AIR QUALITY IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
March 4, 1975
Revised March 12, 1975
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A computer simulation model was used to predict the impact on
future air quality of changes to exhaust emission standards for light
duty vehicles (LDV). The model allowed for city-specific growth
estimates and for control assumptions for both motor vehicle and
stationary sources. Air quality predictions were made for oxidants
(30 cities), carbon monoxide (26 cities) and nitrogen dioxide (10
cities) at five year intervals through the year 1985. Five LDV exhaust
control options were examined for carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbons
(HC); eight control options were examined for NOx.
Results show that the future Ox problem is serious and pervasive
under all of the different LDV control options examined. Carbon
monoxide levels decrease rapidly under nearly all of the LDV standards
considered. Future N02 levels will exceed the air quality standard
in most of the ten cities analyzed under all options considered prin-
cipally due to the growth of stationary sources which will constitute
the major contribution of NOx emissions.
-------
INTRODUCTION
On January 305 1975, President Ford transmitted to Congress a proposed
omnibus energy bill, the Energy Independence Act of 1975, which included
under Title V a number of proposed amendments to the Clean Air Act. One
of the proposed amendments involving section 202(b) of the Act would estab-
lish emission standards for light duty vehicles (LDV) that are less strin-
gent than presently required by the Act for 1977 vehicles, yet are more
stringent than the standards presently in effect for 1975 model vehicles.
The principal purpose of this amendment is to permit the automotive industry
to undertake a commitment to materially improve fuel efficiency and reduce
the nation's dependence upon foreign oil imports. It was based on a "best
judgment" estimate at that time of the adjustment in auto emission limits
needed to ensure the President's goal of a 40% 1980 improve-
ment in fuel economy over 1974 levels.
On January 21, 1975 the EPA Administrator convened a hearing, as
required by law to consider applications from the automobile manufacturers
to suspend, for one year, the effective date of the 1977 statutory standards
for HC and CO. In his statement opening that hearing Mr. Train stated:
"this hearing will be conducted in all respects from a clean slate, with
no preconceptions concerning the President's proposal or any other."
This paper contains an analysis of the impact on air quality out to
the year 1985 of various LDV emission standards for hydrocarbons (HC),
carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen oxides (NOx). HC emissions were analyzed
in terms of their impact on the photochemical oxidant (Ox) air quality
standard, which is the principal reason for total HC control. The analysis
includes the effect out to the year 1985 of a series of possible emission
-------
standards, ranging from current standards to the statutory levels
specified for the 1977 model year, in order to allow the current
proposal to be put into perspective with other possible options.
BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
The Clean Air Act of 1970 required that new light duty vehicles
beginning with model year 1975 reduce emissions of carbon monoxide (CO)
and hydrocarbons (HC) by at least 90% from the allowable emissions under
Federal standards for 1970 model year light duty vehicles. The Act also
required that new light duty vehicles beginning with model year 1976 reduce
emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO ) by at least 90% from the emissions of
/\
1971 model year light duty vehicles. These standards are as follows:
Hydrocarbons (HC) 0.41 grams/mile (1975)
Carbon Monoxide (CO) . . 3.40 grams/mile (1975)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) .0.40 grams/mile (1976)
On April 11, 1973, the Administrator granted a one year suspension
of the 1975 automobile emission standards for CO and HC. Nationwide
interim standards for 1975 were set at 1.5 grams/mile HC and 15.0 grams/
mile CO. Separate standards of .9 grams/mile HC and 9.0 grams/mile CO were
prescribed for tha cars sold in the State of California. On July 30, 1973,
the Administrator granted a one year suspension of the 1976 automotive
emission standard for NO . The 1976 interim standard was set at 2.0 grams/
X
mile. In June 1974 amendments to the Clean Air Act in the Energy Supply
and Environmental Coordination Act (ESECA) provided for a continuation of
-------
the 49 State standard (1.5 grams/mile HC and 15 grams/mile CO) through
rode! year 1976 with the statutory standards to be effective in 1977. Un er
ESECA the Administrator of EPA may grant a one year extension of the statu-
tory standard to 1978. The NO standard was prescribed to be 3.1 grams/
/\
mile in 1976 and 2.0 grams/mile in 1977 and revert to the statutory 0.4
grams/mile in 1978. California standards in effect for 1976 and 1977 are
.9 grams/mile HC, 9.0 grams/mile CO, and 2.0 grams/mile NOX-
The proposed amendment would establish HC and CO standards at .9 grams/
mile HC and 9.0 grams/mile CO (California standards) for model years
1977-1981 with the statutory standards of .41 grams/mile HC and 3.4
grams/mile CO to be effective in 1982. The NO standard would be set at
/\
3.1 grams/mile through 1981. In 1982, the NOX standard would be set at
a level that the Administrator of EPA determines appropriate, taking into
account air quality, energy, available technology, cost and other pertinent
considerations. The existing emission requirements and proposed changes
are shown on the following table:
AUTOMOTIVE EMISSION STANDARDS UNDER THE 1974
CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENT (ESECA) AND THE 1975 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Emission Standard in Grams/Mile
Pollutant 1974 Clean Air Act 1975 Proposed Amendment
Amendments (ESECA)
1976 1977/81 1982 1976 1977/81 1982
Hydrocarbons (HC) 1.5 0.41 0.41 1.5 .9 0.41
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 15,0 3.4 3.4 15.0 9.0 3*4
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 3.1 2.0* 0.40 3.1 3.1 **
**To be determined by the Administrator of EPA.
*NOX standards 2.0 grams/mile 1977; 0.40 grams/mile 1978 on.
-------
METHOD OF ANALYSIS
Prediction of future air quality for a major urban area is a complex
task with a high possibility of error. It requires an analysis of the growth
and distribution of growth for major sources of pollution (both mobile and
stationary) and assumptions on the control that will be applied to these
sources in the future. Changes in new auto emission standards are especially
complex since they result in emission factors for the pool of existing
vehicles which changes annually as old vehicles are replaced and control
systems deteriorate. EPA has developed and used in this analysis a com-
puter simulation model to predict the future air quality impact of various
growth and control situations.
This model has been described fully in several publications.
A fundamental assunption in the model is that air quality will vary pro-
portionately with emissions; observed air quality and an emission inventory
for a recent year provide the baseline for future predictions. The model
recognizes six major source categories: light, medium, and heavy duty
vehicles, power plants, industrial sources, and area sources. It allows
growth rates, replacement, and degree of control to be varied annually for
each source category. It is the most sophisticated model now available
for general use with automotive pollutants for analyzing the future impact
i
of alternative regulatory schemes.
Changes in the absolute levels of future air quality using the model
are totally determined by the assumptions made re'iative to growth and
N. deNevers and R. Morris4 "Rollback Model"17115 - Bas-ic and Modified,"
presented at the annua'i rr.eeting of the Air PoVn.tior. Control Association,
June 24-28, 1973, Chicago, Illinois, paper no. 73-139.
-------
future control actions. Assumptions cannot be made with much confidence
beyond five years and are only guesses beyond ten years. Differing
assumptions will result in measurable changes in air quality. For examp
assumptions using low mobile source growth rates combined with higher
stationary source growth rates will, after a sufficiently lengthy period
of time, result in air quality levels significantly different than assumptions
using a higher mobile source growth rate. Consequently, two sets of tables
with differing mobile source growth rates are presented for comparison
purposes.
ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE ANALYSIS
Generally, the assumptions used in these calculations are fairly
conservative and reflect only those control actions which are already
planned and which have a high likelihood of being implemented. For
example, no credit was assumed for air quality maintenance plans, since
these plans have not yet been formulated. However, the required main-
tenance analysis for most' major urban areaswill force a detailed
evaluation of future pollution emissions and air quality in relation to
the standard. Where necessary to maintain the standards, states must tighten
existing regulations, control new sources, and modify existing growth
patterns. This, of course, could cause future air quality to be better
-------
than the estimates presented in the analysis. Because the assumptions
are so important, it is necessary to define them in some detail in order to
allow an interpretation of the results.
General Assumptions for All Pollutants
Air quality data from the State Implementation Plans (SIP's) for
1970 and 1971, which generally form the basis for the SIP control strategies
and transportation control plans (TCP's), were used for projecting future
air quality for CO and HC. Air quality data for 1972 were used initially
for N02- However, 1973 air quality data for all three pollutants, which
are more comprehensive than earlier data, were examined to ensure that
earlier data accurately represented a "worst case" situation. Wherever
the 1973 air quality data indicated a more adverse air quality problem
then the earlier data, the 1973 data were used instead.
0 The air quality data used generally represent the second highest values for
the year for photochemical oxidants and the maximum eight hour values for
carbon monoxide. Since the Ox and CO standards are values not to be
exceeded more than once per year, the use of second highest is more
correct and the analyses for CO are somewhat conservative in this
respect. The observed annual values for N02 were used, since the
ambient N02 standard is stated in terms of an annual average.
0 Stationary source emission data representative of 1970 and 1971 were
taken from the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for each urban area. For
many areas this represents the last year for which comprehensive data are
available. Mobile source emission data for 1971 were obtained from EPA's
-------
National Emissions Data System since it provides a consistent data
base for all areas analyzed. Table B-l in Addendum B lists the annual
growth rates for mobile source emissions used in the calculations .
Area-specific stationary source growth rates were based on economic
projections (projections of earnings by various industrial categories
made by the Bureau of Economic Analysis in each Air Quality Control
Region [AQCR]), In "Economic Projections for Air Quality Control Regions."
0 For the analysis contained in the body of the report, area-specific mobile
source growth rates for all pollutants were estimated primarily through
historic growth rates for the central business district (CBD). The use of
historic CBD figures often do not reflect adequately the growth in vehicle
miles of travel (VMT) for the entire metropolitan area and therefore may
not be representative of future area-wide emission of HC and NOX. Therefore,
a separate analysis for HC and NOX was performed using metropolitan VMT
growth rates based upon estimates supplied (through DOT) by the appropriate
states, (Addendum B). These latter estimates are based upon population
and economic growth estimates for the specific metropolitan area and
were adjusted to account for any existing or planned TCP's. The results of
the analysis using the metropolitan growth rates are contained in an addendum
to the report. Generally, the VMT growth rates using historic CBD figures
range from 0.5% to 3.0%, while the metropolitan area growth rates range
from 2.0 to 6.0%. No separate analysis was performed for CO using the
metropolitan growth rates iince air quality data used in the analysis is
derived from monitoring instruments which are generally located in we]]
-------
developed sections of the urban complex. Even the use of these lower growth
rates (CBD rates) may result tn overestimating future air quality for CO,
since many CBO's may be close to saturation and VMT would not continue at
historic rates. No consideration was given in any of the analyses for
possible reductions in future VMT due to projected high gasoline prices.
No credit was taken for future reductions in growth of vehicle miles
of travel (VMT) or in emissions (obtained through retrofit of existing
vehicles), even though such provisions are included in some of the
SIP's. Other measures in the SIP's were accounted for and are discussed
below.
0 Emission factors for all motor vehicles are based on the latest available
data, and reflect recent surveillance programs for in use vehicles, more
sophisticated testing procedures, and recent prototype and certification
tests. The new emission factors differ from previously used emission
factors in the following areas:
1) LDV evaporative emissions are higher than previously estimated
(1.8 grams/mile rather than 0.2 grams/mile for new cars); additional
Federal controls of evaporative emissions were assumpd in 1980, as
discussed below.
2) CO emission factors for 1972-1974 LDV's increased by 65%.
3) Emission factors for both CO and HC from pre-1970 heavy duty
vehicles (HDV's) increased substantially (70% and 106% respectively).
Emission factors for controlled HDV's (post-1970) increased moderately
for CO (45%) and were virtually unchanged for HC.
-------
4) The LDV emission factors used in the analysis incorporate the
Agency's estimate (from certification data and future projections) of the
emissions from actual in-use vehicles. Thus, vehicles designed to meet
a certain standard may have higher or lower emissions than that standard
depending upon the age of the vehicles. Consequently, a change in the
magnitude of a LDV emission standard may not mean that an equal change
in actual emissions can be expected. For example, the interim (15 gm/mi)
and California (9 gm/mi) CO LDV standard from 1977 until 1990 will result
in average in-use vehicle CO emissions of 12.57 and 7.39 gm/nrile, in
1990 respectively; however, under a similar situation for the statutory
standard (3.4 gm/mi), average in-use vehicle CO emission in 1990 would be
3.99 gm/mi. (Note: The 1977-1990 timeframe is used in the preceeding
example to allow sufficient time so that all in-use vehicles would have
been designed under the particular standards used in the comparison).
5) The deterioration of control efficiency for HC appears to be
significant, but offsetting this was the assumption that inspection/
maintenance programs would be implemented in areas with serious oxidant
problems. Replacement of the catalyst was assumed if HC emissions rose
to about twice the standard. For non-catalyst vehicles it was assumed
10
-------
that the I/M program reduced HC by 10% initially and limited deterioration
to 3% a year thereafter. No credit was taken for the impact of I/M on CO
control deterioration.
0 Heavy duty diesels will remain unchanged from presently-used diesels: CO
and HC emission factors from gasoline engine trucks will be reduced sig-
nificantly, while the emission factors for NOx will increase substantially
0 The introduction rate of new cars was assumed to be the same in the future
as it was in 1970. The effect of a decline in new car sales was examined
and found to have only a small impact. Specifically, the effect of the
following new car sales rates was analyzed:
Year % of 1970 Sales
1975 70
1976-79 80
1980 90
1981-85 100
Using the California emission standards as an example, the above change
in new car sales produced a maximum effect in 1980, increasing concentra-
tions of CO by about 10%. The impact on the relative effectiveness
of the alternative emission control schemes will be smaller. In 1985
there was virtually no effect of the change in sales on predicted air
quality or relative effectiveness.
Specific Assumption for H.ydrocarbon/Oxidant Strategies
0 It was assumed that reasonably available control technology (RACT)
for stationary sources would be implemented in all cities analyzed. This
11
-------
assumption is based on the Administration's proposed Act amendment,
which requires that in order to qualify for an attainment date extension
beyond 1977 (due to serious social and economic disruption), a region
must adopt and implement all reasonable control measures.
The application of RACT was assumed to include control of gasoline
evaporative emissions at bulk terminals, service station tanks, and
automobile fuel tanks.
" As discussed above, recent data indicate that the LDV evaporative emission
factor used previously is much too low and the use of current comprehensive
emission test data (SHED test) indicate that the evaporative emission factor
should be increased from 0.2 grams per mile to 1.8 grams per mile. If
the new factor is correct, evaporative emissions become a more significant
portion of the vehicle problem and regulatory steps are indicated and will
be taken. Therefore, it was assumed that the 1.8 factor was correct and
that new evaporative emission standards would be developed requiring 7Q%
control (to 0.5 grams/mile) for 1980 and later vehicles.
0 Federal new source performance standards (NSPS) now exist for petroleum
storage vessels. Much work is underway on NSPS for other hydrocarbon
sources, and future NSPS were assumed for carbon black plants, dry cleaning
plants, solvent degreasing and surface coating operations.
