DALLAS, TEXAS 75202
             United States
             Environmental Protection
             Agency
           Office of Air Quality
           Planning and Standards
           Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/5-80-006
December 1979
             Air
Methodologies to Conduct
Regulatory Impact
Analysis of Ambient Air
Quality Standards for
Carbon Monoxide
                             1445 ROSS AVENUE /
                               , TEXAS 7520?

-------
                                            EPA-450/5-80-006
                                              REGION WUBRARY
                                              U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
                                              AGENCY
                                              1445 ROSS AVENUE
                                              OALUS,1KAS 7520?
      Methodologies to Conduct Regulatory
     Impact Analysis of Ambient Air Quality
          Standards for Carbon Monoxide
                 Waheed Siddiqee, Robert Patterson, and Andre Dermant

                            SRI International
                         333 Ravenswood Avenue
V                       Menlo Park, California 94025
V
^                        Contract No. 68-02-2835
                EPA Project Officers: Thomas McCurdy and Kenneth Lloyd
                             Prepared for

                   U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                       Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
                    Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                   Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

                            December 1979

-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report technical data of
interest to a limited number of readers.  Copies are available - in limited quantities - from
the Library Services Office (MD-35),  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;  or for a fee, from the National Technical Infor-
mation Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
                        Publication No. EPA-450/5-80-006
                                        11

-------
                                FOREWORD


     As its second task under Contract No. 68-02-2835, Work Assignment

Number 19, SRI International was to develop a computer program to conduct

various impact analyses of ambient air quality standards for carbon

monoxide.  The initial general specifications of the desired program

were contained in Attachment A of the work assignment.  Various modifica-

tions and additions were implemented in the program as the specific

requirements became more clear during the course of the project.

     This report summarizes the functional details of the final version

of the program as it existed in the month of September 1979.  Technical

details and a user's manual for the program have been documented
           *
separately.
 A. Dermant, R. Patterson, and W. Siddiqee, "Program to Conduct Regulatory
 Impact Analysis of Ambient Air Quality Standards for Carbon Monoxide,"
 Contract No. 68-02-2835, SRI Project 6780, SRI International, Menlo Park,
 California  (September 1979).

-------
                            ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS






     We would like to acknowledge the guidance and suggestions received




from Messrs. Thomas McCurdy, Kenneth Lloyd, and George Duggan of EPA,




in developing the desired computer program.  Their active participation




in the project work was extremely valuable in refining the program to




fully meet the requirements of EPA.  Thanks are also due to Mr. Eugene




Schelar of SRI who generated computer runs using MOBILE 1  programs that




were used to develop Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) emission




factors and Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Effectiveness Factors.

-------
                                CONTENTS

FOREWORD 	       i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS   	      ii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS	      iv
LIST OF TABLES	       v
1.  INTRODUCTION 	       1
2.  SUMMARY OF THE BASIC METHODOLOGY 	       3
3.  SOURCES OF INPUT DATA	      10
    3.1  County Related Data   	      10
    3.2  Input Data Applicable to all Counties	      13
    3.3  Input Data Related to Costs and Fuel Savings	      18
4.  SPECIFIC ASSUMPTIONS AND CALCULATION PROCEDURES  	      20
    4.1  County Related Analysis 	      20
    4.2  Urban Area Related Analysis and Summary Reports ....      34
              4.2.1  Urban Area Related Analyses 	      35
              4.2.2  Summary Tables	      38
APPENDICES
    A  LIST OF 272 COUNTIES AND URBAN AREAS WITH STATUS OF
       I/M PROGRAMS	     A-2
    B  THE ALTERNATIVE CO STANDARDS INCLUDED IN THE PROGRAM
       AND THE BASIS FOR CALCULATING DESIGN VALUES 	     B-2
    C  CONVERSION OF EMISSION DENSITY VALUES TO SURROGATE
       DESIGN VALUES 	     C-2
    D  ORIGINAL COUNTY AREAWIDE VMT GROWTH FACTORS 	     D-2
    E  MOBILE SOURCE CO EMISSIONS VERSUS AMBIENT TEMPERATURE .  .     E-2
    F  ASSUMPTIONS AND PROCEDURES RELATED TO COST AND FUEL
       SAVING FACTORS IN I/M & TCM PROGRAMS	     F-2

-------
                             ILLUSTRATIONS







4.1  Sample of Analysis Results for Los Angeles County 	     21




4.2  Sample of Urban Area I/M Analysis Table	     36




4.3  Sample of Individual Counties I/M Summary Table 	     39




4.4  Sample of Summary Table of Counties Needing TCM 	     41
                                  iv

-------
                                 TABLES
2.1  Basis County-Related Data Stored in the County File ....      4

B-l  The 14 Alternative CO Standards Included in the
     Program	    B-4

-------
                            1.  INTRODUCTION





     This report presents a summary of the functional details of a computer




program developed by SRI International in accordance with the specifications




provided by EPA.  The program has been designed to analyze the carbon monoxide-




related data for counties in the United States that could be potentially in




violation of current and proposed carbon monoxide (CO) standards.  A list




of the 272 counties and a discussion of the criteria for selecting these




counties is included in Appendix A.  A list and a discussion of the alterna-




tive forms and levels of the CO standard is given in Appendix B.




     The following major activities were performed to accomplish the




development of the program:




     1.  Collecting, processing and coding the basic data related to




         each of the 272 counties mentioned above.




     2.  Generating necessary effectiveness factors related to Federal




         Motor Vehicle Control Program  (FMVCP) and Inspection  and Maintenance




         (I/M) programs using the MOBILE 1 mobile source emission factors




         program.




     3.  Developing unit costs related to I/M programs and program Trans-




         portation Control Measures (TCM) in consultation with EPA




         project officers.




     4.  Developing the logic of the desired computer program and coding




         it in COBOL language.




     5.  Testing and debugging the program and producing a set of results

-------
         urgently needed by EPA.




     6.  Transferring the program and associated utility programs to




         North Carolina.




     7.  Preparing the present report.




     8.  Preparing a programmers  manual for the program.




     Various sections of this report include sufficiently detailed




discussion of each of the above-noted activities.

-------
                  2.  SUMMARY OF THE BASIC METHODOLOGY


     The overall logic of the program can conveniently be explained by

considering a single county and noting that certain basic data about


each county is stored in a county file as shown in Table 2.1.  Tables of


CO emission reduction factors due to Federal Motor Vehicle Control Pro-


gram (FMVCP) and reduction factors due to Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)


programs are also separately stored.

     With the above-noted background information, the basic logic of


the program can be stated as follows.  Details of each of the following


steps are presented in Section 4.

     1.  The existing design value of CO concentration corresponding


         to the standard being considered is compared with the value


         of the standard.  If the design value is less than the value


         of the standard, the county is not in violation of the standard

         and is not analyzed any further for that standard.  If the

         design value is greater than the value of the standard, the

         needed percentage reduction (also called rollback) is calculated

         as follows:
                         x
                 where

                      %R = Percentage rollback
                                               3
                      D  = Design value in mg/m
                                                     3
                      S  = Value of the standard mg/m
                                                                 3
                      B  = Background level of concentration mg/m

-------
                              Table  2.1
                   BASIC  COUNTY-RELATED DATA STORED
                          IN THE COUNTY FILE
     1.   County  Code
     2.   County  name
     3.   State code
     4.   Area emissions  1979
     5.   Point emissions 1979
     6.   Mobile  emissions 19765
     7.   Emission density
     8.   Population 1970
     9.   Population 1980
    10.   Population 1985
    11.   Population 1990
    12.   Population adjustment factor
                                1980
    13.   Population adjustment factor
                                1985
    14.   Population adjustment factor
                                1990   *
    15.   VMT growth factor
    16.   County  passenger car count
                              1977
    17.   14 design values
    18.   Temperature
    19.   Location code

    20.   Background concentration  level
    21.   Code indicating I/M program
         in county
    22.   Code indicating I/M program
         in state
    23.   Urbanized area  code
(e.g.,  01073)
(e.g.,  Jefferson)
(e.g.,  AL)
(tons/year)
(tons/year)
(tons/year)
(tons/sq. mile/year)

(SMSA or urban area popu-
 lation to which the
 county belongs)
(based On BEA data)
(annual %)
(mg/m )
(degrees F)
(low altitude,  high altitude,
 California)
(mg/m )
The 1979 line emissions were not readily available,  However 1976 estimated
.values were available based on 75° temperature.  These are used as a base
value and the projected values for 1979, 1982, etc. are calculated by the
program using suitable factors as will be explained later in this report.
                                  4

-------
   For example,  suppose  the  current  8-hour  second high  design value
                          3
   of a  county is  14  mg/m and  the background  level  is  zero.   Compar-
                                                          3
   ing it with the 8-hour second high  standard of 10 mg/m ,  it is  seen
   that  the needed percentage reduction  is:     "     x 100 =  28.6%.   (1)
         For those counties  not  having design value  data,
    emission densities are used  as  design value surrogates to
    calculate the percentage rollback.   Specifically:

            _ (d - QD) x 100
         ^R "   (QD - b)
            where
                d = Emisson  density of the county in tons/
                    sq. mile/year
                Q = A factor to  convert the value of standard
                    from mg/m3 to tons/sq. mile/year
                D = Value of standard in mg/m3
                b = Background density in tons/sq. mile/year.
    The value of conversion factor Q has been calculated to be
    107.43 as explained in Appendix C.
2.  The above-noted reduction factor is used to calculate
    the total allowable emissions for the county as  follows:
                   "/•O
         Ea * (1 - I5S> (V  t0nS
            where
                E  = Allowable emissions in tons/year
                 3.
                E  = Total emissions in 1979.
                 e
    For example,  suppose the total  1979 emissions of the above-
    noted county are 333,870 tons/year.  The allowable emissions
    then are:
         (1 - .286) x 333870 = 238478 tons                       (2)

-------
    3.   Projected emissions  for  the  years  1982,  1984, and  1987   are

        calculated for area,  point,  and  line  source  emissions.   Area

        source emissions  are assumed to  be directly  proportional

        to population, point source  emissions are  projected  using

        projections for national total manufacturing income  (from OBERS

        and BEA reports)  and line source emissions are projected based

        on the FMVCP-related factors and VMT  growth  factors  based on National

        Functional System Mileage Travel Summary,  U.S. Department of

        Transportation, 1977. An average  VMT growth factor  for all

        counties can also be specified as  an  option.

    4.   The total projected  emissions for  each of  the three  years 1982,

        1984 and 1987 are compared with  the allowable emissions.  If

        the projected emissions  in 1982, 1984, and  1987 are all  less

        than the allowable emissions, the  county data is not analyzed

        any further.  In  case the projected emissions in any of the

        years 1982, 1984,and 1987 are greater than the allowable emissions,

        the needed reductions for the respective years are calculated as:

             Needed reduction in 1982 (1984,  1987) = Projected

               emissions  in  1982 (1984,  1987) - Allowable

               emissions.

        The needed reduction is  then converted to  a percentage  of needed

        reduction using the  projected emissions of the corresponding

        year as the base  value.   If  the projected  emissions  are less
The rationale for considering these thiee specific years is as follows:
The Clean Air Act requires compliance with current levels of CO standards
by 1982 and with new stricter standards (if introduced) by 1984.  An ex-
tension to  1987 is granted, if necessary, provided that suitable inspection
and maintenance programs and other control strategies are shown to be
included in the state implementation plans.

-------
          than the allowable emissions, the needed reductions are assumed

          to be zero.  Considering the above example, suppose the pro-

          jected total emissions are calculated to be:

                   1982         267,720 tons/year

                   1984         221,010 tons/year

                   1987         168,728 tons/year

          Therefore, the needed reductions are:

                   1982:  267,720-238,478 = 29,242 tons

          The projected emissions in 1984 and 1987 are both less than

          the allowable emissions, therefore the needed reductions for

          1984 and 1987 are assumed to be zero.  The needed reduction

          of 29,242 tons in 1982 is expressed as a percentage of 1982

          emissions, i.e.,
                                                     29 242
               percentage reduction needed in 1982 =267720 X 10° = 11%

      5.  An I/M program with an appropriate stringency  is then selected.

          Three stringency levels are included in the program, namely 20%,

          30% and 40%.  Associated with each stringency level is an

          estimated percentage reduction in CO emissions of the total

          car population.  For example, an I/M program with a 20%

          stringency, initiated in 1984 in a low altitude area with an

          ambient temperature of 50°F, is estimated to reduce to CO

          emissions of the total car population by 13.8%.,  Factors

          similar to this are stored in a table for various temperatures,
 Stringency of an I/M program indicates the strictness of the test standards.
 The stricter the standards the more the percentage of tested cars that will
 fail the test.  Thus, an I/M program characterized by a stringency of 20%
 means that the test standards are so selective that 20% of the tested cars
 will fall.
*
 See also the discussions of I/M factors In Section 2.2.

-------
    locations and I/M program initiation years.   If possible,  the

    smallest of the three stringency factors (i.e., 20%,  30%,  and 40%)

    that produces an overall reduction at least as high as the needed

    reduction is selected.  However, if even the highest of the

    three stringency factors does not produce the needed  reduc-

    tion, then the highest stringency is selected and a need for

    additional transportation control measures (TCM) is established.

6.  Assuming that a certain stringency factor has been selected,

    the I/M investment costs, inspection costs and repair costs

    are calculated for the year 1987, using the projected car

    population of the country in 1987 and using average unit costs.

    For example, suppose the projected 1987 car population of a

    county is 386,956 and the selected stringency factor is 20%.

    The I/M related costs are then calculated using the following

    relationships:

      - I/M investment cost = (386,956)(average investment cost
                                       per car—$13.21/car)

      - I/M Inspection cost = (386,956)(average inspection cost
                                       per car—$7/car)

      - I/M repair cost = (386,956)(20/100)(average repair cost
                                           per car—$22/car)

7.  The expected fuel saving in 1987 due to the implementation of

    I/M program is also calculated using essentially the following

    relationship:

        Fuel saving due to I/M =  (car population)(stringency factor)
                                  (estimated fuel savings per repaired
                                  car)

    Details of various factors used in the above calculation are

-------
    presented later in this report.  The cost of the fuel saved is

    also calculated assuming an average price per gallon.

