projections to
estimate  the  incremental operating  costs for  each  vehicle/fuel
combination.    The   assumptions   and  approach  used  in  these
calculations are discussed below.

     In  summary,  EPA  has  made  a  number  of  estimations  in
determining the  incremental acquisition  and operating  costs  of
clean alternative fuel vehicles. However,  as discussed above, EPA
has also examined the sensitivity of these incremental acquisition
and operating costs results to other reasonable estimates of future
acquisition and operating costs and  concluded that the impact on
the cost effectiveness is not major.

     2.2.3  Assumptions and Approach

     To estimate the potential costs of the fleet program related
to LDVs  and LDTs, EPA  has  developed  two  scenarios  representing
different assumptions about future fleet use of nonconventipnal
fuels.   These scenarios  are  not  in  any way meant to be absolute or
official predictions  of the future use of alternative-fuel vehicles
by fleet owners.   Rather, they  represent  hypothetical situations
developed only to provide a basis  for estimating potential total
costs of  the  fleet program, recognizing--that EPA cannot predict
with  certainty  what types  and  quantities  of  CFFVs  will  be
purchased.  A description of the  hypothetical  scenarios used in
this analysis follows below.

     Scenario I assumes  a situation in which OEMs will not offer a
wide   variety   of   nonpetroleum   fuel/vehicle   combinations.
Accordingly,  assuming that  conventional  vehicles operating  on
reformulated  gasoline will  be  able  to meet the CFFV  emission
standards (possibly in conjunction with improved gasoline-powered
vehicle emission controls), this scenario assumes three-quarters of
the  covered  fleet  vehicles would be  fueled  with  reformulated
gasoline.   The  gaseous  fuels,  CNG and  LPG, would be  expected to
achieve some market share because of the potential for aftermarket
conversions  and  competitive fuel  prices.   Alcohol fuels  and
electricity would probably get small  market shares as well, likely
concentrated in the  California  market and states which opt-in to
the California LEV program or have other fleet programs.

     Table .2-3  shows the  assumed vehicle/fuel  distribution for
Scenario I.   As shown,  75 percent of the  covered fleet vehicles
will be LEVs,  20 percent will be ULEVs,  and 5  percent  of the fleet
vehicles will meet ZEV  standards.   Further,  most of the LEVs are
assumed to be fueled by reformulated gasoline, with the remainder
being flexible-fueled alcohol-fuel vehicles.  A small fraction of
reformulated gasoline vehicles are  assumed to be  capable of meeting
ULEV standards, while all CNG and  LPG vehicles  are assumed to be
ULEVs.   All electric vehicles are considered  ZEVs.

     Scenario II assumes the emergence  of some driving force that

                                20

-------

-------
would  encourage  or  require  OEMs  to  offer  more  nonpetroleum
fuel/vehicle combinations.  Some examples might be higher world oil
prices,  higher corporate  average fuel  economy  (CAFE)  standards
 (increasing the-incentive  for CAFE "credits"), or national energy
legislation  requiring  that  certain  fleet  operators  purchase'
nonpetroleum-fuel  vehicles.    For  this  scenario,  reformulated
gasoline  vehicles  would  comprise  about  half   of  the  market.
Gaseous-fuel  vehicles would  be  expected  to achieve  a slightly
larger  market   share  under  this  scenario  because  of  their
competitive  fuel prices.    Alcohol-fuel  vehicles would have the
largest share of the nonpetroleum-fuel vehicle market, because OEMs
would  presumably offer  a  wider variety  of vehicle  types  with
alcohol fuel.   Electric vehicles would  have the smallest share,
because little  market penetration would  be expected beyond that
required by states such as California and those states opting into
the California program.

     Table 2-4 shows the assumed fleet vehicle/fuel types for this
second hypothetical  scenario.   As  shown  in the table,  only  60
percent of the  fleet  vehicles  are assumed to be LEVs,  35 percent
are assumed to  be ULEVs,  and 5  percent  are ZEVs.   Compared with
Scenario I, there is a 15 percent shift from LEVs to ULEVs.  This
is  a  result of the  assumed  increased  substitution  of gasoline
vehicles with vehicles operating on  generally cleaner alternative
fuels. As shown in the table, the majority of fleet -LEVs are again
assumed to be  fueled  with reformulated gasoline.  The percent of
vehicles assumed to be alcohol-fueled, among both LEVs and ULEVs,
is  increased under  this  scenario.    Half  of  the  alcohol-fuel
vehicles  are  now considered  capable of  meeting ULEV standards,
reflecting  the  assumption that  a  growing  incentive  for  these
vehicles would justify the addition of components  that would enable
more of these vehicles to  meet ULEV standards.  Again, all CNG and
LPG vehicles are assumed capable  of meeting ULEV standards, and all
electric vehicles are ZEVs.

     In the next section, the incremental acquisition and operating
costs under each of these vehicle/fuel scenarios are coupled with
CFFV estimates from Chapter 1 to project the potential total cost
of the light-duty portion of the  fleet program.

     2.2.4  Methodology and Results

     In order to  calculate the  cost  of the light-duty portion of
the fleet program related to  clean-fuel  vehicle acquisition, the
number of new fleet CFV purchases was  distributed  into vehicle/fuel
categories according to the percentages  described above for each
scenario and then multiplied by the incremental  acquisition cost of
each vehicle/fuel type.   Using  LEVs  as an example,  the number of
new  CFFVs projected  for  a  given  year  was  multiplied by  the
percentage of CFFVs assumed to be LEVs, under each scenario.  This
number was then weighted  among  the percent of LEVs assumed to be
operating  on  each fuel  type,  and multiplied by  the  applicable

                                21

-------

-------
incremental  acquisition  cost  of  each vehicle/fuel  type.   The
incremental acquisition costs weighted for each fuel type were then
summed to represent the total average incremental acquisition cost
of fleet light-duty LEVs.

     This  same  method  was  used  to  determine the  incremental
operating  costs  for each vehicle/fuel type  under  each scenario.
However, the  number of in-use CFFVs,  rather than  new CFFVs,  was
used to  determine annual fuel  costs.  In addition,  the average
annual fuel consumption of each vehicle class (i.e., LDV, LOT) was
also incorporated.  The average annual mileage for both LDVs and
LDTs was divided by the average miles per gallon for each class in
order to project annual per-vehicle fuel consumption of  an LDV and
LDT.   The average  annual mileage  figures  for light-duty fleet
vehicles and  trucks are 17,600,  and 15,700,  respectively.   These
figures  are  based on  information from the  March  1990  issue of
Automotive Fleet14 and  GSA' s  Federal Motor  Vehicle Fleet Report",
while information on average  miles per gallon was taken from an EPA
report titled, "Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy
Trends16."   To calculate  the operating costs  of  fleet  LEVs,  for
example, the number of in-use CFFVs projected for a given year was
first multiplied by the percent of CFFVs assumed to be LEVs under
each scenario.  The results were then multiplied by the annual per-
vehicle fuel consumption expected for that vehicle class  (LDV, LDT)
to yield the estimated fuel consumption (in gallons) of LEVs under
each scenario.  This figure was then weighted among the percent of
LEVs assumed to be operating on each  fuel type, and multiplied by
the applicable incremental fuel cost ($/gallon gasoline equivalent
pump price)  of each fuel type.   These weighted  costs  were then
summed to represent the total incremental operating cost of fleet
light-duty LEVs.

     Since at least 13 of the 22 covered areas  are expected to be
supplied with reformulated gasoline in place of all conventional
gasoline before the fleet program begins ,  no incremental fuel cost
     14Automotive   Fleet,   Redondo  Beach,   California:     Bobit
Publishing Co., Vol. 29 No. 5, March 1990.

     15U.S. General Services Administration, Federal Supply Service,
Federal  Motor  Vehicle Fleet  Report,  Washington,  D.C.:    U.S.
Government Printing Office, September 1990.

     16U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,   Office of  Mobile
Sources, "Light-Duty Automotive Technology and  Fuel Economy Trends
through 1990," Technical Report by Robert Heavenrich and J. Dillard
Murreir, June, ,1990.

     17Nine areas are required to provide  reformulated gasoline by
1995, and four of the covered fleet areas are choosing to  opt-in to
the program.

                                22

-------

-------
is considered for the vehicles operating in these areas.  Based on
the  fuel  fraction  in these  13  areas,  EPA  estimates that  they
represent 78 percent of the total fleet LDVs/LDTs.   For fleets in
the  remaining nine  covered areas,  an  incremental  fuel cost  of 5
cents per  gallon is  applied  to  approximately 20  percent  of the
vehicles projected to be operating on reformulated gasoline under
each scenario.  This assumes the different vehicle/fuel types are
distributed equally across  all of the nonattainment  areas.  This is
a reasonable approach since many  of the areas also  are involved in
the California LEV program.

     The total light-duty fleet incremental acquisition costs and
operating costs under the  first  scenario/  as  well  as those costs
for  the  second  scenario,  are provided in Tables 2-5 ,and  2-6,
respectively.  As noted in the tables the incremental acquisition
costs are higher under Scenario II.   This reflects  the increase in
the  number  of vehicles operating on  alternative fuels  under the
second scenario, and the higher incremental acquisition costs for
these vehicle/fuel types than  for vehicles fueled with reformulated
gasoline.  Under the first  scenario/  total incremental acquisition
costs are estimated to be over $35 million for  LDVs  and $16 million
for LDTs in 1998.  These  costs are  expected to rise to $85 million
and $41 million for LDVs  and LDTs/  respectively, in the year 2000.
In 2010,  LDV acquisition costs will increase to $100 million/ while
LDT  costs will  be near $60 million.   Under the second scenario,
incremental  acquisition costs  for  LDVs  are  estimated  at  $47
million/ $114 million/ and $133  million in the  years 1998, 2000,
and 2010, respectively.  Similarly, LDT  costs are projected to be
$22  million,  $55 million,   and almost $80 million in  those same
years.

     As  compared  with  conventional  vehicles/  total  estimated
incremental  operating costs  are  expected to  represent  a  cost
savings for each vehicle class in each year/ under  both scenarios.
A  greater cost  savings  is realized under the  second scenario,
because  more vehicles  are assumed  to shift  from reformulated
gasoline  to alternative  fuels in  this scenario.  . Most  of the
alternative  fuel types  represent  a  savings  over conventional
gasoline/ while reformulated  gasoline  is estimated to be slightly
more  expensive.   Under  the  first   scenario/  cost  savings are
expected to  range from over one  million dollars in 1998, near or
above 10, million dollars  in the year 2000/ reaching over 30 million
dollars in 2010  for both LDVs  and LDTs.  Under  the second scenario,
LDVs  are expected  to realize an  operating  cost  savings  of $7
million in 1998, almost $36 million in 2000, and nearly $66 million
in  the year 2010.   Likewise,  LDT  operating  cost  savings are
estimated at about $4 million, $20  million, and  $70 million in the
years 1998,  2000, and 2010.

     The Overall  incremental  cost  of fleet LDVs and LDTs  is also
shown in Table  2-5  for the first scenario, and Table 2-6  for the
second scenario.  As shown in Table 2-5, the overall incremental

 '•  : •"     ':'••   •  •          23      '

-------

-------
 cost of _ the fleet  program for  LDVs  operating  under  the  first
 hypothetical scenario is projected to be approximately $32 million
 at the  start of the program in 1998, $68 million in the  year  2000,
 and reaching  $69, million  in  2010.   For LDTs,  total  costs are
 estimated at about $15 million,  $32  million, and $27 million in the
 years  1998,  2000,  and 2010, respectively.  Combining the LDV and
 LOT costs  of Scenario I, as shown at the bottom of the table,  total
 costs are estimated  to  be  $47 million  at  the  start of the program
 in 1998,  reaching  over  $100 million in the year  2000, and costing
 about  $96 million in the year. 2010.   Using  a discount rate  of 7
 percent,  the net present value (NPV) of the costs under  Scenario I
 for the years 1998  through 2010 is almost  $709 million in  1998
 dollars.

     Under the\ second  scenario, where  more fleet vehicles are
 projected to be operating on alternative fuels,  the total 1998 NPV
 would be less than under the first scenario.   As shown in Table 2-
 6,  the  overall incremental cost of the fleet program for LDVs is
 estimated at $40 million in 1998, $78 million in  2000, and  about
 $68 million in 2010.  For LDTs, total costs are projected to be $18
 million, $35 million, and only $9 million in  the years 1998,  2000,
 and 2010,  respectively.  Costs  appear to decline over the  later
 years because of the relationship between, new CFFVs, in-use CFFVs,
 incremental  acquisition and operating costs, and the  clean-fuel
 fleet  vehicle  phase-in  rate.    Because  fleet  CFVs  are   being
 introduced at a high rate in the first three  years of the program,
 the  overall  program  costs tend  to  increa'se  sharply from 1998 to
 2000.   Beyond this period, in-use  fleet  CFVs increase  at  a  much
 sharper rate than new CFFVs.  The high rate of increase of in-use
 CFFVs, combined with operating cost savings, will  drive the  total
 costs downward between 2001 and 2004.   After  this period, the rate
 of  increase of both new and in-use  fleet CFVs tends  to  level  off,
 and  the acquisition  costs for  new CFFVs cause  total  costs to
 increase   once  again.    These  vehicle  and  cost   factors  are
 illustrated in Figures  2-1 and 2-2.

     The total potential LDV/LDT cost  of the fleet program  under
the  second scenario  is presented at  the bottom  of Table  2-6 as
well, and  is estimated to be approximately  $58  million in  1998,
reaching almost $113 million in  2000,   and decreasing to about $77
million in 2010.    Under this  second scenario,  the NPV  of the
potential coats in the years 1998 through 2010 is estimated at $673
million in 1998 dollars, using a discount rate of  7 percent.

2.3  gstimmted Co«t« of HDV«

     Similar to the  overall  approach  used for light-duty fleets,
EPA has projected the cost of the heavy-duty portion of the  fleet
program based on the  incremental  cost of a clean-fuel HDV over that
of  its  conventional  counterpart.   The general  approach taken in
estimating HDV fleet program  costs is  as follows:    1)   Using
incremental  acquisition cost estimates of  conventional vehicles

 . • ' -     .    .     '..•'•    24            -

-------

-------
capable of meeting fleet CFV standards, potential program HDV fleet
casts are calculated for a scenario which assumes only conventional
gasoline-  and diesel-fuel HDVs  will  be purchased  for the fleet
program.   Based  on  this assumption,  costs are calculated  in a
manner similar to the  one  used for light-duty fleets.   2)  Costs
are  calculated  for  two  other  scenarios  reflecting different
assumptions about conventional- and. rionconventional-fuel vehicle
mix and about acquisition/operation costs of nonconventional-fuel
HDVs as compared to conventional HOE acquisition costs. The costs
and assumptions used in calculating heavy-duty fleet program costs
are presented below.

     2.3.1   Gasoline  and  Diesel  H«avy-Duty  Vehicle  Incremental
            Acquisition Costs

     In fulfilling its responsibility to set a heavy-duty clean-
fuel fleet vehicle standard for non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) plus
NOx  emissions,   EPA  conducted  an   analysis   to   determine   the
technological  feasibility  of meeting the  standard established18.
This analysis includes an assessment of the  technologies available
for reducing NMHC and  NOx emissions in conventionally-fueled HDVs
as well as technologies capable of meeting credit-generating  (ULEV
.and ZEV) standards.  The results indicate-that  the  clean-fuel  HDV
standard for NMHC+NOx should be achievable using several different
technologies.  Petroleum-fuel otto-cycle heavy-duty engines (HDEs)
should be able to comply with the standard through the  transfer of
technologies already in use on light-duty vehicles.  Petroleum-fuel
diesel-cycle  HDEs are expected  to meet the standard  by  adopting
technologies currently under development.  This is realistic given
that the California LEV program, which .covers most of the HDE class
and begins  several years before the  start  of the  fleet  program/
will act  to .force technology.   The analysis also  concludes that
optimized   (or  in  some  cases  non-optimized)   alternative-fuel
technologies  capable  of meeting the clean-fuel  standards  are
already available. Furthermore, credit-generating standards may be
achievable in some cases using conventional fuel technologies  and
will jnore certainly  be achievable using alternative fuels.

     Based or* this technology  assessment, incremental  acquisition
costs  were estimated  for ~ conventional  gasoline and  diesel HDVs
expedted toribfllcaipablft of meeting CFFV standards through the use of
techhology;crji*&er than the use of clean fuels  themselves.   Under
this approe^Ejt it  follows that heavy-duty clean-fuel vehicles will
generally   have  the?  same   fuel  consumption  and   maintenance
characteristics as their conventional counterparts.  Thus,  the only
incremental  cost  to  the  fleet  owner will  be  the first  cost of.
purchasing  the vehicles.   (One  exception  to this conclusion is
     18a.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regulation Development
and  Support Division,  "Emission Standards for Heavy-Duty Fleets,"
Regulatory Support Document,  June 1994.

  •  •-'''••  '   -  ,  '  •' -•••••'.'-• -     -   25     .    :;/  v.- .      '- •'  !   :

-------

-------
 discussed in section 2.3.2, below.)

      In developing the incremental acquisition cost estimates,  four
 elements.were considered:  additional hardware  requirements, added
 manufacturing costs,, research arid development costs,  and engine
 certification-costs.   The additional  hardware and manufacturina
 costs  are variable costs added  to  the  cost  of each  engine
 purchased. Research and development costs and engine certification
 costs are fixed costs paid up-front by the engine manufacturer and
 then allocated to each engine over a period of time.

      For reasons previously mentioned, the analysis projects  that
 no new  hardware will need to be developed, for either  otto- or
 diesel-cycle HDBs to comply with the CFFV standards.  Rather, the
 transfer of current technology will  allow these HDEs to meet the
 standards.   However,  possible manufacturing  process  changes or
 slightly higher  component costs may be incurred when adapting these
 technologies  to HDEs,   The analysis projects  that these changes
 could increase the variable production cost of  heavy-duty gasoline
 engines by $50.00 andheavy-dutydiesel engines by about $100.00.
 Factoring in  a 29  percent retail mark-up would  bring the estimated
 increase in manufacturing  costs to $64.50 and $129.00.per engine
 for  gasoline  and diesel  engines respectively.

      In addition to the  increased manufacturing cost per engine,
 consumers  will also have  to pay for the amortized cost of research
 and  development and engine certification, as  well  as  the retail
 price mark-up.   The analysis assumes manufacturers will  try to
 recover the development  costs  over the first five years: of engine
 sales.   Adding these costs to  the manufacturing and certification
 cost  per  engine brings  the total  incremental acquisition  cost
 (rounded to the nearest five dollars)  to an estimated $246 more per
 gasoline engine  and $477 more per diesel  engine as compared with
 engines  used  in  conventional heavy-duty vehicles.    (In comparison
 to the proposed RIA, by using the conservative range of incremental
 acquistion costs in today's analysis as reported in the regulatory
 support  document,  todayf s^costs are higher-^hanr ;t&6se: repined in
 the  pxoposed_RTA.)  -ISince development co^^^^'^a^aa^^^'b^'
 recovered  in  the first five years- of  the  program^;Hhe inbtemerital
 cost to the consumer for the sixth; year and beyorid vriXl oriity: be the
manufacturingrand certification cost per engine ($t78.00/$338.00).
 Table 2-7' provides a summary of the incremental acquisition costs
 for heavy-duty clean-fuel fleet vehicles.

     2.3.2   Gasoline and  Diesel  Heavy-duty Vehicle  Incremental
'/-,.,';••-.-     0]p«r«ting Costs   \;  '-  '.  • •. •••••..  • "; """ --•.;":.  •.-,..,-"•' -  ;"

     As  mentioned above, gasoline- and diesel-fuel HDVs  meeting
 fleet  CFV  standards are .not  expected  to   have  added  fuel  or
maintenance costs over  conventional HDVs.  Hpweyer,  as described
previously in the light-duty fleet vehicle analysis, some fleets
operating  in  areas where reformulated gasoline is  riot routinely

  ":'   :' '•'•:"  ,:''  '"  •'...:•'"•  ••'-.-• "•:''• 26 .•. •""•'' •, ''•- :'' :'".", •-•••.-.  .V;:-'^ ";/---:   .

-------

-------
supplied may  have to  obtain this  fuel  to meet  heavy-duty  CFFV
standards;   This incremental fuel cost of five cents pertains only
to gasoline-fuel HDVs,  which are estimated  to be 50 percent of the
total fleet HDVs. projected in chapter one*  Of these vehicles, the
cost is applicable to  vehicles  expected to be  operating in areas
where reformulated gasoline is not required to be made available to
the  public,  which  is  approximately  20  percent.    Thus,  .the
incremental fuel cost  of five  cents  per gallon is  applied  to
approximately 10 percent of all fleet HDVs.   :

     2.3.3  Assumptions and Approach

     Analysis of the heavy-duty portion of the  fleet  program is
hindered by a  lack of information available  for this vehicle class.
Given  the   absence  of  available data,  EPA used the following
approach.

     First, three scenarios were developed representing different
assumptions .about future use of  nonconventional fuels.  Scenario A
assumes  that  CFFV  standards can  be met  by using  conventional
gasoline- and diesel-fuel HDVs with some technical modifications/
as discussed in the previous section.  The total costs under this
scenario were calculated as if only gasoline- and diesel-fuel HDV
costs  were pertinent  to the  fleet program.   This  would  be a
reasonable approximation under two different situations. First, if
nonconventional-fuel HDV costs were so exorbitant  that  there would
be no incentive  to purchase them, then fleet HDV purchases would be
limited  to  gasoline-  and  diesel-fuel  engines.     Second,  if
nonconventional-fuel acquisition/operation costs were approximately
the  same  as  those of  the conventional gasoline   and  diesel
counterparts meeting the CFFV standards,  then some alternative-fuel
HDVs would likely be purchased.  While the vehicle mix would change
in this case,  the program costs would not be affected.

     Costs were  calculated separately for light and medium heavy-
duty vehicles under this scenario  (Scenario A).   These vehicles
were apportioned among gasoline and diesel categories  based on an
estimate that 70 percent of light heavy-duty vehicles use gasoline
powered  otto-cycle  engines  with the  remainder  being primarily
diesel-cycleengines (see source cited in footnote number 17) .  For
medium  heavy-duty vehicles,  the engine mix is  essentially the
opposite.

     Scenario B  and Scenario C  provide  a range of costs assuming
that nonconventional-fuel HDV costs will be competitive enough with
conventional-fuel vehicles  that they will be  attractive to some
fleet operators.  For  Scenario  B,  EPA assumes  that 20 percent of
the vehicles  are nonconventional-fuel vehicles,  and that the  nest
incremental acquisition and operating cost  of these vehicles  is no
more than  20  percent higher than the cost of a conventional HDE.
This hypothetical additional cost is assumed to  be  the most  the
market  would  bear in  order for clean-fuel vehicles  to remain  a

  • .   ,•' - •". • '•" --. "'•.••.    ;   27         .         •''•'''••'•

-------

-------
 viable alternative to conventional vehicles.  For Scenario C  EPA
 assumes  30  percent  of  the  vehicles  are  nonconventional-fuel
 vehicles,  with  purchases  driven  by  a  hypothetical  combined
 acquisition and-operating cost that is 5 percent below the cost of
 a  conventional HDB.    The percent  of  vehicles  assumed to  be
 operating on conventional and nonconventional fuels under each of
 the three scenarios is illustrated in Table 2-8.   These scenarios
 are  hypothetical,   and  are   not  necessarily  predictions  about
 nonconventional-fuel vehicle use in the fleet program.

      Using the projected incremental  acquisition costs and the HDV
 fleet population projections  in Chapter  1,  potential HDV program
 costs are estimated for each scenario in the following  section.

      2.3.4  Methodology and Racults

      The methodology used to  calculate the  cost  of Scenario  A is
 similar to the methodology used in the light-duty  analysis.   The
 incremental acquisition cost of gasoline and diesel HDVs ($246 for
 gasoline-fuel HDVs and $477 for diesel-fuel HDVs) was multiplied bv
 the number  of new  fleet HDVs  estimated  (in chapter  1)  to  be
 purchased each year to  project  annual acquisition  costs.    The
 number of gasoline in-use CFFVs estimated-to be  operating in the
 areas  where reformulated gasoline is not required  to be  sold was
 multiplied by the  incremental cost  of  reformulated gasoline  (5
 cents)  and the average  annual fuel consumption of each  subclass
 (i.e.,  LHD and MHD)  to  determine  annual operating costs.   Average
 annual mileage of each subclass (18,850 for LHD and 37,580 for  MHD)
 was divided by average miles per gallon  (8.5 for LHD and  7.0  for
 MHD) to project average annual  fuel  consumption of light  and medium
 gasoline-fuel  HDVs.