Specific Assumption for Carbon Monoxide
0 Since the "hot spots" for CO are always located in areas of high traffic
density the impact on future air quality of mobile source emissions and
their control appear to dominate the CO situation; stationary sources have
very little impact. Therefore, it is necessary to apply an adjustment
factor to the stationary source categories to realistically estimate future
air quality. Factors of 20% for area sources, 10% for industry and 0% f
12
-------
power plants were used. This means that a pound of CO from a new
industrial source was assumed to have only 1/10 the air quality impact
on the roadside CO "hot spot" as a pound of CO emitted on the street
in front of the sampler. These adjustment factors were selected after
considering the results from dispersion models for power plants and
industry and a review of the relationship between traffic density and
CO levels in several situations.
It is recognized that there may be situations where carbon monoxide
levels at downtown intersections or surburban highway intersections are
composed of nearly 100% light duty vehicles. In those situations,
the relative difference in the impact between various LDV CO standards
would be greater than that shown in the enclosed tables.
0 In problem cities, it was assumed that reasonably available control tech-
nology would be applied to large industrial sources, although such regula-
tions may not now be adopted in all cities analyzed. Since stationary
sources are not significant for CO, this assumption has only a minor effect
Specific Assumptions for Oxides of Nitrogen
0 Control of existing sources was not assumed unless SIP regulations are
presently in effect. Since there is very little technology available at
this time for control of NOX from stationary sources, little retrofit is
possible and stationary sources growth dominates the future NOX situation.
Technology is being developed, however, and its availability coupled with
Air Quality Maintenance Plans should influence significantly future NOo
air quality.
13
-------
Since N02 appears to be a widespread future problem rather than one that
requires rollback from current air quality levels, a fairly aggressive
program for control of new stationary sources was assumed and is being
implemented. In addition to present new source performance standards (NSPS)
for power plants, nitric acid plants, and gas turbines (to be proposed
shortly), NSPS were assumed for lignite steam generators, stationary
internal combustion engines, and intermediate coal, oil, and gas-fired
boilers. Further tightening of NSPS for power plants was assumed in 1930.
DISCUSSION
The results of these analyses are presented in several forms; predicted
air quality, percent change in air quality, number of Regions above the
ambient standard and annual frequency of violations of the air quality
standard. These are presented for many alternative exhaust control schemes
for CO, Ox (HC), and N02 to the year 1935. Not all Regions with a current
pollution problem were included in the analysis,, but the worst regions are
probably all included. New air quality data suggest that air pollution
problems from CO and Ox may be more widespread than previously determined.
As more widespread monitoring is carried out and reported, additional
problems inevitably are uncovered.
Thirty cities have been analyzed for 0 , 26 for CO, and 10 for N09.
A L-
Data available to EPA's National Aerometric Data Bank indicate that 212
adequate sampling stations for CO are operating nationwide. Of these,
approximately 150 have shown violations of the ambient air quality standard.
These represent over 50 urban areas. Since CO levels are strongly influenced
by high traffic density, it seems likely that violations will be found in
additional cities as the number of samplers increases.
14
-------
Recent 0 data shows that 162 out of 187 urban sampling sites have
s\.
at least two hours a year above the ambient standard of 0.08 ppm. This
represents about 60 urban areas. Recent data at rural locations show
widespread violations of the standard throughout the midwest and east
coast, often up to twice the standard. It is clear that the estimates
of the number of Regions above the standard especially in 1980 and 1985
is significantly below the national total.
The ten cities selected for NQp analysis were the worst case situations
(considering air quality and growth) from a list of about 30 urban areas
for which 1972 data were available. Data for 1973 from over 150 sites of
the National Air Sampling Network (NASN) do not suggest that many additional
cities have problems similar to the ten selected for analysis. No.other validated
NASN sites had an annual average above the standard (100 yg/m3). Four
cities (Atlanta, Detroit, Springfield, Mass., and Louisville, Ky.) recorded
levels between 90 and 100 yg/m3 Six others had levels between 80 and 90
yg/m3 (Cincinnati, Boston, New Orleans, Minneapolis, St. Louis, and
Steubenville, Ohio).
Oxides of Nitrogen
Current air quality data show clearly that for most of the country
the N02 problem is one of maintaining compliance with the ambient standard
by controlling growth in NOx emissions, and not one of reducing existing
emission levels in order to attain the standard. Los Angeles, Chicago
and possibly New York are exceptions, Los Angeles seems to be unique for
all of the automotive pollutants and does not approach the ambient standards
with any level of exhaust control. Clearly, significant modification must
15
-------
a r
air quality standards for NO,, or Ox.
Oxides of nitrogen are emitted from any combustion process and from
several industrial operations. Nationwide, about half of the NOx comes
from stationary sources and half from motor vehicles; in most urban areas
motor vehicles now account for more than half. A key to attainment and
maintenance of the standard for NOx is in control of stationary sources;
this in turn depends on development of technology for NOx control for both
new and existing sources. Only modest credit has been given for control
of stationary sources in this analysis; therefore, the standard'is projected
not to be maintained in 1935 for six of the ten cities (Table 9) analyzed even
with the most restrictive exhaust standards. Using the higher VMT growth rates
Addendum B, nine of the ten cities analyzed fail to maintain the
NOx standard in 1985. The vigorous technology development program
now underway, the Air Quality Maintenance Plan requirements, and an in-
tensified new source performance standard program all should accelerate
control of stationary sources and reduce the predicted air quality levels.
Also control of medium duty and heavy duty vehicles must be improved to
offset growth.
Nonetheless, tighter control of LDV exhaust does make an important
difference in NO,, levels in every city analyzed. Predicted air quality
through 1985 is shown for each city for eight different exhaust control
scenarios in Tables 1 through 8 and is summarized in Table 9. Under
the most stringent set of standards (0.4 g/m in 1978 and continuing
through 1985) N02 in the air increases by an average of 6% in 1980 and
16
-------
the most lenient set of standard (3.1 from now until 1985) allows average
increases of 16% in 1980 with seven cities exceeding the standard and
32% in 1985 with all ten cities exceeding.
Air quality impact alone does not provide a conclusive basis for
softening or selected LDV emission standard for NOx. The selection of the
optimum emission standards also depend on other factors such as available
technology, fuel savings, and cost. Even ignoring maintenance of the air
quality standards the analysis of future air quality does not provide obvious
plateaus nor breakpoints to aid in the selection. The N02 problem always
gets worse, although the rate of worsening is slowed as emission standards
are tightened and implemented sooner.
Carbon Monoxide
Twenty-six urban areas were analyzed for CO. Five exhaust control
options were considered; statutory (3.4 g/m), California (9.0) and
interim or current (15 g/m) from 1977 through 1985, California from
1977-81 dropping to the statutory from 1982 and 1985 and finally the
interim to 1981 dropping to the statutory from 1982 to 1985. The results
for each of the 26 cities are presented as projected air quality and
frequency of violations out to 1985 in Tables 10 through 14. The
results are summarized in Table 20 showing Regions above the air quality
standard, average percent decrease in CO concentrations and total number
of violations of the air quality standard (eight hour periods) for the
26 cities.
17
-------
Unlike the NOx and HC, carbon monoxide is almost uniquely associated
with motor vehicles. The growth of stationary sources over the next 10
years will have very little effect on CO air quality. Therefore, air
quality improves rapidly and continues to improve out to 1985 under all
of the exhaust control options considered. The most lenient control
(interim standards through 1985) will lower CO levels an average of 65%
in the 26 cities by 1985. However, eight of these 26 will still exceed
the standard a total of 108 times a year. The highest city will be Phoenix
at 16 ppm. Application of the 3.4 g/m statutory standard in 1977 will
lower CO levels by 74% in 1985.