8.  If the needed reductions in the future years are less than 5%,

    this is assumed to be realizable by TCM programs unless an

    I/M program already exists or is already planned for the county.

    Also, if an I/M program with the maximum allowable stringency

    is unable to accomplish the needed reduction, it is assumed

    that up to 5% additional reduction can be realized through

    TCM programs.  Costs of the TCM program in 1987 are calculated

    using a relationship of the form:

        TCM costs = (tons reduced by TCM)(cost per ton reduced by TCM)

    Fuel saved by TCM is also calculated using a relationship of

    the form:

        Fuel saved by TCM = (tons reduced by TCM)(fuel saved per ton
                                                  of CO reduction
                                                  by TCM)

    Specific details of the above-noted relationships and the various

    factors used initially are presented in Section 4 and in

    Appendix F.

-------
                       3.  SOURCES OF INPUT DATA






     A brief explanation related to the sources of various input data




is presented in this section.  Referring first to Table 2.1, the sources




of various county related data are as follows.




     3.1  County-Related Data




          •  County codes, county names, and state codes—Counties were




             coded by FIPS codes and appropriate state codes were selected




             using judgement.




          •  1979 area emissions, 1979 point emissions, and 1976 line




             emissions—were supplied to SRI by EPA based on NEDS emission




             summary report  (NE204, 1979).  Line sources include all




             highway vehicles, i.e., passenger vehicles and trucks of




             all kinds.  Area sources include  space heating units, aircrafts,




             and vessels.  Point sources essentially consist of industrial




             plants and solid waste processes.  The 1979 line emissions are




             calculated by the program using appropriate VMT and FMVCP




             factors as will be explained later.




          •  Emission density data—was supplied by EPA in the form of a




             computer printout.  This data contained CO emission density




             data for almost all the counties  in the U.S.A with reference




             to FIPS codes of the counties.  Density data for the counties




             to be analyzed  were taken from this list and stored in the




             county file.  As explained in Section 2, the density data is






                                    10

-------
           used as a design value surrogate to calculate the percentage roll-


           back for those counties that do not have design value data.   Appen-


           dix C includes technical details of the calculation of surrogate


           values.


        •  1970/1980/1985/1990 populations of appropriate SMSAS/urban areas—


           were taken essentially from PEERS Projections - Regional Economic

                                                                         *
           Activity in the U.S., 1972, U.S. Water Resources Council, WDC.


        •  1980/1985/1990 population adjustment factors—were derived from


           Population, Personal Incomes, and Earnings by State - Projections


           to 2000, October 1977, BEA, U.S. DOC.


        •  VMI growth factors—were supplied by EPA, based on National Func-


           tional System Mileage Travel Summary, U.S. Department of Transpor-


           tation, 1977.  A copy of the original table is included in Appendix


           D for convenience.  Where a VMT growth factor was unavailable, a


           3% growth rate was assumed.


        •  1977 passenger car count—was obtained for each county, based on


           passenger-car registrations, from the 1979 Commercial Atlas and Market-


           ing Guide published by Rand McNally and Company.


        •  Design values—An initial set of design values corresponding to


           existing standards was supplied by EPA, based on a validated SAROAD


           data base.  The design values as they exist now in county files


           are based essentially on the initial set of values, supplemented


           and modified to some extent during the course of the project as


           more reliable data became available to EPA.  There are still several
Note:  Refer also to the memo, "Uniform Growth Projections for NAAQS Economic
Impact Assessments," dated January 9, 1979,  from Jack McGinnity to Joseph
Padget, Director, Strategies and Air Standards Division.


                                  11

-------
   design values unavailable for many counties.  However, the




   county file has provision for entering the missing design values




   when they become available.   The program is designed to use




   the emission density data in place of missing design values




   to calculate the needed reductions (rollbacks) as explained in




   Section 2 and Appendix C.




•  Temperature—Temperatures associated with each county were se-




   lected by SRI in consultation with EPA.  The value used is the mean




   monthly average temperature for January rounded to the nearest




   ten degrees.




•  Location code—The location codes, i.e., low altitude, hi^h




   altitude and California, were assigned to the counties in




   consultation with EPA.   Actual codes used in the county file




   are 1 for low altitude, 2 for high and 3 for California.




•  Background concentration level—The background levels for all




   counties have been assumed to be zero for initial analysis.




   However, there is provision to change them to suitable nonzero




   values.




•  Codes indicating the status of I/M programs in county and




   states—were inferred from a list received from EPA on the




   status of I/M as of May 1979   ( "Inspection/Maintenance Status




   Sheets,"  EPA, Ann Arbor, Michigan, May 29, 1979.)  This list




   indicated the counties belonging to various urban areas, up-




   dated design values related to 8-hour second high standard,




   and  gave the status of I/M programs  in various  counties and states.




   A consolidated version of this list including information re-




   lated to the status of I/M programs is included in Appendix A.




   This  appendix also contains information about urban areas





                           12

-------
                                                      *
            based on a report by Bureau of the Census.


         •  Urbanized area code—As mentioned above, a list of the


            urbanized area names and counties belonging to each of the


            urban areas is included in Appendix A.  The program is design-


            ed to calculate the needed CO reductions and the I/M cost


            not only on a county basis but also to estimate the CO reduc-


            tion and I/M costs for various urban areas.  This is needed


            since I/M programs will generally be implemented on an urban


            basis rather than on a county basis.


    3.2  Input Data Applicable to All Counties


        • •  FMVCP factors—The FMVCP factors as stored in the program


            are compounded annual percentage reductions in CO emission


            due to FMVCP, considering all modes.  These FMVCP factors


            were developed by SRI using the MOBILE 1 program for temper-


            atures through 80° in 10-degree increments for three locations,


            i.e., low altitude, high altitude and California.  (Note:


            A temperature of 75° is also considered in the interval 70°


            and 80°.)  Other assumptions related to MOBILE 1  are:


            Mode Mix:  Light-Duty Vehicles (LDV) - 80.3%


                       Light-Duty Trucks (LOT])  (<6000 Ibs) - 5.8%


                       Light-Duty Trucks (LOT2) (6001-8500 Ibs) - 5.8%


                       Heavy-Duty Gas Trucks (HDG) - 4.5%


                       Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks (HDD) - 3.1%


                       Motorcycles (MC) - 0.5%
Bureau of the Census, Population and Land Area of Urbanized Areas for
the United States:  1970 and 1960, Washington, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1979,

                                  13

-------
Average Speed:  19.6 mph-




Cold Start:  20.6%




Hot Start:  27.3%




CO Emissions Standard in 1981 and later LDV:  3.4 gins/mile




     The above assumptions are in line with the set of assump-




tions in Appendix F of the EPA report, "Mobile Source Emissions




Factors; Final Document," (EPA-400/9-78-005), March 1978.




FMVCP annual reduction factors were developed for the four




periods:  1976-1979, 1979-1982, 1982-1984, and 1984-1987.




Although the validity of MOBILE 1- generated factors for 1979




and later years is not yet established, these were used as




a best estimate.  This aspect and a discussion of the CO emissions




versus ambient temperature relationship is presented in




Appendix E.




     The following example is presented to explain the




specific method to develop the annual reduction factors from




the output of MOBILE 1 program.  According to the output of



MOBILE 1 program, the average  fleetwide CO  emissions per




mile, considering all modes, for  a  temperature of 0°F and  a low




altitude region is:





       119.67  gms/mile in 1976




       111.94  gms/mile in 1979




        84.98  gms/mile in 1982




        66.49  gms/mile in 1984




        46.16  gms/mile in 1987.
                       14

-------
To develop the compounded annual reduction factor for the




period 1976-1979, first calculate the ratio:




     Emissions/mile in 1979   111.94
     Emissions/mile in 1976   119.67
                                     = 0.93532
The period 1976-1979 spans 3 years, therefore calculate:




     (0.93532)1/3 = 0.978




Then the compounded annual reduction factor for the period




1976-1979 (for temperature 0° F, region low altitude) is




calculated as:




      1 - 0.978 = 0.022




The value 0.022 is the value that is stored in a table of




of FMVCP factors included in the program.  Factors for other




temperatures, regions and time period were calculated in a




similar manner and were stored in a table.  Considering the




fact that there are 10 values of temperatures (including




75°), 3 regions and 4 periods of time, there are 10x3x4 = 120




reduction factors stored in the FMVCP factor table.  The




FMVCP reduction factors are used in combination with



VMT growth factors to estimate the projected line emissions




for future years.  For example, the 1979 line emissions for




a county with 0° F temperature in low altitude with, say, an




annual VMT growth factor of 2.8% is calculated as:




     1979 Line Emissions = (1976 line emissions)x(l+.028-.022)3




It is to be noted that 1976 line emissions and VMT growth




factors are available from the county file.  Line emission




calculations for other years are made in a similar manner.
                      15

-------
I/M Effectiveness Factors—The following example will be




useful in explaining the meaning of I/M effectiveness factors




as stored in the program:




     Suppose the average CO emissions/mile in 1987 as given




by MOBILE 1 , considering only the FMVCP program, is 46.16 gms/




mile (see example above).  Suppose also that the average CO




emissions/mile in 1987 as given by MOBILE 1, considering an




I/M program with a stringency factor of 20% initiated in




1982, in addition to FMVCP, is 36.18.  Then the ratio




36.18/46.18 = 0.784 is defined as the I/M effectiveness




factor for a program with 20% stringency factor and initiated




in 1982.  Factors calculated in the above manner are stored




in the I/M effectiveness table.




     The I/M factors were developed by SRI using the MOBILE 1




program assuming no mechanics training and with other assump-




tions similar to those for MOBILE 1 runs for FMVCP factors.




Also, the I/M programs were assumed to be applicable to light-




duty vehicles only.  Three locations, i.e., low altitude,




high altitude and California, were considered.  The tempera-




ture increments were in 10° as for FMVCP calculations




(including 75°F).  Three stringency levels, i.e., 20%,




30%, and  40%, and 5  time periods were considered, namely:
                        16

-------
I/M started in                    Consider the effect In
    1982                                  1984
    1982                                  1987
    1983                                  198A
    1983             '                     1987
    1984                                  1987.
Thus, a total of: 3x10x3x5 = 450 I/M factors are stored
in the program.  Presently, only the factors associated
with consideration of effects in 1987 are being used.

Correction Factors for 1976 Line Emissions
The 1976  line emission values provided by EPA were based
on a constant ambient temperature of 75°F.  In order to make
these values more realistic in terms of the effect of
temperature, it was necessary to adjust these emissions
corresponding to the county temperatures used for each county.
Therefore, a table of correction factors was developed by
SRI using the results of MOBILE 1 program.  The following
example explains how the correction factor was developed
and used.  Consider, a low altitude region.  The 1976 CO
emissions for various temperatures as given by MOBILE 1 are:

Temperature, °F                        Emissions,  gins/mile
      0                                    119.67
     10                                    109.30
     50                                     83.11
     75                                     74.32
     80                                     72.98
                      17

-------
        The correction factor for a county with 0° F  temperature

        will be 1^*32 = -1--610.  i-e>,  the 1976 line emissions of

        this county, as originally provided by EPA, must be multiplied by

        1.610 to get more realistic line emissions in 1976.  Correc-

        tions factors for other  temperatures and  regions were

        calculated similarly and are stored in a  table.  With 3

        regions and .10 levels of temperature, there are a total of

        3x10=30 correction factors included in this correction table.


3.3  Input Data Related to Costs and Fuel Savings

     •  I/M-related costs and fuel savings—The following initial unit

        costs and fuel-saving factors were developed jointly by SRI

        and EPA, in consultation with the Inspection and Maintenance

        Staff,  Emission Control Technology Division,  EPA, Ann Arbor,

        Michigan.   An explanation of the background and methodology

        to develop these cost factors is included in Appendix F.

           - Investment costs             = $13.21/car
                (capital costs)

           - Inspection costs             = $ 7.00/car

           - Repair costs                 = $22.00/car

           - Fuel Savings:                = a) no fuel savings
                (two cases)                 , .     ,   .    .    .
                                            b) no fuel savings in pre-
                                                 1981 cars',
                                               7.5% saving/repaired car
                                                 at 20% stringency  (1981
                                                 and  post-1981 cars);
                                               6% saving/repaired car at
                                                 30%  stringency (1981
                                                 and  post-1981 cars);
                                               4.5% saving/repaired car
                                                 at 40% stringency  (1981
                                                 and  post-1981 cars)
                               18

-------
  - Percent of 1981 and          = 78.1%
    post 1981 cars in
    the year 1987

  - Average yearly gas           = 430 gallons/car in 1987
    consumption

The above-noted cost and gasoline-related factors can be

changed without much difficulty if more accurate data be-

comes available.

TCM-Related Costs and Fuel-Savings—As was the case with

I/M costs and fuel savings, the following TCM-related initial

costs and fuel-saving factors were developed jointly by SRI

and EPA.  An explanation of the background and methodology

to develop these cost factors is included in Appendix F.

  - Maximum realizable reduction due to TCM = 5%.

  - The first 3% or less achievable, using localized TCM
    measures such as signal-timing optimatization, at an
    average cost of $170/ton of CO reduction.

  - Another 1% or less achievable, using areawide TCM
    measures such as ride-sharing, at an average cost of
    $400/ton reduction.

  - The last 1% or less achievable, using areawide TCM mea-
    sures such as public transit improvements, at an
    average cost of $9200/ton reduction.

  - Fuel savings due to TCM is assumed to be 1088 gallons
    per ton of CO reduction.

The above-noted percentages and cost factors can be changed

easily if more reliable data becomes available.

Gasoline Cost—has been assumed to be $1.00 per gallon using

1979 as the reference year.  Again, this value can be easily

changed if so desired.
                     19

-------
             4.  SPECIFIC ASSUMPTIONS AND CALCULATION PROCEDURES






     Specific assumptions and methods of calculations are explained in



this section with references to a sample output for a county and a



summary report.




