TL  Final Regulatory Impact
214  Analysis: Refueling
•F8  Emission Regulations for
F5  Light Duty Vehicles&Trucks
1994 & Heavy Duty Trucks
              Final Regulatory Impact Analysis:
              Refueling Emission Regulations
              for Light Duty Vehicles and Trucks
              and Heavy Duty Vehicles
              U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
              Office of Air and Radiation
              Office of Mobile Sources
              Regulation Development and Support Division
              Special Regulatory Projects Branch
              January 1994

-------

-------
ORVR Regulatory Impact Analysis
          4.4  Baseline Emission Factors  	4-7
          4.5  In-Use Efficiency of ORVR Systems	4-9
                4.5.1 In-Use Canister Capacity	4-9
                4.5.2  Canister Control Efficiency  	4-11
                4.5.3  In-Use Refueling Emission Factors	4-11
                4.5.4  In-Use Refueling Load  	4-13
                4.5.5 In-Use Control Efficiency	4-13
          4.6  Benefits	4-18

   Chapter 5:  Economic Impact	5-1
          5.1  Introduction	5-1
          5.2  Vehicle Manufacturing Costs  	5-2
                5.2.1 Hardware Costs   	5-2
                       5.2.1.1 Fillneck Seal Assembly  	5-2
                       5.2.1.2 Anti-Spitback Valve   	5-3
                       5.2.1.3 External Vent Line  	5-3
                       5.2.1.4 Vapor Vent/Rollover Valve  	5-4
                       5.2.1.5 Vent/Purge Vapor Lines	5-5
                       5.2.1.6 Canister	5-6
                       5.2.1.7 Purge Valve	5-7
                       5.2.1.8 Total Incremental Hardware Cost  	5-7
                5.2.2 Onboard Development/Capital Costs	5-7
                       5.2.2.1 Fuel Tank/Fillneck Modification Costs	5-8
                       5.2.2.2 Vehicle Packaging Costs   	5-8
                       5.2.2.3 Certification Compliance Costs	5-8
                       5.2.2.4 FMVSS 301 Testing Costs	5-9
                       5.2.2.5 Facility Modification Costs	5-9
                       5.2.2.6 Systems Engineering Costs	5-9
                       5.2.2.7 Assembly Costs   	5-9
                       5.2.2.8 Total Development/Capital Costs	5-10
          5.3  Costs to Consumers	5-10
                5.3.1 Vehicle Price Increase	5-10
                5.3.2 Operating Cost Changes	5-11
                       5.3.2.1 Onboard Weight Penalty   	5-11
                       5.3.2.2 Fuel Recovery Credit	5-12
                       5.3.2.3 Total Operating Cost Changes	5-14
          5.4  Aggregate Costs, by Vehicle Type  	5-15
                5.4.1 Per Vehicle Costs	5-15
                5.4.2 Total Nationwide Costs	5-16

    Chapter 6:  Stage n Retention Analysis	6-1
          6.1  Introduction	6-1
          6.2  Stage H Installations 	6-2
                6.2.1 Model Plant Definitions  	6-2
                6.2.2 Number and Distribution of Stage II Facilities	6-2
                6.2.3 Stage n Exemptions	6-3
          6.3  Costs and Benefits of Stage n Retention	6-4

-------
                                                                           Contents
             6.3.1  Annual Costs and Fuel Recovery Credits  	6-4
             6.3.2  Annual Benefits	6-5
             6.3.3  Cost Effectiveness  	6-5
             6.3.4  Moderate Nonattainment Areas Without Stage n	6-6

Chapter 7:  Cost Effectiveness	7-1
       7.1  Introduction	7-1
       7.2  Methodology  	7-1
       7.3  Costs, Benefits, and Cost Effectiveness Results  	7-3
             7.3.1  Cost and Benefit Data	7-3
             7.3.2  Average  and NPV Costs and Benefits	7-8
             7.3.3  Cost Effectiveness Results	7-9
             7.3.4  Discussion of Results	7-10
                    7.3.4.1  Baseline Scenarios	7-10
                    7.3.4.2  Nonattainment Areas Truck Analysis	7-10
                    7.3.4.3  All-Areas Truck Analysis	7-10
                    7.3.4.4  Nonattainment Areas All-Vehicles Analysis .... 7 - 10
                    7.3.4.5  All-Areas All-Vehicles Analysis	7-11
                    7.3.4.6  Summary   	7-11
       7.4  Sensitivity Analysis	7-12
             7.4.1   ORVR Sensitivity Scenarios	7-12
                    7.4.1.1  Non-Integrated Systems	7-12
                    7.4.1.2  Fuel Price	7-14
                    7.4.1.3  In-Use Control Efficiency	7-15
                    7.4.1.4  Control of Breathing Loss Emissions 	7-16
                    7.4.1.5  Number of Moderate  Nonattainment Areas with
                          Stage H	7-17
                    7.4.1.6  California Implementation  	7-18
             7.4.2  Stage n Retention Sensitivity Analysis	7-19
                    7.4.2.1  Fuel Price	7-20
                    7.4.2.2  Distribution of Stage n Facilities	7-20
                    7.4.2.3  Maintenance and Indirect Facility Costs	7-20
             7.4.3  Summary of Sensitivity Analyses	7-21
       7.5   Other Benefits	7-21
             7.5.1  Energy Impact	7-21
             7.5.2  Health Effects  	7-22
                    7.5.2.1  Ozone reduction  	7-23
                    7.5.2.2  Benzene and Gasoline Vapors	7-23
             7.5.3  Welfare Effects  	7-25
       7.6  Benefit-Cost Ratio	7-25
       7.7  Implications of Stage II Discontinuation on Benefit-Cost Ratios  ... 7 - 26
       7.8  Conclusions 	7-27

Appendix A:  Supporting Data for Chapters 3 and 6	 A-l

Appendix B:  Supporting Data for Chapter 4~Emission  Reduction Benefits  ... B - 1
                                                                              Hi

-------
Off VR Regulatory Impact Analysis
   Appendix C:  Sample Calculation of In-use ORVR Efficiency Estimates	 C - 1




   Appendix D:  Supporting Data for Chapters 4, 5 and 7	 D - 1




   Appendix E:  Supporting Data for Chapter 7  	 E-l
    Iv

-------
                                                                        Contents
                           List of Tables and Figures

Table 2.1—Summary of Refueling/Evaporative Vapor Control System Hardware
      Changes	2-8
Table 3.1—Classification Systems for Light Duty Trucks (LDTs) and Heavy Duty
      Vehicles (HDVs)	3-2
Table 3.2—Projected Gasoline Vehicle Sales  	3-4
Table 3.3—Projected Road Fuel Economy (Miles per Gallon) by Vehicle Class .3-5
Table 3.4—Projected Fuel Consumption Figures (gallons)  	3-6
Table 3.5—Stage H Areas	3-7
Figure 4.1—Regions for Emission Reduction Benefits Analysis  	4-3
Table 4.1—RVP Distribution of Gasoline Consumed in Nonattainment Areas May
      - September  	4-7
Table 4.2—RVP Distribution of Gasoline Consumed in All  Areas (Attainment
      and Nonattainment Areas Combined) May - September	4-7
Table 4.3—RVP Distribution of Gasoline Consumed in Stage n Areas May -
      September  	4-7
Table 4.4—Baseline Refueling Emission Factors for Nonattainment Areas	4-9
Table 4.5—Baseline Refueling Emission  Factors for  All Areas  (Attainment and
      Nonattainment Areas Combined)	4-9
Table 4.6—Baseline Refueling Emission Factors for Stage n Areas  	4-9
Figure 4.2—Canister Efficiency Curve	4-12
Figure 4.3—Distribution of Fill Amounts for In-use Refueling Events	4-14
Table 4.7—In-Use ORVR Control Efficiency in Nonattainment Areas	4-17
Table 4.8—In-Use ORVR Control Efficiency  in All Areas (Attainment and
      Nonattainment Areas Combined)	4-17
Table 4.9—In-Use ORVR Control Efficiency in Stage H Areas  	4-18
Table 4.10—ORVR Emission Benefit Rates (g/gal)	4-20
Table 4.11.1—LDV Emission Benefits  	4-20
Table 4.11.2—LOT Emission Benefits	4-21
Table 4.11.3—LHDGV Emission Benefits	4-22
Table 4.11.4—HHDGV  Emission Benefits  	4-23
Table 5.1—Calculation of Incremental Vapor Vent Line Costs	5-6
Table 5.2—Per-Vehicle Incremental ORVR Hardware Cost	5-7
Table 5.3-^-Development and Production  ORVR Costs, Per Vehicle  	5-10
Table 5.4—Increase^ in Vehicle Cost  	5-11
Table 5.5—Calculation of Weight  Penalty 	5-12
Table 5.6—Calculation of Fuel Recovery Credit	5-13
Table 5.7.1—All Areas Average Incremental Operating Costs Nationwide .... 5 - 14
Table 5.7.2—All Areas Average Incremental Operating Costs Nationwide (Stage
      n discontinued)	5-15
Table 5.8.1—Average Total Per-Vehicle Costs for ORVR (Stage H in Place)   .5-15
Table 5.8.2—Long-term Average Total Per-Vehicle  Costs for ORVR (Stage II
      discontinued)  	5-16
Table 5.9.1—Nationwide Cost Figures for LDVs  	5-17
Table 5.9.2—Nationwide Cost Figures for LDTs	5-18

-------
0/7VH Regulatory Impact Analysis
   Table 5.9.3—Nationwide Cost Figures for LHDGVs	5-19
   Table 5.9.4—Nationwide Cost Figures for HHDGVs	5-20
   Table 5.10—Total Nationwide Costs	5-21
   Table 6.1—Characteristics of Service Station Model Plants  	6-2
   Table 6.2—Estimated Total Throughput and Number of Stations in Stage II Areas
         by Model Plant Size 	6-3
   Table 6.3—Stage n Retention Costs and Benefits	6-5
   Table 7.1—Summary of ORVR Cost Effectiveness Scenarios	7-3
   Table 7.2—Annual (1998-2020) ORVR Cost Data ($)—Truck Analysis  	7-4
   Table 7.3—Annual (1998-2020) ORVR Cost Data ($)—All-Vehicles Analysis . .  7 - 5
   Table 7.4—Annual (1998-2020) ORVR Benefit Data (Mg>—Truck Analysis  ...  7 - 6
   Table  7.5—Annual  (1998-2020)  ORVR  Benefit Data  (Mg)—All-Vehicles
         Analysis	7-7
   Table 7.6—Annual Average  (1998-2020) and 1998 NPV ORVR  Costs and
         Benefits  	7-8
   Table 7.7—ORVR Cost Effectiveness Results   	7-9
   Table 7.8—Individual Vehicle Class Cost Effectiveness (Stage n Disconinued in
         2010)	7-9
   Table 7.9—ORVR Sensitivity Analysis—Non-Integrated Systems	7-13
   Table 7.10—ORVR Sensitivity Analysis—Fuel Price  	7-14
   Table 7.11—ORVR Sensitivity Analysis—In-Use Control Efficiency  	7-15
   Table 7.12—ORVR Sensitivity Analysis—Control of Breathing Loss Emissions 7-17
   Table 7.13—ORVR Sensitivity Analysis—Number of Moderate Nonattainment
         Areas	7-18
   Table 7.14—ORVR Sensitivity Analysis—California Implementation  	7-19
   Table 7.15—Stage n Retention Sensitivity Analysis 	7-20
   Table 7.16—Projected Fuel Savings  	7-22
   Table 7.17—Estimated Annual Average (1988-2020) Cancer Incidences Resulting
         from Uncontrolled Refueling Benzene Emissions	7-24
   Table 7.18—Benefit-Cost Ratios for each Scenario	7-26
    vl

-------
                                                                          Contents
                               Preface Note

       This Regulatory Impact Analysis was developed under the assumption that the
requirement for onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) systems would apply equally
to all highway motor vehicles, i.e., passenger cars as well as all classes of trucks. For
reasons discussed in the preamble, however, the final rule departs from this presumption
in the following two ways.

       First, the proposed ORVR requirements have not been finalized at this time for
heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs), i.e., trucks over 8,500 pounds Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
(GVWR).  The proposed requirements for ORVR systems in HDVs are still  being
evaluated, and pertinent discussions and conclusions in this document will be important
considerations within that ongoing review process.

       Second, the phase-in schedule for implementation of ORVR systems on light-duty
trucks (LDTs) has been postponed. For light duty vehicles (LDVs), 40 percent of model
year 1998, 80 percent of model year 1999, and 100 percent of model year 2000 and later
vehicles are required to be equipped with ORVR systems.  The phase-in period for light
LDTs (up to 6,000 Ibs GVWR) begins at the completion of the LDV phase-in. Thus, 40
percent of model year 2001, 80 percent of model year 2002, and  100 percent of model
year 2003 and later light LDTs must be equipped with ORVR systems. The phase-in
period for heavy LDTs (6,001-8,500 Ibs GVWR) follows, such that 40 percent of model
year 2004, 80 percent of model year 2005, and 100 percent of later model year heavy
LDTs must be ORVR-equipped.

       EPA has determined that these  two changes do not have a large impact on the
analysis and conclusions in this document. When fully phased in, the ORVR requirement
will still apply to about 91 percent of all gasoline-fueled truck sales and to 97 percent of
gasoline-fueled vehicle sales overall.  This will account for about 94 percent of total
gasoline refueling emissions. In regard to the postponement of ORVR implementation
in LDTs,  the effect is to delay, but not reverse or alter,  the benefits and  costs of the
onboard control program.   In  sum, the overall  impact  of both  changes  on the cost
effectiveness of ORVR systems is small. Thus, the quantitative  and qualitative analyses
contained in this document have not been specifically revised to reflect these changes.
                                                                            vll

-------
                                                                   Chapter 1: Introduction
                            Chapter 1:  Introduction
          Culminating a rulemaking process which has spanned more than a decade, the
   Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is now promulgating final regulations requiring
   all highway  light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and  heavy-duty vehicles to meet
   onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR or onboard control) standards.  Accordingly,
   the purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the costs, benefits, and overall cost effectiveness
   of onboard control for the reduction of refueling emissions from highway motor vehicles.
1.1 Background

          The current regulatory analysis is built upon a strong foundation provided by a
   number of previous economic studies, Federal Register notices, public comments, and
   technical support documents published throughout the course of this rulemaking.  Key
   among these earlier documents was the Evaluation of Air Pollution Regulatory Strategies
   for Gasoline Marketing Industry (EPA-450/3-84-012a, July 1984).  This study assessed
   the need for control of refueling emissions and compared two competing strategies for
   achieving this objective:  1) "onboard" systems, which would be incorporated into the
   design of the vehicle,  and 2) "Stage IT systems, which would be built into the design of
   the fuel dispensing pump.  On August 19, 1987, based on this study and related public
   comment  (see Response to Public Comments, EPA-450/3-84-012c, July  1987), EPA
   published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to  require  onboard control  of
   refueling vapors (52 FR 31162).  The NPRM was accompanied by  a two-volume Draft
   Regulatory Impact Analysis (EPA-450/3-87-001a and -OOlb, July 1987), which examined
   in detail the estimated costs to be incurred by vehicle manufacturers and consumers as
   well as the projected  air quality benefits associated with the proposed onboard control
   regulation. Ongoing vehicle testing and additional analysis led EPA to the conclusion
   that,  independent of  refueling  emission controls, improved control  of evaporative
   emissions was also needed. As a result, revised cost estimates were  developed, focusing
   on the  costs of  onboard control of  refueling vapors  as  incremental to the costs  of
   enhanced evaporative emission controls.1

          To a large extent, the current regulatory analysis adopts the analytic methodologies
   which were used in  these earlier studies.   For example, many  of the specific cost
   estimates developed in the older studies remain valid today and, after suitable adjustment
   for inflation, are incorporated in the current analysis.  On the other hand, the regulatory
   environment into which ORVR will be implemented has continued to evolve during the
   past few years, and some reorientation  of the  analysis is required.  Fuel volatilityp
   controls are in place and programs to improve the in-use effectiveness of onboard systems
       'Memorandum from Jean Schwendeman to The Record, "Onboard and Evaporative Control System Cost
   Estimates for the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking", December 22, 1988. (docket A-87-11, item
   IV-B-19).

                                                                               1-1

-------
ORVR Regulatory Impact Analysis
   have been implemented.  However, two other changed circumstances, discussed below,
   are particularly important in regard to the analysis of ORVR systems.

          First, on March 24, 1993, EPA published regulations for enhanced evaporative
   emission standards and test procedures (58 FR 16002). These requirements will phase
   in beginning with model year 1996 and will become fully effective by model year 1999.
   In contrast,  under section 202(a)(6) of the Clean Air Act (as amended), ORVR control
   systems will be required to be installed on 40 percent of each vehicle manufacturer's
   production beginning with model year 1998, rising to 80 percent in 1999 and 100 percent
   in the year 2000 and thereafter.  Thus, enhanced evaporative emission control hardware
   will already be in place in sufficient numbers of vehicles by the time ORVR control will
   be required  in the same vehicles. Since refueling emissions and evaporative emissions
   have a common source and can be controlled largely with the same technology, many of
   the hardware  and  other  costs which would  otherwise  be  incurred  for  ORVR
   implementation will already have been incurred  for  compliance with the enhanced
   evaporative  emission control requirements. The current analysis therefore assumes an
   integrated control strategy, and attributes to onboard control only those cost items which
   are incremental to evaporative emission control.  This incremental cost approach was
   suggested by many public  commenters  and is also consistent  with the basic concepts
   underlying  EPA's 1988  cost memorandum cited  above.   Cost estimates  specific  to
   evaporative  emission controls have recently been updated for inclusion in the Regulatory
   Impact Analysis which accompanied the final rule on evaporative emission standards and
   testing (item V-B-1 in Docket A-89-18).

          The  second  important change impacting  the regulatory analysis  is the current
   expectation  that, by the time onboard  controls begin  to take effect in 1998,  Stage II
   controls will have been implemented in 43 ozone nonattainment areas, covering about 44
   percent of the nation's fuel consumption.  Under section 182(b)(3), Stage n is required
   in serious, severe, and extreme nonattainment areas and, as a result of the delay in the
   onboard control requirement, a number of moderate areas plan to implement Stage E, as
   well.  To the extent that Stage n implementation is expected to achieve refueling vapor
   emission reductions, then the associated air quality  and fuel recovery benefits cannot be
   credited to onboard.  Obviously, this will have an impact on the computed costs and cost
   effectiveness of onboard controls.
          More fundamentally, the  implementation of Stage n brings into sharp focus the
   issue of applicability of onboard controls to the various vehicle classes.  For light-duty
   vehicles (LDVs), the use of onboard  systems was mandated by section 202(a)(6) of the
   Clean  Air Act Amendments  of  1990 and  reaffirmed by decision of the U.S. Court  of
   Appeals in  1993.  However, the final ORVR regulations also  include  onboard control
   requirements for light-duty trucks  (LDTs) and heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs), based on
   EPA's general authority under Clean Air Act section 202(a)(l).  Given the anticipated
   implementation of Stage II controls  in  all of the  serious, severe, and extreme ozone
   nonattainment  areas and in most  of the moderate nonattainment areas as well, it  is
   reasonable to  ask whether  application of  ORVR requirements to LDTs and HDVs  is
   appropriate  or whether Stage n should be retained.
          This issue involves  the interrelationship of a number of complex factors.   For
   example, under section 202(a)(6), the  EPA Administrator is authorized to revise or waive


   1-2

-------
                                                                   Chapter 1: Introduction
   Stage II requirements in serious, severe, or extreme nonattainment areas at such time that
   vehicles equipped with onboard control systems come into widespread use.  Likewise,
   there would be no  need under these circumstances for states to continue Stage II
   requirements in moderate nonattainment areas.  However, LDTs and HDVs comprise
   about 40 percent of the annual highway gasoline consumption. Therefore, in the absence
   of onboard controls in these vehicles as well as in LDVs, the need for Stage n control
   of refueling vapors would likely be permanent.

          Resolution of the question  as to the appropriateness of ORVR requirements in
   LDTs and HDVs therefore depends on the relative cost effectiveness of two alternatives:
   1) restriction of ORVR requirements to light duty vehicles, with retention of Stage n in
   nonattainment  areas solely  for the purpose of controlling LDT and HDV refueling
   emissions, versus 2) implementation of ORVR in all vehicle classes, with possible phase-
   out of Stage n. These two alternatives are discussed in further detail and their relative
   costs and benefits are quantified in the body of this document.
1.2 Organization of the Analysis

          To provide a framework for the technical and quantitative analyses which follow,
   more detailed background information is presented in Chapters 2 and 3.  Chapter  2
   describes the  key components and operating principles  of ORVR technology,  while
   Chapter 3 defines other parameters basic to the analysis (e.g., vehicle classes,  Stage n
   areas, and gasoline market segments). In Chapter 4, the expected emission reduction
   benefits of onboard control systems is estimated. Manufacturer, consumer, and aggregate
   costs of onboard control are projected in Chapter 5.  Chapter 6 discusses and quantifies
   the cost  effectiveness of retaining Stage  II control for LDT/HDV refueling emissions.
   Finally,  by  integrating all  of these  elements  of the  regulatory analysis, Chapter  7
   computes the cost effectiveness of ORVR systems as a strategy for reduction of volatile
   hydrocarbon emissions, assesses the sensitivity of the cost-effectiveness values to changes
   in key parameters, and discusses related benefits expected to result from the  onboard
   control program.
                                                                                1-3

-------
                                                                   Chapter 2: Technology
                            Chapter 2:  Technology
2.1 Introduction
          The fundamental purpose of an onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) system
   is to prevent refueling vapors from being released to the  atmosphere.  This is achieved
   by storing vapors displaced from the fuel tank during a refueling event and subsequently
   routing these hydrocarbon vapors to the engine to be burned during vehicle operation.

          The ORVR  test procedure  is performance-based, and  manufacturers  have
   substantial flexibility in deciding how to control refueling emissions with an onboard
   system.  EPA has not prescribed any particular technology.  However, most past ORVR
   designs have been canister-based. In such a system, displaced hydrocarbon vapors from
   the refueling event are routed to a canister  and stored by being adsorbed onto a bed of
   activated carbon contained within the canister.  During vehicle  operation, manifold
   vacuum is used to pull ambient air over the  carbon bed, stripping the hydrocarbons from
   the canister.  This hydrocarbon-rich purge gas  is then routed to the engine and burned.

          Onboard systems, regardless  of their specific design,  must meet certain  basic
   engineering requirements to be effective in controlling refueling emissions.  Primarily,
   they must provide for the routing of vapors  from the fuel tank to the engine, rather than
   allowing the vapors  to escape uncontrolled to the outside ambient  air.  This will likely
   be accomplished through the use of 1) a fillneck seal which will prevent the vapors from
   continuing to escape out the fillneck, 2) a  fuel tank vent mechanism, to allow for the
   controlled routing of the vapors from the fuel tank,  3) vapor lines for transporting the
   vapors, 4) a canister  containing  activated carbon to temporarily store the vapors, and 5) a
   purge  system to regenerate the canister and route the vapors to the engine. While this
   provides a general description of an effective onboard system, specific designs can vary
   greatly in terms of components  utilized, complexity, effectiveness, and cost. The details
   of the technology are further described in this chapter.
          This chapter, and the regulatory analysis as  a whole,  focus on the technology
   necessary to meet the refueling emission  standard on gasoline-fueled vehicles.  It is
   expected that vehicles that operate on most alternative fuels will be inherently low in
   refueling emissions  and will therefore not require  modifications or incur additional
   benefits.  Some alternative fuels such as M85  and E85 contain a substantial amount of
   gasoline and will thus have fairly high uncontrolled refueling emissions. The technology
   required for these alcohol/gasoline vehicles would be very  similar to that discussed in this
   chapter.
2.2  Onboard Refueling and Evaporative Vapor Recovery Systems
          Traditionally, ORVR control system designs have been similar to evaporative
    emission control systems now in use on automobiles. The resemblance will become even
                                                                                2-1

-------
ORVR Regulatory Impact Analysis
   stronger as enhanced evaporative control systems  are phased in beginning with model
   year 1996 vehicles.  This is because the new evaporative emission standards and test
   procedures will likely cause canister working capacity to be increased to a level similar
   to that required by refueling vapor loads and the purge system will need to be upgraded
   to meet the new test procedure requirements.

          The primary  physical difference between an evaporative control system and an
   ORVR system lies in the need to prevent vapors from escaping via the fillneck during a
   refueling event.  This need forces the introduction of some type of fillneck seal. Another
   differences between the evaporative and ORVR systems is the frequency and rate of
   canister loadings.  Evaporative emissions are generated during vehicle operation and in
   response to daily temperature cycles.  These emissions occur over long periods of time,
   during driving or diurnal heat builds, but have very low vapor flow rates (about one gram
   per minute).  Refueling emissions, on the other hand, are produced less frequently but at
   much greater rates (30 to 40 grams per minute).  This generates the need for a larger
   diameter  vapor  vent line for the canister as compared to the enhanced evaporative
   program.

          Although refueling emissions present a much larger quantity of emissions at one
   time than do evaporative emissions, the 1996 evaporative emission regulations require a
   three-day test which will generate similar amounts  of hydrocarbon vapors as a refueling
   event. The similarities in the magnitude of these vapor loads encourage the development
   of integrated refueling/evaporative control  systems.  In the past, many commentors
   asserted that EPA's test procedure would drive them to utilize separate refueling and
   evaporative vapor control systems.  At the 22 July  1993 hearing, EPA  announced a
   possible change to the  dispensed temperature in the previously proposed refueling test
   procedure. With this change, manufacturers expressed confidence that they would be able
   to utilize integrated refueling and enhanced evaporative vapor recovery systems with no
   additional canister capacity and the same purge strategy.
2.3  Description of ORVR System
          This section describes the likely canister-based ORVR hardware for an integrated
   refueling/evaporative control system. Other systems are not precluded, but past analyses
   and information from vehicle manufacturers strongly suggest that ORVR systems will use
   the technology discussed below.  Vehicle changes incremental to those required by the
   enhanced evaporative control systems are also discussed.
    2.3.1  Fillneck Seal

          In an ORVR system, a seal is needed to prevent the escape of vapors through the
    vehicle fillneck during a refueling event. There are two ways in which such a seal may
    be created:  mechanically or via a dynamic liquid seal. A mechanical seal would likely
    consist of an annular elastomeric material through which the nozzle must pass during
    refueling that prevents vapors from escaping the system alongside the nozzle. A liquid
    seal is formed  when liquid gasoline accumulates in a manner that completely fills the
    2-2

-------
                                                                  Chapter 2: Technology
entke diameter of the filltube, preventing vapor from flowing out.  Each technology has
advantages and disadvantages.

       The mechanical seal's prime advantage is its high theoretical efficiency.  This is
because it completely seals the fillneck, eliminating all vapor releases to the atmosphere.
However, there are concerns about durability and tampering effects on the seal's integrity
and efficiency. Damage to fuel dispensing nozzles in the form of burrs, nicks and dents
can reduce the effectiveness of a mechanical seal or cause it to be torn.  In addition, a
mechanical seal would requke more care on the part of the consumer, because the nozzle
would have to be inserted into the fillneck with a certain degree of precision and effort.
This additional inconvenience, although slight, may instigate tampering or removal of the
seal  altogether.  Mechanical seals also would be subject to wear over the life of the
vehicle.  They would need to be able to sustain approximately 300-500 nozzle insertions
without failure.  Additionally,  a pressure relief valve would be required in conjunction
with a mechanical seal, to prevent damage to the fuel tank and other components if the
automatic nozzle shutoff failed or if the vapor line between the fuel tank and the canister
became blocked.

       As mentioned, mechanical seals are designed to fit snugly around the nozzle with
an annular elastomer material.  A mechanical seal also  serves an anti-spitback function,
allowing for the removal of any existing anti-spitback seal. Air entrainment is relatively
low in such a design, but it is prone to possible malfunction.  It is possible that onboard
control systems in very large trucks may use mechanical seals because of the prevalence
in these vehicles of short fillneck configurations, where  the fillneck is integrated into the
tank itself.  As described below, submerged-fill liquid seals may  be possible in these
trucks as well.

       Liquid seals are created by shaping the fillneck in such a way that the liquid being
dispensed prevents vapors from escaping.  In the original proposal, it was assumed that
these seals would consist of a "J-tube" design, in which the fillneck  is curved at the
bottom soon  after  entering the tank.   Liquid seals   can  be created through other
configurations as well, such as a submerged fill (fuel  enters below liquid level) or  an
elongated fill (fuel backs up in a relatively long, narrow fillneck during refueling). With
proper fillneck geometry the liquid inflow itself will actually block vapor escape from the
fillneck.   Such systems are preferred by manufacturers  because  they do not requke
additional hardware and are not susceptible to malfunction, tampering or malmaintenance.
In fact, many light-duty vehicles (LDVs), light-duty trucks (LDTs)  and light heavy-duty
gasoline  vehicles (LHDGVs) presently have  narrow  fillnecks which provide relatively
effective liquid seals1.  In addition, such designs are generally less expensive then  thek
mechanical counterparts.  Although issues such as air  entrainment must be considered
with liquid seals, it is expected that, with the modified test procedure discussed at the July
22, 1993 hearing, most manufacturers will use some type of liquid seal system.

       A liquid seal eliminates the problems of durability  and tampering that affect the
mechanical seal.  A liquid seal has no mechanical parts to  wear or be damaged. Such a
system would be transparent to the consumer and would thus not be  subject to tampering.
   '"A Study of Uncontrolled Automotive Refueling Emissions." Prepared for the Laboratory Research
Council, Inc. by Automotive Testing Laboratories, Inc. 5 January 1998, (docket Ar87-ll, item IV-D-565).
                                                                              2-3

-------
0/7W? Regulatory Impact Analysis
   Liquid seal systems also do not require pressure relief valves. Tank over-pressure would
   result in fuel rising in the fillneck and subsequent nozzle shutoff. Similarly, failure of the
   nozzle automatic shutoff mechanism would have no additional safety implications with
   the liquid  seal system, because failure would result in fuel spit-back and subsequent
   manual shutoff as now occurs.

          Unlike mechanical seals, a liquid seal has a liquid/air interface in the fillneck.  The
   liquid/air interface combined with  the relatively high liquid flow rates may entrain
   additional  air into the tank. This entrained air will result in greater emission generation
   rates and  could  result in  the need for a larger storage device than  necessary for a
   mechanical seal.   However, manufacturers have stated in response to the changed test
   procedure  that they will be able to utilize liquid seals in integrated refueling/evaporative
   vapor control systems.

          EPA expects that manufacturers will use the least expensive solution possible to
   provide an adequate seal.  Both EPA and the manufacturers believe that liquid seals will
   be adequate to meet the refueling emission  standard and, therefore, LDVs,  LDTs and
   LHDGVs  will  likely utilize liquid seals.   On the other hand, the fuel tanks of heavy
   heavy-duty gasoline vehicles (HHDGVs) often have short, wide filhiecks which may not
   be conducive to formation  of a liquid seal. While a submerged fill may be possible, EPA
   will conservatively assume in this analysis that HHDGVs using side-saddle tanks will use
   a mechanical seal.
    2.3.2 Anti-Spitback Valve

          Some studies of refueling emissions have included consideration of fuel spillage
    as a result of the refueling event.  In the previously mentioned rule regarding enhanced
    evaporative emission controls, EPA promulgated a fuel dispensing spitback standard to
    control fuel  spillage.  Manufacturers are expected to incorporate an anti-spitback valve
    in the fillneck  to control these emissions.  An in-use limit on dispensing rate was also
    enacted  to ensure  compatibility between  the  fillneck/anti-spitback valve designs and
    refueling in the field.
    2.3.3 Fuel Tank
          As the fuel enters the fuel tank via the fillneck, the rising liquid displaces the
    vapors in the tank.  Currently, these vapors are vented to the atmosphere.  On most
    vehicles,  this venting occurs through a vent line external to the fillneck.  Many larger
    trucks (HHDGVs) use wider fillnecks which allow the vapors to return via the same tube
    through which the fuel enters.  In order to meet the refueling emission standards, the
    displaced fuel tank vapors must be contained.  As previously described, the most likely
    scenario  is for the vapors to be routed out of the  top of the fuel tank to the carbon
    canister.

          Any modifications to the tank needed as a result of the ORVR requirements will
    be minor. The vent valve hole may need to be increased in diameter to accept a larger
    vapor vent/rollover valve and the port for the external vapor vent line will be removed.
    These changes will be primarily tooling changes. Removal of the external vapor vent line

    2-4

-------
                                                                 Chapter 2: Technology
(involving steel and/or rubber tubing and clamps) will be a hardware cost credit) for the
ORVR system.
2.3.4 Vent/Rollover Valve

       The vent/rollover valve provides the method of controlled escape for gasoline
vapors during the refueling event in an ORVR system. The vent has a mechanism which
closes the vent in the event of vehicle rollover to prevent spillage of vapors or liquid fuel.
The vapor vent/rollover valve also acts as a fill limiter. As the gasoline level rises to the
top of the tank, the float valve seats itself in a housing  at the vent orifice. As the float
blocks the vent orifice, the pressure rises in the tank and  a column of gasoline rises in the
fillneck. When the column of gasoline reaches the tip of the gasoline nozzle, automatic
shutoff  is triggered and the refueling event is completed.  The fill  limiting action would
be designed to provide a soft but effective close, so that the pressure in the tank does not
rise too suddenly and cause spillage at the end of the refueling event.

       Essentially all vehicles currently have evaporative vent/rollover valves, but these
will need to  be upgraded  to handle the greater  vapor  flow rates that will occur  in a
refueling event.  It is expected that the fuel vent valves, located at the top of fuel tanks
as part  of current evaporative systems,  will be replaced by a multi-purpose  valve of
similar  design.  Such a valve would have an enlarged orifice to accommodate the larger
refueling vapor loading rates  and a secondary evaporative orifice to be used when the fill
limiter closed the vent, as well as the fill limiters and rollover protection discussed above.
In some cases, this valve may also incorporate  a liquid/vapor separator function.
       However, the size of the orifice likely to be necessitated by the refueling emissions
standard could result in substantial fuel loss in the event of a rollover accident.  In order
to provide rollover protection in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) 301, the float valve could be spring loaded, such that  it would  close if the
vehicle  were turned on its  side or upside down.  Current evaporative  vapor vent valves
operate in a similar fashion.
2.3.5  Vent/Purge Vapor Lines
       Two vapor lines are necessary in an ORVR system for proper operation: 1) the
vapor vent line which routes vapors from the fuel tank to the vapor storage device, 2) the
vapor purge line which directs vapors from the canister to the engine for canister purging.
The size of these lines (both length and diameter) is dependent on the canister location,
the vapor flow rate, and the allowable tank pressure increase.  An improved evaporative
control system would have vent/purge vapor lines serving the same functions.
       Due to the widespread use of fuel injection in vehicles, and resultant decrease in
hot soak vapors coming from the fuel system components in the engine compartment,
EPA  expects most canisters to be located at the  rear of the vehicle near the fuel tank as
opposed to under the vehicle hood as is the case in most  current evaporative emission
control designs.  Locating the canister in the rear of the vehicle, near the fuel tank, has
several advantages.  It will allow a decrease in  the length  of the vapor vent line, which
will reduce the resistance to flow and may allow for a smaller increase in the vent line's

                                                                              2-5

-------
ORVR Regulatory Impact Analysis
   diameter and thus enhance the use of a liquid seal.  Due to expected vapor flow rates,
   however, the vapor vent line will still need to be larger in diameter than the evaporative
   vapor vent line to prevent high backpressure during refueling. While moving the canister
   to the rear of the vehicle will reduce the length of the vent vapor line, it will increase the
   length of the purge vapor line.  However, EPA expects the increase in the length of the
   purge line to be essentially the same as the decrease in the length of the vapor vent line.
   Therefore, the only incremental change is the difference in the vapor vent line diameters
   from that required for improved evaporative control.
   2.3.6 Canister

          The only currently available technology that can be utilized to temporarily store
   vapors is activated carbon, which is contained in the canister shell. The vapors which are
   displaced from the fuel tank by the incoming fuel are routed via the vapor vent line to
   the canister and are adsorbed by the carbon.  The canister shell consists of a durable
   material, generally steel or plastic, that can be formed into a volumetric canister to hold
   the activated carbon.  EPA expects that essentially all manufacturers  will use activated
   carbon contained in a canister shell as the technology to capture and temporarily store the
   refueling vapor.

          In the past, both EPA and the industry assumed that canister capacity would have
   to  increase to handle  the increased  vapor  loads  from  refueling.   However,  the
   promulgation of  the  March  1993 enhanced  evaporative emission  rule has already
   increased the canister capacity requirements.  With the test procedure discussed at the 22
   July 1993 hearing, the industry stated that integrated refueling/evaporative vapor recovery
   systems are possible with no increase in canister capacity beyond that of the enhanced
   evaporative emissions requirement.  Thus,  the  current analysis does not include any
   incremental canister costs in the total costs of onboard control systems.

          Recently, improved activated carbon products have been developed which provide
   greater working capacity with less volume  of carbon.  These new developments may
   directionally help manufacturers reduce the size of carbon canisters and maintain working
   capacity.

          It is also worth noting, as discussed above, that canisters are likely to be located
   in the rear of the vehicle.  This is expected to  have safety benefits  in addition  to the
   system design advantages discussed earlier.
    2.3.7 Purge Valve
           Ultimately, the refueling vapors are burned in the vehicle's engine.  The purge
    valve is used to open the purge vent line between the canister and the engine to allow
    manifold vacuum to pull air through the canister and purge it of the hydrocarbon load.
    The electronic control unit (ECU), an onboard computer, sends signals to open and close
    the valve at appropriate times.  Each vehicle model has a slightly different purge strategy,
    but usually  purging occurs under acceleration  or heavy loads.   Purge strategies are
    necessary to avoid large amounts of purge vapor from creating an overly rich air-fuel
    ratio in the engine which could affect exhaust emission performance and driveability, but

    2-6

-------
                                                                   Chapter 2: Technology
   yet to purge the carbon in sufficient time to accept the new vapor loading. Because the
   refueling test procedure allows for the same purge driving and requires approximately the
   same vapor load as for the improved evaporative procedure,  no changes are anticipated
   in the purge valve for integrated ORVR/evaporative systems. In some cases, changes may
   be desirable to optimize the purge strategy for exhaust emissions and driveability and to
   allow  the  additional refueling vapor loads  to be purged off.  However,  given the
   sequencing of the elements of the improved evaporative/refueling test procedure and the
   values of the test parameters, in most cases the purge strategies used for the improved
   evaporative requirement will  be effective for  an integrated refueling/evaporative system
   as well.
   2.3.8  Onboard Diagnostics

          In a rule published in the Federal Register on  19 February 1993 (58 FR 9468),
   onboard diagnostics (OBD) will be required on highway motor vehicles.  For evaporative
   systems, these OBD systems will require  operational checks on the purge valve  and
   pressure checks in the fuel tank, vapor and purge lines. The same OBD hardware used
   in  the  evaporative  control  system  will  also  be required  on   an  integrated
   evaporative/refueling vapor control system.  It is expected to perform to the same function
   and have the same positive effects on in-use performance, catching leaks of more than 3
   grams per refueling event2.  OBD only applies to LDVs and LDTs.
2.4 Summary Table
          Table 2.1 contains a summary of the hardware changes expected for improved
   evaporative systems and ORVR systems.  In the table, Xs indicate which regulation
   required the modification or addition of the indicated hardware component.
      2 Memorandum from Bryan J. Manning to Docket No. A-87-11, titled "Determination of Flow Rate for
    Vapor Vent Line Lead in Onboard Vapor Recovery System" (docket A-87-11, section IV-B).

                                                                               2-7

-------
Off W? Regulatory Impact Analysis
    Table 2.1—Summary of Refueling/Evaporative Vapor Control System Hardware Changes
Hardware Component
Flllneek Seal (liquid)
Antl-SpKbaek Valve
Remove External Vent Line
Fuel Tank Modifications
Vent/Rollover Valve
Enlarge Vapor Vent Line
Lengthen Vapor Purge Line
Shorten Vapor Vent Line
Enlarge Canister
Rear Located Canister
Modify Purge Valve
Modify Purge Strategy
Onboard Diagnostics
Improved
Evaporative
Control

X

X
X



X

X
X
X
ORVR Control
X

X
X
upgrade
X
X
X

X



    2-8

-------
                                                        Chapter 3: Background Information
                    Chapter 3:  Background Information
          This chapter, in combination with the technology discussions in the previous
   chapter,  is  intended  to  provide background data for  the analytic discussions and
   derivations which follow.  Information is included on the following topics:   vehicle
   classification, projected fleet sales, fuel economy, and fuel consumption; Stage n areas,
   waivers, and in-use efficiency; and segmentation of the gasoline market.
3.1 Vehicle Information

   3.1.1  Vehicle classification

          The costs and benefits of ORVR depend on the distribution of vehicles covered
   by the ORVR standard among the various vehicle weight classes. Light-duty vehicles
   (LDVs) (also known as passenger cars), as defined by 40 CFR 86.82-2, are covered by
   the mandate for this rule  in section 202(a)(6) of the CAA.   LDVs are not further
   subdivided in this analysis.

          Trucks  are subdivided into several  groups for  this analysis, reflecting their
   divergent sizes 'and operating characteristics.  However,  the categorization of trucks is
   complicated by the fact that EPA and the vehicle manufacturing industry do not apply the
   same weight criteria in classifying trucks.  The two different classification systems are
   summarized and compared in Table 3.1, below.

          As the table indicates, the truck fleet is traditionally broken down by the industry
   into eight weight classes (I-VIII). Classes I and n, which include trucks up to 10,000 Ibs
   gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), are considered by the industry  to  be  light-duty
   trucks (LDTs), while classes HI through VDI are  included in the heavy-duty  vehicle
   (HDV) category. Under EPA's definition, LDTs include Class I and part of Class n (up
   to 8,500 Ibs GVWR), while HDVs are considered to be those greater than 8,500 pounds.
   Thus, EPA subdivides Class n into two subclasses, Ha and nb.  Class Ha trucks (6,001-
   8,500 Ibs GVWR) are considered heavy light-duty trucks and Class nb trucks  (8,501-
   10,000 Ibs GVWR) are included in the light heavy-duty vehicle group.  Class n trucks
   are allocated among  Ha and nb subcategories with at 90/10 split.
                                                                               3-1

-------
ORVR Regulatory Impact Analysis
                Table 3.1—Classification Systems for Light Duty Trucks (LDTs)
                              and Heavy Duty Vehicles (HDVs)
Industry
Classification
I
(lla)
II
(lib)
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
Light
Duty
Trucks
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
Weight Range
(Pounds GVWR)
Up to 6,000
6,001-8,500
8,501-10,000
10,001-14,000
14,001-16,000
16,001-19,500
19,501-26,000
26,001-33,000
> 33,000
EPA
Classification
LLDT
(LDT1+LDT2)
HLDT
(LDT3+LDT4)
Otto
LHDV
HHDV
Diesel
LHDV
MHDV
HHDV
Light
Duty
Trucks
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
Abbreviations: GVWR = Gross vehicle weight Rating, LL T = Light light-duty trucks, HLDT = Heavy
light-duty trucks, LHDV = Light heavy-duty vehicles, MHDV = Medium heavy-duty vehicles, HHDV =
Heavy heavy-duty vehicles.
           Approximately 87 percent of all heavy-duty gasoline vehicles (HDGVs) fall into
    Class Eh, and almost all of the remaining 13 percent fall into either Class VI (19,501-
    26,000 Ibs GVWR) or Class VH (26,001-33,000 Ibs GVWR).  It should be noted that,
    except for capacity, the fuel systems of many LHDGVs do not differ appreciably from
    those of LDTs and can benefit directly from the transfer of LDT technology.
    3.1.2 Projected Fleet Sales
           Table 3.2 displays EPA vehicle sales projections for gasoline-powered LDVs, light
    LDTs  (classes  I  and Ha), LHDGVs (classes Hb-V)  and HHDGVs (trucks and  buses
    classes VI-VIII) for the years 1998 to 2020.  These sales projections were derived from
    the Mobile 4.1  fuel consumption model to assure consistency between the vehicle sales
    used to determine costs and the fuel consumption used to determine fuel recovery credits
    and emission reduction benefits.1
           The sales projections were  derived by determining a base sales figure for each
    year and vehicle  class, and then increasing those base sales by the amount indicated by
        The MOBILE model is frequently used by EPA to determine the effects of regulatory programs on the
    emissions of automobiles and trucks. The latest version of the model at the time of this analysis was
    MOBILESa; however, the fuel consumption portion of the model has not been updated since MOBILE4.1.
    The fuel consumption model projects fleet fuel consumption, fuel consumption through ORVR-equipped
    vehicles, alternative fuel penetration, fleet vehicle miles traveled, road fuel economy, vehicle registrations
    and total emissions. For more information see: Memorandum from James G. Bryson to EPA Air Docket A-
    87-11, tided " MOBILE4.1 Fuel Consumption Model Run Data".
    3-2

-------
                                                      Chapter 3: Background /nformaffon
the MOBILE4.1 model for each year. The Mobile4.1 model assumes a 25 year fleet life.
That is, after 25 years all the vehicles sold initially will have been scrapped at some time
in the intervening 25 year period.  However, for a given model year, new vehicle sales
are actually equal to replacements for all the preceding model year vehicles scrapped in
that  year, plus the growth (or contraction) in  the  total in-use fleet.  A sophisticated
analysis would apply vehicle class-specific scrappage rates to vehicle class specific new
vehicle sales for each preceding model year to determine replacement vehicle sales. A
simplified yet reasonably accurate approach would be to select a base sales rate which is
representative of average new vehicle sales values over a given number of years and use
that base as the total replacement fleet.  This approach misses the cyclical swings which
occur in vehicle sales, but this is not significant for an analysis such as this which relies
more on total sales over many years and whose results are insensitive  to cyclic changes.

       EPA selected 1990 as the base year.  Based on inspection of sales results over the
last ten years, 1990 was  considered reasonably representative of the average and was
consistent with the year selected as the base for  other fuel-related parameters in the
analysis. Specific values for the sales in each of the vehicle subclasses were derived from
1990 AAMA sales data2-3.   All figures used to develop the base sales  figures were
derived from the AAMA data.  The diesel fraction  of vehicles in each class was taken
from the MOBILE4.1 Fuel Consumption model (0.0 percent of LDVs,  1.1 percent of
LDTs, 23 percent of LHDVs and 67 percent of HHDVs).4  The base sales figures for
gasoline-powered vehicles were: LDVs 9,300,000; LDTs 4,080,000; LHDGVs 356,000;
HHDGVs 77,000.

       The  growth rate  for  any  given year was  the  subclass-specific  change in
registrations provided by  the MOBILE4.1 model output. The combination of the base
sales figure plus the  change in total subclass-specific registrations  gives the projected
vehicle sales for a given year.  The results are presented in Table 3.2, below.
   1AAMA Motor Vehicle Facts and Figures '93. (American Automobile Manufacturer's Association).

   *MVMA Factory Sales of Trucks and Buses. 12 Months 1990 Sales, (Motor Vehicle Manufacturer's
Association), 11 February 1991.

   4 The ORVR requirement applies to diesel fueled vehicles, but they are expected to comply without a
control system since emissions are inherently low.
                                                                               3-3

-------
0/7W7 Regulatory Impact Analysis
                        Table 32—Projected Gasoline Vehicle Sales
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
LOV
10,600,000
10,800,000
11,000,000
11,100,000
11,300,000
11,500,000
11,700,000
11,800,000
12,000,000
12,200,000
12,400,000
12,600,000
12,800,000
13,000,000
13,200,000
13,400,000
13,600,000
13,800,000
14,000,000
14,100,000
14,300,000
14,500,000
14,700,000
LOT
5,280,000
5,430,000
5,590,000
5,740,000
5,890,000
6,040,000
6,200,000
6,350,000
6,500,000
6,650,000
6,800,000
6,950,000
7,110,000
7,250,000
7,400,000
7,550,000
7,700,000
7,850,000
7,990,000
8,130,000
8,270,000
8,420,000
8,560,000
LHDGV
448,000
461,000
474,000
487,000
500,000
513,000
519,000
533,000
548,000
563^000
577,000
592,000
605,000
620,000
636,000
652,000
667,000
683,000
697,000
711,000
725,000
739,000
752,000
HHDGV
78,300
78,600
78,600
79,000
79,900
81,100
82,400
83,800
85,100
86,500
88,200
89,700
91,900
93,700
95,800
97,900
100,000
102,200
104,200
106,100
108,100
110,100
112,200
   3.1.3  Projected Road Fuel Economy

          Refueling emissions are directly proportional to fuel consumption and, therefore,
   fuel economy data are needed to develop per-vehicle emission reductions.  Table 3.3
   presents projected fuel economy statistics (in miles per gallon) for new gasoline-powered
   LDVs, LDTs, LHDVs, and HHDVs purchased during the time period covered by this
   analysis. These projections were taken from the MOBILE4.1  Fuel Consumption Model.
    3-4

-------
                                                   Chapter 3: Background Information
      Table 3.3—Projected Road Fuel Economy (Miles per Gallon) by Vehicle Class
Year
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
LOV
22.94
22.91
22.88
22.85
22.82
22.79
22.77
22,74
22.71
22.69
22.66
22,63
22.61
22.58
22.55
22.59
22.57
22.54
22.52
22.49
22.48
22.45
22.43
22.40
22.38
LOT
17.42
17.40
17.37
17.36
17.32
17.31
17.28
17.26
17.24
17.23
17.20
17.19
17.16
17.15
17.12
17.14
17.12
17.10
17.08
17.06
17.05
17.04
17.02
17.01
17.00
LHDGV
10.81
10.84
10.87
10.90
10.92
10.94
10.97
10.99
11.01
11.03
11.05
11.07
11.08
11.10
11.11
11.11
11.13
11.14
11.15
11.16
11.17
11.19
11.20
11.21
11.22
HHDGV
5.80
5.79
5.79
5.78
5.78
5.77
5.77
5.77
5.77
5.77
5.77
5.77
5.77
5.77
5.77
5.76
5.76
5.76
5.76
6.76
5.76
5.76
5.76
5.76
5.76
3.1.4 Projected Fleet Fuel Consumption

      The MOBILE4.1 Fuel Consumption Model projects total fleet fuel consumption
and, with some minor modifications, ORVR-controlled fuel consumption. The ORVR-
controlled consumption is based on the increase of vehicles in the fleet purchased in years
after ORVR implementation. The model takes into account the three year phase-in of the
standard (40, 80, 100 percent) beginning  in 1998 and assumed vehicle use factors and
scrappage rates.  Table  3.4 contains the results.  As can be seen in the final column, a
number of years must pass before ORVR covers a significant portion of the nationwide
fuel consumption.  However, by 2010,  ORVR systems are expected to cover nearly 87
percent of the fuel  consumption and, by 2020, this figure will reach 99 percent control.
In the MOBILE4.1 model, full fleet turnover requires 25  years.
                                                                          3-5

-------
ORVR Regulatory Impact Analysis
                   Table 3.4—Projected Fuel Consumption Rgures (gallons)
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
LDVs
2.305E+09
8.263E+09
1.634E+10
2.451E+10
3.231E+10
3.991E+10
4.716E+10
5.348E+10
5.881E+10
6.357E+10
6.818E+10
7.283E+10
7.733E+10
8.118E+10
8.457E+10
8.740E+10
8.983E+10
9.212E+10
9.406E+10
9.590E+10
9.760E+10
9.921E+10
1.008E+11
LDTs
1.358E+09
5.184E+09
1.078E+10
1.667E+10
2.239E+10
2.764E+10
3.230E+10
3.599E+10
3.894E+10
4.147E+10
4.386E+10
4.657E+10
4.956E+10
5.239E+10
5.500E+10
5.723E+10
5.924E+10
6.123E+10
6.306E+10
6.478E+10
6.638E+10
6.792E+10
6.943E+10
LHDGVs
1.613E+08
6.031E+08
1.253E+09
1.937Et09
2.597E+09
3.265E+09
3.953E+09
4.592E+09
5.153E+09
5.636E+09
6.068E«09
6.562E+09
7.113E+09
7.675E+09
8.161E+09
8.592E+09
8.980E+09
9.357E+09
9.685E+09
9.980E+09
1.025E+10
1.050E+10
1.074E+10
HHDGVs
5.377E+07
2.010E+08
4.176E+08
6.455E+08
8.658Et08
1.088E+09
1.318E+09
1.531 E+09
1.718E+09
1.879E+09
2.023E+09
2.187E+09
2.371E+09
2.558E+09
2.720E+09
2.864E+09
2.993E+09
3.119E+09
3.228E+09
3.327E+09
3.416E+09
3.501 E+09
3.581 E+09
All ORVR
3.877E+09
1.425E+10
2.879E+10
4.376E+10
5.817E+10
7.190E+10
8.473E+10
9.559E+10
1.046E+11
1.126E+11
1.201 E+11
1.282E+11
1.364E+11
1.438E+11
1.505E+11
1.561 E+11
1.610E+11
1.658E+11
1.700E+11
1.740E+11
1.776E+11
1.811E+11
1.845E+11
All Gasoline
1.234E+11
1.257E+11
1.283E+11
1.309E+11
1.336E+11
1.364E+11
1.391E+11
1.419E+11
1.449E+11
1.478E+11
1.508E+11
1.538E+11
1.568E+11
1.595E+11
1.626E+11
1.657E+11
1.688Et11
1.720E+11
1.747E+11
1.776E+11
1.804E+11
1.833E+11
1.862E+11
% Control
3.14%
11.33%
22.44%
33.42%
43.54%
52.72%
60.91%
67.35%
72.23%
76.16%
79.68%
83.34%
86.98%
90.17%
92.55%
94.21%
95.41%
96.44%
97.31%
97.99%
98.46%
98.81%
99.09%
3.2  Stage II Information

    3.2.1 Stage II Areas
      t-
           The areas included as Stage n areas in this analysis  are  listed  in Table 3.5.
    Included are all non-attainment areas categorized as serious, severe, or extreme, as well
    as a majority of the moderate areas and a few marginal areas (i.e., the Portland, Oregon
    area, a large portion of  western Washington  state, and Sussex  County, Delaware).
    Moderate and marginal areas are included  as  Stage n areas if they  have  already
    implemented Stage n or if they are in states that have promulgated Stage n legislation
    and with great certainty  will implement the program by  1998.5  Stage n  has been
    implemented in the entire state  of  California; thus,  attainment  areas  in  California
    (accounting for about 3.3 percent of the state's gasoline throughput) are included on the
    list. One additional attainment area (Las Vegas, Nevada) has implemented Stage EL, and
    is also  shown on the list below and is included in the analysis. Appendix A contains the
    full list of Stage n areas used in this analysis.
       'EPA memorandum from Paul M. Argyropoulos, FOSD to Stage n Contacts, dated June 15, 1993, titled
    "Stage n Program Status Summary" (docket A-87-11, item IV-D-834).
    3-6

-------
                                                        Chapter 3: Background Information
                               Table 3.5—Stage II Areas
Greater Connecticut
Washington
Phlladelphte-Wllmlngton-Trenton
Sussex Co
Chlcago-Gary-Lake County
SL Louis
Louisville
Cincinnati-Hamilton
Greater Massachusetts
Baltimore
Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester
Atlantic City
Allentown-Bethtehem-Easton
NY-NJ-Long Island
Cleveland-Akron-Loraln
Dayton-Springfield
Toledo
Reading
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
Richmond-Petersburg
Kewaunee Co.
Milwaukee-Racine
CT
VA, DC, MD
PA, NJ, DE
DE
IL.IN
IL.MO
IN, KY
OH, KY
MA
MD
NH
NJ
NJ
NY, NY
OH
OH
OH
PA
PA
VA
Wl
Wl
Manttowoc Co Wl |
|Mlaml-R. Lauderdate-W.Palm
|Atlanta
{Baton Rouge
(Nashville
jPhoenlx
Beaumont-Port Arthur
|Dallas-Fl Worth
|EIPaso
|Houston-Galveston-Brazoria
Portland-Vancouver AQMA
Seattle-Tacoma
San Diego
LA-South Coast Air Basin
San Joaquln
San Francisco Bay Area
Monterey Bay
Sacramento Metro
Ventura county
S. Barbara-S. Maria-Lompoc
Remainder of California*
Las Vegas*
Salt Lake City
FL
GA
LA
TN
AZ
TX
TX
TX
TX
WA,OR
WA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
NV
UT

                                'Designates Attainment Areas
3.2.2  Stage II Control Efficiency

       Stage n efficiency  data was taken from the 1991  Stage n technical guidance
document.6 The sections below will address Stage n equipment efficiency and reductions
in efficiency due to exemption of small gasoline dispensing facilities.
       3.2.2.1 Stage II Equipment Efficiency

         Although Stage TJ  systems can achieve  capture efficiencies of 95 percent or
better when first installed, reductions in the certified efficiency can occur through wear
and tear, malfunctions, or system problems. The in-use efficiency of a Stage II program
is directly proportional to proper installation, operation and maintenance of the control
equipment. These factors can be monitored and enforced by state air quality agencies.
The Stage n technical guidance document determined in-use efficiencies of 92 percent
with semi-annual inspections, 86 percent with annual inspections and 62  percent with
minimal or less frequent inspections.  The current analysis assumes annual inspections
nationwide, noting that some areas, such as California, may perform inspections more
   "Technical Guidance—Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems for Control of Vehicle Refueling Emissions at
Gasoline Dispensing Facilities.  U.S. EPA Technical Report No. EPA-450/3-91-022a,b, November, 1991, pp.
4-46 to 55 (docket A-87-11, item IV-A-08).
                                                                                3-7

-------
ORVfi Regulatory Impact Analysis
   frequently, but others do so at greater intervals.  Therefore, in this analysis, the vapor
   capture efficiency of Stage n equipment is estimated to be 86 percent.
          3.2.2.2 Stage II Waivers

          To reduce the economic burden on small entities, CAA section 182(b)(3) permits
   waivers of Stage n requirements for small gasoline marketers, i.e., facilities which sell
   less than  10,000 gallons of gasoline per month (50,000 gallons per month in the case of
   independent marketers of gasoline). Furthermore, CAA section 3247, which specifically
   addresses vapor recovery for small marketers, allows a state or local agency to establish
   an exemption from the Stage n requirement for independent small marketers at a level
   less than 50,000 gallons per month. Depending on the state, Stage n programs may thus
   provide waivers for stations with gasoline throughput ranging from zero (i.e., no waivers)
   to a single exemption level of 10,000 gallons per month for both stations owned by major
   oil companies and independent stations (a 10/10 program) to  10,000 gallons per month
   for major brands and 50,000 gallons per month for independent small businesses (a 10/50
   program).