Relative Impact on Carbon Monoxide of Control Options on Cold Start Emissions
Emissions of CO from LDV are much more pronounced during the first
few minutes of cold operation than during the period after the vehicle
has warmed up. Consequently, the testing cycle used in the Federal Test
Procedures (FTP) for determining if a vehicle meets a given emission standard
requires that a substantial portion of the test be conducted immediately
after initial start up (after a long cool-down period) when CO emissions
are much higher than in other phases of the test. This portion of the test
is frequently referred to as the "cold-start" phase.
18
-------
It has been suggested that in order to meet the lower alternative
emission standards, future control systems would have to focus a dispo
tionate amount of control on the high emissions during "cold-start"
operations. That is, lower emission standards would be met by a much
larger reduction in "cold-start" emissions than for emissions during the
so-caViea stabilized (warm vehicle operation) phase. If this is true,
lower emission standards (i.e., the statutory levels) will provide considerable
extra benefits in air quality around indirect sources, where many vehicles
that operate in the "cold-start" mode (e.g. stadiums, parking lots), and
in other areas where there are many simultaneous cold starts at certain
times (e.g. suburbs in the morning and downtown areas at the afternoon
"rush hour ").
An analysis was made of the relative impact on cold engine emissions
of the statutory and the interim exhaust standards. Although the Agency
cannot be sure how the industry would choose to meet various emission standards
for CO, it is our current judgement that catalyst systems probably will be
necessary to meet 3.4 grams/mile and that a variety of engine modifications,
without catalysts, could be used if the standard is 9 or above and if MC control
are not lower than .9. Using both emission data from prototype
catalyst systems and extrapolation techniques it is our best estimate
that future standards will be met by proportionately reducing emissions
during all phases of the driving cycle,not by concentrating on the "cold-
start period. The analysis was extended to examine very low temperature
ambient start up conditions (25° F) with similar results. Therefore,
19
-------
trie low statutory emission standards will not provide disproportionate
benefits in areas dominated by "cold start" operations.
Hydrocarbon/Oxidant
Thirty urban areas were analyzed for projected hydrocarbon emissions
under the same five sets of control options used for CO. Resulting oxidant
levels and annual frequency of violations of the ambient air quality standard
(0.08 ppm for one hour) for each of the 30 cities are presented in Tables
15 through 19 and in Addendum B5 Tables B-15 through B-19. These are summarized
for all 30 cities and presented along with the average percent decrease in Ox
levels (or HC emissions) in Table 203 and Table B-16.
The most striking feature of the HC analysis in the pervasiveness of
the Ox problem. Even assuming the lower mobile source growth rates (Table 20), t
majority of cities analyzed will not meet the ambient standard by 1985 under
the assumed regulatory programs. Using the higher mobile source growth rates
of Addendum B, an even greater number of cities will not meet the ambient
standard by 1985 under the assumed regulatory programs. Future population
and vehicle miles traveled growth rates after 1985 will futher exacerbate
the problem.
LDV's exhaust currently accounts for about 25« of the hydro-
carbon emissions; this decreases to about 10% as more control is applied to
automobile exhaust and the number of stationary HC sources increases. This is
true even with the application of known control technology to existing and
new stationary sources of hydrocarbon. It is clear that both increased control
of stationary sources coupled with reduction in projected vehicle miles
traveled increase will be necessary to obtain Ox levels below the ambient
standards.
20
-------
Table 1
3
Projected NO Air Quality Concentration, ug/m
x 3.1 gm/mi 1977-90
Ambient
cone.
Region 1972-73 1980 1935
015 Phoenix
024 Los Angeles
030 San Francisco
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
067 Chicago
115 Baltimore
220 Wasatch Front
78
148
82
100
113
89
88
117
96
100
97
173
93
119
124
107
104
133
99
121
111
194
102
135
144
121
116
152
116
137
21
-------
Table 2
Projected NO Air Quality Concentration,
x 3.1 gm/mi 1977-81
cone.
Region 1972-73 1980 1935_
J
015 Phoenix
024 Los Angeles
030 San Francisco
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
067 Chicago
115 Baltimore
220 Wasatch Front
78
148
82
100
113
89
88
117
96
'100
97
173
93
119
130
107
104
133
99
121
105
183
96
129
139
119
in
148
112
131
22
-------
Table 3
Projected NO Air Quality Concentration, yg/m
x 3.1 gm/mi 1977-81
cone.
Region
015 Phoenix
024 Los Angeles
030 San Francisco
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
067 Chicago
115 Baltimore
220 Wasatch Front
1972-73
78
148
82
100
113
89
88
117
96
100
1980
97
173
93
119
130
107
104
133
99
121
1935
100
174
92
125
136
117
107
145
109
124
23
-------
Table 4
Projected NO Air Quality Concentration,
X "7 1 nm/mi 1Q77-B1
(K4 gin/mi 1982-90
Ambient
cone.
Region 1972-73 1980 1935
015 Phoenix 78 97 98
024 Los Angeles 148 173 167
030 San Francisco 82 93 89
036 Denver 100 119 123
043 NY-NJ-Conn. 113 130 132
045 Philadelphia 89 107 115
047 National Capitol 88 104 105
067 Chicago 117 133 143
115 Baltimore 96 99 107
220 Wasatch Front 100 121 121
24
-------
Table 5 -
Projected NO Air Quality Concentration, yg/m
x 2.0 gm/mi 1977-90
Ambient
cone.
Region 1972-73 1980 1935
015 Phoenix 78 92 100
.024 Los Angeles 148 163 173
030 San Francisco 82 88 92
036 Denver 100 115 125
043 NY-NJ-Conn. 113 125 136
045 Philadelphia 89 104 117
047 National Capitol 88 100 107
067 Chicago 117 129 145
115 Baltimore 96 96 109
220 Wasatch Front 100 116 124
25
-------
Table 6
Projected NO Air Quality Concentration,
x 2.0 gm/mi 1977-81
1.0 gm/mi 1982-90
Ambient
cone.
Reqion 1972-73 1980
015 Phoenix
024 Los Angeles
030 San Francisco
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
067 Chicago
115 Baltimore
220 Wasatch Front
78
148
82
100
113
89
88
117
96
100
92
163
88
115
125
104
100
129
96
116
96
163
86
120
131
114
103
141
105
119
26
-------
Table 7 -
Projected NO Air Quality Concentration, yg/nT
x 2.0 gm/mi 1977-81
0.4 gm/mi 1982-90
Ambient
cone.
Region 1972-73 1980 1935
015 Phoenix
024 Los Angeles
030 San Francisco
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
067 Chicago
115 Baltimore
220 Wasatch Front
78
148
82
100
113
89
88
117
96
100
92
163
88
115
125
104
100
129
96
116
93
157
83
117
129
113
101
13?
103
115
27
-------
Table 8
Projected NO Air Quality Concentration
0.4 gm/mi 1978-90
Ambient
cone.
Region 1972-73 1980 1935_
015 Phoenix
024 Los Angeles
030 San Francisco
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
067 Chicago
115 Baltimore
220 Wasatch Front
78
148
82
100
113
89
88
117
96
100
86
151
82
109
121
102
95
125
92
110
87
145
77
112
124
109
96
134
99
108
28
-------
TABLE 9
COMPARISON OF THE EFFECT OF VARIOUS ALTERNATIVE LDV
STANDARDS ON NO AIR QUALITY CONCENTRATIONS
LDV Standard
(g/mi)
Number of AQCR's
exceeding NAAQS
(10 cities ana-
lyzed
VO
Average percent
increase in air
quality concen-
1977-31
1982-85
1980
1985
1980
1985
3.1
3.1
7
10
16
32
3.1
2.0
7
9
16
26
3.1
1.0
7
9
16
22
3.1
0.4
7
8
16
19
2.0
2.0
7
9
12
22
2.0
1.0
7
8
12
17
2.0
0.4
7
8
12
14
0.4(1978-81
0.4
6
6
6
8
tration
-------
Table 10
Projected Impact of Statutory CO LDV Emission Standard, 1977 1990
Predicted Ambient Conc^and No. of Occasions
Standard is Exceeded (#K
1971/733 1980
1985
cone.