4.1  County-Related Analysis





      First  consider a sample output for Los  Angeles  County shown



 in Figure 4.1.   This output presents the analysis  of Los Angeles County


                                                           3

 with reference to 8-hour daily maximum standard of 10 mg/m  (9ppm).



 Assumptions and procedures to produce various numerical results and



 statements  are explained below:



      •  FIPS Code "06037", county name "Los Angeles", state code "CA"— are



         reproduced from the county file.



      •  Region "California", temperature "50°degrees, design value "27.9"-



         are reproduced from the county file.



      •  Rollback=64 — is calculated by the program using the relation-



         ship:


                        „ ,,,   ,   Design Value - Value of Standard
                        Rollback=  — - r= — — ; - ^ — : - -]— ; - r~
                                   Design Value - Background level



                                   27.9 - 10  ,     ,.

                                                  = 64
                                   27.9 -0



         In this particular run, the background value of the county



         in the county file was zero and the user did not specify any



         general background value either.  As such, the program assumed



         the background level to be zero.





                                    20

-------
: 1

Os !

I
i

!




i
t
UJ ! '
cs , !
a.


i
!«. 00

x ' «-« t
vO 1 *- •-•
O i * UJ
x J z
o









a. _i z



0- MO
o t—

0
A ft*
^_
ZOO CJ
i 0 -• **. 3








O

••
— UJ
* Z X k-
OL 0 0
«-! CM O
h- IO O
o »- z
cr ui  « UJ X








X
OL
0.

O
^y

fO

(V.
z





o

1.
0


•« *.
O (3

ft



•n
Ul
J
Ul
a
z
^

i/i
o
J









|N»
»*»
O
sO
o
X
^*
X
X

>•




V0

N
it
O

Q
UJ
Ct
>4
















-J













«H ^*












n
(\J K-- Ls-
^L
M CO SO j-t
•» CM ^O [^
ft ft ft 1 ft
3 ^ CO O
t- CO >J3 0 tw
OW CM »•
rtM -l
1-1 Lo .1 st
fc- |ie O CM
cj ujin -t r-
Ul Z ft ft ft
i » IM <-i 'n
u. _j ro CM in
n
r»j
CM
«
ui f} CM co in

z
,»*
o
a.



j











o
-I
.J


o
ex





Ox


(M i
^
Ul
OL
*

V
^p
o
M
...... >
EDUCT
ft ft ft
r
ft ft ft
i ^ -»





o — *
(\J M



~

o




o

o
»
in





o











































H»
a.
t-

X
^
a CD
a.  o
Z CM
0


O -i
UJ -»
CJ «

O Os
UJ O
je v)
1







CM
eoepcc 3uivOO



% « * % Ol



*-
OJ CM -1


»-4 M (3*»
— « ft
T-l

in ••
3C;O* t>O ^O *j-




»— * co r?\ (\( -H c/i
O fc •» » ft "Z







M uj' «o « >-i —t1 a_ o CM •* so o
< Ut Ul CM CM CM
O Jt O X TC *•
o: uj ui ui:


tr UJ' -1 _l _l -< vO r>-
M •—
CO
CO
^ t^
CO
i:
C3



CJ
Z
Ul
cr












































in
o














Z
D
B °
O
uj in

UJ CM







a in
j "^
E

J
r
•4
Z M
l-t o

^* X
to Ui
- ^ 03 U.
ft fO
n in
j «
0 CO
in
•< ro
r — i f3 o
•s r«, Z CO
« ft Z ft
N
- CM
xl
O
L CM
* «-«
l* «>
"

3 rs.
•J o
/> CM
< CO
^
Q



r-
O A
Ul O CJ CM
CJ t >n
3 CV LJ ft
J f- 0
f n ..
M
o
Ul
CJ
3 vfl
sO
Z

IO IW
OCC iz 0
LJ "O £3 3s
a. » i- ft
0 [ in
CO **) LJ QU
_j ,_« ^ '^ ^^
il ft O
3 CO










I.V





X
h_
3




^» MS
LO OS
CJ O OS
t- | i o
ho CJ -* Ul *O
fs. i J CM in .3 •_«






















K^
C_j
t^
O
U
co
w
H
O
^N
S

pH
g
CO
H

p>

^
W
pi
CO
H
CO
s
25
^
O

hJ
CL.
g
a
ft ^ « _j k ' i % ^
cMH-in<=o-«^
_» o er 3 -T » in :
Pw 'k- CO Z N- ' ,£

9s O < fs*. (VI
Kl

II

CO
•»





1
CD



•re c «r
CL SO Ul LU ro
__.

*
 ^4
K~ iuj ^ uj in
z
Ul
X
t-
Ul

z
1-1
sK * >t; ~j so
ft Ul »
0\ M 3 M
•"•


a
UJ
CJ
Z '•O 3 Os
a ^ ors.
. TP :«-i i \^~, m
»— ico CMO t-«in x »— ft en*
Ol » » ft! 3; » —t u fn
3 O! CD TD CTl LCO t\J ^ j in Xi ^— 'vO so CUJ O CM; I (t ^
>n
CO -»
O O O O, <'M o\ ^. -f Ul i ho Is, ^O 3" ^-l1 _j !!.(•» Z
X O O CXULUL' uiftftftft ; 'CM CO in
i in: -H a. a. a.
CO

cc
o

UL  ^- -» tn _j *-<
Ul Ul III'
CJ O CJ
ir CC '* ' V
U, •» II 333.
i-« O O 3 i/l
• uj O J J j .^5

z «: >— o o o x
•< Ul
10
L
xxx uj
J
fM CSJ M Ps/l CO,




**!
,— |
0
i
•J
' ^
r»* CM -T fs.
CO




z
a
i— t
o ^-


^w op 9} ^O j uj Oi
» o, v> o\ < a 3^t>j ^ rs.
O! Ul UJ O OS Os



— t ^ -H
U. cu










O O rf CO ft o 'IO (s.

3 sO] t- ;<-• (^









r*-
t-4 '
z


o



./•
UJ t—
*. icO
f 0
X
••
CJ
Z CTs
'»-! ^1
!^
^
IcO
^
CO J
h— u

_l
3
u_
IV. « is. 1
•F SO ^ «- *j ] tj wj • j"_
^* O\. 1/5 , ^ O» i O (^ [ CJ

Ul
-, -. I
-J -H |
































-------
•  Maximum stringency:  30%, VMT annual growth rate;  1.20%




   MOBILE 1  threshold temperature:  degrees, factor:  1.0—are general




   input parameters (not county-specific) specified by the user




   for this particular run and are reprinted for convenient ref-




   erence.  The specific calculations where these input parameters




   are used are discussed below.




•  Mobile Source Problem in 1982, 1984, and 1987—These statements arc




   established after  certain analyses are completed as discussed




   below.




•  Actual Emissions 1979—The actual 1979 area and point emissions




   are reproduced from the county file.  However, the 1979 line




   emissions are calculated by the program using the 1976 line emis-




   sions  that are available in the county file as follows:




            1979 Line Emissions = (1976 Line Emissions) x (temperature




                                  correction factor) >: (1 + VMT




                                  growth factor - FMVCP reduction




                                  Factor)3.




   The VMT growth factor in this particular run was externally




   specified by the user to be 1.2%.  Therefore the VMT growth




   factor in the county file is disregarded and the value specified




   by the user is used.  The FMVCP  factor is selected from the




   FMVCP  factor table corresponding to 50°, California region,




   and 1976/1979 time period.  The temperature correction factor




   is also suitably selected from the correction factor table.




   For this particular run:




           1976 Line  Emission for Los Angeles = 3-^126,330 tons  (f-Bom




           county file)




                              22

-------
        Temperature Correction Factor = 1.112 (from correction



        factor table)



        VMT Growth Factor = .012 (specified by user)



        FMVCP Reduction Factor = 0.078 (from FMVCP factor table)


     /.  1979 Line Emissions = 3126330 x 1.112 x  (1 4-  .012 -  .078)3=



        2,832,566 tons.



Actual Emissions 1982, 1984 and 1987



  - Area Emissions.  If the user specifies a general  (not county-



  specific) yearly area emission growth rate, say x%, then the



  area emissions for 1982, 1984 and 1987 are calculated as



  follows :



          1982 Area Emissions = (1979 Area Emissions) x  [(100



          + x)/100 ]3


          1984 Area Emissions = (1982 Area Emissions) x  [(100 +



          x)/100]2



          1987 Area Emissions = (1984 Area Emissions) x  [(100



          + x)/100l 3



  However, if the user does not specify any growth rate, the



  program uses a default formula based on population  as follows:
          1982 Area Emissions = (1979 Area Emissions)  (J^o P0Pu^-at:lon)
                                                       1979 population



  Similarly, calculations are performed for 1984 and 1987 emissions.



  The 1979, 1982, 1984 and 1987 population is calculated internally



  by referring to the population of 1970, 1980, 1985, and



  1990,  which is available in the county file.  For example:




       1979 population = (1970 population) x f^° P°P"lation\
                                             \1970 population/
                           23

-------
                                                                  2/5

           1982 population =  (1980 population) x  (     population)
   and  so  on.


  In the sample output the future area source emissions are popula-


  tion proportional as indicated on the upper right corner.


   -Point Emissions.   If  the  user  has  not  specified  any  point  emis-


   sion growth  factor, then the future year  point  emissions  are


   calculated as  follows:


           1982 point emissions = 1979 point  emissions  x 1.0977


           1984 point emissions = 1979 point  emissions  x 1.1603


           1987 point emissions = 1979 point  emissions  x 1.2515


   The  factors  1.0977,  1.1603 and 1.2515  were developed by  SRI


   based on projected national total  manufacturing  income.   The


   user may specify other  suitable values.


   -Line Emissions.  The line emissions for 1982, 1984, and 1987


   are calculated in a manner similar to that explained above


   with reference to 1979 emissions.   However, the temperature


   correction  factor is not used for 1982, 1984, or 1987 cal-


   culations because the base emissions used for calculations  for


   1982 and other future years is that of 1979, which is already


   a corrected value for temperatures.  For example:


          1982 Line Emissions =  (1979 line emissions) x (1 +


                                VMT growth factor -

                                                 3
                                reduction factor)


   and so on.


*  Actual Percent Reductions — These are calculated by subtracting the
                           24

-------
   total 1982, 1984 and 1987 emissions from the total 1979 emissions




   and expressing it as a percentage of 1979 emissions.





•  Effective Emissions—The various emission sources differ in




   effectiveness in producing the CO concentrations recorded at




   monitoring locations.  For example,  only 20% of the total area




   source emissions might be the real contributor to the CO concen-




   tration levels in the urban areas since area emission sources are




   scattered over a large area.  Similarly, point source emissions are




   usually located away from urban areas and their emissions are con-




   tained in a small area.   Thus, for urban CO concentration levels




   the contribution from point source emissions may be negligible.




   On the other hand,  the line emissions contribute directly to urban




   CO concentrations.   The program is designed to provide the flex-




   ibility to the user in choosing different effectiveness factors for




   different emission sources.  In the example printout the user had




   specified a 20% effectiveness factor for area source emissions, a




   0% effectiveness factor for point emissions and a 100% effectiveness




   for line emissions.  (See the statements on upper right corner of




   Figure 4.1.)  Thus, the effective area source emissions are obtain-




   ed by multiplying the actual emissions by a factor 0.2.  The effective




   point emissions are all zero since effectiveness is 0.  The line




   emissions are the same as actual because the effectiveness factor




   is 100%.  The effective total emissions are the summation of effec-




   tive area, point, and line emissions.
                               25

-------
•  Effective Percent Reductions—These are calculated in the same

   manner as actual percent reductions except that emission values

   are effective values.

•  Total Allowable Emissions—These are calculated using the effective

   emissions of 1979 and the needed rollback as follows:

           (Total Effectiveness Emissions in 1979) x (1 - rollback

           expressed as a fraction)

   In the sample output:  Allowable Emissions = 2,880,422 x

   [1 -(27'27 9 1Q)] = 1,032,409 tons.

•  Needed Reductions—These are calculated as follows:

           Needed Reductions 1982 = (Effective Total Emissions in 1982)

                                    (Total Allowable Emissions)

   In the sample output:  Needed 1982 reduction = 2,269,286-1,032,409=

   1,236,877.  Similar calculations are made for 1984 and 1987.

•  Percent Line Reductions—It is assumed that the burden of reduction

   will be borne by line sources  (i.e., automobiles).   Thus, the needed

   percent reductions are calculated  as a percent of effective line

   emissions  in respective  years.   For example, in the  sample output

   the 1982  line emissions  are 2,220,101 and the needed reduction in

   1982 is 1,236,877.  Therefore, the percent line reduction needed is


        1,236,877     inn      re  7«
        2,220,101  X   10°      55-7/"

   Similar  calculations  are made for  other  years.
                              26

-------
    •  I/M 1987 Automobiles—The county car count of 1977 is available


       in the county file.   It is assumed that the car count is linearly


       proportional to population.   Thus, 1987 car count is calculated


       as:


            inoT         x.    f-in-i-i         _\    (1987 population)
            1987 car count  = (1977 car count)  x ;.„_- *  " ,	:—f
                                                (1977 population)



    •  1987 Stringency, Tons Reduced,  ;Tons Percentage, I/M Program


       Start—If an area cannot attain standards by 1982 (or 1984) ,  the Clean


       Air Act (CAA) requires implementation of an I/M program to  get an


       extension to 1987.   This is the case even if the FMVCP alone is sufficient


       in 1987, though this affects the stringency of the I/M program.  With the


       above-noted background, the logic of the program associated with


       these results is as  follows:

                                                               *
            Case 1.  The needed  percent  reductions  in 1982/1984   are


            less than  or equal to  5%.