     Table 2-9 shows the results of these calculations.  As shown,
 the incremental cost of the heavy-duty portion of the fleet program
 under this scenario is estimated to  be four to five million dollars
 in  each year of the program.   Research and development costs will
 be  recovered over the  first  five years  of  the program,  causing
 costs to drop slightly after the fifth year.   The  total heavy-duty
 costs  of the first  12  years  of the  program,  discounted to  1998
 using  a discount rate of 7 percent, is estimated to be nearly 67
 million  dollars.   This  is the estimated cost  of the heavy-duty
 portion of the fleet program if either no clean-fuel vehicles are
 purchased  for  compliance with  the fleet program because they are
 excessively costly compared to  conventional HDVs, or if some clean-
 fuel vehicles  are  used  in the fleet program  and their combined
 total  acquisition/operating  costs are' approximately  the same as
 conventional gasoline and  diesel HDVs meeting CFFV  standards.

     Because specific acquisition and operation cost data  are not
 available  for clean-fuel  HDVs,   the total  program  costs under
 Scenarios B and C were calculated differently from that of Scenario
A.  Under Scenario  B,  80 percent of  the vehicles are conventional-
                                28

-------
I

-------
fuel vehicles,  and 20  percent of the vehicles are nonconventional-
fuel vehicles with net incremental acquisition/operation costs no
greater than 20 percent higher than the cost of a. conventional HDE.
The conventional vehicle cost portion  was  calculated the same as
under Scenario  A, except the incremental costs were applied to only
80 percent of  the  gasoline- and diesel-fuel HDVs  rather than 100
percent.    The  nonconventional-fuel   vehicle  cost  portion  was
calculated as  follows:   EPA estimated the  cost  of  conventional
gasoline  HDEs  to  be  approximately  $4,000  and  the  cost  of
conventional diesel HDEs to be approximately $7,000 for the light
heavy-duty subclass and $10,000 for the medium heavy-duty subclass.
Twenty  percent of  these  conventional  engine  costs  (i.e,  $800,
$1,400,  and   $2,000,   respectively)   thus  represent   the  net
incremental   acquisition/operating   cost    of   the   respective
nonconventional HDE. Multiplying these incremental costs by the 20
percent of heavy-duty vehicles assumed to be nonconventional yields
the  total  nonconventional  vehicle   costs  of  this  Scenario.
Combining these costs with the  conventional vehicle costs yields
total program costs of Scenario B.

     Scenario C costs were calculated in a similar manner, except
30  percent of the vehicles  are  nonconventional-fuel  vehicles,
having a combined incremental acquisition/operation cost which is
five percent lower  than the acquisition cost of a conventional-fuel
HDE.  The results of these calculations are shown in Table 2-10 for
Scenario B and Table 2-11 for Scenario C. The total potential 1998
net present value cost for the first 12 years of the program, using
a discount  rate of 7 percent,  is approximately  $99 million for
Scenario B and $30 million for Scenario ,C.

2.4  Summary of Total Potential Progr*" r.n*¥.m

     At  this time,  EPA cannot accurately  forecast  the extent to
which  nonconventional-fuel vehicles will  be used for compliance
with the fleet program.  Additionally,  it  is difficult to predict
how effective the credit program will be as an incentive  for fleet
operators  to  purchase vehicles capable of  meeting  ULEV and ZEV
standards.   Given these  uncertainties,   hypothetical   scenarios
representing different assumptions about the future use  of various
vehicle/fuel combinations in the fleet program were derived so that
program  costs  could be estimated.

     Table 2-12 provides a summary of potential  costs of the fleet
program based on the scenarios used in this analysis.  Scenarios  I
and II were developed for determining costs of LDVs  and  LDTs based
on differing assumptions about the extent to which nonconventional-
fuel vehicles will participate in the fleet program.   Annual costs
were  projected for the years  1998 through  2010  for each of the
scenarios.  Using a discount rate of 7 percent,  the estimated costs
of the first 12 years of the  program were  discounted back to  1998,
the year the program is expected to begin.   As  shown in  the  table,
the  1998 net present  value^of the costs of  the first 12 years of

                                29                    ,          .

-------

-------
 the Program is estimated to be 709 million dollars under Scenario
 I, and 673 million dollars under Scenario II.

      *°5 h,eavy-duty vehicles,  three scenarios were developed based
 on  differing  assumptions about  vehicle mix  and about  costs  of
 alternative-fuel vehicles compared to conventional HDVs    Costs
 determined under Scenario A  are applicable to two different market
 C??dlti0ns'   The first assumes no  nonconventional-fuel vehicles
 will be  purchased for  the  fleet program  because of  their  high
 costs,  while the second assumes  some mix of nonconventional-fuel
                                                             -e
          JE *  *  purchased, at  an average per-vehicle  net  cost
 equal to that of their  conventional  counterparts.   Scenario  B is
 based on the assumption that 20 percent of the  fleet vehicle mix is
 made up  of nonconventional-fuel  vehicles,  with net  incremental
 acquisition/operation costs 20 percent more than the  acquisition
 cost of a conventional- fuel HDE.   Scenario C assumes 30 percent of
 the fleet vehicles are nonconventional-fuel vehicles,  with  a net
 incremental acquisition/operation cost that is  five percent  less
 than conventional- fuel  HDE acquisition costs.   As was  done for
 light-duty, using a discount rate of 7 percent, the estimated costs
 of the first 12 years of the program were discounted back to  1998
 As shown in the table,  the 1998 net present value is estimated to
 be 67  million dollars  for Scenario  A,,  9-9 million  dollars  for
 Scenario B, and 30  million dollars for Scenario  C.

      Based on  the scenarios derived  for this  analysis,  the Clean
 ?Ue™ieet Pr°9ram could potentially cost as little as $703 million
 in 1998  dollars for the first 12 years of the program (Scenario II
 for light-duty plus Scenario C for heavy-duty) ,  or could cost as
 much  as $808  million  (Scenario  I  plus Scenario B) .  The highest
 cost  estimate  is only about 13 percent higher than the  lowest  cost
 estimate,  suggesting that  the analysis  is  not  overly sensitive to
 the vehicle mix assumptions or to  changes  in estimated vehicle
 costs.   EPA will use the conservative estimate of $808  million as
 the potential  total  cost of the first 12 years of the  Clean  Fuel
 Fleet Program.

     Under  Executive  Order 12866, EPA  is  required to  assess  the
 potential  impact  of the regulatory  action  on  the economy and to
 determine whether or not they would be significant.  A "significant
 regulatory action" is one  that  is  likely to result  in a rule  that
 may have  an  annual impact on  the economy of  $100  million  or
 adversely  affect  in a material way  the economy,  a sector of  the
 economy, productivity, competition,  jobs, the  environment, public
 health  or  safety,  or  State,   local,  or  tribal  governments  or
 communities.   According  to  this  $100  million  criterion,   this
 rulemaking would be considered a "significant  regulatory  action"
 This  analysis  indicates that light-duty costs alone  would reach
 over $100 million annually in  at least some years of the program
 under both of the  scenarios. This  rule is not expected to have any
 significant adverse effects on the fleet industry.  in  fact,  many'
benefits are expected to be realized from this program as explained
                                30

-------

-------
in the next chapter.
                               31

-------

-------
                            Chapter 3
                 Potential Program Benefits

 3.1   Introduction

      By  encouraging the use of lower-emitting motor vehicles and
 clean alternative  fuels, the Clean Fuel Fleet Program regulations
 will  realize emission  benefits  in  the covered ozone  and carbon
 monoxide nonattainment  areas.  Other benefits, such as accelerated
 development  of clean-fuel vehicle technology and stimulation of
 businesses which convert conventional vehicles to  vehicles able to
 operate on alternative  fuels, may be realized as well.

      The main purpose of this chapter is to quantify the combustion
 and vapor  emission reductions expected to  result from the Clean
 Fuel  Fleet Program.   Emission benefits are measured by comparing
 the total emissions from covered fleet vehicles to the emissions
 which the same number of conventional vehicles would produce in the
 absence  of  the   fleet program.    Along  with  vapor  emission
 reductions,  reductions  in  NMOG,  NOx,  and CO combustion emissions
 from  LDVs and LDTs, and reductions in NMHC,  NOx, and CO combustion
 emissions  from HDVs  are determined in this  analysis.   A brief
 discussion of  other potential program  benefits,  including those
 relating to  oil conservation, is also provided.
3 . 2  Estimate *"* ««ion Benefits of LDVs and LDTs


     3.2.1  Combustion Emission Benefits

     In the proposed RIA,  emission benefits  of LDV and LDT CFFVs
were  not modelled  using  the recently  created  LEV portion  of
MOBILESa  since  it was not available for  use,  and thus,  a more.
accurate emission benefits analysis is being done today using this
LEV portion of MOBILESa computer  model (58  FR 29409, May 20, 1993)
as described below.   In calculating emission inventories for LDVs
and LDTs,  EPA has generated average lifetime emission estimates and
emission  reductions for   vehicles  certified  to  meet  the  CFFV
emission standards by using  the  released version of EPA' s latest
highway  motor  vehicle  emission   factor  model,  MOBILESa.19   The
methodology  of  this  analysis  was  based  on  the  calculation
methodology used in the EPA  technical report entitled,  "Lifetime
Emissions of Clean-Fuel  Fleet Vehicles,"  and  the  MOBILESa input
conditions used for today's analysis are nearly the same to those
presented in the above EPA report (refer to this technical report
     19The  MOBILESa computer model  and Users Guide  is  available
through  EPA's  Office  of  Air  Quality  Planning  and  Standards
Technology Transfer Network  Bulletin Board System (OAQPS TTNBBS) at
919-541-5742.  (Voice help is available at 919-541-5384.)

                                32

-------

-------
and Attachment A for specific information concerning the MOBILESa
input files used in today's analysis).20

     Several MORILESa runs were made under various input conditions
to produce the average emission factors for  the year 2020 (lifetime
emission factors of vehicles are equivalent  to the average emission
factors throughout the life of these vehicles).   Choosing a point
this far  in  the future models a situation  in which all vehicles
incorporate vehicle emission control changes made within the next
few years. Also, a Year 2020 run permits the model to calculate an
average lifetime  emission factor  incorporating  a full  range  of
vehicle ages  (combination of old and new vehicles).

     For each emission category modelled (Tier 1, LEV, and ULEV),
specialized runs of MOBILESa  were  performed as  though the entire
fleet of vehicles were of that category.  MOBILESa accounts for the
offset between NMHC and NMOG, which is due to the  fact that NMOG is
a reactivity-adjusted measurement,  so that the NMHC levels reported
in MOBILESa  outputs for LEVs  and  ULEVs are consistent  with the
Clean Fuel Fleet Program NMOG emission standards. (It should also
be  noted that  the  NMOG   standards  are  reactivity-adjusted
measurements  rather  than  measurements  of  the actual  mass  of
emissions produced.  Thus, the emission .inventories calculated on
the basis of the NMOG standards (or adjusted NMHC emission factors
in LEV portion of MOBILESa) reflect the ozone-generating potential
of the NMOG emissions, not simply  their mass.)   For each vehicle
class, MOBILESa calculates in-use emission  factors for each model
year, using zero-mile  emission factors adjusted with appropriate
deterioration rates.  Zero-mile emission factors are estimates of
the  emissions  produced  by   low   mileage  vehicles,  based  on
statistical regressions of in-use  data.   The deterioration rates
used in MOBILESa incorporate data  from  years  of in-use emission
testing on higher  mileage vehicles to assess the affects of such
factors as reduction in the performance efficiency of the emission
system, tampering, and lack of maintenance.  Emission inventories
are calculated by multiplying the deteriorated emission factors by
the total  number of annual vehicle miles  traveled  (VMT)  for any
given vehicle type.   The  approach and  methodology employed	fdr
determining LDV and LDT combustion emission benefits is described
below, followed by a summary of those  potential benefits.

     In today's analysis, EPA has  examined  the sensitivity of the
emission factors used for baseline vehicles and CFFVs.  The emission
inventories  for baseline vehicles and CFFVs were  calculated by
multiplying  the  lifetime emission  factors for  both  types  of
vehicles by the annual VMT associated with CFFVs,  and  as discussed
     20U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Office  of Mobile
Sources,  Regulation Development  and  Support Division,  Technical
Report, "Lifetime Emissions for Clean-Fuel Fleet Vehicles", October
1993, EPA-AA-SRPB-93-01.

                                33

-------

-------
above, these lifetime emission factors are average emission factors
for the life of a vehicle.   In determining the projected number of
fleet vehicles,  it was  assumed  that  light-duty CFFVs would be in
the fleet program for three years  before being replaced with new
vehicles since annual VMT  for fleet  vehicles is higher than non-
fleet, vehicles.  Thus, even though  fleet  vehicles are projected to
accrue many  miles per  year, the sensitivity of this analysis is
based  on  the  estimation  that the lifetime  emission  factors
calculated in today's analysis may  be higher  than actual levels in
the early portion of a vehicle's useful  life, and in contrast the
lifetime emission factors  may be lower  than  actual levels in the
latter portion of a  vehicle's useful life.   However, since these
possibly high lifetime  emission factors in  the early part  of a
fleet vehicle's  life are  offset by expected  equally low lifetime
emission factors in the latter part of a  fleet vehicle's life and
this sensitivity is  accounted  for in both baseline vehicles and
CFFVs, EPA believes  the  methodology used in today's  analysis is an
accurate model of the emission benefits  of the  fleet program.


     Approach

     In order to estimate the potential  NMOG, NOx, and CO emission
benefits from clean-fuel fleet LDVs and  LOTs, emission inventories
were generated  for  two  cases.   First,  emission inventories were
calculated assuming  all  covered fleet vehicles were conventional
vehicles (Tier 1 vehicles).  Then,  inventories were  calculated for
all covered  fleet vehicles assuming they were  LEVs.   (Also, all
emission inventories were calculated assuming  that the vehicles
would  adhere  to the   Enhanced  Inspection  Maintenance   (I/M)
program.)21   The  difference in the  two  emission  inventories is
proportional  to  the  difference in the  lifetime emission factors
between  conventional vehicles  and  LEVs,  and  this differential
represents the estimated light-duty emission benefit of the fleet
program.  (See  Attachment  A for  MOBILESa  outputs  for  exhaust
emission  factors used  for Tier 1 vehicles  and LEVs  under the
baseline fuel category that pertains to LDGVs and LDGTs.)  This new
approach of using emission  factors generated from the LEV portion
of MOBILESa  is more  accurate than  the proposed approach of using
the baseline and CFFV  standards  as  the emission  factors since
MOBILESa  incorporates  in-use   date   for a  nationwide fleet  of
vehicles.


     The assumed mix of fleet LEVs, ULEVs and ZEVs does not affect
the  estimated   NMOG  and  NOx  emission benefits  under  this
methodology.  Since  clean-fuel  vehicle  credits will generally be
     "Enhanced I/M represents centralized programs using the IM240
emission  test,  as established  in I/M  final rule  (57  FR 52950,
November 5, 1992).

                 .               34                 ,

-------

-------
 based on NMOG and NOx emission standards,  incremental benefits in
 these emissions  realized  by ULEVs and  ZEVs  above LEVs would be
 offset by fewer total clean-fuel,vehicle purchases.  Thus, the most
 direct approach-to calculating NMOG and NOx emission reductions is
 to simply assume  all  covered vehicles are LEVs.   However,  some
 states may choose to base the light-duty CFFV credit values on NMOG
 standards alone.   In such states, incremental NOx reductions would
 not be offset by the credit provisions of the program.   To  the
 extent that  this  occurs,  the  calculation  of  benefits in  this
 analysis  as if all covered fleet vehicles are LEVs will tend to
 underestimate the actual NOx reduction.

      This approach would also overlook any potential  CO reduction
 to be realized by the program,  because the LEV standards  do  not
 require a reduction in CO from conventional standards.  Since ULEVs
 and ZEVs  are fully expected to have some part in the fleet program,
 a  reduction in CO emissions will,  in fact, be realized.  Therefore,
 using the percentages  of ULEVs and ZEVs  projected for Scenarios I
 and II outlined  in Chapter 2, CO benefits  have been  calculated
 separately and added  to the total program benefits.    (The  same
 considerations  pertain  to  vapor emission  benefits,  which  are
 analyzed  and  discussed in section 3.2.2.)   See  attached MOBILESa
 output for CO exhaust emission factors  used for Tier 1 vehicles and
 ULEVs under the baseline fuel category that pertains  to LDGVs  and
 LDGTs. . (In MOBILESa, it was projected that  manufacturers would use
 electrically heated catalysts to meet the reduced NMOG and NOx LEV
 standards when operating on reformulated gasoline, and thus, as an
 indirect-cross benefit,  it is expected that CO  exhaust emissions
 would also be reduced for LEVs.   Therefore, CO emission factors in
 MOBILESa  reflect this expected CO emission reduction for LEVs,  but
 at the same time MOBILESa does not model ULEVs to have any further
 CO  reduction  than LEVs.   Due to these offsetting projections  in
 MOBILESa,  EPA's   above  approach  to  modelling  CO  benefits   is
 appropriate.)

      Methodology  and Raaulta

      Table 3-1 displays  emission standards and MOBILESa lifetime
 emission factors for conventional light-duty vehicles and trucks in
 comparison  to  the  respective  LEV  standards  and  the credit-
 generating standards of  ULEVs  and ZEVs.  As shown in Table  3-1 (A)
 and 3-1(C), light-duty trucks have been separated into two groups,
 consistent with those used  in MOBILESa.  Trucks  in the  LDT1 group
 are those less than 6,000  Ibs GVWR,  and trucks in the  LDT2 group
 are   those  greater  than  6,000  Ibs  GVWR.     EPA has not   yet
 incorporated LDT2s into the LEV portion of  the MOBILESa model,  and
 thus,  as seen in table  3-1(C). LDT2s were modelled as  having  the
 same  lifetime  emission factors as LDTl-s for  this analysis.   EPA
believes  that  these lifetime  emission factors,  for  LDT2s  are  as
 accurate  as any other estimates since  the  inventory for LDT2s  has
 yet  to  be  analyzed  and   the  CFF  Program   would most   likely
proportionally change LDT2s~as LDTls have been changed.   Nationwide

       '    ••           . .         35              .'."''...'•-'-•

-------

-------
data  in MOBILESa suggests  that  70  percent  of LDTs are  in LDT1  and
30 percent in LDT2.  Based on 1991 fleet sales, this appears to be
the  case for light-duty fleet trucks  as  well.   (The LDT  fleet
emission standards shown in Table 3-1(A) represent averages of  the
standards for each of five classifications of LDTs (shown in Table
3-1(B)).  Data  were unavailable to more accurately  apportion  the
fleet LDTs to these  five emission  categories.)

      Annual emission inventories for NMOG  and NOx were calculated
by multiplying the number of fleet vehicles in each class for each
model year by  its associated lifetime emission factor (see  Table
3-1 (C)) and by the average.annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT)  for
that  class.   The number of fleet LDVs  and LDTs  estimated  to  be
CFFVs operating  in  each year is shown in Table 3-2.   As  noted in
Chapter lr these numbers increase rapidly during the phase-in years
of the program  and  then level off.  An average VMT  of 17,600  for
LDVs  and 15,700 for LDTs (from Chapter 2) is used in this analysis.

      As described previously,  the emission benefits of the  fleet
program were determined by  comparing the emission inventories  for
two cases.  First, in the "base case",  the  number  of covered fleet
LDVs  and  LDTs  estimated   to  be  operating  in  each  year were
considered to be conventional vehicles- (Tier 1 vehicles).   Second,
emission inventories for the covered fleet vehicles were calculated
using the LEV lifetime emission factors.  The difference between
the two inventories  yields the amount of NMOG and NOx reductions
achieved,  or the "emission benefit".    (See Attachment  A  for
lifetime emission factors used  for Tier  1  vehicles and LEVs.)

      The results of these calculations  are  shown in Table 3-3.  The
data suggest that NMOG emissions from LDVs and LDTs will be reduced
by  approximately 180  tons  in the  first  year  of  the  program.
Similarly,  a reduction  of  NOx emissions  in that  same  year  is
estimated at 185 tons.   By the year 2000, approximately 950 tons of
each pollutant Awill be reduced by fleet LDVs and LDTs operating on
clefan fuela. ~ In^the year 201 Q,^NMOG and NOx emissions from LDV  and
LDT clean-fuelfleet^ yehicies-wi,lj. each  potentially  be reduced by
2f 000 "tons*;v:' As sh^w^iavthe,Stable,  the 1998 net present values
XNEVsT of the lightrduty NMdQ and NOx reductions realized during
the first 12; years of the  program are each approximately  12,000
tons.  A, 7 percent:;  discount rate was used for these calculations
for consistency with the cost analysis discussed  in  the preceding
chapter.- ",:.;.:-^; •- ""._,;'- .'.•.„•'/,.\.-:'' ., •" '  ":;.   '   *-   "              •

     Potentiatl CO inventories were determined using  the number of
light-duty ULEVs and ZEVs projected for Scenarios  I and II outlined
in  the . previous  chapter.    These  inventories and  benefits  are
presented in Table 3-4.   Under Scenario I, which assumes 25 percent
of LDVs and LDTs are ULEVs  and ZEVs,  CO emissions  will  potentially
be reduced by 1,400  tons in 1998, over 7,400 tons in the year 2000,
and by about 17,500 tons in  2010.  Under Scenario II,  which assumes
40 percent  of  the   LDVs and LDTs  will be  ULEVs  and ZEVs,  the

-------

-------
potential  amount  of CO reductions  achievable  is estimated to be
almost  1,850 tons in  1998,  over 9,600 tons in 2000,  and nearly
22,600 tone in 2010.  Using a discount rate of  7 percent, the 1998
NPV of the annual  CO reductions is about 93,700  tons under Scenario
I and about  120,900 tons under Scenario II.

     Summing the benefits together, t:he combined NMOG,  NOx, and CO
emission  reduction estimated  to be  achieved  by  the light-duty
portion of the  fleet program is between  1,800 and 2,200 tons in
1998.  This  could potentially rise  to between  9,300 and 11,500 in
the year 2000.  In the  year 2010, emission benefits realized by the
program from the use of clean-fuel LDVs and LDTs is estimated to be
between 21,500 and 26,600 tons.

     3.2.2  Vapor EmissionB«n«fit«

     In addition to combustion emission benefits, the fleet program
will also realize  benefits from vapor emission reductions resulting
from use  of  CNG,  LPG, and  electric vehicles22.  Some  of these
benefits  will be  achieved  by inherently  low-emission vehicles
(ILEVs) purchased by fleet operators desiring to take advantage of
expanded   TCM  exemptions.     The   amount  of  vapor  reduction
attributable  specifically to ILEVs- is—analyzed in  a separate
technical support document.23

     Vapor emission benefits of the fleet program  were determined
by multiplying the number of  in-use CFFVs projected to be operating
on CNG, LPG,  and electricity, by the average annual vehicle miles
traveled  for each  class,  and by  the projected  vapor emission
reduction  (grams/mile/vehicle)  expected  for each vehicle class.
The relevant number of vehicles is determined  by  multiplying the
projected number of in-use CFFVs by the percent of vehicles under
each of the Scenarios  (20 percent for Scenario I and 30  percent for
Scenario   II)  estimated  to  be  operating^  on   CNG,  LPG,  and
electricity,   As mentioned in the previous section, the average VMT
is 17, 600far LDVs andA15jr700 for LDTs.  LDVa and LDTs arejejKpected
to  realizes  a  0>23 g/milj9   and  0.22  g/mile  redaction:  in- vapor
emissions / res^eiGfciveiy,>; -fibm that  of a conventioital-fusi -vehicle
    ~"Additional  vapor  emission reduction  will be  achieved by
alcohol-fu«i vehicles.   Most alcohol  vehicles will be  flexible-
fueled, and EPA cannot quantify the extent to which these.vehicles
will  be operating  on the  alcohol  fuel,  nor the  proportion of
alcohol in the fuel itself.   Therefore, to be conservative,  EPA is
only considering  those  vehicles which have contained systems  for
the fuel which don't allow  for  evaporation.

     "U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Office  of  Mobile
Sources,  "Inherently  Low-Emission  Vehicle   Program:   Estimated
Emission  Benefits and  Impact on  High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes,"
Technical Report by Lester  Wyborny II,  October 1992.