004
009
013
OT5
024
Birmingham
North Alaska
Cl ark-Mohave
Phoenix-Tucson
Los Angeles-
18
35
15
A2
41
cone. #
j
6
15
9
20
17
26
-
127
55
cone. #
4 I -
11 { 4
5 j
12 [6
. 10 I 2
Total # of Regions
Exceeding Standards
Total # of Occasions
Standard is Exceeded
Average % Air Quality
Reduction from 1970
26
13
524
028
029
030
031
036
042
043
045
047
062
067
080
094
115
119
131
158
193
197
220
229
Sacremento Valley
San Diego
San Francisco
San Joaquin
Denver
Hartford-N. Haven
1 NY-NJ-Conn.
Phi 1 adel phia
National Capitol
E. Wash,-N. Idaho
Chicago
Indianapol is
Kansas City
Baltimore
Boston
Minn.-St, Paul
Central New York
Portland
S.W. Pennsylvania
Wasatch Front
Puget Sound
22
15
18
13 )
33
27
51
32
20
18
23
15
15
18
18
22
15
26
22
41
24
9
7
9
6
15
11
21
13
9
10
8
6
7
11
7
i
11
6
12
t
9
\ 19
1 12
i
"
1 -
\
\ -
26
4
153
10
\ ~
I 2
*
i -
i -
t
*
| 4
<
! 4
t
\ -
; 6
101
! 6
i 5 ! -
i 4 1 - |
i 6
\ 3 i -
i 8 1 - I
'i ''. I
' 1 > -
1 11 j 4
i 8 i -
i 6 ! -
1 r ' - '
6 .
:' ' i
: 5 i -
I 4
1 4
! 6 -
;. 4
i j
7 : - I
i 4 , - |
> 7 - j
f 5
' 11 4 J
f 7 - i
20
57 74
1. Maximum 8-hour concentration in ppm.
2. Estimated number of non-overlapping 8-hour intervals exceeding 9 ppm.
3. Second highest recorded concentrations from 1971 throuqh 1973.
30
-------
Table 11
No.
Projected Impact of California CO LDV Standard,
1977-1981, Statutory LDV Standard,
1982 - 1990
Predicted Ambient Cone, and No. of Occasions
Standard is Exceeded
Region
1971/73
1980
1985
cone.
004
009
013
015
024
028
029
030
031
036
042
043
045
047
062
Birmingham
North Alaska
Clark-Mo have
Phoenix-Tucson
Los Angeles.
Sacremento Valley
San Diego
San Francisco
San Joaquin
Denver
Hartford-N. Haven
" NY-NJ-Conn.
Philadelphia
National Capitol
E. Wash,-N. Idaho
13
35
15
42
n
22
15
18
13
33
27 ,
51
cone. # l
8
15
9
21
18
9
7
}
- !
26
'
- i
157 ;
77
_
10 2
cone. #
5
11 4
5
13 v 10
11 | 4
f
6
5
6
.
6 i - 5 3
15
11
21
32 13
20 ! 9
18 1 10
26
4
157
10
-
2
9
7 1 -
13 10
8 I -
6 i -
i 6 ! -
Total # of Regions
Exceeding Standards
26
14
067
080
094
115
119
131
158
193
197
220
229
Chicago
Indianapol is
Kansas City
Baltimore
Boston
Minn.-St, Paul
Central New York
Portland
S.W. Pennsylvania
Wasatch Front
Puget Sound
23 9 - 5 { - $
15
15
10
13
22
6 - 4 < -
7 - i 5 ; -
11 4 \ 1 , - j
8 \ - \ 5 ; j
11 4^7 ! - |
15 17 | - ! 4 - I
26 t 12 6 ! 8 ; - |
22 9 f - * 6 ' - \
41 19 a 01 : 13 10 :
2\ f 12 ! 6 ; 8 - s
( :
Total # of Occasions
Standard is Exceeded
582
38
Average % Air Quality
Reduction from 1970
56
71
1. Maximum 8-hour concentration in ppm.
2. Estimated number of non-overlapping 8-hour intervals exceeding 9 ppm.
3. Second highest
recorded concentrations from 1971 through 1973.
31
-------
Table 12
Yojected Impact of Interim CO LDV Standard 1977-1981, Statutory
LDV Standard 1982-1990
Predicted Ambient Cone, and No,
Standard is Exceeded
.3
of Occasions
(#) 2
1971
1980
1985
004
009
013
015
024
028
029
030
031
036
042
043
045
047
062
067
030
094
115
119
131
158
193
197
220
229
Birmingham
North Alaska
Cl ark-Mo have
Phoeni x-Tucson
Los Angeles
Sacremento Valley
San Diego
San Francisco
San Joaquin
Denver
Hartford-N. Haven
' NY-NJ-Conn.
Phi ladel phia
National Capitol
E. Wash,-N. Idaho
Chicago
Indianapol is
Kansas City
Baltimore
Boston
Minn. -St. Paul
Central New York
Portland
S.W. Pennsylvania
Wasatch Front
Puget Sound
cone. cone. # - cone . _#
18 8 -5
35 16 38 11 4
15 9 - ? 6
42 22 184 j 14 16
41 19 101 { 12 6
22 9 - 5 6 -
15 9 - I 5 -
!5 10 2 ! 6
13 7 1 - i 3
33 16 38 i 11 i 4 |
I 1
11 14 16 < 9 i - 1
31 22 3184 ; 13 HO
32 13 10 j 8 \ -
20 10 2 ! 6
_ _ ' a _
18 [ 10 2 ; 7 ; -
i '
23 i 9 1 - 61-
15 1 7 t - 4 : -
15 7 j - 5 ' -
18 ! 11 4 7
18 j 8 ( - 51-
! '' ' i
22 j 12 « 6 8 - -
15 j 7 1 - 4 ! -
25 ! 13 i 10 8
2? j 9 : . 6 ' -
4] i 21 157 13 10
1 !
24 '13 i 1 0 8 ;
t
Total # of Regions
Exceeding Standards
Total # of Occasions
Standard is Exceeded
26
764
50
Average % Air Quality
Reduction from 1970
53
70
1. Maximum 8-hour concentration in ppm.
2. Estimated number of non-overlapping 3-hour intervals exceeding 9 ppm.
3. Second highest recorded concentrations from 1971 through 1973.
-------
Table 13
Projected Impact of California CO LDV Standard 1977-1990
No.
119
131
158
193
197
220
229
Region
Predicted Ambient Cone, and No.
Standard is Exceeded
1971 /733 1980 1985
of Occasions
004
009
013
015
024
028
029
030
031
036
042
043
045
047
062
067
080
094
115
Birmingham
North Alaska
Clark-Mo have
Phoenix-Tucson
Los Angeles.
Sacremento Valley
San Diego
San Francisco
San Joaquin
Denver
Hartford-N. Haven
" NY-NJ-Conn.
Philadelphia
National Capitol
E. Wash.-N. Idaho
Chicago
Indianapolis
Kansas City
Baltimore
cone.
18
35
15
42
41
22
15
18
13
33
27
51
32
20
18
23
15
15
18
T r\
cone.
8 !
Ib i
9
21
18
9
7
10
6
15
11
21
13
9
| 10
9
6
7
11
r»
# !
|
?6 !