                                                  *
            If  the  needed  reductions  in  1982/1984   are  less  than  or


            equal  to 5% and  if the county  already has an  I/M program


             (see the discussion  on I/M status  code  in Section  2),  then


            the starting year of the  I/M program  is  selected as 1982


            and the stringency selected  is  20%.   The percent reduced  (which


            is  actually the  percent reduction  obtained  by  an I/M  program) in


            obtained from  the 1982-1987  I/M effectiveness  factor  table.


            The tons reduced by  the I/M  program are  calculated by  applying the


            above-noted percent  to the line emissions of  1987.  If there


            is  no existing I/M program,  the needed  reductions  are


            assumed to be  accomplished through TCM.
                       33                    3
1982 for 1-hour 40 mg/m , 8-hour 10 mg/m , and 8-hour 14 mg/m

standards; 1984 for other standards.


                                   27

-------
     Case 2.   The needed percent reductions  in 1982/1984  are




     greater  than 5%.




     If the needed percent reductions  in 1982/1984  are  greater than




     5% and the county already has an  I/M program,  then the  start-




     ing year of the I/M program is selected as before  to be 1982.




     However, the selection of stringency is made on the  basis




     of the percent reduction needed in 1987.  If the needed




     percent  reduction in 1987 is more than  can be  accomplished




     by an I/M program initiated in 1982 with maximum-allowable




     stringency, then the maximum-allowable  stringency  value is




     selected, and the still-remaining needed reduction is passed




     over to  TCM.  However, if the needed percent reduction can be




     accomplished with allowable levels of stringencies,  then the




     smallest stringency that produces at least as  much reduction




     as is needed is selected.  If the county does  not  currently




     have an  I/M program planned, but  the state has one,  then the I/M




     initiation year is selected to be 1983.  If no plans for an I/M




     program currently exist, then the initiation year  is assumed




     to be 1984.  Other logic and procedures are the same as




     discussed above.




In the sample output, the needed reduction in 1982  is 55.7%, which




is greater than 5%, i.e., Case 2 holds.  The Los Angeles  County




has plans for an I/M program  (see Appendix A).  Therefore, I/M




initiation year is 1982.  The reduction needed in 1987  is 35.4%.




The maximum-allowable stringency for this run is 30% (see the remarks




in the upper right of Figure 4.1).  The percent reduction





                              28

-------
   accomplished by 30% stringency is 20.3% (obtained from I/M




   effectiveness table) which is not sufficient.   Therefore, the




   program selected the maximum-allowable stringency level of




   30% since that is the highest allowable.  Tons reduced are then




   calculated as:




        = (1-I/M effectiveness factor) (Line Emissions in 1987)




        = (1-0.796) (1,519,322) = 0.2204 x 1,519,322 = 309,941




        The factor 0.796 is obtained from the I/M effectiveness




        factor table corresponding to 50°, California region, and




        1982-1987 period.  The tons % value of 20.3 is the ratio:



        Tons Reduced          -,««  !_. i_  ,      •   -11   i.  TJT.  ,_i_
        irto_ , .	.   .    x 100 which theoretically should be the
        1987 line emissions


        same as:   (1-0.796) x 100 = 20.4  (or 20.3 due to




        rounding).






•  Estimated Initial I/M Investment Costs—These costs are calculated




   by multiplying the number of 1987 cars by the average value of




   I/M investment cost per car.  I/M programs are planned for initiation




   in 1982 for both CO and 0_ as shown in Appendix A.  As such, only




   one-half of the I/M costs are generally assigned to CO, and the




   rest are assumed to be for other pollutants.  For I/M programs




   required to be initiated in 1983 or 1984, it is not yet certain




   whether these will be combined with other pollutants or not.  As




   such, full I/M costs are assigned to CO for these programs.  In




   the sample output for Los Angeles, the average investment cost




   per car is assumed to be $13.21 and the I/M program is assumed




   to start in 1982.  Therefore, the I/M investment cost assigned




   to CO is:



                             29

-------
     6,012,535 x 13.21 x 1/2 = $39,712,795




I/M Inspection and Repair costs—The inspection costs are calculated




by multiplying the 1987 car count by the average value of




I/M inspection cost per car.  The repair cost is calculated




by multiplying the number of repaired cars by the average repair




cost/car.  As was the case with investment costs, full inspection




and repair costs are assigned to CO if the I/M program is initated




in 1983 or 1984 and only half of the total inspection and repair



cost are  assigned to CO if the I/M program starts in 1982.




In the sample output, the average inspection and repair costs




were assumed to be $7 and $22 per car respectively, Therefore:




     Inspection cost = 6,012,535 x 7 x 1/2 = $21,043,873




     Repair cost = 6,012,535 x 0.3 x 22 x 1/2 = $19,841,366




The number under the term "total" is the sum of inspection and




repair costs.




I/M Fuel Saved, $ Value and Net I/M Cost--




I/M fuel savings  are  calculated  assuming  that  1) no  fuel  saving




benefits occur  in pre-1981  cars,  2)  in  1981  and post-1981 cars




the fuel savings  is  assumed to be 7.5%  per repaired  vehicle  for




20% stringency  factor,  6% per  repaired  vehicle for 30%  stringency




factor, and 4.5%  for  repaired  vehicle  for 40%  stringency  factor.




The fraction  of 1981  and post-1981 cars in the year  1987  was




calculated to be  0.781.  Thus:




      Fuel saving  =  (0.781)  (1987  car count)  x  (average  yearly




                    gasoline consumption per  car) x (stringency)




                    x  (fuel  savings/repaired  vehicle)





                            30

-------
       Average  yearly  gasoline  consumption in 1987  is  assumed to  be


       430  gallons/car and the  average cost of gasoline is  assumed to


       be  $1.00/gallon as  discussed in Appendix F.   For I/M programs


       started  in 1982, only one-half of the fuel savings and costs are


       assigned to CO.   In the  sample output, the stringency factor is


       30%  and  the I/M program  starts in 1982.   Therefore:


            Fuel saved = (0.781)  x (6,012,535)  x (430)  x (.06 x 0.3) x 1/2 =


                         18,172,707 gallons


            $Value = $18,172,707


            The net I/M costs = (total inspection and  repair costs) -


                                (cost of fuel saved due to  I/M)


                             = 40,885,239 - 18,172,707 = $22,712,532


    •  TCM Costs, Fuel Savings  and Fuel Costs—When percent reductions

                     *          *
       needed in 1982  (or 1984)   are either less than or equal to


       5%, and when the county or the state does not have an existing


       I/M program, or when an I/M program cannot fully accomplish needed


       reductions, then a maximum of 5% emission reduction  from TCM is


       assumed to be available.  If the county has  an existing I/M pro-


       gram, then even this 5% or less reduction is accomplished with the I/M


       program initiated in 1982 with a stringency  factor of 20%.  Up to 3%


       reduction is assumed to be available through local TCM strategies at a


       cost of $170/ton of CO reduction.  Another 1% at $400/ton of CO re-


       duction and finally the last 1% at $9,400/ton is assumed available


       due to areawide TCMs.  These percentages and unit costs can, however
1982 for 1-hour 40 mg/m ,  8-hour 10 mg/m  and 8-hour 14 mg/m  standards;
1984 for other standards.


                                 31

-------
  be easily changed since these are used as parameters.

       Fuel savings due to TCM are calculated at a rate  of

  1088 gallons/ton of CO reduction.  Also,  refer to Appendix F for

  further explanation.   Cost of f ael saved  is calculated using an

  average value of $1.00/gallon though this unit cost can be

  easily changed.

       In the example printout, the needed  percent reduction of CO

  in 1987 is 35.4%.  An I/M program using the maximum allowable

  stringency of 30% can accomplish a reduction of 20.3%  only.  Therefore,

  an additional reduction of 5% by local and areawide TCM

  was selected.  Specifically:

    Tons Reduced by Local TCM = .03 x 1,51',322 = 45,579 tons


       Annual cost of Local TCM = 45,579 x  $170 = $7,748,543

    Tons Reduced by areawide TCM =  (.01  x 1,519,322) +  (.01 x 1,519,322)


                                 = 15,193 + 15,193 = 30,386  tons.

       Annual Cost of areawide TCM =  (15,193 x 400) + (15,193 x $9,4'b))

                                   =  $148,893,580

       TCM Fuel Savings =  (45,579 + 30,386) x  (1,088) =  82,651,130
                                                          gallons.

          $ Value  of fuel  savings  @ $1.00/gallon = $82,651,130

          Net TCM  Cost = TCM Costs -  Cost  of fuel saved  due  to TCM

                       = $7,748,543 + $148,893,580 - $82,651,130

                       = $73,990,993


•  Total Tons and Net Total Costs

   Total tons indicate the sum of CO reductions from both I/M and

   TCM programs.  Net total costs indicate the sum of net I/M costs


                             32

-------
   and net TCM costs.  In the example output results were:
        Total tons = (309,941) + (45,579 + 30,386) = 385,907 tons
        Net total  = $22,712,532 + $73,990,993 = $96,703,526
•  Remaining Needed Reductions
   These are calculated as:
   Remaining percent = (Needed percent reduction in 1987) -
                       (Total percent reductions due to I/M plus TCM)
   In the sample printout,
        Remaining percent = 35.4 - 20.3 - 5 = 10%
   The remaining reduction in tons = (Needed reduction in 1987 in tons) -
                                     (Total reduction in tons due to
                                      I/M and TCM)
                                   - 538,003 - 385,907 = 153,095 tons
•  Miscellaneous
   1.  The statements "Mobil source problem in 1982, 1984, etc."
   are printed on the basis of percent reduction accomplished
   considering only the FMVCP effects in combination with VMT
   growth factors.  Referring to the sample output, it is seen
   that the effective percent reductions in 1982, 1984 and 1987 are
   21%, 34% and 45% respectively.  These are all less than the needed
   rollback percentage of 64%.  Therefore, it is stated that in all
   these 3 years, there is a mobile source problem meaning that FMVCP
   is not sufficient to reduce CO emissions to the degree needed.  In
   case the effective percent reductions are more than or equal to
   needed rollback percentage, a statement such as "FMVCP sufficient
   in 1984" is printed.  However, even if FMVCP is sufficient in 1984
   or 1987, an I/M program is still initiated because of CAA requirements

                              33

-------
        to obtain an extension from 1982 to 1987.




        2.  Threshold Temperature and Factor—As  discussed in some detail




        in Appendix E,  it is believed that I/M programs imposed in cold




        areas (defined as average temperature below 50°F)  will be less




        effective in reducing total emissions than presently modeled by




        MOBILE 1.   As temperature decreases, the  emission during warm-up




        of the vehicle increases.  As a result, the overall emissions in




        cold areas may not be reducible due to I/M to the extent assumed




        in MOBILE 1.  Keeping the above-noted facts in view and in order




        to provide some flexibility in adjusting  the I/M effectiveness




        factors based on test results and engineering judgement, two para-




        meters have been provided in the program,  namely a "threshold




        temperature value" and a "fraction".  If,  for example, the user




        specifies a threshold temperature of 50°  and a factor of 0.5, then




        for all counties whose temperatures are less than 50° (i.e., 40°,




        30° ...), the I/M effectiveness will be assumed to be 0.5 times




        that given by MOBILE 1.  For temperatures greater than or equal to




        50°, the I/M factors will not be changed.




             In the example printout, the user has not specified any




        threshold temperature.  In such a case, the program uses the I/M




        effectiveness factors, as given by MOBILE 1 without any adjustments.





4.2  Urban Area-Related Analysis and Summary Reports




     Some additional analyses related to prespecified urban areas and




analyses related to some useful summary tables a^e  performed  by an  addi-




tional program that uses the results of the county analyses program.  An ex-




planation of the procedures and assumptions related to this additional




                                   34

-------
program is presented below with reference to typical sample output results.




     4.2.1  Urban Area-Related Analyses




            A list of specified urbanized areas and the names of counties




belonging to each of the urban areas is shown in Appendix A.  The




general logic of urban area analyses is as follows.





            If any county of an urbanized area needs an I/M program,




the I/M program is assumed to be implemented in the entire urban area.




The I/M costs are calculated using the sum of the vehicle population of




all the counties included in the urban area.  The stringency factor used




is that of the county in the urbanized area with the highest stringency




factor.  If more than one county has the same highest stringency factor,




then the first in the list is used as reference.




 "*"         Referring to Figure 4.2, which show a typical output for




an urban area analysis, the various numerical results are calculated as




follows:





     •  Automobiles—  The projected 1987 car count of all counties included




        in the area is summed and printed in this column.




     •  Stringency—If more than one county of the urban area is in vio-




        lation then the county using an I/M with the highest stringency




        factor is selected as the reference county.  If only one county




        is in violation then the I/M stringency of this one county is




        used for the entire urban area.  In this particular case only




        the San Francisco county was in violation of the standard and
                                   35

-------
                                                                                 ~l
                                                              < .-, L^ m t\J r*. ,-,*.
                                                                           i hfi QD    in

                                                                     in  M CM M    M
               w     o»N.»-»fuinOf-.ccmO'-»iAw»e»-"-»OhnKi»-*r».Mi'Ooor  m
                                                                                                            in
o


CVJ
3
a.
           o
           UJ ••
           :> t/i
           
       l>-l^>3--*,jtnj
—•  rj er>  —« .» tn •»  in -»  K. f  e-.^.»Pccn.-i'*iM.-iMrooin!
—••»*T-4«-*:x3*''(N^o*!ao'\J»-*-O     ^irj-Njvaf^oojr*^^
                                                                                       >e
                                                                                       03
                          ^ -o^H^-r-oincsjM  r^1^)  Ot>  ao^O-^*^  csJin^^lA^.^
            1

            tc.
            •<
            o.
                      ioj->o-_yp..coO^'33Ni>iD'>*»o;\j>r'>a;j'iOro''OOxO"*
 o.
 o_
                                                                                                             ^o
                                                                                                             00
                                                                                                              fc
                                                                                                             CO
                                                                                                             in
                                                                                                             M
                                                                                                             CO
                                                                                                             o
                                                                                                          i   ^
                      OlT.  is.u^—iOlT*-*»^r^-*  O*neCO  M(VOOMO\J3MOMi
 o     „

 O     t—
 if.      t

 0
                       OvCf^rs-WlT^-H^N-MPO***^    -»*«.3-N->^l*>.-^;—1*-!^,
                                                                                         0-^*000
                                                                                                             to


                                                                                                             in
             33
             O
             »•

             O
                       C"K-  a;  ^-J-rvj-^tc-*  (>c>'»*«-l^F>^D -^fw ^-ioO«-*OC--<'
                       C'Jo^-a^'C«a^   ujr-r-eroef^i^p-Ciceoiv,
 531A—
    «Tl^f^.Or*"O'-«—< ND-3'lA'^^.O'»pr)—« O -» •K1 X 1 O 13 H co M CO § S PQ 9 CN I O 0) 4J n) 0) M 0) O 4-1 CO 4J 4J CO CO S cfl CJ 0) -o (U o o CO § •H C CO 4J .s c CO CO OJ CO CO U cO 3 Q) pi i_j i i cfl 3 O a cO CO & rH Si- CO 0) 3 o cfl co M-I cd o CO rH CO CO e M , ft3 O3^OOo^-^CJM^M-lNl'*'>^>^'^>«-»-»-»-»J> 3

-------
   an I/M with 30% stringency was selected for the county.  There-




   fore, the stringency used for the entire urban area is 30%.