 • -- '.  '  : '" •: -.'. .  •••  ,-'  ."•.:•-   -'•'».• -•""•  37     -. ' "" ' •'•• •'.  •'.-•'. "' ^~ .   ••'.-'•'

-------

-------
 (see  reference  cited  in  footnote  20,  for  the  basis  of  the
 methodology used  in determining  the vapor  emission benefits).
 These vapor emission reductions have been changed from the proposed
 levels because these values were based on a previous version  of the
 MOBILE  model  and  not  MOBILESa.    Gaseous-fueled  vehicles  are
 expected to have no evaporative emissions;  therefore,  the emission
 factors  used  for  the  vapor emission  benefits  are  those  vapor
 emission  factors  determined for conventional-fuel vehicles using
 MOBILESa.   (See Attachment A  for  MOBILESa output of evaporative
 lifetime emission factors for the Tier 1 and baseline fuel/Enhanced
 I/M  category that pertains to LDGVs  and LDGTs.  These evaporative
 emission factors are the sum of the hot soak and diurnal emissions,
 refueling losses, resting losses, and running losses.)

     The results of the calculations are  shown in Table 3-5.  In
 the first year of the program, total vapor  emissions  are expected
 to be reduced by almost  70 tons under Scenario I and 110 tons under
 Scenario II.   By the year  2000, approximately 380 tons of vapor
 emission reduction will be  realized under Scenario  I  and 560 tons
 under Scenario II.   In  the year 2010, approximately 860 tons and
 1,300 tons of vapor emissions will be reduced by use of CFFVs under
 Scenarios  I and II,  respectively.    Using  a discount rate of 7
 percent, the  1998 NPV of the light-duty—vapor emission reduction
 realized over the first 12  years of the program are  approximately
 4,700 tons under Scenario I  and 7,000 tons under Scenario II.  More
 reduction is realized under the second scenario due to the expected
 increase in vehicles operating on CNG and LPG in  this scenario.
     3.3.1  Combustion Emission Benefits

     Similar  to  the  analysis  conducted  for  light-duty  fleet
vehicles, the environmental benefits of heavy-duty clean"fuel fleet
vehicles have been  estimated by comparing total emissions from a
base  case to the  emissions  from a  scenario using clean-fuel
vehicles.  The clean-fuel vehicle scenario assumes that all covered
fleet  HDVs operate at  the  LEV emission  level,  and is  used to
generate  emission  inventories of  NMHC  and NOx.  •  CO  benefits
expected  to  be  realized  at the  ULEV level are computed  in a
separate analysis.  ZEVs are not  likely to be a viable option to
heavy-duty fleet owners at the time the fleet program begins and
thus CO benefits are computed  only for heavy-duty ULEVs.

     The heavy-duty vehicle population and mileage estimates used
for calculating the emission  inventories were presented in Chapter
1.  Emission factor projections,  for  both 1998 conventional and
clean-fuel vehicles,  were obtained  from  the Regulatory Support
Document,  "Emission  Standards  for  Heavy-Duty  Fleets,"  cited
earlier.  The results  of the  emission inventories  for  NMHC and NOx
generated in that support document are included here  along with a
brief explanation of the methods  used in those projections.   The

  :      . ;' .     .'.-•'  . "' .  -   38 '    '      =--•   '••'.•'.'

-------

-------
                                                             CO


      Approach
                               ss^
                                MOBILES*
 tM..1'.;
-------

-------
 emission benefits,  discounted  at  7  percent,  are  about  4,100
 tons/year and 16,400  tons/year for NMHC  and NOx  respectively.

       This  summary of the NMHC  and NOx  benefits from the use of
 heavy-duty  CFFVs  is  included here so that  the total potential
 emission benefits  of the  fleet  program  can be presented.   A
 detailed analysis  of  the  heavy-duty portion of the  fleet program,
 along with a technology feasibility and cost analysis,  is included
 in the^support document mentioned above.   Those interested  in more
 specific information  on this class of vehicles  are encouraged to
 read  the original document, located in the docket for this  rule.

      In  determining CO benefits, there is no reduction in the CO
 emission standard  for heavy-duty  vehicles meeting  the minimum
 clean-fuel vehicle  (LEV) requirements.  However,  credit-generating
 vehicles, i.e., those  operating  at the ULEV level, will include a
 50 percent reduction in CO emissions from their conventional or LEV
 counterparts.  The CO  standard for heavy-duty ULEVs is finalized to
 be  7.2  g/Bhp-hr,   reduced  from  14.4  g/Bhp-hr  for conventional
 vehicles»     Clean-fuel   gasoline-powered   engines   and   other
 alternative-fuel engines replacing current gasoline-powered engines
 will  provide these  benefits.   However, diesel heavy-duty vehicles
 are not expected to generate any  incremental CO benefits since they
 already  certify below  7.2 g/Bhp-hr.

      Table 3-10 shows  the yearly CO benefits  from both classes of
 heavy-duty fleet vehicles under two hypothetical cases. Under Case
 I, 20 percent of  covered vehicles are assumed  to  be ULEVs and,
 under Case II, 35 percent  of the  covered vehicles  are assumed  to be
 ULEVs.   (These cases  are  consistent  with  the  percent  ,of  ULEVs
 projected for  light-duty  Scenarios I and  II.   ZEVs are excluded
 from  the  heavy-duty CO analysis  because, as previously mentioned,
 EPA does not  expect heavy-duty  ZEVs  (electric vehicles) to  be a
 likely purchase  option for  fleet  owners when the  fleet program
 begins.)   In 1998,  EPA expects CO  emission benefits from ULEVs to
 range  from 400 to 700  tons/year  for Cases I  and  II, respectively.
 By 2003, the  benefits increase to 2,500  and  4,300  tons/year,
 respectively, and by 2010 they are 2,500  and 4,500 tons/year.  The
 net present  value  of  the CO emission benefits,  discounted  at  7
 percent,   are 15,500 tons/year  and  27,000 tons/year for Case  I and
 Case"  II,   respectively.

      Summing the heavy-duty combustion  emission benefits together,
 the potential amount  of NMHC,  NOx,  and  CO emission reduction
 achieved  is estimated to  be between 880 and 1,200  tons  in  1998.
 This could potentially rise to between  5,900 and  7,700  tons in the
 year 2003. In the year 2010,  combustion emission  benefits realized
by the program from the  use of clean-fuel  HDVs remains between
 5,800 and 7,800 tons.

     3.3.2  Vapor Emission Benefits


                                40

-------

-------
      Vapor emission  benefits for the  heavy-duty portion of  the
 fleet program were  determined in a similar manner  to  light-duty
 vapor emission benefits.   Since minimal fuel, evaporation occurs in
 diesel-powered -vehicles,   potential  heavy-duty  vapor  emission
 benefits will be realized by the "replacement"  of gasoline-fueled
 HDVs by gaseous-fueled HDVs.  The number of in-use CFFVs was thus
 multiplied by the  percentage of  HDVs  estimated to be  gasoline-
 powered  (70 percent  of LHDVs and 30  percent  of MHDVs)  and then
 multiplied by the percent  of vehicles  which may be gaseous-fueled
 under each of the Scenarios (0 percent for Scenario A,  15 percent
 for Scenario B,  and 25 percent  for Scenario  C) .   As  previously
 mentioned,  electric heavy-duty vehicles are not  expected to be  a
 reasonable alternative to  fleet operators when the program begins.


     _The number of HDVs estimated to  be gaseous-fueled  was then
 multiplied by the average vehicle miles traveled (18,850 for  LHD
 and 37,580  for MHD)  and by the amount  of vapor  reduction expected
 to  be realized by  these  vehicles below  that  of a  conventional-
 fueled vehicle (1.78  g/mile  per  vehicle)  so that vapor  emission
 benefits could be estimated.  Gaseous-fueled vehicles are expected
 to  have no evaporative emissions; therefore, the emission factor
 used for the  vapor emission benefit is th^ vapor emission factor
 determined  for conventional vehicles  using MOBILESa.  (See attached
 MOBILESa output  for  the   Tier  1  and  baseline  fuel/Enhanced  I/M
 category that pertain to  the HDGV  (heavy-duty gasoline  vehicle)
 evaporative lifetime emission factors.   These evaporative emission
 factors  are  the sum of  the  hot  soak  and  diurnal   emissions,
 refueling losses, resting losses, and running losses.)   Table 3-11
 contains the  results  of  these  calculations.    in 1998, vapor
 emissions  are expected to be  reduced by  almost  70  tons under
 Scenario B and 120 tons under  Scenario C from operation of gaseous-
 fueled  HDVs.   By the  year  2003,  approximately  430 tons  of vapor
 emission reduction will be realized under Scenario B, and 700 tons
 under Scenario C.   In the year 2010, approximately 460 tons and  760
 tons of vapor reductions will be realized under  Scenarios B and C,
 respectively.   Discounting the  emissions by 7  percent over  the
 first  12 years of the program yields  a  1998  NPV vapor  emission
 benefits of 2,700 tons under Scenario B and almost 4,500  tons under
 Scenario C.

 3.4  Additional Program Impacts

     This section discusses the benefits that may be realized as a
 result of the Clean Fuel Fleet Program,  other than the exhaust  and
vapor  emission  benefits described above.   For  example,  use  of
 alternative fuels by fleet  vehicles will result  in displacement of
 conventional gasoline and diesel fuels,  thus conserving petroleum-
based  fuel.   Furthermore,  the fleet  program may  stimulate   the
development of certain  technologies  and businesses which  will
 facilitate the introduction of clean fuels  into the market.  Each
of these factors is discussed below.

                                41

-------

-------
     3.4.1  Potential Energy Impacts

     The increased use of clean alternative fuels due to the fleet
program may well cause some displacement of conventional fuels.  It
is not expected that this displacement  will  yield a less energy-
efficient fleet.   Rather,  the use of alternative fuels will likely
provide energy supply benefits due to their potential use in more
efficient vehicles, and by providing an expandable energy source.
Furthermore, the use of alternate fuels will reduce U.S. dependence
on foreign oil.

     This  analysis  attempts  to quantify the  amount of petroleum
conserved by displacement with  alternative fuel sources.  Using the
same scenarios established for the economic  impact assessment in
Chapter 2,  it  is  possible to estimate  shifts  in  the use of fuel
types.  The  percentages  estimated  for each alternative fuel type
are taken  into consideration.   The  alternative, fuels considered
are: alcohol fuels,  CNG, LPG, and electricity.  Although about half
of LPG is  currently an oil refining by-product (the other half from
CNG), it is generally in excess and thus its' use as  a vehicle fuel
does not require a commensurate amount of oil refining to maintain
supply.  LPG can also be generated through- non-petroleum sources.
Therefore,  it  is  considered   as  an  alternative  fuel  in  this
analysis.

     The total gallons of conventional fuel displaced by the fleet
program (including the amount  displaced by reformulated gasoline)
are  presented in  Table  3-12.    The  percent  of  those  gallons
attributed to  alternative-fuel vehicles under each scenario is
shown in Table 3-13.  Scenario I projects that 25 percent of fleet
vehicles will  be  fueled by  non-petroleum fuels.   In Scenario II
that percentage, increases to  50 percent.   By distributing these
percents over the number of gallons of conventional fuel displaced,
the volume of petroleum fuel conserved can be estimated.  Table 3-
13 shows that, in  1998, the  amount of oil conserved would fall in
the range of 36 to 73 million-gallons.   By 2003, 282 to 564 million
gallons could be conserved, and by 2010 328 to 657  million gallons
of petroleum based  fuel  could  be displaced by alternative fuels.

     The   April  1992  issue  of  DOE's  "Monthly   Energy  Review"
indicates  that, in 1991, 16.6 million barrels of oil were used each
day  in the  U.S.    Sixty-four percent  of that,  or 10.6 million
barrels per day,  was  used in the transportation sector.  On  this
basis,  the amount of fuel expected  to  be conserved by the  fleet
program amounts to less than one percent of the nationwide totals.
Still,  after the  program has  been  in effect  for 12, years,  3.2
billion to 6.4 billion gallons of petroleum-based  fuel will  have
been  conserved.   However,  the effect is not  large  in the overall
sense.

      3.4.2  Other Potential  Impacts

                                42

-------

-------
      In  addition  to the  reduction  in exhaust  and evaporative
emxssions and the conservation of scarce petroleum resources, other
less  quantifiable benefits may  be realized  from the Clean Fuel
Fleet Program.  -For  example,  by providing a market for clean-fuel
vehicles, the program provides an incentive for further development
of clean-fuel (and especially alternative-fuel) vehicle technology
Similarly,  since  fleet  operators  have the option of converting
existing vehicles  to CFFVs rather than purchasing new CFFVs, the
program  could   potentially  stimulate  businesses  involved  in
modifying conventional vehicles or providing aftermarket conversion
Kits.  Furthermore,  the fleet program may  encourage the general
public to purchase alternative-fuel vehicles by demonstrating that
these vehicles are a  viable and practical technology,  by increasing
their  availability,  and by  stimulating  the   development  of the
necessary supporting infrastructure such as alternative-fuel supply
stations.    These factors in  turn  could  encourage  automobile
manufacturers to produce more of these types of vehicles.

     The cost-effectiveness of this  program can be determined by
relating the emission  benefits  to  the potential  costs  of  the
program.   This is examined in the  following chapter.
                               43

-------

-------
                           Chapter  4
                      Cost:  Effectiveness
4.1  Introduction
     This  chapter  explains  the  methodology  for  and  provides
estimates  of the  cost  effectiveness  of  the Clean  Fuel  Fleet
Program.  Consistent with past EPA analyses, cost effectiveness is
expressed here as the cost per ton of.emissions reduced.

     The potential costs of the program were presented in Chapter
2.  These costs were based on projections of the number and types
of fleet vehicles affected by the program, estimates of incremental
acquisition and  operating costs associated with  clean-fuel fleet
vehicles, and assumptions about the percent of fleet CFVs which may
operate on various clean alternative fuels.  Chapter 3 quantified
the  potential emission  benefits to be  realized by the  fleet
program.   Exhaust  emission reductions were  calculated  for NMOG,
NOx, and CO for light-duty vehicles  and trucks, and for NMHC, NOx,
and  CO  for heavy-duty vehicles.   Potential reductions  in vapor
emissions  were  also computed.   In  general, these benefits were
measured by  comparing  the total emissions  from  clean-fuel fleet
vehicles to  the  emissions which the same  number of conventional
vehicles would produce in the absence  of  the fleet  program.   A
discount rate of 7  percent  was used to  determine the net present
value of both program costs  and emission benefits during the first
12 years of the program.  Using these net costs and benefits, the
cost  effectiveness  of the  Clean  Fuel  Fleet Program  was  then
determined as described in the following section.

4.2  Methodology

      For  both  the light-  and  heavy-duty  portions of  the fleet
program, the  overall cost effectiveness  was determined by simply
dividing the  total 1998 NPV  costs  of  the first 12 years  of the
program by the total 1998 NPV 12-year benefits.  To calculate cost
effectiveness on a per-pollutant basis, however,  the costs must be
distributed appropriately among the affected pollutants.  This is
a difficult task even when a relatively straightforward change is
involved in an emission-reduction program.  For example, a heated
catalyst might be installed with the primary purpose of reducing CO
emissions, but could reduce the  emission of other pollutants, as
well.   To ascribe a specific portion of  the new equipment cost to
each affected pollutant would be a complicated matter.  Allocating
the costs of the  Clean  Fuel Fleet Program in a similar  manner would
be   even   more   complex   because   of  the  variety  of  relevant
vehicle/fuel combinations and the  uncertainties about  the specific
types of technology that might be used in clean-fuel vehicles.

     Consequently,   the   per-pollutant   cost  effectiveness  was
determined in  this 'analysis using  two  different   methods for


                                44

-------

-------
allocating the  costs among the pollutants.   Consistent with the
alternative-fuel vehicle assumptions used in Chapter 2, each of the
two cost allocation methods (Cases I and II, below)  were applied to
the  results  of .Scenarios  I and  II for light-duty  vehicles and
Scenarios A," B, and C  for heavy-duty vehicles .   (Note:   In the
analyses described below, hydrocarbon vapor benefits  estimated for
the  light-duty  portion  of the fleet program  are included in the
estimated NMOG benefits.  The vapor  benefits related  to the heavy-
duty  portion of the program are included in the estimated NMHC
benefits.)

CASK t   ... .   ;...-..       _   '  '  :; :".•'-•'•  -•  ' •''."••.  . '•    .'•  •.-''"'.'

     Under the first cost allocation method (Case I),  the total NPV
costs were distributed equally among the three pollutants in each
scenario.  Obviously, this method makes the program appear to be
most cost effective  for the particular pollutant which is reduced
by the greatest amount  (i.e., carbon monoxide) .

CASK II   ;      •:           ".'''•.-••••'."  V;    ',          •

     In Case II, costs were weighted among the pollutants according
to the  reduction of each pollutant *   For- example,  since CO is
reduced to a greater extent than the other pollutants, a  larger
cost percentage was  allocated to the CO benefit.   This allocation
method  yields  the  same  average  cost effectiveness for each
pollutant.   Under  light-duty Scenario  I, in  proportion to the
number of tons  by which each pollutant is  reduced, twenty percent
of the costs are thus allocated to NMOG benefits, 20 percent to NOx
benefits, and 60 percent to CO  benefits.  Under Scenario II, the
cost  allocations are  15  percent,  16  percent,  and 69  percent,
respectively.    For heavy-duty  vehicles,  under  Scenario  A,  24
percent of the costs are allocated to NMHC  emission reductions, 76
percent to NOx,  and zero percent to CO under Scenario A.  (Since CO
standards are the same for  conventional vehicles and LEVs,  Scenario
A does not provide a CO emission benefit. )  Under  Scenario  B, 13,
44>  and: 43 percent  of the costs are distributed among NMHC, NOx,
and GO respectively;  Similarly, 10 percent of Scenario C costs are
assigned-to NMHC, 33 percent to NOx,  and 57 percent  to CO.

4.3  Co«t.                                  '   '          '
     The results of the cost effectiveness  analysis  are presented
in Table 4- 1 for lightrduty vehicles  and Table 4-2  for heavy-duty
vehicles .  Overall  cost  effectiveness is the  total  1998 NPV cost
divided by the 1998 NPV benefit  of all three pollutants combined,
and  is the  same for  a  given  scenario  under each  of the  cost
allocation methods.

CASK I        . " /.     •    ••• '." .•<  . ; .:• ,     _     "'  :   -._,'.     ;-

     With cost3 divided equally  among the pollutants in the first

•  "• •     •'•-."•'"•   -    • '.- ''"-.'      45                  "  '   •   :

-------

-------
 case, the cost effectiveness of the light-duty program is estimated
   ^B«       $14'400 Per ton of NMOG, $19,500 per ton of NOx,
 and  $2,500 per  ton of  CO under  Scenario  I.    Similarly,  cost
 effectiveness for each pollutant under Scenario  II is estimated to

 $1 JoTper* £n°° f g£  t0n  °f •****'. $18' 5°°  P6r tonof ; NOx,  and
      Equalizing the  costs among  the  benefits of  the heavy-dutv
 program yields  a  12-year cost effectiveness under  Scenario^ A of
 approximately $5,500 per ton of NMHC and $1,400 per ton of NOx
 The costs  per ton under Scenario B are estimated at $4,800 for NMHC
 and_$2,000 for both NOx and $2,100 for CO.  Under Scenario C, the
 S°  ^?°^VeneSS ±S aPPr°*imately $1,200,  $610, and $370 per ton
 for NMHC,  NOx,  and CO,  respectively.
 CASK II
      The second case, which weights the program costs in proportion
 to the emission reduction of each pollutant,  essentially averages
 the cost effectiveness among the pollutants.   For light-duty  the
 cost effectiveness is approximately $5,800 per  ton per pollutant
 under Scenario I and $4,400 per ton per  pollutant under Scenario
 II.   Heavy-duty cost effectiveness is estimated at $3,300, $2,600,
 and  $580  per  ton  per pollutant  under  Scenarios A,  B, and  C,
 respectively.                                            '       *
      The  overall cost effectiveness of the  light-duty  portion of
the  fleet .program is $5,800  per ton of emission  reduction  under
Scenario  I  and $4,400 per  ton under Scenario II.   This  suggests
that  the  fleet  program  will  provide  a  greater  reduction  in
emissions per dollar spent  if more  light-duty vehicles  operate on
alternative fuels (i,e.  Scenario II) . The overall heavy-duty costs
range- from $3,300 pe^r ton; under:Scenario A to $2, 600 per ton under
Scenario  B  to  $58ps J^ toft underScenario: C.    Thes*  three
hypothetical scenaribs create a r^ange in the cost  effectiveness of
the heavy-duty  portion: of the-fleetprogram based on assumptions
about the use anoV cost of alternatively  fueled HDVs. . :

      In order to determine the cost effectiveness of the  fleet
program as * whole>  i.e,  to combine  the  light-duty and  heavy-duty
results, the NMHC benefits calculated for heavy-duty vehicles must
be regarded as equivalent to the same amount of reduction of NMOG.
This is a conservative approach, because measured  NMHC will nearly
always be less  than  measured NMOG for a given sample.  Table 4-3
shows  the  estimated overall  Clean  Fuel  Fleet  Program   cost
effectiveness, based on this  approach.

     In the  table,   "Total  I" represents the  combined costs  and
benefits of the particular light- and heavy-duty  scenarios  which

. ; •'.   ....:;..           . _ •.;.•:'. .    46 :   •.".'.'.   /   ••  ;..: .•'• •,'-."'-..."

-------

-------
yielded  the least  favorable cost  effectiveness results  (i.e.,
Scenario  I  and Scenario B),  while  "Total II" combines  the  most
favorable light- and heavy-duty scenarios (Scenario II and Scenario
C) .     These  calculations   indicate   that  the   overall   cost
effectiveness of the fleet program is in the approximate range of
$3,700-$5,500 per ton.  For each of these combined scenarios, the
per-pollutant  cost  effectiveness   was  determined   using   the
allocation  methods  previously described as  Case I and  Case II.
When  the net total program costs are  divided evenly among the
pollutants  (Case I), the high and low estimated per-ton costs for
NMOG, NOx and CO  benefits are $8,600-11,600,  $8,200-9,400,  and
$1,600-2,500, respectively.   When the net  costs  are apportioned
based on  the magnitude  of  the specific  pollutant reduction  (Case
II), the cost effectiveness for each pollutant is the same as that
of the program overall  ($3,500-$5,000 per ton).