1
157 i
77 j
5
j
|
2 1
'i
26 I
4 1
157
10 |
i
2 i
_ t
i *
i |
!*
- |
4
i
cone.
5
11 !
6 1
14 1
11 t
6
5
6
3
9
9
13
8
6
7
6
4
5
7
r
#
A
*T
16
4
-
-
-
1 10
9
r "~
1 -
\
\ -
i.
1 -
f
-
-
Boston
Minn.-St. Paul
Central New York
Portland
S.W. Pennsylvania
Wasatch Front
Puget Sound
22
15
26
22
41
24
11
7
12
9
19
12
5 -
I 4
t -
f ~6
poi
: e
8
4
8
6
13
8
10
Total # of Regions
Exceeding Standards
26
14
Total # of Occasions
Standard is Exceeded
582
44
Average % Air Quality
Reduction from 1970 55 70
1. Maximum 8-hour concentration in ppm.
2. Estimated number of non-overlapping 8-hour intervals exceeding 9 ppm.
3. Second highest recorded concentrations from 1971 through 1973. 33
-------
Table 14
Projected impact of Interim CO LOV Standard 1977-1990
No.
Region
Predicted Ambient Cone, and No.
Standard is Exceeded
1971/733 1980 1985
of Occasions
(#)
cone.
004
009
013
015
024
023
029
030
031
036
042
043
045
047
062
067
080
094
115
119
131
158
193
197
220
229
Birmingham
North Alaska
Clark-Mo have
Phoenix-Tucson
Los Angeles.
Sacremento Valley
San Diego
San Francisco
San Joaquin
Denver
Hartford-N. Haven
1 NY-NJ-Conn.
Philadelphia
National Capitol
E. Wash.-N. Idaho
Chicago
Indianapolis
Kansas City
Baltimore
Boston
Minn.-St, Paul
Central New York
Portland
S.W, Pennsylvania
Wasatch Front
Puget Sound
18
35
15
42
41
22
16
cone, #
8
16
9
22
19
!
38 ;
,|
184 i
101 1
i
i
9
9
23 10
15
33
27
51
32
23
7
16
14
-
2
-
38
16
22 (1 84
i 13 10
1 10 2
19 10 j 2
23
15
15
21
9
-
7 i -
7 1 -
11 J 4
10 8j-
!v
22 i 12 1 6
15 \ 1 \ -
26 i 13 I 10
22 ! 9 l -
41 1 21 357
S
1 i
24 t 13 i 10
(
cone.
6 (
13
7
*
^
10
-
16 | 38
13
7
6
8
5
11
9
l 14
10
7
' 8
| 7
1 5
6
i s
i 6
t
9
5
9
7
15
\
( 10
10
'
"
-
-
;
4
1 _
Me
! 2
t
}
\ -
';
I
' -
1 _
'? _
f*
I ~
?
i,
k "~
_
;
26
2
Total # of Regions
Exceeding Standards
Total # of Occasions
Standard is Exceeded
Average % Air Quality
Reduction from 1 970
26
15
764
53
65
108
1 Maximum 8-hour concentration in ppm.
2. Estimated number of non-overlapping 8-hour intervals exceeding 9 ppm.
3. Second hiahest recorded concentrations from 1971 through 1973.
-------
Table 15
Projected Impact of Statutory HC LDV Emission Standard,
1977 - 1990
No.
Predicted Ambient Cone, and No. of Occasions
Standard is Exceeded (#)
Region
1
1980
1985
004
009
013
015
024
028
029
030
031
033
036
043
045 ..
047
079
080
106
119
124
153
160
173
193
197
212
214
215
216
217
229
cone.
Birmingham
Mobile-Pensacola
Clark-Mohave
Phoenix-Tucson
Los Angeles
Sacremento Valley
N» J/
San Diego
San Francisco
San Joaquin
S.E. Desert
Denver
. NY-NJ-Conn.
Philadelphia
National Capitol
Cincinnati
Indianapol i s
S. Lou. -S.E. Texas
Boston
Toledo
El Paso-Las Cruces
Genesse-Finger Lakes
Dayton
Portland
S.W. Pennsylvania
Austin-Waco
Corpus-Christi
Dallas-Ft. Worth
Houston-Galveston
San Antonio
Pudget Sound
DDm ~T
.22
.11
.22
.19
.62
.24
.30
.30
.26 !
.28
.28
.26
.20
.38
.17
.14
.32
.21
.14
.13
.15
.18
.14
.21
.16
!l9
.13
.32
.15
.16
cone. #
.15
.06
.14
.16
.46
.20
.21
.25
.22
.29
.19
1 .17
1 .13
.28
.12
.09
.24
80
-
58
114
4030
333
412
780
490
1331
263
153
39
1165
24
3
666
.13 39
.10 6
.07
.09
.14
.10
.14
.09
" *
\ 58
6
58
i 3
i
.17
.07
.28
.08
153
1165
-
10 6
i > . .
cone. #
.11
.04
.12
.16
.41
.20
.19
.23
.21
.32
.16
.13
.10
.25
.11
.08
.19
.10
.07
.05
.07
.12
.08
.11
.07
14
24
114
3330
333
263
578
412
1866
114
39
6
780
14
263
6
"
14
- i
i [
.14
r\ /i
.04
.26
.06
.08
-i
58
**
902
Total # of Regions
Exceeding Standards
30
26
20
Total H of Occasions
Standard is Exceeded
11438
9154
Average °/° Air Quality
Reduction from 1970 30 J°
1. Second highest recorded concentrations from 1971 throuoh 1973.
35
-------
Table 16
Projected Impact of California HC LDV Standard,
1977-1981, Statutory LDV Standard, 1982 - 1990
No
Predicted Ambient Cone, and No. of Occasions
Standard is Exceeded (#)
i o -n / ~T m 1
1980
1985
' ' -' ix^^i^.p 1 _/ / H / / W
cone, ppm j cone.
77
~ Y» Birmingham *::
".",9 Mobile-Pensacola ''
Oi3 Clark-Mohave "
015 Phoenix-Tucson "^
024 Los Angeles -62
028 Sacremento Valley -24
029 San Diego 30
030 San Francisco 3^
031 San Joaquin °26
033 S.E. Desert -28
036 Denver -28
043 , NY-NJ-Conn. -26
045 , Philadelphia -20
047 National Capitol -38
079 Cincinnati -17
080 Indianapolis -14
106 S. Lou. -S.E. Texas 32
119 Boston -2'
124 Toledo -14
153 El Paso-Las Cruces -^
160 Genesse-Finger Lakes
173 Dayton -'8
193 Portland -14
197 S.W. Pennsylvania -2"!
212 Austin-Waco -16
214 Corpus-Christi -^
215 Oallas-Ft. Worth -13
216 Houston -Galveston 32
217 San Antonio ! -15
229 Pudget Sound '; -15
1 5
o 1
-------
Tabl 17
Projected Impact of Interim HC LDV Standard 1977-1981
Statutory LDV Standard 1982-1990
No.
Predicted Ambient Cone, and No. of Occasions
Standard is Exceeded (#)
Region
1971/73
1980
1985
1
cone, opm
004 Birmingham .22
009 Mobile-Pensacola .11
013 Clark-Mohave .22
015 Phoenix-Tucson .19 1
024 Los Angeles .62
02H Sacremento" Valley .24
029 San Diego .30
030 San Francisco .30 1
031 San Joaquin .26
033 S.E. Desert .28
036 Denver -28
043 , NY-NJ-Conn. .26
045 .. Philadelphia .20
047 ' national Capitol -38
079 Cincinnati -17
080 Indianapolis -14
106 S. Lou. -S.E, Texas -32
119 Boston -21
124 Toledo -14
153 El Paso-Las Cruces -'3
160 Genesse-Finger Lakes .15
173 Dayton .18
193 Portland .14
197 S.W. Pennsylvania -21
212 Austin-Waco -16
214 Corpus-Christi -19
215 Da lias -Ft. Worth -I3
216 Houston-Galveston -32
217 San Antonio -15
229 Pudget Sound -16
cone. #
.15
.06
.15
.17
.47
.21
.22
.25
.22
.30
.20
.17
.13
.28
j .13
.10
.24
.19
.10
.08
.09
.14
.10
.15
.09
80
-
80
153
4120
412
490
780
490
1507
333
153
39
1165
i 39
6
666
5?