          Appendix A shows which areas have adopted the single waiver level of 10,000
   gallons and which use the 10,000/50,000 gallon exemption level. Areas in California are
   assumed to have no Stage n exemptions for small businesses. Based on these exemption
   levels, EPA estimates that a weighted average of 5.7 percent of the consumption in Stage
   II areas will flow through exempted gasoline fueling facilities and will therefore not be
   subject to Stage n  control.   Combining this waiver rate with the equipment efficiency
   discussed above  would yield an overall  Stage  II  capture efficiency of 80.3 percent.
   However, the calculations in this analysis apply the Stage n equipment efficiency and the
   waiver rate independently.
3.3  Segmentation of Gasoline Market

          The gasoline distribution market can be divided in many ways.  Several of these
    are helpful for this analysis: ozone attainment status, presence of Stage n controls, and
    metropolitan versus nationwide service station distribution.
          The distribution of primary importance is that of attainment status. EPA estimates
    that 54.9 percent of the nationwide fuel consumption  is through areas  designated as
    marginal or worse for ozone  nonattainment.  (Areas designated to be in moderate or
    worse nonattainment status account for 46.8 percent of nationwide  fuel consumption,
    while areas considered to be  serious, severe, or extreme account  for 29.8 percent.)
    Because VOC control is most needed in high-ozone areas, many regulatory approaches,
    such as volatility control, Stage n vapor recovery, and Inspection/Maintenance programs,
    are applied only in these nonattainment areas. However, ORVR control cannot be limited
    just to areas with significant pollution problems. Vehicles may be sold in one area, but
    operate over a relatively broad range, or may be resold to a new area throughout their
       7 Formerly Clean Air Act section 325, redesignated by PL96-300.

    3-8

-------
                                                         Chapters: Background Information
   life.  Thus, ORVR control  is a nationwide commitment.  Nevertheless, this analysis
   focuses to a large extent on the effects of ORVR specifically in nonattainment areas.

          As discussed above, the presence of Stage n control is another important factor
   in the segmentation of the gasoline distribution market.  While mandated Stage II control
   is largely a  function of  ozone  attainment status, some  areas  have exceeded EPA
   requkements.   EPA estimates (see Appendix A)  that 45.0 percent of the gasoline
   consumed in the U.S. is through areas with Stage n control.  Almost all  (44.2 percent)
   of this is within nonattainment areas. Thus, approximately 98 percent of Stage n fuel
   consumption is within nonattainment areas, with about 81 percent of the  nonattainment
   area fuel is covered by Stage n controls. Less than two percent of attainment area fuel
   is covered by Stage n.

          To analyze Stage n  costs, it is  important to know the typical distributions  of
   refueling facilities by size (as measured by gasoline throughput) in Stage n areas. The
   1991 Stage n technical guidance document distinguished two size distribution patterns:
   metropolitan and nationwide service station distributions.8 Because ozone nonattainment
   is primarily a problem of cities,  the  current analysis assumes that service stations  in
   nonattainment areas  follow  the metropolitan distribution  unless  the whole  state is  a
   nonattainment area. This topic is discussed further in Chapter 6.
3.4  Additional Background Data
          For general  reference, Appendix D contains the original spreadsheets which
   provide  the data for many of the tables presented in this  and succeeding chapters.
   Included are  a variety of  spreadsheets and parameter summaries containing data on
   vehicle sales  and fuel economy, control efficiencies and emission factors, and ORVR
   costs, benefits, cost  effectiveness.
       'Technical Guidance—Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems for Control of Vehicle Refueling Emissions at
    Gasoline Dispensing Facilities. U.S. EPA Technical Report No. EPA-450/3-91-022a,b, November, 1991, pp.
    2-26 (docket A-87-11, item IV-A-08).

                                                                                 3-9

-------
                                                    Chapter 4: Emission Reduction Benefits
                 Chapter 4:  Emission  Reduction Benefits
4.1  Introduction
          This chapter assesses the reduction in volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions
   as a result of onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) systems. The potential impacts
   of refueling emission reductions on energy, health, and the environment are discussed in
   Chapter 7.
4.2  Methodology

          Emission reductions resulting from ORVR are estimated by applying projections
   of the in-use efficiency of ORVR systems to estimates of baseline (uncontrolled) refueling
   emissions. Previous analyses have shown that refueling emissions can be modeled using
   an empirical equation based upon a few parameters.1'2 These include Reid Vapor Pressure
   (RVP) of the dispensed gasoline, dispensed temperature (Td) of the gasoline, and delta
   temperature (AT), defined as the difference between the temperature of the gasoline in the
   vehicle tank (Tt) and the dispensed temperature of the gasoline used to refill the tank (i.e.
   Tt -Td).

          In this analysis, baseline refueling emission factors (grams/gallon) were developed
   for five regions covering the contiguous  United States. This regional approach was used
   in order to make use of available Td and  AT data. As discussed further below, state-level
   RVP information  was aggregated at the regional level based  on each state's  fuel
   consumption, and  a weighted RVP for each region was calculated.  Regional refueling
   emission factors were calculated using the regional temperature and RVP values and then
   were weighted  by  the amount of fuel consumed in each region to produce a nationwide
   average refueling emission factor.  Total nationwide refueling emissions (in metric tons)
   were calculated by multiplying the nationwide refueling emission factor by the number
   of gallons of fuel consumed in the nation.

          In-use efficiency of  ORVR systems is modeled by  comparing  uncontrolled
   refueling  emission loads per refueling event to the canister capacity required to meet the
   refueling  test procedure.  Refueling emissions load varies with the  RVP, Td, AT, and
   amount of fuel dispensed.  Consistent with the baseline emissions analysis,  a regional
       '"Refueling Emissions from Uncontrolled Vehicles," EPA Technical Report No. EPA-AA-SDSB-85-6
    (Docket A-87-11, item H-A-6).

       2"A Study of Uncontrolled Automotive Refueling Emissions," prepared by Automotive Testing
    Laboratories, Inc. for the Coordinating Research Council, Inc., January 5, 1988 (Docket A-87-11, item IV-D-
    565).

                                                                                4-1

-------
ORVR Regulatory Impact Analysis
   approach was used in this analysis  to  determine in-use efficiency.  Regional in-use
   efficiencies were applied to regional baseline emissions to produce estimates of emissions
   reductions resulting from ORVR systems.
          Emission reduction benefits of ORVR systems were calculated for the years 1998 -
   2020  to account  for the effect  of  fleet  turnover and  to address  the potential
   discontinuation of Stage II controls, as described in section 202(a)(6) of the Clean Air
   Act.
   4.2.1  Regional Designations
          The regions used in this analysis are based on regional designations used in a 1975
   gasoline temperature survey conducted for the American Petroleum Institute (API) by the
   Radian Corporation.3 The study surveyed 56 U.S. gasoline stations located in 22 cities;
   these were grouped into six geographic regions.   Dispensed fuel temperatures were
   monitored using analog strip chart recorders, which allowed Radian to determine daily
   average dispensed temperatures.  However, AT was monitored  only on specific days
   representative of the four seasons, due to the greater effort required to obtain vehicle tank
   temperatures.

       *   Not all of the stations reported data for all months of the year, resulting in a few
   gaps  in the  data.  The most serious of these  gaps occurred in  the  Pacific Northwest
   (region 6 in the Radian report) where AT data were reported only for the month of May.
    Because the climate in the Pacific Northwest is adequately similar to that of the Northern
   Central U.S. (region 4 in  the Radian report), it was concluded that the Northern Central
   temperature  data could be used for both regions.   Thus, the Pacific Northwest  was
   handled as an extension of the Northern Central region in this analysis. The resulting five
   regions, shown  in Figure 4.1, do  not  include Alaska and Hawaii because  gasoline
   temperature data is unavailable from these states.
    4.2.2 Areas Covered in Regional Analysis
          Regional emission factors  and control  efficiency were  determined for ozone
    nonattainment areas, Stage II areas, and all areas (both attainment and nonattainment areas
    nationwide).  The nonattainment area analysis is important because the primary purpose
    for  controlling  refueling emissions is to help bring ozone  nonattainment areas into
    attainment and to keep them in attainment in the future. Also, reformulated gasoline and
    fuel volatility programs, which significantly affect refueling emissions, are targeted
    primarily at nonattainment areas.

          The Stage n  area analysis  examines the impact of Stage n on the benefits of
    ORVR systems. As discussed in Chapter  3, Stage II controls are required in serious,
    severe, and extreme nonattainment  areas  and are expected  to  be  installed in most
       '"Summary and Analysis of Data From Gasoline Temperature Survey Conducted at Service Stations by
    American Petroleum Institute," API Publication No. 4278, prepared for API by Radian Corp., November 11,
    1976 (Docket A-84-07, item I-F-105).

    4-2

-------
                  Figure 4.1
Regions for Emission Reduction Benefits Analysis

-------
0/7VR Regulatory Impact Analysis
   moderate nonattainment areas.  Also considered in this analysis are states which have
   opted to install Stage n systems in marginal areas as part of their state implementation
   plans.

          Benefits for attainment and nonattainment areas combined were calculated to allow
   the evaluation of overall nationwide cost-effectiveness of ORVR systems.  Unlike the
   various fuels programs and the Stage II program, ORVR systems will be implemented in
   all areas of the country. Thus, although nonattainment areas are the primary focus of the
   ORVR program, all areas must be considered when determining cost-effectiveness.
   4.2.3  Months Considered In Regional Analysis
          Regional baseline emission factors and in-use efficiency values were determined
   based on the characteristics of fuel during the ozone season, i.e., the five summer months,
   May  through September.   Annual benefits were  then  calculated by  applying these
   summertime emission factors and in-use efficiency to annual fuel consumption data. This
   approach  is consistent with the methodology used in previous EPA regulatory analyses
   of onboard and Stage n refueling emission control strategies.4
4.3  Regional Fuel RVP and Consumption

          Before an estimate of regional baseline refueling emissions can be made, the RVP
    of the gasoline available for sale in each region and the amount of gasoline in each RVP
    class must be known.  With this information, weighted average RVP can be calculated
    for each region and used to determine baseline  refueling emission rates.  This section
    describes the expected effects of various regulatory programs on summertime RVP levels
    and explains the method used to determine the relative amount of each fuel consumed.
   4.3.1  RVP Control Programs

          Three recent federal and state actions have been proposed or finalized which affect
   the RVP  of fuel sold during the 5-month ozone season in nonattainment areas.  These
   actions are  federally mandated refonnulated gasoline, Phase n volatility control, and
   California Phase 2 refonnulated gasoline. These programs either directly limit RVP or
   will likely force the use of lower RVP fuel.  The areas in which various fuels are sold
   depend upon the program.

          Based on the cost-effectiveness of various strategies which could be used to meet
   reformulated gasoline performance requirements, EPA currently expects that the RVP of
   reformulated gasoline will be approximately 6.7 pounds per square inch (psi)5.  The draft
   regulatory impact analysis  (RIA)  for the reformulated  gasoline notice  of proposed
       "Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed Refueling Emission Regulation for Gasoline-Fueled Motor
    Vehicles, Volumes I and H, July 1987 (Docket A-87-11, items H-A-18 and H-A-19).

       sFinal Regulatory Impact Analysis For Reformulated Gasoline, 13 December 1993, p. 276. (docket
    A-92-12, item V-B-1).

    4-4

-------
                                                  Chapter 4: Emission Reduction Benefits
rulemaking (NPRM) identifies areas expected to be covered by the reformulated gasoline
rulemaking.6  Covered areas include the nine cities specified in the Clean Air Act and
several areas which have opted in to the reformulated gasoline program.7

       The Phase n volatility program establishes limits for fuel RVP in all areas of the
U.S (56 FR 64704, December 12,1991).  The RVP limit depends on the state, month, and
ozone classification. From May through September, gasoline sold in northern states (both
attainment and nonattainment areas) is limited to 9.0 psi under the rule. In the warmer
southern states, RVP is limited to 7.8 psi in nonattainment areas and 9.0 psi in attainment
areas.

        California Phase 2 reformulated gasoline regulations will require that all gasoline
sold or made available as a motor vehicle fuel in California meet an RVP standard of 7.0
psi.8  This standard would apply during the RVP season, defined by California Resources
Board (CARB) as the months April through October.

       Table B-2 in Appendix B, discussed further below, indicates the RVP of fuel sold
in each nonattainment area in the nation.
4.3.2   Consumption Weighting

       EPA estimated the amount of consumption of a given RVP fuel by apportioning
available state fuel consumption data based upon population in the areas covered under
the relevant summer fuel programs. For example, the amount  of reformulated fuel sold
in a state was determined by multiplying the state's gasoline consumption by the ratio:
[population in reformulated gasoline areas] / [total state population].
       State gasoline consumption data reported by the National Petroleum News (NPN)
for the year 1990 was used for this analysis.9  The NPN estimate is based on Federal
Highway Administration data and includes  both highway and  non-highway fuel usage.
Because ORVR applies only to highway vehicles, the NPN estimate was multiplied by
94.6  percent,  based on  highway  fuel  use estimates  by  the  Federal Highway
Administration.I0
   ""Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis For The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking of the Complex Model,
Phase n Performance Standards and Provisions for Renewable Oxygenates," February 5, 1993, Table A-V-la
(Docket A-92-12, item II-B-1).

   7EPA also included some areas which have opted in to the reformulated gasoline program since the
NPRM was published. These areas are identified with a Federal Register citation in Tables B-l and B-2 of
Appendix B under the "Area" column.

   '"Executive Order G-770," final regulation order for Phase 2 reformulated gasoline, State of California
Air Resources Board, September 18, 1992.

   '"National Petroleum News, 1992 Fact Book," Mid-June 1992.

   ""'Highway Statistics 1990," U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Table
MF-26.

                                                                              4-5

-------
Oft W? Regulatory Impact Analysis
          Population data for the year 1990 was obtained from the Bureau of the Census in
   Washington, D.C." EPA obtained population data for every county in the nation for this
   analysis.  Ozone attainment status as described in the Federal Register on November 6,
   1991 was used in compiling the list of nonattainment areas (56 FR 56694).  Table B-l
   in Appendix B contains populations by  ozone attainment  status for all areas in the
   contiguous U.S.

          Descriptions of covered areas under the  summer fuel programs were  used to
   designate each nonattainment county  as either  a 6.7,  7.0, 7.8  or 9.0 RVP area.
   Consumption of each RVP class of gasoline was then determined by simply apportioning
   a state's total fuel consumption based on each county's RVP designation and population.
   Table B-2  in  Appendix  B contains  the  summer fuel  consumption (as a  percent of
   nationwide fuel consumption) for each area in the contiguous U.S. Stage II designations
   are also included in Table B-2.

          It should be noted that Table B-2 contains fuel consumption percentages applicable
   to the months June through September rather than May through September. Because the
   Phase n volatility limit changes between May and June (from 9.0 psi to 7.8 psi) in the
   southern states, fuel consumption in the month of May had to be factored in separately.
   For this purpose, in each region, the fuel consumption percentage applicable to 9.0 RVP
   fuel in May was  assumed to  be equal  to the sum of the 7.8 RVP and 9.0 RVP fuel
   consumptions  applicable to June and the succeeding summer months.   The  fuel
   consumption percentages applicable to the entire five-month summertime period were then
   calculated as weighted averages of the percentages for May and for the period June
   through September.

          Tables 4.1,4.2, and 4.3 below summarize regional summertime fuel consumption
   as a percent of the nation's total throughput for nonattainment areas, all areas, and Stage
   n areas, respectively.12 Table 4.3 includes fuel consumption from ozone attainment areas
   in  Nevada  and California.  These two areas, which account for 0.72 percent of the
   nation's fuel consumption (or 1.6 percent of the fuel sold  in Stage II areas),  are not
   included in the nonattainment area emission reduction benefits analysis, but are included
   in the all-areas benefit analysis.
       ""1990 Census of Population And Housing Summary Tape File 1C," Statistical Information Office,
    Population Division, Bureau of the Census.

       l2Totals shown in these tables, and in other tables presented later in this chapter, may not compute
    exactly due to rounding.

    4-6

-------
                                                     Chapter 4: Emission Reduction Benefits
          Table 4.1—RVP Distribution of Gasoline Consumed in Nonattainment Areas
                                     May • September
Region
1
2
3
4
5
Totals
6.7 RVP
21.98%
0.00%
3.34%
0.00%
6.85%
32.17%
7.0 RVP
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4.43%
4.43%
7.8 RVP
0.00%
5.75%
1.04%
1.10%
0.37%
8.25%
9.0 RVP
6.77%
1.44%
0.26%
1.44%
0.09%
10.00%
Total
28.76%
7.19%
4.63%
2.54%
11.74%
54.86%
AvgRVP
7.2
8.0
7.1
8.5
6.9
7.3
        Table 42—RVP Distribution of Gasoline Consumed In All Areas (Attainment and
                              Nonattainment Areas Combined)
                                     May - September
Region
1
2
3
4
5
Totals
6.7 RVP
22.04%
0.00%
3.34%
0.00%
6.85%
32.23%
7.0 RVP
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4.82%
4.82%
7 A RVP
0.00%
5.75%
1.04%
1.10%
0.37%
8.25%
9.0 RVP
19.00%
15.29%
7.10%
12.48%
0.84%
54.71%
Total
41.05%
21.03%
11.47%
13.57%
12.88%
100.00%
AvgRVP
7.8
8.7
8.2
8.9
7.0
8.1
              Table 4.3—RVP Distribution of Gasoline Consumed in Stage II Areas
                                     May - September
Region
1
2
3
4
5
Totals
6.7 RVP
19.10%
0.00%
3.34%
0.00%
6.85%
29.29%
7.0 RVP
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4.82%
4.82%
7.8 RVP
0.00%
2.88%
1.04%
1.10%
0.27%
5.29%
9.0 RVP
2.73%
0.72%
0.26%
1.44%
0.42%
5.57%
Total
21.83%
3.60%
4.63%
2.54%
12.36%
44.96%
AvgRVP
7.0
8.0
7.1
8.5
6.9
7.1
4.4  Baseline Emission Factors

   Baseline  emissions in grams per gallon (g/gal)  were estimated using  an equation
   developed by Automotive Testing Laboratories, Inc (ATL).13  Earlier EPA analysis of
   refueling emissions utilized an equation developed by EPA.14 However, the EPA equation
   was based on testing conducted on only 8 vehicles, compared with 22 vehicles for the
   ATL equation.  Because the ATL equation is based on a broader mix of domestic and
   import vehicles and contains a larger number of trucks, EPA concluded that the ATL
   equation is a better predictor of emission factors for these purposes.
       ""A Study of Uncontrolled Automotive Refueling Emissions," prepared by Automotive Testing
    Laboratories, Inc. for the Coordinating Research Council, Inc., January 5,1988 (Docket A-87-11, item IV-D-
    565).

       '""Refueling Emissions from Uncontrolled Vehicles," EPA Technical Report No. EPA-AA-SDSB-85-6,
    Appendix B (Docket A-87-11, item II-A-6).
                                                                                 4-7

-------
0/7W? Regulatory Impact Analysis
          Inputs to the ATL equation include RVP of the dispensed gasoline, Td, and AT.
   The ATL equation is as follows:
   Equation 4-1:
          EF(g/gal)  = exp[-1.2798-0.0049(AT) + 0.0203(Td)+ 0.1315(RVP)]
   Regional Td and AT data for the 5-month ozone season were taken from Appendix B,
   Table B-3 and Table B-4, respectively.  This data,  based on the  Radian report, was
   obtained from an earlier EPA report which analyzed the Radian data.15 In the EPA report,
   minor temperature data gaps were filled by points interpolated from the Radian data.
   Average RVP values for each region were taken from Tables 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 presented
   above.

          Tables 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6 summarize die ATL equation  inputs and the resulting
   baseline refueling emission factors for nonattainment areas, all areas, and  Stage n areas,
   respectively. Average values for Td, AT, and RVP over the 5-month ozone season were
   used as input into the ATL equation to estimate uncontrolled emission factors. Average
   values can be used in estimating baseline  emissions due to the linearity of the ATL
   equation.

          The tables indicate that baseline refueling emissions are lower in  nonattainment
   areas due to use of lower RVP fuel. The region with the highest refueling emission factor
   is the southeast  (region  2).   This is because the Radian data inexplicably indicated
   significantly higher Td's  in this region of die country than in any other.

          It should be noted that this analysis required the use of RVP inputs outside of the
   range for which the ATL equation was developed. The variable ranges under which the
   ATL equation was developed  are 70°F < Td < 88°F,  -10°F < AT  < +10°F, and 8.8 <
   RVP <  11.6. ATL states in its report that "extrapolating the correlation equation outside
   the range of the variable  tested can cause significant errors."

          To determine if the ATL equation could be extrapolated without resulting in
   significant error, EPA examined other refueling emission factor equations which apply for
   fuel RVP levels down to 7.0 psi.  EPA compared die effect of RVP on refueling emission
   factors  predicted in the ATL equation  with the RVP effect predicted in equations
   developed by Scott Environmental Technology and by Exxon Research and Engineering
   Co.16 The percentage  reduction  in the  refueling emission factor  (at test procedure
   temperature conditions) resulting from a reduction in RVP from 9.0 to 7.0  psi was nearly
   identical (around 30 percent) for all three equations.  Thus, EPA believes mat the ATL
   equation is reasonably  accurate for the RVP levels encountered in this analysis.
       Islbid
       "See page 11 of the document referenced in footnote 10.

    4-8

-------
                                                    Chapter 4: Emission Reduction Benefits
           Table 44—Baseline Refueling Emission Factors for Nonattainment Areas
Region

1
2
3
4
5
Totals
Fuel
Consumption
28.76%
7.19%
4.63%
2.54%
11.74%
54.86%
RVP
(psl)
7.2
8.0
7.1
8.5
6.9
7.3
Td
(°F)
74
88
81
79
79
78
AT
PF)
11.4
7.5
7.0
12.0
5.2
9.2
EFu
(g/gai)
3.1
4.6
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.4
         Table 45—Baseline Refueling Emission Factors for All Areas (Attainment and
                             Nonattainment Areas Combined)
Region

1
2
3
4
5
Totals
Fuel
Consumption
41.05%
21.03%
11.47%
13.57%
12.88%
100%
RVP
(psl)
7.8
8.7
8.2
8.9
7.0
8.1
Td
(°F)
74
88
81
79
79
79
AT
PF)
11.4
7.5
7.0
12
5.2
9.4
EFu
(s/gai)
3.3
5.0
4.1
4.2
3.4
3.9
               Table 4.6—Baseline Refueling Emission Factors for Stage II Areas
Region

1
2
3
4
5
Totals
Fuel
Consumption
21.83%
3.60%
4.63%
2.54%
12.36%
44.96%
RVP
(psl)
7.0
8.0
7.1
8.5
6.9
7.1
Td
(°F)
74
88
81
79
79
78
AT
(°F)
11.4
7.5
7.0
12.0
5.2
9.0
EFu
(g/gal)
3.0
4.6
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.3
4.5  In-Use Efficiency of ORVR Systems

          In-use efficiency of ORVR systems was determined by comparing in-use canister
   capacity to the vapor load resulting from in-use refueling events.  In-use refueling vapor
   load is the product of the in-use refueling emission factor (in grams per gallon) and the
   volume of gasoline dispensed (in gallons).
   4.5.1  In-Use Canister Capacity

          For the purposes of this discussion, canister capacity includes both breakthrough
   capacity and post-breakthrough capacity.  Breakthrough capacity is defined as the amount
   of vapor that can be captured before a significant amount of hydrocarbon is emitted from
   the canister.   Post-breakthrough capacity refers to the ability of the canister to capture
   vapors at a reduced efficiency after breakthrough occurs.
                                                                                4-9

-------
ORVR Regulatory Impact Analysis
          In estimating in-use canister breakthrough capacity, EPA assumed that the canister
   size and design will be engineered based on the demands of the ORVR test procedure.
   Thus, canister breakthrough capacity was estimated by multiplying the ATL emission
   factor predicted under test procedure conditions by the number of gallons  dispensed
   during the refueling test.  Using test procedure conditions (Td = 67°F, AT =  13°F, and
   RVP = 9.0 psi), the ATL equation predicts a refueling emission factor of  3.3  g/gal.
   Limited data from manufacturers suggest that use of liquid seals may  add an  additional
   25 percent of  vapor due to the  effects of air entrainment during refueling, raising the
   refueling emission factor to 4.1 g/gal.17

          The volume of fuel added during the refueling test is equal to 90 percent of tank
   volume.  Using a nominal fuel tank size of 20 gallons (average tank sizes are smaller),
   the  amount of  gasoline  dispensed  during  the  refueling test would be 18  gallons.
   Multiplying the gallons dispensed by the test procedure emission factor results  in an
   estimated  in-use canister breakthrough capacity of approximately 75  grams.   This
   compares  well with GM's estimate  of canister breakthrough capacity required by the
   refueling test procedure.18

          For vehicles utilizing integrated refueling and evaporative systems, evaporative
   vapors could load the canister prior to refueling, resulting  in a lower in-use canister
   breakthrough capacity than estimated above.  Loss in breakthrough capacity could occur,
   for example, if a vehicle is parked for several  days and then is driven only a  short
   distance before  refueling,  allowing  little opportunity for the  purge system  to restore
   canister capacity.

          However, the effect of integrated systems on in-use canister capacity  should be
   small. First, the new evaporative test procedure is expected to result in higher purge rates
   (58 FR 16002, March 24, 1993).  The improved procedure will require vehicles to be
   capable of purging a loaded canister during the exhaust emissions test in preparation for
   a multiple-day diurnal heat build. Rapid purge helps to restore capacity, even during
   short drives typical of in-use driving patterns.

          Second, in most cases, the evaporative load would use up only a portion of the
   available canister capacity before a refueling event.  Under the new evaporative test
   procedure, manufacturers must ensure adequate canister capacity to handle three high
   temperature diurnals.   EPA data suggests that eighty five percent of diurnal events are
   of one day duration or less.19 Thus, even if no purge opportunity exists before refueling,
   the evaporative load would likely not reduce canister breakthrough capacity greatly.

          Third, manufacturers are expected to include a design safety factor of 10 to 20
   percent when  sizing the  canister to ensure that vehicles pass the refueling certification
   test.  This design safety margin will provide additional in-use canister capacity which will
   help mitigate any loss in canister capacity resulting from evaporative emissions.
       "Letter from Samuel A. Leonard, GM, to Richard D. Wilson, EPA, August 20, 1993 (Docket A-87-11,
    item IV-D-854).

       "Ibid.

       ""Reductions in Evaporative Emissions and Running Losses from Enhanced Vehicle-Based Control,"
    EPA memo from A. Stout to C. Gray, December 19, 1989 (Docket A-89-18, item H-B-5).

    4-10

-------
                                                   Chapter 4: Emission Reduction Benefits
       Furthermore, due to economies of scale, manufacturers will likely use only a few
canister sizes to cover all models and fuel tank sizes.  For example, the canister used on
vehicles with a 20 gallon fuel tank could also be used on vehicles with 16 or 18 gallon
fuel tanks.  Thus, in many cases, ORVR systems will have more canister capacity than
necessary to pass the refueling test. Finally, due to weathering of fuel in the underground
storage tank, the RVP of the fuel will be less than that used in the above analysis.  This
will decrease the uncontrolled emission factors in use.
4.5.2   Canister Control Efficiency

       Refueling canisters operate at essentially 100 percent collection efficiency until the
canister's breakthrough capacity is reached. When the vapor load to the canister exceeds
breakthrough capacity, vapors are emitted from the canister. Once vapor begins escaping,
the efficiency  gradually  decreases until the canister reaches  saturation (zero percent
collection efficiency).  Thus,  a  canister continues to  store some vapor even after  its
breakthrough capacity is exceeded.
       Post-breakthrough canister efficiency was modeled in this analysis by assuming
a linear decrease in control efficiency with increasing vapor load to the canister. Because
of the rapid loading inherent in refueling events, it was conservatively assumed that the
collection efficiency drops off fairly quickly, reaching zero after a post-breakthrough
vapor load to the canister equal to one-fourth of the pre-breakthrough load (Figure 4.2).
       While this capture after breakthrough increases in-use efficiency, the vehicle is still
required to meet the 0.20 g/gal refueling emission standard in certification. Meeting this
standard, accounting for fillneck and deterioration losses, is likely to result in designs with
little  or no breakthrough during  the test.  Thus, post-breakthrough capture of refueling
emissions is an  added  in-use benefit and a byproduct  of the nature of the control
technology, and adds further to the assurance of high in-use efficiency.
4.5.3   In-Use Refueling Emission Factors

       Consistent with the baseline emission factor analysis and the estimate of canister
breakthrough capacity, the ATL equation was used to estimate in-use refueling emission
factors.   However, distributions rather than averages  were  used for the  dispensed
temperature and RVP inputs to the ATL equation to ensure that all possible breakthrough
events were considered.   As described above, the ORVR system operates at essentially
100 percent collection efficiency until canister breakthrough capacity is exceeded.  Use
of averages rather than  distributions of in-use conditions could ignore some refueling
events which cause canister breakthrough, thus overestimating control efficiency.20

       Although distributions were used for Td and RVP inputs, average values were
used for AT.  This simplification was considered appropriate because the ATL equation
   20A similar situation would occur if one were to analyze the ability of a one-liter container to hold two
volumes of liquid equal to 0.5 1 and 1.5 1.  Although the container could hold the average of the two
volumes of liquid, it would not be capable of holding the larger volume if considered separately.

                                                                              4-11

-------
                             Figure 4.2

                      Canister Efficiency Curve
100
0)
£_

>%
o
c
<1>
"o

it=
LU
co
O
    50
        Empty
     0
                         Vapor Loaded To Canister
                                                             Breakthrough

-------
                                                  Chapter 4: Emission Reduction Benefits
is  fairly  insensitive to changes  in AT and because  the AT data was  more limited.  A
sensitivity  analysis performed for regions one and  two showed that  use of a regional
average value for AT rather than a distribution affected the estimate of in-use efficiency
by less than one percent. Table  B-4 in Appendix B,  which was also used in determining
baseline  emissions, contains the regional AT data used in this analysis.

       Table B-5 contains the regional distributions  of dispensed temperature data used
in this analysis. The  data, taken directly from the Radian report, represents Td's for the
period May through September.  EPA calculated ATL emission factors  for each Td in the
regional  distributions  and weighted them according to frequency of occurrence.  Separate
calculations were performed for 6.7, 7.0, 7.8 and 9.0 RVP fuel areas.
4.5.4   In-Use Refueling Load

       In-use refueling load was calculated by multiplying the in-use emission factors by
the number of gallons dispensed.  A distribution of refueling events was used to estimate
the amount of fuel dispensed during refueling.  EPA used a distribution  of refueling
events based on a survey  conducted by  General Motors.21>22   The survey contained
information on fuel tank levels before and after refueling events. The GM survey, which
included 1,184  events, relied on the vehicle owner's estimate of fuel gauge reading before
and after refueling to determine the percent of tank volume dispensed during refueling.
       Because the survey method appears to have resulted in some discontinuities in the
distribution, EPA smoothed the distribution while maintaining the cumulative frequencies
within each  third of the  distribution (i.e.  0-30%, 40-60%, and 70-100%). The EPA
adjustment is conservative in that the distribution was shifted toward larger refueling
amounts, resulting  in larger vapor loads to the canister.   Figure 4.3 contains the GM
survey results and the EPA-modified distribution of refueling amount.
4.5.5  In-Use Control Efficiency

       Tables 4.7,  4.8, and 4.9 summarize the regional  uncontrolled emission factors
(EFu), the controlled emission factor (EFc), and the corresponding  ORVR system
efficiencies for the various summer fuels.  The totals represent weighted values based on
the relative fuel consumption within each region.  A sample calculation is provided in
Appendix C to more clearly explain the method used to determine the control efficiencies
in each region.

       As shown in Tables 4.7, 4.8, and 4.9, the theoretical in-use efficiency of ORVR
systems is 97.4 percent in nonattainment areas, 93.5 percent in all areas, and 98.0 percent
in Stage n areas. The somewhat lower efficiency in all areas is due to the  use of higher
volatility fuels in attainment areas and the higher than expected dispensed temperatures
in the Southeast (region 2).
   ""Survey of Vehicle Refueling," Michael S. Lombardo and Gesa Behrens, SAE 871085.

   22"Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis, Control of Gasoline Volatility and Evaporative Hydrocarbon
Emissions from New Motor Vehicles," EPA, July 1987, pg 2-79 (Docket A-85-21, item H-A-45).
                                                                             4-13

-------
25%
                             Figure 4 3
         Distribution of Fin Amouras for ln.use n

-------
                                                  Chapter 4: Emission Reduction Benefits
       The theoretical  in-use efficiency of ORVR control was  reduced somewhat to
account for systems that fail to operate properly in use.  System  failure may occur due
to component failure, consumer malmaintenance, or tampering.  Failure rates of ORVR
systems used in this analysis are based on evaporative system failure rates contained in
EPA's MOBILE emission factor model, version 5a (MOBILESa).23

       MOBILESa contains two categories for evaporative system failure: pressure failure
and purge failure.  Pressure failure is defined as a loss of fuel system integrity resulting
in evaporative vapors escaping to the atmosphere instead of being routed to the canister.
This failure mode is not expected to apply to  ORVR controls for two reasons.  First,
liquid seals (which will likely be used on most  vehicles) are not expected to deteriorate
in use.  Second, due to the higher vapor generation rates during refueling, and the very
short time of refueling events relative to evaporative emissions, small leaks in an ORVR
system are not expected to significantly affect refueling control.
       Purge failure results in loading the canister  beyond  capacity and subsequent
breakthrough of the vapors.  Over a vehicle's useful  life (50,000 miles for the  current
model year), MOBILESa estimates that roughly 3.5 percent of vehicles have purge system
failure.24 EPA expects that this failure rate will be maintained over 100,000 miles as a
result of the full useful life requirement of section 202(d)(l) of the CAA.  This is a
reasonable judgment because the full useful life requirement will force manufacturer to
upgrade system reliability. Thus, ORVR failure rates are projected to be 3.5 percent over
the full useful life of the vehicle in this analysis.
       The number of in-use failures of vapor control systems are  expected to be limited
by Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) programs [57 FR 52950, November 5, 1992] and
by onboard diagnostic (OBD) systems [58 FR 9468, February  19,1993]. Both programs
monitor the functionality of the purge system.25  The I/M program  and OBD program are
expected to reduce purge system failures by 80 percent in areas covered by either basic
or enhanced I/M.26 For this analysis, EPA assumes that the I/M program  is required in
all ozone nonattainment areas. Thus, the purge failure rate of ORVR systems is expected
to be 0.7 percent (20 percent of the 3.5 percent nominal failure rate) in nonattainment
areas.

       In attainment areas, the actual purge failure rate of ORVR systems is expected to
be somewhat higher due to the absence of I/M  programs.  Without I/M, EPA estimates
that only 60 percent of the purge failures caught by the OBD system will  be repaired.27
   "Federal Register, Volume 58, pg 29409, 20 May 1993.

   ""Draft MOBILES Hot Soak and Diurnal Emissions," handout from EPA workshop, July 8, 1992
(Docket A-89-18, item IV-B-8).

   "Basic I/M programs will check the OBD system for a purge system failure code, while enhanced I/M
programs will test the purge system independent of the OBD system.  Both methods are assumed to be
equally effective at identifying purge system failures.

   Memorandum from Dan Barba to EPA Air Docket  A-87-11, titled "Estimate of Reduction of
Evaporative System Purge Failures Resulting from Recent EPA Actions" (docket A-87-11, section IV-B).

   ""Survey of Vehicle Owners in the On-board  Diagnostics Program," prepared for EPA by Westat, Inc.,
18 July 1990 (docket A-90-35, item H-A-6)

                                                                              4-15

-------
ORVR Regulatory Impact Analysis
   Assuming that OBD catches 80 percent of the purge failures, the purge failure rate of
   ORVR  systems is estimated to be  1.8 percent ([1-0.8*0.6]*3.5) in  attainment areas.
   Weighting the attainment area and nonattainment area failure rates by  fuel consumption
   results in an ORVR failure rate in all areas of 1.2 percent.  (This could  be slightly higher
   for the relatively few heavy duty vehicles in this analysis, because OBD does not apply
   to this class of vehicles.)

          As shown in Tables 4.7 through 4.9, the reduction in vapor capture efficiency
   caused by control system failures results in the following efficiencies for ORVR in use:
   96.7 percent for nonattainment areas, 92.3 percent for all areas and 97.3 percent for Stage
   II areas.
          As discussed in section 4.5.1, liquid seals may increase vapor generation by as
   much as 25 percent due to air entrainment.  This does not affect the emissions of an
   ORVR-equipped vehicle when it is operating properly, but it will increase emissions in
   vehicles with failed recovery systems.  This increase in the emission rate from failed
   vehicles was taken into account by adjusting the in-use ORVR efficiencies in Equation
   4-2 in the next section.
              Table 4.7—In-Use ORVR Control Efficiency in Nonattainment Areas
Region
1
2
3
4
5
RVP
(psl)
6.7
7.8
9.0
6.7
7.8
9.0
6.7
7.8
9.0
6.7
7.8
9.0
6.7
7.0
7.8
9.0
Totals
Fuel Use
(%ofU.S.)
21.98%
0.00%
6.77%
0.00%
5.75%
1.44%
3.34%
1.04%
0.26%
0.00%
1.10%
1.44%
6.85%
4.43%
0.37%
0.09%
55%
EFu
(g/gal)
2.84
3.28
3.84
3.82
4.41
5.16
3.35
4.87
4.53
3.17
3.66
4.29
3.25
3.38
3.75
4.40
3.40
EFc
(g/gai)
0.001
0.020
0.153
0.125
0.429
1.018
0.019
0.140
0.507
0.035
0.169
0.489
0.016
0.030
0.114
0.431
0.12
Control
Efficiency
100.0%
99.4%
96.3%
96.9%
90.6%
80.7%
99.5%
96.5%
89.1%
99.1%
96.0%
90.0%
99.6%
99.2%
97.2%
90.6%
97.4%
In-use failure rate = 0.7%
In-use control efficiency = 96.7%
    4-16

-------
                                  Chapter 4: Emission Reduction Benefits
  Table 4.8—In-Use ORVR Control Efficiency In All Areas
     (Attainment and Nonattainment Areas Combined)
Region
1
2
3
4
5
HVP
(psO
6.7
7.8
9.0
6.7
7.8
9.0
6.7
7.8
9.0
6.7
7.8
9.0
6.7
7.0
7.8
9.0
Totals
Fuel Use
(%ofU.S.)
22.04%
0.00%
19.00%
0.00%
5.75%
15.29%
3.34%
1.04%
7.10%
0.00%
1.10%
12.48%
6.85%
4.43%
0.37%
0.84%
100%
EFu
te/gai)
2.84
3.28
3.84
3.82
4.41
5.16
3.35
4.87
4.53
3.17
3.66
4.29
3.25
3.38
3.75
4.40
3.88
Ill-use fal
In-use control ef
EFc
(g/gai)
0.001
0.020
0.153
0.125
0.429
1.018
0.019
0.140
0.507
0.035
0.169
0.489
0.016
0.030
0.114
0.431
0.32
Control
Efficiency
100.0%
99.4%
96.3%
96.9%
90.6%
80.7%
99.5%
96.5%
89.1%
99.1%
96.0%
90.0%
99.6%
99.2%
97.2%
90.6%
93.5%
ure rate = 1.2%
flctency = 92.3%
Table 4^-ln-Use ORVR Control Efficiency in Stage II Areas
D__i__
nBylOIl

2
3
4
5
RVP
(psl)
6.7
7.8
9.0
6.7
7.8
9.0
6.7
7.8
9.0
6.7
7.8
9.0
6.7
7.0
7.8
9.0
Totals
Fuel Use
(%ofU.S.)
19.10%
0.00%
2.73%
0.00%
2.88%
0.72%
3.34%
1.04%
0.26%
0.00%
1.10%
1.44%
6.85%
4.82%
0.27%
0.42%
45%
EFu
(9/gaJ)
2.84
3.28
3.84
3.82
4.41
5.16
3.35
4.87
4.53
3.17
3.66
4.29
3.25
3.38
3.75
4.40
3.31
EFc
te/gai)
0.001
0.020
0.153
0.125
0.429
1.018
0.019
0.140
0.507
0.035
0.169
0.489
0.016
0.030
0.114
0.431
0.09
Control
Efficiency
100.0%
99.4%
96.3%
96.9%
90.6%
80.7%
99.5%
96.5%
89.1%
99.1%
96.0%
90.0%
99.6%
99.2%
97.2%
90.6%
98.0%
In-use failure rate = 0.7%
In-use control efficiency = 97.3%
                                                            4-17

-------
ORVR Regulatory Impact Analysis
4.6  Benefits
           To calculate the emission benefits of installing ORVR on vehicles, the in-use
    efficiency and uncontrolled emission factors developed earlier in this chapter are used to
    derive emission benefit rates (grams per gallon) according to equation 4-2 below.
    Equation 4-2:

           Benefit Rate = [(EF^^ - ae) - (S2%)(EFu82)(iiORVB82 - ae82)]

                         +   [(S2%)(EFuS2)[(Ti82)(1 - Walverss,)]^82 - ae82)]
           Where:
           EFU = uncontrolled refueling emission factor for all areas (3.9 g/gal) or for NAA (3.4 g/gal)
           EFU" = uncontrolled refueling emission factor for Stage H areas (3.3 g/gal)
           T|M = Stage II control efficiency (0.86)
           S2% = fraction of areas with Stage II control (0.450 for all areas and 0.805 for NAA)
           Waivers,, = average fraction of fuel consumption exempted from Stage II (0.0570)
           TIORVR = ORVR In-use control efficiency for all areas (0.923) or for NAA (0.967)
           •Hows*2 = ORVR In-use control efficiency In Stage II areas (0.973)
           ae = air entrapment factor (0.003 for all areas and 0.002 for NAA)
           ae*2 = air entrapment factor for Stage n areas (0.002)
           By inserting the appropriate uncontrolled refueling emission factor (EFU) and
    ORVR control efficiency (T|ORVR), the equation can be used to calculate either the all-areas
    benefit rate  or the nonattainment-area benefit rate.  The equation first computes the
    nominal ORVR vapor recovery rate  [(EFu)(T|ORVR-ae)]. It then subtracts out the portion
    of the recovery rate which applies to Stage II areas [(S2%)(EFuS2)(T|ORVRS2-ae1>2)], leaving
    the portion which applies  to non-Stage n areas.  Finally, the equation recomputes and
    adds  back the Stage n  portion, using  the applicable  baseline emission rates and
    efficiencies.  The later part of the equation  also accounts for the fact that, in Stage n
    areas, the vapors  available to be recovered by ORVR are reduced, thus diminishing the
    benefit of ORVR  controls.  Hence, the emission benefit is decreased by the portion of the
    vapors that Stage II would capture.  This amount is determined by the Stage n capture
    efficiency, with a factor to  account for exempted fuel.  In Stage n areas, Stage n reduces
    the ORVR benefit by approximately 81 percent.  This reduction in emission benefit due
    to Stage n is about 36 percent in the all-areas analysis, and 80 percent in nonattainment
    areas.

           The emission benefit rates calculated for all areas and nonattainment areas are
    tabulated in Table 4.10. With the projected Stage II implementation discussed in Chapter
    3, these emission  benefit rates are 2.42 g/gal in all areas and 1.19 in nonattainment areas.
    4-18

-------
                                                 Chapter 4: Emission Reduction Benefits
If Stage II control were discontinued at some point in the future, these emission benefit
rates would rise to 3.59 g/gal for all areas and 3.28 g/gal for nonattainment areas.
                   Table 4.10-ORVR Emission Benefit Rates (g/gal)

All Areas
Nonattainment Areas
With Stage H
2.42
1.19
Without Stage 1
3.59
3.28
       To determine total emission benefits, these emission benefit rates are multiplied
by projected ORVR gasoline consumption (from Chapter 3). In Tables 4.11.1-4, the fuel
consumption projections presented in Table 3.4 and the emission benefit rates from Table
4.10 are used to determine annual emission benefits in each vehicle weight class for both
all-areas  and nonattainment areas. To determine total nationwide benefits for a given
scenario  and year, the benefits from each vehicle class must be summed.  Chapter 7
develops the scenarios for costs and benefits and computes these total benefit figures.
                        Table 4.11.1-LDV Emission Benefits
Year
=19H
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Projected
ORVR Fuel
Consumption
2.30E+09
8.26E+09
1.63E+10
2.45E+10
3.23E+10
3.99E+10
4.72E+10
5.35E+10
5.88E+10
6.36E+10
6.82E+10
7.28E+10
7.73E+10
8.12E+10
8.46E+10
8.74E+10
8.98E+10
9.21E+10
9.41E+10
9.59E+10
9.76E+10
9.92E+10
1.01E+11
Benefits
All Areas (Mg)
wtthS2
5,577
19,997
39,541
59,304
78,192
96,572
114,135
129,427
142,332
153,850
164,996
176,260
187,131
196,467
204,668
211,499
217,396
222,929
227,628
232,072
236,183
240,098
243,898
noS2
8,274
29,665
58,658
87,976
115,996
143,261
169,315
192,001
211,145
228,233
244,767
261,477
277,604
291,453
303,618
313,752
322,500
330,708
337,679
344,273
350,371
356,179
361,816
NAA (Mg)
wlthS2
1,506
5,398
10,675
16,010
21,109
26,071
30,812
34,940
38,424
41,534
44,543
47,584
50,518
53,039
55,253
57,097
58,689
60,182
61,451
62,651
63,761
64,818
65,843
noS2
4,150
14,880
29,423
44,128
58,183
71,859
84,928
96,306
105,909
114,480
122,774
131,155
139,244
146,191
152,293
157,376
161,764
165,881
169,378
172,685
175,744
178,657
181,485
                                                                            4-19

-------
0/7W7 Regulatory Impact Analysis
                          Table 4.11.2-LDT Emission Benefits
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Projected
ORVR Fuel
Consumption
1.36E+09
5.18E+09
1.08E+10
1.67E+10
2.24E+10
2.76E+10
3.23E+10
3.60E+10
3.89E+10
4.15E+10
4.39E+10
4.66E+10
4.96E+10
5.24E+10
5.50E+10
5.72E+10
5.92E+10
6.12E+10
6.31E+10
6.48E+10
6.64E+10
6.79E+10
6.94E+10
Benefits
All Areas (Mg)
with S2
3,285
12,545
26,095
40,340
54,194
66,881
78,154
87,085
94,235
100,351
106,132
112,703
119,946
126,795
133,102
138,485
143,367
148,170
152,597
156,772
160,646
164,363
168,024
noS2
4,874
18,610
38,711
59,843
80,396
99,216
115,939
129,188
139,796
148,868
157,444
167,192
177,936
188,096
197,454
205,438
212,681
219,805
226,373
232,567
238,314
243,828
249,259
NAA(Mg)
with S2
887
3,387
7,045
10,890
14,630
18,055
21,099
23,510
25,440
27,091
28,652
30,426
32,381
34,230
35,933
37,386
38,704
40,000
41,195
42,323
43,368
44,372
45,360
noS2
2,445
9,334
19,417
30,017
40,326
49,766
58,154
64,800
70,120
74,671
78,973
83,862
89,251
94,348
99,041
103,046
106,679
110,253
113,547
116,654
119,537
122,303
125,027
    4-20

-------
                        Chapter 4: Emission Reduction Benefits
TaWe 4.11.3-LHDGV Emission Benefits
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Projected
ORVR Fuel
Consumption
1.61E+08
6.03E+08
1.25E+09
1.94E+09
2.60E+09
3.27E+09
3.95E+09
4.59E+09
5.15E+09
5.64E+09
6.07E+09
6.56E+09
7.11E+09
7.67E+09
8.16E+09
8.59E+09
8.98E+09
9.36E+09
9.68E+09
9.98E+09
1.02E+10
1.05E+10
1.07E+10
Benefits
All Areas (Mg)
with S2
390
1,459
3,032
4,686
6,286
7,902
9,566
11,112
12,469
13,640
14,685
15,880
17,213
18,573
19,751
20,793
21,731
22,643
23,437
24,151
24,801
25,415
26,001
noS2
579
2,165
4,498
6,952
9,325
11,723
14,191
16,484
18,498
20,235
21,785
23,558
25,536
27,552
29,300
30,846
32,238
33,590
34,768
35,827
36,791
37,703
38,571
NAA(Mg)
with S2
105
394
819
1,265
1,697
2,133
2,582
3,000
3,366
3,682
3,964
4,287
4,647
5,014
5,332
5,613
5,867
6,113
6,327
6,520
6,695
6,861
7,019
noS2
290
1,086
2,256
3,487
4,677
5,880
7,118
8,268
9,278
10,150
10,927
11,817
12,808
13,820
14,696
15,472
16,170
16,849
17,439
17,971
18,454
18,911
19,347
                                                4-21

-------
Off W7 Regulatory Impact Analysis
                        Table 4.11.4-HHDGV Emission Benefits
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Projected
ORVR Fuel
Consumption
5.38E+07
2.01 E+08
4.18E+08
6.46E+08
8.66E+08
1.09E+09
1.32E+09
1.53E+09
1.72E+09
1.88E+09
2.02E+09
2.19E+09
2.37E+09
2.56E+09
2.72E+09
2.86E+09
2.99E+09
3.12E+09
3.23E+09
3.33E+09
3.42E+09
3.50E+09
3.58E+09
Benefits
All Areas (Mg)
with S2
130
486
1,011
1,562
2,095
2,634
3,189
3,704
4,156
4,547
4,895
5,293
5,738
6,191
6,584
6,931
7,244
7,548
7,812
8,050
8,267
8,472
8,667
noS2
193
722
1,499
2,317
3,108
3,908
4,730
5,495
6,166
6,745
7,262
7,853
8,512
9,184
9,767
10,282
10,746
11,197
11,589
11,942
12,264
12,568
12,857
NAA (Mg)
with S2
35
131
273
422
566
711
861
1,000
1,122
1,227
1,321
1,429
1,549
1,671
1,777
1,871
1,956
2,038
2,109
2,173
2,232
2,287
2,340
noS2
97
362
752
1,162
1,559
1,960
2,373
2,756
3,093
3,383
3,642
3,939
4,269
4,607
4,899
5,157
5,390
5,616
5,813
5,990
6,151
6,304
6,449
    4-22

-------
                                                              Chapter 5: Economic Impact
                        Chapter 5:  Economic Impact
5.1  Introduction
          This chapter presents a detailed analysis of the costs expected to be incurred as
   a result of the ORVR requirements.  For manufacturers, the economic impact of the
   ORVR regulation will include incremental costs for various vehicle hardware components,
   as well as start-up costs for research and testing and for new or expanded facilities.
   Impacts  on  consumers  are expected  to  include vehicle price increases covering
   manufacturers' ORVR costs plus operating cost savings associated with fuel economy
   changes.

          This analysis is largely an update of the previous EPA cost estimates discussed
   in Chapter 1, with particular emphasis on the analysis which  accompanied the 1987
   proposed rule1 and the follow-up 1988 EPA cost memorandum2. Although both the 1991
   and  1993 notices requested comments  on EPA's earlier cost analyses, little input was
   received in the subsequent comment  periods.   Industry's cost  estimates have been
   insufficiently supported to cause EPA to change its analysis significantly.  Commentors
   have identified no hardware that EPA's analysis had not accounted for, and have provided
   no direct challenge to the assumptions that have gone into EPA's past cost estimates.

          As a result, some of the estimated costs which appeared in the earlier analyses
   have simply been adjusted to account for inflation and then used in the current analysis.
   In such instances, the adjustment for inflation is based on the ratio of Consumer Price
   Index  for new cars with added safety and emissions equipment, as reported in AAMA
   Motor Vehicle Facts and Figures '93.  Using the most recently available 1992 index of
   136.7 and the 1984 index of 103.6, the  new car inflation rate between 1984 and 1993 is
   32 percent (136.7 divided by 103.6). Similarly, the inflation rate between 1988 and 1992
   is fifteen percent.  The 1992 value is adequate for the analysis at hand.  Mid-1993 costs
   might  perhaps be one to two percent higher, but this adjustment would be beyond the
   precision of this analysis.