     A number of factors in this analysis tend to underestimate the
cost effectiveness of  the Clean Fuel Fleet Program.   First, the NOx
benefits from ILEVs were not incorporated in the cost effectiveness
analysis.   Second,  the analysis  does  not include  the costs and
benefits which would accrue after the twelfth year of the program
as a result of the  continuing operation of fleet CFFVs purchased
during the  first  12  years of  the  program.   For  instance,  the
incremental acquisition cost of a vehicle purchased in 2010 would
be included, but the benefits that vehicle would realize throughout
its fleet life would  not be  included.   Because the post-purchase
benefits realized by these  vehicles over their fleet  lifetime would
outweigh their minimal operating costs, the omission of these later
costs and benefits  makes the  program  appear less cost effective.
Taking the  appropriate  fleet  turnover rates into account,  if the
NPV costs and benefits of  the light-duty fleet vehicles remaining
in operation past the  year  2010 were included in the calculations,
the light-duty portion of the fleet program would actually be about
10 percent more cost effective than estimated above.
                                47

-------

-------
 Chapter 5
Conclusions



   48

-------

-------
 1200
FIGURE 1-1;  LDV AND LPT CFFVs IN USE
 !OW
 »00 -
 600 -
 400
    4

    «--'
 200 -    ' / •
   | £
     .».LDVs
LDTs
                     . .+. COMBINED
I4O
      FIGURE 1-2; HEAVY-DUTY CFFVs IN USE
0 '-n
  19W  19W 2009  2001 2002  2O«  200*  2009  2OM  2007  200*  200*'  2OIO'
                CALENDAR YEAR
     ».LHDVs   .^.MHDVs   .A. COMBINED

-------

-------
1400
                                   IN USE
    . I2W (-
 UJ
 VJ
    1000 ,-
    SOD -
    «oo -
     0 -
      I9M 19f
     -^LDVs
                         200* 2003 200*
                   CALENDAR YEAR
                                 TOTAL
   1)00
        FIGURE 1-4:  POTENTIAL CONVENTIONAL
       	FUEL DISPLACEMENT
a
w
                          —•»-
            ""  ""
                 CALENDAR YEAR
            LDVs       ^.LDTs
            HDVs       _ GRAND TOTAL

-------

-------
                a y ® ~ o s* S — s
                3— 52"wc®-03


                tliCllin
                                   -!N> —  3
rnjirn rnmmmmmmrnrnrnrnmmmrnrnrnrnmmrn


O !OBtno5^JO3OJ^cntntJOco-vjc<>
-•  'I0 e 5
^  ipftt
                                                   m

                                                   m
                                                   m
                                                   >
                                                   •n

                                                   m
                                                   r-
                                                   O


                                                   CO

-------

-------
TABLE 1-2: LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE FLEET POPULATION PROJECTIONS
. BUSINESS / UTILITY LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES
, TOTAL NEW NEW IN-USE FUELDISP.
YEAR VEHICLES VEHICLES CFFVs CFFVs (MIL GAL.)
1SW* 463752SI 151,899: 47.06T
1999 470,743! 159,410: 79,705
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
478,275! 161,960
485,928
164.552
493,703! 167.185
501,603
509,629
517,783
528,068
534.486
543,038
551,727
-—560 555
169,360
172.578
175.339
178,145
180,995
183,891
186.833
189.823
47,069 I 37
126,7741 101
113.372 240.147
115,186
1 1 7,029
118,902
308.264
192
246
345.588 1 276
351.118
280
120,8041 356.736! 285
122.737
124.701
126.696
128,724
130.783
. 132J76
362.444
368,243
374,136
380.122
386,204
392.384
290
294
299
304
309
313
STATE / LOCAL GOVERNMENT UGHT-DOTr VEMCLES

YEAR
1991
1999
2000
2001
2002
2OO3
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
TOTAL

151,412
153,835
156,296
158,797
161,338
163,920
166,543
169,207
171.915
174,666
177.460
180,300
r 183.185
NEW NEW i IN-USE FUELDISP:
— ^Tssi'
31J51
32,259
32,775
33,299
33,832
34.373
34,924
35,482
36,050
36,627
37,213
K 37.808
CFFVs
s.sTy
15,875
22,581
2*942
23,309
23,682
24.061
24,446
24,837
25,235
25,639
26,049
26.466
CFFVs
5,375"
25,250
47.832
70,775
94,085
108,392
116,578
116,444
120,339
12*264
124,221
126,208
128.228
(MIL. GAL)
6
16
30
45
60
69
74
75
77
78
79
80
r 82

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT UGHT-OUTY VEMCLES

YEAR
lliW
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2006
2009
2010
TOTAL
VEHICLES
30,380
30,866
31,360
31.862
32,372
32,890
33.416
33,951
34,494
35,046
35,607
36,177
38.755
NEW NEW
VEHICLES! CFFVS
8.270
8.370
8.472
8,576
1.881
3.185
4,530
4,603
6,681 4,677
6.788 i 4,751
6,897
7.007
4,827
4.905
7.119J 4,983
7,233
7,349
7,466
5,063
5,144
5,226
IN-USE - FUELDISP.
CFFVs I (MIL GAL)
1,'8lT
5,066
9,597
14.200
18,878
21,748
23,391
23,765
24,145
24,532
24,924
25,323
7,586 5,310 25,728
a^^^^^B^K^BSKS^
3
5
8
11
12
13
14
14
14
14
15
15

-------

-------
TABLE 1-3: UQHT-OUTY TRUCK FLEET POPULATION PROJECTIONS
BUSINESS / UTILITY UOHT-OUTY TRUCKS
TOTAL
1999; 316,968
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2008
2006
2007
2008
2009
NEW NEW
VEHICLES! CFFVs
72,306 fl.691
IN-USE FUELDISP":
_ CFFVs (MIL. GAL.)
" ' "•— : jHL "-"' ' ->-- "-* *-.
21 .681 1 a
74.981 37,490 59,182: 54
328.693 77,758 54,429i 113.612 103
340.854
353,466
366,544
. 380.105
394,169
408.753
80,632
56.443
170,055 155
83,61 8 j 58,531 217,839 198
88,710 60,697
89,918
62,942.
93,245 65271
96,695
423.878 100272
439.560
455.823
20101 472.688
103.982
67.686
70,190
72,787
107,830! 75.481
1 11.8191 78273
249,016
227
268,078! 243
275,920
286.129
296,716
307,694
319,078
330.884
252
261
271
281
291
302

STATI/ LOCAL QOVIPNIUMT UQHT-OUTY TRUCKS
.. '
TOTAL
YEA" VEHICLEa
10901
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2008
2008
2007
2006
2009
2010

78224
81,118
84,119
87231
90.459
93,806
97277
100,876
104,806
108,479
112.492
116.884
NEW
VEHICLES
1 9,«0
10.007
10,377
10.781
11,159
11.572
12.000
12.444
12,904
13.382
13,877
14,390
14,923
NEW
IN-US6 FUELOISP.
CFFV» CFFVS UML.QAL.)
2,898"
5,003
7264
7.532
7,811
8.100
8.400
8,711
9,033
9,387
9,714
10,073
10,448
2,906*
7,896
15.162
22.898
30.507
38.807
47,006
55,719
64,752
71225
75,935
78.745
81,859
2
7
13
20
27
34
42
50
58
64
68
70
73
F6»i*AL(X>VOW*limuaHT-OUTY TRUCKS

YEAR
ins
199*
. . 2000
2001
2002
2009
2004
2008
2008
2007
2008
2009
2010
TOTAL
VEHICLES
J1,9Sl
74,616
77,378
80239
83206
86267
89.479
92,790
96223
99.783
103,478
107,304
111274
NEW
VEHICLES
"^§204
9,545
9,896
10,264
10,644
11,038
11,448
11,870
12.309
12,765
13237
NEW
.CFFVs
~2".78T
4.772
6,929
7,185
7,451
7.728
8.012
8.300
8.616
8,935
9266
13.727! 9,609
14.235
9.964
IN-USE
CFFV«
2.781
7,534
14.483
21,648
29.100
38,826
44,839
53,149
61,766
67,940
72.433
75.113
77.892
FUELDISP.
(MIL GAL.)
1
.- " • -4
8
12
16
20
25
30
34
38
40
42
44

-------

-------
    TABLE 1-4: TOTAL UGHT-OUTY FLEET VEHICLE
              POPULATION PROJECTIONS
UGHT-Ol/TY VEHICLES
YEAR
19S8
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2009
2006
2007
2006
2009
2010
! IOIAL NEW NEW
..VEHKLES VEHICLES ! CFFVs
^457121 1 — IftMajT""4 5ff32lf
655.444
! 665,931
676,587
687.413
696.413
709,568
720.941
732.477
744.198
758,108
768204
780.498
197.531
! 200.691
! 203.903
! 207.165
210,480
213.848
217,270
220.746
224278
227.867
231,512
235217
i 98.765
140,483
142.731
145.015
147,335
149.692
152.088
154,521
158,994
159.507
162.058
. IN-USE FUELDISP.
^S-FFV*— CMILGAL.)
i 58 325 ' ' "
i 157,090
297,576
i 393,239
458.551
481258
496.705
504,653
512,727
520,932
529267
537.738
1 120
I 227
299
347
361
372
379
385
391
3O7
404
                  UOHNXJTY TRUCKS
 TOTAL
   1999
   2000
   2001
   2002
   2003
   2004
   2008
   2006
   2007
   2006
   2009
  469JOS
  487,187
  508212
  523,908
  543290
  563490
  584236
  605,852
  628267
  661.514
  678,619
                   NEW
    94,533
    96,031
   101,687
   108,419
   109,320
   113.364
   117.559
   121.908
   126.419
   131.096
   138,947
   140.977
   47268
   68,622
   71.180
   73,793
   76,523
   79,354
   82291
   85.338
   86,492
   91.787
   98,163
  -2&SS
   74,614
  143237
  214.396
  277,446
  324.449
  357,933
  384.788
  412.647
  435.861
  456,062
  472.936
  490.435
                                                  QALl
  68
 124
 187
 241
 281
 310
 332
 353
 373
 389
 403
 419
  TOTAL LJQHT.OUTY VIMCUS AND
        ToTSr
YEAR
  i
  2000
  2001
  2002
  2003
  2004
  2006
  2006
  2007
  2006
  2009]
 .2010J
1.125249
1.153,116
1.181.799
1211.318
1241.703
1272,978
1408,177
1438429
1,372.468
1.407.619
1,443.823
1.4*1.111
   NEW
VEHICLES
Castles
   292.064
   296.722
   305.580!
   312.584
   319,800
   327212
   334,829
   342,684
   350,897
   356,983
   367,489
   376.194!
 NEW
_CFFV«

 146.030
 209.108
 213.891
 218.806
 223.856
 229.046
 234,379
 239,856
 245.486
 251274
 257221
 263.338
                                     IN-USE
  231,704
  440.813
  607,637
  735.997
  809.707
  684,628
  889.441
  928474
  956,813
  986429
1,010,871
1.036.778
                                     FUELDISP.
185
351
486
588
642
682
711
738
764
786
807
829

-------

-------
TABLE 1-5: LIGHT HEAVY-DITTY FLEET VEHICLE
    c    POPULATION PROJECTIONS
BUSWiSS /UTIL»TY LIGHT I«AVY^UTY VEHKLIS
TOTAL . NEW NEW: IN-USE FUELOISPr
--VJAB.i_yiHiq.ES_VEHICLES CFFVa i •• CFFVa (MIL. GAL.)
,1998 7T.448T1- 13<7§ffl 6,899: r 8,899 ( 	 15
1999; 79,5751 "14,1 78 i 7,089 13:988! . 31
2000! 81, 784i 14,568 7.284 21,272 47
2001 ' 843J1 2 1 v 14,968 1 7.484 28,756! , " ~ 63
2002 86.323?-* 15.380 7.69O 36.447! 80
20031 88.697! 15.803F 7.901 44.346J- 98
2004
2005
2006
2007
200f
2009
91,136
93.642
^" 98,217
= 98,883
-M'101»582i.
" 10^,378
2010t 107.248
16,237! 8.1 18 1 45.5681 101
16,684
' 17r143
8.342
8,571
46.821
48,109
17.614 8,807! 49,432
w,318.099 9.049 50,791
103
106
109
112
- 18.5981.: 9,2981 52.188 115
19.1081 9.554 53.6231 118
S.i.- . • . . - - ..-.-.-.. '..... ; . • .
Sf ATI / LOCAL QOVMNfcKHT LH3HT HIA VY-OVTY VEHICLES
TOTAL
YEAR.
*T998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2008
2007
2008
2009!
— 201O
VEHICLES
ISviil
15,886
16,302
18,750
17.211
17,684
18.17O
18,670
' 19,184
19,711
20.2S3
^ 20.810
21.382
NEW
VEHICLES
2.751
^828
2.904
2.984
3,088
3.150
***a 9,237
3,328
3,418
3.512
-* 3,608
3,707
3.809
NEW IN-USE
CFFV»
1,375"
1.413
: 1.452
1,492
1.533
1.575
1,618
1.663
1.709
1.758
1,904
1,853
1.904
CPFV*
1.375
2.789
4.241
5.733
7,268
8,842
9,086?
9.336
9.592
9,855
10,128
10.406
10.691
FUELOISP.
(MIL. GAL.)
3
6
9
12
16
,_ 19
20
20
•-L^.-.-. 21
..... ., g^
. . -r... -, 2J
; -•- "''.. 23
23
- , — - - :-'•,-•; : . 'v- • • •, •


— riDM" nninmiM'iiTiiniiTiMiiiv nirr* \imimt i in

-2^S
•-^L ~ 199w
?S~" 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2008
2007
2008
2009
2010
^S23|s
: 4fJrm&
2.799
~ 2J78
2.955
3.037
3.120
3,208
3,294
3,385
: 3,478
3,574
3.872
3.773
- NSW_~J NEW
VEHICLES; CFFV«
48*! 241
498 249
512 i 256
5261 263
541
556
571
587
603
819
638
654
872
270
278
285
293
301
309
318
327
338
• -^r^v « • ,« ^mm
INFUSE
CFFVr
492
748
1.011
1,282
1,580
1,603
1.647
1.692
1.739
1.787
1.836
1.888
TUELDISP.
(MIL. GAL)
1
1
2
2
3
3
•••'••- ' 3
•••-• ; " 3
3
3
•4
4

-------

-------
TABLE 1-«: MEDIUM HEAVY-OUTY FLEET VEHICLE
        POPULATION PROJECTIONS
BUSINESS /UTfUTY MEDIUM HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES
- _,-'.-- ;.*-.-•-. "•-".' ' ' - ' ,-.,.' ,.' ' . - - - - •' , '
.:~-.:-- ; TOTAL : NEW
NEW ,; (N-USE FUELDiSP.
_yjAR_J/iHICLESWE>«CLES •' CFFVs ~ CFFVs (MH^<3At>
"-•••: 1998.' •• iil,22i| 18,023! 9,0f 1 •! 9bfl. 4§
1999; 109.986P -1"T7,823K 8.911
2000 108.765! 1 7,62Si 8.812
2001
2002
2003
2004'
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
."•; . 17.923] : ; ••"..'- 96
' • 26.735 1 143
107.5581 17.429f 8.714i., ' 35,45Ok-. . 190
106.364

-104.016
102.861
;: 101.719
; "100,590
99.474
;. 98^370-
17.236
17.044
16,855
16.668
16,483
16.300
16,119
b* 15.940
97.2781 15.763
8,618! -.- 44.068L' 236
8.522
8.427
8.334
8.241
8.150
8.059
7,970
7,881
52.590! 282
52.007
51.429
50,358
50.294
49.736
49.184
48638
279
276
273
270
267
264
261
STATE/ LOCAL QO VWNI«HT MiOtUM HiAVY-OUTY VlHKLia

Y6*S,i
1§9i
1999
2000
200t
2002
,2503
2004
2005
2006
2007
2006
2009
2010
TOTAL
VEHICLES
2i|l75"
21,929
21,686
21.445
21,207
20,971
20,739
20,506
20,281
20,056
19,833
19.61*
19.396
NEW
VEHICLES
3,593
3.553
3.514
3.47S
3.436
Wwfei*^**-
3.360
--*-. 3,323
3,286
3.250
3.213
3.178
3.143
NEW
CFFVi
1',70i
1.776
1,757
1,737
1,718
1,699
1.680
f-; .1.661
1.643
1,626
1.606
1.589
1.571
iN-use
r-CFFV*
i,7W
3.573
5,330
7.088
8:786
:r ^J0,48t
10.369
10,254
10.140
-. 10.027,
9.916
9.806
9.697
RJELDISP.
(MIL GAL)
9
19
28
37
47
" t,«««> > -56
f- •- 55
' 55
54
53
53
52
52
— - - '
FIDIUM. Qovmtagtir MEDIUM I«AVY-IHITV vinctp

-^.
^^f9W
_ 19W
~ 2000
soot
• 2002
: 2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2006
2009
2010
vwSJJ1"

^^1
3.869
3.826
3,784
3,742
3,700
3,659
3,619
3,579
3.539
3,500
3,461
3.422
NEW
VEHICLES

627
620
- 813
...V 606
599
593
586
579
573
587
560
554
NEW
CFFV*
317
313
310
306
303
299
296
293
299
286
283
280
277
tN-USE
CFFVs
317
630
940
1.247
1.550
1.850
1,829
1,809
1,789
1,769
1.749
1.730
1.711
FUELDISPT
(MIL.QAL.)
1
3
5
6
8
9
9
^ 9
9
9
9
9
9

-------

-------
     '•'---'"" ~:'^'^"-2r^^..~~
                                                                •-•:'  r-^s ••;:: jser.-:

                                                      ^iiS/Saw:-5*"*™- :-
rH,-,%? •W^st|^¥-a*Epi .'•
 -1- '->" -•-:' '^ ?>^:>:-f :;S
*_-''.'^SP^-"«^I%; '—';.r.-s',"^L. '  .,;- *i.

-------

-------
 V)

 I
 o
 QC
 0.


 O
2
U.

Ill

-------

-------
 V)


I
1100


1000 t-


900 f-


soo -


"00 -


600 -

500 -


400 !-
       FIGURE 2-1; NEW AND IN USE LDV/LDT TFiry
    ZOO j-

    loo i-
      \
     0
      19W  199* 2000  2001 20022003 200*  3903 205200P 2001  2009 2010*
                    CALENDAR YEAR
                          ^.INUSE
      FIGURE 2-2:  TOTAL INCREMENTAL LDV/LDT
                      CFFV COSTS
      19M 1999  3000 2001  2003 2003  930*  2009  ZOO*  2007 2001  200» 2010
                   CALENDAR YEAR
          __SCENARIO I  ^.SCENARIO II

-------

-------
TABLE 2-1: INCREMENTAL ACQUISITION COSTS FOR LDV/LDT
•-* •
Fuel Tvoe
Alcohol
CNQ !
Electricity
LPQ
Reformulated Gaa
CFFVType
LEV ULEV ZEV
$300
$2,000
n/a
$2,000
$170
$300
$2,000
n/a
$2,000
$170
n/a
n/a
$3,300
n/a
n/a
   TABLE 2-2: INCREMENTAL FUEL COSTS FOR LDV/LDT
FuelTVM
Alcohol***
CNQ
Electricity
LPQ
Reformulated Gas
Clean FueT
Co«t($/gal]
$1.12
$1.09
$1.12
$0.62
$1.36
Incremental Clean
Fuel Coat ($/gal)**
($0.19
($0.22
($0.19
($0.69
• $0.05
        * Gasoline Equivalents Projected for the Year 2000
        " Compared to Conventional Gasoline Cost of $1.31
        •- Retail Price of M85

-------

-------
 TABLE 2-3: SCENARIO I CFFV FUEL TECHNOLOGY
         ASSUMPTIONS FOR LDV/LDT
; 	 PERCS
Fuel Type i LEV
CNQ
Electricity I
LPQ jj
Reformulated Gas 'I
lOfAL
5
0
0
0
70
•NT OF VEHICLES
ULEV
Oj
ioi
or
• si
5!
75! 20 1 -
ZEV
0
0
5
0
0

TABLE 2-4: SCENARIO II CFFV FUEL TECHNOLOGY
        ASSUMPTIONS FOR LDV/LDT
FueiTVD*
Alcohol
CNQ
Electricity
LPQ
Reformulated Qas
PERCENT OF VEHICLE*
LEV
10
0
0
0
50
ULEV
10
15
0
10
o
TOTAL 60 • 35
ZEV
0
6
5
0
o


-------

-------
      TABLE 2-5: TOTAL INCREMENTAL FLEET LDV AND LOT COSTS UNDER SCENARIO I
LDV COST BREAKDOWN ($ MIL)

YEAR

1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010


ACQS.
98,765
140,483
142,731
145,015
147,335
149,692
152,088
154,521
156,994
159,507
162,058
164,652
INCREMENTAL ACQUISITION COSTS"
TO
LEV*
$13.2
$18.8
$19.1
$19.4
$19.7
$20.1
$20.4
$20.7
$21.0
$21.4
$21.7
$22.1
FAL
ULEV*
$30.5
$43.3
$44.0
$44.7
$45.5
$46.2
$46.9
$47.7
$48.4
$49.2
$50.0
$50.8

ZEV*
$16.3
$23.2
$23.6
$23.9
$24.3
$24.7
$25.1
$25.5
$25.9
$26.3
$26.7
$27.2
AGO.
TOTAL
$60.0
$85.3
$86.7
$88.1
$89.5
$90.9
$92.4
$93.9
$95.4
$96.9
$98.5
$100.0


IN-USE
157,090
.297,576
393,239
458,551
481,258
496,705
504,653
512,727
520,932
529,267
537,735
546,340
INCREMENTAL OPERATING COSTS
VEH*.

($0.2
($0.4
($0.6
($0.7
($0.7
($0.71
($0.8
($0.8)
($0.8)
($0.8)
($0.8)
($0-8
1$2^
($7.4
($13.9
($18.4
($21.5
($22.5
($23.3
($23.6
($24.0)
($24.4)
($24.8
($25.2
<$25.6'


($0.5
($1.2
($2.4
($3.1
($3.6
($3.8
($3.9
($4.0)
($4.1;
($4.1;
($4.2)
($4.3)
— teg
OPER.

($3.3
($8.8
($16.7
($22.1
($25.8
($27.1
($28.0
($28.4
($28.9
($29.3
($29.8
($30.3
OVERALL!
INCR

$32.1
$51.2
$68.6
$64.6
$62.3
$62.4
$63.0
$64.0
$65.0
$66.1
$67.1
$68.2
$69-3
LDTC
YEAR

1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
OST BREAKDOWN (SMIL)
ACQS.

47,265
68,622
71,160
73,793
76,523
79,354
82,291
85,335
88,492
91,767
95,163
98,683
INCREMENTAL ACQUISITION COSTS
TO
LEV*

$6.3
$9.2
$9.5
$9.9
$10.3
$10.6
$11.0
$11.4
$11.9
$12.3
$12.8
$13.2
FAL
ULEV*

$14.6
$21.2
$22.0
$22.8
$23.6
$24.5
$25.4
$26.3
$27.3
$28.3
$29.4
$30.4
ZEV*

$7.8
$11.3
$11.7
$12^
$12.6
$13.1
$13.6
$14.1
$14.6
$15.1
$15.7
$16.3
AGO.
TOTAL
$16.6
$28.7
$41.7
$43.2
$44.8
$46.5
$48.2
$50.0
$51.8
$53.8
$55.7
$57.8
$59.9
IN-USE
27,347
74,614
143,237
214,398
277,446
324,449
357,923
384,788
412,647
435,881
456,062
472,936
490,435
INCREMENTAL OPERATING COSTS
VE
($0.0
($0.1
($0.3
($0.4
($0.5
($0.6)
($0.6)
($0.7;
($0.7)
($0.8)
($0.8)
($0.9)
($0-9'
H*.
~- ($1.5
($4.2
($8.0]
($12.0)
($15.5
($18.2)
($20.0;
.($21. 5]
($23.1
($24.4
($25.5
($26.5'
($27.4

($0.3
($0.7)
($1.4
($2.0
($2.6
($3.1
($3.4
($3.7;
($3.9)
($4.1)
($4.3]
($4.5'
OPER.
($1.8
($5.0
($9.6
($14.4
($18.7
($21.8
($24.1
($25.9
($27.8
($29.3
($30.7
($31.8
3VERALL
INCR.
$14.8
$23.7
$32.1
$28.8
$26.2
$24.7
$24.1
$24.1
$24.1
$24.4
$25.1
$26.0
LDV a
YEAR

1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
ndLDT
ACQS.

146,030
209,105
213,891
218,808
223,858
229,046
234,379
239,856
245,486
251,274
257,221
263.335
COMBINED COST BREAK I
TO
LEV*

$19.6
$28,0
$28.7
$29.3
$30.0
$30.7
$31.4
$32.1
$32.9
$33.7
$34.5
$35.3
TAL
ULEV*

$45.1
$64,5
$68.0
$67.5
$69.1
$70.7
$72.3
$74.0
$75.7
$77.5
$79.4
$81.2
ZEV*

$24.1
$34.5
$35.3
$36.1
$36.9
$37.8
$38.7
$39.6
$40.5
$41.5
$42.4
$43.5
XDWNU
ACQ.
TOTAL

$88.7
$127.0
$129.9
$132.9
$136.0
$139.1
$142.4
$145.7
$149.1
$152.6
$156.3
$160.0
MIL)
IN-USE

231,704
440,813
607,637
735,997
805,707
854,628
889,441
925,374
956,813
985,329
1.010,671
1,036.775

VE
LEV*

($0.4
($0.7
($1.0
($1.2
($1.3
($1.4
($1.5
($1.51
($1.6;
($1.6;
($1.7;
($1.7!
H*.
' (Us1)
($11.5
($21.9
($30.4
($37.0
($40.7
($43.3
($45.2
($47.1
($48.8
($50.3
($51.6

NET PRESE
P-CMAIINV
" ' <$0.7)
($2.0
($3.7
($5.2
($6.3
($6.9
($7.3
($7.7
($8.0
($8.3;
($8.5'
• ($8.8'

IU0ST9
OPER.
I — i$37n
($13.9
($26.4
($36.6
($44.5
($48.9
($52.0
($54.3
($56.6
($58.6
($60.5
($62.1

^JT VALUE-IN 1998*,

OVERALL
INCR.
$469
$74.9
$100.7
$93.4
$88.5
$87.1
$87.1
$88.1
$89.1
$90.5
$92.2
$94.2


* ASSUMES DISCOUNT RATE OF 7%.

-------
I

-------
      TABLE 2-6: TOTAL INCREMENTAL FLEET LDV AND LOT COSTS UNDER SCENARIO II
LDVC
YEAR

1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
OSTBP

ACQS.