6
1 3
| 58
i 6
80
i 0
i 3
.17 153
.07
.29 1331
.09 | 3
.11
14
cone. #
.12
.05
.12
.16
.42
.20
.20
.23
.21
.32
.16
.13
.10
.26
.11
.08
.20 .
.10
f\ "7
.07
r\£.
.06
.08
.12
.08
.12
n i
.07
.14
.05
.27
.07
| .08
24
24
114
3416
333
333
578
412
1866
114
39
902 ,
14
333
24
24
i
58
1034
*.
"
1 . > <
Total # of Regions
Exceeding Standards
30
27
20
Total # of Occasions
Standard is Exceeded
12228
27
38
9654
Average % Air Quality
Increase relative to
Statutory Reduction . r,.
from 1Q70. _
1 Second nignest recorded concentrations fromT97T through 1973.
37
-------
Tablo 18
Projected Impact of California HC LDV Standard 1977-1990
Predicted Ambient Cone, and No. of Occasions
Standard is Exceeded (#)
No. Region 1971/731 198° -1985 ,
cone, ppm
" "' Bi rmi ngham . 22
>'P !1obi le-Pensacola .11
013 Clark-Mohave .22
015 Phoenix-Tucson .19
024 Los Angeles .62
02>'}> Sacremento Valley .29
029 San Diego .30
030 San Francisco .30
031 San Joaquin .26
033 S.E. Desert .28
036 Denver .28
043 NY-NJ-Conn, -26
n-lr) - Philadelphia .20
D'l/ National Capitol -38
079 Cincinnati .17
Of'.O Indianapolis -14
106 S. Lou. -S.E. Texas -32
119 Boston -21
124 Toledo .14
153 El Paso-Las Cruces -13
160 Genesse-Finger Lakes .15
173 Dayton .18
193 Portland .14
197 S.W. Pennsylvania .21
212 Austin-Waco .16
214 Corpus-Christ! .19
215 Dallas-Ft. Worth .13
216 Houston-Gal veston .32
217 San Antonio .15
229 Pudget Sound .16
cone .
.15
.06
.15
.17
.47
.21
.22
.25
.22
.30
.19
.17
.11
#
80
80
153
4120
412
490
780
490
1507
263
153
39
.28 111 65
.13 1 39
!
.10
.24
.14
,
6
666
58
.10 6
.07
.09
3
.14 58
.10 j 6
.14 ; 58
.09
.17
.07
.29
.09
.10
3
cone .
.12
f\ r-
.05
.12
.16
.42
.20
.20
.23
.22
.32
.16
.14
.10
.26
.12
.08
.20
.11
.07
.06
.08
.13
.08
.12
.07
153 (.14
//
24
~
24
114
3416
333
333
578
490
1866
114
58
6
902
24
.
333
14
-
-
- 1
39
-
24
-
58
- 1.05 ! -
1331 1.27 0034
3 (.07
6 |.08 ! -
', )
Total // of Regions
Exceeding Standards
Total # of Occasions
Standard is Exceeded
30
27
20
12128
9784
Average % Air Quality
Reduction from 1970 28
1. Second highest recorded concentrations from 1971 through 1973.
5-.
-------
Table 19
Projected Impact of Interim HC LDV Standard 1977-1990
No.
Region
Predicted Ambient Cone, and Mo.
Standard is Exceeded
,1
of Occasions
(#)
1971/73'
1980
1985
cone, pom '
004 Birmingham .22
009 Mobile-Pensacola .11
013 Clark-Mohave -22
015 Phoenix-Tucson -^
024 Los Angeles -62
028 Sacremento Valley .24
029 San Diego .30
030 San Francisco -30
031 San Joaquin -26
033 S.E. Desert .28
036 Denver -28
043 , NY-NJ-Conn. .26
045 Philadelphia -20
047 National Capitol -38
079 Cincinnati -^
030 Indianapolis -^
106 S. Lou. -S.E. Texas -32
119 Boston -21
124 Toledo ']r>
153 El Paso-Las Cruces -13
160 Genesse-Finger Lakes -15
173 Dayton -18
193 Portland -14
197 S.W. Pennsylvania -21
212 Austin-Waco -I6
214 Corpus-Christi -19
215 Dallas-Ft. Worth -13
216 Houston-Galveston -32
217 San Antonio -15
229 Pudget Sound -16
cone. #
.15
.06
.15
.17
.47
.21
.22
.25
.22
.30
.20
.17
.13
.28
.13
.10
.24
.14
.10
.08
80
-
80
153
4120
412
490
780
490
1507
333
153
39
1165
39
6
666
58
6
.09 3
.14 ! 58
.10 } 6
.15
.09
.17
.07
.29
.09
.14
} 80
i 3
1
153
-
1331
3
cone . #
.12
.05
.13
.17
.43
.21
.20
.23
.22
.33
.17
.14
.11
.27
.12
.08
.20
.11
.07
_
.06
.08
.13
.09
.12
.08
.14
.05
.27
.07
14 { .09
j
24
-
39
153
3630
412
333
578
490
2040
153
58
14
1034
24
333
14
-
~"
~
39
3
24
>
58
-
1034
-
3
Total # of Regions
Exceeding Standards
Total # of Occasions
Standard is Exceeded
Average °l° Air Quality
Reduction from 1970
30
27
21
12228
10487
27 36
1. Second highest recorded concentrations from 1971 through 1973.
39
-------
TABLE 20
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE EMISSION STANDARDS ON PROJECTED AIR QUALITY CONCENTRATIONS
r
Number ] of AQCR's
above NAAQS;
Average % Decrease
in A. Q. Conc.( ) j
and Number?of
Occasions NAALjb
are exceeded [ ]
OX
CO
1980
1985
1980
1985
Statutory
Standard
1977-1985
26 (30) [11400]
20 (40) [ 9150]
13 (57) [524]
5 (74) [ 20]
Calif. Std.
1977-81
Stat. Std.
1982-85
27 (28) [12100]
20 (40) [ 9300]
14 (56) [582]
5 (71) [ 38]
Interim Std.
1977-81
Stat. Std.
1982-85
27 (27) [12200]
20 (38) [ 9650]
15 (53) [7641
6 (70) [ 50]
Calif. Std.
T977-85
27 (28) [12100]
20 (38) [ 9800]
14 (56) [582]
5 (70) [ 40]
Interim Std. i
1977-85
/
27 (20) [12300]
21 (36) 110500]!
i
15 (53) [764]
8 (65) [108]
1. 26 AQCR's analyzed for CO; 30 AQCR's analyzed for oxidant.
2. For CO, violations of NAAQS are based on non-overlapping 8-hour intervals which exceed 9 ppm.
o
-------
TABLE 20
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE EMISSION STANDARDS ON PROJECTED AIR QUALITY CONCENTRATIONS
r
Number 1 of AQCR's
I above NAAQS;
Average % Decrease
In A. Q. Cone. ( ) ;
and Number?of
n,~/-.-!cinnr MAAflC
occasions INMAIJO
are exceeded [ ]
OX
CO
1930
1985
1980
1985
Statutory
Standard
1977-1985
26 (30) [11400]
20 (40) [ 9150]
13 (57) [524]
5 (74) [ 20]
Calif. Std.