•  I/M Inspection & Repair Costs; Fuel Savings & Fuel Costs




   The I/M inspection and repair costs as well as fuel savings and




   fuel costs for the urban areas are calculated using the same




   relationships as are used for counties, except that the car count




   used is that for an urban area instead of a county car count.  Also,




   for areas with current plans for I/M programs, only half of the




   inspection and repair costs and fuel savings are assigned to CO.




   However, full costs and full fuel savings are assigned to CO




   for any urban area which does not have current plans for I/M




   programs.




•  Urban Reduction (tons)—The urban CO reductions should theoreti-




   cally be the summation of the CO reductions in the counties con-




   stituting the urban area.  However, out of the 272 counties




   included in the county file, only 220 counties have design values




   and 1979 CO emission data.   The data associated with the remain-




   ing 52 counties consists only of the car count in-1977 and the




   populations of the SMSAs or urban areas associated with these




   counties for the years 1970, 1980, 1985,  and 1990.  As such,  the




   CO emissions and reductions In future years for tht-se 52 roum it-w




   IH no I  cnLculahle l>y the program.  Howrvri , n i r;iMon.il>l r <-.-ii Inuii <•




   can be made by assuming that CO emissions of a county are roughly




   proportional to the car count of that county.  This is the basic
                             37

-------
       assumption  that has been used  to calculate  the urban reductions.

       Specifically,  the following  formula has been used:


          Urban Reduction =     (Urban Car Count) -    (Tons of CO reduced
                            (Car count of the county     due to I/M in the
                             with highest stringency)    county with highest
                                                         stringency)
       For example, the output for San Francisco county, for a 1-hour
              3
       17 mg/m  statistical standard, shows a CO reduction of 17,327

       tons in 1987 with an I/M using 30% stringency.  The car

       count of San Francisco county in 1987 is 445,367, and the car

       count of San Francisco urban area is 2,882,900.  Therefore:

         Urban Reduction for     2,882 900   ,7007   no ic.c. *-
         San Francisco Area   =  -fosTJeT X 1?'3  ? = U2f166 tOM
       Similar calculations are done for other urban areas.

    •  Urban Subtotals — These are the summations under each column of the

       urban analysis table.

    4.2.2  Summary Tables

           The program is designed to generate several useful summary

tables for the user as explained below.

     o  I/M-Related Summary Data

        Referring to Figure 4.3, a listing of all the individual counties

        (including those that are also single county urban art-iis) In

        printed along with I/M-related summaries of costs, fuel savings,

        and CO reductions.  "County Subtotals" are the summation of

        numbers in respective columns.  "Urban- County subtotals" are the

        summation of respective urban and county subtotals.  The urban
                                   38

-------
LJ

19
0.

e»
o


Cvl
u  «•

t—
ilJ
   O M
   O O
   O- O
                                     COOv
                                            «>4.T>»r'kr^mfe.9>aJ>tf*-i*o-?aD(*Oi
                                            m.h..-«rN.f«.in»"«''OO«>'co»-«r.p^**-T
                       N.O\l«1»O«-«in^vO^«^OM(^--J-a5OOW'^
                                 N    ~9 *«T  fw N  O \O


                                 f\i  C^ O  O CJ \D ^ CO vO O *T  J~ CO  00 •&  tC lA


                                 ftJ-QC»-tt\JaOjN.iCCSJvVlin     \£ ^-4  -H K-  *T ^J
                                                                                                 L     :
            o o
            3 l-
            O w
                                                        owooee  (vjaoin-*
                                                        iv ")  (\j (vj  33  ^ r^  -^
                                                        o-^i».n.  Mo-a-c
                                                        (VJO^"-*'J(V]OS      ^^tVJW>»-4l
                                                                                                             o
                                                                                                             e
                       -T'vj'-*ml>'^Lnfvj^-«aj-^^fl^Hro^o-*^(vjminvOifl*»     f^.
                                                                                                     i i^s     m
                                                                                                     i»     to
                                                    O  —4 (vj vC O vO(VJr~-«

                                                   • M  (vjoinini«.j-->in
                                                                            in cs  ov o  o
                                                                             -T rvj  fVJ n»  »^*
                                                                             ^ CO  O to  (VJ
                                                                                                             (VJ     ^
 x
 a.
 CL
 r

 12
 O



 Q
                           ocvj'^-Tinf'vfOp.o^^ojjN^ocin^ojXknr^M
                                                                      (VJM^T     in*-<*-»vOK'^
 !_) •»


 a. w
                                                        ••o .^ o  !n IN. .
                                                        OC (Vi O- o, -» I
                                                                  -*  -« (VJ
                                                                  »"  c* m
                                                                   I K. IN. •» (VI

                                                                   I (VJ «O Ov —I
                                                                    (VJ ~4 ». ov
                                                                                      g
                                                                                      03
                                                                                       ft
                                                                                      in
                                                                                                             L
        QZ

        "— Ul
OMfJ
*^  w^ »ff  lA  00 GO  CC lA ^.D  lA LA  O Os  M CC "*f  O iA ^J ^J ^ ™* ^

O  "7* >.f*-OMlN! -j\in  t?COlA(J\  /s.CVJvO-.^On O v3«OOr»>.
                                                        oo oooooooooo^Oo
                                                        (\J^ fVJ^jPOPO^JtNJOJPOCUtV^M
O    *4
fA    t^
k£    ^
 *     •.
IM    00
ro    \D
I       *^
                       O rsJiAr\JOLAr»»ON) ----*(»-.tjO'1'>>eOO''s^r*. *^(>.,O(\I


                       or^-'p<.t«ar-*-iv  ^ra(virfc»-ca'-s*a^oa


                       ,>••-«  -»TiAr\JtO'^."\IOiJ*^X)Ot^'^lkJjOc  r\JiAf»-i>*uA '-J  C\l
                       Cu«-*tC'^C'«*OC''d'CsJ-9'^*1OCVJlA^'C^t-llAtV^O^i OO^
                           o>  esj >o csj  —i     -H(\J     i^ »o  -^        '^i     P\J         csj'    ^H
                                                                                                  -
                                                                                                             !»-     >-

                                                                                                              §     §'
                                                                                                             ;t^     ol

                                                                                                             •>-     g

                                                                                                              z     «'
                                                                                                              3     'S
                                                                                                              o     (r i
                                                                                                              


                                                                                                                                       CO
                                                                                                                                                   CU
                                                                                                                                                   CO
                                                                                                                                                   3
                                                                                                                                                   cd
                                                                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                                                                   0)
                                                                                                                                                               3
                                                                                                                                                               O
                                                                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                                                                   cd
                                                                                                                                                   C
                                                                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                                                                  •H
                                                                                                                                                   e
                                                                                                                                                  •H
                                                                                                                                                   Cfl
                                                                                                                                                  X!

                                                                                                                                                   CO
                                                                                                                                                   0)

                                                                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                                                       03   §•
                                                                                                                                       CO   Cd
                                                                                                                                       QJ   X
                                                                                                                                      •H   a)
                                                                                                                                       4-1
                                                                                                                                       C   q!
                                                                                                                                       3   cfl
                                                                                                                                       o
                                                                                                                                       O   CO
                                                                                                                                            cfl
                                                                                                                                      rH
                                                                                                                                       Cfl   p*-)

                                                                                                                                       4J   Q)
                                                                                                                                       O   M
                                                                                                                                       cfl   3
                                                                                                                                            ft
                                                                                                                                      <4-l
                                                                                                                                       O  TJ
                                                                                                                                            (U
                                                                                                                                       CO   4J
                                                                                                                                       cu   cd
                                                                                                                                       G   cu
                                                                                                                                       cd   vj
                                                                                                                                      2   4-1

-------
   table shown in Figure 4.2, and the individual county I/M-related

   table shown in Figure 4.3 together constitute the complete summary

   of I/M-related analysis data for a particular study, i.e., for a
                                         3
   1-hour statistical standard of 17 mg/m •


•  TCM-Related Summary Data—All those counties that used TCM

   either in addition to an I/M program or TCM alone are listed

   in Figure 4.4.  The CO reductions, fuel savings, and net

   TCM costs are printed for each respective county.  "TCM

   Subtotals" indicate the summation of numbers in various

   columns.  "Grand Totals" indicate the sum of I/M urban, I/M

   individual counties, and TCM subtotals.

        The value indicated for "Net cost excluding I/M fuel

   savings" is: (Grand total - total costs of fuel saved due to

   I/M for both urban areas and individual counties).


•  Summary Lists of Counties in Violation of Standards

   The following summary lists are produced.

   - Counties in violation in 1982 with FMVCP as the only control
                                               3
     measure   (for 1-hour standards of 40 mg/m , 8-hour standards
               3                                3
     of 10 mg/m  and 8-hour standards of 14 mg/m ).  These are all

     counties whose effective total percent reduction in  1982

     is less than required rollback percent reduction.

  -  Counties in violation with only FMVCP in 1984  (for all

     standards).  These are all those counties whose effective percent
                               40

-------
u>
a
-»
 ft

03


O
"V
o

<s
19
1
-
U,
O
o
vX
^
O
•F
^
t/1
-J
u
t-
•-«
^"*
*

IX
a
X
i

**
2*
1 2
•< >-
^m 2;
UJ ID
O
• u
: 1
L




o
Ul •+
>  Z
a n
Ul **
°=








































i
I !
u
o
z
^
a
UJ
Ul
Z
'






N» -^ ^
f>v CVJ K(
l»- vO M
{*•*•*
* CM
O (U
00


in M m
Kl 23 *»
K <-' -•
-» M























































CO O O
hO (\J ^Q
r- to vo
eo .» o
oo — • in
•-I ^ M



••4 x£ ^J
vD * Mi
— • K) (M























































CO •-• "^
M (^ ^
0 '" •»
*r ^r in
S ^5
» ^



(O 0. l«
CT is. s»
O V)























































CO o
\l *^
I> 0
s ~
"t O
M »
0
,^

— * -»
O 
V
M
(9
Z
a
2
u
X
Ul
l-

o
u

^B
Ul
	 i














H
O
&
(—1
Q
W
W
K
CO
M
M
O
u
Pn
o
H
_1
5
H
>-<
B5

s
§
CO
Pn
O
s
^
CO
<)•
-*
§
£>
O
H
Pn




















(
?














































ro

-------
reduction in 1984 is less than required rollback percent reduc-




tion.




Counties in violation with only FMVCP in 1987 (for all stan-




dards).  These are all those counties whose effective total




percent reduction in 1987 is less than the required rollback




percent reduction.




Counties in violation with FMVCP + I/M + TCM (for all standards),




These are all those counties whose CO reductions in 1987 are




less than the percent rollback needed even with FMVCP, I/M and




TCM programs combined together.  The remaining needed percent




and tons are also printed along with the name of the counties.
                          42

-------
APPENDICES

-------

-------
                APPENDIX A

LIST OF 272 COUNTIES AND URBAN AREAS WITH
         STATUS OF I/M PROGRAMS

-------
                               Appendix A

               LIST OF 272 COUNTIES AND URBAN AREAS WITH
                         STATUS OF I/M PROGRAMS
     The following list of 272 counties potentially in violation of the

existing and other proposed standards was selected as follows:

     1.  Started with the list of nonattainment areas as given in the
         Federal Register of March 3, 1978.

     2.  Added to this list those counties that showed design values that
         are equal to or greater than 80% of the current standard values.
         The design values were obtained from the Storage and Retrieval
         of Aerometric Data (SAROAD) reporting system.

     3.  Checked the emission densities of those counties for which no
         ambient concentration data exist  and whose emission densities
         were greater than a cutoff value of 100 tons/sq. mile/year.
         Added the names of the counties whose emission densities were
         greater than the cutoff values to the list above.

     4.  Included all those counties that are part of the same urban
         area as those counties mentioned above.

The counties were then grouped into three categories, namely:  1) counties

that are a part of multicounty urban areas which may cross state boundaries;

2) counties that are a part of a single county urban areas; and 3) counties

not included in any urban area.  The listing of urban areas and associated

counties was derived from the report:  Bureau of the Census, Population and

Land Area of Urbanized Areas for the United States, 1970 and 1960, Washing-

ton, D.C., U.S. Department of Commerce, 1979.  The status of I/M programs

for various counties was taken from the "Inspection/Maintenance Status

Sheets", EPA, Ann Arbor, Michigan, May 29, 1979.