98,765
140,483
142,731
145,015
147,335
149,692
152,088
154,521
156,994
159,507
162,058
164,652
EAKDOWN ($ MIL)
TO
LEV*

$11.4
$16.2
$16.4
$16.7
$16.9
$17.2
$17.5
$17.8
$18.1
$18.3
$18.6
$18.9
FAL
ULEVa

$52.3
$74.5
$75.6
$76.9
$78.1
$79.3
$80.6
$81.9
$83.2
$84.5
$85.9
$87.3

ZEVa

$16.3
$23.2
$23.6
$23.9
$24.3
$24.7
$25.1
$25.5
$25.9
$26.3
$26.7
$27.2
ACQ.
TOTAL

$80.0
$113.8
$115.6
$117.5
$119.3
$121.3
$123.2
$125.2
$127.2
$129.2
$131.3
$133.4


IN-USE

157,090
297,576
393,239
458,551
481,258
496,705
504,653
512,727
520,932
529,267
. 537,735
546,340

INCMtNltN 1 AL O
VEH,.


($1.8
($3.4
($4.4
($5.2
($5.4
($5.6
($5.7]
($5.8
($5.9
($6.0)
($6.1)
($6.21
($15.9
($30.1
($39.8
($46.4
($48.7
($50.3
($51.1
($51.9
($52.8
($53.6;
($54.5'
(S55.3'
KtHATINt

($0.5
($1.2
($2.4
($3.1
($3.6
($3.8'
($3.9;
($4.0)
($4.1;
($4,1)
($4.2)
($4.3)
($4.3
i COSTS
OPER

($7.0
($18.9
($35.9
($47.4
($55.3
($58.0
($59.9
($60.8
($61.8
($62.8
($63.8
($64.8
($65.8

OVERALL
1NCR


$61 1
$77.9
$68.2
$62.2
$61.3
$61.4
$62.4
$634
$64.4
$65.4
' $66.5
LDTC

YEAR


1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
OST BREAKDOWN (S MIL)


ACQS.

47,265
68,622
71,160
73,793
76,523
79,354
82,291
85,335
88,492
91,767
95,163
98.683

TO
LEV*

$5.4
$7.9
$8.2
$8.5
$8.8
$9.1
$9.5
$9.8
$10.2
$10.6
$10.9
$11.3
FAL
ULEVa

$25.1
$36.4
$37.7
$39.1
$40.6
$42.1
$43.6
$45.2
$46.9
$48.6
$50.4
$52.3

ZEVa

$7.8
' $11.3
$11.7
$12.2
$12.6
$13.1
$13.6
$14.1
$14.6
$15.1
$15.7
$16.3
ACQ.
TOTAL
$22.2
$38.3
$55.6
$57.6
$59.8
$62.0
$64.3
$66.7
$69.1
$71.7
$74.3
$77.1
$79.9


IN-USE

74,614
143,237
214,398
277,446
324,449
357,923
384,788
412,647
435,881
456,062
472,936
490.435
INCREMENTAL OPERATIC COSTS
VI

($6.4)
($1,Q
($1.9
($2.9
($3.7)
($4.4
($4.8
($5.2
($5.e;
($5.9;
($6.2)
($6.4)
<$6-6'
Ha. I

($134 ($0.3
_._ ($9.01 ($0.7
($17.3J ($1.4
($25.91 ($2.0
($33.61 ($2.6
($39.3* ($3.1
($43.31 ($3.4
($46.61 ($3.7
($49.91 ($3.9
($52.71 ($4.1
($55.21 ($4.3
($57.21 ($4.5:
1 ($59.3J (S4.7'
OPER.

"W*
($10.7
($20.6
($30.9
($40.0
($46.7
($51.5
($55.4
($59.4
($62.8
($65.7
($68.1
<$70.6
3VERALL
(NCR.

$18.2
$27.5
$35.0
$26.8
$19.8
$15.3
$12.7
$11.2
$9.7
$8.9
$8.7
$9.0

LDV A
YEAR

1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
ND LDT COMBINED COST BREAKDOWN <
ACQS.

146,030
209,105
213,891
218,808
223,858
229,046
234,379
239,856
245,486
251,274
257.221
263,335
INCREMENTAL ACQUISITION COSTS
TO
LEV*

$16.8
$24.0
$24.6
$25.2
$23.7
$26.3
$27.0
$27.6
$28.2
$28.9
$29.6
$30.3
rAL
ULEVa

$77.4
$110.8
$113.4
$116.0
$118.6
$121.4
$124£
$127.1
$130.1
$133.2
$136.3
$139.6
ZEVa

$24.1
$34.5
$35.3
$36.1
$36.9
$37.8
$38.7
$39.6
$40.5
$41.5
$42.4
$43.5
ACQ.
TOTAL

$118.3
$169.4
$173.3
$177.2
$181.3
$185.5
$189.8
$194.3
$198.8
$203.5
$208.3
$213.3
$ MIL)
IN-USE

231,704
440,813
607,637
735,997
805.707
854,628
889.441
925.374
956,813
985,329
1.010,671
1,036,775
INCREMENTAL OPERATING COSTS
VI
LEV*
($1.6)
($2.8
($5.3
($7.3
($8.9
($9.8
($10.4
($10.9
($11.4
($11.8
($12.1
($12.5)
($12.8
' 	 —HI
He.
ULEVa

($24.9
($47.5
($65.8
($80.0
($88.0
($93.6
($97.7)
($101.9
($105.5
($108.ff
($111.7)
($114.7)
srpflEsa


($2.0
($3.7'
($5.2
($6.3;
($6.9;
($7.3;
($7.7;
($8.0)
($8.3)
($8.5)
($8.8;

ffvituF
OPER.
($11.6
($29.7
($56.5
($78.3
($95.2
($104.7
($111.4
($116.2
($121.2
($125.5
($129.5
($132.9

'IN 1 99* -
3VERALL
(NCR.
$56.4
$88.6
$112.9
$95.0
$82.0
$76.6
$74.1
$73.6
$73.1
$73.3
$74.1
$75.4

$672.7
* ASSUMES DISCOUNT RATE OF 7%.

-------

-------
     TABLE 2-7: INCREMENTAL ACQUISITION COSTS
               FOR HEAVY-DUTY CFFVs
Years 1998-2002
Fuel Type
Diesel
Gasoline
CFV Type
LEV
$477.00
$246.00
ULEV
$477.00
$246.00
ZEV
• *
Years 2003 and beyond
FuelTyp*
Diesel
Gasoline
( CFV Type
I LEV
$338.00
$178.00
ULEV-r-
$338.00
$178.00
ZEV
. *
..*
* EPA does not forsee a significant number of ZEVs in the HDV market

-------

-------
    TABLE 2-8: HDV VEHICLBFUEL TECHNOLOGY
      ASSUMPTIONS FOR SCENARIOS A, B AND C
; Conventional
Fuel
Scenario A
-
Scenario B
.
,
Scenario C
100%
80 %
70%
Nonconventlonal
Fuel
1 0 %
20%
30%
i vehicle/Fuel
Price Difference
| 0%
1 +20%
1 -05 %
Not*: See text for explanation of theee three independent
hypothetical ecenarioe.

-------

-------
TABLE 2-9: TOTAL INCREMENTAL LHDV AND MHDV FLEET COSTS UNDER SCENARIO A

Year

1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
LHDV Acquisitions
Gasoline
5,961
6,126
6,294
6,467
6,645
6,828
7,015
7,209
7,407
7,610
7,820
8,035
8.256
DfOSOt
2,555
2.625
2,698
2,772
2,848
2,926
3,006
3,089
3,174
3,262
3,351
3,443
3.538
MHDV Acquisitions
Gasoline
3,337
3,300
3,264
3,227
3,192
3,156
3,121
3,086
3,052
3,018
2,984
2,952
2.919
Diesel
7,787
7,700
7,615
7,530
-rt 7,447
7,364
7,282
7,202
7,121
7,043
6,964
6,887
6.810
ncremental Acq. Cost
Gasoline
$2,287,406
$2,318,722
$2,351,293
$2,384,822
$2,419,853
$1,777,116
$1,804,137
$1,832,510
$1,861,631
$1,891,909
$1,923,130
$1,955,561
$1.989.061
Diesel
$4,932,943
$4,925,168
$4,919,253
$4,913,863
$4,910,810
$3,478,088
$3,477.479
$3,478,358
$3,479,845
$3,482,853
$3,486,436
$3,491,777
$3.497.793
Operating
Cost**
$400,000
$800,000
$1,200.000
$1,550,000
$1,950,000
$2,350,000
$2,350,000
$2,350,000
$2,350,000
$2,350,000
$2,350,000
$2,350,000
$2.350.000
Overall Incremental

$7.6
$8.0
$8.5
$8.8
$9.3
$7.6
$7.6
$7.7
$7.7
$7.7
$7.8
$7.8

NET PRESENT VALUE IN 1998*. $67.2
* ASSUMES DISCOUNT RATE OF 7%. "" ~'J
- BASED ON A INCREMENTAL $0.05 PER GALLON FOR REFORMULATED GASOLINE IN AREAS THA'
DO NOT REQUIRE REFORMULATED GASOLINE. '

-------

-------
I
>



1
1
,2

o
S

i
       1 ill
     I i * •  • .  »•
     i »- — 01 01 oi
i
       1
       m
             8 § 8
             r^ o i—
    ^
   g - (»
   ^ *- r«*
1^*^00 0£ w,

«»«*«l 5 3 Si







•»<•«»•»«» S
                II
                           tS 3
                           oo^r-.
                              S
                           A
      ssassssssif:^
      * aaasI a s11 as
             § S § 1 i S I f
                iiSiiesili
            11II. is | i
             II II Illl Ill I

             'HI! Hit! Ill
              tO«f^««-tAC4(3ftqi^ua
              Is^Sslsiiss
                         Sf S S S
                         *•» S o
                      of of.oi of 01 oi
              t— W-»«oo)Mr-mco
              oar* i- 
-------

-------
 o

 •§
•J


 J

 < ,
 1
 >
I

i
i
                  »•*  >w  w*  it ui vt v* vi -^ ^ ^ ^ ^

                  &  ft  si  s x £ si s si si si si s
                      (0  tA to OU>OlOt&OU>U>
                      asai5i--  •*
                                        in i-
                             fti of e»f CM" of «" CM
                 of of of 3 of of of of CM of CM CM" oi
                 S.A
                 V *f V
                         •*«^ioiaioiau>u>
                 iiii
                               o
                               |
                               «
                               i'



                               i
                                                3
                                                •
                                                £
                |;

                 3-
                               I

                               S

-------

-------
TABLE 2-12: SUMMARY OF PROJECTED
FLEET PROGRAM INCREMENTAL COSTS
Incremental Costs
Associated with LDVs
and LDTs:
Scenario 1 .
Scenario II
Program Costs
(1998NPV)
(MILS)
$709.3
.. ... :^r:.--.f •£••-•.
$672.7
Incremental Costs
Associated with LHDVs
and MHDVs:
Scenario A
Scenarios
Scenario C
Program Costs
(1998NPV)
(MIL $)
$67.2
$98.7
$30.2

-------

-------
         TABLE 3-1(A): LIGHT-DUTY EMISSION STANDARDS
                FOR CLEAN-FUEL FLEET VEHICLES
_
CONVENTIONAL
VEHICLE
LEV
ULEV
ZEV
EmlMton Standard* (gram/mlto)
UMoo
0.25
0.075
0.04
0.0
LDV
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0

3.4
3.4
1.7
0.0

0.286
0.088
0.045
0.0
LDT1'
0.55
0.3
0.3
0.0

3.9
3.9
1.96
0.0

0.32
0.18
0.097
0.0

0.73
0.73
0.4
0.0

4.27
4.27
2.13
0.0
* Th* standard* for LDT1 arc an av*rag* of tn* standaiti* prepoMd tar aft LDT*<6000 b* GVWR.
and th* (tandard* for LDT2 an> an average of th« standard* propo**d for all LDTs>6000 b* GVWR
S*» Tabte 3-1 (B) for afi of th* LOT standard*.
            TABLE 3-1(B): LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK EMISSION STANDARDS
                      FOR CLEAN-FUEL FLEET VEHICLES

CONVENTIONAL NMHC
VEMCLE CO
NOx
LBV NMOQ
CO
NOx
ULEV NMOG
CO
NOx
- ZEV NMOG
CO
NOx
Errrf .too Standard*
LDV/LDt
< 6000 GVWR
< 3750 LVW
0.25
3.4
0.4
0.075
3.4
0.2
0.04
1.7
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
LOT
< 8000 GVWR
> 3750 LVW
0.32
4.4
0.7
0.1
4.4
0.4
0.05
2.2
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
LOT
>8000GVWH
<3760ALVW
< 5750 LVW
0.25
3.4
0.4
0.125
3.4
0.4
0.075
1.7
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
a/mtt*)
LOT
->8000GVWR
> 3750 ALVW
0.32
4.4
0.7
0.18
4.4
0.7
0.1
2.2
0.4
0.0
0.0
LOT
> 8000 GVWR
> 5750 ALVW
0.39
5.0
1.1
0.196
5.0
1.1
0.117
2.5
0.6
0.0
0.0
     TABLE 3-1(C): LjFE-TIME EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES
             AND TRUCKS FROM MOBILES* MODELLING, grans/mite

CONVENTIONAL
VEHICLE i


LEV
i

ULEV
z

ZEV



NMHC
CO
NOx
NMHC
CO
NOx
NMHC
CO
NOx
NMHC
CO
NOx
LDV

0.94
10.6
0.94
0.83
10.6
0.83
0.8
8.92
0.83
0.0
0.0
0.0
LDT(1*2>

1.02
12.05
1 04
0.9
12.05
0.91
0.86
10.18
0.91
0.0
0.0
0.0
                   2.  Ad)uina fttxn MO81E5. output

-------

-------
               TABLE 3-2: NUMBER OF IN-USE
              CLEAN-FUEL FLEET LDVs / LOTs *
Calendar
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009 :
2010
Light-duty
Vehicles

157,000
298,000
393,000
459,000
481,000
497,000
505,000
513,000
521,000
529,000
538,000
546,000
Light-duty
Trucks
27,000
75,000
143,000
- 214,000
277,000
324.000
358,000
385,000
413,000
436,000
456,000
473,000
490.000
Total
85,000
232,000
; 441,000
: 607,000
736,000
805,000
1 855,000
; 890,000
I 926,000
1 957,000
; 985,000
• 1,011,000
! 1.036.000
These figures correspond to the data presented in Table 1-4, rounded to the
nearest 1000 vehicles.

-------

-------
  Q




  (0


  Q



  Ul
  Ui
  Ul

  I     *
  S
  d

  §
1
 Ul

 Ul
 CO
 X
 o
 §     _
 (/)
 Ul
 £

 i
 ui
O


1

ui
ui

ffl

-------

-------
 a
 <
    m
                   "- co  r^  o CM
        5f
              a
              i
       g
              I
                   ^  *~ co  *•• Oh^^cM^r^m
                   {83C  oi o  b
                                                       2  SOS
                  SifS2;sSt;raio'-<»is'
                  CMCMcnaot-ocp'r-TcoQ^cx
                  cvlco  — iv.jrjr-.oicM-^toSSc
                         T™T~CMCMCMCOCOCOCOCO<^
SR  fo S
^ CM  •V (O
                                                    S  S SS
                                                3-
                                                LO
                  ^,  en s.  T-
                               '•-'-'-CMCMOJCgMOJ
                               
                               a^SS04^
                               OiOOO-^^T— T—
                  - U>  PJ
                               ^~ CO  CM  ^^ CM  (O  *•• (O  O


                               !S2?22'"'~
                                         CO  CO CO  GO  O) C7)
                                     *- co  ui  oj en  o r,
                                     O rs.  m  co o  CM ~
                                     CM ^  h-.  o co  to
                    ^uioco^ujintocor^f^co
                       "•  OJ CM CM  CM CM  CM  CM CM  CM  CM
                                        O  O  O O  O  C3i
                                        CM  CM  CM CM  CM  CM]
                                                                ^

-------

-------
            TABLE 3-5: VAPOR EMISSION BENEFITS
    FROM LIGHT-DUTY CLEAN-FUEL FLEET VEHICLES
Calendar
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
LOV
Emissions (tons/yr)
Scenario 1 1 Scenario 1
52
140
266
351
409
429
443
450
458
465
472
480
488
78
210
398
526
614
644
665
676
686
697
708
720
731
•— — —
LOT
Emissions (tons/yr)
Scenario 1
21
57
109
163
211
247
273
293
314
332
347
360
373
Scenario 1
31
85
164
245
317
371
409
440
471
498
521
540
560

Total Vapor Emission
Benefits (tons/vrt
Scenario I
73
197
375
514
620
677
716
743
772
797
820
840
861
4654
^i- — * *
Scan a r In 11
,..,=
109
296
562
771
931
1015
1074
1115
1158
1195
1229
1260
1292
6982
'Assumes discount rate of 7%

-------

-------
TABLE 3-6: LIGHT HEAVY-DUTY AND MEDIUM HEAVY-DUTY
            EMISSION FACTOR ESTIMATES

       1998 MODEL YEAR BASELINE EMISSION FACTORS
VEHICLE
L-H DIESEL
M-H DIESEL
L-H GASOLINE
M-H GASOLINE
ZERO MILE EFs (q
HC
0.444
0.314
0.265
0.463
NMHC
0.415
0.300
0.200
0.347
/Bhp-hr)
NOx
3.330
3.330
3.330
3.330
DR's (g/BhD-hr/1 0,000 mO
HC
0.011
0.005
0.013
0.022
NMHC
0.011
0.005
0.013
0.022
NOx
0.061
0.036
0.061
0.061
1998 HEAVY-DUTY CLEAN-FUEL FLEET VEHICLE EMISSION FACTORS
VEHICLE
L-H DIESEL
M-H DIESEL
L-H GASOLINE
M-H GASOLINE
ZERO MILE EPs (q
HC
0.310
0.221
0.189
0.324
NMHC
0.290
0.210
0.140
0.243
/Bhp-hr)
NOx
2.852
2.939
2.968
2.823
DR's (g/Bhp-hr/1 0.000 ml)
HC
0.008
0.003
0.009
0.016
NMHC
0.008
0.003
0.009
0.016
NOx
0.052
0.032
0.054
0.051

-------

-------
          TABLE 3-7: 1998 HEAVY-DUTY ENGINE EMISSION STANDARDS
                                (ING/BHP-HR)

HC
NOx
CO
NMHC+NOx
Conventional Vehicle*
Gasoline i 01
<«14,OOOGVWR >1 4.000 GVWR
1.1' 1.9.1
4.0* ' 4.0' I
14.41 . 37.111
n/ai n/ail
Clean-Fuel Fleet Vehicles


1.311 " " o
4.0*! **' "' Q
15.511 "' 7.2! 0

* Th« HDV NOx standard is currently 5.0 g/BHP-hr. ~ "
" HDV CFFVs must me«t conventional vehicle standards for these emission categories.

-------
r

-------
TABLE 3-«: NUMBER OF IN-USE CLEAN-FUEL FLEET LHDVs / MHDVs
Calendar
Y«ar

1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Light
Haavy-Outy
VahiciM

17,269
26,261
35,500
44,995
54,750
56,256
57,803
59,393
61,026
6£704
64,429
66.200
Medium
Haavy-Outy
Vahlclaa
11,124
2Z126
33.005
43,765
54,404
64,925
64,205
63,492 !
62,787 i
6&090
61,401 :
60.720 j
60.046 '
Total
19,645" :
39.395
59.266
79,265
99.399
119,675
120.461
121.295
122,180
123,118
124.105
125.149
126.246

-------

-------
   TABLE 3-9: EMISSION INVENTORIES AND NMHC AND NOx BENEFITS
            FROM CLEAN-FUEL FLEET LHDVs and MHDVs

Calendar
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Heaw-Dutv Emissions (tons/vrl
NMHC
Base
11,253
10,278
9,134
7,808
6,303
4,617
4,591
4,566
4,542
4,519
4,498
4,477
4.457
CFV
11,167
10,094
8,840
7,393
5,754
3,923
3,902
3,880
3,860
3,841
3,822
3,805
3.788
NOx

48,041
46,255
44,759
43,551
42,628
41,988
41,789
41,599
41,419
41,249
41,088
40,938
40.797

47,655
45,456
43,519
41,841
40,421
39,255
39,069
38,892
38,725
38,566
38,416
38,276
38.145
Emission
Benefits (tons/vrt
NMHC
86
184
294
415
548
693
689
686
682
679
675
672

NOx
385
798
1,240
1,710
2,207
2,733
2,720
2,707
2,695
2,683
2,672
2,662

NET PRESENT VALUE IN 1998*. 4092 16420
* Assumes discount rate of 7%.

-------

-------
 Q

 I
 Q
  (0

 Q
 i
 u.
 si
 o
 DC
 IL.

 i
 E
 O
 o
 o
- • •
 o

 5
 o
 3
 01 52
11
Ul C{

81
31
                      T- CM CM
CM co in to r^  cp en o CM co

T-i-CMCMCMCMCvicMCMCMO
                      en co co CM to
                         co co CM to to 
-------

-------
         TABLE 3-11: VAPOR EMISSION BENEFITS
     FROM HEAVY-DUTY CLEAN-FUEL FLEET VEHICLES
Calendar
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
LHDV
Emissions (tons/vr)
Scenario 1
33
67
102
138
175
213
218
224
231
237
244
250
257
Scenario 1
55
112
170
230
291
354
364
374
384
395
406
417
428
MHDV
Emissions (tons/yr)
Scenario 1
37
73
110
145
181
215
213
211
208
206
204
201
199
Scenario II
=ra
62
122
183
242
301
359
355
351
347
343
340
336
332

Total Vapor Emission
Benefits ffons/vrV
Scenario 1
70
140
211
•- 283
355
428
432
435
439
443
447
452
456
2704

— ' ' ..=:
117
234
352
472
592
713
719
725
732
738
745
753
761
4506
Assumes discount rate of 7%

-------

-------
 TABLE 3-12: TOTAL GALLONS OF FUEL DISPLACED

 BY THE CLEAN FUEL FLEET PROGRAM (MIL GAUYR)
Calendar i| Light-Duty    Light-Duty   Heavy-Duty
  u_~_ !••_•_•-.

-------

-------
TABLE 3-13: GALLONS OF PETROLEUM-BASED FUEL
 DISPLACED IN THE CLEAN-FUEL FLEET PROGRAM
      BY ALTERNATIVE FUELS (MIL GAL/YR)
CALENDAR SCENARIO!
YEAR (25%)
1998 i 36
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004 :
2005
2006
i
2007 ,
2008 \
2009
2010 '
86
148
202
247
232
291
298
305

311
318
323
328
SCENARIO II
(50%)
73
172
296
404
495
564
582
596
611

622
635
646
657

-------

-------
     TABLE 4-1: CLEAN-FUEL FLEET LDV/LDT COST EFFECTIVENESS

 CASE I
SCENARIO 1
SCENARIO II
NPV
COSTS
($ MIL)
$709
$673
NPV || COST
BENEFITS (TONS) || EFFECTIVENESS (S/TOM
NMOG
16,374
18,702
NOx
12,119
12,119
CO II NMOG
93,694
120,885
14,440
11,990
NOx
19,509
18,503

2,523
1,855
OVERALL*
5,805
4,434
CASE II

SCENARIO 1
SCENARIO II
NPV
COSTS
1 ($MIL)
$709
$673
NPV
BENEFITS (TONS)
NMOG
16,374
18,702
NOx
12,119
12,119
CO
93,694
120,885
C
EFFECTIVE
NMOG
5,805
4,434
NOx
5,805
4,434
OST
NESS ($/TON)
CO
5,805
4,434
OVERALL*
5,805
4,434
* The overall cost effectiveness is the total cost of the scenario divided by the total benefit of
all three pollutants combined.

-------

-------
   TABLE 4-2: CLEAN-FUEL FLEET LHDV/MHDV COST EFFECTIVENESS

CASE I

SCENARIO A
SCENARIO B
SCENARIO C
NPV
COSTS
($ MIL)
$67.2
$98.7
$30.2
NPV
BENEFITS (TONS)
NMHC
4,092
6,796
8,598
NOx
16,420
16,420
16,420
CO
0
15,454
27,045
COST
EFFECTIVENESS (S/TON)
NMHC
5,474
4,841
1,171
NOx
1,364
2,004
613
CO
n/a
2,129
372
OVERALL*
3,276
2,552
580
CASE II

SCENARIO A
SCENARIO B
SCENARIO C
NPV
COSTS
($ MIL)
$67.2
$98.7
$30.2
NPV
BENEFITS (TONS)
NMHC
4,092
6,796
8,598
NOx
16,420
16,420
16,420
CO
0
15,454
27,045
COST
EFFECTIVENESS (S/TON)
NMHC
3,276
2,552
580
NOx
3,276
2,552
580
CO
n/a
2,552
580
OVERALL*
3,276
2,552
580
* The overall cost effectiveness is the total cost of the scenario divided by the total benefit of
all three pollutants combined.