          The  cost  analysis assumes  that  ORVR systems  will be integrated with  the
   enhanced evaporative emission controls expected as a result of the recent regulations
   establishing new evaporative emission standards and test procedures (58 FR16002, March
   24, 1993).  It further assumes that the enhanced evaporative emission controls will be in
   place on vehicles prior to the phase-in of ORVR control systems. Therefore, only those
   costs' of onboard control which are incremental to enhanced evaporative emission control
       1'Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (EPA-450/3-87-001a and -OOlb, July 1987).

       '"Onboard and Evaporative Control System Cost Estimates for the Supplemental Notice of Proposed
   Rulemaking,"  EPA memorandum from Jean Schwendeman to the Public Docket, December 22, 1988
   (docket A-87-11, item W-B-19).
                                                                               5-1

-------
0/7 W? Regulatory Impact Analysis
   are included in this analysis.  The costs of enhanced evaporative emission control were
   estimated in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) which accompanied that rulemaking3.
5.2 Vehicle Manufacturing Costs

          This section discusses the estimated costs of onboard control systems to vehicle
   manufacturers, including both hardware and developmental costs. The estimates are based
   on the onboard  control system configurations which EPA considers most likely to be
   implemented  in  compliance with  ORVR requirements  as  discussed  in  Chapter 2.
   However,  the future cost of onboard control  is  not known with  certainty.   New
   technological developments could change even the general appearance of such systems.
   Economies of scale will play a significant role in the manufacturing of onboard systems
   for different vehicle types, potentially  causing costs to be higher  for some models and
   lower for  others.  Future changes  in  other parameters (e.g. RVP control) could  also
   influence the onboard costs realized by vehicle manufacturers. However, it is generally
   presumed that, overall, the trend would be for onboard control system costs to decrease,
   not increase.
    5.2.1  Hardware Costs

          As discussed in Chapter 2, the ORVR system hardware components affected by
    the ORVR system include:  the fillneck seal, anti-spitback  valve, external vent line,
    vent/purge vapor lines, canister,  and purge valve.  Estimated costs for each  of these
    components  are discussed below.   All cost  estimate  quotes  assume  high volume
    manufacturing.

          On a per-vehicle basis,  ORVR hardware costs depend on whether a vehicle has
    single or dual fuel tanks.   Hardware costs for dual-tank vehicles are nearly twice those
    of single-tank vehicles because each system will require the necessary control hardware.
    The 1988 cost memorandum estimated that zero percent of  LDVs, twenty percent of
    LDTs and LHDGVs, and fifteen percent of HHDGVs have dual tanks, with single-tank
    vehicles comprising the balance.  No challenges were made to  these estimates  in the
    public comments received, so they are retained in the current analysis.  These  ratios of
    single- to dual-tank designs are used in weighting the per-tank costs for each hardware
    component to derive a weighted average total cost for each vehicle class.
          5.2.1.1 Fillneck Seal Assembly

          As discussed in Chapter 2, this analysis presumes that all vehicle types other than
    HHDGVs will use liquid vapor seals to minimize costs.  LDVs, LDTs and LHDGVs
    presently have small diameter fillnecks of adequate length to provide a liquid seal during
       '"Final Regulatory Impact Analysis and Summary and Analysis of Comments—Control of Vehicle
    Evaporative Emissions," U.S. EPA, February 1993. (docket A-89-18, item V-B-1).

    5-2

-------
                                                           Chapter 5: Economic Impact
refueling. Therefore, no cost has been allocated for seal hardware for these classes of
vehicles, other than with the fuel tank modifications discussed below.

       HHDGVs have several different fuel tank arrangements, which may prevent the
formation of a liquid seal.  Some HHDGV fuel tanks have no fillneck, some have short
fillnecks and some have large diameter fillnecks. The sealing mechanism for these tanks
may vary depending on design and location constraints.  However, EPA believes that
manufacturers will use the least expensive method possible to provide an adequate seal.
In some cases  a submerged fill  liquid seal approach  may be possible, but  to  be
conservative, EPA assumes that all HHDGVs will elect a mechanical seal. The 1988 cost
memorandum used the  1987 analysis  as the basis for the seal costs for HHDGVs, and
estimated $3.30 manufacturer cost in  1988 dollars.  For this  analysis, mechanical seal
costs for HHDGVs are estimated at $8.00 per tank, based on cost quotes provided by a
potential mechanical seal manufacturer4 for a mechanical seal design with pressure relief
valves.  Weighting this per-tank cost  by the 0.15 to 0.85 ratio of single- to dual-tank
designs yield an average cost of $9.20 per HHDGV.
       5.2.1.2  Anti-Spitback Valve

       To meet the enhanced evaporative emissions control requirements, most vehicles
will utilize an anti-spitback check valve to prevent fuel from "spitting" back out of the
fillneck at the time of automatic nozzle shut-off during vehicle refueling. This test was
originally proposed in the ORVR proposal, but was implemented in the evaporative
emissions rule. Therefore, the cost of the anti-spitback apparatus is not attributed to the
ORVR system. Furthermore, a mechanical seal should provide adequate protection from
spitback,  and thus will  not  likely require  an anti-spitback valve.   Based  on the
manufacturer cost which was estimated for this device in the February 1993 evaporative
emissions impact analysis, HHDGVs are thus credited with $0.35 per tank for the removal
of the anti-spitback valve from future vehicles. Taking into account the proportion of
single- and dual-tank vehicles, this  amounts to a weighted average credit of $0.40 per
HHDGV.
       5.2.1.3 External Vent Line

       The external vent line is presently used on most vehicles to allow vapors to escape
from the fuel tank to the atmosphere during a refueling event.  The use of an  external
vent line allows a fillpipe to be narrower in diameter because it only needs to handle the
incoming fuel flow and not the returning vapor. With the adoption of ORVR standards,
refueling vapors will be routed out of the top of the fuel tank to the ORVR canister.
Thus, the external vent line will no longer be needed and can be  removed from future
vehicles with a corresponding  cost savings. In the 1988 cost memorandum, removal of
the external vent line was calculated as a net cost savings at the manufacturer cost level
of $1.26 for LDVs and $1.48 for LDTs and LHDGVs.  These values have been inflated
   'Meeting with John Hopsteader and Lawrence Engle, Walboro Corporation, on 13 July 1993 (docket A-
 87-11, item IV-E-103).

                                                                             5-3

-------
ORVR Regulatory Impact Analysis
   to $1.44 and $1.70, respectively, in 1992 dollars.  HHDGVs have large diameter fillnecks
   with short fill heights and therefore do not usually have external vent lines; therefore, no
   cost savings is credited to vehicles in that weight class.  Weighting the per-tank savings
   by the ratio of single- and dual-tank vehicles and rounding to the nearest $0.05 results in
   a weighted  average credit of $1.45 for LDVs and $2.05 for LDTs and  LHDGVs.
          5.2.1.4 Vapor Vent/Rollover Valve

          Vapor vent/rollover valve modifications are necessary for ORVR systems to
    operate properly.  The ORVR  system vapor vent/rollover valve will have a  larger
    diameter  venting orifice to allow  for the greater  vapor flow  rates associated with
    refueling.  However, with this larger venting orifice, tank backpressure will likely not be
    sufficient to induce automatic nozzle shutoff. The valve will need a fill-limiting float to
    close off the venting orifice when the tank is full and thus create enough backpressure to
    cause nozzle shut-off.  A small secondary orifice will also be needed to allow venting of
    diurnal and other evaporative emissions when the tank is full. This secondary orifice only
    needs to be approximately the size of current evaporative orifices (0.05 inches diameter).
    Some designs may also incorporate a liquid/vapor separator function.

          The 1988 cost  memorandum assumed that the  larger diameter orifice and the
    buoyant float would be needed to achieve improved control of evaporative emissions, and
    thus assigned a $3.50 estimate for  these components to evaporative emissions control.
    Only an incremental cost of $0.50, for the secondary  valve orifice, was allocated to
    ORVR.  However, the enhanced evaporative emission regulations promulgated in 1993
    did not necessitate any changes to the vapor vent/rollover valve, and thus the entire cost
    of $4.00 (in 1988 dollars) should be allocated  to the  ORVR incremental estimate.

          To obtain a more up-to-date range of estimates for the vapor vent/rollover valve,
    the Ford System design5 was used to represent a suitable valve system with a  larger
    orifice to allow venting of refueling vapors.   Current retail cost quotes were obtained
    from the parts department of a Ford dealer for the valve  used in the Ford ambulance and
    for a more conventional vent/rollover valve from a Ford Taurus6. These quotes were then
    adjusted to estimate the manufacturer cost of the part.  This was done  by dividing the
    dealer price quote by a factor of 4 in accordance with the Lindgren7 report, resulting in
    an incremental manufacturer cost of $4.72 per fuel tank for the vapor vent/rollover valve.
    Weighting  this cost by the  appropriate ratio of  single-  and dual-tank vehicles  and
    rounding to the nearest nickel yields an average per-vehicle cost of $4.70 for LDVs, $5.65
    for LDTs and LHDGVs and $5.45 for HHDGVs.
       ^Application of Onboard Refueling Emission Control System to a 1988 Ford Taurus Vehicle EPA
    Technical Report No. EPA-AA-SDSB-91-06. (docket A-87-11, item IV-A-06).

       "Part numbers are E8UZ-9B593-A and E9DZ-9B593-A for the ambulance and the Taurus valve,
    respectively.

       '"Cost Estimations for Emission Control-Related Components/Systems and Cost Methodology
    Description," Leroy H. Lindgren, Rath and Strong for U.S. EPA, EPA-460/3-78-002, March 1978.

    5-4

-------
                                                           Chapter 5: Economic Impact
       5.2.1.5  Vent/Purge Vapor Lines

       As in the  1988 cost memorandum, vapor lines are assumed to be comprised of
welded steel tubing with rubber connecting pieces.  The length of the lines estimated in
the evaporative emissions RIA will not be changed as a result of ORVR, but their use
will be reallocated as  a result of moving the canister to the rear of the vehicle.  As
discussed in Chapter 2, the purge line will get longer and the vent line correspondingly
shorter. On the other hand, the diameter of the vent vapor line will need to be increased
to handle the higher vapor flow rates occurring in a refueling event, while the diameter
of the purge  vapor line will not be changed, because purge rates are not expected  to
increase due to the ORVR requirements.

        EPA  assumes  that LDV and LDT  manufacturers  will maximize the use  of
impermeable  steel in fuel and vapor lines, leaving several short sections that require a
somewhat flexible material. Steel lines are advantageous from both a cost and emissions
perspective. For heavier trucks, the need for design flexibility, low production runs, and
long vent line will lead to the use of elastomer hoses  throughout the system.  EPA
understands that  concerns for chemical  resistance  and electrostatic  dissipation are
prompting some changes in materials selection.  Some manufacturers may choose to use
teflon  coated or  fluoroelastomer rubber  in their flexible lines  to reduce permeation.
However, EPA has not considered the possible positive or negative effects of such
changes in estimating the cost of meeting ORVR requirements, because such changes are
likely to occur because of enhanced evaporative control requirements.
       No additional costs for clamps were included because very similar clamps to those
used in enhanced evaporative  systems will be used.  The size  of the clamps may be
increased slightly along with the increase in the vapor vent line hose, but the number  of
clamps is not expected to change.  This slight modification to the size of several of the
clamps is not expected to increase costs.

       For vent line  costs, EPA used the 1988 cost memorandum manufacturer costs,
appreciated to  1992 dollars.   Table  5.1  shows the  calculation of incremental  costs
associated with the increased diameter of the vapor vent lines.
                                                                            5-5

-------
OflW? Regulatory Impact Analysis
                 Table 5.1—Calculation of Incremental Vapor Vent Line Costs

ORVR Diameter (In)
Evap. Diameter (In)
Steel Tubing
ORVR Cost ($/ft)
Evap. Cost ($/ft)
Incremental Cost ($/ft)
Length (ft)
Steel Tubing Cost
Ftoxble Tubing
ORVR Cost ($/ft)
Evap. Cost (J/ft)
Incremental Cost ($/ft)
Length (ft)
Flexible Tubing Cost
Total Incremental Cost/Tank
Single/Dual Tank Weighting
Weighted Avg. Cost/Vehicle*
LOV
0.500
0.375
$0.16
$0.13
$0.03
2.0
$0.06
$0.53
$0.43
$0.10
1.0
$0.10
$0.16
1.0
$0.15
LOT
0.500
0.375
$0.16
$0.13
$0.03
2.0
$0.06
$0.53
$0.43
$0.10
1.0
$0.10
$0.16
1.2
$0.20
LHDQV
0.625
0.500
NA
MA
NA
0.0
$0.00
$0.67
$0.53
$0.14
8.0
$1.12
$1.16
1.2
$1.35
HHDGV
0.625
0.500
NA
NA
NA
0.0
$0.00
$0.67
$0.53
$0.14
15
$2.10
$2.10
1.15
$2.40
                                  • Roundec
to the nearest $o.os.
          As Table 5.1 shows,  EPA estimates  that average costs due to the increased
    diameter of the vapor vent line, rounded to the nearest nickel, will be $0.15 for LDVs,
    $0.20 for LDTs, $1.35 for LHDGVs and $2.40 for HHDGVs.
          5.2.1.6 Canister

          No incremental changes to the canister or its carbon contents are foreseen as a
    result of the ORVR requirements. Manufacturers and EPA agree that, with the slightly
    modified  test  procedure  discussed  at  the  22  July  1993  hearing,  integrated
    evaporative/refueling systems will require the same canister working capacity as the
    enhanced evaporative emission requirements.  Chrysler stated in its comments, "The
    ORVR system can be integrated with the evaporative system, using approximately the
    same size canister."8 Ford stated, "Under the test procedure described above  [discussed
    at 22 July 1993 hearing], Ford believes that in most passenger car applications, it will be
    able to design an integrated ORVR/EVAP system using the same canister capacity as
    originally required for enhanced evaporative emissions.  Although these changes seem
    directionally correct for trucks, it is unknown at this time whether an integrated system
    could be designed for these applications."9  While manufacturers state  that it is unclear
    if canister working capacity will  change for trucks, they do not state that it is untrue for
    the  LDTs and HDGVs.   As  has  been discussed in previous  notices  and  is  further
    discussed in the final rule,  EPA believes  that the technology required for trucks is
    fundamentally the  same as that  required for LDVs.  Thus, EPA  does not expect any
       'Comments from Chrysler Corporation, dated 20 August 1993, p. 9 (docket A-87-11, item IV-D-860).

       'Comments from Ford Motor Company, dated 20 August 1993, pp. 3-4 (item IV-D-836 in docket
    A-87-11).
    5-6

-------
                                                           Chapter 5: Economic Impact
changes to canister volume or working capacity as a result of the ORVR requirement, and
no additional cost for the canister is included in this cost analysis.
       5.2.1.7  Purge Valve

       The purge valve controls the vapor flow from the canister to the engine, and is a
necessary component of an ORVR system.  However, EPA does not expect the purge
valve to require any modifications  due to  the ORVR  requirements.  Although purge
valves are expected to  be upgraded from that discussed in the 1988 cost memorandum,
these upgrades are expected and accounted for in the enhanced evaporative emissions
control cost analysis. Some costs may be entailed for reprogramming the electronics that
control the purge valve as a result of the ORVR requirements.  However, these costs are
considered to be part of systems engineering costs and are estimated in section 5.2.2.6.
Thus, no incremental hardware cost is attributed to the purge valve.
       5.2.1.8  Total Incremental Hardware Cost
       Table 5.2 summarizes and totals the manufacturer costs for the ORVR hardware
components discussed above. As shown in the table, ORVR hardware costs are expected
to be less than five dollars for all vehicle classes except the heaviest trucks, which are
less than twenty dollars.
               Table 52—Per-Vehicle Incremental ORVR Hardware Cost
Component
Flllneck Seal(s)
Anti-SpRback Valve
External Vont Line
Vent/Rollover Valvefs)
Vapor Lines
Canister
Purge Valve
Total Cost
LDV
$0.00
$0.00
-$145
$4.70
$0.15
$0.00
$0.00
$3.40
LOT
$0.00
$0.00
42.05
$5.65
$0.20
$0.00
$0.00
$3.80
LHDGV
$0.00
$0.00
-$2.05
$5.65
$1.35
$0.00
$0.00
$4.95
HHDGV
$9.20
4040
$0.00
$5.45
$2.40
$0.00
$0.00
$16.65
5.2.2  Onboard Development/Capital Costs
       Manufacturers' developmental costs will be incurred in five key areas: fuel tank
modifications,  facility modifications,  systems engineering,  safety  compliance, and
emission certification compliance.  The development costs used in this analysis are all
assumed to be recovered by the manufacturer within the first five years of production.
Vehicle packaging and assembly costs are also discussed below.

       Because  manufacturers will  incur  many capital outlays for equipping all new
domestic vehicles with enhanced evaporative controls, capital outlays are generally not
expected  to  be substantially  greater  for onboard controls than those  for enhanced
evaporative systems.
                                                                            5-7

-------
ORVR Regulatory Impact Analysis
          Some of the costs used in this analysis are taken directly from previous analyses,
   with appropriate  adjustments for inflation.  In these previous analyses, a Retail Price
   Equivalent (RPE) adjustment of 26 percent for manufacturer overhead and profit was
   included directly in the individual cost figures.  In the current analysis, overhead and
   profit are added at a later point and thus the RPE markups of 26% are subtracted out of
   the previous estimates.  (See section 5.3.1 for a more detailed discussion of RPE).
          5.2.2.1  Fuel Tank/Flllneck Modification Costs

          While the 1988 cost memorandum did not include any costs for modifying the fuel
   tank, the current analysis takes a more conservative approach and  does include tooling
   costs for modifications to the fuel tank and fillneck and removal of the external vent line.
   The 1987 analysis estimated RPE costs for fuel tank modification of $0.50, equivalent to
   a $0.40 manufacturer cost.  For this analysis, these costs are estimated at $0.50 per tank
   at the manufacturer level.  This is not a hardware cost item because the cost per tank is
   not affected by the tooling change.  After weighting for the proportion of dual tanks in
   each class and rounding to  the nearest $0.05, these costs amount to  $0.50 for LDVs, and
   $0.60 for LDTs, LHDGVs and HHDGVs.
          5.2.2.2 Vehicle Packaging Costs

          Packaging costs arise when hardware or vehicle modifications must be made in
    order to accommodate new or enlarged components.  Given the high likelihood  of
    integrated evaporative and refueling vapor recovery systems, no change is foreseen in
    vehicle packaging due to the ORVR requirement. Thus, no packaging cost was allocated.


          5.2.2.3 Certification Compliance Costs

          The costs of certification (or recertification) compliance were estimated to be zero
    in the 1988  analysis because these costs were attributed  to the evaporative emissions
    requirement to be phased in at the same time. The February 1993 evaporative emissions
    rule estimated certification costs to be $0.15 RPE per vehicle ($0.12 manufacturer cost).
    This value was  tripled from the  1988 value of $0.05 due to increased testing burden.
    With an ORVR requirement, more testing will be  added to the certification process.
    Although the refueling test procedure can be performed independently of an evaporative
    emissions test, modifications to the evaporative system in developing an integrated vapor
    recovery system may force recertification. Thus the entire evaporative testing burden is
    included in ORVR certification costs.  An additional $0.05 is added for the additional
    testing requirements, for a total ORVR manufacturer certification  cost (rounded to the
    nearest $.05) of $0.15  per vehicle.
    5-8

-------
                                                           Chapter 5: Economic Impact
       5.2.2,4  FMVSS 301 Testing Costs

       To address the responsibilities regarding the safety of vapor recovery systems and
the questions brought up by the inclusion of ORVR on LDTs and HDVs, it is expected
that manufacturers  will perform additional crash testing to verify fuel system crash
durability.  This testing will be  performed in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) 301. A 1987 EPA technical report10 estimated that, for LDVs,
LDTs  and LHDGVs, the amortized additional crash testing  costs would be  $0.12 per
vehicle in 1986 dollars and that, for HHDGVs, the cost would be $0.70 per vehicle in
1987 dollars. Inflated to 1992 dollars and rounded to the nearest $0.05, these values are
$0.15 per vehicle for LDVs, LDTs and LHDGVs and $0.80 for HHDGVs.
       5.2.2.5  Facility Modification Costs

       The 1988 cost memorandum contained an estimated RPE cost of $0.45 for facility
modifications ($0.36 manufacturer cost). When adjusted for inflation and rounded to the
nearest nickel, this yields an allocated manufacturer cost of $0.40 per vehicle in the
current analysis.  This estimate is conservative, since enhanced evaporative systems,
which  are very similar in general design concept, will already be in place when onboard
controls are phased-in. Any facility modifications made for enhanced evaporative controls
are likely to be useful for development of ORVR systems.
       5.2.2.6  Systems Engineering Costs
       Systems engineering costs are those incurred in developing an ORVR system that
is  integrated with other related  vehicle/engine systems.   In some cases,  this is a
straightforward engineering design problem, in others it involves not only design, but also
follow-up testing and evaluation.

       Costs for systems engineering, similar to costs for facility modifications, were
assumed to be the same as those used in the 1988 cost memorandum, accounting for
inflation.  These values were converted to manufacturer cost levels.  Accounting for the
weighting of single- and dual-tank vehicles and rounding to the nearest $0.05, this results
in a per-vehicle average cost of $0.45 for LDVs, $0.80 for LDTs, $0.75 for LHDGVs and
$1.60 for HHDGVs.
       5.2.2.7  Assembly Costs

       No  incremental cost was estimated for  vehicle assembly.  The  1988 analysis
assembly cost included the additional cost to install the ORVR and evaporative canister
in separate  systems, due  to  the need for  a canister in  the engine  compartment for
carbureted vehicles. With the change in the test procedure discussed at the 22 July 1993
hearing, most manufacturers intend to use integrated vapor control systems. EPA expects
   mSofety Implications of Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery Systems. EPA Technical Report EPA-AA-
SDSB-87-05, July 1987, p. 66, 91.

                                                                            5-9

-------
ORVR Regulatory Impact Analysis
   that the time and amount of labor needed to install an integrated ORVR/evaporative
   system onto a vehicle is no more than that needed for an enhanced evaporative system
   due to their similar canister size and location. Therefore, no increase in vehicle assembly
   cost was allocated, incremental to that for enhanced evaporative systems.
          5.2.2.8  Total Development/Capital Costs
          Table 5.3 summarizes the average per-vehicle developmental cost components for
   each vehicle class. As the table shows, the incremental development costs are relatively
   modest, ranging from $1.70 for LDVs to $3.60 for HHDGVs
              Table 5.3—Development and Production ORVR Costs, Per Vehicle
Item
Tank/HllnecKMods
Certification
FMVSS 301 Testing
Facility Modification
Systems Englnwring
Total Cost
LDV
$0.50
$0.15
$0.15
$0.40
$0.45
$1.65
LOT
$0.60
$0.15
$0.15
$0.40
$0.80
$2.10
LHDGV
$0.60
$0.15
$0.15
$0.40
$0.75
$2.05
HHDGV
$0.60
$0.15
$0.80
$0.40
$1.60
$3.60
5.3  Costs to Consumers
          Implementation of the new ORVR standard is expected to impact the consumer
    in two ways. First, the purchase price of a new vehicle is expected to rise. Second, the
    net costs  to operate an ORVR-equipped vehicle  are expected to be different from the
    operating costs of vehicles without onboard control systems.  These two consumer cost
    components are discussed below.
    5.3.1 Vehicle Price Increase

          It is anticipated that vehicle manufacturers will pass along their incremental costs
    for ORVR, including a markup for overhead and profit, to vehicle purchasers.  Thus,
    consumers will experience purchase price increases based on the manufacturing costs
    discussed above in section 5.2. It is assumed that the basis for price increases include
    development costs during the first five years of ORVR vehicle sales and that, after five
    years, development costs no longer affect the purchase price.

          To account for manufacturer overhead and profit markup, the total incremental
    manufacturer costs for each vehicle class are multiplied by the  appropriate Retail Price
    Equivalent factor (RPE). This calculation yields an estimate of the impact on consumer
    costs. The RPE markups used in this analysis are the same as those used in all previous
    EPA analyses of ORVR costs (1.26 for LDVs and LDTs, 1.27  for HDGVs).   These
    5-10

-------
                                                            Chapter 5: Economic Impact
factors were developed by EPA as a supplement to a contractor report11 on hardware costs
and was supported in a later contractor study12.
                         Table 5.4—Increase In Vehicle Cost
linn
Manufacturer Hardware Cost
Manufacturer Development Cost
Total Cost (before overhead)
RPE Markup
Hardware Cost RPE
Development Cost RPE
Total RPE
LDV
$3.40
$1.65
$5.05
26%
$4.28
$2.08
$6.36
LOT
$3.80
$2.10
$5.90
26%
$4.79
$2.65
$7.44
LHDGV
$4.95
$2.05
$7.00
27%
$6.29
$2.60
$8.89
HHDGV
$16.65
$3.60
$20.25
27%
$21.15
$4.57
$25.72
5.3.2 Operating Cost Changes

       Onboard control systems  will result in changes in consumer costs  for vehicle
operation.  For  integrated systems using liquid seals, no increases in operating costs
related to ORVR  systems maintenance  or in-use inspections is expected.   However,
changes  in fuel consumption are  anticipated.  This  operating cost  change has two
components:   a weight penalty and a recovery credit.  The weight penalty accounts for
reduced vehicle fuel economy due to  the slight increase in  vehicle weight caused by
hardware additions. The fuel recovery credit accounts for the fact that fuel vapors, rather
than being lost to  the atmosphere, are  captured by the vapor recovery system and later
burned productively in the engine.  As a result of these two effects, a  net  weight
penalty/fuel recovery credit is incurred. These are described  below.
       5.3.2.1  Onboard Weight Penalty

       In previous analyses, a perceived need for enlarged canister working capacity
dominated the estimated vehicle weight increases. With the changes in the ORVR test
procedure, no changes to the enhanced evaporative canister are foreseen. Therefore the
weight penalty for ORVR systems is very small.

       To calculate the weight penalty, each ORVR system component was weighed.
Then,  the weight of  the associated evaporative system component  it replaced was
subtracted to obtain a  net incremental weight change.  No incremental weight increase
was calculated for the canister shell, carbon,  purge valve, OBD  hardware and  anti-
spitback apparatus because no incremental changes are expected to this hardware.  For
each vehicle class, the incremental weights were  summed, and the total was multiplied
   ""Cost Estimations for Emission Control-Related Components/Systems and Cost Methodology
Description," Leroy H. Lindgren, Rath and Strong for U.S. EPA, EPA-460/3-78-002, March 1978.

   ""Update of EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Control Equipment Retail Price Equivalent (RPE)
Calculation Formula,"  Jack Faucett Associates for U.S. EPA, 4 September 1985.
                                                                            5-11

-------
OffVR Regulatory Impact Analysis
   by a weight multiplication factor of 1.1 as done in the 1988 EPA cost analysis13.  The
   result was then calculated as a percent of the total vehicle weight.14 This percentage was
   multiplied by a sensitivity factor (the ratio between percent change in fuel economy for
   each percent change in vehicle weight) to  obtain the projected decrease  in fuel economy
   due to the incremental weight of ORVR hardware.  Finally, the change  in fuel economy
   was multiplied  by a presumed cost per gallon of gasoline of $0.82 (excluding  taxes),
   yielding the ORVR weight penalty in dollars per gallon.  The weight penalty calculation
   and results are presented in Table 5.5. As  can be seen in the table, these values are quite
   small, even when considering the large number of miles typically driven by a vehicle (see
   Tables 5.7.1 and 5.7.2).
                          Table 55-Calculatlon of Weight Penalty
Item
Incremental Vent Line Weight (g)
Incremental Rollover/Vent Valve Weight (g)
Incremental Flllneck Seal Weight (g)
Removal of External Vent Line (g)
Incremental Weight (g/tank)
Incremental Weight (g)
X weight multiplication factor of 1.1 (kg)
Avg. Vehicle Weight (kg)
Change In Weight
Sensitivity Factor
Percent Change In FE
Fuel Price (no taxes) ($/gal)
Weight Penalty ($/gal)
LOV
57
29
0
-60
26
26
28.6
1,463
0.002%
•0.329
4.000 643%
$0.82
40.000 005
LOT
69
34
0
-72
31
37
41.2
1,866
0.002%
•0.402
•0.000 887%
$0.82
-$0.000 007
LHDGV
669
34
0
-72
631
757
833
4,186
0.020%
-0.402
-0.008 003%
$0.82
-$0.000 066
HHDGV
1201
33
46
0
1281
1473
1620
10,181
0.016%
-0.402
-0.006 398%
$0.82
-$0.000 052
           5.3.2.2  Fuel Recovery Credit
           A cost savings is credited to ORVR to account for the retention and combustion
    of fuel vapors that otherwise would be lost to the atmosphere.  Consistent  with the
    methods used in previous ORVR regulatory analysis documents, the fuel recovery credit
    was calculated using the uncontrolled emission rate, ORVR in-use capture efficiency,
    specific heat content of the fuel, and Stage II control effectiveness as shown in equation
    5-1, below, and tabulated in Table 5.6.  The table presents  data for four scenarios: 1)
    all-areas, reflecting the  average  rate nationwide, including both Stage n and non-Stage
    n areas,  2) nonattainment  areas, 3) all areas, with no Stage II control (after Stage n
    discontinuation), and 4) nonattainment areas  after Stage n discontinuation.
       "This factor accounts for modifications to the vehicle to enable it to carry the increased emission control
    equipment i.e., brackets, modifications to the frame or suspension.

       "Weiglttsfor LDVs and IDTs from "Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends
    Tlvough 1993  EPA Technical Report No. EPA/AA/TDO/93-01, May 1993.
    5-12

-------
                                                            Chapter 5: Economic Impact
Equation 5-1:
       Recovery Credit = (EFU){1 - (Areasjfo 82)[1
                    Table 5.6— Calculation of Fuel Recovery Credit
Item
5-month ozone season emission rate (g/gel)
Percent of areas with Stage 11
Stage II Efficiency
Average Stage II Waivers
5 month ozone season efficiency*
Equivalency Factor (Relative Energy Value)
Gas cost— no taxes ($/gal)
Fuel density (kg/gal)
Variable
EF«
Areas,,
il $»
Waivers,,
TIORVR
E^,
Cost,..
P
Gasoline Recovery Credits ($/gal)
All Areas
3.90
45.00%
86.00%
5.70%
92.0%
0.90
$0.82
2.79
$0.000 603
NAA Areas
3.30
80.51%
86.00%
5.70%
97.1%
0.90
$0.82
2.79
$0.000294
All Areas
(S2 disc.)
3.90
0.00%
NA
NA
92.0%
0.90
$0.82
2.79
$0.000 949
NAA
(S2 disc.)
3.30
0.00%
NA
NA
97.1%
0.90
$0.82
2.79
$0.000 844
                     ' Adjusted (or air entrapment losses
       Vapor recovery is calculated  as the emission rate of the  vapors multiplied by
ORVR's efficiency.  Since the amount of vapors available to be recovered by ORVR is
reduced by the presence of Stage II, the emission rate is reduced in the equation by the
fraction of areas which have Stage n, multiplied by the Stage n efficiency. An additional
factor accounts for waivers from Stage n requirements.

       After adjustment for Stage H effects, the emission rate is multiplied by the ORVR
efficiency to determine actual vapors captured and then  consumed  in  the  engine.
However, the hydrocarbon vapors emitted from the tank have a bias toward  lighter
components, which have lower energy values than whole gasoline.  This reduced energy
content means that the amount of vapors captured must be reduced in order to estimate
an equivalent amount of gasoline.  An equivalency factor of 0.9 was used in the 1987
regulatory analysis15. Although fuel volatility has decreased in recent years, which would
tend to increase the energy content of the vapors, the previous value is retained in the
current analysis as a conservative estimate.  Finally, the gasoline-equivalent grams of
vapor  are converted to gallons  and then to dollars, using the  fuel density (p=2.79
kg/gallon) and fuel cost ($0.82 per gallon without taxes).

       As the table shows, ORVR fuel recovery credits are lower in the presence of Stage
n vapor recovery.    Furthermore,  because reduced-volatility  gasoline  is  used in
nonattainment areas, these areas also  have lower uncontrolled emission rates.

       As noted in the table, five-month summertime uncontrolled emission rates and
efficiencies  are utilized to calculate the fuel recovery credit. As explained in Chapter 4,
summer  emission rates are  greater, and  efficiencies are lower than wintertime values.
Thus, when these factors are multiplied together, very similar recovery rates are obtained
   "Evaluation of Air Pollution Regulatory Strategies for Gasoline Marketing Industry—Response to Public
Comments. EPA-450/3-84-012c, July 1987, p. 2-129.
                                                                             5-13

-------
ORW? Regulatory Impact Analysis
   for winter and  summer.   In fact, the seven-month non-summer emission rates  and
   efficiencies would yield slightly higher recovery rates, and thus the summertime values
   are conservative.
          5.3.2.3 Total Operating Cost Changes

          Tables 5.7.1-2 contain total incremental operating costs for ORVR, on both a fuel
   consumption and average vehicle life basis.  The operating total cost per gallon of fuel
   consumed is merely the sum of the fuel recovery credit and the weight penalty.  To
   determine an average lifetime incremental operating cost, this value was multiplied by the
   projected lifetime fuel consumption. Lifetime fuel consumption, in turn, was calculated
   using fuel economy numbers from the MOBILE4.1 Fuel Consumption model and values
   from mileage accumulation rates from MOBILESa and vehicle survival rates from Oak
   Ridge National Laboratory's Transportation Energy Data. Because the savings will occur
   over the lifetime of the vehicle, they were discounted at a 7 percent rate to the first year
   of vehicle use based on the fuel fraction consumed in a given year16.

          In areas where Stage n will be implemented, much of the fuel recovery benefits
   must be credited to  Stage n rather than to ORVR.  Table 5.7.1  contains the operating
   costs incurred in all areas nationwide by vehicles equipped with  ORVR systems, given
   that 45 percent of fuel nationwide is dispensed in Stage II areas.  Table 5.7.2 contains the
   all-areas operating costs  if Stage n controls were discontinued.
            Table 5.7.1—All Areas Average Incremental Operating Costs Nationwide
Hern
Weight Penalty ($/gal)
Fuel Recovery Credit ($/gal)
Operating Cost ($/gal)
Projected 2010 Fuel Economy (mpg)
Projected Avg.Ufe (miles)
Lifetime Fuel Consumption (gal)
Lifetime Operating Cost ($)
Lifetime Per-Vehlcle Operating Cost (NPV)
LDV
$0.000005
$0.000603
-$0.000597
2255
122,390
5,427
43.24
-$135
LOT
$0.000007
$0.000603
-$0.000595
17.12
158,399
9,252
-$551
-$3.70
LHDGV
$0.000066
$0.000603
-$0.000537
11.11
174,665
15,721
-$550
HHDGV
$0.000052
$0.000603
-$0.000550
5.77
169,121
29,310
416.13
411.00
       l
-------
                                                               Chapter 5: Economic Impact
            Table 5.72—All Areas Average Incremental Operating Costs Nationwide
                                  (Stage II discontinued)
Item
Weight Penalty ($/gal)
Fuel Recovery Credit (I/gel)
Operating Cost ($/gal)
Projected 2010 Fuel Economy (mpg)
Projected Avg. LJfe (miles)
Lifetime Fuel Consumption (gal)
Lifetime Operating Cost ($)
Lifetime Per-Vehlcle Operating Cost (NPV)
LDV
$0.000005
$0.000949
40.000944
2235
122^90
5,427
45.12
43.75
LOT
$0.000007
$0.000949
40.000942
17.12
158,399
9,252
48.71
45.85
LHDGV
$0.000066
$0.000949
40.000883
11.11
174,665
15,721
41X89
49.00
HHDGV
$0.000052
$0.000949
40.000897
5.77
169,121
29,310
426.28
417.90
5.4 Aggregate Costs, by Vehicle Type

   5.4.1  Per Vehicle Costs

          Table 5.8.1  and 5.8.2 summarize the total costs of ORVR systems.  The vehicle
   cost increase reflects the additional sticker price for a typical vehicle with ORVR control.
   This figure includes the manufacturer hardware costs and development costs and profits
   and overhead. Table 5.8.1 includes the full development cost amortized over the first five
   years of production.   Table 5.8.2, a  long-term  cost projection, does not include the
   development costs. The operating cost is the combination of the weight penalty and the
   fuel recovery  credit experienced over  the life of the vehicle, discounted to the year of
   vehicle purchase,  as  developed in section 5.3.2.3.  The operating  cost shown  is the
   national average.  Operating cost will  be higher in areas without Stage II and lower in
   areas with Stage n. The weighted net  cost reflects the fraction of total sales which each
   vehicle class accounts for in the United States, based on projections for the year 2010.
   Note that for LDVs, LDTs and LHDGVs, total costs are approximately $5 per vehicle.
   These costs would be below $3 per vehicle once development costs are amortized out
   over the first five years of vehicle production. For HHDGVs, costs are somewhat higher,
   but are still below $20 per vehicle.
           Table 5.8.1—Average Total Per-Vehicle Costs for ORVR (Stage II in Place)
!•«__
IUMII
Increase In Vehicle Price (RPE)"
Avg. Lifetime Operating Cost (NPV)
Total Cost
LDV
$6.36
4235
$4.01
HLDT
$7.44
43.70
$3.74
LHDGV
$8.89
4550
$3.39
HHDGV
$25.72
411.00
$14.72
Sales-Weighted Net Cost (RPE)" $344
       17 Development costs included in this figure are only attributed to the first five years of ORVR vehicle
    production. Vehicle price increase would later be reduced.

       " Sales weightings: LDVs 62.1%; LDTs 34.5%; LHDGVs 2.9%; and HHDGVs 0.4%.
                                                                                5-15

-------
ORVR Regulatory Impact Analysis
    Table 5.8.2—Long-term Average Total Per-Vehlcle Costs for ORVR (Stage II discontinued)
Item
Increase In Vehicle Price (RPE)"
Avg. Lifetime Operating Cost (NPV)
Total Cost
LDV
$4.28
43.75
$0.53
HLDT
$4.79
45.85
41.06
LHDGV
$6.29
49.00
42.71
HHDGV
$21.15
417.90
$3.25
Seles-Weighted Net Cost (RPE)" 40.10
   5.4.2 Total Nationwide Costs

          Tables 5.9.1-4 display nationwide costs due to implementation of ORVR systems
   in LDVs, LDTs, LHDGVs, and HHDGVs, respectively. These costs are presented year
   by year on a cash-flow basis. Thus, hardware and development costs are incurred in the
   year of  vehicle  purchase, while operating costs  occur over the life of the vehicle.21
   Hardware and development  costs  are  based on  numbers of new vehicle sales,  and
   operating costs  are  based on  ORVR  fuel  consumption.   Note  that ORVR vehicle
   purchases are lower in the first  two years due to the incremental phase-in (40/80/100) of
   the ORVR requirement.
       19 Does not include development costs, which are considered short-term.

       20 Sales weightings:  LDVs 62.1%; LDTs 34.5%; LHDGVs 2.9%; and HHDGVs 0.4%.

       2lThe MOBDLE4.1 Fuel Consumption Model, on which this analysis is based, projects fuel consumption
    for 25 years of vehicle life. This analysis only includes 23 years, thus the full benefits and operating cost
    credits of even the first ORVR-equipped vehicles are not included in this analysis.  Allowing all operating
    costs and benefits to be accrued to the vehicles would make this program even more cost effective.

    5-16

-------
                                     Chapter 5: Economic Impact
Table 5.9.1—Nationwide Cost Figures for LDVs
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Projected
ORVR Fuel
Consumption
2.30E+09
8.26E+09
1.63E+10
2.45E+10
3.23E+10
3.99E+10
4.72E+10
5.35E+10
5.88E+10
6.36E+10
6.82E+10
7.28E+10
7.73E+10
8.12E+10
8.46E+10
8.74E+10
8.98E+10
9.21E+10
9.41E+10
9.59E+10
9.76E+10
9.92E+10
1.01E+11
New ORVR
Gasoline
Vehicles
4,240,000
8,640,000
11,000,000
11,100,000
11,300,000
11,500,000
11,700,000
11,800,000
12,000,000
12,200,000
12,400,000
12,600,000
12,800,000
13,000,000
13,200,000
13,400,000
13,600,000
13,800,000
14,000,000
14,100,000
14,300,000
14,500,000
14,700,000
Nationwide Costs
Hardware
(RPE)
$18,147,200
$36,979,200
$47,080,000
$47,508,000
$48,364,000
$49,220,000
$50,076,000
$50,504,000
$51,360,000
$52,216,000
$53,072,000
$53,928,000
$54,784,000
$55,640,000
$56/496,000
$57,352,000
$58,208,000
$59,064,000
$59,920,000
$60,348,000
$61,204,000
$62,060,000
$62,916,000
Development
(RPE)
$8,819,200
$17,971,200
$22,880,000
$23,088,000
$23,504,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Operating
82 In Place
•$1,375,901
44,933,109
-$9,754,599
-$14,630,075
419,289,608
423,823,662
428,156,365
431,928,785
-$35,112,471
437,954,006
-$40,703,620
443,482,415
446,164,182
448,467,321
450,490,319
452,175,542
453,630,233
454,995,191
456,154,421
457,250,910
458,264,962
459,230,865
460,168,317
S2 Disc.
42,175,629
47,800,427
415,424,358
-$23,133,653
430^01,491
437,670,917
444,521,957
-$50,487,057
455,521,228
460,014,375
464,362,173
-$68,756,114
-$72,996,629
476,638/444
479,837,288
482,502,030
484,802,244
486,960,570
488,793,590
490,527,402
492,130,862
493,658,186
495,140,521
                                                    5-17

-------
ORVfi Regulatory Impact Analysis
                     Table 5.92—Nationwide Cost Rgures for LDTs
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Projected
ORVR Fuel
Consumption
1.36E+09
5.18E+09
1.08E+10
1.67E+10
2.24E+10
2.76E+10
3.23E+10
3.60E+10
3.89E+10
4.15E+10
4.39E+10
4.66E+10
4.96E+10
5.24E+10
5.50E+10
5.72E+10
5.92E+10
6.12E+10
6.31 E+ 10
6.48E+10
6.64E+10
6.79E+10
6.94E+10
New ORVR
Gasoline
Vehicles
2,112,000
4,344,000
5,590,000
5,740,000
5,890,000
6,040,000
6,200,000
6,350,000
6,500,000
6,650,000
6,800,000
6,950,000
7,110,000
7,250,000
7,400,000
7,550,000
7,700,000
7,850,000
7,990,000
8,130,000
8,270,000
8,420,000
8,560,000
Nationwide Costs
Hardware
(RPE)
$10,116,480
$20,807,760
$26,776,100
$27,494,600
$28,213,100
$28,931,600
$29,698,000
$30,416,500
$31,135,000
$31,853,500
$32,572,000
$33,290,500
$34,056,900
$34,727,500
$35,446,000
$36,164,500
$36,883,000
$37,601,500
$38,272,100
$38,942,700
$39,613,300
$40,331,800
$41,002,400
Development
(RPE)
$5,596,800
$11,511,600
$14,813,500
$15,211,000
$15,608,500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Operating
S2 In Place
-$807,797
43,084,316
46,415,842
49,918,235
413,324,651
416,443,867
419,215,535
421,411,346
423,169,450
424,673,072
426,094,533
427,710,127
429,490,770
431,174,711
432,725,594
434,048,898
435,249,323
436,430,117
437,518,571
438,545,222
439,497,710
440,411,662
441,311,800
S2 Disc.
41,278,899
44,883,068
410,157,518
415,702,482
421,095,498
426,033,820
430,421,905
433,898,300
436,681,717
439,062,242
441,312,689
443,870,487
446,689,589
449,355,593
451,810,940
-$53,905,986
455,806,492
457,675,917
459,399,150
461,024,537
462£32£09
463,979,472
-$65,404,563
    5-18

-------
                                      Chapter 5: Economic Impact
Table 5.9.3—Nationwide Cost Figures for LHDGVs
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Projected
ORVR Fuel
Consumption
1.61E+08
6.03E+08
1.25Et09
1.94E+09
2.60E+09
3.27E+09
3.95E+09
4.59E+09
5.15E+09
5.64E+09
6.07E+09
6.56E+09
7.11E+09
7.67E+09
8.16E+09
8.59E+09
8.98E+09
9.36E+09
9.68E+09
9.98E+09
1.02E+10
1.05E+10
1.07E+10
New ORVR
Gasoline
Vehicles
179,200
368,800
474,000
487,000
500,000
513,000
519,000
533,000
548,000
563,000
577,000
592,000
605,000
620,000
636,000
652,000
667,000
683,000
697,000
711,000
725,000
739,000
752,000
Nationwide Costs
Hardware
(RPE)
$1,127,168
$2,319,752
$2,981,460
$3,063,230
$3,145,000
$3,226,770
$3,264,510
$3,352,570
$3,446,920
$3,541,270
$3,629,330
$3,723,680
$3,805,450
$3,899,800
$4,000,440
$4,101,080
$4,195,430
$4,296,070
$4,384,130
$4,472,190
$4,560,250
$4,648,310
$4,730,080
Development
(RPE)
$465,920
$958,880
$1,232,400
$1,266,200
$1,300,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$o
Operating
S2 In Place
-$86,620
•$323,842
4672,783
•$1,039,935
-$1,394,783
41,753,568
42,122,688
42,465,724
42,766,926
43,026,787
43,258,595
43,523,869
43,819,658
44,121,352
44,382,689
44,614,005
44,822,189
45,024,467
45,200,660
45,359,136
45,503,339
45,639,667
45,769,598
S2 Disc.
4142,431
4532,499
41,106,271
41,709,986
42,293,470
42^83,427
43,490,379
44,054,440
44,549,713
44,977,007
45^58,173
45,794,370
46,280,741
46,776,823
47,206^45
47^86^02
47,929,223
48,261,832
48^51^51
48^12,136
49,049,252
49,273,419
49,487,066
                                                      5-19

-------
OR W? Regulatory Impact Analysis
                      Table 5.94-Nationwide Cost Figures for HHDGVs
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Projected
ORVR Fuel
Consumption
5.38E+07
2.01 E+08
4.18E+08
6.46E+08
8.66E+08
1.09E+09
1.32E+09
1.53E+09
1.72E+09
1.88E+09
2.02E+09
2.19E+09
2.37E+09
2.56E+09
2.72E+09
2.86E+09
2.99E+09
3.12E+09
3.23E+09
3.33E+09
3.42E+09
3.50E+09
3.58E+09
New ORVR
Gasoline
Vehicles
31,320
62,880
78,600
79,000
79,900
81,100
82,400
83,800
85,100
86,500
88,200
89,700
91,900
93,700
95,800
97,900
100,000
102,200
104,200
106,100
108,100
110,100
112,200
Nationwide Costs
Hardware
(RPE)
$662,418
$1,329,912
$1,662,390
$1,670,850
$1,689,885
$1,715,265
$1,742,760
$1,772,370
$1,799,865
$1,829,475
$1,865,430
$1,897,155
$1,943,685
$1,981,755
$2,026,170
$2,070,585
$2,115,000
$2,161,530
$2,203,830
$2,244,015
$2,286,315
$2,328,615
$2,373,030
Development
(RPE)
$143,132
$287,362
$359,202
$361,030
$365,143
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Operating
S2 In Place
-$29,572
4110,560
•$229,690
•$355,037
•$476,183
4598,673
-$724,692
4841,805
•$944,637
41,033,354
41,112,494
-$1,203,059
41,304,042
41,407,041
41,496,263
41,575,234
41,646,309
41,715,367
41,775,520
41,829,624
41,878,856
41,925,398
41,969,757
S2 Disc.
448,230
4180,314
4374,604
4579,033
4776,611
4976,381
41,181,906
41,372,908
41,540,616
41,685,306
41,814,376
41,962,080
42,126,774
42,294,757
42,440,268

42^69,064
42,684,980
42,797,608
42^95,712
42*83,951
43,064,243
43,140,150
43,212,495
          In order to determine the total cost in any given year, the hardware, development
    and operating costs for each vehicle type must be added. As discussed in section 5.3.2,
    operating costs vary due to the presence of Stage n controls.  Accordingly, operating
    costs are listed for Stage n areas or non-Stage n areas.  These operating costs are listed
    as if the entire nation were either one type or the other.  To determine actual operating
    costs nationwide, these two categories must be weighted (45.0 percent Stage H/ 55.0
    percent non-Stage n). In order to determine the total costs of implementing ORVR across
    all vehicle types, hardware, development and operating costs must be added from each
    vehicle category. This is done in Table 5.10, which contains total nationwide costs. The
    first two cost columns contain costs for implementing ORVR just on trucks, while the
    other cost columns contain ORVR  costs for all vehicle classes.

          Finally,  it should be noted that the  costs  in  Tables 5.9.1-4  and  5.10 are
    conservative.  Vehicle hardware and development costs are incurred for all new vehicles
    in the analysis (1998-2020), but recovery credits are only included for fuel consumed in
    those years. ,If all recovery credits were claimed, costs would be less.
    5-20

-------
                                 Chapter 5: Economic Impact
Table 5.10—Total Nationwide Costs
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
LDTs,LHDGVs&HHDGVs
No Stage II
$16,642,358
$31,619,384
$36,186,659
$31,075,408
$26,156,049
$3,980,006
-$388,921
-$3,784,208
46,390,262
48,500,310
410,418,478
412,715,601
415,291,069
417,818,117
419,985,143
421,725,786
423,227,264
424,676,257
425,986,352
427,161,718
428,186,138
429,084,316
429,998,615
With Stage II
$17,187,929
$33,696,548
$40,506,736
$37,753,703
$35,126,011
$15,077,527
$12,642,355
$10,822,564
$9,500,772
$8,491,032
$7,601,139
$6,474,280
$5,191,565
$3,905,951
$2,868,064
$2,098,028
$1,475,609
$889,149
$365,309
475,077
4420,039
4668,003
4945,644
All Vehicle Classes
No Stage II
$41,433,129
$78,769,357
$90,722,301
$78,537,756
$67,522,557
$15,529,089
$5,165,122
43,767,265
410,551,490
416,298,685
421,708,651
427,543,715
-$33,503,698
438,816,561
443,326,431
446,875,816
449,821,509
452,572^27
454,859,942
457,341,120
459,113,000
460,682,502
462,223,135
With Stage II
$42,778,428
$83,713,839
$100,712,137
$93,719,629
$87,704,402
$40,473,864
$34,561,991
$29,397,779
$25,748,301
$22,753,026
$19,969,519
$16,919,865
$13,811,383
$11,078,630
$8,873,746
$7,274,486
$6,053,376
$4,957,958
$4,130,888
$3,022,013
$2,518,998
$2,161,132
$1,802,039
                                                5-21

-------
                                                     Chapter 6: Stage II Retention Analysis
                  Chapter 6:  Stage II Retention  Analysis
6.1 Introduction

          As  discussed in  Chapter 3, Stage  n  vapor recovery  systems have been
   implemented in all serious, severe, and extreme ozone non-attainment areas, and  are
   expected to be in place in nearly all of the moderate non-attainment areas by 1998. Stage
   II has also been installed in a few areas classified as marginal for ozone non-attainment.
   A list of current and expected Stage II areas used in this analysis is provided in Chapter 3
   and Appendix A.

          As previously mentioned, Clean Air Act section 202(a)(6) authorizes the EPA
   Administrator to waive Stage II requirements  once  onboard control  systems  "are in
   widespread use throughout the motor vehicle fleet."   Since trucks  comprise over 40
   percent of the gasoline fuel consumption, implementation of ORVR systems in LDTs and
   HDVs is probably a necessary condition for meeting  the "widespread use" criterion.
   Thus, if ORVR regulations were limited to LDVs, permanent retention of Stage n control
   systems would be likely.

          This chapter evaluates the course which is not being followed in the final ORVR
   rule. That is, it examines the costs and benefits which would apply if Stage II had to be
   retained for the sole purpose of controlling the refueling emissions from LDTs and HDVs.
   The analysis is based on  a hypothetical  scenario  which assumes  that  1)  ORVR
   requirements pertain only to LDVs, 2) ORVR systems have been installed on essentially
   all LDVs, and  3) Stage n controls have been retained in order to control the refueling
   emissions from LDTs and HDVs, which  do not have onboard controls.  Under this
   scenario, the  control of refueling emissions in LDVs is logically credited to ORVR; thus,
   the benefits  and fuel recovery  credits  ascribed to Stage  n  are limited only to  its
   effectiveness in controlling the refueling emissions of LDTs and HDVs.  (In contrast,
   Chapter  7  presents  the opposite  analysis.   That is,  Chapter 7 examines the cost
   effectiveness of ORVR under a scenario which credits to ORVR only those benefits and
   fuel recovery credits that are  incremental to the benefits of Stage n.)

          The analysis in this chapter makes use of emission factors and in-use efficiency
   factors developed previously  in Chapter 4.  Another key source of data is the Stage II
   technical guidance document.1

          The discussions in this chapter are not meant to imply that EPA has  decided to
   remove the federal Stage n requirements at such time that vehicles with ORVR systems
   are in widespread use. This decision will be made in the future when actual in-use data
   will be available for the necessary supporting analysis.
       'Technical Guidance—Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems for Control of Vehicle Refueling Emissions at
    Gasoline Dispensing Facilities. (EPA-450/3-91-022a), November 1991.
                                                                               6-1

-------
ORVR Regulatory Impact Analysis
6.2  Stage II Installations

   6.2.1  Model Plant Definitions
           The costs and benefits of Stage n controls depend in large part on the number of
   facilities in which they are installed and the amount of fuel which is dispensed through
   these facilities.  The data used for this section is in Appendices A and D.
           Refueling stations are divided into five categories (Model Plants  1-5), based on
   their annual fuel throughput.  The characteristics of facilities in each of these categories
   is shown below in Table 6.1.
                   Table 6.1—Characteristics of Service Station Model Plants'

Fuel Throughput Range
(gal/month)
Average Throughput
(gal/year)
Nationwide:'
% Consumption
% Retail Distribution
Metropolitan Areas:
% Consumption
% Retail Distribution
Model Plant 1
Under 10,000
47,000
8.8
26.0
2.8
8.6
Model Plant 2
10,000-24,999
240,000
17.8
30.0
5.0
15.0
Model Plant 3
25,000-49,999
420,000
27.5
26.5
12.4
23.5
Model Plant 4
50,000-99,999
780,000
27.2
14.0
29.1
32.3
Model Plant 5
100,000 +
2,220,000
18.8
3.5
50.6
20.6
            Source: 1991 EPA Stage ll Technical Guidance, Tables
           b Includes both metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas
-6 and 2-9 thru 2-12.
    6.2.2 Number and Distribution of Stage II Facilities

           The number of service stations  in Stage n areas and their distribution by model
    plant size were estimated as follows (see Appendix A for table showing details).  First,
    within each state, the total Stage II gasoline throughput was estimated by multiplying the
    total fuel consumption for the state by the percentage of the state's population residing
    in counties projected to be covered by Stage II requirements (see methodology described
    in Chapter 4).   These calculations  led to the conclusion that about 45 percent of the
    annual  fuel  consumption  was  covered  by Stage  n,  excluding  off-road  gasoline
    consumption, which was estimated at 5.4 percent.2

           Next, the throughput in each Stage n area was allocated to Model Plant categories
    1 through 5 according to either the Nationwide or Metropolitan Area distribution shown
    above  in Table 6.1.  The decision rule used in this allocation process was the following:
    For Stage n  areas covering an entire state, the allocation was based on the Nationwide
    distribution.  Otherwise, it was based on the Metropolitan Area distribution. In total, this
    decision rule resulted in the allocation  of about 59 percent of  all  Stage n throughput  by
       2"Highway Statistics 1990," U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Table
    MF-26.
    6-2

-------
                                                   Chapter 6: Stage II Retention Analysis
the  metropolitan distribution,  and 41  percent by the  nationwide distribution.   See
Appendix A for actual distribution of model plants

       Finally, the throughput for each Stage n area and model plant category was
divided by the respective average model plant throughput (as presented in Table 6-1) to
calculate the estimated number of refueling stations of each model plant size in each
Stage n area. Summing the Stage n throughputs and refueling station estimates across
each model plant category yields the results shown below in Table 6-2.
 Table 6.2—Estimated Total Throughput and Number of Stations In Stage II Areas by Model
                                     Plant Size
» Model
Plant 1
Annual Throughput (In 10* gallons) || 2.50
Number of Stations || 53,189
Model
Plant 2
4.87
20,288
Model
Plants
8.84
21,055
Model
Plant 4
13.5
17,312
Model
Plants
18.0
8,157
Total
47.7
120,001
6.2.3 Stage II Exemptions

       Service stations exempt from Stage n requirements must be excluded from this
analysis.  As  described in Chapter 3, the size  of station (as measured by throughput)
waived from Stage n varies from state to state.  A throughput-weighted analysis of the
expected exemptions  in each Stage n  area yields an estimate of about 5.7 percent  of
consumption waived from Stage n control in Stage n areas.  However, to simplify  the
evaluation, EPA has used  a single exemption level of 10,000 gallons per month (i.e.,  the
10/10 exemption program) for purposes of the Stage II retention analysis. As explained
previously, many states are in fact electing this approach and, for those which are either
more or less  stringent than 10/10, it is  still a reasonable balance point.  Under this
simplifying assumption, the costs and benefits of Model Plan 1 can simply be omitted
from the Stage n retention analysis presented in the next section.