     Referring to the list under the column headed, "Current Plans for I/M
                                   A-2

-------
Programs to be Initiated in 1982", the + mark(s) indicate that an I/M




program is planned for initiation by July 1982 as required by EPA regula-




tions for hydrocarbon control for the ozone National Ambient Air Quality




Standards.  If there is no + mark against a county, but there is a + mark(s)




for a county in the same state, it is assumed that the state has the legal




authority for implementing an I/M program and the county can initiate an




I/M program in 1983.  If no county in the state has a + mark, then it is




assumed that legal authority does not exist, and the earliest an I/M pro-




gram can be initiated is in 1984.
                                   A-3

-------
 LIST  OF  THE  272  COUNTIES  AND URBAN AREAS  WITH
             STATUS  OF  I/M PROGRAMS
1.  Counties Included in Multicounty Urban Areas
                                            Current Plans for
                                            I/M Programs to be
                                            Initiated in 1982
No. State
1 California
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 Colorado
16
17
18
19 Delaware
20
21 Florida
22
23 Georgia
24
25
26
Associated pO 0
Urban Area Counties 3
San Francisco Alameda + +
Contra Costa + +
Marin + +
San Francisco + +
San Mateo + +
Solano + +
Nap a
Los Angeles Los Angeles + +
Orange + +
Sacramento Placer + +
Sacramento + +
Yolo + +
San Bernardino Riverside + +
San Bernardino + +
Denver Adams + +
Arapahoe + +
Denver + +
Jefferson + +
Wilmington New Castle +
Salem, N.J. +
Jacksonville Clay
Duval
Atlanta Clayton + +
Cobb + +
DeKalb + +
Fulton + +
                       A-4

-------
No.

27
28
29
30
31
  State
Illinois
                      Urban Area
Chicago
  Associated
	 Counties  _

 Cook
 Lake,  111.
 Lake,  Ind.
 Porter,  Ind.
 Tazewell
                                                           Current Plans for
                                                           I/M Programs to be
                                                           Initiated in 1982
                                                                CO    0.,
32   Indiana
33
                Indianapolis
                   Marion
                   Hamilton
34   Iowa
35
                Davenport-Rock
                   Scott
                   Rock Island
36   Kentucky
37
38
                Louisville
                   Jefferson
                   Clark, Ind.
                   Floyd, Ind.
 39   Maryland
 40
 41
                Baltimore
                   Baltimore City
                   Baltimore
                   Anne Arundel
 42
 43
 44
 45
 46
 47

 48
 49
 50
District of
  Columbia
Washington, D.C.
Michigan
Detroit
 Alexandria City, Va.
 Arlington, Va.
 Fairfax, Va.
 Montgomery
 Prince Georges
 Washington D.C.

 Ma comb
 Oakland
 Wayne
 51
 52
 53
 54
 55
 56
 57
Minnesota
Minneapolis-
   St. Paul
 Dakota
 Hennepin
 Ramsey
 Washington
 Carver
 Scott
 Anoka
                                      A-5

-------
No.

58
59
60
61
62
    State
Minnesota
                  Urban Area
                St. Cloud
                Duluth-Superior
  Associated
   Counties

Benton
Stearns
Sherbourne

St. Louis
Douglas, Wise.
                                                            Current Plans for
                                                            I/M Programs to be
                                                            Initiated in 1982
                                                               CO     00
63
64
65
66
67
Missouri
                St. Louis
St. Louis City
St. Louis
St. Charles
Madison, II.
St. Clair, II.
68
69
70
Nebraska
                Omaha
Douglas
Sarpy
Pottawattamie, lo.
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92

93
94
New York
                New York City
              Albany-Schenectady
              Buffalo
Bronx
Kings
Nassau
New York
Queens
Richmond
Rockland
Suffolk
Westchester
Bergen, N.J.
Essex, N.J.
Hudson, N.J.
Middlesex, N.J.
Monmouth N.J.
Morris, N.J.
Ocean, N.J.
Passaic, N.J.
Somerset, N.J.
Union, N.J.

Albany
Rensselaer
Schenectady
Erie
Niagra
                                     A-6

-------
No.

 95
 96

 97
 98
 99
100
101

102
103

104
105
106

107
108

109
110
111

112
113
   State
Ohio
 Urban Area

Cleveland


Cincinnati
                Youngstown


                Steubenville



                Toledo


                Dayton



                Akron
  Associated
   Counties

Cuyahoga
Lake

Clermont
Hamilton
Boone, Ky.
Campbell, Ky.
Kenton, Ky.

Mahoning
Trumbell

Jefferson
Brook, W.Va.
Hancock, W.Va.

Lucas
Wood

Butler
Greene
Montgomery

Portage
Summit
                                                              Current Plans for
                                                              I/M Programs to be
                                                              Initiated in 1982
                                                                 CO    On
 114    Oklahoma
 115
                Oklahoma City
                   Cleveland
                   Oklahoma
 116
 117
 118
 119
Oregon
Portland
Clackamas
Multnomah
Washington
Clark, Wa.
 120
 121
 122
 123
 124
 125
 126
 127

 128
 129
 130
Pennsylvania    Philadelphia
                Scranton-Wilkes

                Pittsburg
                   Philadelphia
                   Bucks
                   Delaware
                   Burlington, N.J.
                   Camden, N.J.
                   Gloucester, N.J.
                   Lackawana
                   Luzerne

                   Allegheny
                   Beaver
                   Westmoreland
                                      A-7

-------
No.
    State
 Urban Area
131   Pennsylvania    Allentown-
132                     Bethlehem
133
    Associated
     Counties
                                                              Current Plans for
                                                              I/M Programs to be
                                                              Initiated in 1982
                                                                 CO    ()„
                                   Lehigh
                                   Northampton
                                   Warren, N.J.
134
135
136
137
Rhode Island
Providence
Bristol
Kent
Providence
Washington
138   South Carolina  Columbia
139
                                   Lexington
                                   Richland
140   Tennessee
141
142
                Chattanooga
                   Hamilton
                   Catoosa, Ga.
                   Walker, Ga.
143   Utah
144
                Salt Lake City
                   Davis
                   Salt Lake
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
Virginia
Richmond
                Norfolk
Richmond City
Chesterfield
Henrico

Chesapeake City
Norfolk City
Portsmouth City
Virginia Beach City
152   Washington
153
154
                Seattle-Tacoma
                   King
                   Pierce
                   Snohomish
155   Wisconsin
156
157
                Milwaukee
                   Milwaukee
                   Ozaukee
                   Waukesha
                                      A-8

-------
2.  Counties Included in Single County Urban Areas
No.
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
State
Alabama
Arizona

California








Colorado

Connecticut




Florida
Idaho
Iowa

Kansas
Kentucky
Maine
Michigan
  Urban Area

Birmingham


Phoenix
Tucson


Fresno
Bakersfield
San Diego
Stockton
Santa Barbara
San Jose
Modesto
Santa Rosa
Ventura


Boulder
Colorado Springs


Bridgeport
Hartford
New Haven
Waterbury
Meriden


Ft. Lauderdale


Boise
        Cedar Rapids
        Des Moines
        Wichita
        Owensboro
        Lewis ton- Auburn
        Saginaw
                            Associated
                             Counties

                           Jefferson
                           Maricopa
                           Pima
Fresno
Kern
San Diego
San Joaquin
Santa Barbara
Santa Clara
Stanislaus
Sonoma
Ventura


Boulder
El Paso


Fairfield
Hartford
New Haven
Litchfield
Middlesex


Broward


Ada


Linn
Polk


Sedgwick


Daviess


Androscoggin


Saginaw
                                        Current Plans for
                                        I/M Programs
                                        Initiated in 1982
                                           CO     0_
                       A-9

-------
No.
          State
185   Minnesota
186   Missouri
                       Urban Area
                      Rochester
                      Springfield
 Associated
  Counties

Olmstead


Greene
                                                              Current  Plans  for
                                                              I/M Programs
                                                              Initiated in 1982
                                                                 CO     0^
187   Montana
188
                      Great Falls
                      Billings
                                         Cascade
                                         Yellowstone
189   Nebraska
                      Lincoln
                                         Lancaster
190   Nevada
191
                      Las Vegas
                      Reno
                                         Clark
                                         Washoe
192   New Hampshire   Manchester
                                         Hillsborough
193   New Jersey
194
                      Atlantic City
                      Trenton
                                         Atlantic
                                         Mercer
195   New Mexico
                      Albuquerque
                                         Bernalillo
196   New York
197
                      Syracuse
                      Rochester
                                         Onondaga
                                         Monroe
198   North Carolina  Charlotte
199   Ohio
200   Oklahoma
                      Columbus
                      Tulsa
                                         Mecklenburg


                                         Franklin


                                         Tulsa
 201   Oregon
 202
                      Eugene
                      Salem
                                         Lane
                                         Marion
203
204
205
      Tennessee
                      Memphis
                      Nashville
                      Knoxville
Shelby
Davidson
Knox
206
207
      Texas
                      Houston
                      El  Paso
Harris
El Paso
                                      A-10

-------
No.
  State
208   Utah
209
 Urban Area

Ogden
Provo
Associated
 Counties

Weber
Utah
                                                              Current  Plans  for
                                                              I/M Programs
                                                              Initiated in 1982
                                                                 CO     0
210   Virginia
                Newport News
                   Hampton
211   Washington      Spokane
212                   Yakima
                                   Spokane
                                   Yakima
                      Counties That Are Not in Urbanized Areas
213   Alabama
                                   Mobile
214   Alaska
215
                                   Anchorage
                                   Fairbanks
216
217
218
219
220
California
                   Butte
                   Merced
                   Santa Cruz
                   Sutter
                   Tulare
221
222
223
Colorado
                   Larimer
                   Douglas
                   Weld
224
225
Connecticut
                   New London
                   Tolland
226
227
228
229
230
231
Florida
                   Bade
                   Hillsborough
                   Orange
                   Palm Beach
                   Pinellas
                   Volusia
232
233
Illinois
                   Peoria
                   Will
234
235
236
Kansas
                   Douglas
                   Shawnee
                   Wyandotte
                                     A-ll

-------
No.
State
237   Kentucky
Urban Area
 Associated
  Counties

McCracken
                                                              Current Plans for
                                                              I/M Programs
                                                              Initiated in 1982
                                                                 CO     CL
238   Louisiana
                               E. Baton Rouge
239   Maine
                               Penobscot
240   Maryland
241
                               Alleghany
                               Washington
243   Massachusetts
244
245
                               Central
                               Pioneer
                               Boston Met
246   Michigan


247   Montana
                               Kent
                               Missoula
248   Nevada
249
250
                               Carson City
                               Douglas
                               Storey
251   New Hampshire
252
253
                               Coos
                               Merrimack
                               Rockingham
254   New Jersey
                               Cape May
255   New Mexico
256
257
258
                               Chaves
                               Dona Ana
                               San Juan
                               Santa Fe
259   North Carolina
                               Durham
 260   Ohio
 261
                               Clark
                               Stark
262   Oregon
                               Jackson
                                      A-12

-------
                                                              Current Plans for
                                                              I/M Programs
                                                              Initiated in 1982
                                          \ssociated             CO     0
No.       State	      Urban Area       Counties	

263   South Carolina                     York


264   Texas                              Bexar
265                                      Dallas
266                                      Nueces
267                                      Tarrant
268                                      Travis


269   Utah                               Utah


270   Vermont                            Chittenden

271   Virginia                           Roanoke


272   Wisconsin                          Kenosha
                                      A-13

-------
                     APPENDIX B

THE ALTERNATIVE CO STANDARDS INCLUDED IN THE PROGRAM
    AND THE BASIS FOR CALCULATING DESIGN VALUES

-------
                               Appendix B

          THE ALTERNATIVE CO STANDARDS INCLUDED IN THE PROGRAM
              AND THE BASIS FOR CALCULATING DESIGN VALUES
General

     The current CO standards specify that the hourly average CO concen-
                               3
tration must not exceed 40 mg/m  (approximately 35 ppm)  more than once

per year and that the 8-hour average CO concentration must not exceed
       3
10 mg/m  (approximately 9 ppm) more than once per year.   In addition to

assessing alternative standard levels in the standard-setting regulatory

analyses, EPA is also considering alternative procedures for calculating

exceedances of the standard.  These procedures affect the form of the stan-

dard.

     In its current form, the standard is based on the second highest

monitored value in an area during a year.  However, this deterministic

(once-per-year) approach has limitations in that it does not account for

the probabilistic nature of maximum CO concentrations.  For example, to

maintain such a standard year after year necessitates a zero probability that

the second high value will ever again exceed the standard.  On a practical

basis, permitting only a single absolute exceedance in a year means that there

is some possibility of occasionally having two or more exceedances in a

particular year.

     The form of the standard not only influences the determination of the

number of exceedances of the standard, tut also affects the calculation of

an area's design value.  The design value represents the estimated ambient

concentration from which emission reductions are calculated in the strategy
                                   B-2

-------
planning process.




     The program is designed to evaluate the current 1-hour and 8-hour




standard as well as six additional 1-hour and six additional 8-hour stan-




dards based on various levels and forms as shown in Table B-l.  Brief




discussions related to the statistical forms of the standards and calcu-




lation of corresponding design values are presented below.





Statistical Forms of the Standard




     To remedy the logical conflict and to adjust for the effect of




missing data, EPA is considering defining the standard on a statistical




basis whereby the expected number of exceedances per calendar year is




determined.  Statistical forms of the standard vary, depending on whether




all possible values are used or daily values alone, and how running averages




are handled for the 8-hour standard.




     For purposes of the analysis contained in this document, two inter-




pretations of the statistical standard are used.  For the 1-hour standard,




the hourly interpretation bases the design value on the ambient hourly




concentration which on the average will be exceeded once per year in each area.




The daily interpretation on the other hand, bases the standard on the number




of days with maximum hourly CO averages above the level of the standard.




This means that a day with two or more hourly values over the standard




level counts as one exceedance of the standard level rather than two or




more.