-------

-------
           TABLE 4-3: OVERALL CLEAN-FUEL FLEET PROGRAM
                          COST EFFECTIVENESS
CASE I

TOTAL 1**
TOTAL II***
NPV
COSTS
1 (SMIL)
$808
$703
NPV
BENEFITS (TONS)
NMOG
23,170
27,300
NOx
28,539
28,539
CO
109,148
147,930
COST
EFFECTIVENESS (S^TON)
NMOG
11,624
8,582
NOx
9,437
8,210
CO
2,468
1,584
OVERALL*
5,023
3,449
CASE II

TOTAL 1**
TOTAL II***
NPV
COSTS
(SMIL)
$808
$703
NPV
BENEFITS (TONS)
NMOG
23,170
27,300
NOx
28,539
28,539
CO
109,148
147,930
COST
EFFECTIVENESS (S/TOW
NMOG
5,023
3,449
NOx
5,023
3,449
CO
5,023
3,449
OVERALL*
5,023
3,449
*  The overall cost effectiveness is the total cost of the scenario divided by the total
benefit of all three pollutants combined.
**  Combines the costs and benefits for light-duty Scenario I and heavy-duty Scenario B.
*** Combines the costs and benefits for light-duty Scenario II and heavy-duty Scenario C.

-------

-------
          ATTACHMENT A
 MOBILES*  INPUT & OUTPUT FILES
 FOR EMISSION BENEFIT ANALYSIS
   Or CLXAN-rUXL TLSST VEHICLES
1.   INPUT DATA          9001.IN

2.   OUTPUT ALL TISR 1   9001.TR1

3.   OUTPUT ALL LBV*     9001.LEV

4.   OUTPUT ALL ULEVs    9001.ULV

-------

-------
      Basic
                      " ?r0"*>t f°E L*VIMt fil* '"-d>
               TAHFLd
               SPDrLO
               VMTLA9
                                                                                    Input
                                                                                                     "9001.IM"
               IMTLAO - On. I/M program
                                  -»*am
                      " Si"""1' K«*»ling vapor Recovery.
                      ' "**  "°OIrd •«"«• °«« «« "2 seenario.
                      ~ iff-=oll»» descriptive format.
                      "      hr" *"»llat«"  <*=,  co,  MOX, .
   4 20 19.8 31.8 20.8 27.3 20 S 07
   description record
   94 1
   program parameter red.
   Baseline Fuel...  c 71.8 91.8 10.S 00 7 92
   Parameter record
   4 20 19.8 81.8 20.8 27.3 20.8 07
   description record
   94 1

             *  £"•*  c 7l-« »1.« 10.3  0«.0 92
   4  20  19. « 81. 9  20.8 27.3 20.5 07
   d..oripeton record
   94  1
   program p*rarae«r red.
                     7l-8 n-s io:s °7-s
  4 20 19. 9 Sl.j 20. « J7.3 20.9 07
  description record

  prooria peroMter rod.
  4 20 19.8 Sl.S 20.8 27.3 20.8 07
  description record
  94 1
  program parameter rod.
                                                          Onboard

                                                          Scenario

                                                          LZV

                                                          Local Area

                                                          scenario

                                                          LIV

                                                          Local Area

                                                         Scenario

                                                         LZV

                                                         Local Area

                                                         Scenario

                                                         LIV

                                                         Local Aram

                                                         Scenario

                                                         Ltv

                                                         Local
             TAMTLO
             aparta
             VMTLA9
             IMTLA8 - one Z/M program
            ALaTta             "¥«—

                   " lBt*r *W' »«•••
                     LA* record appw. oao. for
            otrrner - iiz-ooi«
 !. «
 99 99  to 2221  11  09«.
 98 2222
 •/us
 4  20 19.8 81.8 20.8  37.3  20.8  07
 description  record
 94 I
 program  parameter reel.
 Baseline fuel...  c 71. « 91.9 10.§ Ot.7  91 1 1 l
 Parameter record                              l
 4  20 19.8 81.8 20.»y».J  JO.S  07
 description  recore)                   -
 94 I
 program  parameter reel.

 'Iram.;:; record  * ^ ""' 1O'«" 0«-°  " l l^

 d.;orip;i8=nlr.4eord' "''  "'* "
 94  1
program parameter  red.
Fr:?^.rVr.ioU ° 7l ••»»••«•» 07 . S „ 1 1 l
 4  20 19.8 81.8 20.8 27.3 20.8 07
description reoord
94 1
program parameter rod.
pi'       c "•««••«•• 0.. • ft. 1 1  l
                                                        Scenario

                                                        LZV

                                                        Local Area

                                                        Scenario

                                                        LZV
                                                       Llv


                                                       scenario

                                                       Ltv
                                                       Loc^ Are.
program parameter red.           '
Indolene Fuel    c 71.8 91.8 09.0 09.0 »a 1 1 l 2
                                                       Local Area

-------

-------
  fariwtar raeord;
  ooooooooooooooooo'
  00000000000000000



  i          sjorta      .
  1          '/MTLH9         •--   .
  1          MYKRTO
  1
  2
  1
  1
  1
  3
  4           PRtrZ.O - All uoj

  2           NMarixa - I«TIC,
  2        ,   RcrtAO — print i
  9« 20 9« 20 03 03 09«  1  1
  Program                                   — -  --»»      *AC«V
  33 91 20 2221 11  09«.  12211111                          ,„
  9« 93 20 2221 11  0»«.                                   AT»
  9» »« 20 2221 11  0»«.                            '       »»•••»«
  98 2222                                                 tvzg*
 VRJ                                                     onboard

 daaeriptloa raeord         "'                            seanaRto
 94  2
                   red.                                  L«v

                           .   10.S OS.7 »2 1 t 1        ideal Araa

                 '_	107                       seanario
 94  2
 program paraMtar  red.                                  L«v

 Paramatar raeord      '     '        0«.o 92 1 1 3        local Araa

 4 20  19.« 81.» 20.S 27.3  20,9  O7                       Soaaario

 94 2™    °*  "e°t
-------

-------
 I   ».»io  I/M.

 MOaTllSa (2«-M*)r~»3>
 OI/H program selected!

 0    start year  (Jeauary 1) t
     Pre-1981 M» stringency ratet
     rirst model year covered*
     Last itodal year aoveredi
     H.lv.r rat* (pra-l»*l)t
     ' Waiver rat* (1991 and never)i
     Compliance Rat*i
     Inspection typet
     Inspection frequency
     Vehicle type* covered:
     19*1 t later MYR teat typei
     outpoints, aci  210.000   cot
                                ril*»,  All  Ti«r 1:  "9001.TUX"
   1983
    20*
   19<8
   2020
    0.%
    0.%
  100.*
   Test only
   Annual
   LOSV - Ye*
  LDOT1 - Ye*
  LDOT2 - Yea
   auov - NO
   2300 rpm /
1.200   HOxt
Idle
999.000
Otton-wethana 1C emission factor* ineluda evaporative  gc emission factor*.
omission factor* ar* a* at Juiyl*t of the indicated  calendar year.
 L«V phase-in begin* in 1994 •*»• using (12/1/92) Guidance Memo Credit*
ocal. Year: 2020        I/M Program: Ye*      Aabieat Taut 87.1 / 87.1 / 87.1
                  Anti-tarn. Program. No      operating Model 20.8 / 27.3 / 20.8
                   Reformulated aaai He
Oiaseline fuel...                             HlnlM» Tea?:  72.
                       Period 1 KWt 10.5     Period  2 KV*t  (.7
0  Veh. Typai .    LDSV     LOOT!     LOOTS     MOT      SDOT
                                         (P) Region: Low
                                           Altitude!  30O.
                                  Period 2 start Yrt 1992
                              LDDV      LOOT
                                                                                                        All Vea
vea. Speed* i ii.l T57J — m — 	 IT7J — m —
VMT Hist 0.375 0.207 0.08* 0.034- 0.002
ZXV Praotl 0.00 % 0.00 *
OCoapoalte Emission Pastor* (SB/Mile)
Kon-Meth ICt 1.5* 1.85 2.4* 2.04 3.S* 0.30
Exhaust 1C: 1.02 1.25 1.7* '1.40 l.tl 0.30
Cvaporat ICI 0.19 0.21 0.22 0.21 1.09
Refuel t. ICt • 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.07
Runing L 1C: 0.35 0.35 0.47 0.3* 0.9*
Rating L 1C: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03
Exhaust CO: 13.73 14.04 21.33 17.42 22.44 1.44
Exhaust wmti 1.2* 1.47 2.0* 1.4* 3.7* 1.0*
LXV phase-in begin* ia l»»4 «»9T* u.iag (12/1/92) auidaace Mama Credit*
OCal. Yean 202O I/M Program: Ye* Ambieat Tempi 87.1 / 87.1 /
Anti-tarn. Programi Me operating Medal 20.* / 27.3 /
Reformulated Oaa: Ye* , AMI Claaai C
ored Pmase I Puel Hinimam Tempi 72. (rt
Period 1 RV»: 10.5 Period 2 RVP: 8.0 p<
0 vea. Typai LOW LOOT1 LOOTS LOO* EBOV LDDV
vea. speedai 19.8 ii.l il.l " i|.| i|.|
VMT KLx: 0.575 0.207 0.0** 0.034 0.002
ZXV Praett 0.00 * O.OO %
OCompoiita tmiaaioB Pastors (a*/KU*>
Hoa-Matk ICl 1.19 1.33 2.05 1.8* 3.0* 0.30
Exhaust ICt 0.8* 1.0* 1.4» 1.1* • l.» , 0.30
Cveporat ICl 0.15 0.17 0.1* ' 0.17 0.90
Refuel L ICt 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.0*
Runing L ICl 0.25 0.25 0.34 0.2* 0.42
Bsting L ICl 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03
txhaust COt 11.0* 12.** 18.90 14.07 17.0* 1.44
Exhaust HOXt 1.2* 1.47 2.0* 1.45 3.74 1.0*
LXV phase-in begiaa ia 1994 ••OC* uaiog (12/17*2) midaaea Mama Credit*
ocal. rear: 2020 I/M Programi Ye* Ambieat Tempi 87.1 / (7.1 /
Anti-tarn. Programi laa oporatlag Madai 20.4 / 27.3 /
Reforautated Out we
il.l ij.|
0.005 0.0*4


0.8» 2.03
0.4* 2.01




1.41 11.17
1.24 4.5*
. ... 	 	
87.1 (r) Ragloat Lev
20.* Altitude! 30O.

"•-<— — Tempt 92.
iriod 2 start Trt 1*12
LOOT * not*
il.l " il.l
0.005 0.0*4


0.8* 2.01
0.8* 2.03




1.81 11.17
1.24 4.5*

87.1 (r) Kagiant Lev
20.* Altitadat 30O.

HI
O.OO4


'.42
L.85
3* 15


0.42
24.41
0.7*

rt.

(ft

MS
TTT^
0.004


4.9O
1.75
2.73


0.42
20.9*
0.7*

rt.

_____



1.83*
1. 24*
055.
. ««A
OAI a
. U1B
0 . 334
- 0.018
14.932
1.900





All vea
— •___



1.341
1 . 088
0.17*
0.017
~ 0.2 41
0.01*
12.141
1.90O



ored Ph2 (Vapor) m*1mimi Tempi 72. (r) Maslaam Tempi 92. If)
Period 1 RVfi 10. • Period 2 RV»: 7.5 Period 2 Stan Tri 18*1
0 Vea. Typai LBOV LDOT1 UXJTJ LD4» EDOV LOOV
vea. speed*: ti.l < 11.1 11.1 — — — TiTT" il.i
VMT Mixi 0.575 0.207 0.08* 0.034 0.002
ZXV rraett ' O.OO % 0.00 »
OCompojit* Emissioa raatara (Om/Mtla)
Kon-Meta 1C: 1.3* 1.42 2.20 1.80 3.02 0.3O
Exhau*t_IC: l.Oa 1.25 1.7* 1.40 1.85 0.30
Xvaporat BCl O.I* 0.14 0.1* 0.15 0.78
Refuel L act . O.OT O.Ot 0.01 0.03 0.08
Runing L ICt O.tO 0.1* 0.24 0.20 0.3O
Rlting L.»C! 0.0* 0.01 O.OS , 0.02 0.03 '
Exhaust CO: 13.4* 13.1J 21.1* 17.4* 20.8* > 1.44
Exhaust NOXt 1.2* 1.44 2.02 1.42 3.93 1.0*
LEV pnaae-ia begiaa la 18*4 •9»C* aaiam (12/1/9J) anldaaee Mama Credita
OCal. Yean 2020 I/M Programi Yea Ambient Tempt 87.1 / 87. i /
Anti-tarn. Programi laa operating Mode: 20. 1 / 21. i /
Reformulated o«ai Ma
OC* RTO (Vapor) Hinimaa Tempt 72. (P)
Period 1 RV»t 1O.5 Period 2 KVF: 1.9 p<
0 Veh. Typai LDOV LDOT1 LOOT2 LDOT RBSV LDBV
veh. speedai T371 T5TI — ITTI — 	 ~ TTTJ — TTT7 —
VMT Mizi 0.575 0.207 O.OO 0.034 0.002
zxv rract: o.oo % O.OO %
OComposite lmis*ioa rector* (aa/Mila)
Moa-ttata ICl 1.25 1.52, 2.07 1.8* 2.73 0.3O
Izhauat ICl 1.02 1.2S .78 1.40 . 1.85 0.30
Xvaparae.aCl 0.11 0.12 .1) 0.11 0.48
Refuel L ICt 0.01 0.02 .03 0.02 0.05
Runing L ICl O.IO 0.10 .13 0.11 0.18
Rating L ICl 0.02 O.O2 .02 0.02 0.03
LDOV tdtft
il.l U.I
O.OOf 0.0*4


0.8* 2.01
0.8* 2.01




1.81 11.17
1.2* 4.3*

87.1 (r> Regioa: Lev
20.4 Altitude: 30O.

HajLijetat Tempi 92.
riod 2 start Yrt 1992
LOOT DOV
il.l 19.4
0.005 0.0*4


0.8* 2.01
0.8* 2.01




MC
il.l
O.OO4


4.73
1.8S
2.44


0.42
24.41
0.7*


rt.

(r)

MC
il.l
O.OO4


4.44
1.85
2.17


0.42
All Vea
— —



1 . 40*
1.245
0.155
0.014
0.175
O.Ot*
14.775
1.8*4






All Veh
	



1.50*
1.249
0.132
0.014
0.093
0.01*

-------
I

-------
   Ixhauat  CO:
           mxi
                    13.83
                     1.23
                             15.9*
                              1.44
                                       21.18
                                        2.02
                                                 17. 49
                                          20.38
                                           3.33
                                           1.44
                                           1.09
                                           1.61
                                           1..24
                                                                                         11.17.,
                                                                                          S.5« ,
                                                                                                   24.41
                                                                                                    0.78
                                                                                                           14.773
                                                                                                            1.991

Olndalan* Fual
0 Valu Typai
+
van. spaadai
VMT Mix: .
!IV tract!
^zat£i,nrs:: E* °p^s«»5 SoS'
"--' .,; Fariod I RV»I
•-• -later .-•-. moji.
0/373
0.00 %
ocoi.po.ita emission Factors
Non-Math 1C:
exhaust 1C:
Ivaporat 1C:
• Raf u*l t ICl
Runino; t 1C:
Rstina t ICl
exhaust CO:
Exhaust HOXt
1.52
O.8*
0.21
0.01
0.3*
0.02
13.23'
1.0*
19.4
' 0.207
0.00 %
' (Sn/Mila)
1.7*
1.10
0.23
0.03
0.3*
0.02
13.45
1.2*
9.0
LOOT*
14.4 '"'
0.08*

2.34
1.34
0.24
0.03
0.32
0.0*
20.35
1.92
97.1
20.4
Minimum Tanp: 72.
Pariod 2 RVF: 9.0
LOOT ODOV


1.94
1.23 •
0.23
0.03
0.43
0.02
14.97
1.44
' TTT
0.

3.
1.
0.
0.
gf
22.
3.
T-
034

71
19
07
44
03
48
57
/ »7.t / 87.1 (r) Rafioa: tow
/'27.3 / 20.4 Altitttdai 300. rt.
(F) Maximo. Tamp: 92.
Farlod 2 start Its 1992
LDDV LDOT «BOV
•19. i
0.002

0.30
0* 30



1.44
1.0*
ii. t iJ.< "
0.005 0.084

0.49 2.03
0. 89 2.03 •



1.41 11.17
1.24 4.34
(r>
MC
TT:
0.

3.
1.
3.


0.
24.
, 0.
I—'
004

41
83
34


42
41
78 •
All vaa
	

1.789
1.114
0.242
0.018
0.374
0.01*
14.444
1.734
  MO»Zt»S*  (24-HBZ-93)
 OI/M program **l*at«dt

 O    lt«ct y««r (J«nu»ry 1):
      7r«-1981 Mint «trtng»ncy r»t»:
      rtr»t wxtol y««r ao»»r«dt
      L««t modal y««i cor«r>dt
      »«tw«r rat* (pr«-1981):
      »«i7«t t»t« (19*1 and namrl i
      Caaqpllaae* !Ut»i
      Ia*p*etio» typ«r
      IniMatiea fraqnaaey
      v.hiol* typ«* =ov»rtdl
                                           20*
                                          198«
                                         ,2020
                                           3.%
                                           3.%
                                          9«.»
                                          T««t only
                                          Annual
                                          UJOV - Yaa
                                         LDOCT - Yaa
                                         LOOT2 - t»»
                                          mar - uo
                                          IM40 t.»t
                                      20.00O    HOSt
      1981 t latar MUt t*«t typ«:
    ,  Cutpotnta,  1C:     0.80O   COi
 orunctional Chaek rrof cam D«oriptloai
 ochaoK start  Modal ft*  v.hlola ci*»»  Conn4
               Co»«ra4    LIXJV   LDdTl   UXJTJ
                                                         Inapaotiom
                                                                 Anawi
                                                                 Anaoat
                                                                 Ananai
 rraaa 19»«    1983-2020  Y«»    Ya«    Y
 Parga lt<«    H84-J02O  f*m    r«a    y
 AW   1983    1981-2020  Y.a    ¥•«    y
 y.T? •>**•»  ^^              w,
 rev lyitaat djja»laa«at«i            Ha   Mlaaiaa; am* capat
OKott-awtau* «C •Blaaim faoeon taclud. .raporaciT* K «aa«ate« faotaza.
                                          »    M  T««« only
                                          a    Ho  t*at only
                                          .    »y,  T««t 0«1J
                                          catalyaC r«»o»al»:
                                          Tailpip* l«ad 
 ocal. r..r: 2029        I/M rro«ra
                  *n«t-ea«. rrafCMt xaa
                   luroowoatad a**< no
 Olaaallaa rual...          .
                       P«ciod 1 KV»i 10. S
 o  v«h. typat    .  torn     uran     mats
                                              uttoata* salaadar
                                          (12/1/12) ootdaaea
                                             Opcxatta* Nodat
                                                              yaaz.
                                                            •aw cradita
                                                            87.1  / 87.1 / 87.1
                                                            20.4  / 27,3 / 20.4
                                                                                (F)  (aaioat  tow
                                                                                  Altltoaal   30O.
 v*a. spaadat
     VMT Him:      0.575
   ztv Fraot:      0.00 *
OCoMpaaita tfeiasioa Faotoza
                             0.207
                             O.OO %
 Hon-Meta «Ci
 exhaust  let
 Ivaporat let
 Rafual t Ks
 RuniBa- t Ki
 Rstla* t act -
. exhaust  cor
 exhaust "WXi
  0.94
  0.71
  0.0*
  0.01
  0.1*

 10.4O
•  0.94
  1.0*
,  0.**
  0.08
  0.03
:, o-.otfc-.
  o.oi.:
 I j.0»
                                       0.08)*
  1.2*
,  1.0*
 -0.0*
  ,0.01
  0.10
  0.0*
' 15.27
                                               fariod 2
                                                 uxn
  1.10
  0.8*
  0.0*t
  0.03
  O.O*
.  0.0*
 13.01
  1.14 :
                                                              7*.
                                                              8.7
                                                           mav
  3.4*
  1.91
  1.0*
  0.07"
..." 0.5*

 2*!<*
                                                                         Fariod 2 start Tri  19*2
                                                                                                         All Vak
                                                                     0.001
                                                                     0.50
                                                                     0.50
                                                                     1.44
                                                                     1.0*
                                                                               O.OOS
                                                                               0.4*
                                                                               0.4*
                                                                               1.11
                                                                               1.24
                                                                                         0.084
                                                                                        2.0J
                                                                                        2.03
                                                                                       11. IT
                                                                                        4.5*
                                                                                                   0,004
 9.4*
 1.89
 3.19
 0.4*
24.41
 0.78
 1.1*0
 0.91*
 0.1*1
 0.01*
 0.119
 0.01*
11.7*3
 1.349
*«S*3&ZStt&gii^^
ocal, taart 20**.;'-- - T-^i/pi. vzearamt z«*>       Aawlaat Taap: 87.1 / 47.i / 87.1
            •   „;- a***-****, tngnmt r*»,    oparatlnf Modat 20.4 / 27.3 / 20.4
-'•'-       ''   •  «*J.t>8a»iTil8« aa»« T«a     ,    Arm ciaaai c   .
orad f haaa 1 rart]-, K  -                       HiiOniT.pt  72. (r)          MaxUuai Tawi   »*.
a  v.»  T»-,      '^»a»y-*t^?m*t 1?:*_    »«i«l » "W»:  8.0        Fariod * start Yzi  1991
0  va». Typai      HHHfj    tDOTl     LOOCX      LOUT      SDOV      LDDV      LOOT
                                                                                IF)  Rafloat  tow
                                                                                  Altitodai  5OO.
 vaa. Ipaadai
     VMT Kt»t    '  0.375
   ZSV rnati      O.OO »
oconpeaita tadLaalaa. Faotoza
 Hon-Mctb  1C:
 txhaoat   ICl
 ivaaazat  *Ci
 Rafnal L  let
 Runia« t  Ki
 Rstiaf t  Ki
 Kxaaiut   COi
 txsaoat HOKr
                   0.7*
                   0.41
                   0.04
                   O.OI
                   0.0*
                   0.02
                   *.<•
                   0.84
            0.2O7
            0.00  »
           («fc/HUa»
            0.87
            0.4*
            0.0*
            0.0*
            0.07
            0.0*
            9.42
            l.O*
                                       0.081
            1.0*
            0.90
            0.0*
            0.03
            0.0*
            0.0*
           12.2*
            1.3*
            0.94
            0.74
            0.04
            0.03
            0.07
            0.0*
           10.5*
            1.14
            3.09
            1.49
            0.90
            0.04
            0.4*
            0.03
           17.0*
            3.7*
                                                                     0.00*
                                                                     0.30
                                                                     0.3O
                                                                     1.44
                                                                     1.0*
                                                                               1.41
                                                                               1.24
                                                                                         2.03
                                                                                         2.03
                               11.17
                                4.9*
                                                                                                  0.004
                                         4.9O
                                         1.75
                                         2.73
 0.4*
20.9*
 0.7*
 1.034
 0.814
 0.09*
 0.017
 0.087
 0.01*
 9.728
 1.345
                  iza aa ot.JUiy 1st oi tka ladioatad' calaadax yaar
                  u la 1994 «»OT« uslaa (12/1/92)  Ooidaaaa kk»> cr,
 tiy phaaa-ia Baalaa la 1994 'tot* usta» (1J/1/**)  Ouldaaa.
OCal. Yaar i 202O        i/M Izoaxaau Yea
                  Aati-ta>. rzaacaau Yaa

or*d ra* (Vapor)
                       Fariod 1 KWt 10.9
                                             opazatla*
                                                                 Credit*
                                                             87.1 / 87.1 /
                                                             20.4 / 27.3 /
                                                                             I («   .
                                                                             *   Altit
                                                                         Fariod. 2 atart
                                                                                         I taw
                                                                                            too.
                                                                                             92.
                                                                                        Yri  1991
                                                                                                 rt.