       To estimate the percentage of fuel waived under the 10/10 program assumption,
the Model Plant 1 consumption  percentages under  the Nationwide and Metropolitan
distributions shown in Table 6.1 (8.8 percent and 2.8 percent, respectively) were weighted
by the 41/59 ratio of Nationwide to Metropolitan Stage n areas developed above, to yield
about a 5.3 percent  Stage n waiver rate. This  is sufficiently close to the weighted
average rate of 5.7 percent, mentioned above, to assure that the simplified 10/10 approach
does not introduce significant error. Furthermore, the 10/10 simplifying assumption is a
conservative approach with respect to comparison with ORVR, because it will reduce the
projected number of smaller model plant stations and increase the number of larger model
plant stations, thus increasing costs.  This assumption is conservative, because the actual
real-world  situation retains some Model  Plant  1  facilities and reduces the number of
Model Plant 2 facilities.  Due to their higher throughputs, larger model plants can achieve
some economies of scale.  The simplifying  assumption made in this  analysis will
overestimate  the number of Model  Plant 2 facilities and underestimate the number of
Model Plant  1 facilities, thus decreasing costs and making Stage n cost effectiveness
more attractive.
                                                                             6-3

-------
0/7W7 Regulatory Impact Analysis
6.3  Costs and Benefits of Stage II Retention

    6.3.1 Annual Costs and Fuel Recovery Credits

           Maintenance and other indirect facility costs of Stage II were extracted from the
    1991 Stage n technical guidance document3 for multi-product dispensers and adjusted to
    1993 dollars at an average annual inflation rate of 3 percent.  Enforcement costs of $84
    per model plant were calculated from data on total annual enforcement costs and total
    plants available in the 1987 Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis document4, and similarly
    adjusted for inflation.   Capital  costs are assumed to  be "sunk costs," and were not
    included in  this analysis. In the  case of Model Plant 1, the costs were set at zero, under
    the assumption that all service stations of this size are waived from Stage II requirements.

           Offsetting some  of the costs are credits due to the recovery of refueling vapors
    from LDTs  and HDVs by Stage n installations.  The methodology used to compute the
    fuel recovery credits was similar to that explained in Chapter 5.  Briefly, this method is
    as follows.   First,  the  mass of emissions recovered  by Stage n  was calculated by
    multiplying the average throughput in each model plant (except Model Plant 1) by the
    summertime uncontrolled refueling emission factor in Stage II areas (3.3 g/gal) and by
    the Stage n in-use efficiency rate (86 percent—see  Chapter 3).  To be conservative,
    emptying losses (also called breathing losses), estimated at 0.30 g/gal5, were also included
    in the  analysis. The uncontrolled emission factor as a function of Model Plant size and
    the impacts of Stage n control are not well documented.  (Further discussion of this issue
    is available in the Summary and Analysis of Comments accompanying this  final  rule.)
    The mass of emissions  was  converted to gallons by dividing by the density of gasoline
    (2.79 kg/gal).  The projected 2010 nationwide  percentage of gasoline consumed by LDTs
    and HDVs  (43 percent)  was then used to estimate the applicable portion of the total fuel
    recovery.  The result was multiplied by $0.82, the average cost of a gallon of gasoline
    (excluding  taxes), to obtain  the  Stage n fuel recovery credit in LDTs and HDVs.
     6.3.2 Annual Benefits
            Emission reductions were determined by multiplying the throughput of each model
     plant (except Model Plant  1) by the Stage II area summertime refueling emission factor
     (3.3 g/gal), and adjusting the result by the Stage II efficiency rate of 86 percent. Since
     the benefits in this analysis are limited to LDT and HDV emissions reductions, the  total
     emissions were multiplied by 43 percent (MOBILE 4.1 Fuel Consumption Model 2010
        *Teclmical Guidance—Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems for Control of Vehicle Refueling Emissions at
     Gasoline Dispensing Facilities. (EPA-450/3-91-022a), November 1991, Table 5-11, page 5-30

        'Technical Guidance—Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems for Control of Vehicle Refueling Emissions at
     Gasoline Dispensing Facilities. (EPA-450/3-91-022a), November 1991, Table 2-30 (page 2-69) and Table
     2-9 (page 2-20)

        'The Stage H technical support document (pp 3-25 to 3-29) estimated breathing losses to be 120 mg/L
     (0.45 g/gal).  However, volatility controls have reduced the baseline uncontrolled emission rate from 1340
     mg/L (5.07 g/gal) in the Stage n analysis (page 3-30) to 3.3 g/gal in the current analysis. The breathing loss
     emissions were decreased by the same percentage, resulting in an emission rate of 0.30 g/gal. See the
     summary and analysis of comments document for additional information.

     6-4

-------
                                                    Chapter 6: Stage // Retention Analysis
projected LDT/HDV fraction of gasoline fuel  consumption)  to  derive the emission
reductions applicable to these vehicles in each model plant.
6.3.3  Cost Effectiveness
       For each of Model Plants 2-5, the benefits in section 6.3.2 were divided by the net
costs in section 6.3.1 to obtain the cost effectiveness of Stage n retention in dollars per
metric ton.  The model plant results  were then weighted on the basis of the relative
number of stations in each category, to derive a nationwide average cost effectiveness of
Stage n retention of approximately $3,100 per metric ton of emission reductions.
       The costs, benefits, and cost effectiveness of Stage n retention are summarized
below in Table 6-3.
                   Table 6.3—Stage II Retention Costs and Benefits*

Number of Plants
Costs
Capital Recovery cost
Maintenance cost
Other Indirect cost
Enforcement cost
Recovery credit/gal
Recovery per plant
Annual Cost/plant
Total Cost (all plants)
Benefits
Vapor Recovery(kg/gal)
Avg. throughput/yr
Per plant benefits (kg/yr)
Total (Mg) (all plants)
Cost Effectiveness
($/Mg)
Model
Plant 1
53,189
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
10
$0 (waved)
0.0013
47,000
0.0
0 (waved)
$0 (waved)
Model
Plant 2
20,288
$0
$655
$515
$84
$0.0004
$94
$1,159
$23,522,816
0.0013
240,000
319.5
6,482
$3,629
Model
Plants
21,055
$0
$1,305
$742
$84
$0.0004
$164
$1,966
$41,403,336
0.0013
420,000
559.1
11,773
$3,517
Model
Plant 4
17,312
$0
$1,965
$1,024
$84
$0.0004
$305
$2,768
$47,912,326
0.0013
780,000
1038.4
17,976
$2,665
Model
Plants
8,157
$0
$3,278
$1,557
$84
$0.0004
$861
$4,059
$33,111,235
0.0013
2,220,000
2928.8
23,892
$1,386
Totals
120,001
$145,949,713

60,123
Weighted Avg.
$3,070
                Benefits and recovery credits included only tor LOTS and HDvs
       As indicated in Table 6.3, total costs for Stage n retention increase with the size
of the model plant, due primarily to higher maintenance and indirect costs for the larger
facilities.  Stage n retention benefits (i.e., reduction of refueling emissions from LDTs
and HDVs) vary directly with annual throughput.  Due to economies of scale, the cost
effectiveness of Stage II retention improves with increasing size of the model plant.  In
sum, the weighted average cost per megagram of VOC emission reduction due to Stage
II retention is estimated to be $3,070.  This outcome should be evaluated in relation to
the ORVR cost effectiveness calculations which are presented in the next chapter.
6.3.4 Moderate Nonattalnment Areas Without Stage II
                                                                               6-5

-------
Off VR Regulatory Impact Analysts
          As was discussed previously, a few states containing moderate nonattainment areas
   have not yet acted to require Stage II controls.  However, if ORVR systems were not
   required in LDTs and HDVs, and if Stage n thus had to be retained elsewhere to control
   LDT/HDV refueling emissions, it is possible that the remaining non-Stage n moderate
   areas would also need to implement Stage n in order to control the refueling emissions
   from these vehicles.  An argument can be made that the cost effectiveness of Stage n
   retention should include the costs of installing and maintaining Stage II in these moderate
   nonattainment areas which have so far been categorized as non-Stage n areas.

          The cost effectiveness of installing Stage n  solely for  controlling LDT/HDV
   refueling emissions is substantially  worse than the cost of retaining  it for the same
   purpose, because capital costs must be taken into account. The moderate nonattainment
   areas without Stage II represent about 3.3 percent of nonattainment area fuel consumption
   and about  1.8 percent of nationwide fuel consumption.  Assuming a 10/10 exemption
   level and the metropolitan service station distribution for these areas, EPA estimates that
   the moderate  areas that have not implemented  Stage n would account for about 2.7
   percent of all Stage n stations nationwide.  Thus, in determining the overall cost  of
   retaining Stage  II for control of LDT/HDV refueling emissions, the costs of Stage n
   installation would need to be  considered for 2.7 percent of stations,  while  only the
   retention costs discussed earlier  in this chapter would  be  included for the other 97.3
   percent. Using the Stage n capital costs in the Technical Guidance document6 (adjusted
   for inflation)  for the new installations and the costs in Table  6.3 for the other cost
   categories,  EPA estimates that the  cost per megagram of VOC  control for  Stage  n
   retention would increase to $3,225.
           However, the areas  in question have not yet implemented Stage n and, given their
   nonattainment status, it is unclear whether all will  do so. To be  conservative, EPA will
   assume no further Stage  n  implementation in moderate  areas, but the  analysis and
   discussion above indicate that it would adversely impact the overall Stage n retention cost
   effectiveness.
       6 Technical Guidance—Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems for Control of Vehicle Refueling Emissions at
    Gasoline Dispensing Facilities. (EPA-450/3-91-022a), November 1991, Table 5-1, p. 5-30.
    6-6

-------
                                                           Chapter?:  Cost Effectiveness
                       Chapter 7:  Cost Effectiveness
7.1 Introduction
          This chapter assesses the cost effectiveness of ORVR systems for the control of
   refueling emissions by examining the ratio between the program's costs and the reduction
   of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions.  The cost effectiveness of different
   scenarios is calculated and a sensitivity analysis is conducted to evaluate the impacts of
   potential variations in costs and benefits assumptions. In addition, this chapter discusses
   other benefits that can be attributed to onboard controls in terms of energy savings, health
   effects, and welfare effects.

          The analysis included in this chapter utilizes cost and benefit data obtained from
   Chapters 4, 5, and 6 to estimate the cost effectiveness of ORVR systems in terms of
   dollars ($)  per megagram (Mg or metric ton) of VOCs reduced under various scenarios.
   Cost effectiveness  is evaluated based on the net present value (NPV) of annual costs  and
   benefits projected for the 23-year period 1998-2020, discounted at a rate of seven percent
   to the year 1998.

          The cost effectiveness evaluation focuses on two main issues:  1) the impact of
   including ORVR systems in all vehicle classes (i.e., LDVs, LDTs, and HDVs) and 2) the
   relationship between LDT/HDV onboard controls and  Stage n controls.  The analysis
   compares the cost  effectiveness of onboard controls in nonattainment  areas (NAAs)  and
   nationwide (All-Areas, i.e., nonattainment and attainment areas combined) under several
   scenarios. In addition, the evaluation compares the cost effectiveness of onboard controls
   in  trucks  (i.e.,  LDTs  and  HDVs)  and  in  all vehicles  under different Stage II
   implementation assumptions.

          As described in Chapter 1, the use of ORVR systems in LDVs was mandated by
   section 202(a)(6) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990.  However, the final
   ORVR regulations expand the application  of onboard controls to include LDTs  and
   HDVs. This decision is supported by the cost effectiveness analysis presented in  this
   chapter.
7.2  Methodology
          This chapter assesses the cost effectiveness of ORVR systems under different
    scenarios which  depend  on:  1)  the  classes of vehicles examined,  2)  the  areas
    (Nonattainment Areas or All-Areas) included, and 3) various Stage II assumptions.  The
    assessment includes four primary  analyses: Nonattainment Areas Truck  analysis, All-
    Areas Truck analysis, Nonattainment Areas All-Vehicles  analysis, and All-Areas All-
    Vehicles analysis.  Each of these analyses, whether Nonattainment Areas  or All-Areas,
    includes costs for  implementing  ORVR systems nationwide  because  the onboard
    requirement is expected to apply to vehicles in all 50 states (i.e., nonattainment and
                                                                              7-1

-------
Off W? Regulatory Impact Analysis
attainment areas). On the other hand, benefits are defined according to the conditions of
the particular analysis under consideration (i.e., Nonattainment Areas or All-Areas).

       Thus, the Nonattainment Areas Truck analysis evaluates the cost effectiveness of
ORVR systems in the nonattainment  areas using all-area cost and nonattainment area
benefit data for trucks (i.e., LDTs and HDVs)  only.  Similarly, the All-Areas Truck
analysis evaluates the cost effectiveness in trucks considering nationwide benefits. The
Nonattainment  Areas All-Vehicles analysis and the All-Areas All-Vehicles analysis
assume the implementation of ORVR  systems  in all vehicles classes, considering either
nonattainment area benefits or all-area benefits, respectively.

       Three different scenarios were evaluated within each Nonattainment Areas or All-
Areas analysis (for a total of twelve scenarios). The first scenario is a baseline case that
assumes no Stage n  controls. This baseline scenario is included to  compare the relative
cost  effectiveness of ORVR systems in relation  to the presence  or absence of Stage H
controls during the evaluation period (i.e., 1998-2020).   In the  baseline case, benefits
(refueling vapor emission reductions) and fuel  recovery credits are  attributed to ORVR.
The  second scenario  assumes the presence of Stage n controls throughout the evaluation
period.   In  this case,  ORVR benefits and fuel recovery credits  are those additional
benefits  that are incremental  to the benefits of Stage II controls.  This approach
acknowledges the fact  that  Stage II controls are already in  place  prior  to the
implementation of the onboard program.  The third scenario assumes that Stage n is
discontinued in 2010 due to the presence of ORVR systems.  The year 2010 is used to
represent the point in time when ORVR systems  penetrate the in-use vehicle population
to the extent that Stage n requirements could  become essentially redundant (i.e., same
percent of fuel coverage). In this scenario, the ORVR benefits between 1998-2009 are
only those incremental to Stage n controls. Beginning in 2010, all benefits are attributed
to the onboard program due to the assumed discontinuation of Stage U.

       A summary of the factors included in the  different cost effectiveness  scenarios is
shown in Table 7.1.
 7-2

-------
                                                            Chapter?:  Cost Effectiveness
                 Table 7.1—Summary of ORVR Cost Effectiveness Scenarios
Analyses/Scenarios
Cost Basis
Benefit Basis'
Vehicles Included
Nonattalnment Areas Truck Analysis
1. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
2. Stage II Present
3. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
/
4. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
5. Stage II Present
6. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
All
All
All
NAA
NAA
NAA
LDTs and HDVs
LDTs and HDVs
LDTs and HDVs
til-Areas Truck Analysis
All
All
All
All
All
All
LDTs and HDVs
LDTs and HDVs
LDTs and HDVs
Nonattalnment Areas All-Vehicles Analysis
7. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
8. Stage II Present
9. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
All-/
10. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
11. Stage II Present
12. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
All INAA
All NAA
All NAA
LDVs, LDTs, and HDVs
LDVs, LDTs, and HDVs
LDVs, LDTs, and HDVs
\reas All-Vehicles Analysis
All
All
All
All
All
All
LDVs, LDTs, and HDVs
LDVs, LDTs, and HDVs
LDVs, LDTs, and HDVs
NAA = Nonattalnment area
All = All-Areas (I.e., attainment and nonattalnment areas combined)
' When Stage II Is present, ORVR benefits are Incremental to Stage II benefits.
7.3  Costs, Benefits, and Cost Effectiveness Results

   7.3.1  Cost and Benefit Data

          Expected costs and VOC reductions for each of the years 1998-2020 and for each
   scenario are shown in the tables below.  Tables 7.2 and 7.4 focus on the costs and
   benefits of ORVR in trucks, while Tables 7.3 and 7.5 tabulate the costs and benefits for
   all vehicles combined.  Cost data include hardware, development, and operating costs.
   Fuel recovery credits are part of the operating costs.

          As was mentioned previously, this analytical approach overestimates the costs and
   underestimates the emission reduction benefits of ORVR  systems.  This is because the
   consumer costs are incurred in the year the vehicle is acquired, but fuel recovery credits
   and emission reductions occur over the life  of the  vehicle as  it uses fuel.   The
   MOBILE4.1 fuel consumption model assumes that any model year vehicle takes 25 years
   to be completely eliminated from  the fleet.  However, because this analysis stops in the
   year 2020, fuel recovery and emission reduction benefits of none of the vehicles are ever
   fully considered.  If these benefits were included, the cost effectiveness of various ORVR
   scenarios would be improved.  However, because discounted costs and benefits are used
   to calculate NPV values as of 1998, the effect on the cost effectiveness would be minor.
                                                                               7-3

-------
0/7W? Regulatory Impact Analysis
          Table 72-Annual (1998-2020) ORVR Cost Data ($)-Truck Analysis
Scenario
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Nonattalnment Areas Truck Analysis
Baseline
(No Stage II)
$16,642,358
$31,619,384
$36,186,659
$31,075,408
$26,156,049
$3,980,006
4388,921
43,784,208
-$6,390,262
48,500,310
410,418,478
412,715,601
415,291,069
417,818,117
419,985,143
421,725,786
-$23,227,264
424,676,257
425,986,352
427,161,718
428,186,138
429,084,316
429,998,615
Staged
Present
$17,187,929
$33,696,548
$40,506,736
$37,753,703
$35,126,011
$15,077,527
$12,642,355
$10,822,564
$9,500,772
$8,491,032
$7,601,139
$6,474,280
$5,191,565
$3,905,951
$2,868,064
$2,098,028
$1,475,609
$889,149
$365,309
475,077
4420,039
4668,003
4945,644
Stage II
Discontinued
In 2010
$17,187,929
$33,696,548
$40,506,736
$37,753,703
$35,126,011
$15,077,527
$12,642,355
$10,822,564
$9,500,772
$8,491,032
$7,601,139
$6,474,280
415,291,069
417,818,117
-$19,985,143
421,725,786
423,227,264
424,676,257
425,986,352
427,161,718
428,186,138
429,084,316
429,998,615
All-Areas Truck Analysis
Baseline
(No Stage D)
$16,642,358
$31,619,384
$36,186,659
$31,075,408
$26,156,049
$3,980,006
4388,921
43,784,208
46,390,262
-$8,500,310
410,418,478
412,715,601
415,291,069
417,818,117
419,985,143
421,725,786
423,227,264
424,676,257
425,986,352
427,161,718
428,186,138
429,084,316
429,998,615
Staged
Present
$17,187,929
$33,696,548
$40,506,736
$37,753,703
$35,126,011
$15,077,527
$12,642,355
$10,822,564
$9,500,772
$8,491,032
$7,601,139
$6,474,280
$5,191,565
$3,905,951
$2,868,064
$2,098,028
$1,475,609
$889,149
$365,309
475,077
4420,039
4668,003
4945,644
Staged
Discontinued
In 2010
$17,187,929
$33,696,548
$40,506,736
$37,753,703
$35,126,011
$15,077,527
$12,642,355
$10,822,564
$9,500,772
$8,491,032
$7,601,139
$6,474,280
415,291,069
417,818,117
419,985,143
421,725,786
423,227,264
424,676,257
425,986,352
427,161,718
428,186,138
429,084,316
429,998,615
 7-4

-------
                                               Chapter?: Cost Effectiveness
Table 74-Annual (1998-2020) ORVR Cost Data ($)-AII.Vehlcles Analysis
Scenario
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Nonattalnment Areas All-Vehicles Analysis
Baseline
(No Stage II)
$41,433,129
$78,769,357
$90,722,301
$78,537,756
$67,522,557
$15,529,089
$5,165,122
•$3,767,265
•$10,551,490
416,298,685
-$21,708,651
-$27,543,715
433,503,698
438,816,561
443,326,431
446,875,816
449,821,509
452,572,827
454,859,942
457,341,120
459,113,000
460,682^02
462,223,135
Stage II
Present
$42,778,428
$83,713,839
$100,712,137
$93,719,629
$87,704,402
$40,473,864
$34,561,991
$29,397,779
$25,748,301
$22,753,026
$19,969,519
$16,919,865
$13,811,383
$11,078,630
$8,873,746
$7,274,486
$6,053,376
$4,957,958
$4,130,888
$3,022,013
$2,518,998
$2,161,132
$1,802,039
Stage II
Discontinued
In 2010
$42,778,428
$83,713,839
$100,712,137
$93,719,629
$87,704,402
$40,473,864
$34,561,991
$29,397,779
$25,748,301
$22,753,026
$19,969,519
$16,919,865
433,503,698
438,816,561
443,326,431
446,875,816
449,821,509
452,572,827
454,859,942
457,341,120
459,113,000
460,682,502
462,223,135
All-Areas All-Vehicles Analysis
Baseline
(No Stage D)
$41,433,129
$78,769,357
$90,722,301
$78,537,756
$67,522,557
$15,529,089
$5,165,122
43,767,265
410,551,490
416,298,685
421,708,651
427,543,715
433,503,698
438,816,561
443,326,431
446,875,816
449,821,509
452,572,827
454,859,942
457,341,120
459,113,000
460,682^02
462,223,135
Stage II
Present
$42,778,428
$83,713,839
$100,712,137
$93,719,629
$87,704,402
$40,473,864
$34,561,991
$29,397,779
$25,748,301
$22,753,026
$19,969,519
$16,919,865
$13,811,383
$11,078,630
$8,873,746
$7,274,486
$6,053,376
$4,957,958
$4,130,888
$3,022,013
$2,518,998
$2,161,132
$1,802,039
Stage II
Discontinued In
2010
$42,778,428
$83,713,839
$100,712,137
$93,719,629
$87,704,402
$40,473,864
$34,561,991
$29,397,779
$25,748,301
$22,753,026
$19,969,519
$16,919,865
433,503,698
438,816,561
443,326,431
446,875,816
449,821,509
452£72£27
454,859,942
457,341,120
459,113,000
460,682,502
462,223,135
                                                                 7-5

-------
Of?W7 Regulatory Impact Analysis
        Table 7.4-Annual (1998-2020) ORVR Benefit Data (Mg)-Truck Analysis
Scenario|j Nonattalnment Areas Truck Analysis
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Baseline
(No Stage U)
2,832
10,782
22,425
34,666
46,562
57,606
67,645
75,824
82,492
88,204
93,542
99,618
106,329
112,775
118,637
123,676
128,240
132,718
136,799
140,615
144,142
147,518
150,823
Stage II
Present
1,027
3,912
8,136
12^77
16,893
20,900
24,542
27,509
29,928
32,001
33,938
36,142
38,577
40,915
43,042
44,870
46,526
48,151
49,632
51,016
52,296
53,520
54,719
Stage II
Discontinued
In 2010
1,027
3,912
8,136
12,577
16,893
20,900
24,542
27,509
29,928
32,001
33,938
36,142
106,329
112,775
118,637
123,676
128,240
132,718
136,799
140,615
144,142
147,518
150,823
All-Areas Truck Analysis
Baseline
(No Stage II)
5,646
21,496
44,708
69,112
92,828
114,847
134,860
151,167
164,459
175,848
186,491
198,603
211,983
224,833
236,520
246,566
255,664
264,592
272,730
280,337
287,369
294,099
300,688
Staged
Present
3,806
14,490
30,137
46,588
62,575
77,418
90,909
101,901
110,861
118,538
125,712
133,877
142,897
151,559
159,437
166,209
172,342
178,360
183^46
188,974
193,714
198,250
202,692
Stage II
Discontinued
In 2010
3,806
14,490
30,137
46,588
62,575
77,418
90,909
101,901
110,861
118,538
125,712
133,877
211,983
224,833
236,520
246,566
255,664
264,592
272,730
280,337
287,369
294,099
300,688
7-6

-------
                                                 Chapter?:  Cost Effectiveness
Table 7.5-Annual (1998-2020) ORVR Benefit Data (Mg)-AII-Vehlcles Analysis
Scenario
nfear
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Nonattalnment Areas All-Vehicles
Analysis
Baseline
(No Stage II)
6,982
25,662
51,848
78,795
104,745
129,465
152,572
172,130
188,401
202,684
216,316
230,773
245,574
258,966
270,930
281,052
290,003
298,599
306,177
313,300
319,886
326,175
332,308
Stage II
Present
2,533
9,310
18,811
28,587
38,002
46,971
55,354
62,450
68,353
73,535
78,480
83,726
89,095
93,954
98,295
101,967
105,215
108,333
111,082
113,667
116,056
118,338
120,563
Staged
Discontinued
In 2010
2,533
9,310
18,811
28,587
38,002
46,971
55,354
62,450
68,353
73,535
78,480
83,726
245,574
258,966
270,930
281,052
290,003
298,599
306,177
313,300
319,886
326,175
332,308
All-Areas All-Vehicles Analysis
Baseline
(No Stage P)
13,920
51,161
103,366
$157,089
$208,825
$258,108
$304,176
$343,167
$375,604
$404,080
$431,258
$460,080
$489,587
$516,286
$540,138
$560,318
$578,164
$595,300
$610,409
$624,609
$637,740
$650,278
$662£04
Stage II
Present
9,383
34,487
69,678
105,893
140,768
173,989
205,043
231,327
253,193
272,388
290,709
310,138
330,028
348,026
364,104
377,708
389,738
401,289
411/173
421,046
429,897
438,349
446,591
Staged
Discontinue
d In 2010
9,383
34,487
69,678
105,893
140,768
173,989
205,043
231,327
253,193
272,388
290,709
310,138
489,587
516,286
540,138
560,318
578,164
595,300
610,409
624,609
637,740
650,278
662,504
                                                                    7-7

-------
ORVR Regulatory Impact Analysis
7.3.2 Average and NPV Costs and Benefits

       The above data were used to calculate the average annual costs and benefits and
the 1998 NPV for each scenario, as shown in Table 7.6. Total annual costs and benefits
are discounted at a rate of seven percent to derive the NPV as of 1998.
     Table 7.6-Annual Average (1998-2020) and 1998 NPV ORVR Costs and Benefits
Analyses/Scenarios
Costs ($)
Average
1998 NPV
Benefits (Mg)'
Average
1998 NPV
Nonattalnment Areas Truck Analysis
1. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
2. Stage II Present
3. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
•6,942,552
10,850,674
-1,228,703
20,464,348
178,375,566
96,179,248
92,368
33,512
73,469
819,742
297,406
569,300
All-Areas Truck Analysis
4. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
5. Stage II Present
6. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
-6,942,552
10,850,674
-1,228,703
Nonattalnment Areas All-
7. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
8. Stage II Present
9. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
-11,362,045
28,875,540
1,709,402
All-Areas All-Vehlcl
10. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
11. Stage II Present
12. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
-11,362,045
28,875,540
1,709,402
20,464,348
178,375,566
96,179,248
Vehicles Ana
101,489,902
460,005,463
274,563,086
184,150
124,134
164,878
1,634,276
1,101,657
1,378,903
ysls
208,841
75,769
165,612
1,860,757
675,092
1,288,384
es Analysis
101,489,902
460,005,463
274,563,086
416,355
280,663
372,275
3,709,692
2,500,684
3,126,051
' When Stage II Is present, ORVR benefits are Incremental to Stage II benefits.
 7-8

-------
                                                         Chapter?: Cost Effectiveness
7.3.3 Cost Effectiveness Results
       The cost effectiveness for each scenario is obtained by dividing the 1998 NPV cost
shown in Table 7.6 by the respective 1998 NPV benefit.  The results are shown in Table
7.7.  Cost effectiveness is shown as 1998 NPV dollars per megagram of VOCs reduced
and 1998 NPV dollars per US ton of VOCs reduced.
                     Table 7.7-ORVR Cost Effectiveness Results
Analyses/Scenarios
Cost Effectiveness
($/Mg)
Cost Effectiveness
(S/USTon)
Nonattalnment Areas Truck Analysis
1. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
2. Stage II Present
3. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
25
600
169
27
660
186
All-Areas Truck Analysis
4. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
5. Stage II Present
6. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
13
162
70
Nonattalnment Areas All-Vehicles Ana
7. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
8. Stage II Present
9. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
55
681
213
14
178
77
ysls
60
750
234
All-Areas All-Vehicles Analysis
10. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
11. Stage II Present
12. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
27
184
88
30
202
97
       Another way to examine the cost effectiveness of ORVR controls would be to
disaggregate the vehicle classes to present the individual vehicle class cost effectiveness.
This is shown in Table 7.8.  The same cost and benefit values used in Table 7.7 were
used to develop these figures, but costs and benefits were not aggregated into trucks or
all-vehicles groups. The cost effectiveness values presented are for the scenario in which
Stage n is discontinued in 2010. Costs per Mg would be lower in the baseline case and
higher if Stage n were assumed to be present forever.
   Table 7.8-lndividual Vehicle Class Cost Effectiveness (Stage II Dlsconlnued in 2010)

LDV
LOT
LHDGV
HHDGV
All Areas ($/Mg)
102
74
15
138
Nonattalnment Areas ($/Mg)
248
181
35
327
Note that cost effectiveness values are very attractive for each vehicle .class. Light-duty
trucks and LHDGV cost effectiveness values are more attractive than that of LDVs due
                                                                             7-9

-------
OflVR Regulatory Impact Analysis
to thek higher fuel consumption (and higher recovery credits) but relatively similar costs.
The costs per Mg for HHDGVs are modestly higher than those for LDVs.
7.3.4 Discussion of Results
       7.3.4.1  Baseline Scenarios

       As discussed earlier, a baseline case was evaluated for each of the four primary
analyses to  estimate the cost effectiveness  of ORVR systems assuming no Stage n
controls. The purpose of the baseline scenarios was to demonstrate the cost effectiveness
of onboard controls and to compare the relative costs and benefits of ORVR systems in
relation to the presence or absence of Stage n controls.
       As shown in Table 7.7, the baseline data illustrate that the ORVR program is
extremely cost effective (i.e., very low cost per Mg). However, EPA recognizes that the
Stage n controls are already implemented in many nonattainment areas and that it would
be unreasonable to attribute the control of refueling emissions to the ORVR program only.
In view of this, EPA evaluated two other scenarios that consider either the  presence of
Stage II controls until 2020 or the discontinuation of Stage II in 2010.  The following
sections describe the cost effectiveness results for each analysis in terms of these two
scenarios.
       7.3.4.2 Nonattainment Areas Truck Analysis

       The Nonattainment Areas Truck analysis results show the cost effectiveness of
onboard control of LDT and HDV refueling emissions in the nonattainment areas.  In the
presence of Stage n, the  cost effectiveness is $600 per Mg of emission reduction. If
Stage II is discontinued in 2010, the cost per Mg is reduced to $169.   These results
compare very favorably with the Stage II retention scenario evaluated in Chapter 6, which
showed that maintenance  of Stage II for the sole purpose of controlling  truck refueling
emissions would cost about $3,100 per Mg of emission reduction.
       7.3.4.3 All-Areas Truck Analysis
       The All-Areas Truck analysis assesses the cost effectiveness of onboard controls
 in trucks when nationwide benefits  are  considered. The  cost effectiveness of these
 scenarios is better than the cost effectiveness of the previous analysis (Nonattainment
 Areas Truck analysis) because environmental benefits increase when all areas (i.e., both
 attainment and nonattainment)  are included.  When Stage  n is present throughout the
 evaluation period (1998-2020) the cost effectiveness is $162 per Mg.  The cost per Mg
 decreases to $70 if Stage n is  discontinued in 2010.
       7.3.4.4 Nonattainment Areas All-Vehicles Analysis
       This  analysis  examined  the cost  effectiveness  of ORVR  systems  in the
 nonattainment areas, taking into account the NAA benefits and fuel recovery credits and


 7-10

-------
                                                         Chapter?: Cost Effectiveness
the all-area costs for all vehicle classes (LDVs, LDTs, and HDVs). The cost effectiveness
under these conditions is $681 per Mg with retained Stage II and $213 per Mg with Stage
n discontinued in 2010.  These results are slightly  less favorable than those  of the
Nonattainment Areas Truck Analysis, which indicates that the cost effectiveness of ORVR
systems in trucks is, on the average, somewhat better than in passenger cars.
       7.3.4.5  All-Areas All-Vehicles Analysis

       These scenarios consider nationwide costs and benefits for all vehicle classes.
Under these conditions, environmental benefits  increase as compared to the previous
analyses, resulting in attractive ORVR cost effectiveness values.  The cost effectiveness
of onboard controls with Stage II present is $184 per Mg. Cost effectiveness improves
to $88 per Mg if Stage n is discontinued in 2010.


       7.3.4.6  Summary

       The results indicate that the ORVR program is a cost effective strategy for the
control of refueling emissions in all vehicle classes for both Nonattainment Areas and All-
Areas scenarios, even with Stage n controls in place.

       As described earlier, the most cost effective results (i.e.,  low cost effectiveness
values in terms of $/Mg reduced) are obtained under baseline conditions when onboard
controls are assumed present with no Stage II during the evaluation period.  However,
these baseline scenarios were included only for comparison purposes. In reality, the cost
effectiveness assessment of the ORVR program needs to take into account the effects of
the Stage n program.  Furthermore, since the primary reason for the ORVR requirement
is ozone control, the analysis needs to focus on ozone nonattainment areas.

       When Stage n controls are considered, the cost effectiveness of ORVR systems
is affected because the benefits are distributed between the two programs.  When Stage
II is assumed present throughout  the evaluation period, a large portion of the VOC
reduction benefit is credited to Stage n control1 (because Stage n is already in place prior
to the  implementation of the ORVR regulation).  In this case, the ORVR benefits are
defined as those incremental to the benefits achieved by Stage II.  These benefits arise
from:  1)  ORVR control in nonattainment areas  without Stage n, 2) ORVR control at
refueling stations with Stage n waivers, and 3) ORVR control of  Stage n inefficiencies.
When Stage n is  assumed to discontinue in 2010, then the cost effectiveness of onboard
controls increases.  Since the only difference between the two above scenarios is the
discontinuation of the Stage n program after 2009, then the improvement in ORVR cost
effectiveness can  be directly related to attributing the control previously gained by Stage
II to ORVR systems.

       To put the cost effectiveness of ORVR systems in perspective, EPA compared the
results in Table 7.7 with other control strategies. In this regard, onboard controls compare
very favorably with  previous EPA analyses on other  strategies for the control  of
   '  Approximately 80 percent in nonattainment areas and 36 percent in all areas.

                                                                            7-11

-------
   0/7W7 Regulatory Impact Analysis
   hydrocarbons,  such  as  the  onboard  diagnostics  (OBD)  program,  the  enhanced
   inspection/maintenance (I/M) program, evaporative controls, and the Clean Fuel Fleet
   Program.  For example, the cost effectiveness of the OBD program for the control of
   hydrocarbons is estimated to be $1,974 per ton.2  The cost per ton of VOC reduction for
   the enhanced I/M program, based on the  biennial  high-tech program,  is $500.3 If the
   high-tech I/M program was performed on  an annual basis, the cost  effectiveness would
   increase to $1,300 per ton.  For evaporative controls, the  overall cost effectiveness is
   estimated to be  $170 per Mg when fuel consumption  credits are considered.4  The
   estimated cost per ton for the control of non-methane hydrocarbons in the Clean Fuel
   Fleet Program is over $8,000.5
7.4  Sensitivity Analysis

          Cost effectiveness analyses often require the use of assumptions, judgements, and
   estimations in order to develop cost/benefit scenarios.  In these situations, a sensitivity
   analysis is desirable to assess how changes in key assumptions might affect the results.
   To demonstrate such effects, EPA conducted a sensitivity analysis to examine the impact
   of several  factors  on the cost effectiveness of ORVR  systems.   The details of this
   sensitivity analysis are contained in the docket for this rulemaking.6

          The following sections describe each of the sensitivity scenarios evaluated and
   their impact on cost effectiveness.  The sensitivity analysis results are compared to the
   cost effectiveness results discussed in the previous sections. In addition, EPA examined
   the effects of various Stage  II assumptions used in the Stage n retention analysis
   presented in Chapter 6.
    7.4.1   ORVR Sensitivity Scenarios
           7.4.1.1  Non-Integrated Systems
           The cost analysis presented in Chapter 5 assumed that ORVR systems will be
    integrated with the enhanced evaporative emission  controls  required  under recent
    regulations that establish new evaporative emission standards and test procedures (58 FR
    16002, March 24, 1993).  This assumption was based on the fact that integrated ORVR
    systems are far less expensive and, according to the commentors, presented fewer safety
    concerns than redundant systems for evaporative and refueling emission control.   As a
       2  58 FR 9468, February 19, 1993.

       3  57 FR 52950, November 5, 1992.

       4  58 FR 16002, March 24, 1993.

       3  "Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis - Clean Fuel Fleet Program," U. S. EPA, Office of Air and
    Radiation, Office of Mobile Sources, May 1993.

       '  Memo to the Docket from James O. Bryson entitled "Sensitivity Analysis for Onboard Refueling
    Vapor Recovery Regulatory Impact Analysis." (docket A-87-11, section IV-B).

    7-12

-------
                                                         Chapter?: Cost Effectiveness
result, the cost effectiveness evaluation considered only those ORVR costs that were
incremental to evaporative emission control.

      A sensitivity analysis was  conducted to examine  the  impact on ORVR  cost
effectiveness   if  some  non-integrated systems  were  installed  by  some   vehicle
manufacturers during the early years of the program. In the cost analysis, EPA estimated
that the total hardware cost for integrated systems was $4.28 for LDVs, $4.79 for LDTs,
$6.29 for LHDGV, and $21.15 for HHDGV (with a sales-weighted cost of $4.58). This
sensitivity scenario  assumed that ten percent of ORVR systems for LDVs, LDTs, and
LHDGVs would be non-integrated for the first five years of the program (i.e., 1998-2002)
at a cost of $20 (this was  not done for HHDGVs because their cost was already above
$20).  The ten percent figure is conservative, given EPA's expectation and the comments
received indicating that most vehicle manufacturers will use the less expensive integrated
control strategy. The five-year period, also a conservative estimate, represents an interim
period that would allow for the phase-in of integrated systems in all vehicles.
      Table  7.9 compares the cost effectiveness results for the base case (i.e., integrated
ORVR systems in all vehicles) and the sensitivity case (i.e., non-integrated systems in ten
percent of vehicles during the first five years) for each scenario evaluated.
            Table 7.9—ORVR Sensitivity Analysis—Non-Integrated Systems
Analyses/Scenarios
Cost Effectiveness ($/Mg)
Base Case:
Integrated System In
All-Vehicles
Non-Integrated System
In 10% of Vehicles
Nonattalnment Areas Truck Analysis
1. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
2. Stage II Present
3. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
25
600
169
63
704
223
All-Areas Truck Analysis
4. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
5. Stage II Present
6. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
13
162
70
Nonattalnment Areas All-Vehicles Ana
7. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
8. Stage II Present
9. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
All-Areas A
10. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
11. Stage II Present
12. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
55
681
213
31
190
92
lysis
102
813
282
-Vehicles Analysis
27
184
88
51
220
116
       Because of the increase in costs, the cost effectiveness of the ORVR program is
reduced  (i.e.,  cost per Mg increases) when non-integrated systems  are used.  In the
baseline  scenarios, the calculated cost effectiveness for the ORVR program with 10
percent non-integrated systems is $31-$102 per Mg,  as compared  to $13-$55 when
                                                                           7-13

-------
ORVR Regulatory Impact Analysis
integrated systems  are assumed for all vehicles.  When Stage II  is present, the cost
effectiveness is $190-$813 per Mg, as compared to $162-$681 per Mg in the base case.
If Stage II is discontinued in 2010, the cost effectiveness is $92-$282 per Mg rather than
$70-$213 per Mg as in the base case.  Although the ORVR costs  per Mg are slightly
increased when non-integrated systems are considered, the sensitivity results demonstrate
that onboard controls are still very attractive from a cost/benefit perspective.
       7.4.1.2 Fuel Price
       The cost effectiveness analysis assumed an average cost of a gallon of gasoline
(excluding taxes) of $0.82. The fuel price was used to estimate the fuel recovery credits
allocated  to  refueling emission  controls.  A sensitivity  analysis was conducted to
determine the impact of increasing the fuel price to $1.00. Table 7.10 summarizes the
results for each scenario evaluated.
                  Table 7.10-ORVR Sensitivity Analysis-Fuel Price
Analyses/Scenarios
Cost Effectiveness ($/Mg)
Base Case:
Fuel Price = $0.82
Fuel Price = $1.00
Nonattalnment Areas Truck Analysis
1. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
2. Stage II Present
3. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
25
600
169
-89
402
34
All-Areas Truck Analysis
4. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
5. Stage II Present
6. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
13
162
70
Nonattalnment Areas All-Vehicles Ana
7. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
8. Stage II Present
9. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
All-Areas Al
10. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
11. Stage II Present
12. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
55
681
213
-45
109
14
lysis
•60
481
77
-Vehicles Analysis
27
184
88
•30
130
32
       As shown in Table 7.10, the cost effectiveness of the onboard program is greatly
 improved when the fuel price is increased to $1.00.  Increasing the fuel price causes an
 increase in the fuel recovery credits associated with the ORVR program.  The increase
 in the fuel recovery credits  causes a decrease in the program's costs and ultimately an
 improvement in the cost effectiveness  of onboard controls.  In the baseline case, the
 benefits exceed the costs, resulting in overall cost savings.   Even when Stage  II is
 assumed present over the entire evaluation period, the cost per Mg is reduced by about
 30 percent.
 7-14

-------
                                                         Chapter?: Cost Effectiveness
       7.4.1.3  In-Use Control Efficiency

       In calculating  the in-use efficiency of ORVR systems, EPA assumed that the
number of in-use  failures of ORVR systems was limited by the full life useful life
requirement, I/M programs, and OBD systems.  Thus, the analysis relied on these three
programs to ensure the working  efficiency  of ORVR systems.  If the I/M and  OBD
programs are less  effective than anticipated for the detection and correction of ORVR
failures,  then the  ORVR in-use efficiency will be reduced.  This  sensitivity analysis
examines the impact of having  a reduced ORVR in-use efficiency.

       In the  cost effectiveness  analysis, EPA  assumed  an in-use ORVR efficiency
(accounting for additional vapor generation due to air entrainment) of 92.0 percent in all
areas (i.e nonattainment and attainment areas), 96.5 percent in nonattainment areas, and
97.1 percent in Stage II areas. This sensitivity scenario reduces each of the in-use ORVR
control efficiencies for the different areas by five percent to account for possibly reduced
I/M and OBD effectiveness.  Table 7.11 shows the impact of in-use control efficiency on
the ORVR cost effectiveness results.
           Table 7.11—ORVR Sensitivity Analysis—In-Use Control Efficiency
Analyses/Scenarios
Cost Effectiveness ($/Mg)
Base Case
5% Reduction In
In-Use Efficiency
Nonattainment Areas Truck Analysis
1. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
2. Stage II Present
3. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
25
600
169
57
683
214
All-Areas Truck Analysis
4. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
5. Stage II Present
6. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
13
162
70
Nonattainment Areas All-Vehicles Ana
7. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
8. Stage II Present
9. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
55
681
213
29
186
89
lysis
88
769
260
All-Areas All-Vehicles Analysis
10. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
11. Stage II Present
12. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
27
184
88
44
209
108
       A reduction in efficiency causes a reduction in benefits and a reduction in fuel
recovery  credits, resulting in  a modest increase in the cost per Mg for all  scenarios
evaluated. Considering the fact that the 5 percent reduction in efficiency is a conservative
assumption, it is evident that the onboard program remains an attractive strategy for the
control of refueling emissions  from a cost/benefit perspective.
                                                                            7-15

-------
OR W? Regulatory Impact Analysis
       7.4.1.4  Control of Breathing Loss Emissions

       A  minor  component of refueling  emissions  is  known as breathing loss (or
emptying loss) emissions. These emissions are considered to be generated as part of the
process in which ambient air is drawn into  the gasoline underground  storage tank to
replace the lost volume of fuel having been dispensed. The air, as it becomes saturated
with the gasoline vapors in  the  underground  tank, expands slightly.  This expansion is
then assumed to give rise  to emissions back out the underground tank's vent pipe.
Breathing losses have not been measured extensively, but have been estimated based upon
the theoretical considerations described above. EPA believes that breathing loss emissions
are very small7 and that onboard controls have no significant effect on breathing losses
(see  the Summary and Analysis  of Comments  of the ORVR regulation for  further
discussion).

       While extensive supporting data are not available, some commentors have argued
that  Stage II systems have the potential to control  breathing loss emissions.   With the
implementation of onboard controls in Stage n areas and possible eventual discontinuation
of Stage n controls, the assumed control of breathing loss nonattainment area emissions
by Stage n would then be reduced or eliminated.  If this were the case, then breathing
loss  emissions could be controlled by the use of a pressure valve or limiting orifice in the
underground storage  tank vent pipe.  Thus, a sensitivity  analysis  was conducted to
examine how the ORVR cost effectiveness would be impacted If the cost of breathing loss
controls on underground storage tanks was charged against the ORVR  program.  This
scenario is very conservative, considering the fact that breathing losses are not expected
to be a problem with the implementation of ORVR systems.

       Based  on conversations with potential  vendors, the cost of breathing loss controls
is $60 per system (i.e. per underground tank).  To calculate the total costs of the breathing
loss  controls,  the cost per tank is multiplied by the estimated number of underground
storage tanks  (344,000) nationwide.  Using the service station distribution in Table 6.3,
this  analysis assumes two tanks for Model Plant 1, three tanks for Model Plants 2 and 3,
four tanks for Model Plant 4, and five tanks for Model Plant 5. These are conservative,
since Model Plant 1 stations would not  have Stage n controls in most areas.  The
sensitivity scenario assumes that the estimated total cost for the breathing loss controls
($20.64 million) is allocated to all vehicles having onboard systems for the first five years
of the program (i.e., 1998-2002). The end result is  a cost per vehicle of $0.29, which is
added to the first five years  of hardware cost for the onboard program (this cost estimate
neglects cost-reducing vapor recovery credits for many stations which would have to be
considered in  a more complete analysis).  Because of the low cost per vehicle increase,
the cost per Mg values are only slightly increased when breathing losses are considered.
Table 7.12 summarizes the cost effectiveness results  for ORVR systems, with and without
breathing loss controls.
    'Approximately 0.30 g/gal (see section 6.3.1).

 7-16

-------
                                                         Chapter?: Cost Effectiveness
      Table 7.12—ORVR Sensitivity Analysis—Control of Breathing Loss Emissions
Analyses/Scenarios
Cost Effectiveness ($/Mg)
Base Case:
Breathing Loss
Controls Absent
Breathing Loss
Controls Present
Nonattalnment Areas Truck Analysis
1. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
2. Stage II Present
3. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
25
600
169
32
620
180
All-Areas Truck Analysis
4. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
5. Stage II Present
6. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
13
162
70
Nonattalnment Areas All-Vehicles Ana
7. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
8. Stage II Present
9. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
All-Areas A
10. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
11. Stage II Present
12. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
55
681
213
16
167
74
lysis
64
706
226
-Vehicles Analysis
27
184
88
32
191
93
       7.4.1.5  Number of Moderate Nonattalnment Areas with Stage II

       As  described previously,  the  cost  effectiveness  analysis considered various
scenarios under different Stage II implementation assumptions.   When Stage n  was
assumed present, EPA included as Stage n areas all nonattainment areas categorized as
serious, severe, or extreme, as well  as most of the moderate areas and a few marginal
areas expected to implement Stage II.  This section evaluates the impact of a change in
the number of moderate nonattainment areas assumed to have Stage n controls on the
ORVR cost effectiveness.  Two sensitivity scenarios are  included.  The first  scenario
assumes that all moderate  nonattainment areas  have Stage II (assuming  metropolitan
distribution and a  10/10 exemption  level). The second scenario assumes  that  Stage n
controls are not implemented in some  moderate  nonattainment areas presently planning
to, as result of ORVR implementation. The moderate areas assumed to withdraw from
Stage II are those which are currently delaying the implementation of  the program, even
though they have begun to consider  Stage n controls.

       Table 7.13 summarizes ORVR cost effectiveness results and shows the impact of
the number of moderate nonattainment  areas participating in the Stage II program.  When
all moderate nonattainment areas are considered, the  cost effectiveness of the  onboard
program is slightly reduced (i.e, cost per Mg increases slightly) because a larger portion
of the benefits for the additional Stage  II nonattainment areas now are allocated  to Stage
II instead of onboard. The opposite happens when some moderate areas are  withdrawn
from the Stage n program.  In fact, the cost effectiveness for the nonattainment areas
                                                                           7-17

-------
0/7VR Regulatory Impact Analysis
scenarios  is considerably improved with the assumed withdrawal of some moderate
nonattainment areas from Stage II.
    Table 7.13—ORVR Sensitivity Analysis—Number of Moderate Nonattainment Areas
Analyses/Scenarios
Cost Effectiveness ($/Mg)
Base Case:
Majority of
Moderate NAAs
Considered to be
Staged
All Moderate NAAs
Considered to be
Stage II
Withdrawal of
Some Moderate
NAAs from
Staged
Nonattainment Areas Truck Analysis
1. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
2. Stage II Present
3. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
25
600
169
25
663
177
25
399
142
All-Areas Truck Analysis
4. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
5. Stage II Present
6. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
13
162
70
13
170
72
13
140
63
Nonattainment Areas All-Vehicles Analysis
7. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
8. Stage II Present
9. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
55
681
213
55
750
222
55
459
182
All-Areas All-Vehicles Analysis
10. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
11. Stage II Present
12. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
27
184
88
27
192
90
27
161
80
       7.4.1.6 California Implementation

       The cost effectiveness analysis  assumed that the onboard requirement applies to
vehicles in all 50 states. However, because California has its own motor vehicle emission
control program, the possibility exists for  California to apply for a CAA section 209
waiver from federal preemption for the control of evaporative emissions that could
exclude onboard controls. This section examines the impact of not including California
in the ORVR program. Stage n has been implemented in the entire state of California;
thus, this scenario assumes that California maintains Stage n for the control of refueling
emissions.  When California is excluded from the cost effectiveness analysis, the overall
nationwide costs of the onboard program are reduced due to a reduction in hardware costs
(i.e., less vehicles considered).  The benefits are also reduced by eliminating California
from the analysis, due to reduced ORVR-controlled fuel consumption.  However, given
that  ORVR  benefits  in California are  relatively  small because of the  widespread
implementation of Stage n in the state, the impact of the reduction in benefits is not as
significant as the effect on costs.   Thus, the overall cost effectiveness of the onboard
program improves.
 7-18

-------
                                                          Chapter?: Cost Effectiveness
       As  shown by the  results  in Table  7.14, when California is excluded from the
analysis, the ORVR cost  effectiveness in the other states is improved.  This does not
suggest that ORVR controls are not appropriate for California.  It only indicates that the
cost per Mg of emission reduction for California alone is somewhat higher than for the
other nonattainment areas due to higher fuel volatility control in California and the current
widespread use of Stage n.
           Table 7.14—ORVR Sensitivity Analysis—California Implementation
Analyses/Scenarios
Cost Effectiveness ($/Mg)
Base Case:
ORVR In all 50 states
ORVR In all states,
except California
Nonattainment Areas Truck Analysis
1. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
2. Stage II Present
3. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
25
600
169
23
485
151
All-Areas Truck Analysis
4. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
5. Stage II Present
6. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
13
162
70
Nonattainment Areas All-Vehicles Ana
7. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
8. Stage II Present
9. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
All-Areas A
10. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
11. Stage II Present
12. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
55
681
213
10
121
55
lysis
54
559
195
-Vehicles Analysis
27
184
88
24
139
71
7.4.2 Stage II Retention Sensitivity Analysis

       The Stage n retention analysis presented in Chapter 6 examined the costs and
benefits which would apply if Stage II controls had to be retained for the sole purpose
of controlling the refueling emissions from LDTs and HDVs. This section evaluates three
major factors affecting the calculation of Stage n retention cost effectiveness, as follows:
fuel price, size distribution of Stage II facilities, and maintenance and other facility costs.
The following sections provide a description of the three sensitivity scenarios. Table 7.15
shows the sensitivity analysis results for the different scenarios, as compared to Chapter
6 results (i.e., base case).
                                                                             7-19

-------
ORVfJ Regulatory Impact Analysis
                   Table 7.15—Stage II Retention Sensitivity Analysis
Cost Effectiveness ($/Mg)
Base Case
(Chapters)
3,070
Fuel Price = $1.00
3,006
Metropolitan
Distribution for all
Stage II Areas
2,808
API Maintenance
and Indirect Costs
4,207
       7.4.2.1 Fuel Price

       This  sensitivity scenario evaluates the effect of increasing the fuel price  from
$0.82 to $1.00 in the Stage n retention analysis. The Stage II retention cost effectiveness
results presented in Chapter 6 (which assumed a fuel price of $0.82) are compared with
the sensitivity analysis results using a fuel price of $1.00, as shown in Table 7.15.   As
expected, the increase in fuel price results in a reduction in Stage II retention costs due
to an increase in fuel recovery credits.
       7.4.2.2 Distribution of Stage II Facilities

       In the calculation of Stage n retention cost presented in Chapter 6, EPA assumed
that refueling  service  stations  (model  plants)  in  nonattainment  areas follow  the
metropolitan distribution pattern  unless the whole  state is a nonattainment area.  This
assumption resulted in the allocation of about 59 percent of all Stage II throughput by the
metropolitan distribution and 41 percent by the nationwide distribution (see Chapter 6 for
additional discussion).