     Statistical forms of the 8-hour standard follow the same basic approach,




but the interpretation is complicated by running averages, as discussed




by EPA in "Guidelines for the Interpretation of Air Quality Data with




Respect to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards,"  Guideline Series



                                   B-3

-------
 I
pp
 cd
H
       Q
       W
       O
       s

       U
       CO
       CO

       o
       o

       w
       >
       M
       H
       w
       H
       rH


       W
CO
-0
M
cd
C
CO
1)
CO

M
3
5
33
1
4J
43
60
•H
W







4J
G
CU s-^
iH ro
cd j=

•H 60
3 B

W

                       CO
                      •T3
                       (-1
                       cd

                       G
                       cd
                       4-1
                      CO
 o
•H
 M
4J ^-v
 0) S
 B PH
 O fti
 C ^
 O
 G
 cu  X-N
iH  CO
 cd   B

•H   60
 3   B
 cr-^
W
                              CO
                               a
                              •rH
                               OJ  g
                               S  P^
                               o  PM
                               c  ^-—^
                               o
""^   &0
 C   G
 O  -H
 O  4-1
 01   CO
CO  iH

<-(  W
 cd
 3  43
 G   60
 G  -H
           T)  60
            G  G
            O -H
            O 4-1
            0)  CO
           CO -H
                X
           .H W
            cd
            3 43
            G  60
            G -rl
                                          LT>
                                          ro
                                                                                          -  -H
                                                                                         H  X
                                                                                         n)  cd
                                                                                         o  B
                                                                                         •rl
                                                                                         CO
                                                                                         •H
                                                           Cfl
                                                           •U
                                                                                         CO  Cd
                                                                                             -H  CO
                                                                                             cfl -H
                                                                                             T3  CO
                                                                                                 Cd
                                                                                          CJ
                                                                                          o
cd
0)
^
Q)
P.
, — |
v/
U]
•H

W
O>
O
c
cd
T3
CU
cu
o
X
cu

6
3
g
•H
X

&
1
r~i
cd
3
G
C
cd
4-1
O
01
•§
3
G
01
4-1
o
0)
fit
0)
Q)
1 I
Ol
0>
cd
0)
i-i
0)
cx
, 	 1
v/
0)

cd

CO
01
a
C
cd
""0
0)
01
a
X
01

0
3
e
•H
X
td
B
>,
r-\
•H
cd
id
m
o
cu
•i
3
G
01
4J
a
0)
cx
X
01
0)
1 1
01
0)
                                                                     B-4

-------
OAQPS 1.2-008, revised February 1977.  The current CO standard is chosen




so that the second exceedance does not come from an 8-hour period which




contains at least 1-hour in common with the first exceedance.




     In calculating design values for use in this analysis, the daily inter-




pretation uses overlapping 8-hour averages in computing the expected number




of exceedances.  For each day, the highest of the 24 possible 8-hour averages




is the daily maximum 8-hour average.  With this method, the possibility




arises that two daily exceedances could have common hourly values.  The




other statistical approach (the hourly interpretation) employed in this




analysis uses all possible 8-hour averages for the year so that more than




one exceedance per day could be counted.  This is more stringent than the




current form of the standard because exceedances may overlap.





Calculation of Design Values




     Design values for use in this analysis were obtained from a review of




1976-1978 CO ambient air quality data in EPA's SAROAD data base.  For the




current form of the standard, the second highest maximum value was used.




Using the three years of data, design values based on the respective statis-




tical forms of the standard are expected to fall between the third and fourth




highest maximum value, whether it be an hourly or daily value.  In selecting




design values, the fourth highest value over the three year period was used.




If only two years of data were available, the third highest value was chosen.




These design values are approximate and suitable only for analytical purposes




in this assessment.  In State Implementation Plan  (SIP) revisions submitted




to EPA, States will calculate the actual design values used for attainment




determinations and for planning purposes.  The values will be calculated




based on guidance provided by EPA.





                                B-5

-------
              APPENDIX C

CONVERSION OF EMISSION DENSITY VALUES
     TO SURROGATE DESIGN VALUES

-------
                              Appendix C

                 CONVERSION OF EMISSION DENSITY VALUES
                      TO SURROGATE DESIGN VALUES
     As indicated in Section 2 of this report, emission densities were

used as design value surrogates for those counties not having design

value data.  As compatible surrogates for the various standards, equiva-

lent emission densitites were calculated that would lead to a concentra-

tion equal to the standards under a certain set of conservative conditions.

These were calculated as described below.

                        *                                        #
     The Holzworth model  was used with a correction from Calder.

The basic model applies to a ground-level pollutant released from a
                                                                    2
rectangular urban area source distribution of uniform strength Q(g/m -sec),

The width of the rectangle, 2B, is perpendicular to the wind direction

and the downwind length is S.  A rectangular coordinate system is used

with x along the wind direction and the origin at the center of the

upwind edge of the rectangle.  The concentration x(x>°>°) at ground

level and downwind distance x along the center line of the area is then

given by
*
 Holtzworth, G.C., Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds, and Potential for Urban
 Air Pollution Throughout the Contiguous United States, EPA Report No.
 AP-101.

 Calder, K.L., "A Correction :to  the Holzworth Model of Meteorlogical
 Potential for Urban Air Pollution," Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 11,
 pp. 761-764, 1977.


                                   C-2

-------
                      x  B

          x(x,o,o) = C  r
	y	                   (1)
iro(x-x )o (x-x )U
                              -Y
                                o      \ dx dy
                     exp| 	5	  )   o 'x

                          20   (x-x )
                            y      o
where U is the average wind speed and is assumed constant throughout



the region.  If the half-width of this hypothetical point source plume



is less than the crosswind half-width, B, of the source area, then  (1)



may be closely approximated by setting B = °°.  Then (1) reduces to





                              x

           ,     .  /2A   Q  C    X0                      ,9«.
          X(x,o,o) = <-)    ±J  a (x_x )                   (2)

                            Q   Z    O





     This relationship is valid provided that vertical dispersion is



not restricted.  For a mixing height, H, there is a critical distance,



X, that occurs when a (X)=0.8H.  Complete vertical mixing is assumed to
                     z


occur beyond this distance and the concentration maintains a constant



value in the vertical direction.  Expressing the vertical dispersion



coefficient as a power law relation





                  / N     b
                a (x) = ax
                 z




the concentration at a point x beyond the critical distance may be



expressed as
          X(x,o,o) =    QX       Q(x-X)

                     UH(l-b)  +   UH     for x > X        (3)
                                  C-3

-------
     A number of conservative assumptions were used to calculate



"standard-equivalent" emission densities from this relationship.  These



included :



          region size, S           =  100 km



          mixing height, H         =  125 m



          wind speed, U            =1 m/sec



          stability class          =  E



          downwind distance, x     =  S  =  100 km




Values for a and b were chosen from the power law formulation of the



vertical dispersion coefficient in APRAC-1A for E stability:





                           a = 1.35



                           b = 0.51




Using these assumptions,





          a (X) = 1.35X0*51 =  (0.8) 125,
           z


          and             X = 4635 m.





Then




          XU     4635        105-4635

          Q    125 (1-0. 51) +     125



             = 838.6



Since U is assumed to be 1 m/sec,
          %- = 838.6 sec/m,



      or

          Q = x/838.6 sec/m.


                        3                               2
With x expressed in mg/m  , Q may be expressed in tons/mi -yr by
                                   C-4

-------
                                  tons /mi -yr
                   .           c       7

                      1.11x10 5   mg/m -sec




                             2

and       Q = 107. 43x tons/mi -yr.  The "standard-equivalent" emission



densities were calculated using equation (4).



     The table below lists the different standards and the associated



emission densities.
              Standard                   Emission Density

                   3                               2
              (mg/m )                      (tons/mi -yr)



                40                            4296



                29                            3115



                17                            1826



                14                            1504



                10                            1074



                 8                             859





These emission densities were used for both the second high and the



statistical forms of the standards because  the assumed conditions were



taken to occur frequently enough to apply to the different forms.
                                  C-5

-------
                APPENDIX D




ORIGINAL COUNTY AREAWIDE VMT GROWTH FACTORS

-------
                              Appendix D
              ORIGINAL COUNTY AREAWIDE VMT GROWTH FACTORS
  State
Alabama


Arizona


Arkansas

California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware

District of
  Columbia

Florida
Urbanized Area

Birmingham
Mobile

Phoenix
Tucson

Little Rock

Fresno
Los Angeles
Oxnard
Sacramento
San Bernadino
San Diego
San Francisco
San Jose

Colorado Springs
Denver

Bridgeport
Hartford
New Haven

Wilmington

Washington, D.C.
Fort Lauderdale
Jacksonville
Miami
Compound Annual
   Percentage
	Change	

     5.20
     3.12

     2.89
     2.49

     3.97
     4.
     3.
     5,
     4,
     4,
     4,
     3,
18
16
10
12
25
78
80
     4.24

     2.99
     3.67

     1.85
     1.89
     1.79

     3.73

     1.98
     2.71
     2.54
     2.48
 Source:  Program Management Division, FHWA, National Functional System
          Mileage Travel Summary, U.S. Department of Transportation,
          Washington, D.C., 1977.
                                  D-2

-------
   State
Urbanized Area
Compound Annual
   Percentage
     Change
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Orlando
St. Petersburg
Tampa
W. Palm Beach
Atlanta
Columbus
Honolulu
Chicago
Peoria
Rockford
Fort Wayne
Indianapolis
South Bend
Davenport
Des Moines
Wichita
Louisville
Baton Rouge
New Orleans
Shreveport
Baltimore
Boston
Lawrence
Springfield
Worcester
Detroit
Flint
Grand Rapids
Lansing
Minneapolis
Kansas City
St. Louis
3.24
1.92
3.16
3.73
4.52
3.80
2.18
1.20
2.54
1.85
2.85
3.15
3.29
2.57
2.84
1.93
3.01
3.42
3.14
3.39
2.98
2.44
2.36
2.47
2.46
3.86
4.24
1.93
3.30
2.80
1.67
1.71
Nebraska
Omaha
     2.69
                                  D-3

-------
   State
Nevada

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York
North Carolina

Ohio
Oklahoma


Oregon

Pennsylvania
Rhode Island

South Carolina


Tennessee



Texas
Urbanized Area

Las Vegas

Trenton

Albuquerque

Albany
Buffalo
New York
Rochester
Syracuse

Charlotte

Akron
Canton
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Columbus
Dayton
Toledo
Youngstown

Oklahoma City
Tulsa

Portland

Allentown
Harrisburg
Philadelphia
Pittsburg
Scranton

Providence

Charleston
Columbia

Chattanooga
Memphis
Nashville

Austin
Corpus Christi
Dallas
El Paso
Compound Annual
   Percentage
	Change	

     1.80

     2.61

     2.64
       ,20
       ,20
       ,39
       ,88
                                                             2.20
     3.15
     1.75
     2.31
       .20
       ,24
       .29
       .34
       .04
       .09
                                                             2,
                                                             2.
                                                             2.
                                                             2.
                                                             2.
                                                             2.
     3.34
     2.75
     3.08
       ,80
       .88
       ,94
       .00
     1.38

     0.76

     4.22
     4.37
       ,26
       ,64
      4.21

      3.53
      3.04
      4.35
      3.70
                                   D-4

-------
  State
Texas


Utah

Virginia



Washington


Wisconsin
Urbanized Area

Houston
San Antonio

Salt Lake City

Newport News
Norfolk
Richmond

Seattle
Spokane

Madison
Milwaukee
Compound Annual
   Percentage
	Change	

     3.85
     3.34

     3.88

     4.79
     2.80
     4.12

     3.05
     2.73

     1.76
     1.46
                                  D-5

-------
                     APPENDIX E




MOBILE SOURCE CO EMISSIONS VERSUS AMBIENT TEMPERATURE

-------
                              Appendix E




        MOBILE SOURCE CO EMISSIONS VERSUS AMBIENT TEMPERATURE







General




     During vehicle operation at cold ambient temperatures, emissions of




carbon monoxide (CO) increase over the levels emitted at the moderate




ambient temperature range (68°F to 86°F, nominally 75°F) of the official




Federal Test Procedure (FTP).  The increased CO emissions are primarily




emitted during the cold-start portion of vehicle operation.  The cold-




start portion is the portion of vehicle operation before emission-




important vehicle and control system temperatures have reached nominal




values.  CO emissions are high during the cold-start portion of vehicle




operation because the engines typically operate with rich air/fuel mixtures,




which increase the CO produced by the engine.  Secondly, after-treatment




systems, such as catalysts, are operating at a lower temperature than is




required for efficient conversion of the CO emissions from the engine.




Thirdly, engine and drivetrain friction is higher during the cold-start




portion of vehicle operation and to overcome this extra friction the mass




throughput of the engine must be higher, which also increases the mass




emissions.




     MOBILE 1 , the computer program used in this study, accounts for the




increase in CO emissions as ambient temperature decreases.  There are




four different classes of vehicles which were used to model the emissions




versus temperature relationship given in MOBILE 1:  (1) pre-1968 model
                                  E-2

-------
year and earlier vehicles, (2) 1968-1974 model-year vehicles, (3) 1975




model-year non-California vehicles, and (4) 1975 model-year California




vehicles.  Each class of vehicles has its own CO versus temperature ad-




justment factor curve.




     Special attention must be drawn to the CO versus temperature adjust-




ment curves for the 1975 and later model-year category.  The data that




were used to generate the relationship used in MOBILE 1 came primarily




from 1975 model-year vehicles.  Since technology for the 1975-1979 model




year vehicles did not change substantially, the relationship of the 1975




model year federal vehicles is assumed applicable through 1979.  For




1980 and later models, the relationship of the 1975 model-year California




vehicles was used.  However, the emission control technology that will




be used on future model-year vehicles (especially those for model-year




1981 and later) is expected to be substantially different from that used




on the 1975 model-year California vehicles.  Therefore, it is also




possible that the CO versus temperature behavior of the future vehicles




could also be substantially different.




     Because of the sophisticated nature of the future systems, the




possibility exists that the CO versus temperature relationship could be




relatively worse or relatively better than  is estimated by MOBILE 1.