                                                                                                 <»»

-------

-------
    0   Vak.
                       LDSV
                                LDOT1
                                          LBOT2
                                                     LOOT'
                                                              HDGV
Van." Ipaadat
Z«v rraott
it. I
0.97S
3.00 »
o!207
. 0.00 %
nrr-
0.0**
• 	 19. i
0.034
T*^" n^~ rrr-
0.002 0.009 0.0*4
OConpeait* «mi«»io« raotor* «M/Milni
• non-Math
txhauat
tv«por»t
Rafual L
Kunln? L
1C:
act
ICr
aci
ac: ' .
R*tin« {.act
tx&auat cot
Ixhauat MOXi -
0.«T .
o.n ,
0.04
O.OI
. - 0.01 •"-
0.02;
10.92
0.92
0.9*.
0,81
0-.09
- 0.02 •'•"
0,0*
0.02
11.94
1.02
1.21
1.09
0.09
0.03
• 0.0«
O.02
19.19
, 1.37
1.03
o.a*
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.02
12.91
1.12
3.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
20.
3.
02
89
05
30
03
88
93
0.30 0.«» j.os
0.90 0.8* 2.01

1.44 1.S1 n.
1.09 1.24 , 8.

17 •':•
34
HC
Li.t ""
O.OO4

4. 73
1.89
2.4*
0.42
24.81
0.7*
All Van-

1.101
0.91*
o.oss
0.01*
0.018,'
11.42*
1.39*
v.h. apaadat
• VMT MUt:
- ziv meet
ocoiipaiita taiai
Nen-Matk 1C:
txhauat 1C I
Ivaparat let
Ralual L Id
Runing L sci
luting L Kt
Ixbauit cot
tzbaaat MOJO
T57S —
0.979
0.00 %
•ioa factor*
o.ai
0.71
0.09
0.01
0.04
0.02
la. 92
0,92
t9.<
0.207
O.OO %
(aayitUa)
0.93
0.81
0.03
0.02
0.04
11^94
1.02
m —
0.0**
t!os
0.04
0.01
0.04
O.O2
13.19
1.37
__^^

1.01
o!o9
0.02
0.04
0.02
12.91
1.12
T9T
a.
2.
I.
0.
0.
0.
0.
20.
3.
J
9
034
79
89
«4
09
14
O3
8*
99-
•
0.002
0.30
0.90
1.44
1.0*
— ww*
iJ.4
o.oos
a'.st
1.81
1.24
•B0V
o!o*4
2.03
2.03
11.17
4.9*
MB
•it.i "
0.004
4.44
1.89
2.17
0.42
24.81
0,7*
All V.h
—
1.083
0.918
0.072
0.014
0.042
0.01*
                                                                             *7.1 (f) Kaaloa.1 Lo.
                                                                             20.4   Altito«tai  900. ft.
                                                                                           0.0*4
                                                                                                     0.004
   Hoa-Mctk Ki
   Ixkaiu«  let
   Ivapont tc:
   R»fi»l t, let
   Kunlaf L ICi
   R»tta» L let
   Utetue  cot
 O.*7
 o.(2
 0.0*
 o.ot
 0.13
 0.02
10.20
 0.93
 0.7O
 0.0*
 0.01
 0.10
 0.02
11.80
 0.9O
                                       1.17
                                       O.tt
                                       0.0*
                                       0.03
                                       0.11
                                       0.02
                                      14.70
                                       1.23
 1.00
 0.77 '
 0.0*
 0.03
 0.10
 0.02
12.93
 1.00
                                                            3.71
                                                            1.74
                                                            1.1*
                                                            O.OT
                                                            0.44
                                                            0.03
                                                           22.4*
                                                            3.97
0.90
0.90
                                                                       1.44
                                                                       1.0*
0.4*
0.4*
                                                             1.41
                                                             1.24
                                                  ,2.01      9.41
                                                   2.01      1.S9
                                                             3.34
                              0.42
                   11.17     24.41
                    4.9*     . 0.7*
                                                                                                            All V«k
          1.121 '
        .  0.827
          0.131
          0.014
          0.127
         • 0.01*
         11.3*0
   MOSiLISa (24-Mar-*3>
  OI/M program lalaotadt
            y««
       Pt«-19*l  Mm .triag.nay
       first nodal  y«r  cor«n
       La*e nod4a y««r oorcndt
       »«i»«r  cat*  (pi»-194t)i
       w«i».r  r«t«  (1941 u Madat 20.8 /
                                                                   37.1
                                                                   J7.3
                          97.1
                          20.4
          If) Raaiam Lev
            Altituda.  100.
                                   i Tanctt  72.
                            »ario« 2 XWt  8.7
                              LOOT      mov
                                                                                        ft  92.
                                                                        f.ciod 2 (tare Ttt 19*2
                                                                    LDOV      UIOC      1DOV
1.10
0.4*
0.0«
0.01
                                                           3.49
                                                           1.91
                                                           1.0*
                                                           0.07
                                                                      0.002
                                                                    0.9O
                                                                    0.56
                                                                                O.OO*
         0.4*
         0.4*
                                                                                          0.0*4
         2.01
         2.01
9.42
1.8*
1.19
                                                                                                           AU Vak
                                                                               1.1*0
                                                                               0.81*
                                                                               0.121,
                                                                               0.01*

-------

-------
Kuniaa L *C<
Rstina- L 1C <
Ixhauat cot
CxUu«t HOXI
0.12
0.02
10. SO
0.9*
0.0*
0.02
12.09
1.04
0.10
0.02
13.27
1.39
0.0»
0.02
13.01
1.14
0.59
0.03
22. 66
3.7*
1.44
1,09
1.61
1.24
11.17
8.3*
0.42
24.81
0,7*
,0.119
o.oi*
11.793
1.383
 oc*i.  Yaan 2020        I/M rroarm (••
                   Aatl^am. rrograat ¥••
                    Xafoonlatao: Su< Ya«
 or.d rha*a i ru*i
                        rariod 1 KV*I 10.3
 0  Vah.  Typat      LDOV     LDCT1     LDOX2
                              AmBiaat Taapi 87.1 / 97.1
                            Oparatin? Modal 20.6 / 27.3
                                ASTX Cla*ai C
                              Minianm T«pt  72. (T)
                              »ariod 2 RVTI  8.0
                                                  LOOT
                                                            HDOV
                                                                       LBOV
/ 87.1  (f) xaoloai Lev
/ 20.«   Altitudat  500.

     Maxijuai Txtpi  12.
P«riod 2 Start Yrt 1991
ft.
                                                                                                            All Vah
  Vah.  spaadai
                   i>. s      li.i      14.1
    :zv rrastt       o.oo %    o.oo %
 OCenpoaita Imiaaion factor* (OB/Mila)
Non-Math ICl 0.79 0.97 1.09 0.94 3.0*
Exhauat ICl 0.61 0.8* 0.90 0.76 1.6*
Evaporat ICl 0.0* 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.90
Rafual L 1C1 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.0*
Runing L ICl 0.0* 0.07 0.0* 0.07 0.41
Ritina L 1C: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03
Zxhauat COl 8.6* 9.82 12.2* 10.3* ' 17.0*
Cxhauat NOXl 0.94 1.04 1.39 1.14 3.7*
LIV phaaa-ia baaiaa ia 19*4 u»ina (12/1/9J) ouldaaea Maa» cradlt*
ocal. Yaari 2020 I/M Froaraan Yaa Anbiaat Tan*)i *7.1 /
Anti-tarn, rroaraax Yaa oparatiaa; Madai 29.1 /
Rafooralatad Oaai Bfc>
orad fhl I vapor) Hloiwa* Taapt 72. (
Pariod 1 KVTt 10.J Pariod 2 KWt 7.9
0 Vak. Typat LOSV LDOtl LOOK LOST ttOV
Vak. Spaadat U.I U.I U.I "~^~~ U.I
VMT Mill 0.979 0.207 o!o*9 o!o34
zrv rtaeti o.oo % o.oo %
oconpoaita cadaaioa raetor* (<3B/MUa)
Noa-Matk ICl 0.87 0.9* 1.21 1.03 3.01
txhauat ICl 0.71 0.81 1.09 0.8* 1.89 -
zvaporae ici • o.o* 0.09 0.09 o.ot 0.7*
Rafual L ICl 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.0*
Xuaiaf L ICl 0.07 0.0* 0.0* 0.0* - 0.30
Ratiaf L 1C I 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 O.OJ
Ixhauat COl 1O.9Z 11. »« 19.19 12.91 20.1*
txhauat HOXt 0.92 1.01 1.37 1.11 ' 3.9)

OCal. Yaari 202O , t/M frofraau Yaa Aatoiaat Taaa)i »7.1 /
Aati-taa. rroaramt faa Oparatia* Madai 2O.4 /
. RafooaalataaV Oast a»
OCA KT9 (Vapor) MieiaMk Taaaii 72. (
rariod 1 RVtt 10.9 Pariod 1 KV*t «.»
0 Vak. Typai LDOV LDOT1 LDOT1 LOOT . SOOV
vafc. Spaadat 14.4 U.I li.l • U.I
VMT Mizi 0.379 0.207 0.0*9 0.034
zrv rzaett o.oo • o.oo %
OCcMtpaaita taiaaioa raetor* (Ok/MU*)
Hoa-Matk ICl 0.*3 0.93 1.10 1.01 1.79
Ixhauat ICl 0.71 0.81 1.09 0.8* 1.89
Kraporat ICl 0.03 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.84
Rafual L ICt 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.09
Kundna L ICI 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04. O.I*
Mtiaa L ICl 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.03
Zxhaaat COl 1O.92 11.** 19.19 12.91 2O.4*
Cxhanat HOXI 0.91 1.01 " 1.37 1.12 3.99
0.30
0.30
1.44
1.09
;
87.1 /
27.3 /

r)
F<
LOOV
U.|
0.001


0.90
0.30




1.44
1.09
•
87.1 /
27.3 /

r>
n
LDOV
U.I
0.001


0.9O
0.3O




1.44
1.0*
0.8* 2.03 ,
0.8* 2.03
1.41 11.17
1.24 (.3*

87.1 tr> Kaqloai Low
20.4 Altitodci 900.

Muiatai Taafii 92.
iriod 1 ftart Yri 1992
LOOT , tDSPf
TTTt — tl.l ,
0.003 0.0*4


0.49 2.03
0.4* 2.03




"1741 11.17
1.24 (.3*

47.1 (r) lUfioai Lev
20.* Altitndai 900.

Maxlaam taaaii 92.
iriod 2 Mart tit 19*2
LOO* IDOV
U.I U.I
O.OOf 0.0*4


0.4* 2.03
0.6* 2.03




1.41 11.17
1.24 4.3*
4.90
1.79 •
• 2.73
0, 42
20.99
0.78


rt.

ir>

MS
^1 j
0.004


4.73
' l.*9
2.4*


0.41
24.41
O.7*

re.

(r»

HC
^1 1
O.OO4


4.44
1.89
2.17


0.42
24.41
0.7*
1.034
0.814
0.09*
0.017
0.087
0.018
9.729
1.369






All vak
'




1.1O1
0.91*
0.0*9
0.01*
0.0**
0.01*
11.429
1.393





All vak
'-



.0(3
.91*
.072
.01*
.041
.01*
11.42*
1.W3
   la 19*4 uia«  (13/l/*2>  anioaaoa MBM Cradit*
      I/M rrofnau YM       Aaallaat Taaa>i (7.1 / 87.1 / (7.1  (r) lUftaaji Lav
Aati-«aB. rrovrajM XM     oparatia* Modal 20.4 / 27.3 / 20.*   Altittjdai  SOO. rt.
 Rafonaalata* Oaal Ma                                 •
                              MlaianaB Taaa>t  72. (r>         nailaiaa Taaa>t  92.  
-------

-------
  1   9«Jic  I/M.
                                                             Output »il«j,  Ail IMVm:  "9001.
  MOBILI3a  (28-Mar-»3)
 OI/H program  selected*  "

 0    start year  1Jaauery 1)i
      ST.-1991 MYR stringency -ratei
      rtrst Tuwel year eoveredi
      Last model year eoTeradi
      Haider rat* lpre-1981)i
      waiver rate (1981 and timer) i
      Compliance Rate:
      Inspection type:
      Inspection frequency
      Vehicle typea coverao.1
      1981 < later MYR teat typet
      cutpointa, acs  220.000   cot
                        1983
                        20*

                        2020
                      ,  0.%
                        0.»
                      100. »
                        Test Only
                        Annual
                        LOSV - Yea
                      LOGTl - Yea
                      LDST2 - Yea
                        HDOV - No
                        2300 rpm /
                    i.:oo
                                                    rdla
                                                    999.000
 OKon-nathana K eniaaion factor* include evaporative ac'emission  factors.
 ocal. Yaart 2020
OBaaeline ruel...

0  Veh. Typei
      I/M Progremi Yes
Anti-tarn. Programi Mo
 Reformulated Sast tea

     Period 1 RVft 10.3
 LDGV     LOOT!     LDOT2
                                                   tea calendar year.
                                                   Guidance nemo Cradita
                                               Ambieat Tempi 87.1 / 97.1 /  87.1
                                             Operating Model 20.8 / 27.3 /  20.4
                                                                                 IT) Regioni Low
                                                                                  Altitudei  300. rt.
                                                Minima Tsjaat   72.
                                                Period 2  RVTi   8.7
                                                  LOOT      aBSV
ir>         Maximum Tempt  92.  (r)
       Period  2 Start Yrt 1992
   LDDV     LOOT      ZDDV      MC
                                                                                                          All vek
     VMT Mixt      0.573     0.207
   2SV rraott      0.00 %.    0.00 %
OCoapoaite Imiaaioa rectors «aa/MUo)
                                                                     0.002
                                                                               0.005
                                                                                         0.0(4
Hoa-Meta act 1.47 1.73 2.4* 1.9* 3.89 0.30 0.8* 203
Ixhauat act 0.90 1.13 1.7* 1.32 1.91 0.30 0 89 I'ol
tvaporat act 0.19 0.21 0.22 0.21 1 09
Refuel L act 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.03 0 07
Ruaing t act 0.33 0.35 0.47 0.3* o'.St
Rstiag 1 aci 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03
Ixhauat COi 12. 0< 14.15 21.33 18.30 22.8* 1.44 1.81 11 17
Ixhauat HOXi 1.15 1.35 . 2.0* 1.3* 3.78 l.o* i.ll ".S*
L«y phase-in begins ia 1994 »»OT« using (12/1/92) duldaaee Memo Credit*
OCal. Year! 2020 I/M Program! Yea Ambient Tempt 87.1 / 87.1 / 87.1 (r> Reeioet Lo.
Anti-tarn. Program! Mo operating Model 20.8 / 27.3 / 20.* Altitude, 30O.
Reformulated Seat Yea AST* Claaai c ~*««eai a»».
ored Phase 1 ruel Mialmm Tempi 72. (?) Maximum Tempi 92
Pariod 1 KV»i 10.5 . Period 2 «w»i ».o Period 2 start Yri 1991
0 Veh. Typei LDOV LDOTl LOOTS LOOT nXJV LDOV LBO*^ aDOV
Vfjtl. Sp*ACdelt • l^r^T™^ l^F^^^^™ Ty^F~ m -esBBBBBBaaamma. i , i _ i i,a ^emiemimaeM veeiweaiemm* 
Son-Math ICl 1.2* 1.30 2.20 1.71 3.02 0.30 0.4* 2.03
Ixhauat act 0.90 1.13 1.7* 1.32 1.83 0.30 0 8» 2 03
tvaporat act 0.13) 0.14 0.1* 0.13 0.78
Refuel L act O.Ot O.OJ 0.03 0.03 0.08
Runing L act 0.1*) 0.1* 0.24 0.2O 0.30
Rating L act 0.0* O.OJ 0.02 0.02 0 03
Exhaust COi H.»7 14.0* 21.lt 14.1* 20.8* 1.44 1.41 11.17
ixhaust HCntt 1.13 1.32 2.02 1.33 3.93 1.09 I. It ,.3t
LIV phase-in begiaa la 19*4 •HOT* ualae; (12/1/92) Ouldance inn: credits
OCal. Yean 2020 t/M Progremi Yea Ambient Tempi 97. l 97.1 / §7.1 (r> Regioat Low
.Aati-tme,. Program! »o Operating Modei 20. s / :7.3 / :o.« Altltudet 300.
Reformulated Oaai »a
oc* M« (Vapor) Mialmiam Tempt 72. (PI Maxima* Tempt 92.
Period 1 KVTi 10. 5 Period 2 RVP: ».9 Period 2 Start Yri 1*»2
0 Veh. Typei . LDGV LDOTl UXJT2 LDOT SDGV LDDV LOOT BJDV
3.42
1.85
3.15


0. 42
24. <1
0.7*

rt.

MC

IT7J —
0.004

4.90
1.73
2.73

0.42
20.9*
0.7*

rt.
(r)
MC

im —
0.004

4.73
1.85
2 . 44


0.42
24.81
0.7*

rt.

if)
MC
1.730
1.15*
0.221
o.ou
0.334
0.01*
13.380
1.813



All Vek



1.483
1.00*
0.179
0.017
0. 241
O.Olt
11.027
1.813



All Vek



1.320
1.13*
0 • 139
0 . 01 C

0.011
13.433
1.79*




All Veh
 veh. apeedai     ii.l
     VW Mix.      0.373     0.207     0.0*9
   ZXV rraeti      0.00 %    0.00 *
OCoBpoaite baiaaioa raotora (Ok/Mile)
 Soa-Metk act-      1.14      1.4O      2.07
 Ixhauat  ICl      0.9O      1.13      1.7*
 Ivaporat act      0.11      0.12      0.13
 Refuel L ICt      0.01      0.02      0.03
 Runlna: L act      0.10      o.io      0.13
                                                                    0.002 .    0.00*
                                                1.80
                                                1.32
                                                0.13
                                                0.02
                                                0.11
                                        2.73
                                        1.85
                                        0.58
                                        0.03
                                        0.18
  0.30
  0.30
0.4*
0.4*
2.03
2.03
4.44
1.8*
2.17
1.417-
1.15*
0.132
0.01*
0.095

-------

-------
Rating L «Ci
Exhaust Opt
lxh*u»t HOXJ
0.02
11.97
1.11
0.02
14. OS
1.32
0.02
21. IS
2.02
0.02
18.18
1.33
0.03
20.98
3.93
LEV ph.,.-ln b.,i«. la 1994 .MOT- Mitt, (12/1/92) suidanc. H«£
ocal. Y.ar: 2020 I/M Pro^ramt raa Ambiant Tampi 37.1
Anti-tarn, programt wo Oparatin, Modai 20.8
Xaformulatad Saat HO
OIndolana ruai
0 v«h. Typai
*
'/•h. Spaads i
VMT Mix:
IEV rract:
QCOTUpCSita K»^
Non-Math aci
Exhaust act
Eviporat ac:
Safual L HC!
tuning It act
Rstino- L ac:
Exhaust CO:
Exhaust HOX:
1 cnhancad I/t
Pariod I RVTt
LDOV LOOT1
0.573
0.00
1.42
0. 79
0.21
0.01
0.39
0.02
11.42
1.00
19. e
0.207
» 0.00 %
1.64
0.99
0.23
0.03
0.3S
0.02
13. S3
1.17
9.0
LDGT2
TTT3 —
0.08*
2.34
1.54
0.24
0.03
0.32
0.02
20.35
1.32
Minimum
Pariod
LDOT

1.J7
1.16
0.23
0. 03
0. 43
0.02
13.70
1.38
Tamp't 7 2 .
2 RVP : 9.0
RDOV
it. i
0.034
3.71
1.7«
1 > 19
0. 07
0 . 64
0. 03
22.48
3.37
1.44
1.09
C radio
/ 97.1 /
/ 27.3 /
I. SI
1.24
11.17
S.34
«7.1 (f) Ragiont Low
20. S Altitudat 300.
ID Maximum T
Pariod 2 stare
LDDV LDDT
19. «
0.002
0.30
0.30



1.44
1.09
tJ.4
o.oos
.O.S9
O.S9



1.S1
1.24
ampt 92.
Yr: 1992
aoDV
0.084'
2.03
2.03



11.17
8.34
0
24
0
rt
.42
.SI
.78

in
HC
IT
0
3
1
3


0
24
0
.004
.61
.33
.34


.42
.SI
.78
0.013
13.433
1.797

All Vah


1.694
1.041
0.242
0.018
0.374
0.018
13.142
I. 960
 MOlILESa  l2S-Mar-93)
OI/M program aalactadt

0    start yaar  (January 1):
     Pra-1981 MYK  stringaney  ratal
     First nodal yaar covaradl
     Last modal yaar eovaradt
     waivar  rata  (pra-1981):
     ffaivar  rata  ('1981  and name) t
     Complianca Ratai
     Inspection typat
     Inspaotion Craquancy
     Vahlola typaa covaradl
                                      199<
                                       20%
                                      198S
                                      2020
                                       3.t
                                       3.»
                                      98.*
                                      Taat Only
                                      Annual
                                      LD5V - Taa
                                     LOST1 - ra*
                                     UJOT2 - Yaa
                                      aoov - HO
                                      IM240 tart
                                  20.000   HOZI
     1981 i latar ttn taat typa:
     Cutpolnta, let    0.300   COt
orunctioaal chaek Program Daaoriptiont
Ochack start   Modal IT.  vahiela claaaaa Cmarad
       (Jaal)  Covarad    LDOV   LOOVi   LDOT2   DOV
                                                      Znap«otion
                                                              rra
 Praia 199*    1983-2020  Yaa
 Purcja 199«    1989-2020  Yaa
 AT*   1981    1981-2020  Yaa
OAir pump lyataai diaatolaawata t
 rual lalae raatrietoc UriM
 tan diiablaawaet
 PCV >y>taa
                              Yaa
                              Yaa
                              Y.a
   Ya»    Ha  Taat Only     Annual
   Yaa    No  Tact Only     Annual
   Yaa    Ho  Taat Only     Annual
Ho   Catalyst raanarala t
Yaa  Tailpip* laad aapoait taatt
No   traporatira syrtaai dlaaBlaaMatai
Mo   Hiaain, ,aj) oap«i
:-«Mthana 1C aaa»ioa  faetOM  iaelud* a^aporatln 1C aa>i«aioa factor*.
94.0*
94.0*
   Yaa
   Ho
   Ho
   No
ni 7 Ph"»-iB »•«*'>• la !»*« •*«« u«ln« (12/1/92) auldaaca Mama cradita
ocal. faari 2020 I/M Program! Yaa Ambiaat Tampi 37.1 / J7.l / 37
Anti-tarn. Program! Yaa Operating Modai 20. S / 27.3 / 20
Razormulatad aaai Ho
OSasalina rual... Mi nimai Tampi 72. If)
0 Vah. Typai
+•
VMI Miii
zxv rractt
Pariod 1 KVFi
LOOV LOOT!
19.1
0.375
0.00 »
l».i
0.207
O.OO %
OCatpoaita Imiaaioa raotora (QaWatlla
(Ion-Math let
Exhaust ICt
Evaporat let
Ratual L act
Runing L let
Rsting L ICt
Exhaust cot
Exhauat HOXt
LEV phasa-in
0.81
o.so
0.0*
0.01
0.12
0.02
3.92
0.31
0.90
0.3*
0.0*
0.01
0.0*
0.02
10.1*
0.91
10.5
LSOTI
rn —
0.08*
)
1.21
. l.OS
0.0*
0.01
0.10
0.02
15.27
1.3*
Pariod
LOOT


1.01
0.80
0.0*
0.01
0.0*
0.02
11. S*
2 RVP! 9.7
EDSV
H.J
0.034

3.69
1.91
1.01
0.07
0. 3*
0.01
22. S4
. 3.78
.1 IF) Ragiont tow
* Altitudat 30O
MaxlMna ¥••«• t9 .
Pariod 2 start
LDOV LOOT
19.1
0.002

0.30
0.30

1.44
1.09
H.l
o.oos

0.4*
0.6*

1.31
1.24
Yrt 19*2
1DOV
H.l
0.0*4

2.01
2.01

11.17
3.3*
rt
C)
1C
rr
0

3.
1.
3.

0.
24.
0.