       In order to examine  the  impact  of model plant distribution  on the Stage n
retention cost effectiveness, EPA evaluated a sensitivity scenario that assumes  that all
Stage n facilities follow a metropolitan distribution.  Using a metropolitan distribution
pattern results in reduced numbers of smaller model plants. Particularly, the metropolitan
distribution causes a  decrease in the number of Model Plant 1 refueling stations, which
were assumed in this  analysis to be exempt from Stage n requirements.   Thus, the
metropolitan distribution results in fewer  waivers for Stage n stations. In addition, the
use of a metropolitan distribution results in  a relatively higher number of stations in the
larger model plant categories, which are characterized by more efficient operations (i.e.,
higher  throughput per unit  of  cost)  than  smaller  stations.   As  a  result, the  cost
effectiveness of Stage n retention is improved, as shown in Table 7.15.
       7.4.2.3  Maintenance and Indirect Facility Costs
       Maintenance and other indirect facility costs used in the Stage II retention analysis
 were presented in Chapter 6 (see Table 6.3). These costs were-extracted from the 1991
 Technical Guidance8 document arid adjusted to 1993 dollars at an average inflation rate
    '  "Technical Guidance-Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems for Control of Vehicle Refueling Emissions at
 Gasoline Dispensing Facilities." U.S. EPA, EPA-450/3-91-022a, November 1991, Table 5-1, p. 5-30.
 7-20

-------
                                                              Chapter?:  Cost Effectiveness
    of 3 percent.  For the different model plants the maintenance and indirect costs range
    between $150-$190 per facility.

          EPA received comments  from  the  American Petroleum  Institute  (API)9  and
    General Motors (GM)to on the maintenance costs of Stage n. The API costs were higher
    (i.e., about $239 per nozzle11, adjusted to  1993 dollars) than the EPA costs used in the
    Stage n retention cost effectiveness analysis.  GM costs were somewhat between EPA
    and API costs.  To be conservative, EPA  selected the higher costs (i.e., API's costs) to
    conduct the sensitivity analysis.  Also, EPA  assumed that these  costs included other
    indirect facility costs.  The calculated cost  effectiveness  using API costs is shown in
    Table 7.15.  As expected, the increase in maintenance and other indirect facility costs
    results in higher costs per Mg for the  Stage n retention analysis.
   7.4.3 Summary of Sensitivity Analyses

          The above sections described the impact of various factors affecting the cost
   effectiveness of ORVR systems and Stage II retention.  The sensitivity analysis results
   demonstrated that changes in major assumptions do not significantly affect the  overall
   cost effectiveness of the ORVR program. Although modest changes in cost and benefits
   were observed, the ORVR cost effectiveness values still compare very favorably with
   other control strategies (as described in Section 7.3.4.6) and with Stage n retention.  The
   cost per Mg for all ORVR sensitivity scenarios (Tables  7.9-7.14) remained much lower
   than the cost per Mg for Stage n retention scenarios (Table  7.15).
7.5  Other Benefits

   7.5.1  Energy Impact
          In addition to the projected economic benefits quantified in this analysis as "fuel
   recovery credits" (see Chapter 5), ORVR systems will also have a positive impact in
   terms of energy conservation. Fuel vapors that would otherwise have been lost to the
   atmosphere will now be saved and used instead to power the vehicle. This will result in
   fuel and energy savings that could ultimately translate into a reduction in gasoline and oil
   imports due to the net fuel consumption improvement. The estimated number of gallons
   of fuel recovered with the implementation of onboard controls is shown in Table 7.16.
   This  analysis shows that there are positive energy conservation benefits due to onboard
   controls even in the presence of Stage II.  The estimated nationwide fuel recovery for all
   vehicle classes averages about 84 million gallons per year and amounts to over 1.9 billion
   gallons during the period 1998-2020.   This estimate assumes  conservatively that 45
   percent of fuel  is  dispensed through areas  with Stage  II  control.   If Stage  II is
       9  $200 per nozzle (in 1987 dollars), p. 64 of item IV-D-861 in docket A-87-11.

       10 $1184129 (in 1987 dollars), p. 13 of item IV-D-854 in docket A-87-11.

       " The Stage n technical guidance document (page 5-29) gives the following number of nozzles per
    multi-product model plant: Model Plant 1, 4; Model Plant 2, 6; Model Plant 3, 12; Model Plant 4, 18;
    Model Plant 5, 30.
                                                                                 7-21

-------
ORVR Regulatory Impact Analysis
discontinued in 2010, the benefits would increase to an average of about  117 million
gallons per year or a total of about 2.7 billion gallons for the period 1998-2020.
                         Table 7.16—Projected Fuel Savings"
Year

1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
average
sum
LDV

1,677,928
6,015,986
11,895,853
17,841,555
23,523,913
29,053,247
34,337,030
38,937,543
42,820,087
46,285,374
49,638,561
53,027,335
56,297,783
59,106,489
61,573,559
63,628,710
65,402,723
67,067,306
68,481,001
69,818,183
71,054,832
72,232,763
73,375,996
47,091,033
1,083,093,756
' Assumes 45 percent of fue
LOT

985,118
3,761,361
7,824,198
12,095,408
16,249,575
20,053,497
23,433,579
26,111,398
28,255,427
30,089,112
31,822,601
33,792,838
35,964,354
38,017,940
39,909,261
41,523,046
42,986,980
44,426,972
45,754,355
47,006,369
48,167,939
49,282,515
50,380,243
31,212,786
717,894,085
HDV
LHDGV
105,634
394,929
820,468
1,268,214
1,700,955
2,138,497
2,588,644
3,006,981
3,374,300
3,691,204
3,973,896
4,297,401
4,658,119
5,026,039
5,344,743
5,626,835
5,880,718
6,127,398
6,342,268
6,535,531
6,711,389
6,877,643
7,036,095
4,066,430
93,527,901
HHDGV
36,064
134,830
280,110
432,972
580,711
730,089
883,771
1,026,592
1,151,996
1,260,188
1,356,699
1,467,145
1,590,295
1,715,904
1,824,711
1,921,018
2,007,694
2,091,911
2,165,269
2,231,249
2,291,287
2,348,047
2,402,143
1,388,291
31,930,692
All Classes

2,804,745
10,307,106
20,820,628
31,638,148
42,055,153
51,975,330
61,243,024
69,082,513
75,601,810
81,325,877
86,791,758
92,584,720
98,510,551
103,866,372
108,652,274
112,699,608
116,278,114
119,713,588
122,742,893
125,591,332
128,225,447
130,740,967
133,194,477
83,758,541
1,926,446,434
Is dispensed through areas with Stage II.
 7.5.2 Health Effects
       Onboard controls will provide important air quality benefits by improving ambient
 ozone levels in all areas of the country.  This includes those areas that are currently, or
 are projected to be, in violation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
 for ozone, and those areas that are now in compliance with the ambient standard. Further,
 onboard controls will help protect the general public from the risks of cancer due to
 exposure to benzene, a component of gasoline vapor, and to evaporated gasoline as a
 whole. Reduced exposure to gasoline vapors is also expected to provide benefits in terms
 of the avoidance of non-cancer health effects.
 7-22

-------
                                                          Chapter?: Cost Effectiveness
       7.5.2.1  Ozone reduction

       The contribution of hydrocarbon emissions from gasoline refueling operations to
ambient ozone levels has been recognized for some time.  Refueling emissions consist
almost entirely of non-methane hydrocarbons. In the presence of sunlight, these VOCs
combine with other pollutants, in a series of chemical reactions, to produce ozone (and
other photochemical  oxidants).  Ozone is a  pulmonary  irritant that adversely  affects
pulmonary membranes, lung tissues, and lung function.  Animal studies also indicate that
ozone may lead to an increased susceptibility to bacterial infection.  These detrimental
health effects may aggravate existing illness or lead to lung disease.  By reducing VOC
emissions, onboard controls will reduce the potential for ozone formation and ozone-
related human health effects.
       7.5.2.2 Benzene and Gasoline Vapors

       Carcinogenic Effects

       In addition to the concerns described above regarding ozone formation, there is
evidence that direct exposure to gasoline vapor resulting from refueling emissions poses
risks to public health. Gasoline and its vapors are a complex mixture of VOCs. One of
the most important constituents, from a public health effects perspective, is  benzene.
Epidemiological  studies indicate  that  benzene  is  a human carcinogen.    Benzene
carcinogenicity in animals has also been shown  in laboratory studies.  Based on this
evidence, EPA classifies benzene as a Group A human carcinogen.  In addition, EPA
classifies  gasoline vapor as  a Group B2 (i.e., probable human carcinogen) based on
sufficient evidence in animals that inhalation of wholly vaporized gasoline is carcinogenic.

       EPA has estimated the annual incidences for different exposure scenarios involving
refueling  emissions.12   These scenarios  include occupational  exposure,  self-service
exposure, and community exposure.  Occupational exposure refers to  the exposure  of
service station attendants to gasoline vapor. Self-service exposure refers to the exposure
persons are subjected to in refueling their own vehicle.  Community exposure refers to
the exposure experienced by persons residing in the immediate vicinity of service stations.
The  estimated annual incidences  for each scenario are summarized in Table 7.17.
Although EPA has estimated annual incidences for both benzene and gasoline vapors, this
analysis evaluates the impact of onboard controls on the cancer incidences for benzene
exposure only. The reason for this is that, although EPA has recognized the  potential
cancer risk for gasoline  vapor, the unit risk estimate for this mixture is highly uncertain.
   12  "Motor Vehicle-Related Air Toxics Study." EPA 420-R-93-005, April 1993.

                                                                            7-23

-------
ORVR Regulatory Impact Analysis
  Table 7.17—Estimated Annual Average (1988-2020) Cancer Incidences Resulting from
                     Uncontrolled Refueling Benzene Emissions13
Scenario
Occupational
S«lf-Mrvlc«
Community
Total
Annual Average
Cancer Incidence
1.7
4.4
0.5
6.6
       As shown in Table 7.17, self-service exposure results in the greatest annual cancer
incidence because of the  large number of people that pump their own gasoline.  EPA
recognizes that these estimated incidences have inherent uncertainties in terms of emission
estimates, dose-response values, and exposure. In view of these uncertainties, the Agency
interprets these values as plausible upper bounds of risk for possible effects.  The upper
bound of annual incidences for all scenarios is estimated to be 6.6.

       Based on the above analysis, the Agency expects additional health effects benefits
to occur in  both  attainment and nonattainment  areas as  a result of onboard control of
benzene vapors in refueling emissions. Reducing human exposure to refueling vapors will
directly reduce the potential  cancer  risk associated with benzene.  EPA estimates that
onboard controls  will result in the reduction of 3 cancer incidences per year, if Stage n
controls are present.  This estimate assumes conservatively that  ORVR systems are
responsible  for the control of 50 percent of all refueling emissions (due to the presence
of Stage II controls) and an overall ORVR in-use efficiency of 92.0 percent.  If Stage II
is discontinued in the future then the number of cancer incidences avoided with onboard
controls would increase to 6  incidences per year.

       These  additional benefits are certainly of value  to society and are considered
significant from a public  health perspective.  However, assigning exact monetary value
to the number of cancer incidences avoided is problematic given  the number of variables
involved and the ways various segments of the society may value this type of benefit.
In spite of this limitation, estimates for this value have been  identified in  the past in an
attempt to evaluate the benefits of reduced cancer risks. For example, a range of $0.5 to
$7.5 million per incidence avoided has sometimes been used by EPA and others in this
type of analysis.  While EPA  is not endorsing these specific values for the purpose of this
analysis, the estimates are useful in the evaluation of the overall cost effectiveness of
ORVR systems. Clearly, if such monetary benefits were included, the costs of the ORVR
program would be  largely offset resulting in even more attractive  cost effectiveness
values.
       Non-carcinogenic Effects
       In addition to the above described benefits, the use of onboard controls will also
prevent non-cancer effects.  A description of non-cancer effects resulting from exposure
    13 "Motor Vehicle-Related Air Toxics Study," EPA 420-R-93-005, April 1993.

 7-24

-------
                                                             Chapter?: Cost Effectiveness
   to benzene and gasoline vapors is included in the EPA "Motor Vehicle-Related Air Toxics
   Study" referenced  above.   The major toxic effects of benzene in humans and  other
   animals following inhalation  exposure include  central  nervous   system  (CNS),
   hematological,  and immunological  effects.   Exposure to gasoline  vapors through
   inhalation  may cause respiratory tract irritation, CNS  depression, pulmonary edema,
   bronchial pneumonia, and heart damage.

           Although the extent of non-cancer health benefits is not quantified in this analysis,
   EPA expects a reduction  in non-carcinogenic effects due to the onboard  control of
   refueling vapor emissions.
   7.5.3 Welfare Effects

          In addition to the human health effects described above, ozone may  adversely
   affect vegetation, natural ecosystems, and various types of non-biological materials.14

          Ozone effects on vegetation include damage to plant foliage, reduced plant growth,
   decreased  yield, changes  in  crop  quality, and  alterations in susceptibility  to  stress.
   Nationwide economic losses due to ozone effects on crops have been estimated to be
   between two and three billion dollars.  Ozone has also been identified  as one  of the
   agents responsible for the decline of forest ecosystems. It is important to realize that
   because  a variety  of energy and nutrient exchange linkages exist  between  different
   ecosystems, an adverse impact on a forest or agricultural ecosystem may in rum adversely
   affect adjacent  aquatic systems.  Thus, disruption induced by air pollution  stress on
   terrestrial  ecosystems  will  also  often trigger  dysfunctions  in neighboring aquatic
   ecosystems, such as streams, lakes, and reservoirs.

          Data  are also available regarding the effects of photochemical oxidants, such as
   ozone, on both manmade and natural materials, such as elastomers, textile fibers and dyes,
   and certain types of paints. This damage to non-biological materials from ozone can be
   translated into costs (e.g., repair costs, replacement, impairment of life and/or  aesthetics
   of materials, etc.).  Although it is difficult to make a definite  quantitative estimation of
   the damage costs related to ozone effects on non-biological materials, the magnitude of
   potential damage is expected to lie  in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
7.6  Benefit-Cost Ratio

          As was discussed above, EPA expects that the use of onboard controls will have
    a positive economic impact by reducing VOCs, thus preventing the formation of ozone
    and decreasing vegetation damage, agricultural  losses, ecosystem effects, and damage to
    non-biological materials.  Health benefits are expected, as well.  If the benefits of VOC
    control are valued at  $500 per Mg, as was done in the NPRM, the benefit-cost ratio can
    be  estimated using the information in Table 7.6.  Using the average annual costs and
    benefits, Table 7.18 shows that the benefit-cost ratio exceeds 1.0 for all cases.
       14 "Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Other Photochemical Oxidants," EPA-600/8-84-020aF, August
    1986.

                                                                                7-25

-------
   ORVR Regulatory Impact Analysis
                     Table 7.18—Benefit-Cost Ratios for each Scenario
Analyses/Scenarios
Average Annual
Benefits
($mllllons)'
Average Annual
Costs
($mllllons)
Benefit-Cost
Ratio"
Nonattalnment Areas Truck Analysis
1. Baseline (Stage ll Absent)
2. Stage II Present
3. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
46.20
16.70
36.70
•7.00
10.90
-1.30
•
1.5
•
All-Areas Truck Analysis
4. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
5. Stage II Present
6. Stage II Discontinued In 2010

Nonanainmerr
7. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
8. Stage II Present
9. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
92.10
62.00
82.40
Areas All-Vehlcl
104.40
37.80
82.80
-7.00
10.90
-1.30
•
5.7
•
es Analysis
-11.40
28.90
1.70
-
1.3
48
All-Areas All-Vehicles Analysis
10. Baseline (Stage II Absent)
11. Stage II Present
12. Stage II Discontinued In 2010
208.20
140.30
186.10
-11.40
28.90
1.70
•
4.9
109
                  Each Mg Is valued at ^500.
                 " Dashes (-) signify negative costs, yielding undefined benefit-cost -ratios.
   These values are conservative, since they do not ascribe a monetary value to the health
   benefits.  Furthermore, a benefit value of only $500 per Mg was used.  In contrast, API
   suggested values ranging from $750 per ton in attainment areas to $7500 in extreme
   nonattainment areas. Using any value in this range would greatly increase the benefit-cost
   ratio.
7.7 Implications of Stage II Discontinuation on Benefit-Cost Ratios
          Another way  to examine the benefit-cost ratios would be to  include the cost
   savings of  discontinuing the redundant  control  of  Stage II once ORVR is  widely
   implemented.  Discontinuation of Stage n in 2010 would result in a large cost savings
   from  eliminated  Stage  n  retention  costs  (including  maintenance,  indirect and
   enforcement—see Chapter 6). If these cost savings are included, nonattainment area all-
   vehicles average annual costs would be -$41 million,  resulting in an actual cost savings
   in addition to other non-monetary benefits.  (See Appendix E for data.)  One might argue
   that not requiring  ORVR for trucks would provide cost savings as well, however, these
   cost savings would be much  less than provided by discontinuing Stage n controls.
    7-26

-------
                                                            Chapter?: Cost Effectiveness
7.8 Conclusions

          The analyses included in this chapter demonstrate that the ORVR program is a
   very cost effective strategy  for reducing refueling emissions.  Furthermore,  onboard
   controls will provide additional energy savings,  health benefits, and welfare benefits
   throughout the country.  Although the monetary value of these additional benefits has not
   been  directly  included  in the cost effectiveness  calculations, it is evident that  these
   benefits would substantially improve the cost effectiveness of ORVR systems.  In fact,
   if these benefits were included, the ORVR costs would be less than the ORVR benefits.

          One key issue examined in this chapter was whether it was appropriate to extend
   the ORVR regulation to include LDTs and HDVs or whether Stage n should be retained
   for the control of refueling emissions from trucks.  Different scenarios were evaluated to
   address this question.  The cost effectiveness results support the application of nationwide
   ORVR systems to all  vehicle classes, including LDTs and HDVs. The results also show
   that the ORVR program is more cost effective than Stage II retention for the control of
   truck refueling emissions.

          Although EPA has not decided whether to allow discontinuation of Stage n once
   ORVR-equipped vehicles  are in widespread use, this  analysis  does suggest  that
   discontinuation of Stage n controls may be justifiable in the future. With implementation
   of ORVR systems  in all vehicle classes,  there may be no  need to maintain Stage II
   controls. The results  indicate that the ORVR program will be a cost effective option for
   Stage II in the long term due to its higher in-use control efficiency.
                                                                               7-27

-------
Appendix A: Supporting Data for Chapters 3 and 6

-------
Region
1
































































Stite
a
DC
OE
DE
DE
IL
IL
IL
1
1
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
MA
MO
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
CMSAffHSA/MSSsm j
NoD-taimmcntAfMS/2/ County
Entire Stale (56 FR 66444) -all
Washington (56 FR 24037) 'all
Philadelphia-Wilm-Trenton Kern
Philadelphia-Wilm-Trenton Newcastle
Sussex Co (new) (Sussex
lersey Co (new) lersey
QiicagoXjary-Lake County Cook
Chicago-Gary-Lake County :OuPage
Qlicago-Gart-Lake County Grondy (ill
Chicago-Gary-Lake County {Kane
Chicago-Gary-Lake Count)
Chicago-Gary-Lake County
CKcago-Gary-Lake County
Chicago-Gary-Lake County
St Louis
St Louis
St Louis
Louisville
Louisville
South Bend-Elkhart
South Bend-eikhart
Chicago-Gary-Lake County
Chicago-Gary-Lake County
Indianapolis
Evansville (new)
Paduiah (new)
Paducah (new)
Huno'ngton-Ashland/1 .67
Huntington-Ashland/1 .6/
EdmonsonCo (new)
Gncmnati-Hamilton
Qncinnati-HamHton
Gncinnati-Hamilton
Lexington-Fayette (new)
Lexington-Fayette (new)
Louisville
Owensboro (new)
Owensboro (new)
Entire State (56 FR 57936)
PhiJadelphia-Wilm-Trenton
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Baltimore
Baltimore
Saltimore
Baltimore
Baltimore
Baltimore
3
121E+09
1.48E+08
5.18E+07
2.06E+08
528E+07

1.86E+09
2.85E+08
1.18E+07
1.I6E+08
1.44E+07
1.8SE+03
6.68E+07
1.30E+08
8.63E+07
7.76E+06
9.10E+07
1.97E+08
5.34E+07


1.97E+08
5.34E+07







2.59E+07
3.77E+07
6.39E+07


244E+08


2.18E+09
2.66E+07
1.91E+07
3.77E+07
5J9E+07
2J2E+08
2.72E+08
1.59E+08
2.58E+08
4J9E+07
6.78E+07
6.98E+07
2.74E+08














MtttopoSUo i
NodetPlairl
I

4.61E+06




5.50E+07
8.42E+06
3.48E+05
3.42E+06
425E+05
5.56E+06
1.97E+06
335E+06
2.68E+06
2.42E+05
2^3E+06
6.13E+06
1.6GE+06


6.13E+06
1.66E+06







7.66E+05
1.12E+06
I.89E+06


8.85E+06




5.95E+05
1.17E+06
1.74E+06
8.77E+06
8.45E+06
4.95E+06
8.02E+06
1.43E+06
2.11E+06
2.17E+06
8.53E+06














*xttWurt
2

824E+06




9.82E+07
1.50E+07
622E+05
6.11E+06
7.58E+05
9.93E+06
3.52E+06
6^7E+06
4.79E+06
4.31E+05
5.06E+06
1.09E+07
2.97E+06


1.09E+07
2.97E+06







1.37E+06
1.99E+06
3.37E+06


1.58E+07




1.06E+06
2.09E+06
3.11E+06
1.57E+07
1.51E+07
8J4E+06
1.43E+07
2.55E+06
3.77E+06
3.88E+06
1.52E+07














fedetftoiit
3

2.04E+07




2.44E+08
3.73E+07
1.54E+06
1.51 E+07
1.88E+06
2.46E+07
8.74E+06
1.70E+07
1.I9E+07
1.07E+06
125E+07
2.71E+07
7.36E+06


2.71E+07
7.36E+06







3.39E+06
4.94E+06
8.37E+06


3.92E+07




2.64E+06
5.19E+06
7.71E+06
3.S8E+07
3.74E+07
2.19E+07
3.55E+07
6.33E+06
9.34E+06
9.61E+06
3.78E+07














MljHPUnt
4

4.79E+07




5.71 E+08
8.75E+07
3.62E+06
3.55E+07
4.41E+06
5.78E+07
2.05E+07
4.00E+07
2.79E+07
2.5IE+06
2.94E+07
6.37E+07
1.73E+07


6.37E+07
1.73E+07







7.96E+06
1.16E+07
I.98E+07


9.19E+07




6.19E+06
122E+07
131E+07
9.11E+07
8.78E+07
5.14E+07
8.33E+07
1.49E+07
2.19E+07
226E+07
8.S6E+07














MoMBinl
S

8.34E+07




934E+08
1.52E+08
629E+06
6.18E+07
7.67E+06
1.01E+08
3.57E+07
6.95E+07
4J5E+07
4.36E+06
5.12E+07
1.11E+08
3.00E+07


1.11E+08
3.00E+07







1.38E+07
2.02E+07
3.41E+07


1.60E+08




LOSE +07
2.12E+07
3.14E+07
1J8E+08
1.53E+08
8.91E+07
1.45E+08
2.5SE+07
3J1E+07
3.92E+07
1.54E+08














WaSomicte 1
HodcIfftM
1
1.12E+08

4.81E+06
1.92E+07
4.91 E +06

































2.03E+08


























Mc^PIairtMoWPiairt
t f 1
227E+08

9.73E+06
3.88E+07
933E+06

































4.10E+08


























3.51E+08

1.50E+07
559E+07
1.53E+07

































6.34E+08


























dWet Plant
4
3.47E+08

1.49E+07
5.92E+07
1.52E+07

































627E+08


























tatelfM
5 3
2.40E+08

1.03E+07
4.09E+07
1.05E+07

































4.33E+08


























12/17/93 04:59 PM
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   FUEL°iRED.r?K4

-------
Segwo

































































State
Mi
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
Nl
Nl
Nl
NJ
Nl
Nl
NJ
NJ
Nl
NJ
NJ
NJ
Nl
Nl
NJ
Nl
Nl
Nl
NJ
NJ
Nl
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
£SSSLma
Detroit-Ann Arbor
Detroit-Ann Arbor
Detroit-Ann Arbor
>troit-Ann Arbor
Detroit-Ann Arbor
Detroit-Ann Arbor
Detroit-Ann Arbor
Grand Rapids
Grand Rapids
3oston-Lawrence-Worc ester
Joston-Lawrence-Worcester
Manchester
Manchester
Manchester
Portsmouth-Dover-Rocheste
'ortsmouth-Dover-Rocheste
titladelphia-Wilm-Trenton
Philadelphia-Wilm-Trenton
Philadelphia-Wilm-Trenton
Philadelphia-Wilm-Trenton
Philadelphia-Wilm-Trenton
Philadelphia-Wilm-Trenton
Atlantic Gty
Atlantic Gty
Atlentown-eethlehem-Eastoi
NY-N.NI-Ung Island
NY-N.NI-Long Island
NV-N.,NI-Long Island
NY-N.NI-Long Island
NY-N.NI-Ung Island
NY-N.NI-Ung Island
NY-N.NI-Long Island
NY-N.NI-Ung Island
NY-N.NI-Ung Island
NY-N.NI-Ung Island
NY-N.NI-Ung Island
NY-N.NI-Ung Island
EsseiCo (Whiteface Mm) (r
Albany-Schenectady-Troy (n
AJbany-Schenectady-Troy (n
AJbany-Schenectady-Troy (n
AJbany-Schenectady-Troy (n
AJbany-Schenectady-Troy (n
AJbany-Schenectady-Troy (n
NY-N.NI-Ung Island
NY-N.NI-Long Island
NY-N.NI-Ung Island
NY-N.NJ-Ung Island
NY-N.NI-Ung Island
NY-N.NI-Ung Island
NY-N.NI-Ung Island
NY-N.NI-Ung Island
NY-N.NI-Ung Island
NY-N.NI-Ung Island
NY-N.NI-Ung Island
Pouohkeepsie (new)
Buffalo-Niagara Falls (new)
iuffalo-Niagara Falls (new)
effersonCo (new)
develand-Aknin-Urain/t /
aeveiand-Akron-Lorain/1/
Oeveland-AJiron-Urain/1 /
aeveland-AJiron-Urahi/1/
Qeveland-AJiron-Urain/1 /
Qeveland-AJiron-Urain/1/
County.
Livingston
Macomb
Oakland
tanroe
St. dair
Washtenavi
Wayne
Kent
Ottawa
Ozone
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
HHlsborougjSerious
Rockinghan
Hitlsborouc
Memmack
lockinghai
Rockinghai
Stratford
iutington
Camden
Cumberlani
Gloucester
Mercer
Salem
Atlantic
Cape
Wairen
3ergen
issei
Hudson
•lunterdon
Middlesei
tanmouth
Morris
Ocean
'assiac
Somerset
Sussei
Union
:ssei
Albany
Greene
Montgomer
lensseiaer
Saratoga
Schenectac
Jrorn
Qngs
Nassau
New York
Orange
Putnam
Qjffeens
Uchmond
Rocldand
Suffolk
Westchestt
Dutches!
Erie
tiagra
lefferson
Ashtabda
Cuyahoga
Geauga
Lake
Lorain
Medina
Serious
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Serious
Serious
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Moderate
Moderate
Marginal
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Stage I)
Ar«a?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1






















0
0
0
0
0
0
0











0
0
0
0






itate{onro«j
Throughput
4.146+09
4.146+09
4.14E+09
4.146+09
4.14E+09
4.146+09
4.146+09
4.146+09
4.146+09
433E+08
4.83E+08
433E+08
433E+08
4.83E+08
433E+08
4.83E+08
3.346+09
3.346+09
3.34E+09
3.34E+09
3.346+09
3.346+09
3.346+09
3.346+09
3.34E+09
3.34E+09
3.346+09
3.34E+09
3.346+09
3.346+09
3.346+09
3.346+09
3.346 +09
3.346+09
3.346+09
3.346+09
3.346+09
5.676+09
5.676+09
5.67E+09
5.67E+09
5.67E+09
5.676+09
5.67E+09
5.67E+09
5.676+09
5.676+09
5.676+09
5.67E+09
5.67E+09
5.67E+09
5.676+09
5.676+09
5.67E+09
5.67E+09
5.676+09
5.67E+09
5.67E+09
5.67E+09
4546+09
454E+09
4.546+09
4.546+09
4.546+09
4.54E+09
TfcnugJtpuifTrimug.hpui
5.1 46+07] 5.146+07
3.19E+08
4.826+08
5.946+07
6.486+07
1266+08
9.39E+08
223E+08
8.356+07
7.736+07
3.156+06
5.786+07
5346+06
1.196+07
3.866+07
4276+07
1.706+08
2.176+08
5356+07
9326+07
1.406+08
2316+07
9.67E+07
4.106+07
3356+07
3.56E+08
335E+08
2.386+08
4.656+07
2306+08
2.38E+08
132E+08
131E+08
1356+08
1.046+08
5.656+07
2.13E+08
1.176+07
9236+07
1.41E+07
1.646+07
4376+07
5.72E+07
4.716+07
3306+08
725E+08
4.066+08
4.696+08
9.706+07
2.656+07
6.156+08
1.196+08
8J7E+07
4.17E+08
2.766+08
8.186+07
3.056+08
6.966+07
3506+07
4.186+07
9.016+07
3.396+07
9.01E+07
1.13E+08
5.12E+07
3.19E+08
432E+OJ
534E+07
6.486+07
1266+08
9.39E+08
223E+08
8.356+07
7.73E+07
3.15E+06



3366+07
4276+07
1.706+08
2.176+08
5356+07
9326+07
1.406+08
231 E+07
9.676+07
4.106+07

3.566+08
3.356+08
2.386+08
4.656+07
2.906+08
2.38E+08
1326+08
1316+08
1356+08
1.046+08
5.656+07
2.136+08







3306+08
7256+08
4.066+08
4.696+08
9.706+07
2.656+07
6.156+08
1.196+08
8.376+07
4.17E+08
2.766+08




4.18E+07
9.016+07
3J96+07
9.016+07
1.136+08
5.126+07
: Staged
flvnitttfhput









7.73E+07
3.156+06



3366+07
427E+07
1.706+08
2.17E+08
535E+07
9.92E+07
1.40E+08
231 E+07
9.67E+07
4.106+07
3.956+07
3.566+08
3.35E+08
2.38E+08
4.65E+07
2306+08
2.386+08
1326+08
1316+08
1356+08
1.046+08
5.656+07
2.136+08







3306+08
7256+08
4.066+08
4.696+08
9.706+07
2.65E+07
6.1 56 +08
1.196+08
8.37E+07
4.17E+08
2.766+08




4.186+07
9.01E+07
3.396+07
9.01 E+07
1.13E+08
5.12E+07
52 KM
ToRHICjhfttlt









7.736+07
3.156+06



3366+07
4276+07
1.70E+08
2.1 76 +08
535E+07
932E+07
1.406+08
2316+07
9.676+07
4.106+O7
3.956+07
3.56E+08
3.35E+08
2.386+08
4.656+07
2306+08
2.386+08
1326+08
1.916+08
1356+08
1.046+08
5.656+07
2.136+08







3306+08
7256+08
4.066+08
4.69E+08
9.706+07
2.656+07
6.156+08
1.196+08
8.37E+07
4.176+08
Z766+08




4.186+07
9.016+07
3.396+07
9.016+07
1.136+08
5.126+07
aemptiori









10/50
10/50



10/50
10/50
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
to
10
10
10
10
10
to
10
10
10
10
10
to
10







10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50




10
10
10
10
10
10
Saver









10.00%
10.00%



10.00%
10.00%
528%
528%
528%
528%
528%
528%
528%
528%
528%
528%
528%
528%
528%
528%
528%
528%
528%
528%
528%
528%
528%







10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%




528%
528%
528%
528%
528%
528%
Stags 11
(w/eitnp..)









6.96E+07
234E+06



3.486+07
334E+07
1.61E+08
2.056+08
5.646+07
9.406+07
1.336+08
2.67E+07
9.16E+07
3.886+07
3.746+07
3.376+08
3.18E+08
226E+08
4.40E+07
2.746+08
2266+08
1.726+08
131E+08
135E+08
931 E+07
5.356+07
2.026+08







3.426+08
6.53E+08
3.65E+O8
Jfeftopottan ; . . ttt&aniie
Xodd PlarrtMwiet PlantMotet PtaMotiel PUnt
1 « 3 2 f 3 I 4









2.16E+06
832E+04



1.086+06
120E+06




























.06E+07
2.036+07
.146+07
422E+08J1.31E+07
8.73E+07 J2.72E+06
2.386+07
5.546+08
1.08E+08
753E+07









336E+06









958E+06
1586+05 3.916+05



1.93E+06
2.13E+06




























1306+07
3.636+07
2.036+07
2.356+07
4356+06
7.416+05!l.32E+06
1.726+07
3.356+06
2.346+06
3.756+0811.176+07
2.486+08




3356+07
8.546+07
321 E+07
8.546+07
7.72E+06




1.17E+06
2.526+06
9506+05

1.076+0813.186+06
4356+07
1.436+06
3.086+07
5376+06
4.196+06
2.086+07
1.386+07




2.096+06
4516+06
1.706+06
4516+06
5.67E+06
2566+06



4.79E+06
529E+06




























4.71E+07
9.006+07
5.036+07
5326+07
1206+07
3286+06
7.63E+07









2256+07
9.17E+05



1.126+07
1246+07




























1.106+08
2.116+08
1.1 86 +08
1.36E+08
232E+07
7.706+06
1.796+08
1.486+07,3.486+07
1.04E+07|2.446+07
5.176 +07 i! 216+08
3.426+07




5.186+06
1.126+07
421E+06
8.03E+07




121 E+07
2.626+07
9376+06
.12E+07J2.626+07
.416+0713.306+07
6.3 56 +06 11. 496 +07
fedel fbnQMtt&mOtoM Phot
4 i i \ f









3.91E+07
159E+06



1.956+07
2.166+07




























326+08
3.676+08
2.056+08
2.376+08
4.91E+07
.34E+07
3.116+08
6.056+07
4246+07
2.116+08
.406+08




2.11E+07
4566+07
.726+07
4.566+07
5.746+07
2596+07
















1.506+07
1316+07
5246+06
8.736+06
1246+07
2.486+06
8.516+06
3.616+06
3.486+06
3.13E+07
2356+07
2.106+07
4.096+06
2.556+07
2.10E+07
1.606+07
1.686+07
1.726+07
9.126+06
4376+06
1376+07












































3.036+07
3366+07
1.066+07
1.776+07
2.506+07
5.016+06
1.726+07
7.306+06
7.03E+06
6.33E+07
5376+07
4246+07
827E+06
5.16E+07
4246+07
3236+07
3.406+07
3.486+07
1346+07
1.006+07
3.79E+07




























fcdeiPlani
1
















4.68E+07
5.96E+07
1.646+07
2.736+07
3.86E+07
7.746+06
2.666+07
1.136+07
1.096+07
9.796+07
9236+07
6.566+07
1286+07
7.966+07
6.566+07
5.006+07
525E+07
5.376+07
2356+07
1.556+07
5356+07




























Modd Plant
4
















4.636+07
5.906+07
1.62E+07
2.70E+07
332E+07
7.666+06
2.63E+07
1.12E+07
1.07E+07
9.68E+07
9.13E+07
Wodzt Plant
5
















320E+07
4.086+07
1.126+07
1366+07
2.646+07
5296+06
132E+07
7.716+06
7.426+06
6.696+07
6.316+07
6.496+0714.486+07
1266+0718.746+06
7386+07
6.49E+07
434E+07
5.446+07
4.486+07
3.42E+O7
5206+07 3596+07
5.31E+07 3.676+07
232E+07
1356+07
1 546 +07 !l. 066 +07
5.796+07




























4.00E+07




























12/17/93 04:59 PM
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         FU6L%RED.WK4

-------
fcgtOR rStatfl
t
1




























































OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
fit
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
CMSA/PMSAVMSSsOT |
Km-ftumnem Areaj Rl \ Coiurtj
Qeveland-Akron-Lorain/l/
Qe»eland-Akn>n-Lorain/1 /
Dayton-Springfield
)ayton-Springfield
Dayton-Springfield
Dayton-Springfield
Columbus (new)
Columbus (new)
Columbus (new)
Canton
Toledo/I/
Toledo/1/
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon
Cincinnati-Hamilton
Cincinnati -Hamilton
Cincinnati-Hamilton
Cincinnati-Hamilton
Reading
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
Pittsburgh-Be aver Valley
Pittsburgh-Be aver Valley
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
Lancaster
Altoona (new)
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easto
AJIentown-Bethlehem-Eastoi
Allentown-Bethlehem-Eastoi
Erie
lohnstown (new)
lohnstown (new)
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre
Scrantbn-Wilkes-Barre
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon
Harrisburg-Letaanon-Carlisle
Harrisburg-Lebanon-CarHsle
tarisburg-lebanon-Carlisle
Harrisburg-Lebanon-Cartisle
York
York
Philadelphia-Wilm-Trenton
Philadelphia-Wiim-Trenton
Philadelphia-Wilm-Trenton
'hiladelphia-Wiim-Trenton
^iladelphia-Wilm-Trenton
Providence (all Rl)
Smyth Co (new)
ttchniond-Petersburg/1/
Richmond-Petersburg/1/
Richmond-Peterstnirg/1/
Richmond-Petersburg/l /
Richmond-Petersburg/1/
Richmond-Petersburg/I /
Richniond-Petersburg/1 /
Norlolk-Vir Beach-Newport t
Norfolk-Vir Beach-Newport r
Norlolk-Vir Beach-Newport 1
Norfolk-Vir Beach-Newport*
Nortolk-Vir Beach-Newport ^
Portage
Summit
Dark
Greene
Maori
Ozone
Gesfo>.
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
MontgomerjModerate
Deleware
Franklin
Licking
Stark
.ucas
Wood
Mahoning
Trumbull
Butler
Qermont
Hamilton
Warren
Berks
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Washington
WestmoreU
Lancaster
Blair
Carbon
LeMgh
Northhamp
Erie
Cambria
Somerset
Columbia
Lackawann
Luzeme
Monroe
Wyoming
Mercer
Cumberland
Dauphin
Lebanon
Perry
Adams
York
Bucks
Chester
Delaware
Montgomer
Philadelphi
an
Smyth
Charles City
Chestertieli
Colonial
Hanover
lenrico
•lopewell
Richmond
Chesapeake
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Moderate
Moderate
Marginal
Marginal
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Serious
Marginal
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
federate
Moderate
Marginal
Hampton JMarginal
lames Cty JMarginal
Newport JMarginal
Norfolk [Marginal
Stage II
Ar«?
1
t
t
1
1
t
0
0
0
0


0
0












0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0














0
0
0
0
0
tale {on road]
Tnraughpul
4.54E+09
4.54E+09
434E+09
4.54E+09
4.54E+09
4.54E+09
4.54E+09
4.54E+09
4.54E+09
4.54E+09
4.54E+09
4.54E+09
4.54E+09
4.54E+09
4.54E+09
4.S4E+09
4.54E+09
4.54E+09
4.47E+09
4.47E+09
4.47E+09
4.47E+09
4.47E+09
4.47E+09
4.47E+09
4.47E+09
4.47E+09
4.47E+09
4.47E+09
4.47E+09
4.47E+09
4.47E+09
4.47E+09
4.47E+09
4.47E+09
4.47E+09
4.471+09
4.47E+09
4.47E+09
4.47E+09
4.47E+09
4.47E+09
4.47E+09
4.47E+09
4.47E+09
4.47E+09
4.47E+09
4.47E+09
4.47E+09
4.47E+09
4.47E+09
3.60E-W8
2.368+09
2J6E+09
2^6E+09
2^6E+09
2.S6E+09
2^66+09
2.86E+09
2.86E-KI9
2.86E-HJ9
2.86E+09
2.86E+09
2^6E+09
2.36E-KI9
«M-
Trmugh^il
5.96E+07
2.15E+08
6.17E+07
5.72E+07
330E+07
2.40E408
2JOE+07
4.02E+08
5.37E+07
1.54E+08
1.93E+08
4.74E+07
1.11E+08
9.53E+07
122E+08
628E+07
3.82E+08
4.76E+07
127E+08
5.02E+08
2.76E+07
7.00E+07
5.72E+07
5.46E+07
7.69E+07
1.39E+08
1.59E-HJ8
431E4O7
2.14E+07
1.09E+08
929E+07
1.04E408
6.13E+07
234E+07
2.38E+07
8.24E+07
I23E+08
3.60E+07
1.06E+07
435E+07
7.34E+07
8J4E+07
428E+07
USE +07
2341+07
128E+08
2.03E+08
1.42E+08
2.06E+08
2.55E+08
S.96E+08
3.60E+08
1 JOE +07
2J1E+06
9.6SE+07
7.43E+06
2.93E+07
1.01E+08
I.07E+07
9.40E+07
7.03E+07
6.I9E+07
I.6IE+07
7J7E+07
12IE+08
mod-l-NAA
TtirwijruHit
5.96E+07
Stages
threughpot
5.96E+07
2.15E+08J 2.15E+08
6.I7E+07I 6.17E+07
5.72E+07
3.90E+07
2.40E+08




1.93E+08
4.74E+07


1^2E+08
6^8E+07
3.62E+08
4.76E+07
127E+08
5.02E+08
2.76E+07
7.00E+07
5.72E+07
5.46E+07
7.69E+07
1.39E+08




















2.03E+08
1.42E+08
2.06E+08
2.55E+08
53€E+08
3.60E+08

2.91 E+06
9.WE+07
7.43E+06
2.93E+07
1.01E+08
1.07E+07
9.40E+07


5.72E+07
3.90E+07
2.40E+08




1.93E+08
4.74E+07


122E+08
628E+07
3.62E+08
4.76E+07
127E+08
5.02E+08
2.76E+07
7.00E+07
5.72E+07
5.46E+07
7.69E+07
1.39E+08




















2.03E+08
I.42E+08
2.06E+08
2.55E+08
5.96E+08
3.60E+08

2.91 E+06
9.68E+07
7.43E+06
2.93E+07
I.01E+08
1.07E+07
9.40E+07


52 HM
TbToaghput
5.96E+07
2.15E+08
6.17E+07
5.72E+07
3.90E+07
2.40E+08




1.93E+08
4.74E+07


1.22E+08
628E+07
3.62E+08
4.76E+07
U7E+08
5.02E+08
2.76E+07
7.00E+07
5.72E+07
5.46E+07
7.69E+07
1.39E+08




















2.03E+08
1.42E+08
2.06E+08
2.55E+08
5.96E+08
3.60E+08

2.91 E+06
9.68E+07
7.43E+06
i93E+07
1.01E+08
1.07E+07
9.40E+07


3Bfli(ition| ilsKt
kgaVmi %
10 1 5.2S1
10
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50




10/50
10/50


10/50
10/50
to/so
10/50
10/50
10/50
528'.
10.00fo
10.00To
10.00*.
10.00".




10.00%
10.00T.


lo.oor.
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10/50| 10.00%
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50




















10/50
10/50
10/50
to/so
10/50
to

10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50


10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%




















to.oor.
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
528%

10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%


3tige!r
(w/eitnp.)
5.S5E+07
2.04E+08
5.55E+07
5.15E+07
3.51 E+07
2.I6E+08




1.74E+08
426E+07


1.10E+08
5.65E+07
326E+08
429E+07
1.14E+08
4.52E+08
2.49E+07
6.30E+07
5.14E+07
432E+07
6.92E+07
125E+08




















U3E+08
127E+08
1J5E+08
229E+08
5.37E+08
3.41E+08

2.62E+06
8.71E+07
6.69E+06
2.64E+07
9.07E+07
9.62E+06
8.46E+07



Model Flair)
1
1.67E+06
6.03E+06
1.73E+06
1.60E+06
1.09E+06
6.72E+06




5.41E+06
1.33E+06


3.41E+06
1.76E+06
1.01E+07
1.33E+06
3.54E+06
1.41E+07
7.74E+05
1.96E+06
1.60E+06
1.53E+06
2.15E+06
3.90E+06




















5.70E+06
3J6E+06
5.77E+06
7.14E+06
1.67E+07
1.01E+07

8.14E+04
2.71E+06
2.08E+05
820E+05
2^2E+06
2.99E+05
2.63E+06


-Metropcdrtan i Katktnvnlc :
HwtelPlaA
2
2.98E+06
1.08E+07
3.09E+06
2.86E+06
1.95E+06
120E+07




9.67E+06
2.37E+06


6.10E+06
3.14E+06
131 E+07
2.38E+06
6.33E+06
2.51E+07
USE +06
3.SOE+OS
2.86E+06
2.73E+06
3J5E+06
6.96E+06




















1.02E+07
7.08E+06
1.03E+07
127E+07
238E+07
t^OE+07

1.45E+05
4.34E+06
3.72E+05
1.46E+06
5.04E+06
5.34E+05
4.70E+06


McdelPbftt
3
foiet Plant
4
7.40E+06 1.74E+07
2.67E+07
7.65E+06
7.09E+06
4.83E+06
2.98E+07




2.40E+07
5^7E+06


1.51E+07
7.79E+06
4.49E+07
5.91E+06
1.57E+07
623E+07
3.43E+06
8.68E+06
7.09E+06
6.78E+06
9.54E+06
1.73E+07




















2.52E+07
1.75E+07
^55E+07
3.16E+07
7.39E+07
4.46E+07

3.60E+05
120E+07
922E+05
3.63E+06
125E+07
1.33E+06
1.17E+07


627E+07
1 JOE +07
1.S6E+07
1.13E+07
6.98E+07




5.63E+07
1.38E+07


3.55E+07
1.83E+07
1.05E+08
1.39E+07
3.68E+07
1.46E+08
8.04E+06
2.04E+07
1.66E+07
1.59E+07
224E+07
4.05E+07




















5.92E+07
4.12E+07
5.99E+07
7.42E+07
1.73E+08
LOSE +08

8.46E+05
2.82E+07
2.16E+06
8.52E+06
2.93E+07
3.11E+06
2.73E+07


MoieFRantModelPtitrt
5 { !.
3.02E+07I
1.09E+08
3.12E+07
2J9E+07
1.97E+07
121E+08




9.79E+07
2.40E+07


6.17E+07
3.18E+07
1.83E+08
2.41 E+07
6.40E+07
2.54E+08
1.40E+07
3.54E+07
2^9E+07
2.77E+07
3^9E+07
7.05E+07




















1.03E+08
7.16E+07
1.04E+08
129E+08
3.02E+08
132E+08

1.47E+06
4.90E+07
3.76E+06
1.48E+07
5.10E+07
5.41E+06
4.75E+07































































luiWRmtWoiia Plantf*Hld nsrcMxtct Plarit
? f 3 1 4 \ 5 •
























































































































































































































































12/17/93 04:59 PM
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    FUEL%RED.WK4

-------
Reqjon
estate * HoD-Atlainnein AMIS 121
1 VA INorfolk-Vir Beach-Newport
1 J VA Norfolk-Vir Beach-Newport
1
VA Norfolk-Vir Beach-Newport »
t VA
t VA
Ij VA
t| VA






VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
j VA
| VA
i VA
I VT







Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl








1
2
2
2
2
2
Wl
Wl
Wl
wv
wv
wv
wv
wv
wv
AL
M.
AD
FL
FL
2 FL
2i FL
2
2
2
2
2
2
FL
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
2 GA
2J GA
21 GA
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
> IS) M I\J M
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
£. LH
2 j MS
Norfolk-Vir Beach-Newport t
Norfolk-Vir Beach-Newport >
Norfolk-Vir Beach-Newport t
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington ,
entire state
Sheboygan
Wahmrth Co (new)
KewauneeCo (new)
Mlwaukee-flacine
MUwaukee-Racine
•flwaukee-Racine
Milwaukee-Racine
Milwaukee-Racine
Milwaukee-Racine
Manitowoc Co (new)
Door Co (new)
Parkersburg (new)
"Charleston (new)
"Charleston (new)
Greenbrier Co (new)
Humington -Ashland/1 Al
Huntington-Asrtland/1 ,6/
Birmingham/1 /
Birmingham/1/
entire state
Mami-Ft Laud.-W. Palm Bea
Count]
Ozone
Gesig.
Poquoson {Marginal
Portsmouth-Marginal
Suffolk Marginal
Virginia Be ^Marginal
Williimsburi Marginal
York [Marginal
Arlington Serious
Fairfai
Loudon
Serious
Serious
Prince Willii'Serious
Stafford Serious
Aleundria USerious
Fairfai Gty iserious
Falls QuircljSerious
*anasas GtSerious
Manasas Pa'Serious
all Attainment
Sheboygan ISerious
Wahmrth JMarginal
(ewaunee {Moderate
Kenosha (Severe
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
tacine
Wahington
Waukesha
Manitowoc
Door
Wood
Kanawha
>utnam
Greenbrier
Caben
Wayne
lefferson
Shelby
all
Broward
Mami-Ft Laud.-W. Palm BeajDade
Mumi-Ft Uud.-W. Palm Bea
Tampa-St. Pct.-Cleanvater
Tampa-St. Pet-dearwater
AUanta/1/
AtJanta/1/
Atlanta/1/
Atlanta/1/
AUanta/t/
Atlanta/1/
Adanta/1/
Atlanta/1/
Atlanta/1/
Atlanta/1/
Atlanta/1/
AUanta/t/
AUanta/t/
ake Charles
Uton Rouge/1/
Baton Rouge/1/
Baton Rouge/1/
Baton Rouge/1/
Baton Rouge/1/
Baton Rouge/1/
ntire state
Palm Bead
Hitlstaorou;
Pineflas
Cherokee
Clayton
Cobb
Coweta
DeKalb
Douglas
Fayette
Forayth
Fulton
Gwinnett
Henry
Paulding
Rockdale
Calcasieu
Ascension
East Baton
ttervffle
Jvingston
'ointe Cou;
W. Baton Ri
all
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Moderate
Marginal
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Marginal
Moderate
Moderate
Marginal
Marginal
Attainment
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Marginal
Marginal
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Marginal
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Attain mem
Stage H
0
0
0
0
0
0





















0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0






















0
We {on read
Jtnoghpm
2J6E+09
2.S6E+09
2.86E+09
2.86E+09
2J6E+09
2.86E+09
2J6E+09
L86E+09
2.86E+09
2.86E+09
2.86E+O9
2.36E+09
2.86E+09
2.S6E+09
236E+09
2.86E+09
2.75E+08
2.01E+09
2.01 E +09
2.01E+09
2.01 E +09
2.01 E +09
2.01 E +09
2.01 E +09
2.01E+09
2.01E+09
2.01E+09
2.01 E +09
8.03E+08
8.03E+08
8.03E+08
8.03E+08
8.03E+08
8.03E+08
2.01E+09
2.01E+09
1.19E+09
5J3E+09
5JJ3E+09
5.83E+09
5J3E+09
5J3E+09
3.38E+09
3.38E+09
3.38E+09
3.38E+09
3.38E+09
3.38E+09
3.38E+09
3J&E+09
3.38E+09
3J8E+09
3J8E+09
3JK+09
3.38E+09
1.80E+09
1 JOE +09
1.SOE+09
1JOE+09
1.80E+09
120E+09
i KM
"niraushpul
5.09E+06
4.81 E+07
2.41E+07
1.82E+08
5.33E+06
1.96E+07
7.91 E+07
3.79E+08
3.99E+07
9.98E+07
2J3E+07
5.14E+07
9.08E+06
4.43E+06
7.17E+06
3.02E+06

427E+07
3.08E+07
7.76E+06
527F.+07
3.94E+08
2.99E+07
720E+07
3.92E+07
125E+08
3.31E+07
1.06E+07
3.89E+07
929E+07
1.92E+07
1.55E+07
4.33E+07
1.86E+07
126E+09
1.92E+08

5.66E+08
8.73E+08
3.89E+08
3.76E+08
3.84E+08
4.70E+07
9.50E+07
2.34E+08
2J1E+07
2.S5E+08
3.71E+07
326E+07
2.30E+07
3.38E+08
1.84E+08
3.06E+07
2.17E+07
2.S2E+07
7.15E+07
2.48E+07
1.62E+08
1.32E+07
3.00E+07
9.59E+06
826E+06

Throughput






7.91E+07
3.79E+08
3.99E+07
9.98E+07
2.S3E+07
5.14E+07
9.08E+06
4.43E+06
7.17E+06
3.02E+06

427E+07

7.76E+06
527E+07
3.94E+08
2.99E+07
720E+07
3.92E+07
125E+08
3.31E+07

3.89E+07
929E+07
1.92E+07

4.33E+07
1.86E+07



S.66E+08
8.73E+08
3J9E+08


4.70E+07
9.50E+07
2.34E+08
2J1E+07
2.85E+08
3.71E+07
326E+07
2JOE+07
3J8E+08
1J4E+08
3.06E+07
2.17E+07
2J2E+07

2.48E+07
1.62E+08
1J2E+07
3.00E+07
9.59E+06
826E+06

Ifinjunhprt






7.91 E+07
3.79E+08
3.99E+07
9.98E+07
2.83E+07
5.I4E+07
9.0SE+06
4.43E+06
7.17E+06
3.02E+06

427E+07

7.76E+06
527E+07
3.94E+08
239E+07
720E+07
3.92E+07
125E+08
3.31E+07










5.66E+08
8.73E+08
3.89E+08


4.70E+07
9.50E+07
2.34E+08
2J1E+07
2J5E+08
3.71E+07
326E+07
2.30E+07
3.38E+08
1.84E+08
3.06E+07
2.17E+07
2J2E+07

2.48E+07
1.62E+08
1.32E+07
3.00E+07
9.59E+06
826E+06

Ttraughput






7.91 E+07
3.79E+08
3.99E+07
9.98E+07
2.83E+07
5.14E+07
9.08E+06
4.43E+06
7.17E+06
3.02E+06

427E+07

7.76E+06
527E+07
3.94E+08
2.99E+07
720E+07
3.92E+07
125E+08
3.31E+07










5.66E+08
8.73E+08
3J9E+08


4.70E+07
9.50E+07
2.34E+08
2J1E+07
2J5E+08
3.71E+07
326E+07
2.30E+07
3.38E+08
1J4E+08
3.06E+07
2.17E+07
2J2E+07

2.48E+07
1.62E+08
1.32E+07
3.00E+07
9J9E+06
826E+06


t$m






10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50

10

10
10
10
to
10
10
10
10










10
to
10


10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50

10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50

*r






10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%

528%

528%
528%
528%
528%
528%
528%
528%
528%










528%
528%
528%


10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%

10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%

Stage It
fwfeitop.)






