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)
------- |