I—
004

42
95
15

42
31
78

All Vaa


1.101
0.82*
0.121
0.01*
0. 115
0.01*
10.411
1.478
tora ara aa at Jaly lat at taariadleatad calandar yaar. 	 ~~~ ~~~~ "~ ^^~~~"~ ~~ — — ____
baa***) la 19*4 'tat* oalaaj (12/1/92) suidanca Hamo cradits
OCal. Yaari 2020 I/M
Aatl-tam.

orad Phasa 1
0 Vah. Typat
4.
Vah. spaadat
VWT Mlxt
ZXV rractt
OComposlta Km
Hon-+4ath ICt
Exhauat 1C i
Evaporat let
RaCual L ICt
Runing L ICt
Rsting L let
Exhauat COt
Exhaust MOXt
LEV phasa-la
naraaaaii
rual
trogrami
tta«t Oaai
Yaa
Yaa
Yaa
Ambiaat
Operating
ARM
Tamp 37.1 /
Moda 20. S /
Clasa c
97.1 / 87
27.3 / 20

1 (T} Ragloat Low
4 Altitudat 300

KiniJitam Tamo 72. ir) u.<1.« r.
rarioal 1 KV»I
LOOT L&m
o!s73
O.OO %
issloa ractors
0.70
0.51
0.04'
0.01
0.09
0.02
. 7.2*
0.81
oagiaa in 19*4
ocal. Yaari 2020 I/M
0.207
O.OO %
10.5
LOOT*
19.4
0.0**
Pariod
LOOT

2 KVT 9.0
1DSV
0.034
Pariod 2 start
LDOV LOOT
rn —
0.002
TT7I —
0.003

aspi 92.
Yrt 1»»2
mov
H.t
0.084
rt.

(D
MC







All Vak
li.l
0.004
IQa/MUa)
0.74
0.3*
0.04
0.02
0.07
0.02
1.2S
0.91
July lat
•sror* u
rroarmmi
Anti-tarn, rrovramt
Ratormolatad Oast
orad »h2 (V.p.
«>

1.0*
0.90
0.0*
0.01
0.0*
0.02
12.2*
1.3*
0.38
0.6*
0.0*
0.01
0.07
0.02
9.48
1.04
of tka ladioatad'
•iaa; (12/1/92) 9ul
Yaa
Yaa
Ho

Amkiaat
oparatlaa
KLaiaw
3.39
1.53
0.90
O.OS
0.42
0.03
17.09
3.74
0.30
0.50

1.44
1.09
3.69
0.69

1.41
1.24
2.03
2.01

11.17
4.3*
4.
1.
2.

0.
20.
0.
90
73
73

42
9*
7*
0.994
0.734
0.09*
0.017
0 087
0.01*
3. SOS
1.47*
calandaz yaar.
daaea Mamo cradita
Tampt 37.1 /
Hodat 20.6 /
Taaatt 72. II
87.1 / 17.
27.3 / 20.
)
1 IF) Xaajl
ami Lam
4 Altltudai 9OO.
MuiMam ra
m*>i 92.

rt.
(F)







-------

-------
0 vah. Typai
P.riod 1 RVP:
LDOV' LDOT1
. i • ^— -^^-•—
v.h. Spaadai i?.«
vwr Mix: 0.373
3IV Tract: 0.00 %
ocorapoait. Biissloa raatora
Son-Math EC:
Jxhaust 3C:
Evvporat ac:
P.fual L HC:
Runina L ac:
Rjtina L aci
Exhaust CO;
Exhaust MOX:
LIV phasa-in
OCal. Y.ar: 2

0.75
0.40
0.0*
0.01
0.07
0.02
3 . 39
0.31
10.3
LDOT2
P.riod
LOOT
1.9.6 19.4
0.207 0.099
0.00 %
(SM/Mila)
•e.34
0.59
0.05
•3.02
O.OS
0.02
10.09 .
0.90
1.21
1.05
0.03
0.03
0.08
0.02
13.15
1.37
0.95
0.30
0.05
0.03
0.08
0.02
ll.il
1.04
2 RVT: 7.3 Pariod. 2 Start Yr: 1992
UDOV LDDV LOOT BDDV
0.034
3.02
1.33
0.13
0.09
0.30
0.03
20.38
3.93
B.glns in 1994 'MOT* using (12/1/92) Ouidanoa Masjo
020 I/M
Anti-tax*.
R.f omuls
oc». RJTO (Vapor)

0 vah. Typai
v.li . Spaads t
VMT Mixi
ZXV rrauti
Paric
LDOV
, i j
19.9
0.373
0.00 %
OConpoaita mission ractora
Hon-Meth act
Ixhauat act
Cvaporat aci
Rafual L aci
Runina L act
Rstina L ac:
Cxhauat COl
Ixhauat MOXi
LIV phasa-in
0.72
O.SO
0.03
0.01
0.04
0.02
3.89
0.91
bagina in 1994
OCal. Yaar: 2020 ' I/H


Anti-tan.
RaforsMila
Program!
Prograxu
itad Gaai

id 1 RVpi
LOST1
0.207.
O.OO %
(S»/M«a)
0.91
0.99
O.OS
0.02
0.04
0.02
10.09
0.89
Taa
Taa
Ho

10.5
LDOT2
TTT3
0.089


1.18
1.05
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.02
15.15
1.37
Aabiant Taapl 87.1
Op. rating Modal 20.6

Miniauai
Pariod
LOOT



0.92
0.80
O.OS
0.02
0.04
0.02
11.81
1.04

i Taitpt 72.
2 RVT; 9.9
aosv
T573
0.034


2.73
1.85
0.9*
O.OS
0.19
0.03
20.88
3.93
•HOT* unina (12/1/92) suldaaca Maaso
Program
Proazaaii
tad OAa i
Yaa
Ya*
Mo
Olndolana rual

0 Vah. Typai
Vah. Spaadai
VMT Mixi
ZXV rractl
OCoapoaita «*.
Hon-Hath ICi
Ixhauat act
ivaporat aci
Rafual L act
Runina L act
Rstina L aci
Exhaust COf
exhaust HOXt
Pario
LDOV
19.4
0.375
0.00 %
Laaion ractora '
0.7*
0.33
0.09
0.01
0.13
0.02
8.39
0.72
d 1 RV»I
LDOT1
ITT?
0.207
0.00 »
lOa/Ktla)
0.81
0.90
0.0*
0.03
0.10
O.OZ
9.79
0.79
9.0
LDOT2
TTT?
0.0*9


1.17
0.92
•0.0*
0.01
0.11
0.02
14.70
1.23
Aabiaat
oparatiag

Minisvaa
P.riod
LOOT



0.93
0.70
0.09
0.03
0.10
0.02
11.2*
0.92
Taap: 87.1
Modal 20.9

Taayi 72.
2 RV?i 9.0
aoov
im —
0.034


3.71
1.78
1.19
0.07
0.9*
0.03
22.4*
3.37
ifTi
0.002
0.30
0.30



1. 44
1.09
Cradita
/ 87.1 /
/ 27.3 /

ir>.
P«
LDOV
TTT3 —
0.002


0.30
0.30




1.44
1.09
cradita .
/ 87.1 /
/ 27.3 /

(r)
p<
LDOV
TTT3 —
0.002


0.30
0.50




1.44
1.09
13TS
0.003
0.49
0.59



1.61
1.24

0.034
2 .03
2.03



11.17
6.38

87.1 (T} Xagioai Low
20.8 Altitudat 300.

Maxlxtum T
iriod 2 start
LOOT
0.005


0.99
0.99




1.91
1.24

97.1 (r) xa?

astpi 92.
Yri 1992
aoov
19.6
0.0(4


2.03
2.03




11.17
9.34

ioai Low
20.9 Altitudai 3OO.

Maxijana T
iriod 2 start
U»T-
19.4
o.ooa


0.49
0.99




1.91
1.24

aasai 92.
Trt 1991
aoov
it.!
0.0*4


2.03
2.01




11.17
8.3*
HC
All Vah
19.6
0.004
4.
1.
2



0 .
24.
0.

rt.

(r)

HC
0.


4.
1.
2.


0.
24.
0.


rt.

(f >

HC
T7T
0.


3.
1.
3.


0.
24.
0.
73
93
40



42
41
78






f—
004


44
95
17


42
41
7*







.—
004


41
85
34


42
41
78
1.012
0.327
0 . 085
0 01 6

o ' rti «
10.297
1.469





Ml V«b



0, 974
0.827
0. 072
O.Ola)
0 . 042
0 . 018
10.297
1.4<8






All V*»h



1 . 04*
0.731
.0.133
O.Olt
0.127
0.019
10. Ot*

 MOBILXSa,  (28-Ma.r-93>
OI/M proaraa lalaetadt

0    start yaar  (JaAU«ry  1) t
     Pra-1981 K»* itrinaaney  ratal
     rir*t nodal yaac covaradl
     Laat taodal yaar covaradl
     Kaivaz rata  lpra-1981)i
     ffaivar rata  (19*1 and  nawax)I
     Ccnpliaae4i Ratal
     tnsp«ctioa typ«t
     Inapaction fraquaney
     Vabicia typaa covaradt
                          199*
                           20%
                          198*
                          2020
                           3.%
                           3.%
                          9*.%
                          Taat Only
                          AnnuavL
                          LOOV -  Yaa
                        LDOT1 -  Yaa
                        LBOTI -  Yaa
                          1DOV -  Ho
                          IM240 taaC
                     20.0OO   HOmi
     1981 I latar MTC ta»t typaii
     Cutpointa, 1C:    0.90O    CO!
orunetional chaofc Proa^am oaaoripti.oat
OChack Start   Model Yra  v.aiola Cl*aaa» Corarad
       (Jmnl)  cov«x«at .  LDOV   LDOT1
                                          Inapaetion
                                        Typa      rraa eapa:
•atiaaioa factors iaolodai araporativa ac ualssion factors.
                                                                            Rata

                                                                            94.0%
                                                                            94.0%
                                                                            98.0%
                                                                               T.a
                                                                               Ho

                                                                               Ho
OEjkissionfactors«ra as of  Julylst ot tha indlcatad cal.ndar y..r.
 LIV phasa-ln 5.gins in 1994 usiaa 112/1/92)  Suldanca naam cr.dits
OCal. Taar: 2020        r/M  Prograaii  Yaa       Aaubiant T~tpi 97.1 / 47.1
                  Anti-taai.  Prograaii  Yaa     3paratina Modal :0.4 / 27.3
                   R.fomulatad Gaai  Mo
OSaaalina rual...                               Mitlixusa TaBp:  72. 
-------

-------
Refuel L act 0.01 0.03 0.03
Runing L (Ci 0.12 0.0* 0.10
Rating L ICl . 0.02 0.02 0.02
Zxhauat COl 3.84 4.58 15.27
Exhauat NOXI 0.2* 0.38 1.39
LIV phase-in begin* la 19*4 u*ing (12/1/92)
OCal. Year: 2020 I/M Program! Yea
Anti-Cam. Programi Ye*
Reformulated sail Ye*
Orad Phaia 1 ruel
Period 1 RVft 10.9
0 V«h. Type! LDOV LDGT1 LOOT2
^rfrS! IjoN *s:?r% l°;°8S
Non-«eth act 0.28 0.29 1.0*
Ixhauit ac: 0.10 0.12 0.90
Evaporat ICl 0.04 0.04 0.04
Refuel L.act o.oi 0.02 0.03
Runing L act 0.09 0.07 0.0(
Rating L act 0.02 0.02 0.02
Exhauat COt 3.07 3.45 12.28
Exhauat HOTt 0.24 0.38 1.39
Ltv pha>a-in begin* in 1994 u»ing (12/1/92)
OCal. Yean 2020 I/M Programi Ye*
Anti-tarn. Programi Yea
Reformulated 3a*t Da
ored Ph2 (Vepor)
Period 1 KVtl 10.5
0 Vah. Typai LDOV LDOTt LOOT3
+
Veh . 5|iear1* t 19.4 19.4 19.4
VMt Mixt 0.979 0.207 0.08*
zxv rraoti o.oo % o.oo %
OCcnpoiit* Imi**ion raetora 
. O.J3
0.39
0.04
0.03
0.07
0.02
4.23
0.48
Suidaao* I
operating

Hinimian
Period
LOOT



0.97
0.41
O.OS
0.01
0.0*
0.02
7.72
0.47
2 RVPt 8.0
HDOV
' T"ST"T~—
19.4
0.034
3.09
1.S8
0. 90
0.04
0.42
0.03
17.0*
3.74
Mama Credit*
Tempi 87.1
Modai 20.4

Tempt 72.
2 RV»! 7.9
aoov
o!o34


3.02
1.85
0.78
0.04
0.3O
0.01
20.1*
3.91
/
/

87.1 /
27.3 /

37.
20.










/
/

Pi
LDDV
19.4
0.90
0.50


1.44
1.09

87.1 /
27.3 /

iric
. 1 (r) Region! Low
4 Altitude i

Maximum Tempi
>d 2 Start Yrt
300.

92.
199Z
LOOT SDDV






87.
20.

(P)











19. e 19.
0.005 0.
0.4* 2.
0.4* 2.


1.41 11.
1.24 4.

1 (T) Region i
4 Altitodat

Maximtae TemBt
T
084
03
01


17
54

Lo*
500.

M-
Period 2 Start Yrt 19*2
LDOV LOOT ICBV
0.002


0.50
0.50




1.44
1.0*










19.4 19.
0.009 0.


0.4* 2.
0.4* 2.




1.41 11.
1.24 4.
4
084


03
03.




17
9*
rt.

(f)

MC
TT:
0.
4.
1.
2 .

0.
20.
• 0.

rt.

(T)
MC
ITT
0.


4.
I.

*

0.
24.
0.





1 	 	
004
90
75
73

42
99
78





1 	
004


73
85



.«
41
7*




Ail

0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1




All



o
o
Q

g
g
S
1




Veh

.921
.401
. 098
.017
. 087
.018
.223
.038




Veh



• 820
• 433
* 045
010
• 066
• 018
.233
.038
tluidaaoe Mama Credit*
Ambleat
operating

Minimum,
Pariod :
LOOT
Veh. speed* i 19.4 1*.4 19.4
VMT Mixi 0.379 0.207 0.0(«
ZtV rraoti 0.00 % 0.00 %
ocompo«it* tmiaaion rector* (am/Mile)
Hon-*4eth ICt 0.24 "'0.24 1.18
Ixhauat ICl 0.12 0.14 1.09
xvaporat act 0.03 o.os 0.04
Refuel L Kt 0.01 0.02 0.03
Runing L act 0.04 0.04 0.04
Rating L act 0.02 0.03 0.02
Exhauat cot 3.81 4.94 15. IS
Xxhaoat »OXt 0.29 0.37 1.17
Ltv phaae-ia bagia* ia 19*4 naiag; (12/1/92)
ocal. Yean 2020 I/M Programs Y«a
Anti-tarn. Progimmt Yo*
Reformulated 3a*l ami
OIndolaaa ruel
Pariod 1 KV»t 9.9
0 vek. Typai IDO* Loan UJeTi
+ . — -
veh. speedai 11. J 11. 1 U.I
VMT MiJtl 0.97» 0.207 O.OIf
2ZV rraoti O.OO * 0.00 %
OCompoait* tmi«*lam fa 441818 (ae/Mlle>
Hon-Meth act 0.1* 0.3S 1.17
Xxhauat act • 0.14J 0.12 0.92
Ivaporat ICl 0.0» 0.0* 0.0*
Refuel L act O.OI 0.03 0.01
Ruaing L act 0.13 0.10 0.11
R.ting L act 0.02 0.02 0.02
Exhaa*t COl 3.4* 4.41 14. 7O
Exhauit NOXI 0.22 0.31 1.23


0.94
0.41
O.OS
0.03
0.04
0.02
7.72
0.47
Tempt 87.1
Modal 20.*

Tempi 72.
i RV»! 4.9
aoov
TTTJ
0.034


2.79
1.89
0.4*
0.05
0.14
0.01
20.88
3.99
/
/

87.1 /
27.3 /

87.
20.

(T}













P<
LDOV
TTT8 —
0.002


0.30
0.30




1.44
1.0*
trio












1 (r) Ragloai
4 Altltodai

Maximum Tempt
•a 2 start Yrt
LOOT as
ITT3 — r»T
O.OOS 0.


0.4* 2.
0.4* 2.




1.41 11.
1.24 4.
Low
9OO.

92.
1992
OV
T~
0(4


03
03




17
8*

rt.

...






MC
T77
0.


4.
1.
2.


0.
24.
0.
|—
004


44
85
17


42
41
7*





All



0
o
o
o
o
o
4
1





V.h



. 382
.435
.072

. 042
.018
. 233
.038
auidaaoe Mama Credit*
Ambieat
Operating

Minimum
Pariod :
LOOT



0.4O
0.34
0.0*
0.01
0.10
0.02
7.4*
O.<0
Tempt 87.1
Modal 20.4

Tempt 72.
t «V»t 9.0
. aoov
rm —
0.034,


3.71
1.74
1.19
0.07
0.44
0.03
22.48
3.57
I
1

87.1 /
27.3 /

87.
20.

1 (r) Kagioai
4 Altitodai

(r) Maximo* Tammi













P«
LDDV
T77S —
0.002


0.30
0.30




1.44
1.0*
iria
d 2 staxe Yri
Lo»
300.

92.
1*92
LOOT aoov











i». < IT:
0.009 0.


0.4* 2.
0.4* 2.




1.41 11.
1.24 .4.
T—
084


03
01




17
54 '

1%.

(P)






MC
tr:
0.


3.
i.
3.


0.
24.
0.
7^
004


41
as
34


42

78





All



0
0
0
0
0
0

0





V.fc



.704
. 4O«
. 133
.018
. 127
-Oil
.135
.987

-------

-------
 I  laala I/H.

  MOIILXS* <24-4tar-93>
 Or/M program «al«ctadt

 0    start yaar (January 1):
      Pra-lS81 M*K atringaney  ratal
      rlrJt modal yaar covaradt
      L*«t modal yaar covaradt~
      Haivar rata (pia-U»l) i
      naivac ra'a (19*1 and nawar)t
      contplianca Ratal
      Inipaetion typat
      Inspaction fraquancy
      Vaaiela typaa  covaradt
      1991 • latar MXX taat  typ«i
      cutpointj,  1C:   220.000   coi
                                                                      Output -Fil*j,  All OL«V«:   "9001.ULV
                                          1993
                                           20%
                                          1558
                                          2020"
                                           0.%
                                           0.%
                                         100.%
                                          T««t Only
                                          Annual
                                          LDOV - Yaa
                                         LDCT1 - raa
                                         LOOTS - raa
                                          HDOV - HO
                                          2300 rpm /
                                      1.200   H0*l
                                                    Idla
                                                    991.000
 .OHon-Mthana 1C amiision  factor* Ineluda .vaporatlva le'amijaioa factor..
ucu. raari 2020
Olaaalina rual.. .
0 vah. Typai
Vah. Spaada t
VMT Mixt
ziv rractt
I/M Program!
Anti-tarn. Program!
Raformulatad Out
Pariod 1 RVFt
LOSV LDOTl
O.S7S
0.00 %
OCompoaita Imiaaion factor*
Non-Math ICt
txhauat let
Ivaporat ICi
Rafual L act
Runing L act
Rsting L let
txhauat . COt
Ixhaiut KOXl
1.44
0.87
0.19
0.01
0.33
0.02
12.0*
1.13
LIV phaia-in bagia* in 1994
ocal. Yaar i 2020
Orad Pha«a 1 rual
9 Vah. Typct
+
vah. spaadat
VMT Mixt
ZIV Fractt
OCoapoalta imiaaic
Son-Math ICi
txhauat ICi
tvaporat ICt
Rafual L 1C;
Runing L let
Rating L ICi
Ixhauat cot
Ixhauat NOXt
0.207
0.00 %

1.70
1.10
0.21
0.03
0.33
0.02
14.13
1.33
•WOT* u*
I/M Programi
Anti-tan. Programi
Raformulatad saat


Pariod 1 RVFt
LDSV LO3T1
i9.4
0.373
0.00 *
ra ractora
1.17
0.74
0.13
0.01
0.23
0.02
9.4*
1.13
iH
0.207
0.00 %
(Om/Mlla)
1.3*
0.92
0.17
0.02
0.23
0.02
11.31
1.33
Jni» 1.4 ,
ra«
No
No
10.3
LBST2
0.01*

2.4*
0.22
0.03
0.47
0.02
21.31
2.0*
Ameiant Tampt 87.1 / 87.1 / 87.1 (F) Ragiont Low
oparating Moda i 20.4 /27.3V 20.4 Altitudat 300.
Minimum Tamat 72. (F) ' Maximum Tampi 92.
Pariod 2 RVFt 9.7 rariod 2 start Trt 19*2
LOOT RDOV LDOV LOOT «DDV
m1 nr;
0.034 0.

1.93
1.2*
0.21
0.03
0.3*
0.02
14. 3O
1.3*
ing (12/1/92) auidan
Yaa
•a
ra»

1O.3
Loan
Ht j
o!o*»

2.03
1.49
0.1*
0.03
0.3*
0.02
14.90
2.04
Ambiait T«
operating Mo
ASTM Cla
Minima* Tat

3.49
1.91
1.09
0.07
0.39
0.03
22.44
3.7*

apt 87.
aat 20.
aai c
apt 72
Pariod 2 RVFt (.
LOOT BD3V
— — — •


1.3*
1.0*
0.17
0.01
0. 2*
0.02
12.9*
1.3*
^ jt ^
fl!o34

3.0*
0.9O
0.04
0. 42-
0.01
17.0*
3.74

4
002

0.30
0.30



1.
I.



44
0*
T9T1
o.oos

0.4*



1.41
1.24
0.0*4

2.03
2.01



11.17
4.3*
Ft.
(F)
MC
it.l
0.004

3.42 .
1.33
3.13


0. 42
24.41
0.7*
All Vah


1.723 .
1.133
0.221
0.01*
0.334
0.01*
13.380
1.911
i Cradita
t / 87.
4 / 27.
• (»)
1 /
3 /

«T:r (F) Raglomt to*
20.4 Altitudat 3OO.
liaitanai Ti
0 Pariod 2 xtut
LDOV LOOT
IT
0.

0.
0.

1.
1.
1 —
002

30
30

44
0*
11 i
o!oo*

0.4*
0.4*

1.41
1.24
aaa)! 92.
rrt 1992
mov
H,l
0.0*4

2.01
2.01
•
11.17
4.34
Ft.
(F)
MC
\ A J
19 . a
0.004

4.90
1.73
2.73

0.'42
20.9*
0.7*


All Vah
__ __


1.442
0.9**
0.17*
0. 017
0.241
0.01*
11.027
1.813
 LIV phaaa-in bagina in 19*4 -HOT*  uaiag (12/1/92) Ouiduoa Mam* Cradita
"""      	        */•« Program!  raa      AmbiaM Tam*>i *7.l / 87.1 / 87.1 (F) Kagiomt  Lev
                                     lo     oparating Hodat 20.4 / 27.3 / 20.4   Altitude!   3OO.
ocai. Yaart  2020
orad Fh2 (Vapor)

0  Vah. Typ«t
                              1  KWi  10.9
                            UXJCT      LOOW
                                              Kinimm Ta.pt  72.
                                              fariod 2 RV»i  7.3
                                                LOO*      BXJV
                                                                  IF)
     92.
rrt 19»2
Vah. Spaad*!
VMT Hix:
ZIV Fractt
0.373
O.OO »
OCcnpoaita tmliaioa ractora
Non-Math 1C t
Ixhauat ICi
Ivaporct 1C i
Rafual L let
Runing L ICi
Rating L ICi'
Ixhauat COt
txhauat tfOXt
1.22
0.»7
0.1*
O«l*t-~
0.0*
11. »T
l.iJ
ii.l
0.207
O.OO •
H.i
o.ot*

ITT"
0.034
O.OO2
o!oos
li.i
0.0*4
TT
0.
T—
004
— — —
(Om/MU«>
1.47
1.10
0.14
0.02
0.1*
0.02
14. OS
1.32
2.20
1.74)
0.1*
0.01
0.24
0.0*
21.1*
2.02
1.4*
1.2*
0.13
0.01
0.20
0.02
18.1*
1.31
3.02
1.83
0.78
0. 04
0. JO
0.03
20.98
3.93
0.30
0.30

1.44
1.09
0.4*
0.4*

1.81
1.24
2.01
2.01

11.17
9.3*
4.
1.
2.

0.
24.
0.
73
83
44

42
41
7*
1.493
1.131
0.133
*% i i«
v . 179
0.01*
13.433
1.79*
LIV pba.a-tn b*giu im 1994 'WOf tula* (12/1/92) auidanca Hamo Cradita
ocal. raari 2020

OCX RT9 (Vapor)
0 vah. Typat
vah. 5paadat
VMT Mixt
zrv Fraett
OCoapoalta Smiaaii
Hon-Math Ki
txhanac act
Ivaporat l^t
Rafual L Kt
Runing t let
Rating L ICt
I/M
Anti-tarn.
Raformulj

Program!
rrogramt
itad aaat

Pariod 1 RV»t
LDOV U30T1
19.4 ~ "
0.373
O.OO %
» Factor*
1.11
0.«7
0.11
0.01
0.10
0.02
19.4
0.207
O.OO %
(Om/Mtla»
1.3*
1.10
0.12
0.02
0.10
0.02
1mm
Bo
Ha

10.3
LD