7.12E+07
3.41E+08
3.59E+07
8.98E+07
2.55E+07
4.63E+07
8.17E+06
3J9E+06
6.46E+06
2.72E+06

4.05E+07

7.35E+06
4.99E+07
3.74E+08
2.84E+07
6.82E+07
3.71 E+07
1.19E+08
3.13E+07










5.36E+08
827E+08
3.69E+08


423E+07
8.55E+07
2.10E+08
2.53E+07
2.56E+08
3.34E+07
2.93E+07
2.07E+07
3.05E+08
1.66E+08
2.76E+07
1.95E+07
2.S4E+07

223E+07
I.46E+08
1.19E+07
2.70E+07
8.63E+06
7.43E+06

^etropoitia
*j 4






4.00E+07
1.92E+08
2.02E+07
5.05E+07
1.43E+07
2.60E+07
4.59E+06
224E+06
3.63E+06
1.53E+06

116E+07

3.93E+06
2.67E+07
2.00E+08
1.52E+07
3.64E+07
1.98E+07
6.34E+07
1.67E+07










2.86E+08
4.42E+08
.97E+08


2.38E+07
4.SOE+07
.18E+08
.42E+07
.44E+08
.88E+07
.65E+07
.16E+07
.71E+08
9.31E+07
.55E+07
.10E+07
.43E+07

25E+07
8.18E+07
6.6SE+06
.S2E+07
4J5E+06
4.18E+06

















































































































































































































































MoietPtajrt
5 I




























































12/17/93 04:59 PM
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       FUEL%RED.WK4

-------
Rtq»n
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
*ftfe
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
sc
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
AZ
KM
OK
TX
3| TX
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4










4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
CO
ID
IOWA
KS
MN
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MT
NO
NE
OR
OR
OR
SO
WA
WA
WA
WA
WY
CA
OUSAffMSA/MSSsm '.
NQn-Attertffietn Atttas IZJ
Raleigh-Durham (new)
Raleigh-Durham (new)
Raleigh-Durham (new)
Ourlone-Gastonia
Chariotte-Gastonia
Greensboro-Winston (new)
Greensboro-Winston (new)
Greensboro-Winston (new)
Greensboro-Winston (new)
Cherokee Co (new)
Knoiville (new)
Memphis
Nashville
Nashville
Nashville
Nashville
Nashville
Phoenii
entire state
entire state
Beaumont-Port Aurthur/1 /
Beaumont -Port Aurthur/1/
Beaumont-Port Aurthur/t/
Dallas -Fort Worth/1/
Dallas-fort Worth/t/
Dallas-fort Worth/1/
Dallas-fort Worth/1/
El Paso
rlouston-Galveston-Bruoria
touston-Galveston-Brazoria
touston-Galveston-Bruoria
Houston -Galveston-Brazoria
Houston -Galveston-Brazoria
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria
Houston-Gahreston-Brazoria
entire state
entire state
entire state
entire state
entire state
St Louis
St Uuis
St Louis
St Louis
St Louis
entire state
entire state
entire state
Portland-Vancouver AQMA
Portlanit-Vancoiner AQMA
Portland-Vancouver AQMA
entire state
Seattie-Tacoma (new)
Searde-Tacoma (new)
Seattie-Tacoma (new)
Portland-Vancouver AQMA
entire state
San Diego
Count)
Durham
Granville
Wake
Gaston
Meddenbui
Davidson
Davie
Forsvth
Guilford
Cherokee
Knoi
Shelby
Davidson
Rutherford
Sumner
Williamsbur
Wilson
Miricopa
all
all
Hardin
lefferson
Orange
CoHin
Dallas
Demon
Tarrant
El Paso
Brazoria
Chambers
Fort Bend
Galveston
Ham's
Liberty
ttontgomer
Waller
all
all
all
all
all
:ranklin
efferson
St. Charles
St. Louis
St. Louis Ci
all
all
an
Qackamas
luftnomak
Washingtor
ill
Kin,
*ierce
Snohomish
dark
all
San Diego
Ozone
Oesig*
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Attainment
Attainmenl
Serious
Serious
Serious
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Serious
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Seven-
Severe
Severe
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Attainment
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Attainment
Severe
Stage U
Area?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
Me (on readj
Throitgltput
3.16E+09
3.I6E+09
3.16E+09
3.16E+09
3.16E+09
3.16E+09
3.16E+09
3.16E409
3.16E+09
1.77E+09
2.36E+09
2.36E+09
2.36E+09
2.36E+09
2.36E+09
2.36E+09
2-36E+09
1.60E+09
7.68E+08
1.62E+09
8.3SE+09
8.38E+09
S.38E+09
8.38E+09
8.38E+09
8.3SE+09
8.38E+09
8.38E+09
8.3SE+09
83SE+09
8JSE+09
8.3SE+09
8.3SE+09
8J8E+09
8.3SE+09
8J&E+09
1.46E+09
4.69E-H)8
1.30E+09
USE +09
1.97E+09
2.60E+O9
2.60E+09
2.60E+09
2.60E+09
2.60E+09
423E+OS
3J3E+08
7.53E+OS
129E+09
129E+09
129E+09
3.73E+08
2.19E+09
2.19E+09
2.19E+09
2.19E+09
2.91E+08
126E+10
MAA
Toraughpui
8.66E+07
1.S3E+07
2.02E+08
8.34E+07
2.44E+08
6.03E+07
1.33E+C7
127E+08
L65E+08
225E+07
1.62E+08
4.00E+08
2.47E+08
5.74E+07
S.OOE+07
3.92E+07
327E+07
9^8E+C8


2.04E+07
USE +08
3.97E+07
1.30E+08
9.I4E+08
1.35E+08
5.77E+08
232E+08
9.46E+07
9.91E+06
1.I1E+08
1.07E+08
1.39E+09
2.60E+07
8.99E+07
USE +07





4.10E+07
8.72E+07
LOSE +08
2.02E+08
5.06E+08



127E+08
2.6SE+08
1.42E+08

6.77E+08
2.63E+08
2.09E+08
1.07E+08

125E+09
	 i 	
HMm-Hwt Staged
ThreiiahfBil'; ffiroaahfut
8.66E+07
1J3E+07
2.02E+08
8.34E+07
2.44E+08
6.03E+07
1 .33E+07
177E+08
1.65E+08



2.47E+08
5.74E+07
5.00E+07
332E+07
3.27E+07
928E+08


2.04E+07
USE +08
3.97E+07
1.30E+OS
9.14E+08
1.35E+08
5.77E+08
2^2E+08
9.46E+07
9.9IE+06
1.11E+08
1.07E+08
1.39E+09
2.60E+07
S.99E+07
USE +07





4.10E+07
8.72E+07
LOSE +08
2.02E+OS
5.06E+08












125E+09












2.47E+08
5.74E+07
5.00E+07
3.92E+07
327E+07
928E+08


2.04E+07
U8E+08
3.97E+07
1.30E+08
9.14E+08
1.35E+08
5.77E+08
2J2E+08
9.46E+07
9.91E+06
U1E+08
1.07E+08
1.39E+09
2.60E+07
8.99E+07
USE +07





4.10E+07
8.72E+07
LOSE +08
2.02E+08
5.06E+08



127E+08
2.66E+08
1.42E+08

6.77E+08
2.63E+08
2.09E+08
1.07E+08

125E+09
S2-MAA
TBroflgRDtit












2.47E+08
5.74E+07
5.00E+07
332E+07
3.27E+07
928E+08


2.04E+07
USE +08
337E+07
1.30E+08
9.14E+08
1.35E+08
5.77E+OS
2.92E+08
9.46E+07
9.91 E +06
1.11E+08
1.07E+08
1.39E+09
2.60E+07
8.99E+07
U5E+07





4.10E+07
8.72E+07
LOSE +08
2.02E+08
S.06E+OS



127E+08
2.6EE+08
1.42E+08

6.77E+08
2.63E+08
2.09E+08
1.07E+08

USE +09
xemptiof
^ifani












10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50


10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50
10/50





10
10
10
10
10



10
10
to

10
to
to
10

0
4raa
°i












10.007.
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%


10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%





528%
528%
528%
528%
528%



528%
528%
528%

5287.
528%
528%
528%


Stijcft
(»/"«!« ntp.l












222E+08
5.16E+07
4.50E+07
3.53E+07
2.95E+07
8.35E+08


1.83E+07
L06E+08
3.58E+07
LITE +08
823E+OS
121E+08
520E+08
2.63E+OS
8.51E+07
8.92E+06
1.00E+08
9.65E+07
125E+09
2.34E+07
8.09E+07
1.04E+07





3J9E+07
826E+07
1.03E+08
1.91E+08
4.79E+08



120E+08
2.52E+OS
1.34E+08

6.41E+08
2.49E+08
1.9SE+08
1.01E+08

125E+09
Metropofiuu | . Kujormldt ,
*xrd PljjitHodctRjrtModet PbntMoM PtotHiiirfRinfWef RevtKodef PfantModel Plantdtoder Plant
(J2E3i4ls;II?tl 4












6J2E+06
1.61E+06
1.40E+06
UOE+06
9.17E+05
2.60E+07


5.71 E+05
3.31E+06
UIE+06
3.S5E+06
2.56E+07
3.78E+06
1.S2E+07
8.17E+06
2.65E+06
2.78E+05
3.11E+OC
3.00E+06
3J9E+07
72SE+05
2.52E+06
323E+05





1.15E+06












124E+07












3.06E+07
2J7E+06J7.11E+06
2.50E+06
1.9SE+06
1.64E+06
4.64E+07


1.02E+06
5.91E+06
I.99E+06
6.51E+06
4.57E+07
6.75E+06
2.89E+07
1.46E+07
4.73E+06
4.96E+05
5.56E+06
5.36E+06
6.95E+07
L30E+06
4.SOE+06
5.77E+05





2.05E+06
2.44E+OG|4.3SE+06
3.03E+06
S.65E+06
1.42E+07



1.55E+06
7.44E+06
3.97E+06

1.90E+07
7.37E+06
5.86E+06
2.99E+06


5.42E+06
L01E+07
2.53E+07



6.34E+06
1.33E+07
7.09E+06

3.39E+07
1.32E+07
LOSE +07
5.35E+06


620E+06
4.86E+06
4.06E+06
USE +08


2.53E+06
1.46E+07
4.93E+06
1.62E+07
1.13E+08
1.67E+07
7.16E+07
3.62E+07
LITE +07
123E+O8
1.3SE+07
I.33E+07
1.72E+08
323E+06
1.11E+07
1.43E+06





5.09E+06
LOSE +07
1.34E+07
2.50E+07
627E+07



1.57E+07
329E+07
1.76E+07

8.40E+07
327E+07
2.59E+07
1.33E+07














7.19E+07
1.67E+07
1.45E+07
L14E+07
9.53E+06
2.70E+08


5.93E+06
3.44E+07
1.16E+07
3.79E+07
2.66E+08
3.93E+07
1.6SE+08
8.49E+07
2.75E+07












125E+08
2.90E+07
2.53E+07
.9SE+07
1.66E+07
4.70E+08


1.03E+07
5.98E+07
2.01E+07
6.59E+07
4.63E+08
6.83E+07
2.92E+08
1.48E+08
4.79E+07
238E+OSi5.02E+06
324E+07 J5.63E+07
3.12E+07|5.43E+07
4.05E+O8
7.57E+06
2.62E+07
3.36E+OE





1.19E+07
7.04E+08
1.32E+07
4.55E+07
5.84J+06





2.0SE+07
2.54E+07|4.41E+07
J.15E+07
5.87E+07
1.47E+08



3.69E+07
5.48E+07
1.02E+08
2.56E+08



6.42E+07
7.73E+07J1.34E+08
4.12E+07

1.97E+08
7.66E+07
6.09E+07
3.11E+07


7.17E+07

3.43E+08
L33E+08
L06E+08
5.41E+07




























































1.10E+08


























































222E+08


























































3.43E+O8


























































3.39E+08
^xtetPlsnt
•5 i


























































2.34E+08
12/17/93 04:59 PM
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      FUEL%RED.WK4

-------


Region
5
5
S
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5


Waft
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
NV
NV
UT
UT

(MSVPWWMStow
tha-fummril.tmi.KI
LA-South Coast Air Basin
LA-South Coast Air Basin
LA-South Coast Air Basin
LA-South Coast Air Bashi
San loiquin VaRey
San loaquin Valley
San loiquin Valley
San loaquin Valley
San Joaquin Valley
San loaquin Valley
San loaquin Valley
San loaquin Valley
San Francisco Bay Area
San Francisco Bay Area
San Francisco Bay Area
San Francisco Bay Arei
San Francisco Bay Area
San Francisco Bay Area
San Francisco Bay Area
San Francisco Bay Area
San Francisco Bay Area
Monterey Bay
Monterey Bay
Monterey Bay
Sacramento Metro
Sacramento Metro
Sacramento Metro
Sacramento Metro
Sacramento Metro
Ventura County

l-
' County
LA-1
Orjneje
Rmrside-1
SanBernar
Fresno
Kern
Kings
Madera
Merced
San loaquir
Stanislaus
Tulare
Warned!
Conta Costi
Mann
Napa
San Fransis
SanMateo
Santa Clara
Solano
Sonoma
Monterey
SanBenito
Santa Cruz
El Dorado
Placer
Sacrament!
Sutler
Volo
Ventura Cot
Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-USanta Bartu
Rest of State
Reno (new)
Las Vegas
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake aty


















0
Washoe
dark
Davis
Salt Lake

Ozone
0«i9,
Eltreme
Eitreme
Eitreme
iitre me
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Severe
Moderate
Attainment
Marginal
Attainment
Moderate
Moderate

Slaoelt
Aral?






































tate{onnutd)
TtmKjjhBut
126E+10
1.26E+10
126E+10
126E+10
126E+10
126E+10
126E+10
126E+10
126E+10
126E+10
126E+10
126E+10
126E+10
126E+10
126E+10
126E+10
126E+10
126E+10
126E+10
I26E+10
126E+10
126E+10
126E+10
126E+10
126E+10
126E+10
I26E+10
126E+10
126E+10
126E+10
126E+10
126E+10
6.I7E+08
6.I7E+08
6.85E+08
6.85E+08

KM
TteougtiiHil
3.75E+09
1.02E+09
4.95E+08
6.00E+08
2J2E+08
2.30E+08
429E+07
3.73E+07
7.54E+07
2.03E+08
1.57E+08
1.32E+08
5.4IE+08
3.40E+08
9.73E+07
4.68E+07
3.06E+08
2.75E+
-------
Appendix B: Supporting Data for Chapter 4-EmJssion
                Reduction Benefits

-------
TABLE B-1:  County and State Populations by Ozone Attainment Status
Region
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
State
CT
DC
DE
DE
DE
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
MA
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
Area
Entire State (56 FR 66444)
Washington (56 FR 24037)
Philadelphia-Wilm-Trenton
Phiiadelphia-Wilm-Trenton
Sussex Co (new)
Jersey Co (new)
Chicago-Gary-Lake County
Chlcago-Gary-Lake County
Chicago-Gary-Lake County
Chicago-Gary-Lake County
Chicago-Gary-Lake County
Chicago-Gary-Lake County
Chicago-Gary-Lake County
Chicago-Gary-Lake County
St Louis
St Louis
St Louis
Rest of state
Louisville
Louisville
South Bend-Elkhart
South Bend-Elkhart
Chicagc-Gary-Lake County
Chicago-Gary-Lake County
Indianapolis
Evansville (new)
Rest of state
Paducah (new)
Paducah (new)
Huntlngton- Ashland
Huntlngton- Ashland
Edmonson Co (new)
Cincinnati-Hamilton.
Cincinnati-Hamilton
Cincinnati-Hamilton
Lexington-Fayette (new)
Lexington-Fayette (new)
Louisville
Owensboro (new)
Owensboro (new)
Rest of state
Entire State (56 FR 57986)
Philadelphia-Wilm-Trenton
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Baltimore
County
all
all
Kent
New Castle
Sussex
Jersey
Cook
Du Page
Grundy (all)
Kane
Kendall (all)
Lake
Mchenry
Will
Madison
Monroe
St. Clair
—
Clark
Floyd
Elkhart
St,. Joseph
Lake
Porter
Marion
Vanderburgh
-
Livingston
Marshall
Boyd
Greenup
Edmonson
Boone
Campbell
Kenton
Fayette
Scott
Jefferson
Daviess
Hancock
-
all
Cecil
Calvert
Charles
Fredrick
Montgomery
Prince George
Anne Arudel
O3
Desig.
Ser/Sev
Serious
Severe
Severe
Marginal
Marginal
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Attainment
Moderate
Moderate
Marginal
Marginal
Severe
Severe
Marginal
Marginal
Attainment
Marginal
Marginal
Moderate
Moderate
Marginal
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Marginal
Marginal
Moderate
Marginal
Marginal
Attainment
Serious
Severe
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Severe
Area
Pop. /3/
3,287,116
606,900
110,993
441,946
113,229
20,539
5,105,067
781,666
32,337
317,471
39,413
516,418
183,241
357,313
249,238
22,422
262,852

475,594
128,932
156,198
247,052
475,594
128,932
797,159
165,058

9,062
27,205
51,150
36,742
10,357
57,589
83,866
142,031
225,366
23,867
664,937
87,189
7,864

6,016,425
71,347
51,372
101,154
150,208
757,027
729,268
427,239
State
Pop. /4/
3,287,116
606,900
666,168
666,168
666,168
11,430,602
11,430,602
11,430,602
11,430,602
11,430,602
11,430,602
11,430,602
11,430,602
11,430,602
11,430,602
11,430,602
11,430,602

5,544,159
5,544,159
5,544,159
5,544,159
5,544,159
5,544,159
5,544,159
5,544,159

3,685,296
3,685,296
3,685,296
3,685,296
3,685,296
3,685,296
3,685,296
3,685,296
3,685,296
3,685,296
3,685,296
3,685,296
3,685,296

6,016,425
4,781,468
4,781 ,468
4,781,468
4,781,468
4,781,468
4,781,468
4,781,468
% State
Pop.
100.0%
100.0%
16.7%
66.3%
17.0%
0.2%
44.7%
6.8%
0.3%
2.8%
0.3%
4.5%
1.6%
3.1%
2.2%
0.2%
2.3%
31.0%
8.6%
2.3%
2.8%
4.5%
8.6%
2.3%
14.4%
3.0%
53.6%
0.2%
0.7%
1.4%
1.0%
0.3%
1.6%
2.3%
3.9%
6.1%
0.6%
18.0%
2.4%
0.2%
61.3%
100.0%
1.5%
1.1%
2.1%
3.1%
15.8%
15.3%
8.9%

-------
Table B-1  (continued)
Region
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
State
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
Area
Baltimore
Baltimore
Baltimore
Baltimore
Baltimore
Kent & Queen Anne's Cos (new)
Kent & Queen Anne's Cos (new)
Rest of state
Hancock & Waldo Cos
Hancock & Waldo Cos
Portland
Portland
Portland
Lewiston-Aubum
Lewiston-Aubum
Knox & Lincoln Cos
Knox & Lincoln Cos
Flanklin County (56 FR 461 19)
Oxford (56 FR 461 19)
Somerset (56 FR 461 19)
Rest of state
Detroit-Ann Arbor
Detroit-Ann Arbor
Detroit-Ann Arbor
Detroit-Ann Arbor
Detroit-Ann Arbor
Detroit-Ann Arbor
Detroit-Ann Arbor
Grand Rapids
Grand Rapids
Rest of state
Boston-Lawrence-Worcester
Boston-Lawrence-Worcester
Manchester
Manchester
Manchester
Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester
Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester
Rest of state
Philadelphla-Wllm-Trenton
Philadelphia- Wilm-Trenton
Philadelphia- Wilm-Trenton
Philadelphia-Wilm-Trenton
Philadelphia-Wilm-Trenton
Philadelphia-Wilm-Trenton
Atlantic City
Atlantic City
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton
NY-N. NJ-Long Island
NY-N. NJ-Long Island
NY-N. NJ-Long Island
County
Baltimore
Carrol
Hartford
Howard
Baltimore city
Kent
Qween Anne's
—
Hancock
Waldo
Cumberland
Sagadahoc
York
Androscoggin
Kennebec
Knox
Lincoln
Flanklin County
Oxford
Somerset
—
Livingston
Macomb
Oakland
Monroe
St. Clair
Washtenaw
Wayne
Kent
Ottawa
—
Hillsborough-1
Rocklngham-1
Hillsborough-2
Merrimack
Rockingham-2
Rockingham-3
Stratford
all
Bulington
Camden
Cumberland
Gloucester
Mercer
Salem
Atlantic
Cape
Warren
Bergen
Essex
Hudson
03
Desig.
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Marginal
Marginal
Attainment
Marginal
Marginal
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Attainment
Serious
Serious
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Serious
Serious
Attainment
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Moderate
Moderate
Marginal
Severe
Severe
Severe
Area
Pop. /3/
692,134
123,372
182,132
187,328
736,014
17,842
33,953

46,948
33,018
200,443
33,535
20,652
93,679
115,904
36,310
52,602
29,008
52,602
49,767

115,645
717,400
1,083,592
133,600
145,607
282,937
2,111,687
500,631
187,768

177,641
7.243
132,944
13,416
27,423
88,769
98,111

395,066
502,824
138,053
230,082
325,824
65,294
224,327
95,089
91 ,607
825,380
778,206
553,099
State
Pop. /4/
4,781,468
4,781,468
4,781,468
4,781,468
4,781,468
4,781,468
4,781,468

1,227,928
1,227,928
1,227,928
1,227,928
1,227,928
1,227,928
1,227,928
1,227,928
1,227,928
1,227,928
1,227,928
1,227,928

9,295,297
9,295,297
9,295,297
9,295,297
9,295,297
9.295,297
9,295,297
9,295,297
9,295,297

1,109,252
1,109,252
1,109,252
1,109,252
1.109,252
1,109,252
1,109,252

7,740,188
7,740,188
7.740.188
7.740,188
7,740,188
7,740,188
7,740,188
7,740,188
7,740,188
7,740,188
7,740,188
7,740,188
% State
Pop.
14.5%
2.6%
3.8%
3.9%
15.4%
0.4%
0.7%
10.9%
3.8%
2.7%
16.3%
2.7%
1.7%
7.6%
9.4%
3.0%
4.3%
2.4%
4.3%
4.1%
37.7%
1.2%
7.7%
11.7%
1.4%
1.6%
3.0%
22.7%
5.4%
2.0%
43.2%
16.0%
0.7%
12.0%
1.2%
2.5%
8.0%
8.8%
50.8%
5.1%
6.5%
1.8%
3.0%
4.2%
0.8%
2.9%
1.2%
1 .2%
10.7%
10.1%
7.1%

-------
Table B-1  (continued)
Region
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
State
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
Area
NY-N. NJ-Long Island
NY-N. NJ-Long Island
NY-N. NJ-Long Island
NY-N. NJ-Long Island
NY-N. NJ-Long Island
NY-N. NJ-Long Island
NY-N. NJ-Long Island
NY-N. NJ-Long Island
NY-N. NJ-Long Island
Essex Co (Whiteface Mtn) (new)
Albany-Scnenectady-Troy (new)
Albany-Schenectady-Troy (new)
Albany-Schenectady-Troy (new)
Albany-Schenectady-Troy (new)
Albany-Schenectady-Troy (new)
Albany-Schenectady-Troy (new)
NY-N. NJ-Long Island
NY-N. NJ-Long Island
NY-N. NJ-Long Island
NY-N. NJ-Long Island
NY-N. NJ-Long Island
NY-N. NJ-Long Island
NY-N. NJ-Long Island
NY-N. NJ-Long Island
NY-N. NJ-Long Island
NY-N. NJ-Long Island
NY-N. NJ-Long Island
Poughkeepsie (new)
Buffalo-Niagara Falls (new)
Buffalo-Niagara Falls (new)
Jefferson Co (new)
Rest of state
Cleveland- Akron-Lorain
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain
Cleveland- Akron-Lorain
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain
Cleveland- Akron-Lorain
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain
Dayton-Springfield
Dayton-Springfield
Dayton-Springfield
Dayton-Springfield
Columbus(new)
Columbus(new)
Columbus(new)
Canton
Toledo/1/
Toledo/1/
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon
County
Hunterdon
Middlesex
Monmouth
Morris
Ocean
Passiac
Somerset
Sussex
Union
Essex
Albany
Greene
Montgomery
Rensseiaer
Saratoga
Schenectady
Bronx
Kings
Nassau
New York
Orange
Putham
Qweens
Richmond
Rockland
Suffolk
Westchester
Dutchess
Erie
Niagra
Jefferson
-
Ashtabula
Cuyahoga
Geauga
Lake
Lorain
Medina
Portage
Summit
Clark
Greene
Miami
Montgomery
Deleware
Franklin
Licking
Stark
Lucas
Wood
Mahonlng
03
Desig.
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Attainment
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Moderate
Moderate
Marginal
Area
Pop. /3/
107,776
671,780
553,124
421,353
443,203
453,060
240,279
130,943
493,819
37,152
292,594
44,739
51,981
154,429
181,276
149,285
1,203,789
2,300,664
1,287,348
1,487,536
307,647
83,941
1.951,325
378,977
265,475
1,321,864
874,866
259,462
968,532
220,756
110,943

99,821
215,499
81,129
215,499
271,126
122,354
142,585
514,990
147,548
136,731
93,182
573,809
66,929
961,437
128,300
367,585
462,361
113,269
264,806
State
Pop. /4/
7,740,188
7,740,188
7,740,188
7,740,188
7,740,188
7,740,188
7,740,188
7,740,188
7,740,188
17,990,455
17,990,455
17,990,455
17,990,455
17,990,455
17,990,455
17,990,455
17,990,455
17,990,455
17,990,455
17,990,455
17,990,455
17,990,455
17.990,455
17,990,455
17,990,455
17,990,455
17,990,455
17,990,455
17,990,455
17,990,455
17,990,455

10,847,115
10,847,115
10,847,115
10,847,115
10,847,115
10,847,115
10,847,115
10,847,115
10,847,115
10,847,115
10,847,115
10,847,115
10,847,115
10,847,115
10,847,115
10,847,115
10,847,115
10,847,115
10,847,115
% State
Pop.
1.4%
8.7%
7.1%
5.4%
5.7%
5.9%
3.1%
1.7%
6.4%
0.2%
1.6%
0.2%
0.3%
0.9%
1.0%
0.8%
6.7%
12.8%
7.2%
8.3%
1.7%
0.5%
10.8%
2.1%
1.5%
7.3%
4.9%
1.4%
5.4%
1.2%
0.6%
22.5%
0.9%
2.0%
0.7%
2.0%
2.5%
1.1%
1.3%
4.7%
1.4%
1.3%
0.9%
5.3%
0.6%
8.9%
1.2%
3.4%
4.3%
1.0%
2.4%

-------
Table B-1  (continued)
Region
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
State
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
Rl
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
Area
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon
Cincinnati-Hamilton
Cincinnati-Hamilton
Cincinnati-Hamilton
Cincinnati-Hamilton
Rest of state
Reading
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
Lancaster
Altoona (new)
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton
Erie
Johnstown (new)
Johnstown (new)
Scranton-Wllkes-Barre
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre
Scranton-Wllkes-Barre
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon
Harrisburg-Lebanon-Cariisle
Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle
Harrisburg-Lebanon-Cariisle
Harrisburg-Lebanon-Cariisle
York
York
Philadelphia- Wllm-Trenton
Philadelphia-Wilm-Trenton
Philadelphia-Wllm-Trenton
Philadelphia-Wilm-Trenton
Philadelphia-Wllm-Trenton
Rest of state
entire state (56 FR 46119)
Smyth Co (new)
Richmond-Petersburg
Richmond-Petersburg
Richmond-Petersburg
Richmond-Petersburg
Richmond-Petersburg
Richmond-Petersburg
Richmond-Petersburg
Norfolk- Vir Beach-Newport News
Norfolk- Vir Beach-Newport News
County
Trumbull
Butler
Clermont
Hamilton
Warren
—
Berks
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Washington
Westmoreland
Lancaster
Blair
Carbon
Lehigh
Northhampton
Erie
Cambria
Somerset
Columbia
Lackawanna
Luzeme
Monroe
Wyoming
Mercer
Cumberland
Dauphin
Lebanon
Perry
Adams
York
Bucks
Chester
Delaware
Montgomery
Philadelphia
-
all
Smyth
Charles City
Chesterfield
Colonial
Hanover
Henrico
Hopewell
Richmond
(Chesapeake
(Hampton
O3
Desig.
Marginal
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Attainment
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Attainment
Serious
Marginal
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Marginal
Marginal
Area
Pop. /3/
227,813
291,479
150,187
866,228
113,909

336,523
1,336,449
73,478
186.093
152,013
145,351
204,584
370,321
422,822
130,542
56,846
291.130
247,105
275,572
163,029
78,218
63,202
219,039
328,149
95,709
28.076
121,003
195,257
237,813
113,744
41,172
78,274
339,574
541,174
376,396
547,651
678,111
1,585,577

1,003,464
32,370
6.282
209,274
16,064
63,306
217,881
23,101
203,056
151,976
133,793
State
Pop. /4/
10,847,115
10,847,115
10,847,115
10,847,115
10,847,115
10,847,115
11,881,643
11,881,643
11,881,643
11,881,643
11,881,643
11,881,643
11,881,643
11,881,643
11,881,643
11,881,643
11,881,643
11,881,643
11,881,643
11,881,643
11,881,643
11,881,643
11,881,643
11,881,643
11,881,643
11,881,643
11.881,643
11,881,643
11,881.643
11,881,643
11,881,643
11,881,643
11,881,643
11,881,643
11,881,643
11,881,643
11,881,643
11,881,643
11,881,643
11,881,643
1,003,464
6,187,358
6,187,358
6,187,358
6,187,358
6,187,358
6.187,358
6,187,358
6,187,358
6,187,358
6,187,358
% State
Pop.
2.1%
2.7%
1.4%
8.0%
1.1%
38.9%
2.8%
11.2%
0.6%
1.6%
1.3%
1.2%
1.7%
3.1%
3.6%
1.1%
0.5%
2.5%
2.1%
2.3%
1.4%
0.7%
0.5%
1.8%
2.8%
0.8%
0.2%
1.0%
1.6%
2.0%
1.0%
0.3%
0.7%
2.9%
4.6%
3.2%
4.6%
5.7%
13.3%
15.3%
100.0%
0.5%
0.1%
3.4%
0.3%
1.0%
3.5%
0.4%
3.3%
2.5%
2.2%

-------
Table B-1  (continued)
Region
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
State
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VT
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
AL
AL
AL
AR
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
Area
Norfolk- Vir Beach-Newport
Norfolk- Vir Beach-Newport
Norfolk- Vir Beach-Newport
Norfolk-Vir Beach-Newport
Norfolk- Vir Beach-Newport
Norfolk-Vir Beach-Newport
Norfolk-Vir Beach-Newport
Norfolk-Vir Beach-Newport
Norfolk-Vir Beach-Newport
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Rest of state
entire state
Sheboygan
Walworth Co (new)
Kewaunee Co (new)
Milwaukee-Racine
Milwaukee-Racine
Milwaukee-Racine
Milwaukee-Racine
Milwaukee-Racine
Milwaukee-Racine
Manltowoc Co (new)
Door Co (new)
Rest of state
Parkersburg (new)
"Charleston (new)
"Charleston (new)
Greenbrier Co (new)
Huntingdon- Ashland
Huntington- Ashland
Rest of state
Birmingham
Birmingham
Rest of state , „
entire state

News
News
News
News
News
News
News
News
News









County
(James City
i Newport
i Norfolk
iPoquoson
i Portsmouth
(Suffolk
(Virginia Beach
iWilliamsburg
(York
Arlington
Fairfax
Loudon
Prince William
Stafford
Alexandria City
Fairfax City
Falls Church City
Manasas City
O3
Desig.
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Manasas Park City Serious

























Miami-Ft Laud.-W. Palm Beach
Miami-Ft Laud.-W. Palm Beach
Miami-Ft Laud.-W. Palm Beach
Tampa-St. Pet.-Clearwater
Tampa-St. Pet.-Clearwater


-
all
Sheboygan
Walworth
Kewaunee
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Wahington
Waukesha
Manltowoc
Door
-
Wood
Kanawha
Putnam
Greenbrier
Cabell
Wayne
™~
Jefferson
Shelby
-
all
Broward
Dade
Palm Beach
Hillsborough
Pinedas
Attainment
Attainment
Serious
Marginal
Moderate
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Moderate
Marginal
Attainment
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Marginal
Moderate
Moderate
Attainment
Marginal
Marginal
Attainment
Attainment
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Marginal
Marginal
Area
Pop. /3/
34,859
170,045
261,229
11,005
103,907
52,141
393,069
11,530
42,422
170,936
818,584
86,129
215,686
61 ,236
111,183
19,622
9,578
15,505
6,524

562,758
103,877
75,000
18,878
128,181
959,275
72.831
175,034
95,328
304,715
80,421
25,690

86,915
207,619
42,835
34,693
96,827
41,636

651,525
99,358

2,350,725
1,255,488
1,937,094
863,518
834,054
851,659
State
Pop. /4/
6,187,358
6,187,358
6,187,358
6,187,358
6,187,358
6,187,358
6,187,358
6,187,358
6,187,358
6,187,358
6,187,358
6,187,358
6,187,358
6,187,358
6,187,358
6,187,358
6,187,358
6,187,358
6,187,358
6,187,358
562,758
4,891 ,769
4.891,769
4,891 ,769
4,891,769
4,891 ,769
4.891,769
4,891,769
4.891,769
4,891,769
4,891,769
4,891,769
4.891.769
1,793.477
1,793,477
1,793.477
1,793,477
1,793,477
1,793,477
1.793,477
1,040,587
1,040,587
1,040,587
2,350,725
12,937,926
12,937,926
12,937,926
12,937.926
12,937,926
% State
Pop.
0.6%
2.7%
4.2%
0.2%
1.7%
0.8%
6.4%
0.2%
0.7%
2.8%
13.2%
1.4%
3.5%
1.0%
1.8%
0.3%
0.2%
0.3%
0.1%
41.0%
100.0%
2.1%
1.5%
0.4%
2.6%
19.6%
1.5%
3.6%
1.9%
6.2%
1.6%
0.5%
58.3%
4.8%
11.6%
2.4%
1.9%
5.4%
2.3%
71.5%
62.6%
9.5%
27.8%
100.0%
9.7%
15.0%
6.7%
6.4%
6.6%

-------
Table B-1  (continued)
Region
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
State
FL
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
MS
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
SC
SC
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
AZ
AZ
NM
OK
TX
Area
Rest of state
Atlanta
Atlanta
Atlanta
Atlanta
Atlanta
Atlanta
Atlanta
Atlanta
Atlanta
Atlanta
Atlanta
Atlanta
Atlanta
Rest of state
Lake Charles
Baton Rouge
Baton Rouge
Baton Rouge
Baton Rouge
Baton Rouge
Baton Rouge
Rest of state
entire state
Raleigh-Durham (new)
Raleigh-Durham (new)
Raleigh-Durham (new)
Chariotte-Gastonia
Chartotte-Gastonia
Greensboro-Winston (new)
Greensboro-Winston (new)
Greensboro-Winston (new)
Greensboro-Winston (new)
Rest of state
Cherokee Co(new)
Rest of state
Knoxville (new)
Memphis
Nashville
Nashville
Nashville
Nashville
Nashville
Rest of state
Phoenix
Rest of state
entire state
entire state
Beaumont-Port Aurthur
County
—
Cherokee
Clayton
Cobb
Coweta
De Kalb
Douglas
Fayette
Forsyth
Fulton
Gwinnett
Henry
Paulding
Rockdale
—
Calcasieu
Ascension
East Baton Rouge
Iberville
Livingston
Pointe Coupes
W. Baton Rouge
—
all
Durham
Granvflle
Wake
Gaston
Mecklenburg
Davidson
Davle
Forsyth
Guilford
—
Cherokee
—
Knox
Shelby
Davidson
Rutherford
Sumner
Williamsburg
Wilson
—
Maricopa
_
all
all
Hardin
03
Desig.
Attainment
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Attainment
Marginal
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Attainment
Attainment
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Attainment
Marginal
Attainment
Marginal
Marginal
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Attainment
Moderate
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Serious
Area
Pop. /3/

90,204
182,052
447,745
53,853
545,837
71,120
62,415
44,083
648,951
352,910
58,741
41,611
54,091

168,134
58,214
380,105
31,049
70,526
22,540
19,419

2,573,216
181,835
38,345
423,380
175,093
511,433
126,677
27,859
265,878
347,420

44,506

335,749
826,330
510,784
118,570
103,281
81,021
67,675

2,122,101

1,515,069
3,145,585
41,320
State
Pop. 141
12,937,926
6,478,216
6,478,216
6,478,216
6,478,216
6,478,216
6,478,216
6,478,216
6,478,216
6,478,216
6,478,216
6,478,216
6,478,216
6,478,216
6,478,216
4,219,973
4,219,973
4,219,973
4,219,973
4,219,973
4,219,973
4,219,973
4,219,973
2,573,216
6,628,637
6,628,637
6,628,637
6,628,637
6,628,637
6,628,637
6,628,637
6,628,637
6,628,637
6,628,637
3,486,703
3,486,703
4,877,185
4,877,185
4,877,185
4,877.185
4,877,185
4,877,185
4,877,185
4,877,185
3,665,228
3,665,228
1,515,069
3,145,585
16,985,510
% State
Pop.
55.6%
1.4%
2.8%
6.9%
0.8%
8.4%
1.1%
1.0%
0.7%
10.0%
5.4%
0.9%
0.6%
0.8%
59.0%
4.0%
1.4%
9.0%
0.7%
1.7%
0.5%
0.5%
82.2%
100.0%
2.7%
0.6%
6.4%
2.6%
7.7%
1.9%
0.4%
4.0%
5.2%
68.4%
1.3%
98.7%
6.9%
16.9%
10.5%
2.4%
2.1%
1.7%
1.4%
58.1%
57.9%
42.1%
100.0%
100.0%
0.2%

-------
Table B-1  (continued)
Region
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
State
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
CO
ID
IOWA
KS
MN
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MT
ND
NE
OR
OR
OR
OR
SD
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WY
CA
CA
CA
CA-
CA
CA
Area
Beaumont-Port Aurthur
Beaumont-Port Aurthur
Dallas-Fort Worth
Dallas-Fort Worth
Dallas-Fort Worth
Dallas-Fort Worth
El Paso
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria
Rest of state
entire state
entire state
entire state
entire state
entire state
St Louis
St Louis
St Louis
St Louis
St Louis
Rest of state
entire state
entire state
entire state
Portland-Vancouver AQMA
Portland-Vancouver AQMA
Portland-Vancouver AQMA
Rest of state
entire state
Seattle-Tacoma (new)
Seattte-Tacoma (new)
Seattle-Tacoma (new)
Portland-Vancouver AQMA
Rest of state
entire state
San Diego
LA-South Coast Air Basin
LA-South Coast Air Basin
LA-South Coast Air Basin
LA-South Coast Air Basin
San Joaquin Valley
County
Jefferson
Orange
Collin
Dallas
Denton
Tarrant
El Paso
Brazoria
Chambers
Fort Bend
Galveston
Harris
Liberty
Montgomery
Waller
_
all
all
all
all
all
Franklin
Jefferson
St. Charles
St. Louis
St. Louis County
-
all
all
all
Clackamas
Multnomak
Washington
-
all
King
Pierce
Snohomish
Clark
-
all
San Diego
LA-1
Orange
Riverside- 1
San Bernardino- 1
Fresno
O3
Desig.
Serious
Serious
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Serious
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Attainment
Attainment
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Attainment
Attainment
Severe
Extreme
Extreme
Extreme
Extreme
Serious
Area
Pop. /3/
239,397
80,509
264,036
1,852,810
273,525
1,170,103
591,610
191,707
20,088
225,421
217,399
2,818,199
52,726
182,201
23,390

3,294,394
1,006,749
2,776,755
2,477,574
4,375,099
80,603
171,380
212,907
396,685
993,529

799,065
638,800
1,578,385
278,850
583,887
311,554

696,004
1,507,319
586,203
465,642
238,053

453,588
2,948,016
8,863,164
2,410,556
1,170,413
1,418,380
667,490
State
Pop. /4/
16,985,510
16,985,510
16,985,510
16,985,510
16,985,510
16,985,510
16,985,510
16,985,510
16,985,510
16,985,510
16,985,510
16,985,510
16,985,510
16,985,510
16,985,510
16,985,510
3,294,394
1,006,749
2,776,755
2,477,574
4,375,099
5,117,073
5,117,073
5,117,073
5,117,073
5,117,073
5,117,073
799,065
638,800
1,578,385
2,842,321
2,842,321
2,842,321
2,842,321
696,004
4,866,692
4,866,692
4,866,692
4,866,692
4,866,692
453,588
29,760,021
29,760,021
29,760,021
29,760,021
29,760,021
29,760,021
% State
Pop.
1.4%
0.5%
1.6%
10.9%
1.6%
6.9%
3.5%
1.1%
0.1%
1.3%
1.3%
16.6%
0.3%
1.1%
0.1%
51.5%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
1.6%
3.3%
4.2%
7.8%
19.4%
63.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
9.8%
20.5%
11.0%
58.7%
100.0%
31.0%
12.0%
9.6%
4.9%
42.5%
100.0%
9.9%
29.8%
8.1%
3.9%
4.8%
2.2%

-------
Table B-1  (continued)
Region
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
State
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
NV
NV
NV
UT
UT
UT
Area
San Joaquin Valley
San Joaquin Valley
San Joaquin Valley
San Joaquin Valley
San Joaquin Valley
San Joaquin Valley
San Joaquin Valley
San Francisco Bay
San Francisco Bay
San Francisco Bay
San Francisco Bay
San Francisco Bay
San Francisco Bay
San Francisco Bay
San Francisco Bay
San Francisco Bay
Monterey Bay
Monterey Bay
Monterey Bay
Sacramento Metro
Sacramento Metro
Sacramento Metro
Sacramento Metro
Sacramento Metro
Ventura County








Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area









County
Kern
Kings
Madera
Merced
San Joaquin
Stanislaus
Tulare
Alameda
Conta Costa
Marin
Napa
San Fransisco
San Mateo
Santa Clara
Solano
Sonoma
Monterey
San Benito
Santa Cruz
El Dorado
Placer
Sacramento
Sutler
Yolo
Ventura County
Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Lomp Santa Barbara
Rest of state
Reno (new)
Las Vegas
Rest of state
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City
Rest of state







—
Washoe
Clark
—
Davis
Salt Lake
-
O3
Desig.
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Severe
Moderate
Attainment
Marginal
Attainment
Attainment
Moderate
Moderate
Attainment
Area
Pop. /3/
543,477
101,469
88,090
178,403
480,628
370,522
311,921
1,279,182
803,732
230,096
110,765
723,959
649,623
1,497,577
340,421
388,222
355,660
36,697
229,734
125,995
172,796
1,041,219
64,415
141,092
669,016
369,608
977,608
254,667
741,459

187,941
725,956

State
Pop. 141
29,760,021
29,760,021
29,760,021
29,760,021
29,760,021
29,760,021
29,760,021
29,760,021
29,760,021
29,760,021
29,760,021
29,760,021
29,760,021
29,760,021
29,760,021
29,760,021
29,760,021
29,760,021
29,760,021
29,760,021
29,760,021
29,760,021
29,760,021
29,760,021
29,760,021
29,760,021
29,760,021
1,201,833
1,201,833
1,201,833
1,722,850
1,722,850
1,722,850
% State
Pop.
1.8%
0.3%
0.3%
0.6%
1.6%
1.2%
1.0%
4.3%
2.7%
0.8%
0.4%
2.4%
2.2%
5.0%
1.1%
1.3%
1.2%
0.1%
0.8%
0.4%
0.6%
3.5%
0.2%
0.5%
2.2%
1.2%
3.3%
21.2%
61.7%
17.1%
10.9%
42.1%
47.0%

-------
TABLE B-2: Fuel Consumption in Nonattalnment Areas, Attainment Areas, and Stage II Areas
                          (Effective During the Months Jun» through September)

RVP O3 Reform Stage II % State
Region State Area County Class Desk). Area? Area? Pop.
CT Entire State (56 FR 66444) al c Ser/Sev
DC Washington (56 FR 24037) al b Serious
DE Phlladelphia-Wilm-Trenton Kent c Severe
DE PhHadelphia-Wilm-Trenton Newcastle c Severe
DE Sussex Co (new) Sussex c Marginal
IL Jersey Co (new) Jersey c Marginal 0
IL Chfcago-Gary-Lake County Cook c Severe
IL Chicago-Gary-Lake County DuPage c Severe
1 IL Chfcago-Gary-Lake County Qrundy(al) c Severe 1
1 IL Chteago-Qary-Lake County Kane c Severe 1
1 IL Chfcago-Qaty-Laka County Kendall (al) c Severe 1
1 IL CMcago-Qary-Lake County Lake c Severe 1



































IL Chicago-Gar/ LaKa County Mchenry c Severe 1
IL Chfcago-Gary Lake County Will c Severe 1
IL SI Louis Madison c Moderate 0
IL St Louis Monroe c Moderate 0
IL StLoUs SlQair c Moderate 0
IL Rest al state - c Attainment 0
IN Loutevlla Clark c Moderate 0
IN Loutovlle Floyd c Moderate 0
IN South Bend-Elkhart Elkhart c Marginal 0
IN South Bend-Elkhart St.. Joseph c Marginal 0
IN Chicago-Gary Lake County Lake c Severe 1
IN Chicago-Gary-Lake County Porter c Severe 1
100.0%
100.0%
16.7%
66.3%
17.0%
) 0.2%
44.7%
6.8%
0.3%
2.8%
0.3%
4.5%
1.6%
3.1%
2.2%
0.2%
2.3%
) 31.0%
8.6%
2.3%
> 2.8%
4.5%
8.6%
2.3%
IN ManapoCs Marion c Marginal 0 0 14.4%
IN Evansvile (new) Vanderburgh c Marginal 0 0 3.0%
IN Rest of stale - c Attainment 0 0 53.6%
KY Paducah(new) Livingston c Marginal 0 0 0.2%
KY Paducah(new) Marshal c Marginal 0 0 0.7%
KY Huntington-Ashland Boyd c Moderate 0 0 1.4%
KY Huntington-Ashland Qreenup c Moderate 0 0 1.0%
KY EdmonsonCo(new) Edmonson c Marginal 0 0 0.3%
KY Clndnnati-Hamillon Boons c Moderate 0 1 1.6%
KY Cincinnati-Hamilton Campbel c Moderate 0 1 2.3%
KY Clnckmafi-Hamilton Kerrton c Moderate 0 1 3.9%
KY Lexlngton-Fayelte (new) Fayette c Marginal 0 0 6.1%
KY Lexhgton-Fayette (new) Scott c Marginal 0 0 0.6%
KY Louisvlle Jefferson c Moderate 0 1 18.0%
KY Owensboro (new) Davktss c Marginal 0 0 2.4%
KY Owensboro (new) Hancock c Marginal 0 0 0.2%
KY Rest of state - c Attainment 0 0 61.3%
MA Entire State (56 FR 57986) al c Serious 100.0%
MD Phfladefchia-Wilm-Trenton Caci b Severe 1.5%
MD Washington Calvert b Serious 1.1%
MD Washington Charles b Serious 2.1%
MD Washington Fredrick b Serious 3.1%
MD Washington Montgomery b Serious 15.8%
MD Washington Prince George b Serious 1 15.3%

State/
Nation
Thruput
1.18%
0.15%
0.30%
0.30%
0.30%
4.08%
4.08%
4.08%
4.08%
4.08%
4.08%
4.08%
4.08%
4.08%
4.08%
4.08%
4.08%
4.08%
2.36%
2.36%
2.36%
2.36%
2.36%
2.36%
2.36%
2.36%
2.36%
1.62%
1.62%
1.62%
1.62%
1.62%
1.62%
1.62%
1.62%
1.62%
1.62%
1.62%
1.62%
1.62%
1.62%
2.14%
1.83%
1.83%
1.83%
1.83%
1.83%
1.83%
Fuel Consumption as a Percent of Nationwide Fuel Consumption
Nonattainment
Areas
6.7 RVP 7.0 RVP 7.8 RVP 9.0 RVP
1.18% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.15% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01%
1.82% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.28% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.18% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.07% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.13% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.09%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.09%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.20%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.05%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.07%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.11%
0.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.34%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.07%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.03%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.04%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.06%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.10%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.29%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.04%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
2.14% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.02% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.06% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.29% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.28% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Attainment
Areas
9.0 RVP
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
000%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.26%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.27%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.99%
0.00%
o!oo%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Stage II j
Areas j
6.7 RVP 7.0 RVP 7.8 RVP 9.0 RVP '
1.18% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.15% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
1.82% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.28% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.18% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.07% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.13% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.09%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.09%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.20%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.05%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.03%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.04%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.06%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.29%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
2.14% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.02% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.06% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.29% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.28% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

-------
TribkB-2 (continued)


Regjon Slate
1 MO
1 MO
MO
MO
MO
MD
MO
MD
MD
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
1 ME
1 ME
1 ME
ME
ME
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ


Area
Baltimore
Baltimore
Baltimore
Baltimore
Baltimore
Baltimore
Kant & Queen Anne's Cos (new)
Kent & Queen Anne's Cos (new)
Rest of state
Hancock & Waldo Cos
Hancock & Waldo Cos
P., ii ....I
rornano:
Portland
r>n iiiiiii .I
Kornanci
Lewi aton- Auburn
Lewiston- Auburn
Knox & Lincoln Cos
Knox & Lincoln Cos
RankUn County (56 FR 461 1 9)
Oxford (56 FR 4611 9)
Somerset (56 FR 461 19)
Rest of state
Detroit-Ann Arbor
Detroit-Ann Arbor
Detroit-Ann Arbor
Detroit-Arm Arbor
Detroit-Ann Arbor
Detroit-Ann Arbor
Detroit-Ann Arbor
Grand Rapids
Grand Rapids
Rest of state
Boston-Lawrence-Worcester
Boston-Lawrence-Worcester
Manchester
Manchester
Manchester
Portsmoulh-Dover-Rochester
Ports mouth-Dover-Rochestar
Rest of state
PNtadebWa-Wilm-Trenton
PNIadelphia-Wilfn-Trenton
PHIadelphia-Wilm-Trenton
Philadabhia-Wilm-Tranlon
PhBadebNa-Wilrn-Trenton
Philadelphia-Wilm-Trenton
Atlantic City
Atlantic City
Alentown-Bethlehem-Easton
NY-N. NJ-Long Island
NY-N. NJ-Long Island
NY-N. NJ-Long Island


County
AnneArudel
Baltimore
Carrol
llajirtLm i<
nanfora
Howard
Baltimore city
Kent
Qween Anne's
—
Hancock
Waldo
Cumberland
Sagadahoc
York
Androscoggln
Kennetaec
Knox
Lincoln
RanMIn County
Oxford
Somerset
-
Livingston
Macomb
Oakland
Monroe
SLCIalr
Washtenaw
Wayne
Kent
Ottawa
-
HUsborough-1
RocMngham-1
HMsborough-2
Mwnmack
RocHngham-2
RockJngham-3
Stratford
at
Bufrigton
Camden
Cumberland
Gloucester
Mercer
SaJem
Atlantic
Cape
Warren
Bergen
Essex
Hudson


RVP
Class
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c


O3 Reform
Desig. Area?
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Marginal
Marginal 1
Attainment 0
Marginal 1
Marginal 1
Moderate 1
Moderate 1
Moderate 1
Moderate 1
Moderate 1
Moderate 1
Moderate 1
Attainment 1
Attainment 1
Attainment 1
Attainment 0
Moderate 0
Moderate 0
Moderate 0
Moderate 0
Moderate 0
Moderate 0
Moderate 0
Moderate 0
Moderate 0
Attainment 0
Serious 1
Serious 1
Margkul 1
Marginal 1
Margin* 1
Serious 1
Serious 1
Attainment 0
Severe 1
Severe 1
Severe 1
Severe 1
Severe 1
Severe 1
Moderate 1
Moderate 1
Marginal 1
Severe 1
Severe 1
Severe 1


Stage II
Area?
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0


I













I
% State
Pop.
8.9%
14.5%
2.6%
3.8%
3.9%
15.4%
0.4%
0.7%
10.9%
3.8%
2.7%
16.3%
2.7%
1.7%
7.6%
9.4%
3.0%
4.3%
2.4%
4.3%
4.1%
37.7%
1.2%
7.7%
11.7%
1.4%
1.6%
3.0%
22.7%
S.4%
2.0%
43.2%
16.0%
0.7%
12.0%
1.2%
2.5%
8.0%
8.8%
50.8%
5.1%
6.5%
1.8%
3.0%
4.2%
0.8%
2.9%
1.2%
1.2%
10.7%
10.1%
7.1%

State/
Nation
Thruput
.83%
.83%
.83%
.83%
.83%
.83%
.83%
.83%
.83%
0.54%
0.54%
0.54%
0.54%
0.54%
0.54%
0.54%
0.54%
0.54%
0.54%
0.54%
0.54%
0.54%
3.83%
3.83%
3.83%
3.83%
3.83%
3.83%
3.83%
3.83%
3.83%
3.83%
0.45%
0.45%
0.45%
0.45%
0.45%
0.45%
0.45%
0.45%
3.09%
3.09%
3.09%
3.09%
3.09%
3.09%
3.09%
3.09%
3.09%
3.09%
3.09%
3.09%


6.7 HVP
0.16%
0.27%
0.05%
0.07%
0.07%
0.28%
0.01%
0.01%
0.00%
0.02%
0.01%
0.09%
0.01%
0.01%
0.04%
0.05%
0.02%
0.02%
0.01%
0.02%
0.02%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.07%
0.00%
0.05%
0.01%
0.01%
0.04%
0.04%
0.00%
0.16%
0.20%
0.06%
0.09%
0.13%
0.03%
0.09%
0.04%
0.04%
0.33%
0.31%
0.22%
Fuel ConsumpUo
Nonattainment
Areas
7.0 RVP 7.8 RVP
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
n as a Pe

9.0 RVP
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.05%
0.30%
0.45%
0.06%
0.06%
0.12%
0.87%
0.21%
0.08%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
ncentolNat!
Attainment
Areas
9.0 RVP
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.20%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.20%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.66%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.23%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
lonwide Fuel Consumption
Stage II
Areas
6.7 RVP 7.0 RVP 7.8 RVP 9.0 RVP
0.16% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.27% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.07% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.07% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.28% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.07% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.16% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.06% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.13% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.31% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.22% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

-------
TabfcB-2 (continued)

Regjon State Area County
1 NJ NY-N. NJ-Long Island Hunterdon
NJ NY-N. NJ-Long Island MkkJasex
NJ NY-N. NJ-Long Island Monmouth
NJ NY-N. NJ-Long Island Morris
NJ NY-N. NJ-Long Island Ocean
NJ NY-N. NJ-Long Island Pasalac
NJ NY-N. NJ-Long Island Somerset
NJ NY-N. NJ-Long Island Sussex
NJ NY-N. NJ-Long Island UNon
NY Essex Co (Whiteface Mm) (new) Essex
NY Afcany-Schenectady-Troy (new) Afcany
NY Abany-Schenectady-Troy (new) Greene
NY Afcany-Schenectady-Troy (new) Montgomery
NY Afcany-Schenectady-Troy (new) Rensseiaar
NY Afcany-Schenectady-Troy (new) Saratoga
NY Afcany-Schenectady-Troy (new) Schenectady
NY NY-N. NJ-Long Island Bronx
NY NY-N. NJ-Long Island Kings
NY NY-N. NJ-Long Island Nassau
NY NY-N. NJ-Long Island New York
NY NY-N. NJ-Long Island Orange
NY NY-N. NJ-Long Island Putham
NY NY-N. NJ-Long Island Qweens
NY NY-N. NJ-Long Island Richmond
NY NY-N. NJ-Long Island RocMand
NY NY-N. NJ-Long Island Suffolk
NY NY-N. NJ-Long Island Weslchester
NY Poughkeepsie (new) Dutchess
NY Buffato-Nagara Falls (new) Erie
NY BuHato-Magara Falls (new) Nagra
NY Jefferson Co (new) Jefferson
NY Rest of state
OH Cleveland-Akion-Lorain AshtabUa
OH develand-Akron-Lorain Cuyahoga
OH aevetand-Akron-Loraki Qeauga
OH Cleveland-Akron-Lorain Lake
OH aeveUnd-Akron-Lorain Loraki
OH Cleveland-Akron-Lorain Medna
OH Clevennd-Akron-Lorain Portage
OH Cleveland-Akron-Lorain Summit
1 OH Dayton-Springfield dark
1 OH Dayton-Springfield Greene
1 OH Dayton-Springfield Miami
OH Dayton-Springfield Montgomery
OH Co)umbus(new) Delaware
OH Cotumbus(new) FranMn
OH Columbus(new) Licking
OH Canton Stark
OH Toledo/1/ Lucas
OH Toledo/1/ Wood
OH Youngstown-Warren-Sharon Mahonkig
OH Youngstown-Warren-Sharon Tnjmbutl

RVP
Class
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c

O3
Desig.
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Marginal
Margkul
Margkul
Margkul
Margkul
Margkul
Margkul
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Margkul
Margkul
Marginal
Margkul
Attainment
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Margkul
Margkul
Margkul
Margkul
Moderate
Moderate
Margkul
Margkul

Reform
Area?