This introduces some uncertainty into this analysis.  EPA is conducting




studies to improve the estimates of the CO versus temperature effect for




future vehicles, but these studies are not complete at this time.  In




order to perform this analysis, the MOBILE 1 projections were used as a




best-estimate.  It must be pointed out that the use of the MOBILE 1 esti-




mates is tantamount to making the assumption that the automobile industry






                                  E-3

-------
will consider lower temperature CO emissions in the design of future




vehicles, at least to the extent needed to maintain the same relative




relationship in CO versus temperature that existed with the 1975-1979




vehicles, even though the FTP CO emissions of the future vehicles will be




much lower than those of the 1975-1979 models.





I/M- Related Issues




     In the analysis of inspection and maintenance (I/M) as a control




strategy for CO, the MOBILE 1 computer model of mobile source emissions




was used as the basic tool for calculating I/M's effectiveness.  Although




the I/M effectiveness estimates provided in MOBILE 1 are EPA's best




estimates, they represent standard FTP conditions.  Included in the standard




FTP conditions is an average ambient temperature of 68° to 86°F, nominally




75°F.




     On the basis of monitoring data, it appears that most violations of




the current ambient CO standard occur in a temperature range of 30° to




50°, which is somewhat lower than the 68° to 86°F range of the FTP.  There




are very few data on I/M's effectiveness in cold temperatures.  However,




colder temperatures imply that a vehicle will experience more cold




operation than would occur at 75°, and, therefore, higher CO emissions.




This is the case no matter what the vehicles's state of tune.  Limited




data from EPA's FY77 Emission Factor Program suggest that CO cold—start




emissions from "as-received" vehicles are incrementally higher, not




proportionately higher, than those from the tuned-up vehicles.




     MOBILE 1 models emission reduction from I/M to be a constant percent




no matter what the temperature and no matter what the percent of cold







                                  E-4

-------
operation.  In view of the information presented above, it was decided




to use a range of I/M effectiveness for cases of CO violations that are




modeled to occur below 50°F.  This selection of 50°F is based on engineer-




ing judgment and is intended to divide the temperature range into two




parts:  one in which primarily FTP temperature conditions occur, and one




which represents colder temperature conditions.




     For modeling cases with ambient temperatures lower than 50°F, two




calculations of I/M effectiveness were performed:




     1.  100% of the effectiveness modeled in MOBILE 1.




     2.  50% of the effectiveness modeled in MOBILE 1.




It is felt that 50% of the effectiveness modeled in MOBILE 1 represents




a lower limit estimate of I/M's effectiveness for temperatures down to




20°F.  The 50% estimate is based on data from EPA's Portland study,




where cold operation CO percent reductions on failed cars were about




50% of the CO-percent reductions over the entire FTP.
                                  E-5

-------
                    APPENDIX F

       ASSUMPTIONS AND PROCEDURES RELATED TO
COST AND FUEL SAVING FACTORS IN I/M & TCM PROGRAMS

-------
                             Appendix F

                  ASSUMPTIONS AND PROCEDURES RELATED TO
          COST AND FUEL  SAVING FACTORS IN I/M & TCM PROGRAMS
I/M Programs

     Estimation of Capital Costs

     Estimation of capital costs of an I/M program for a given county
or area has been calculated as the product of the following two variables:

     1.  Nnno^ = The estimated population of vehicles N^nQ^, to be
          lyb/                                         LyO/
                 inspected yearly in the year 1987.

     2.  P     = Average capital cost of an I/M program per vehicle.
             Starting with the number of vehicles in the year Nig77, and
             the population P1977 in the year 1977, the number of vehicles
             is 1987 is assumed to increase with the same rate as population.

     Thus,
                                 N1977
                         N1987 " P1977 x p!987                        CD

     Pc   :  P  is composed of three factors, namely:

             Pi = portion of capital for land
             P£ = portion of capital for construction
             P3 = portion of capital for other investment and administration
                  startup costs.

             Unfortunately, the values of PC or P-^, ?£, Po are not avail-
             able directly in the literature.  However in the document
             "Questions and Answers Concerning the Technical Details of
             Inspection and Maintenance," dated April 1979, issued by
             The Inspection and Maintenance Staff, Emission Control
             Technology Division, Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution
             Control, Office of Air, Noise and Radiation, U.S. EPA, Ann
             Arbor, Michigan,  the following annualized costs of capital
             and depreciation periods are given in Table A, page 24
             (for a typical contractor-operated I/M program using idle
             emissions inspection).
                                   F-2

-------
             Part

             Land
             Construction
             Other Investment
             Administrative  Startup
Annualized Cost/
   per Vehicle
      0.30
      0.61
      0.62
      0.31
 Depreciation
    Period

No Depreciation
20 Years
 5 Years
 5 Years
     It is also stated  that  the assumed  net  return income is 8% (page 22).
Using the above noted information,  the initial capital cost for each of the
parts was calculated by the  formula
                          R
      where R = Equivalent annual cost of capital
            P = Initial capital cost
            n = Service life (depreciation period)
            i = Net rate of return

      Note that for very large n (no depreciation),  R = Pi;  thus:
                                               0.3
                        (2)
           The initial capital cost for land
                                               0.08
            $3.75 per vehicle.
      Now:
           The initial capital cost for construction = c


                                                     « $5.98 per vehicle

           The initial capital cost for other
           investment plus administrative startup    = (0.62 + .
                                                       $3.48
                                                                     .08 (1.08)'
           Thus, the total initial capital cost P  = 3.75 + 5.98 + 3.48 = $13.21

      This is the cost factor that has been used initially in the program.
 However, it can easily be changed since it is treated as an input
 parameter.

 Inspection Costs

      Currently, the inspection costs range from $2.50 to $14.00 per car.
 However, many I/M programs are coupled with safety inspection or have
 other features.  Referring to Table A, page 24, of the above-noted question-
 answer document issued by EPA, Ann Arbor, values of inspection fees to
 cover the annualized investment and annual operating costs have been
 estimated to be $6.87 for state-operated I/M programs, $7.36 for contractor-
 operated programs, and $8.54 for decentralized programs.   Based on these
 estimates, an average inspection cost of $7 per car has been used
 initially in the program.  This value can be changed easily since it is
                                    F-3

-------
treated as an input parameter.

     I/M Repair Cost

     Again, the above-noted document has been used as a reference.  Page
2 of this document gives average maintenance (repair) cost for various
stringency factors.  However, the range of costs is not too large.  As
such an average repair cost of $22/car has been assumed irrespective of
stringency factors.  Again this cost factor has been treated as a parameter
that can easily be changed.

     Potential Fuel Economy From I/M

     Data from the Portland study indicated repaired vehicles with current
emission control technology are not exhibiting fuel economy improvements.
Thus, as a worst case, the assumption is made that no repaired cars will
experience a fuel economy benefit.  However, based on a theoretical assess-
ment of future emission control technology, EPA believes that future vehicles
will most likely experience a fuel economy benefit as a result of I/M re-
pairs.  Hence, an alternative case is analyzed whereby the fuel savings per
repaired vehicle is assumed to be 7.5% with 20% stringency, 6% with 30%
stringency, and 4.5% with 40% stringency for 1981 and post-1981 cars.  The
percentage of 1981 and post-1981 cars in the years 1987 is estimated to be
78.1% based on historical trends.

     The average yearly gasoline consumption in 1987 was estimated to be
430 gallons.  This is SRI's estimate based on the Energy Act of 1975 as
well as an estimated population mix of vehicles in various years.  The
Energy Act mandates an average of 20 mpg by 1980 and 26-27.5 mpg by 1985.
It was estimated that due to various mixes of car ages, the average
mpg in 1982 will be 17, in 1984 it will be 19, and in 1987 it will be 22.
Assuming an average yearly mileage of 9,400 miles/car, the yearly gasoline
consumption in 1987 is calculated to be


                        22   ~ 430 gallons.


TCM Programs

    General
                                                       &
     Based on the study of readily available literature  as well as based on
 Refer to SRI International's report, "Assessment of Mobile Source Control
 Strategy Cost Effectiveness," dated June 1979,  prepared under EPA contract
 No.  68-02-2835, available from EPA through Ambient Standards Branch (MD-12).
 This report presents a summary of cost information available in recent
 literature as well as several references .
                                  F-4

-------
 on  consultations with EPA, it is assumed that TCM programs can accomplish
 a maximum of up to 5% reduction in CO emissions—3% by local TCM stra-
 tegies and 2% by areawide TCM strategies.  However, it is to be noted
 that almost all of the TCM programs are primarily implemented to improve
 the transit operations and conserve energy.  The reductions in CO and
 other pollutants are usually cited as additional advantages.  As such,
 it  is misleading to allocate the total costs of implementing a TCM program
 to  either traffic improvement or energy savings or to pollution reduction,
 although a major portion should be allocated to transit operation improve-
 ments and energy savings.  However, since no clearly stated rules of
 allocating the costs to various consequences are presently available,
 the cost per VMT reduction of various programs have been converted to
 cost per ton of CO reductions assuming suitable values of CO emissions
 per VMT and are reported as if the costs were allocated to CO reductions.
 Estimated energy savings are also reported separately.

     An average CO emisson value of 41 gms (41 x 10  tons) per mile was
 assumed for 75° temperature areas and a value of 51 gms (51 x 10~6 tons)
 per mile was assumed for 20° temperature areas.  These values are based on
 the Tables F-l and F-3 of EPA document "Mobile Source Emission Factors."
 The average value was calculated using the values for the years 1982,
 1984 and 1987.


     Cost and Effectiveness of Local TCM Programs

     The costs of local control programs are available in literature and are
 generally expressed in $ per Vehicle Hour of Travel (VHT).  It was assumed
 that 1 VHT is equivalent to 25 VMT so that costs could be expressed in
 $ per VMT.  The following four strategies were selected for estimating
 average costs of local TCM programs.  These are the strategies for which
 general data were readily available.
a. Signal  Timing
   optimization

b. Computerized
   Control of
   streets flow

c. Freeway sur-
   veillance and
   control
                    Assumed
                                    Estimated
                                    Cost/Ton
                               Average       Assumed
                             of  20  &     Effectiveness
                     Cost/VMT  20  temp  75°  temp  75° values  in CO Reduction
                         $	$         $          $
 .001
0.01
0.04
d. Truck restric-
   tions on certain
   streets           0.02
 19.60    24.40
196
784
          396
244
976
         488
              22           2%
220           0.5%
880           0.3%
             440           0.2%
                  Total    3%
                                   F-J

-------
     Costs and Effectiveness of Areawide TCM Programs

     Four strategies have been selected for the purposes of estimating
average costs of areawide TCM programs.  These are the strategies for which
general data were readily available.

                                      Estimated
                                      Cost/Ton        Average        Assumed
                      Assumed                         of 20  &    Effectiveness
                      Cost/VMT   20°" temp  75° temp  75° valued  in CO Reduction
Strategy                  $          $         $           $      	

a. Ridesharing           0.02        390       480         435         .8%

b. Transit improve-
   ment with express
   bus service           0.43      8,430    10,500       9,465        0.5%

c. Local bus service
   improvement           0.40      7,840     9,750       8,795        0.5%

d. Work rescheduling     0.01        195       240         218        Q.2%
                                                               Total  2%

     Approach Used in the Computer Program to Calculate TCM Costs

     Based on the study of the cost effectiveness of various strategies
and keeping in mind that various areas may need various
strategies, it was assumed that typically:

     1.  Up to 3% reduction in CO emissions can be accomplished at an
         average cost of $170/ton of CO reduction.  This is the weighted
         average cost (rounded-up value) of the local TCM programs, i.e.,


              170  -  [(22 x  .02) +  (220 x .005) + 880 x .003) + (440 x .002)]/.03

     2.  Another 1% reduction can be accomplished at a average cost of
         $400/ton.  This is a rounded-up value of the weighted average cost
         of ridesharing and work rescheduling programs, i.e.,

              400  a  [(435 x .008) + (218 x .002)]/.01

     3.  A further 1% reduction results if public transit improvments are
         implemented and the average cost per ton is $9200/ton.  This is
         the rounded-up value of express bus and local bus improvement
         programs, i.e.,

              9200 *  [(9465 x .005) +  (8795 x  .005)]/.01
                                  F-6

-------
     Potential Fuel Economy Due to TCM

     The amount of gasoline saved per ton of CO reduction due to TCM
strategies has been estimated assuming an average value of 46* gins
(46 x 10~6 tons) CO emissions per mile and a gasoline consumption of
1 gallon per 20 miles.

     Thus, gasoline saved per ton of CO reduction due to TCM


                        106  .
                     46 x 20   1088 gallons/ton of CO reduction
     Above are the initial values selected.  However, these have been
treated as parameters in the program so that, if necessary, improved
values can easily be used.
 46 = 	_	.  51 gms/mile for 20° temperature and 41 gins/mile for 75e

      temperature used in earlier calculations.

                                   F-7

-------
                                   TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1  REPORT NO.

   EPA-45015-80-006
                              2.
                                                            3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION>NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
  METHODOLOGIES TO  CONDUCT REGULATORY  IMPACT
  ANALYSIS OF AMBIENT  AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
  FOR  CARBON MONOXIDE
                                 5. REPORT DATE
                                    December 1979
                                 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
  Waheed Siddiqee
  Robert Patterson
Andre  Dermant
                                                            8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
                                   6780
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
                                                            10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
  SRI  International
  333  Ravenswood Avenue
  Menlo Park, California
                                 11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
 94025
68-02-2835
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS

  U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency
  Strategies and  Air Standards Division
  Research Triangle  Park, N.C.  27711
                                  13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                                      Final
                                  14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
        The report  is  a summary of a methodology developed to analyze mobile
   source emission  reductions needed to  attain alternative proposed national
   ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide.   A costing routine is
   part of the procedure..  The methodology was used  in  the carbon monoxide
   regulatory impact  analysis for alternative national  air standards.
17.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                    b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
             c. COSATI Field/Group
   Economic analysis
   Transportation
   Air pollution
                      Regulatory analysis
                      Transportation controls
                      Inspection and
                       Maintenance  (I&M)
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

        General
                     19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
                      Unclassified
             21. NO. OF PAGES
               83
                                               20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)

                                                Unclassified
                                                                           22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)

-------