1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Staged
Area?









0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1









0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1








0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
% State
Pop.
1.4%
8.7%
7.1%
5.4%
5.7%
5.9%
3.1%
1.7%
6.4%
0.2%
1.6%
0.2%
0.3%
0.9%
1.0%
0.8%
6.7%
12.8%
7.2%
8.3%
1.7%
0.5%
10.8%
2.1%
1.5%
7.3%
4.9%
1.4%
5.4%
1.2%
0.6%
22.5%
0.9%
2.0%
0.7%
2.0%
2.5%
1.1%
1.3%
4.7%
1.4%
1.3%
0.9%
5.3%
0.6%
8.9%
1.2%
3.4%
4.3%
1.0%
2.4%
2.1%

State/
Nation
Thruput
3.09%
3.09%
3.09%
3.09%
3.09%
3.09%
3.09%
3.09%
3.09%
5.26%
5.26%
5.26%
5.26%
5.26%
5.26%
5.26%
5.26%
5.26%
5.26%
5.26%
5.26%
5.26%
5.26%
5.26%
5.26%
5.26%
5.26%
5.26%
5.26%
5.26%
5.26%
5.26%
4.21%
4.21%
4.21%
4.21%
4.21%
4.21%
4.21%
4.21%
4.21%
4.21%
4.21%
4.21%
4.21%
4.21%
4.21%
4.21%
4.21%
4.21%
4.21%
4.21%
Fuel Consumption as a Percent of Nationwide Fuel Consumption
6.7 RVP
0.04%
0.27%
0.22%
0.17%
0.18%
0.18%
0.10%
0.05%
0.20%
0.01%
0.09%
0.01%
0.02%
0.05%
0.05%
0.04%
0.35%
0.67%
0.38%
0.43%
0.09%
0.02%
0.57%
0.11%
0.08%
0.39%
0.26%
0.08%
0.28%
0.06%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Nona tt ailment
Areas
7.0 RVP 7.8 RVP
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
9.0 RVP
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.03%
0.00%
0.04%
0.08%
0.03%
0.08%
0.11%
0.05%
0.06%
0.20%
0.06%
0.05%
0.04%
0.22%
0.03%
0.37%
0.05%
0.14%
0.18%
0.04%
0.10%
0.09%
Attainment
Areas
9.0 RVP
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.19%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
8.7 RVP
0.04%
0.27%
0.22%
0.17%
0.18%
0.18%
0.10%
0.05%
0.20%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.35%
0.67%
0.38%
0.43%
0.09%
0.02%
0.57%
0.11%
0.08%
0.39%
0.26%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Stage II
Areas
7.0 RVP 7.8 RVP 9.0 RVP
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.04%
0.00% 0.00% 0.08%
0.00% 0.00% 0.03%
0.00% 0.00% 0.08%
0.00% 0.00% 0.11%
0.00% 0.00% 0.05%
0.00% 0.00% 0.06%
0.00% 0.00% 0.20%
0.00% 0.00% 0.06%
0.00% 0.00% 0.05%
0.00% 0.00% 0.04%
0.00% 0.00% 0.22%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00°%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.18%
0.00% 0.00% 0.04%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

-------
TabfeB-2 (continued)
                                 Fuel Consumption as a Percent ol Nationwide Fuel Consumption

Region State Area County



















































OH Cincinnati-Hamilton Butler
OH Cincinnall-Hamilton Clermont
OH Cincimati-Hamilton Hamilton
OH Onchmall-Hamilton Warren
OH Rest of state
PA Readng Berks
PA PUsburgh-BeavarValey Alegheny
PA Pittsburgh-Beaver Valey Armstrong
PA Pittsburgh-Beaver Valey Beaver
PA Pittsburgh-Beaver Valey Buter
PA Pttsburgh-Beaver Valey Fayette
PA Pmaburgh-Beaver Valey Washington
PA PMsburgh-Beaver Valey Westmoreland
PA Lancaster Lancaster
PA AJtoona (new) Blair
PA Alentown-BelNehem-Easton Carbon
PA Alentown-Belhleheni-Easton LeHgh
PA Alentown-Bethlehem-Easton Northhampton
PA Erie Erie
PA Johnstown (new) Cambria
PA Johnstown (new) Somerset
PA Scranton-Wlkes-Barre Columbia
PA Scranton-Wlkes-Barre Lackawama
PA Scranton-Wlkes-Barre Lucerne
PA Scranton-Wlkes-Barre Monroe
PA Scranton-Wlkes-Barre Wyoming
PA Youngstown-Warren-Sharon Mercer
PA Hanfaburg-LebanorvCarfale Cumberland
PA Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlsle Dauphin
PA Harnsbug-Lebanon-Carlste Lebanon
PA Harrisburg-LebanorvCarisle Perry
PA York Adams
PA York York
PA PhHadetohla-Wilm-Trenton Bucks
PA Phtladetohia-Wilm-Trenton Chester
PA Phtladetohta-Wllm-Trenlon Delaware
PA Phtedetohta-Wilm-Trenton Montgomery
PA PhUadebhla-Wilm-Trenton Phfladelphla
PA Rest of stale
Rl entire state (56 FR 461 19) al
VA Smyti Co (new) Smyth
VA Richmond-Petersburg Charles C*y
VA Richmond-Petersburg ChesterfeH
VA Richmond-Petersburg CotortaJ
VA Richmond-Petersburg Hanover
VA Richmond-Petersburg Henrioo
VA Richmond-Petersburg Hopewel
VA Richmond-Petersburg Richmond
VA Norfolk-Vir Beach-Newport News (Chesapeake
VA Norfolk-Vir Beach-Newport News (Hampton
VA Norfolk-Vir Beach-Newport News (James City
1 VA Nortolk-Vir Beach-Newport News (Newport

RVP
Class
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
b
b







b
b
b

O3
DesJg.
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Attainment
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Marginal
Marginal
Marghal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Margkial
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Attainment
Serious
Marginal
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal

Reform
Area?
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Stage II
Area?
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
% State
Pop.
2.7%
1.4%
8.0%
1.1%
38.9%
2.8%
11.2%
0.6%
1.6%
1.3%
1.2%
1.7%
3.1%
3.6%
1.1%
0.5%
2.5%
2.1%
2.3%
1.4%
0.7%
0.5%
1.8%
2.8%
0.8%
0.2%
1.0%
1.6%
2.0%
1.0%
0.3%
0.7%
2.9%
4.6%
3.2%
4.6%
5.7%
13.3%
15.3%
100.0%
0.5%
0.1%
3.4%
0.3%
1.0%
3.5%
0.4%
3.3%
2.5%
2.2%
0.6%
2.7%
State/
Nation
Thruput
4.21%
4.21%
4.21%
4.21%
4.21%
4.14%
4.14%
4.14%
4.14%
4.14%
4.14%
4.14%
4.14%
4.14%
4.14%
4.14%
4.14%
4.14%
4.14%
4.14%
4.14%
4.14%
4.14%
4.14%
4.14%
4.14%
4.14%
4.14%
4.14%
4.14%
4.14%
4.14%
4.14%
4.14%
4.14%
4.14%
4.14%
4.14%
4.14%
0.33%
2.65%
2.66%
2.65%
2.65%
2.65%
2.65%
2.65%
2.65%
2.65%
2.65%
2.65%
2.65%
6.7 RVP
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.12%
0.47%
0.03%
0.06%
0.05%
0.05%
0.07%
0.13%
0.15%
0.05%
0.02%
0.10%
0.09%
0.10%
0.06%
0.03%
0.02%
0.08%
0.11%
0.03%
0.01%
0.04%
0.07%
0.08%
0.04%
0.01%
0.03%
0.12%
0.19%
0.13%
0.19%
0.24%
0.55%
0.00%
0.33%
0.01%
0.00%
0.09%
0.01%
0.03%
0.09%
0.01%
0.09%
0.07%
0.06%
0.01%
0.07%
Nonattainment
Areas
7.0 RVP 7.8 RVP
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
9.0 RVP
0.11%
0.06%
0.34%
0.04%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Attainment
Areas
9.0 RVP
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.64%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.64%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
6.7 RVP
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.12%
0.47%
0.03%
0.06%
0.05%
0.05%
0.07%
0.13%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.19%
0.13%
0.19%
0.24%
0.55%
0.00%
0.33%
0.00%
0.00%
0.09%
0.01%
0.03%
0.09%
0.01%
0.09%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Stage II
Areas
7.0 RVP 7.8 RVP
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
9.0 RVP
0.11%
0.06%
0.34%
0.04%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

-------
Table B-2 (continued)

RVP 03 Reform Stage II % State
Reojon State Area County Class Desk]. Area? Area? Pop.
VA Noriolk-W Beach-Newport News (Norfeh b Marginal 1 0 4.2%
VA Noriolk-VirBeach-NewDoftNews(PocrJoson b Marginal 1 0 0.2%
VA Nortolk-Vlr Beach-Newport News (Portsmouth b Marginal 0 1.7%
VA Norfolk-Vlr Beach-Newport News (Suffolk b Marginal 0 0.8%
VA Norfotk-Vir Beach-Newport News (Virginia Beach b Marginal 0 6.4%
VA Norfolk-Vir Beach-Newport News (Wllllamsburg b Marginal 0 0.2%
VA Norfolk- W Beach-Newport News (York b Marginal 0 0.7%
VA Washington Arlington b Serious 1 2.8%
VA Washington Fairfax b Serious
VA Washington teuton Serious
VA Washington Prince Wiflam Serious
VA Washington Stafford Serious
VA Washington Alexandria City Serious
VA Washington Fairfax City Serious
VA Washington Falls Church CHy Serious
VA Washington ManasasCKy Serious
VA Washington Manasas Park City Serious 1
VA Rest of state - c Attainment 0
VT entire state al c Attainment 0
Wl Sheboygan Sheboygan c Serious 0
Wl WaJworttiCo(new) Watworth c Marginal 0
Wl Kewaunee Co (new) Kewaunee c Moderate 0
1 Wl Mlwaukee-Racine Kenosha c Severe
1 Wl Mlwaukee-Radne Mlwaukee c Severe
1 Wl MKvaukee-Radne OzauXee c Severe
Wl Mlwaukee-Racine Radne c Severe
Wl Mlwaukee-Radna Wahtngton c Severe
Wl Mlwaukee-Racine Waukesha c Severe
Wl Maritowoc Co (new) Manftowoc c Moderate 0
13.2%
1.4%
3.5%
1.0%
1.8%
0.3%
0.2%
0.3%
0.1%
3 41.0%
) 100.0%
2.1%
) 1.5%
0.4%
2.6%
19.6%
1.5%
3.6%
1.9%
6.2%
1.6%
Wl Door Co (new) Door c Marginal 0 0 0.5%
Wl Rest of state - c Attainment 0 0 58.3%
WV Parkersburg (new) Wood c Moderate 0 0 4.8%
WV -Charleston (new) Kanawha c Moderate 0 0 11.6%
WV "Charleston (new) Putnam c Moderate 0 0 2.4%
WV QreenbrierCo(new) Qreenbrief c Marginal 0 0 1.9%
WV Huntington-Ashland Cabal c Moderate 0 0 5.4%
WV Huntkigton-AsNand Wayne c Moderate 0 0 2.3%
WV Rest of stale - c Attainment 0 0 71.5%

2 AL Birmingham Jefferson b Marginal 0 0 62.6%
2 AL Birmingham Shelby b Marginal 0 0 9.5%
2 AL Rest of state - c Attainment 0 0 27.8%
2 AR entire stale al b Attainment 0 0 100.0%
2 FL MIami-F( Laud.-W. Palm Beach Broward b Moderate 0 1 9.7%
2 FL Mlaml-Ft Laud.-W. Palm Beach Dads b Moderate 0 1 15.0%
2 FL Miaml-Fl Uud.-W. Palm Beach Palm Beach b Moderate 0 1 6.7%
2 FL Tampa-SL Pet-Clearwater HDIsborough b Marginal 0 0 6.4%
2 FL Tampa-Si. Pet-Clearwater Plnelas b Marginal 0 0 6.6%
2 FL Rest of state _ c Attainment 0 0 55.6%
2 QA Atlanta Cherokee b Serious 0 1 1.4%
2 QA Atlanta Clayton b Serious 0 1 2.8%

State/
Nation
Thruput
2.65%
2.65%
2.65%
2.65%
2.65%
2.65%
2.65%
2.65%
2.65%
2.65%
2.65%
2.65%
2.65%
2.65%
2.65%
2.65%
2.65%
2.65%
0.25%
1.86%
1.86%
1.86%
1.86%
1.86%
1.86%
1.86%
1.86%
1.86%
1.86%
1.86%
1.86%
0.74%
0.74%
0.74%
0.74%
0.74%
0.74%
0.74%
Total*
1.86%
1.86%
1.86%
1.11%
5.41%
5.41%
5.41%
5.41%
5.41%
5.41%
3.13%
3.13%
Fuel Consumption as a Percent of Nationwide Fuel Consumption
NonattaJnrnent
Areas
8.7 RVP 7.0 RVP 7.8 RVP 9.0 RVP
0.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.02% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.17% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.02% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.07% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.35% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.04%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.03%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01%
0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.37% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.07% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.12% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.03%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.04%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.09%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.04%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02%
0.00% OJ2fi% 0.00% 0.00%
22.04% 0.00% 0.00% 6.77%
0.00% 0.00% 1.16% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.18% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.52% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.81% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.36% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.35% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.36% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.04% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.09% 0.00%
Attainment
Areas
9.0 RVP
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.09%
0.25%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.09%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.53%
1243%
0.00%
0.00%
0.52%
1.11%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.01%
0.00%
0.00%
Stage II
Areas
6.7 RVP 7.0 RVP 7.8 RVP 9.0 RVP
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.07% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.35% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.04%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01%
0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.37% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.07% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.12% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.03%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
QjQQ%. 0.00% 0.00% QJJfi%
19.10% 0.00% 0.00% 2.73%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.52% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.81% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.36% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.04% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.09% 0.00%

-------
Table B-2 (continual)


Regon
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3


State Area
QA Atlanta
QA Atlanta
QA Atlanta
GA Atlanta
QA Atlanta
QA Atlanta
QA Atlanta
QA Atlanta
QA Atlanta
QA Aflanta
QA Atlanta
QA Real of state
LA Lake Charles
LA Baton Rouge
LA Baton Rouge
LA Baton Rouge
LA Baton Rouge
LA Baton Rouge
LA Baton Rouge
LA Rest o« stale
MS entire stale
NC Raleigh-Durham (new)
NC Raleigh-Durham (new)
NC Raleigh-Durham (new)
NC Chartotte-Gastonia
NC Chariotte-Qastonia
NC Greensboro-Winston (new)
NC Greensboro-Winston (new)
NC Greensboro-Winston (new)
NC Greensboro-Winston (new)
NC Rest ol state
SC Cherokee Co(new)
SC Real of state
TN Knoxvile (new)
TN Memphis
TN NashvHe
TN Nasnvlle
TN NashvDe
TN Nashvtte
TN NashvDe
TN Rest of state

AZ Phoenix
AZ Rest of state
NM entire state
OK entire state
TX Beaumont-Port Aurthur
TX Beaumont-Port Aurthur
TX Beaumont-Port Aurthur
TX Dalas-Fort Worth
TX Dalas-Fort Worth


County
Cobb
Coweta
DeKafc
Douglas
Fayette
Forsyth
Fulton
Gwinnett
Henry
Pauttng
Rocfedate
-
Cafcasieu
Ascension
East Baton Rouge
bervile
Uvtngston
Pointe Coupes
W. Baton Rouge
-
al
Durham
Qranvffle
Wake
Gaston
Mecklenburg
Davidson
Davte
Forsyth
Qulford
-
Cherokee
-
Knox
Shelby
Davidson
RUhertord
Sumner
Wifliamsburg
Wilson
-

Maricopa
-
al
al
Haiuii
Jefferson
Orange
Colin
Dalas


RVP
Class
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
c
b
b
b







b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
c
b
c







c

b
c
b
b
b
b
b
b
b


03 Reform
Desig. Area?
Serious 0
Serious 0
Serious 0
Serious 0
Serious 0
Serious 0
Serious 0
Serious 0
Serious 0
Serious 0
Serious 0
Attainment 0
Marginal 0
Serious 0
Serious 0
Serious 0
Serious 0
Serious 0
Serious 0
Attainment 0
Attainment 0
Moderate 0
Moderate 0
Moderate 0
Moderate 0
Moderate 0
Moderate 0
Moderate 0
Moderate 0
Moderate 0
Attainment 0
Marginal 0
Attainment 0
Marginal 0
Marginal 0
Moderate 0
Moderate 0
Moderate 0
Moderate 0
Moderate 0
Attainment 0

Moderate 0
Attainment 0
Attainment 0
Attainment 0
Serious 0
Serious 0
Serious 0
Moderate 1
Moderate 1


Stage II
Area?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0

1
0
0
0






!
% Stale
Pop.
6.9%
0.8%
8.4%
1.1%
1.0%
0.7%
10.0%
5.4%
0.9%
0.6%
0.8%
59.0%
4.0%
1.4%
9.0%
0.7%
1.7%
0.5%
0.5%
82.2%
100.0%
2.7%
0.6%
6.4%
2.6%
7.7%
1.9%
0.4%
4.0%
5.2%
68.4%
1.3%
98.7%
6.9%
16.9%
10.5%
2.4%
2.1%
1.7%
1.4%
58.1%

57.9%
4£1%
100.0%
100.0%
0.2%
1.4%
0.5%
1.6%
10.9%

State/
Nation
Thruput
3.13%
3.13%
3.13%
3.13%
3.13%
3.13%
3.13%
3.13%
3.13%
3.13%
3.13%
3.13%
1.66%
1.66%
1.66%
1.66%
1.66%
1.66%
1.66%
1.66%
1.11%
2.93%
2.93%
2.93%
2.93%
2.93%
2.93%
2.93%
2.93%
2.93%
2.93%
1.64%
1.64%
2.19%
2.19%
2.19%
2.19%
2.19%
2.19%
2.19%
2.19%
Total*
1.49%
1.49%
0.71%
1.50%
7.77%
7.77%
7.77%
7.77%
7.77%


6.7 RVP
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
£LOJ}%.
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.12%
0.85%
Fuel Consumptio
Nona ttain men!
Areas
7.0 RVP 7.8 RVP
0.00% 0.22%
0.00% 0.03%
0.00% 0.26%
0.00% 0.03%
0.00% 0.03%
0.00% 0.02%
0.00% 0.31%
0.00% 0.17%
0.00% 0.03%
0.00% 0.02%
0.00% 0.03%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.07%
0.00% 0.02%
0.00% 0.15%
0.00% 0.01%
0.00% 0.03%
0.00% 0.01%
0.00% 0.01%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.08%
0.00% 0.02%
0.00% 0.19%
0.00% 0.08%
0.00% 0.23%
0.00% 0.06%
0.00% 0.01%
0.00% 0.12%
0.00% 0.15%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.02%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.15%
0.00% 0.37%
0.00% 0.23%
0.00% 0.05%
0.00% 0.05%
0.00% 0.04%
0.00% 0.03%
040%. 0J2Q%.
0.00% 7.19%
0.00% 0.86%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.02%
0.00% 0.11%
0.00% 0.04%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
n as a PC

9.0 RVP
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
ircentofNati
Attainment
Areas
9.0 RVP
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.85%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.37%
1.11%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.00%
0.00%
1.62%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
L2Z%.
1X85%
0.00%
0.63%
0.71%
1.50%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
onwfde Fuel Consumption
Stage II
Areas
6.7 RVP 7.0 RVP 7.8 RVP 9.0 RVP
0.00% 0.00% 0.22% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.03% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.26% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.03% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.03% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.31% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.17% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.03% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.03% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.15% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.03% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.23% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.04% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.03% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% ojxj%.
0.00% 0.00% 3.60% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.86% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.11% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.04% 0.00%
0.12% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.85% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

-------
Table B-2 (continued)

Region
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
S
5
State Area
TX Dalas-Fort Worth
TX Dalas-Fort Worth
TX B Paso
TX Houston-Galveston-Bfazoria
TX Houston-Qalveston-Brazoria
TX Houston-Qalveston-Brazoria
TX Houston-Qalveston-Brazoria
TX Houston-Qalveston-Brazoria
TX rtxjston-Qatveston-Brazoria
TX Houston-Qalveston-Brazoria
TX Houston-Qalveston-Brazorla
TX Restof state

CO entire state
10 entire state
IOWA entire state
KS entire state
MN entire state
MO StLoUs
MO SI Louis
MO SILoUs
MO St Louis
MO St Louis
MO Restof state
MT entire state
NO entire state
NE entire slate
OR Portland- Vancouver AOMA
OR Portland-Vancouver AQMA
OR Portland-Vancouver AQMA
OR Rest of state
SO entire state
WA Seatfle-Tacoma (new)
WA Seatfle-Tacoma (new)
WA Seatfle-Tacoma (new)
WA Portland-Vancouver AQMA
WA Restof state
WY entire state

CA San Diego
CA LA-South Coast Air Basin
CA LA-South Coast Air Basin
CA LA-South Coast Air Basin
CA LA-South Coast Air Basin
CA San Joaquin Valey
CA San Joaquin Valey
CA San Joaquin Valey
CA San Joaquin Valey
CA San Joaquin Valey
CA San Joaquin Valey
County
Demon
Tarrant
H Paso
Brazoria
Chambers
Fort Bend
Qatveston
Harris
Uberty
Montgomery
Waller
-

al
al
al
al
al
Franktn
Jefferson
St Charles
St Louis
SI LoUs County
-
al
al
al
Clacfcamas
Muttnomak
Washington
—
al
King
Pierce
Snohorrish
Clark
-
al

San Diego
LA-1
Orange
Rtverside-1
San Bemanflno-1
Fresno
Kern
Kings
Madura
Merced
San Joaquin
RVP
Class
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
c

b
c
c
b
c
b
b
b
b
b
c
c
c
c
b
b
b
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c

b






b
b
b
b
O3 Reform
Deslg. Area?
Moderate 1
Moderate 1
Serious 0
Severe 1
Severe 1
Severe 1
Severe 1
Severe 1
Severe 1
Severe 1
Severe 1
Attainment 0

Attainment 0
Attainment 0
Attainment 0
Attainment 0
Attainment 0
Moderate 0
Moderate 0
Moderate 0
Moderate 0
Moderate 0
Attainment 0
Attainment 0
Attainment 0
Attainment 0
Marginal 0
Marginal 0
Marginal 0
Attainment 0
Attainment 0
Marginal 0
Marginal 0
Marginal 0
Marginal 0
Attainment 0
Attainment 0

Severe 1
Extreme 1
Extreme 1
Extreme 1
Extreme 1
Serious 0
Serious 0
Serious 0
Serious 0
Serious 0
Serious 0
Staged
Area?











0

0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0



(1
0




0
0

1
1









% State
Pop.
1.6%
6.9%
3.5%
1.1%
0.1%
1.3%
1.3%
16.6%
0.3%
1.1%
0.1%
51.5%

100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
1.6%
3.3%
4.2%
7.8%
19.4%
63.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
9.8%
20.5%
11.0%
58.7%
100.0%
31.0%
12.0%
9.6%
4.9%
42.5%
100.0%

9.9%
29.8%
8.1%
3.9%
4.8%
2.2%
1.8%
0.3%
0.3%
0.6%
1.6%

State/
Nation
Thruput
7.77%
7.77%
7.77%
7.77%
7.77%
7.77%
7.77%
7.77%
7.77%
7.77%
7.77%
7.77%
Totate
1.36%
0.44%
1.21%
1.10%
1.82%
2.41%
2.41%
2.41%
2.41%
2.41%
2.41%
0.39%
0.31%
0.70%
1.20%
1.20%
1.20%
1.20%
0.35%
2.03%
2.03%
2.03%
2.03%
2.03%
0.27%
Totate
11.67%
11.67%
11.67%
11.67%
11.67%
11.67%
11.67%
11.67%
11.67%
11.67%
11.67%
Fuel Consumption as a Percent of Nationwide Fuel Consumption
6.7 RVP
0.13%
0.54%
0.00%
0.09%
0.01%
0.10%
0.10%
1.29%
0.02%
0.08%
0.01%
OJ£%.
3.34%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.16%
3.48%
0.95%
0.46%
0.56%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Nonattainment
Areas
7.0 RVP 7.8 RVP 9.0 RVP
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.27% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
OJJOJJfc OJKQi 0.00%
0.00% 1.30% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.04% 0.00%
0.00% 0.08% 0.00%
0.00% 0.10% 0.00%
0.00% 0.19% 0.00%
0.00% 0.47% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.12% 0.00%
0.00% 0.25% 0.00%
0.00% 0.13% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.63%
0.00% 0.00% 0.24%
0.00% 0.00% 0.19%
0.00% 0.00% 0.10%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% OJ2fl%
0.00% 1.37% 1.17%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.26% 0.00% 0.00%
0.21% 0.00% 0.00%
0.04% 0.00% 0.00%
0.03% 0.00% 0.00%
0.07% 0.00% 0.00%
0.19% 0.00% 0.00%
Attainment
Areas
9.0 RVP
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4.00%
&84%
1.36%
0.44%
1.21%
1.10%
1.82%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.54%
0.39%
0.31%
0.70%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.70%
0.35%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.86%
0.27%
11.04%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
6.7 RVP
0.13%
0.54%
0.00%
0.09%
0.01%
0.10%
0.10%
1.29%
0.02%
0.08%
0.01%
SLflfl%.
3.34%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.16%
3.48%
0.95%
0.46%
0.56%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Stage II
Areas
7.0 RVP 7.8 RVP 9.0 RVP
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.27% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 1.30% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.04% 0.00%
0.00% 0.08% 0.00%
0.00% 0.10% 0.00%
0.00% 0.19% 0.00%
0.00% 0.47% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.12% 0.00%
0.00% 0.25% 0.00%
0.00% 0.13% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.63%
0.00% 0.00% 0.24%
0.00% 0.00% 0.19%
0.00% 0.00% 0.10%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% OJ2Q% 0.00%
0.00% 1.37% 1.17%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.26% 0.00% 0.00%
0.21% 0.00% 0.00%
0.04% 0.00% 0.00%
0.03% 0.00% 0.00%
0.07% 0.00% 0.00%
0.19% 0.00% 0.00%

-------
T«bkB-2 (continual)
                                 Fuel Consumption aa a Percent ot Nationwide Fuel Consumption

Radon
S
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
S
5
S
5
S
5
5
S
5
5
5
S
5


Slate Area
CA SanJoaqunValey
CA SanJoaquinValey
CA San Francisco Bay Area
CA San Francisco Bay Area
CA San Francisco Bay Area
CA San Francisco Bay Area
CA San Francisco Bay Area
CA San Francisco Bay Area
CA San Francisco Bay Area
CA San Francisco Bay Area
CA San Francisco Bay Area
CA Monterey Bay
CA Monterey Bay
CA Monterey Bay
CA Sacramento Metro
CA Sacramento Metro
CA Sacramento Metro
CA Sacramento Metro
CA Sacramento Metro
CA Ventura County

County
Stanislaus
Tulare
Alameda
Conta Costa
Marin
Napa
SanFranaiaco
SanMateo
Santa Clara
Solano
Sonoma
Monterey
SanBentto
Santa Cruz
B Dorado
Placer
Sacramento
Sutler
Yob
Ventura County

RVP
Class
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b





CA Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-LompcSanta Barbara
CA Rest ol state
NV Reno (hew)
NV Las Vegas
NV Rest ot stale
UT Salt Lake City
UT Salt Lake City
UT Rest ot state

-
Washoe
Clark
-
Davis
Salt Lake
-



c
c
b
b
c


O3
Desk].
Serious
Serious
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Serious
Severe
Moderate
Attainment
Marginal
Attainment
Attainment
Moderate
Moderate
Attainment


Reform
Area?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


Stage II
Area?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0

1
% Slate
Pop.
1.2%
1.0%
4.3%
2.7%
0.8%
0.4%
2.4%
2.2%
5.0%
1.1%
1.3%
1.2%
0.1%
0.8%
0.4%
0.6%
3.5%
0.2%
0.5%
2.2%
1.2%
3.3%
21.2%
61.7%
17.1%
10.9%
42.1%
47.0%

Slate/
Nation
Thruput
11.67%
11.67%
11.67%
11.67%
11.67%
11.67%
11.67%
11.67%
11.67%
11.67%
11.67%
11.67%
11.67%
11.67%
11.67%
11.67%
11.67%
11.67%
11.67%
11.67%
11.67%
11.67%
0.57%
0.57%
0.57%
0.64%
0.64%
££4%.
Totate
6.7 RVP
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.26%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
OJ2Q%
645%
NonattaJnment
Areas
7.0 HVP 7.8 RVP
0.15%
0.12%
0.50%
0.32%
0.09%
0.04%
0.28%
0.25%
0.59%
0.13%
0.15%
0.14%
0.01%
0.09%
0.05%
0.07%
0.41%
0.03%
0.06%
0.00%
0.14%
0.38%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
442%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.12%
0.00%
0.00%
0.07%
0.27%
0.00%
0.46%
9.0 RVP
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
«LfiQ%
0.00%
Attainment
Areas
9.0 RVP
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.35%
0.10%
0.00%
0.00%
0.30%
0.75%
6.7 RVP
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.26%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
OJ2Q%.
645%
Stage II
Areas
7.0 RVP 7.8 RVP 9.0 RVP
0.15% 0.00% 0.00%
0.12% 0.00% 0.00%
0.50% 0.00% 0.00%
0.32% 0.00% 0.00%
0.09% 0.00% 0.00%
0.04% 0.00% 0.00%
0.28% 0.00% 0.00%
0.25% 0.00% 0.00%
0.59% 0.00% 0.00%
0.13% 0.00% 0.00%
0.15% 0.00% 0.00%
0.14% 0.00% 0.00%
0.01% 0.00% 0.00%
0.09% 0.00% 0.00%
0.05% 0.00% 0.00%
0.07% 0.00% 0.00%
0.41% 0.00% 0.00%
0.03% 0.00% 0.00%
0.06% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.14% 0.00% 0.00%
0.38% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.35%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.07% 0.00%
0.00% 0.27% 0.00%
0.00% JLflO%. OJ2Q%
442% 0.34% 0.35%

-------
                                                       Appendix B
                     Table B-3
Dispensed Temperature Data for 5-Month Ozone Season
Region
1
2
3
4
5
May
66
84
76
63
72
Jun
74
87
82
74
77
Jul
78
90
83
88
83
Aug
78
91
84
85
83
Sep
72
88
79
83
79
Avg
74
88
81
79
79
                     Table B-4
       Delta-T Data for 5-Month Ozone Season
Region
1
2
3
4
5
May
14.5
7.4
11.6
7.6
11.9
Jun
15.6
6.1
10
19.3
3.7
Jul
15.9
3.5
4.9
15.5
0
Aug
9.1
13
9.1
11.2
6.3
Sep
1.7
7.4
-0.8
6.3
3.9
Avg
11.4
7.5
7.0
12.0
5.2

-------
                                                       Table B-5
                              Regional Dispensed Temperature Distributions
Radian Gasoline Temperature Data
Region =         1
Months =  May - Sept
Id
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
Bin
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
81
Count
1
6
1
5
5
8
25
12
14
21
40
15
Percent
0.7%
3.9%
0.7%
3.3%
3.3%
5.2%
16.3%
7.8%
9.2%
13.7%
26.1%
9.8%
Radian Gasoline Temperature Data
Region =         2
Months =  May-Sept21
Id
74
76
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
Bin
75
77
79
81
83
85
87
89
91
93
95
Count
0
1
0
0
20
29
15
27
24
21
7
Percent
0.0%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
13.9%
20.1%
10.4%
18.8%
16.7%
14.6%
4.9%
Radian Gasoline Temperature Data
Region =         3
Months =   May - Sept
Id
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
86
Bin
71
73
75
77
79
81
83
85
87
Count
0
2
9
19
24
6
44
41
8
Percent
0.0%
1.3%
5.9%
12.4%
15.7%
3.9%
28.8%
26.8%
5.2%
                                                                                                Totals
                                                                                                          153    100.0%
                                                      Totals
                                                                144
                                                                     100.0%
Radian Gasoline Temperature Data
Region =         4
Months =   May - Sept
Id
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
Bin
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
81
83
85
87
89
91
93
95
Count
2
2
2
10
12
5
6
6
3
2
3
10
3
9
19
31
20
5
1
2
Percent
1.3%
1.3%
1.3%
6.5%
7.8%
3.3%
3.9%
3.9%
2.0%
1.3%
2.0%
6.5%
2.0%
5.9%
12.4%
20.3%
13.1%
3.3%
0.7%
1 .3%
Radian Gasoline Temperature Data
Region =         5
Months =   May - Sept
Id
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
Bin
71
73
75
77
79
81
83
85
87
89
91
Count
6
17
8
20
23
19
28
24
1
2
1
Percent
4.0%
11.4%
5.4%
13.4%
15.4%
12.8%
18.8%
16.1%
0.7%
1.3%
0.7%
                                                      Totals
                                                                149   100.0%
            Totals
                      153   100.0%

-------
Appendix C: Sample Calculation of In-use ORVR Efficiency
                      Estimates

-------
                                                                       Appendix C
               Sample Calculation for ORVR Efficiency Estimates
                            in Tables 4.7, 4.8, and 4.9
Table C-1  shows  a sample  calculation of in-use efficiency  taking into account the
distribution of fill amounts for in-use refueling events indicated in Figure 4-3. The inputs
to the ATL equation for this particular run were: Td = 80°F, RVP = 9.0 psi, and AT =  11.4.
As indicated in the table, the resulting uncontrolled emission factor predicted by the ATL
equation is 4.38 g/gal.

For the  100 percent fill amount, the  vapor  generated during refueling, taking  into
consideration the effect of air entrainment, is:

          Vapor generation = 20 gallons x 4.38 g/gal x 1.25 = 108.9 grams

Subtracting the canister working capacity (75 grams) from the  vapor generation results
in a vapor load of 33.9 grams past breakthrough. From the post-breakthrough efficiency
equation corresponding to the efficiency curve in Figure 4-2, the vapor escaping the
ORVR system was calculated to be 24.6 grams.  Repeating this calculation for the other
fill levels in the in-use refueling distribution and weighting  the  results produces  a
controlled emission factor of 0.372 g/gal.  Comparing the uncontrolled emission factor
(EFu) to controlled emission factor (EFc) results in a control efficiency of 91.5 percent.

This process was repeated for the rest of the in-use dispensed temperature distribution
for region one.  The results are shown in Table C-2.  The weighted averages for  EFu,
EFc, and efficiency indicated in Table C-2 correspond to the values reported in Table 4.7
for 9.0 RVP fuel in region one.
                                      C-1

-------
                                                               Appendix C
Table C-1: Calculation of EFu, EFc and Efficiency for Td = 80 °F






Analysis:
IrpOs




Working
Capacity
75

RVP
9


Td Delt-T
80

Analysis:
QJpOs


ffu
436
Imjse wast case (EK*125)=















TanX
Rll
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Totals

#ofref.
{Gty
63
245
100
239
110
113
106
78
77
47
3
1184

%ofref.
(GV*
5.74%
20.69%
8X15%
2119%
929%
954%
855%
642%
650%
357%
025%
100%

&c
0372
5.45
%ofref.
(EPArrrod)
eoo%
iaoo%
ia75%
1355%
1050%
950%
aoo%
7.00%
533P/0
4.00%
025%
100%

Fteduc
915%
g'gai
1U



Vapor Load>
Lrad WC
10853
saw
87.14
7625
6556
5447
4357
3268
21.79
1089
000


335
23.0
121
15
00
00
00
00
00
00
00



ATI
456









Post-ST %ofref.
Brission *Erriss
246
117
35
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00


15
26
0.7
00
00
OO
00
00
00
OO
00
4733746
Avgc/gal=







%ofref
*Qal
1200
3420
2693
1569
1250
0930
0640
0420
0234
0090
0000
12733
O372






















                             C-2

-------
                                                                     Appendix C
Table C-2: Summary of EFu, EFc, and Efficiency for Td Distribution in Region 1
In-Use Conditions:
Region =
FuelRVP =
Months forTd
Delta-T =

Td
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
Weighted
Average

dist= May

Efficiency
Fred
0.7%
3.9%
0.7%
3.3%
3.3%
5.2%
16.3%
7.8%
9.2%
13.7%
26.1 %
9.8%
1 00.0%

1
9
-Sept
11.4.
ofORVR
EFu
2.79
2.90
3.02
3.15
3.28
3.42
3.56
3.70
3.86
4.02
4.18
4.36
3.84





System
EFc
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.006
0.015
0.034
0.067
0.114
0.180
0.267
0.372
0.153






Efficiency
100.0%
100.0%
1 00.0%
99.9%
99.8%
99.6%
99.0%
98.2%
97.0%
95.5%
93.6%
91.5%
96.3%

                                    C-3

-------
Appendix D: Supporting Data for Chapters 4,5 and 7

-------
 Vehicle Sales  and  Use  Data
                                                        Fuel Tank Configurations
         Projected Gasoline Vehicle Sales
Type
aingle-Tanf
Dual-Tank
LOV
0%
0%
LOT
80%
20%
mow
80%
20%
HHDGV
85%
15%
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
LDV '• LOT ; LHD6V HHOGV i
10.600.000
10.800.000
11.000.000
11.100.000
11.300.000
11.500.000
11.700.000
11,800.000
12.000.000
12.200.000
12.400.000
12.600.000
12.800.000
13.000.000
13.200.000
13.400.000
13.600.000
13.800.000
14.000.000
14.100.000
14.300.000
14.500.000
14.700.000
5.280.000
5.430.000
5.590.000
5.740.000
5.890.000
6.040.000
6.200.000
6.350.000
6.500.000
6.650.000
6.800.000
6.950.000
7.110.000
7.250.000
7.400.000
7.550.000
7.700.000
7.850.000
7.990.000
8.130.000
8.270.000
8.420.000
8.560.000
448.000
461.000
474.000
487.000
500.000
513.000
519.000
533.000
548.000
563.000
577.000
592.000
605.000
620.000
636.000
652.000
667.000
683.000
697.000
711.000
725.000
739.000
752.000
78.300
78.600
78.600
79.000
79.900
81.100
82.400
83.800
85.100
86.500
88.200
89.700
91.900
93.700
95.800
97.900
100.000
102.200
104.200
106.100
108.100
110.100
112.200
EPA 1987 Projection
                                                       Projected Sales Weightings
Type
2010

% in Class
Total %
LDV
62.1%

100%
62.1%
LOT
34.5%

100%
34.5%
HDGV
2.9% ! 0.4%
LHDSV : HHDGV
87% i 13%
2.9% ! 0.4%
Based on M4.1 FCM projections
                                                California Vehicle Sale] 11.70%|AAHA Facts and Figures 1993 (U.S. DOT. FHwft)
Projected Gasoline Road Fuel Economy
Tear | LDV
19%
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
22.94
22.91
22.88
22.85
22.82
22.79
22.77
22.74
22.71
22.69
22.66
22.63
22.61
22.58
22.55
22.59
22.57
22.54
22.52
22.49
22.48
22.45
22.43
22.40
22.38
LOT LHOGV | HHDGV ;
17.42
17.40
17.37
17.36
17.32
17.31
17.28
17.26
17.24
17.23
17.20
17.19
17.16
17.15
17.12
17.14
17.12
17.10
17.08
17.06
17.05
17.04
17.02
17.01
17.00
10.81
10.84
10.87
10.90
10.92
10.94
10.97
10.99
11.01
11.03
11.05
11.07
11.08
11.10
11.11
11.11
11.13
11.14
11.15
11.16
11.17
11.19
11.20
11.21
11.22
5.80
5.79
5.79
5.78
5.78
5.77
5.77
5.77
5.77
5.77
5.77
5.77
5.77
5.77
5.77
5.76
5.76
5.76
5.76
5.76
5.76
5.76
5.76
5.76
5.76
                                                FromM4.l FCM
01/18/94 08:59 AM
                                                                                                                                                                                           ORVRCOST.WK4

-------
 Stage II, Efficiency and Emission  Factor Data
 Gasoline Thniput Fractions and Stage II Data
 MM Gasoline Thnjput    54.9*
 Stage II Gasoline Through 45.0%
NM Stage II Gasoline Thn 44.2%
 Stage II Efficiency
                     86.0%
 Stage II Weighted Waiver I 5.70%
 laliforma Fuel%
                     11.7%
   Uncontrolled Emission Factors & Efficiency Data
Area
Ml Areas
NAA
52 Areas
EFu
g/nal
3.9
3.4
3.3
n use delta (I/M)
In use delta (no I/M)
Theor. I In-Use
eff ! ell
93.5%
92.3%
97.4% 96.7%
98.0%

97.3%
0.7%
1.8%
Rnal
efl
92.0%
96.5%
97.1%
0.9%
Z3%
 *ln-use includes failures (I/M dependant)
          Vehicle Emission Factors fq/mi)
Area
Ml Areas
tonattainment Areas
Stage II Areas
LDV
0.173
0.151
0.146
LOT i
0.228 i
0.199 !
0.193 i
LHDGV
0.351
0.306
0.297
HHOGV
i 0.676
! 0.589
: 0.572
 using 2010 projected fuel economy




          Benefits (g/gal)*

With Stage II
Without Stage II
All Areas ;
2.42 !
3.59 !
NAA
1.19
3.28
 •Using 5 month ozone season EFu and ORVR efficiency
01/18/94 08:59 AM
                                                                                                                                                                                               ORVRCOST.WK4

-------
 Hardware Cost Calculation
Hardware Cost, by Vehicle Weight Class
tab-Spitback Valve
External Vent Line
Vent/Rollover Valve(s)
Vapor Lines
Canister
Total Cost
KHE Markup
Total 8PE
LDV
$0.00
$0.00
-$1.45
$4.70
$0.15
$0.00
$3.40
LOT
$0.00
$0.00
-$2.05
$5.65
$0.20
$0.00
$3.80
S0.88 ! $0.99
$4.28
$4.79
LHDGV
$0.00
$0.00
-$2.05
$5.65
$1.35
$0.00
$4.95
$1.34
$6.29
HHDGV
$9.20
-$0.40
$0.00
$5.45
$2.40
$0.00
$16.65 !
$4.50
$21.15 ;


Vapor Vent Line Diameter and Length per tank (ft)

)RVR Diameter
:vap Diameter
iteel Length
iubber Length
LDV
0.500
0.375
2.0
1.0
LOT
0.500
0.375
2.0
1.0
from 1988 Cost memo
Vent Line Cost Calculation
Item
WR
JRVR
:vap.
:vap.
steel
rubber
ength
cost
length
cost
Vent Line Cost
steel
rubber
ength
cost
length
cost
Vent Line Cost
ncrementat Cost
LDV
2.0
$0.16
1.0
$0.53
$0.85
2.0
$0.13
1.0
$0.43
$0.69
$0.16
LOT
2.0
$0.16
1.0
$0.53
$0.85
2.0
$0.13
1.0
$0.43
$0.69
$0.16
LHDGV HHDGV
0.625 0.625
0.500 0.500
0.0 : 0.0
8.0 ' 15.0
(per tank)
LHDGV HHDGV
0.0 j 0.0
$0.00 j $0.00
8.0 ! 15.0
$0.67 $0.67
$5.36 • $10.05
0.0 : 0.0
$0.00 . $0.00
8.0 : 15.0
$0.53 $0.53
$4.24 $7.95
$1.12 $2.10

                                                                                                                 New Car Consumer Price Index with Added Safety & Emissions

to
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
fro in

107.2
112.1
116.2
119.2
122.2
126.2
133.0
136.7
0.0
1985
107.2
1.00
1.05
1.08
1.11
1.14
1.18
1.24
1.28
0.00
1986
112.1
0.%
1.00
1.04
1.06
1.09
1.13
1.19
1.22
0.00
1987
116.2
0.92
0.%
.00
.03
.05
.09
.14
.18
0.00
1983
119.2
0.90
0.94
0.97
1.00
1.03
1.06
1.12
1.15
0.00
1989
122.2
0.88
0.92
0.95
0.98
1.00
1.03
1.09
1.12
0.00
1990
126.2
0.85
0.89
0.92
0.94
0.97
1.00
1.05
1.08
0.00
1991
133.0
0.81
0.84
0.87
0.90
0.92
0.95
1.00
1.03
0.00
1992
136.7
0.78
0.82
0.85
0.87
0.89
0.92
0.97
1.00
0.00
.....
0.0
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
                                                                                                            from AAMA Facts S Figure's 1993-based on U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Stats.
                                                   Costs from 1988 analysis, adjusted for inflation
                                                   Other Items
Kent/ Rollover Valve Cost
(Fillneck seal)-(antispitback va
External Vent Line (LDV:LDT-llt
tob-Spilback Valve
$4.72
$8.00
-$1.45
-$1.70
-$0.35
                                                  Fillneck Seal ?
                                                                      LDV I   aDT ;    LOT . HOGV-llb  HDfiV-lll-VIII
                                                         Y/N
                                                                               Ni
                                                                                       N
                                                                                                N:
01/18/94 09:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                                                        ORVRCOST.WK4

-------
 Development Cost Calculation

    Development and Production Costs, Per Vehicle
1 lira
lank/fillneck Hods
Packaging
Certificationf
FMVSS 301 Testing
Facility Modification'
Systems Engineering*
LDV ; LOT : LHDGV ; HHOSV i
$0.50
$0.00
$0.15
$0.15
$0.40
$0.45
$0.60
$0.00
$0.15
$0.15
$0.40
$0.80
$0.60
$0.00
$0.15
$0.15
$0.40
$0.75
$0.60 j
$0.00
$0.15
$0.85
$0.40
$1.60
Total Cost il $1.65 i $2.10 $2.05: $3.60 !
RPE Markup ,j S0.43 $0.55
Total RPE :! $2.08
$2.65
$0.55
$2.60
$0.37
$4.57
 "Used costs Iron 1988 analysis, adjusted for inflation.
 " from tech report "safety implications of onboard' LDV/LDT/llbO .12 86$; VI 0.70 87$
 fCertilication costs are best estimates based on $.15 for evap in 1993 for LOVs.
01/18/94 09:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                                                                ORVRCOST.WK4

-------
Operating Cost Calculation
                                                                                           Weight Penalty
Operating Cost Credit (inel. weight penalty »nd rei LDV • LOT •, LHDSV HHDSV i
Weight Penalty ($/gal)
Fuel Recovery Credit ($/gal)
Operating Cost (S/gal)
Projected 2010 Fuel Economy (mpg)
Projected Avg. Life (miles)
Lifetime Fuel Consumption (gal)
Lifetime Operating Cost ($)
Lifetime Per-Vehicle Ooeratma Cost iNPV!
$0.000005
$0.000603
$0.000007 $0.000066
$0.000603 $0.000603
$0.000052
$0.000603
$0.000597 '-$0.000595 j-M.000537 i-$0.000550
22.55
122.390
5.427
-$3.24
17.12
158.399
9.252
-$5.51
-$2.35 ' -$3.70
It. 11
174.665
15.721
-$8.44
5.77
169.121
29.310
-$16.13
-$5.50 : -$11.00!
Operating Costs— Nonattainment Areas
Item ; LDV i LDT LHDSV : HHDSV ;
Weight Penalty ($/gal)
Fuel Recovery Credit ($/gal)
Operating Cost ($/gal i
Projected 2010 Fuel Economy (mpg)
Projected Avg. Life (miles)
Lifetime Fuel Consumption (gal)
Lifetime Operating Cost ($)
$0.000005 I $0.000007
$0.000294 '$0.000294
$0.000066
$0.000294
$0.000052
$0.000294
$0.000239 :-$0.000287 !-$0.000229 -$0.000242
22.55
122.390
5.427
-$1.57
17.12
158.399
9.252
-$2.65
Lifetime Per-Vehicle Operating Cost (NPV) .$1.15 : -$1.80
11.11
174.665
15.721
-$3.59
5.77
169.121
29.310
-$7.08
-$2.35 : -$4.85 i
Operating Costs— All Areas ( After Staqe II Discontinuation)
Item j| LDV LDT LHDSV i HHD6V :
Weight Penalty ($/gal)
Fuel Recovery Credit ($/gal)
Operating Cost ($/gal)
Projected 2010 Fuel Economy (mpg)
Projected Avg. Life (miles)
Lifetime Fuel Consumption (gal)
Lifetime Operating Cost ($)
$0.000005
$0.000949
$0.000007
$0.000949
$0.000066
$0.000949
$0.000052
$0.000949
r$0.000944 ;-$0.000942 i-$0.000883 :-$0.000897
22.55
122.390
5.427
-$5.12
17.12
158.399
9.252
-$8.7t
11.11
174.665
15.721
-$13.89
Lifetime Per-Vehicle Operating Cost (NPV) -13.75 i -55.85 -$9.00
5.77
169.121
29.310
-$26.28
-$17.90
Operating Costs— Nonattainment Areas ( After Stage II Discontinuation)
Item || LDV LDT LHDSV HHDSV
Weight Penalty ($/gal)
Fuel Recovery Credit |$/gal)
Operating Cost (t/galj
Projected 2010 Fuel Economy (mpg)
Projected Avg. Life (miles)
jfetime Fuel Consumption (gal)
Lifetime Operating Cost (t)
$0.000005
$0.000803
$0.000007
$0.000803
$0.000066
$0.000803
$0.000052
$0.000803
L$0.000798 -$0.000796 ;-$0.000737 :-$0.000751 i
22.55
122.390
5.427
-$4.33
17.12
158.399
9.252
-$7.36
11.11
174.665
15.721
-$11.59
5.77
169.121
29.310
-$22.00
Lifetime Per-Vehicle Operating Cost iNPVI -$3.15 ! -J4 95 -$750 -$1500.
Item LDV ; LDT ; LHDGV HHDGV
ncremental Weight (g)
X weight muln'picadon factor of 1 .1 (kg)
Avg. Vehicle Weight (kg)
Change in Weight
Sensitivity Factor
Percent Change in FE (gal/gal)
Fuel Price (no taxes) ($/gal)
Weight Penalty (Vgal)
28.582
1.463
0.002%
-0.329
-0.000643%
$0.82
41.158
1.866
0.002%
-0.402
-0.000887%
$0.82
833.245
4.186
0.020%
-0.402
-0.008003%
$0.82
1620.270
10.181
0.016%
-0.402
-0.006398%
$0.82
-$0.000005 j -$0.000007 ' -$0.000066 : -$0.000052
Fuel Recovery Credits
Item
5 month ozone season emission rate (g/gal)
Percent of areas with Stage II
Stage II Efficiency
Average Stage II Waivers
5 month ozone season efficiency
Equivalency Factor (Relative Heating Value)
gas cost-no tales ($/gal)
uel desity (kg/gal)

Variable li All Areas NAA Areas Ul Ar. (S2 disc.) NAA (52 die.)
EFu
Areas 52
elf 52
WawefsS2
effORVR
Ev/Eg
Costgas
rho
3.90
45.00%
86.00%
5.70%
92.0%
0.90
$0.82
Z79
3.30
80.51%
86.00%
5.70%
97.1%
0.90
$0.82
2.79
3.90
0.00%
86.00%
5.70%
92.0%
0.90
$0.82
2.79
3.30
0.00%
86.00%
5.70%
92.0%
0.90
$0.82
2.79
gasoline Recovery Credits ($/gal) : : $0.000603 $0.000294 • $0.000949 i $0.000803 i

Fuel Fraction in Given Year
Tear : LDV i LDT LHDV
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11.71%
11.00%
10.30%
9.59%
8.86%
8.10%
7.30%
6.44%
5.56%
4.67%
3.83%
3.06%
2.39%
1.84%
1.40%
1.05%
0.79%
0.59%
0.49%
0.33%
0.24%
0.18%
0.13%
0.10%
0.07%
9.59%
9.04%
8.50%
7.98%
7.45%
6.92%
6.38%
5.84%
5.29%
4.74%
4.21%
3.71%
3.25%
2.82%
2.45%
2.12%
1.82%
1.57%
1.35%
1.16%
1.00%
0.86%
0.74%
0.64%
0.55%
8.43%
8.10%
7.76%
7.42%
7.06%
- 6.68%
6.27%
5.84%
5.38%
4.91%
4.44%
3.98%
3.54%
3.13%
2.76%
2.43%
2.13%
1.86%
1.63%
1.42%
1.24%
1.09%
0.95%
0.83%
0.72%
HDGV
10.17%
9.51%
8.87%
8.25%
7.64%
7.03%
6.43%
5.82%
5.22%
4.63%
4.07%
3.55%
3.08%
2.66%
2.29%
1.97%
1.69%
1.44%
1.24%
1.06%
0.91%
0.78%
0.66%
0.57%
0.49%
otal , 1.0000 : 1.0000 : 1.0000 : t.OOOO
IDV • 0.7300 i 0.6710 0.5487 0.6814
01/18/94 09:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                         ORVRCOST.WK4

-------
Operating Cost Calculation (cont.)
 Component Weights (g) or (g/cm)
Old Vent/Rollover Valve
New Vent Rollover Valve
5/1 6 Vapor Line
3/8 Vapor Line
1/2 Vapor Line
5/8 Vapor Line
grams
16.73
45.35
rubber steel
1.557
1.711
2.593
3.997
1.000 /cm
1.200 /cm
1.700 /cm
2.500 /cm
                                                           EPA Measurements
                                                           EPA Measurements
 1988 Cost Memo
                   Weight Increase Calculation (grams)
Item
ORVR steel
rubber
length
gilt
length
g/lt
3RVR Vent Line Weight
DRVR Rollover Valve Weight
:lllneck Seal Weight
Evap. .steel
rubber
length
g/lt
length
g/lt
Evap. Vent Line Weight
Eitemal Vent Line Weight
Evap. Rollover Valve Weight
Incremental Weight iq/tank)
Incremental Weight |g)
LDV
LOT i LHDGV • HHDGV
2.0 ! 2.0 j 0.0 ! 0.0
51.82
1.0
79.03
182.67
45.35
0.00
2.0
36.58
1.0
52.15
125.30
60.00
16.73
25.98
25.98
51.82 ; 51.82 ! 51.82
1.01 8.01 15.0
79.03 ' 121.83 ! 121.83
219.20 1169.55 j 2101.54
54.42 ! 54.42 52.! 5
0.00 i 0.00 46.00
2.0 i 0.0 i 0.0
36.58 , 36.58 j 36.58
1.0 i 8.0 i 15.0
52.15 : 52.15 •• 52.15
L_ 150.36 ; 500.65 j 899.61
72.00 ' 72.00 ! 0.00
20.08 20.08 i 19.24
31.18 ; 631.25 ! 1280.85
37.42 : 757.50 1 147197
           Recovery Credit Data
Ev/Eg
Density of Gasoline
Sas Price (no taiesl
j 90.0%
i 2.79 kg/gal
i $0.820 /qal
                                        1987 S&A document
01 /18/94 09:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                                             ORVRCOST.WK4

-------
 Total Cost Results
Total Per Vehicle Costs of ORVR-Nonattainment Areas
lion
Hardware (RPE)
Development (RPE)
Speratinq
Tola!
LDV •
$4.28
$2.08 >
-$1.15
$5.21
LOT i
$4.79 i
$2.65 ,
-$1.80 i
$5.64
LHDGV
$6.29 !
$2.60 ,
-$2.35
$6.54 •
HHDGV
$21.15
$4.57
-$4.85
$20.87
                                                                         Sales Weighted Cost—Nonattainnient Areas
             Total Per Vehicle Costs of ORVR-AII Areas
Item
Hardware (RPE)
Development (RPE)
Dperan'nq
Total
LDV
$4.28 :
$2.08 I
-$2.35 :
$4.01 ;
LOT
$4.79 i
$2.65 i
-$3.70 ;
$3.74 i
LHDGV •
$6.29 i
$2.60 :
-$5.50
$3.39
HHDGV
$21.15
$4.57
-$11.00
$14.72
     Long-Term Per Vehicle Costs of ORVR—Nonattainment Areas
Hem
Hardware (RPE)
Development (RPE)
Operating
Total
LDV
$4.28 1
$0.00 !
-53.15
$1.13 :
LOT i
$4.79 :
$0.00 i
-$4.95 !
-$0.16 :
LHDGV :
$6.29
$0.00 :
-$7.50 ;
-$1.21 '
HHDGV
$21.15
$0.00
-$15.00
$6.15
          Long-Term Per Vehicle Costs of ORVR—All Areas
Item
Hardware (RPE)
Development (RPE)
Dperatinq
Total
LDV
$4.28 L
$0.00 '
-$3.75 '
$0.53
LOT ;
$4.79 :
$0.00 .
-$5.85
-$1.06 i
LHDGV
$6.29 •
$0.00
-$9.00 .
1 -k.7t .
HHDGV
$21.15
$0.00
-$17.90
$3.25
Item
Hardware (RPE)
development (RPE)
Dperab'rtq
Total
LDV LOT
$2.66 $1.65
$1.29 1 $0.91
-$0.71 . -$0.62
LHDGV ; HHD6V
$0.181 $0.08
$0.08 ! $0.02
-$0.07 ; -$0.02
mmmmsmmmmm
Totals
$4.58
$2.30
-$1.42
$5.45
Sales Weighted Cost-All Areas
Item
Hardware (RPE)
Development (RPE)
^Derating
Total
LDV i LDV
$2.66 ; $1.65
$1.29 ! $0.91
-$1.46 i -$1.28
m$mm®m.
LHDGV j HHOGV
$0.18 j $0.08
$0.08 $0.02
-$0.16 1 -$0.04
g38Wi8!!S!fi!
Totals
$4.58
$2.30
-$2.94
$3.94
Long-Term Sales Weighted Cost— Nonattainment Areas
Item
Hardware (RPE)
Development (RPE)
Dpe rating
Total
LDV ; LOT
$2.66 i $1.65
$0.00 ! $0.00
-$1.96 ' -$1.71
LHDGV HHDGV
$0.18 $0.08
$0.00 $0.00
-$0.22 j -$0.06
s5a^:?;:;:3a^:;4sJKS*t:ii::s:Jffi&Si
Totals
$4.58
$0.00
-$3.94
$0.64
Long-Term Sales Weighted Cost-All Areas
Item
Hardware (RPE)
Development (RPE)
3 Derating
Total
LDV LDV
$2.66 ! $1.65
$0.00 i $0.00
-$2.33 ! -$2.02
LHDGV ! HHDGV
$0.18 $0.08
$0.00 $0.00
-$0.26 -$0.07

Totals
$4.58
$0.00
-$4.68
-$0.10
                      Total Cost Per Vehicle

LDV
LOT
LHDGV
HHDGV
Hardware
(S/veh)
$4.28
$4.79
$6.29
$21.15
Dev.
($/veh)
$2.08
$2.65
$2.60
$4.57
Opera tingt
All Anas
SZ in place j S2 disc.
(I/gal) ! ($/9al)
J0.000597 j-M.000944
$0.000595 j-$0.000942
$0.000537 |-$0.000883
•$0.000550 '-$0.000897
 fusing 5 month ozone season EFu and ORVR efficiency
01/18/94 09:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                                                  ORVRCOST.WK4

-------
      Emission Benefit Rates (g/gal)*

With Stage II
Without Stage II
All Areas
2.42
3.59
NAA
1.19
3.28
 'Using 5 month ozone season EFu and ORVR efficiency

                         Total Cost Per Vehicle

LDV
LOT
LHDGV
HHDGV
Hardware
($/veh)
$4.28
$4.79
$6.29
$21.15
Dev.
($/veh)
$2.08
$2.65
$2.60
$4.57
Operatlngf
All Areas
52 in place
($/gal)
-$0.000597
-$0.000595
-$0.000537
-$0.000550
S2 disc.
($/gal)
-$0.000944
-$0.000942
-$0.000883
-$0.000897
 from ORVRCOST.WK4
 fUsing 5 month ozone season EFu and ORVR efficiency
 NAA Fuel Thruput %
54.9%
01/18/94 08:57 AM
                                                                                                                                            COST_BEN.WK4

-------
                                      LDVORVR Costs and Benefits
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Projected
Fleet Fuel
Consumption
7.33E+10
7.29E+10
7.28E+10
7.33E+10
7.42E+10
7.57E+10
7.74E+IO
7.94E+IO
8.14E+10
8.35E+10
8.56E+IO
8.74E+10
8.89E-HO
9.00E+IO
9.14E+10
9.28E+10
9.42E+IO
9.55E+IO
9.67E-HO
9.79E-HO
9.91E+10
1.00E-H1
1.02E-H1
Projected
ORVR Fuel
Consumption
2.30E+09
8.26E+09
1.63E+10
2.45E+10
3.23E+10
3.99E+10
4.72E+10
5.35E+10
5.88E+10
6.36E-HO
6.82E+10
7.28E+10
7.73E+10
8.12E+10
8.46E+10
8.74E+10
8.98E+10
9.21E+10
9.41E+10
9.59E+10
9.76E+10
9.92E+10
1.0IE+11
New ORVR
Gasoline
Vehicles
4,240,000
8,640.000
1 1 ,000,000
11,100,000
11,300,000
11,500,000
11,700,000
11,800,000
12,000,000
12,200,000
1 2,400,000
12,600,000
12,800,000
1 3,000.000
13,200,000
13,400,000
13,600,000
13,800,000
14,000,000
14,100,000
14,300,000
14,500,000
14.700.000
Nationwide Costs
Hardware
(RPE)
$18,147,200
$36,979,200
$47,080,000
$47,508,000
$48,364,000
$49,220,000
$50,076,000
$50,504,000
$51,360,000
$52,216,000
$53.072,000
$53,928,000
$54,784,000
$55,640,000
$56,496,000
$57,352,000
$58,208,000
$59,064,000
$59,920,000
$60,348,000
$61,204,000
$62.060,000
$62,916,000
Development
(RPE)
$8,819,200
$17,971.200
$22,880,000
$23,088,000
$23,504,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
All-Areas Operating
52 in Place ! 52 Discontinued
-$1,375,901
-$4,933,109
-$9,754,599
-$14,630,075
-$19,289,608
-$23,823,662
-$28,156,365
-$31,928,785
-$35,112,471
-$37,954,006
-$40,703,620
-$43,482,415
-$46,164,182
-$48,467,321
-$50,490,319
-$52,175,542
-$53,630,233
-$54,995.191
-$56,154,421
-$57,250,910
-$58,264,962
-$59,230,865
-$60,168,317
-$2,175,629
-$7,800,427
-$15,424,358
-$23,133,653
-$30,501,491
-$37,670,917
-$44,521,957
-$50,487,057
-$55,521,228
-$60,014.375
-$64,362,173
-$68.756,114
-$72.996,629
-$76,638,444
-$79,837,288
-$82.502.030
-$84.802,244
-$86,960,570
-$88,793,590
-$90,527,402
-$92,130,862
-$93,658,186
-$95.140,521
Benefits
All-Areas (Mg) NAA (Mg)
with 52
5,577
19,997
39,541
59,304
78,192
96,572
114,135
129,427
142,332
153,850
164,996
176.260
187,131
196,467
204,668
211,499
217,396
222,929
227,628
232,072
236,183
240,098
243.898
no 52
8,274
29,665
58.658
87,976
115,996
143,261
169,315
192,001
211,145
228,233
244.767
261,477
277,604
291,453
303,618
313.752
322.500
330,708
337,679
344,273
350,371
356,179
361.816
with 52 no 52
1.506
5,398
10,675
16,010
21,109
26,071
30,812
34.940
38,424
41.534
44.543
47.584
50.518
53.039
55.253
57.097
58.689
60,182
61,451
62,651
63,761
64,818
65,843
4,150
14,880
29,423
44,128
58,183
71,859
84,928
96,306
105,909
114,480
122.774
131,155
139,244
146,191
152.293
157,376
161,764
165,881
169,378
172.685
175,744
178,657
181,485
01/18/94 08:57 AM
                                                                                                               COST_BEN.WK4

-------
                                         LDT ORVR Costs and Benefits
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Projected
Fleet Fuel
Consumption
4.32E+10
4.57E+10
4.81E+10
4.99E+10
5.14E+10
5.24E+10
5.30E-HO
5.34E-MO
5.39E-HO
5.45E-HO
5.50E+10
5.59E+10
5.70E-MO
5.81E-HO
5.94E-HO
6.07E+IO
6.21E+10
6.35E-HO
6.48E+10
6.61E+10
6.74E+10
6.87E-HO
7.01E+10
Projected
ORVR Fuel
Consumption
1.36E+09
5.18E+09
1.08E-HO
1.67E+10
2.24E+10
2.76E+10
3.23E+10
3.60E+10
3.89E-HO
4.15E+10
4.39E+10
4.66E+10
4.96E+10
5.24E+10
5.50E+10
5.72E+10
5.92E+10
6.12E+10
6.31E-HO
6.48E+10
6.64E-HO
6.79E+10
6.94E-HO
New ORVR
Gasoline
Vehicles
2,112,000
4,344,000
5,590,000
5.740,000
5,890,000
6,040,000
6,200,000
6,350,000
6,500,000
6,650,000
6,800,000
6,950.000
7,110.000
7,250,000
7,400,000
7,550,000
7,700,000
7,850,000
7,990,000
8,130.000
8,270,000
8,420,000
8,560.000
Nationwide Costs •
Hardware
(RPE)
$10,116,480
$20,807,760
$26.776,100
$27,494,600
$28,213,100
$28,931,600
$29,698,000
$30,416,500
$31,135,000
$31,853,500
$32,572.000
$33,290,500
$34,056,900
$34,727,500
$35.446,000
$36,164,500
$36.883,000
$37,601 ,500
$38,272,100
$38,942.700
$39,613,300
$40,331,800
$41,002.400
Development
(RPE)
$5,596,800
$11,511,600
$14,813,500
$15,211,000
$1 5,608.500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
All-Areas Operating •
52 in Place 52 Discontinued
-$807,797
-$3,084,316
-$6,415,842
-$9,918,235
-$13,324,651
-$16,443,867
-$19,215,535
-$21,411,346
-$23,169,450
-$24,673,072
-$26,094,533
-$27,710,127
-$29,490,770
-$31,174,711
-$32,725,594
-$34,048,898
-$35,249,323
-$36,430,117
-$37,518,571
-$38,545,222
-$39,497,710
-$40,411,662
-$41.311.800
-$1 ,278,899
-$4,883,068
-$10,157,518
-$15,702,482
-$21,095,498
-$26,033,820
-$30,421,905
-$33,898,300
-$36,681,717
-$39,062,242
-$41,312,689
-$43,870,487
-$46,689,589
-$49,355,593
-$51,810,940
-$53,905.986
-$55,806,492
-$57,675,917
-$59,399,150
-$61,024.537
-$62,532,509
-$63,979,472
-$65,404,563
Benefits
All-Areas (Mg)
withS2
3,285
12,545
26,095
40,340
54,194
66,881
78,154
87,085
94,235
100,351
106,132
112,703
119,946
126.795
133,102
138,485
143,367
148,170
152.597
156,772
160,646
164,363
168,024
no 52
4,874
18,610
38,711
59,843
80,396
99,216
115,939
129,188
139,796
148,868
157,444
167,192
177,936
188,096
197,454
205,438
212,681
219,805
226,373
232.567
238,314
243,828
249,259
NAA (Mg)
with 52
887
3,387
7,045
10,890
14,630
18,055
21,099
23,510
25,440
27,091
28.652
30,426
32,381
34,230
35,933
37,386
38,704
40,000
41,195
42,323
43,368
44,372
45.360
no 52
2,445
9,334
19,417
30,017
40,326
49,766
58,154
64,800
70,120
74,671
78,973
83,862
89,251
94,348
99,041
103,046
106,679
110,253
113.547
116,654
119.537
122,303
125,027
01/18/94 08:57 AM
                                                                                                                   COSTBEN.WK4

-------
                                    LHDGV ORVR Costs and Benefits
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Projected
Fleet Fuel
Consumption
5.13E+09
5.32E+09
5.58E+09
5.79E+09
5.97E+09
6.19E+09
6.49E+09
6.82E+09
7.13E+09
7.40E+09
7.62E+09
7.87E+09
8.18E+09
8.51E+09
8.82E+09
9.12E+09
9.41E+09
9.70E+09
9.95E+09
1.02E+IO
1.04E+IO
1.06E+IO
1.08E+10
Projected
ORVR Fuel
Consumption
1.61E+08
6.03E+08
1.25E+09
1.94E+09
2.60E+09
3.27E+09
3.95E+09
4.59E+09
5.15E+09
5.64E+09
6.07E+09
6.56E+09
7.11E+09
7.67E+09
8.16E+09
8.59E+09
8.98E+09
9.36E+09
9.68E+09
9.98E+09
1.02E+10
1.05E+10
1.07E-HO
New ORVR
Gasoline
Vehicles
179,200
368,800
474,000
487,000
500,000
513,000
519,000
533,000
548,000
563,000
577,000
592.000
605,000
620,000
636,000
652.000
667,000
683,000
697,000
711,000
725.000
739,000
752.000
Nationwide Costs jj Benefits
Hardware
(RPE)
$1,127,168
$2.319.752
$2.981,460
$3,063,230
$3.145,000
$3,226,770
$3,264,510
$3,352.570
$3.446,920
$3.541,270
$3,629.330
$3,723,680
$3,805,450
$3,899,800
$4,000,440
$4,101,080
HI 95.430
$4,296,070
$4,384,130
$4,472,190
$4,560,250
$4,648,310
$4,730,080
Development
(RPE)
$465.920
$958,880
$1,232.400
$1,266,200
$1,300,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
All-Areas Operating |l All-Areas (Mg)
52 in Place J
-$86,620
-$323,842
-$672.783
-$1,039,935
-$1,394,783
-$1,753,568
-$2,122.688
-$2,465,724
-$2,766.926
-$3,026.787
-$3,258.595
-$3.523,869
-$3,819.658
-$4,121.352
-$4,382,689
-$4,614.005
-$4,822.189
-$5,024.467
-$5,200,660
-$5,359,136
-$5,503.339
-$5.639.667
-$5.769.598
52 Discontinued i with 52
-$142.431
-$532.499
-$1,106,271
-$1 ,709,986
-$2.293,470
-$2,883.427
-$3,490,379
-$4,054,440
-$4,549,713
-$4,977,007
-$5.358,173
-$5.794,370
-$6.280,741
-$6,776.823
-$7,206,545
-$7,586,902
-$7,929,223
-$8.261,832
-$8,551.551
-$8,812.136
-$9,049,252
-$9,273,419
-$9.487.066
390
1,459
3,032
4,686
6,286
7,902
9,566
11.112
12.469
13,640
14,685
15,880
17,213
18,573
19,751
20,793
21,731
22,643
23,437
24,151
24,801
25,415
26.001
no 52
579
2,165
4,498
6,952
9,325
11,723
14,191
16,484
18,498
20.235
21,785
23,558
25.536
27,552
29.300
30,846
32,238
33,590
34,768
35,827
36,791
37,703
38.571
NAA (Mg)
with 52
105
394
819
1.265
1,697
2.133
2,582
3.000
3.366
3.682
3,964
4.287
4,647
5,014
5.332
5,613
5.867
6.113
6,327
6,520
6,695
6,861
7.019
no 52
290
1,086
2.256
3,487
4,677
5,880
7,118
8,268
9,278
10,150
10,927
11,817
1 2.808
1 3,820
14,696
15.472
16,170
16,849
17.439
17,971
18,454
18,911
19.347
01/18/94 08:57 AM
                                                                                                                 COST_BEN.WK4

-------
                                   HHDGV ORVR Costs and Benefits
Year
1998
1999
ZOOO
Z001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Projected
Fleet Fuel
Consumption
1.71E+09
1.77E+09
1.86E+09
1.93E+09
1.99E+09
2.06E+09
2.16E+09
2.27E+09
2.38E+09
2.47E+09
2.54E+09
2.62E+09
2.73E+09
2.84E+09
2.94E+09
3.04E+09
3.14E+09
3.23E+09
3.32E+09
3.39E+09
3.47E+09
3.54E+09
3.61E+09
Projected
ORVR Fuel
Consumption
5.38E+07
2.01 E+08
4.18E+08
6.46E+08
8.66E+08
1.09E+09
1.32E+09
1.53E+09
1.72E+09
1.88E+09
2.02E+09
2.19E+09
2.37E+09
2.56E+09
2.72E+09
2.86E+09
2.99E+09
3.12E+09
3.23E+09
3.33E+09
3.42E+09
3.50E+09
3.58E+09
New ORV
Gasoline
Vehicles
31,320
62,880
78,600
79,000
79,900
81,100
82,400
83,800
85,100
86,500
88,200
89,700
91,900
93,700
95,800
97,900
100,000
102.200
104.200
106,100
108,100
110,100
112,200
\ Nationwide Costs
Hardware
(RPE)
$662,418
$1,329,912
$1,662,390
$1,670,850
$1,689,885
$1,715,265
$1 ,742,760
$1,772.370
$1.799,865
$1,829,475
$1 ,865,430
$1,897,155
$1.943,685
$1,981,755
$2.026.170
$2,070.585
$2,115,000
$2,161,530
$2,203,830
$2,244,015
$2.286,315
$2,328.615
$2,373,030
Development
(RPE)
$143,132
$287,362
$359,202
$361 ,030
$365,143
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
All-Areas Operating
52 in Place ! 52 Discontinued
-$29,572
-$110,560
-$229,690
-$355,037
-$476,183
-$598,673
-$724,692
-$841,805
-$944,637
-$1,033,354
-$1,112,494
-$1,203.059
-$1,304.042
-$1.407,041
-$1 ,496,263
-$1,575,234
-$1,646,309
-$1,715,367
-$1,775,520
-$1,829,624
-$1,878,856
-$1,925.398
-$1,969,757
-$48,230
-$180,314
-$374,604
-$579,033
-$776,611
-$976,381
-$1,181,906
-$1,372,908
-$1,540,616
-$1,685,306
-$1,814,376
-$1 ,962,080
-$2,126,774
-$2,294,757
-$2,440,268
-$2,569,064
-$2,684,980
-$2,797,608
-$2.895,712
-$2,983,951
-$3,064,243
-$3,140,150
-$3,212,495
Benefits j
All-Areas (Mg)
NM (Mg) |
with 52 | no 52 ! with 52 : no 52
130
486
1,011
1,562
2,095
2,634
3,189
3,704
4,156
4.547
4.895
5.293
5,738
6,191
6,584
6,931
7.244
7,548
7,812
8,050
8,267
8,472
8.667
193
722
1,499
2,317
3,108
3,908
4,730
5,495
6.166
6,745
7,262
7,853
8,512
9,184
9,767
10,282
10,746
11,197
11,589
1 1 ,942
12,264
12,568
12,857
35
131
273
422
566
711
861
,000
,122
,227
,321
,429
,549
.671
.777
.871
1,956
2.038
2,109
2,173
2,232
2,287
2,340
97
362
752
1.162
1,559
1,960
2.373
2,756
3,093
3,383
3,642
3,939
4,269
4,607
4,899
5,157
5,390
5,616
5,813
5,990
6,151
6,304
6,449
01/18/94 08:57 AM
                                                                                                                COST BEN.WK4

-------
                      ORVR Truck Analysis Cost Scenarios (1993$)
Scenario
Case
Last
Benefit
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Avg. Annua
1998 NP\
Nonattainment Areas Truck Analysis
Baseline Stage II Retention ;Stage II Phase-Out
All-Areas (Truck)
NAA (Truck)
(No Stage II)
$16,642,358
$31.619,384
$36,186,659
$31,075,408
$26,156,049
$3,980,006
-$388.921
-$3.784.208
-$6.390,262
-$8.500,310
-$10.418,478
-$12.715,601
-$15.291,069
-$17.818.117
-$19.985.143
-$21.725,786
-$23.227,264
-$24,676,257
-$25.986.352
-$27,161,718
-$28.186,138
-$29,084,316
-$29.998.615
All-Areas (Truck) AII-AreasJTrucM
NM (Truck)
S2 forever
$17,187,929
$33.696.548
$40,506,736
$37,753,703
$35,126,011
$15,077,527
$12.642.355
$10,822.564
$9,500,772
$8,491,032
$7,601,139
$6.474,280
$5,191,565
$3,905.951
$2,868.064
$2.098,028
$1,475.609
$889.149
$365.309
-$75,077
-$420,039
-$668,003
-$945.644
-$6,942.552 j $10,850,674
$20.464,348! $178,375.566
NAA (Truck)
S2 stop in 2010
$17,187,929
$33,696,548
$40,506,736
$37,753,703
$35,126,011
$15,077,527
$12,642,355
$10,822,564
$9,500,772
$8,491,032
$7,601,139
$6,474,280
-$15,291,069
-$17,818,117
-$19,985,143
-$21,725.786
-$23,227,264
-$24,676,257
-$25,986.352
-$27,161,718
-$28,186,138
-$29,084,316
-$29.998,615
-$1,228,703
$96,179.248
All-Areas Truck Analysis
Baseline I Stage II Retention jStage II Phase-Cue
All-Areas (Truck)
All-Areas (Truck)
(no Stage II)
$16.642,358
$31,619,384
$36,186,659
$31,075,408
$26,156,049
$3,980,006
-$388,921
-$3.784,208
-$6,390,262
-$8,500,310
-$10,418,478
-$12,715,601
-$15,291,069
-$17.818,117
-$19.985,143
-$21,725,786
-$23.227,264
-$24,676,257
-$25,986,352
-$27,161,718
-$28,186,138
-$29,084,316
-$29.998.615
-$6.942,552
$20.464.348
All-Areas (Truck)
All-Areas (Truck)
S2 forever
$17,187,929
$33,696.548
$40,506,736
$37,753,703
$35,126,011
$15,077,527
$12,642.355
$10,822.564
$9,500,772
$8,491,032
$7,601,139
$6,474,280
$5,191,565
$3,905,951
$2,868,064
$2,098,028
$1,475,609
$889.149
$365,309
-$75,077
-$420,039
-$668,003
-$945,644
$10,850,674
$178,375.566
All-Areas (Truck)
All-Areas (Truck)
S2 stop in 20 10
$17,187,929
$33,696,548
$40,506.736
$37,753,703
$35,126,011
$15.077,527
$12.642.355
$10.822.564
$9,500,772
$8.491,032
$7,601,139
$6,474,280
-$15.291,069
-$17,818,117
-$19,985,143
-$21.725.786
-$23,227,264
-$24.676,257
-$25,986,352
-$27,161,718
-$28,186,138
-$29,084,316
-$29.998,615
-$1,228,703
$96.179,248
01/18/94 08:57 AM
                                                                                                                COST BEN.WK4

-------
                        ORVR All Vehicles Cost Scenarios (1993$)
Scenario
Case
Cost
Benefit
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Avg. Annua
1998 NPV
Nonattainment Areas All Vehicles Analysis
Baseline j Stage II Retention Stage II Phase-Out
All-Areas (all)
NAA (all)
(No Stage II)
$41.433.129
$78,769,357
$90,722.301
$78,537,756
$67,522,557
$15,529,089
$5,165,122
-$3,767,265
-$10,551.490
-$16,298.685
-$21,708.651
-$27.543,715
-$33.503.698
-$38.816.561
-$43.326.431
-$46,875.816
-$49,821,509
-$52.572,827
-$54,859,942
-$57.341,120
-$59,113,000
-$60,682.502
-$62.223,135
-$11,362.045
$101.489,902
All-Areas (all)
NAA (all)
S2 forever
$42,778,428
$83,713,839
$100,712,137
$93,719,629
$87,704,402
$40,473,864
$34,561,991
$29,397,779
$25,748,301
$22.753.026
$19,969,519
$16.919.865
$13,811,383
$1 1 ,078.630
$8.873.746
$7,274.486
$6,053.376
$4,957,958
$4,130,888
$3,022,013
$2,518,998
$2,161,132
$1,802.039
$28,875.540
$460,005.463
All-Areas (all)
NM (all)
52 stop in 2010
$42,778,428
$83,713,839
$100,712,137
$93,719,629
$87,704,402
$40,473,864
$34,561.991
$29,397,779
$25.748,301
$22,753,026
$19,969,519
$16.919,865
-$33.503,698
-$38.816,561
-$43,326.431
-$46,875,816
-$49,821,509
-$52,572,827
-$54.859,942
-$57,341,120
-$59,113,000
-$60,682,502
-$62.223.135
$1,709,402
$274.563,086
All-Areas All Vehicles Analysis
Baseline ; Stage II Retention Stage II Phase-Out
All-Areas (all)
All-Areas (all)
(no Stage II)
$41.433,129
$78,769,357
$90,722,301
$78,537,756
$67,522,557
$15,529,089
$5,165,122
-$3.767,265
-$10,551,490
-$16,298,685
-$21,708,651
-$27,543,715
-$33,503.698
-$38,816,561
-$43,326,431
-$46,875,816
-$49.821,509
-$52.572.827
-$54,859,942
-$57,341,120
-$59,113,000
-$60,682,502
-$62.223.135
-$11.362,045
$101,489.902
All-Areas (all)
All-Areas (all)
52 forever
$42.778.428
$83,713,839
$100,712.137
$93,719,629
$87,704,402
$40,473.864
$34,561.991
$29,397,779
$25,748,301
$22.753,026
$19,969,519
$16,919,865
$13,811,383
$11,078.630
$8,873,746
$7,274,486
$6,053,376
$4,957,958
$4, 1 30,888
$3,022.013
$2,518,998
$2,161,132
$1,802.039
$28.875.540
$460.005.463
All-Areas (all)
All-Areas (all)
52 stop in 2010
$42.778.428
$83,713,839
$100,712.137
$93,719,629
$87,704,402
$40,473,864
$34,561,991
$29,397,779
$25.748.301
$22,753,026
$19,969,519
$16,919,865
-$33,503,698
-$38,816,561
-$43,326.431
-$46.875,816
-$49,821,509
-$52.572,827
-$54.859,942
-$57,341,120
-$59,113,000
-$60,682,502
-$62.223.135
$1,709.402
$274.563.086
01718/94 08:57 AM
                                                                                                                 COST BEN.WK4

-------
                       ORVR Truck Analysis Benefit Scenarios (Mg)
Scenario;
Case
Cflsl
Benefit
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Avg. Annual
1998 NPV
Nonattainment Areas Truck Analysis j All-Areas Truck Analysis
Baseline
All-Areas (Truck)
NM (Truck)
(No Stage II)
2.832
10,782
22,425
34,666
46,562
57,606
67,645
75,824
82,492
88,204
93.542
99,618
106,329
112.775
118.637
123.676
128,240
132.718
136,799
140.615
144,142
147,518
150.823
92.368
819,742
Stage II Retention | Stage II Phase-Out; Baseline
All-Areas (Truck)
NAA (Truck)
52 forever
1,027
3,912
8.136
12,577
16.893
20.900
24,542
27,509
29.928
32.001
33,938
36,142
38.577
40.915
43,042
44,870
46.526
48.151
49,632
51,016
52.296
53,520
54.719
33,512
297.406
All-Areas (Truck)
NAA (Truck)
52 stop in 2010
1,027
3.912
8,136
12,577
16,893
20,900
24,542
27,509
29,928
32,001
33,938
36,142
106,329
112,775
118,637
123,676
128,240
132,718
136,799
140,615
144.142
147,518
150,823
73,469
569,300
All-Areas (Truck)
All-Areas (Truck)
(no Staqe II)
5,646
21.496
44,708
69,112
92,828
114.847
1 34,860
151,167
164.459
175,848
186,491
198.603
211,983
224,833
236,520
246,566
255,664
264,592
272,730
280,337
287,369
294,099
300,688
184,150
1,634.276
Stage II Retention
All-Areas (Truck)
All-Areas (Truck)
52 forever
3,806
14,490
30,137
46,588
62,575
77,418
90,909
101,901
110.861
118,538
125,712
133,877
142,897
151,559
1 59,437
166,209
172,342
178,360
183,846
188,974
193,714
198,250
202.692
124,134
1.101,657
Stage II Phase-Oulj
All-Areas (Truck)
All-Areas (Truck)
52 stop in 2010
3,806
14.490
30,137
46.588
62,575
77,418
90,909
101,901
110,861
118.538
125,712
133,877
211,983
224,833
236,520
246,566
255,664
264.592
272,730
280,337
287,369
294,099
300.688
164.878
1.378.903
Cost Effectiveness
$/Mg
$/U.S. Tori
$25
$27
$600
$660
$169
$186
$13
$14
$162
$178
$70
$77
01/18/94 08:58 AM
                                                                                                                    COST_BEN.WK4

-------
                        ORVR All Vehicles Benefit Scenarios (Mq)
Scenario i! Nonattainment Areas All Vehicles Analysis
Case
Cost
Benefit
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Avg. Annual
1998 NPV
Baseline Stage II Retention
All-Areas (all)
NAA (all)
(No Stage II)
6.982
25.662
51,848
78,795
104,745
129.465
152.572
172.130
188,401
202,684
216.316
230.773
245,574
258,966
270.930
281.052
290,003
298,599
306.177
313,300
319,886
326.175
332,308
208.841
1 .860.757
All-Areas (all)
NAA (all)
52 forever
2.533
9,310
18,811
28,587
38,002
46,971
55,354
62,450
68,353
73,535
78,480
83,726
89,095
93,954
98,295
101,967
105,215
108,333
1 1 1 ,082
113,667
116,056
118,338
120.563
75.769
675,092
Stage II Phase-Oul
All-Areas (all)
NAA (all)
S2 stop in 2010
2,533
9,310
18,811
28,587
38,002
46,971
55,354
62,450
68,353
73,535
78,480
83,726
245,574
258,966
270,930
281,052
290,003
298,599
306,177
313,300
319,886
326,175
332,308
165,612
1,288.384
All-Areas All Vehicles Analysis
Baseline Stage II Retention
All-Areas (all)
All-Areas (all)
(no Stage II)
13,920
51.161
103,366
157,089
208,825
258,108
304,176
343,167
375,604
404,080
431,258
460,080
489,587
516,286
540,138
560,318
578,164
595,300
610,409
624,609
637,740
650.278
662.504
416,355
3.709.692
All-Areas (all)
All-Areas (all)
S2 forever
9.383
34,487
69,678
105,893
140,768
173,989
205,043
231,327
253,193
272.388
290.709
310.138
330.028
348,026
364,104
377,708
389,738
401,289
411,473
421,046
429,897
438,349
446,591
280,663
2,500.684
Stage II Phase-Out
All-Areas (all)
All-Areas (all)
52 stop in 2010
9,383
34,487
69,678
105,893
140,768
173,989
205,043
231,327
253,193
272.388
290,709
310,138
489,587
516,286
540,138
560,318
578,164
595,300
610,409
624.609
637,740
650,278
662.504
372,275
3.126.051
Cost Effectiveness
$/Mgi $55
$/U.S. Tori! $60
$681
$750
$213
$234
$27
$30
$184
$202
$88!
$97!
01/18/94 08:58 AM
                                                                                                                  COST_BEN.WK4

-------
                                Summation of Fuel Recovery Credits Nationwide (Stage II Forever)^
I Gallons of Fuel Recovered
Year LDV
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
avg,
1,677,928
6,015,986
11,895.853
17,841,555
23,523,913
29,053.247
34,337,030
38,937,543
42,820,087
46,285,374
49,638,561
53,027.335
56,297,783
59,106,489
61,573,559
63,628.710
65,402.723
67,067,306
68,481.001
69,818.183
71,054,832
72,232,763
73,375,996
LOT LHDGV HHDGV All Classes _,
985,118
3,761,361
7,824,198
12,095,408
16,249,575
20,053,497
23,433,579
26,111,398
28,255,427
30,089,112
31,822,601
33,792,838
35,964,354
38,017,940
39,909,261
41,523,046
42,986,980
44,426,972
45,754,355
47,006,369
48,167,939
49.282,515
50,380,243
105,634
394.929
820,468
1,268,214
1,700,955
2,138.497
2,588,644
3,006,981
3,374,300
3,691,204
3,973,896
4,297.401
4,658,119
5,026,039
5,344,743
5,626.835
5,880,718
6,127,398
6,342,268
6,535,531
6.711,389
6,877,643
7,036.095
36,064
134,830
280,110
432,972
580,71 1
730,089
883,771
,026,592
,151,996
,260,188
,356.699
,467,145
,590,295
,71 5.904
,824,711
,921,018
2,007,694
2,091,911
2,165,269
2,231,249
2,291,287
2.348,047
2,402.143
2.804.745
10,307,106
20,820,628
31,638,148
42,055,153
51,975,330
61,243,024
69,082.513
75,601,810
81,325,877
86,791,758
92,584.720
98,510,551
103,866,372
108,652,274
112.699.608
116,278,114
119,713.588
122,742,893
125,591.332
128.225.447
130,740,967
133.194.477
47.091,033 31,212,786) 4,066,430 j 1, 388,291 1| 83,758.541
suni! 1 ,083,093.756 i 717,894,085: 93,527,901 j 31,930.692ij 1.926,446.434
Dollar Value of Fuel Recovered!
LDV LOT LHDGV i HHDGV
$1,375,901
$4,933,109
$9,754,599
$14,630.075
$19,289,608
$23,823,662
$28,156,365
$31,928,785
$35,112,471
$37,954.006
$40,703,620
$43,482.415
$46,164.182
$48,467,321
$50,490,319
$52,175,542
$53,630,233
$54,995,191
$56,154,421
$57,250,910
$58,264,962
$59,230,865
$60,168.317
$807,797
$3,084.316
$6,415,842
$9,918,235
$13,324,651
$16,443,867
$19,215,535
$21,411,346
$23,169,450
$24,673,072
$26,094,533
$27,710,127
$29,490,770
$31,174,711
$32.725,594
$34,048,898
$35,249,323
$36,430,117
$37,518,571
$38,545,222
$39,497,710
$40.411,662
$41.311.800
$86,620
$323,842
$672,783
$1,039,935
$1,394.783
$1.753,568
$2,122,688
$2,465,724
$2,766.926
$3,026.787
$3,258,595
$3.523,869
$3,819.658
$4.121,352
$4.382,689
$4,614,005
$4,822.189
$5.024,467
$5.200,660
$5,359,136
$5,503.339
$5.639,667
$5,769.598
$29,572
$110,560
$229,690
$355,037
$476,183
$598,673
$724,692
$841 ,805
$944,637
$1,033,354
$1,112,494
$1,203,059
$1,304,042
$1,407,041
$1,496.263
$1,575,234
$1,646.309
$1,715,367
$1,775,520
$1,829,624
$1,878,856
$1,925,398
$1,969,757
$38,614,647 $25.594,485 $3,334,473; $1,138,399
$888.136.880 $588,673.150 ! $76.692.879' $26.183,168
All Classes
$2.299,891
$8,451,827
$17,072,915
$25,943,281
$34.485,226
$42.619,771
$50.219,279
$56,647,661
$61,993,484
$66,687.219
$71,169.241
$75,919.470
$80.778,652
$85,170,425
$89,094.864
$92.413,679
$95.348,054
$98,165,142
$100,649.172
$102,984,892
$105,144,867
$107,207,593
$109.219.471
$68.682.003
$1.579.686.076
* Assume:       45.0% of fuel is dispensed through areas with Stage I.
t with gasoline cost (no taxes included) of $0.82        per gallon
01/18/94 08:58 AM
10
                                                                                                                                 COST  BEN.WK4

-------
                          Summation of Fuel Recovery Credits Nationwide (Stage II Discontinued in 2010)*

Year '
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
avg.
Gallons of Fuel Recovered ji Dollar Value of Fuel Recovered!
LDV | LOT
1.677,928
6,015,986
1 1 ,895,853
17.841.555
23,523,913
29,053,247
34.337.030
38,937,543
42,820,087
46,285.374
49,638.561
53,027.335
89,020,280
93.461,517
97,362,546
100.612.231
103.417,371
106,049,476
108.284,865
110,399,271
112.354,710
114,217,300
116,025,025
985,118
3,761,361
7,824,198
12.095,408
16,249,575
20.053,497
23,433,579
26,111,398
28.255,427
30,089,112
31,822.601
33,792,838
56,938,524
60,189,747
63,184,073
65,739.007
68,056,697
70,336,484
72.437,987
74,420,167
76,259,157
78.023,746
79.761,663
LHDGV HHDGV i All Classes
105,634
394,929
820,468
1,268,214
1,700,955
2,138,497
2,588,644
3,006,981
3,374,300
3,691,204
3,973,896
4,297,401
7,659,440
8,264,418
8,788,469
9,252,319
9.669,784
10,075,405
10.428,720
10.746,507
11,035,673
11,309,048
11.569.593
36,064
134,830
280,110
432,972
580,711
730,089
883,771
,026,592
,151,996
.260,188
,356,699
,467,145
2,593.627
2,798,484
2,975,937
3,133,005
3,274,366
3,411,717
3,531,356
3,638,964
3,736,881
3,829,451
3,917,676
2.804,745
10,307,106
20.820,628
31,638,148
42,055,153
51,975,330
61,243,024
69,082,513
75,601,810
81,325,877
86,791,758
92,584,720
156,211.870
164,714,165
172,311,026
178,736,562
184,418,218
189,873,082
194,682,929
199,204,909
203,386,421
207,379,545
211.273,958
LDV ; LOT
$1,375,901
$4,933,109
$9,754,599
$14,630,075
$19,289,608
$23,823,662
$28,156,365
$31,928,785
$35,112,471
$37,954,006
$40,703,620
$43,482,415
$72,996,629
$76,638,444
$79,837,288
$82,502,030
$84,802,244
$86,960,570
$88,793,590
$90,527,402
$92.130,862
$93,658,186
$95,140,521
$807,797
$3,084.316
$6,415,842
$9,918.235
$13,324,651
$16,443,867
$19,215,535
$21,411,346
$23,169,450
$24,673,072
$26,094,533
$27,710,127
$46.689,589
$49,355,593
$51,810,940
$53,905,986
$55,806,492
$57,675,917
$59,399,150
$61,024.537
$62.532,509
$63,979,472
$65,404,563
65.489,522; 43,470,494; 5,920.022 • 2,007,940 11 6,887.978 j $53,701,408; $35,645,805
LHDGV
$86,620
$323.842
$672,783
$1,039,935
$1,394,783
$1,753,568
$2,122,688
$2,465,724
$2.766,926
$3,026,787
$3.258,595
$3,523,869
$6,280,741
$6,776,823
$7,206,545
$7,586,902
$7,929,223
$8.261,832
$8,551,551
$8,812,136
$9,049,252
$9,273,419
$9,487,066
HHDGV ij All Classes
$29,572
$110,560
$229.690
$355,037
$476,183
$598,673
$724,692
$841 ,805
$944,637
$1,033,354
$1,112,494
$1,203,059
$2,126,774
$2,294,757
$2,440,268
$2,569,064
$2.684,980
$2,797,608
$2,895,712
$2,983,951
$3,064,243
$3,140,150
$3,212,495
$4,854,418 $1,646,511
sunij 1,506.259.004 999.821.364! 136.160,499 46,182.630 ; 2,688,423.496 ! $1,235,1 32.383 $819,853.518 $1 11,651,609 ! $37,869,757
$2,299,891
$8,451,827
$17,072.915
$25,943,281
$34,485,226
$42,619,771
$50,219,279
$56,647,661
$61,993,484
$66,687,219
$71,169,241
$75,919.470
$128,093,733
$135,065.616
$141,295,041
$146,563,981
$151,222.939
$155,695,927
$159,640,002
$163,348,025
$166,776,865
$170,051,227
$173,244.645
$95,848.142
$2,204,507.267
 * Assume:       45.0%  of fuel is dispensed through areas with Stage II control until 2009, and then Stage II is discontinued.
 f with gasoline cost (no taxes included) of $0.82        per gallon
01/18/94 08:58 AM
                                                                      11
COST_BEM.WK4

-------
 Individual Vehicle Class Cost/Benefit Analysis
All Areas Analysis/Assumes Stage II Discontinuation in 2010.


1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Avg annu
1998NP'
Costs
LDV
$25,590.499
$50,017,291
$60,205.401
$55,965,925
$52,578,392
$25,396,338
$21,919,635
$18.575,215
$16,247,529
$14,261,994
$12.368.380
$10,445,585
-$18,212.629
-$20.998.444
-$23,341.288
-$25,150,030
-$26.594,244
-$27,896,570
-$28.873,590
-$30.179.402
-$30,926,862
-$31.598,186
-$32.224,521
$2.938,105
$178,383.838
LOT LHDGV
$14,905.483
$29,235,044
$35,173,758
$32.787,365
$30,496.949
$12,487,733
$10,482.465
$9,005,154
$7,965.550
$7,180,428
$6.477,467
$5.580,373
-$12,632.689
-$14,628,093
-$16,364,940
-$17,741,486
-$18,923,492
-$20,074.417
-$21,127,050
-$22,081,837
-$22.919.209
-$23,647.672
-$24,402.163
-$555,012
$86,208.247
$1,506,468
$2,954,790
$3.541,077
$3,289,495
$3,050,217
$1,473,202
$1,141,822
$886,846
$679,994
$514,483
$370,735
$199,811
-$2.475,291
-$2,877,023
-$3,206,105
-$3,485,822
-$3,733,793
-$3,965,762
-$4,167,421
-$4,339,946
-$4,489,002
-$4,625,109
-$4,756,986
-$978,840
$2.422.260
HHDGV
$775,978
$1.506,713
$1,791,902
$1,676,843
$1.578,845
$1,116.592
$1,018.068
$930,565
$855,228
$796,121
$752.936
$694.096
-$183,089
-$313,002
-$414,098
-$498.479
-$569,980
-$636,078
-$691.882
-$739,936
-$777,928
-$811,535
-$839,465
$305,149
$7.548,741
Benefits (Mg)
LDV
5,577
19,997
39,541
59,304
78,192
96,572
114,135
129,427
142.332
153,850
164.996
176,260
277,604
291,453
303,618
313,752
322,500
330,708
337.679
344,273
350,371
356,179
361.816
207,397
1.747.148
LOT
3,285
12,545
26,095
40,340
54,194
66,881
78,154
87,085
94,235
100,351
106,132
112,703
177,936
188,096
197,454
205,438
212,681
219,805
226,373
232,567
238,314
243,828
249,259
137,989
1,159,565
LHDGV i HHDGV
390
1,459
3,032
4,686
6,286
7,902
9,566
11,112
12,469
13,640
14,685
15,880
25,536
27,552
29,300
30,846
32,238
33,590
34,768
35,827
36,791
37,703
38.571
20,167
164.503
130
486
1,011
1,562
2,095
2,634
3,189
3,704
4,156
4,547
4.895
5,293
8,512
9,184
9,767
10,282
10,746
11,197
11,589
11,942
12,264
12,568
12.857
6,722
54,834
Cost Effectiveness
$/Mg 1
$/US Ton!
$102
$112
$74
$82
$15
$16
$138
$151
01/18/94 08:58 AM
12
                                                 COST_BEN.WK4

-------
 Individual Vehicle Class Cost/Benefit Analysis
 Nonattainment Areas Analysis/Assumes Stage II Discontinuation in 2010.


1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Avg annu
1998NF
Costs
LDV . LOT
$25,590,499
$50,017,291
$60,205,401
$55,965,925
$52,578.392
$25.396,338
$21.919,635
$18,575,215
$16,247,529
$14.261,994
$12.368.380
$10,445.585
-$18,212.629
-$20.998,444
-$23,341,288
-$25.150.030
-$26,594.244
-$27,896,570
-$28.873,590
-$30,179,402
-$30,926,862
-$31.598,186
-$32.224.521
$2.938,105
$178.383.838
$14.905,483
$29,235,044
$35,173,758
$32,787,365
$30,496,949
$12,487,733
$10,482.465
$9,005.154
$7,965,550
$7,180,428
$6,477,467
$5,580,373
-$12.632.689
-$14.628.093
-$16.364,940
-$17,741,486
-$18.923,492
-$20,074,417
-$21,127,050
-$22,081,837
-$22,919,209
-$23,647,672
-$24,402.163
-$555,012
$86,208.247
LHDGV j HHDGV
$1,506.468
$2,954,790
$3,541,077
$3,289,495
$3,050,217
$1,473,202
$1,141,822
$886,846
$679,994
$514,483
$370.735
$199,811
-$2,475.291
-$2,877.023
-$3.206,105
-$3,485,822
-$3,733,793
-$3,965,762
-$4,167.421
-$4,339,946
-$4,489,002
-$4,625,109
-$4,756,986
-$978.840
$2.422.260
$775.978
$1,506,713
$1,791.902
$1,676,843
$1,578,845
$1,116.592
$1,018,068
$930,565
$855,228
$796,121
$752,936
$694.096
-$183.089
-$313.002
-$414,098
-$498,479
-$569,980
-$636,078
-$691,882
-$739.936
-$777,928
-$811,535
-$839.465
$305.149
$7.548,741
Benefits (Mg)
LDV LOT LHDGV
1.506
19,997
10,675
16,010
21,109
26.071
30.812
34.940
38,424
41,534
44,543
47,584
139,244
146.191
152.293
157,376
161,764
165,881
169,378
172,685
175,744
178.657
181.485
92,778
731,836
887
12,545
7,045
10,890
14,630
18,055
21,099
23,510
25,440
27,091
28,652
30,426
89,251
94.348
99.041
103,046
106,679
110,253
1 1 3,547
116,654
119,537
122,303
125,027
61,737
485.071
105
1,459
819
1,265
1,697
2,133
2,582
3,000
3,366
3,682
3.964
4,287
12,808
13,820
14,696
15,472
16.170
16,849
17,439
17,971
18,454
18,911
19,347
9,143
70,101
HHDGV
35
486
273
422
566
711
861
1,000
1,122
1,227
1,321
1,429
4,269
4,607
4,899
5,157
5,390
5,616
5,813
5,990
6,151
6,304
6.449
3,048
23,367
 Cost Effectiveness
l$/Mg
|$/US Ton
$244, , $178
$268 $195
$35
$38
$323
$355
01/18/94 08:58 AM
                                                        13
COST_BEN.WK4

-------
Individual Vehicle Class Cost/Benefit Analysis
AH Areas Analysis/Assumes Stage II Continues Indefinitely


1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Costs i Benefits (Mg)
LDV i LOT i LHDGV
$25,590.499
$50,017,291
$60.205,401
$55,965,925
$52.578.392
$25,396,338
$21,919.635
$18.575,215
$16.247,529
$14,261,994
$12.368.380
$10.445.585
$8.619,818
$7,172.679
$6,005.681
$5,176,458
$4.577,767
$4,068,809
$3,765,579
$3.097,090
$2.939,038
$2,829,135
$2.747.683
Avg annujj $18.024.866
1998Npi| $281.629.897
$14,905,483
$29,235,044
$35,173,758
$32,787,365
$30,496,949
$12,487,733
$10,482,465
$9,005,154
$7,965,550
$7,180,428
$6,477,467
$5,580,373
$4.566,130
$3,552,789
$2.720,406
$2.115,602
$1,633,677
$1.171,383
$753,529
$397,478
$115,590
-$79,862
-$309.400
$9.496,308
$154.657.742
$1,506,468
$2,954.790
$3,541 ,077
$3,289,495
$3.050,217
$1,473,202
$1,141,822
$886,846
$679,994
$514.483
$370,735
$199,811
-$14,208
-$221.552
-$382,249
-$512.925
-$626,759
-$728.397
-$816,530
-$886,946
-$943,089
-$991.357
-$1.039.518
$541.105
$12.724.933
HHDGV i LDV LOT
$775,978
$1,506,713
$1,791,902
$1,676,843
$1,578,845
$1,116,592
$1,018,068
$930,565
$855,228
$796,121
$752.936
$694,096
$639,643
$574,714
$529,907
$495,351
$468,691
$446,163
$428,310
$414,391
$407,459
$403,217
$403,273
$813,261
$10.992,891
5,577
19,997
39,541
59,304
78,192
96,572
114,135
129,427
142.332
153,850
164,996
176,260
187,131
196,467
204,668
211,499
217,396
222,929
227,628
232.072
236,183
240,098
243,898
156,528
1.399,027
3,285
12.545
26,095
40,340
54,194
66.881
78,154
87,085
94,235
100,351
106,132
112,703
119,946
126,795
133,102
1 38,485
143,367
148,170
152.597
1 56,772
160,646
164,363
1 68.024
104,099
928.770
LHDGV i HHDGV
390
1,459
3,032
4,686
6,286
7,902
9,566
11,112
12.469
13.640
14.685
15.880
17,213
18.573
19,751
20,793
21,731
22.643
23,437
24.151
24,801
25,415
26.001
15,027
129.665
130
486
1,011
1,562
2,095
2,634
3,189
3,704
4,156
4.547
4.895
5,293
5.738
6.191
6,584
6,931
7,244
7,548
7,812
8,050
8.267
8,472
8.667
5,009
43.222
Cost Effectiveness
|$/Mg
I$/US Ton
$201
$221
$167
$183
$98
$108
$254
$280
01/18/94 08:58 AM
14
                                                                                                        COST_BEN.WK4

-------
 Individual Vehicle Class Cost/Benefit Analysis
 Nonattainment Areas Analysis/Assumes Stage II Continues Indefinitely


1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Costs
LDV LOT
$25,590,499
$50,017,291
$60,205,401
$55,965,925
$52,578,392
$25,396,338
$21,919.635
$18.575,215
$16,247,529
$14,261,994
$12.368.380
$10,445,585
$8.619,818
$7,172,679
$6,005.681
$5,176,458
$4,577.767
$4,068.809
$3.765,579
$3,097,090
$2,939,038
$2.829,135
$2.747,683
Avg annua $18,024,866
1998NPV $281.629.897
$14,905,483
$29.235,044
$35,173,758
$32,787,365
$30,496,949
$12.487,733
$10,482,465
$9,005,154
$7,965,550
$7,180,428
$6,477,467
$5,580,373
$4,566,130
$3,552,789
$2,720,406
$2.115,602
$1,633,677
$1.171,383
$753,529
$397,478
$115,590
-$79,862
-$309,400
$9,496,308
$154,657,742
LHDGV
$1,506,468
$2.954,790
$3,541,077
$3,289.495
$3,050,217
$1,473,202
$1,141,822
$886,846
$679,994
$514,483
$370,735
$199,811
-$14,208
-$221.552
-$382.249
-$512,925
-$626,759
-$728.397
-$816,530
-$886,946
-$943,089
-$991,357
-$1,039,518
$541,105
$12.724.933
HHDGV
$775,978
$1,506,713
$1,791,902
$1,676,843
$1,578,845
$1,116,592
$1,018,068
$930,565
$855,228
$796,121
$752,936
$694,096
$639,643
$574,714
$529,907
$495,351
$468,691
$446,163
$428,310
$414,391
$407,459
$403,217
$403,273
$813,261
$10,992.891
Benefits (Ng)
LDV LOT ! LHDGV HHDGV
1,506
5,398
10,675
16,010
21,109
26,071
30,812
34,940
38.424
41,534
44,543
47.584
50,518
53,039
55,253
57,097
58,689
60,182
61,451
62,651
63,761
64,818
65,843
42.257
377,685
887
3,387
7,045
10,890
14.630
18,055
21,099
23,510
25,440
27,091
28,652
30,426
32,381
34,230
35,933
37,386
38,704
40,000
41,195
42,323
43,368
44,372
45.360
28,103
250.733
105
394
819
1,265
1,697
2,133
2,582
3,000
3,366
3,682
3,964
4,287
4,647
5,014
5,332
5,613
5,867
6,113
6,327
6,520
6,695
6,861
7,019
4,057
35,005
35
131
273
422
566
711
861
,000
,122
,227
,321
.429
,549
,671
,777
,871
,956
2,038
2,109
2,173
2,232
2,287
2,340
1,352
11,668
Cost Effectiveness
$/Mg |
$/US Tonl
$746
$820
$617
$679
$364
$400
$9421
$i,o3ej
01/18/94 08:58 AM
                                                       15
COST BEN.WK4

-------
Appendix E: Supporting Data for Chapter 7

-------



1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
avg. annua
1 998-2020 NPV(199*
1 998-2020 $/Mc
$/US Tor
All Vehicles
NAA (stage II
costs
$42,778,428
$83,713,839
$100,712,137
$93,719,629
$87,704,402
$40,473,864
$34,561,991
$29,397,779
$25,748,301
$22,753,026
$19,969,519
$16,919,865
-$132,138,330
-$134,871,083
-$137,075,968
-$138,675,227
-$139,896,337
-$140,991,755
-$141,818,825
-$142,927,701
-$143,430,715
-$143,788,582
-$144,147,674
-$40,926,496
-$25,934,265
ihaseout)
benefits
2,533
9,310
18,811
28,587
38,002
46,971
55,354
62,450
68,353
73,535
78,480
83,726
245,574
258,966
270,930
281,052
290,003
298,599
306,177
313,300
319,886
326,175
332,308
165,612
1,288,384
-$20
-$22
Trucks only
NAA (Stage II phaseout)
costs
$17,187,929
$33,696,548
$40,506,736
$37,753,703
$35,126,011
$15,077,527
$12,642,355
$10,822,564
$9,500,772
$8,491,032
$7,601,139
$6,474,280
-$140,758,148
-$142,043,762
-$143,081,649
-$143,851,685
.$144,474,104
-$145,060,564
-$145,584,405
-$146,024,790
-$146,369,753
-$146,617,716
-$146,895,357
-$58,951,363
-$307,564,162
benefits
1,027
3,912
8,136
12,577
16,893
20,900
24,542
27,509
29,928
32,001
33,938
36,142
106,329
112,775
118,637
123,676
128,240
132,718
136,799
140,615
144,142
147,518
150,823
73,469
569,300
-$540
-$594

-------