1977-81
Stat. Std.
1 982-. 85
27 (28) [12100]
20 (40) [ 9300]
14 (56) [582]
5 (71) [ 38]
Interim Std.
1977-81
Stat. Std.
1982-35
27 (27) [12200]
20 (38) [ 9650]
15 (53) [7641
6 (70) [ 50]
Calif. Std.
1977-85
27 (28) [12100]
20 (38) [ 9800]
14 (56) [582]
5 (70) [ 40]
Interim Std.
1977-85
/
27 (20) [12300]
21~(36) r_10500]i
i
15 (53) [764]
8 (65) [108]
... _ . _ ,.
1. 26 AQCR's analyzed for CO; 30 AQCR's analyzed for oxidant.
2. For CO, violations of NAAQS are based on non-overlapping 8-hour intervals which exceed 9 ppm.
CD
-------
ADDENDUM A
OXIDANT EXPOSURE LEVELS UNDER DIFFERING
AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS
-------
Oxidant Exposure Levels Under Differing Auto Emission Standards
One way of looking at oxidant exposure levels is to consider the number
of people who are exposed to oxidants exceeding the primary levels, and
the number of hours that these people are exposed. The result is cumulative
figures which represent total exposure levels during a specified period of
time.
A calculation was done on the cities listed in Tables 15, 16, 17 to
show the differing effects of various auto emission standards on the number
of hours of oxidant exposure over the primary level for the year 1980
and 1985. The method of calculation was to take the number of people for
a given year living in each of the listed cities, multiply that number by
the total number of annual hours of oxidant levels exceeding the primary
standard, and sum up the total.
The assumption in the calculations is that all people in a given city
are exposed when oxidant levels exceed the primary standard. While this
may tend to overestimate the impact somewhat, any overestimation is clearly
offset by the fact that less than 30 areas were examined. Clearly, there
are metropolitan and rural areas where standards are being exceeded that
are not included in the table.
The results show the aggregate number of person- hours of exposure
and the difference in the hours of exposure when different auto emission
-------
/_[able_l_5_/
1980:
1985:
standards are factored in. The following is a summary of the data:
ANNUAL PEOPLE HOURS OF QJJIPAMT EXPOSURE OVER PRIMARY LEVELS UNDER
Statutory HC LDV; 1977 -1985
45 billion, 714 million
37 billions 367 million
/ Table 16 / Calif. HC LDV; 1977-81; Statutory LDV 1982 -
1980: 47 billion, 234 million
1985: 37 billion, 713 million
/ Table IT/ Interim HC LDV 1977 - 1981; Statutory LDV 1982 - 1985
1980: 47 billion, 409 million
1985: 39 billion, 058 million
Increased People Hours of Exposure Due to Departure From Statutory Standard
(billions of hours)
1
California & Statutory
(Table 16)
Interim & Statutory
(Table 17)
1980
1.520
1.695
1985
.346
1.691
The figures show that the largest difference between the statutory and
interim standards occur in 1980 and that the largest differences between the
-------
California and interim standards occurs in 1985, 3.6% more people hours
of exposure occur in 1985 if interim standards are adopted (Table 17)
than if California standards are adopted (Table 16).
For the period 1980 - 1985, the total cumulative person hours of
exposure under the statutory standard is approximately 249 billion. This
compares with 255 and 258 billion person hours of exposure under the
California and Federal interim standards, respectively. These figures
will, of course, be higher using the larger mobile source growth
assumptions of Addendum B.
-------
ADDENDUM B
IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY OF
METROPOLITAN-WIDE VMT GROWTH RATES
-------
The analysis discussed in the report used growth rates for
VMT for light duty vehicles (LDV) that were appropriate generally
for the central business district (CBD) or other already well
developed portions of the city. Most of these ranged from 0.5%
to 3.0°; per year compounded annually. For comparison purposes an
additional analysis was made for HC and NOx emissions and air quality
projections with larger growth factors, generally considered to be
more indicative of anticipated VMT growth in the entire metropolitan
area. All other assumptions remained the same. The growth factors
used ranged generally from 2% to 6% compounded annually. These rates
were based on estimates supplied by the States, reviewed by the
Department of Transportation, then adjusted by EPA for any existing
or planned transportation control plans. No consideration was given
to possible impacts on future VMT of fuel shortages or price increases
The use of higher LDV growth rates projected higher levels of
Ox and N02 especially toward the end of the period. They made little
difference in the relative impact of the alternative control options
examined for Ox (Tables 20 and B-16). The relatively large impact of
alternative LDV control options on future N02 levels observed using
CBD growth rates was emphasized even further in the new analysis
(Tables 9 and B-10).
-------
Table B-l
COMPOUNDED GROWTH RATE FACTORS FOR
SPECIFIC METROPOLITAN AREAS
Metropolitan
Area
Birmingham
Mobile-Pensacola
Clark-Mohave
Phoenix-Tucson
Los Angeles
Sacramento Valley
San Diego
San Francisco
San Joaquin
S.E. Desert
Denver
NY-NJ-Conn.
Philadelphia
National Capitol
Cincinnati
Indianapolis
S. Lou.-S.E. Texas
Boston
Toledo
CBD Growth
Rate Percent
Area Growth
Rate Percent
1.0
1.0
2.7
2.7
1.4
1.0
1.4
1.8
1.0
1.0
1.5
0.8
1.2
2.0
2.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
6.1
3.2
6.0
5.4
2.5
3.5
4.3
3.3
4.7
2.4
3.6
2.1
3.0
4.3
4.0
3.7
5.6
2.4
2.4
-------
Table B-l Continued
Metropolitan CB'D Growth Area Growth
Area Rate Percent Rate Percent
El Paso-Las Cruces 1,5 5.0
Genesse-Finger Lakes 1,0 4.3
Dayton 3.5 4.0
Portland 2.2 2.5
S.W. Pennsylvania 1.5 2.4
Austin-Waco 1.0 2.9
Corous Christi 1.0 3.2
Dallas 1.0 5.1
Houston-Galveston 1.0 5.4
San Antonio 1.0 4.6
Puget Sound 2.8 2.3
-------
Table B-2
Projected N0x Air Quality Concentration..
x 3.1 gm/mi 1977-90*
Ambient
cone.
Region 1972-73 1980 1935
015 Phoenix
024 Los Angeles
030 San Francisco
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
067 Chicago
115 Baltimore
220 Wasatch Front
78
148
82
100
113
89
88
117
96
100
no
182
102
128
134
112
111
136
108
124
138
208
118
150
150
130
129
157
134
143
* Using metropolitan growth rates
5
-------
Table B-3 3
Projected N0x Air Quality Concentration, Hg/m
x 3.1 grn/mi 1977-81
2.0 gm/mi 1982-90 *
Ambient
cone.
Region
015 Phoenix
024 Los Angeles
030 San Francisco
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
067 Chicago
115 Baltimore
220 Wasatch Front
1972-73
78
148
82
100
113
89
88
117
96
100
1980
110
182
102
128
134
112
in
136
108
124
1935
130
196
111
143
145
126
123
153
129
136
* Using metropolitan growth rates
-------
Table &-4
Projected NOX Air Quality Concentration.
* 3.1 gm/mi 1977-81
1.0 gm/mi 1982-90 *
Ambient
cone.
Region
015 Phoenix
024 Los Angeles
030 San Francisco
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
067 Chicago
115 Baltimore
220 Wasatch Front
1972-73
78
148
82
100
113
89
88
117
96
100
1980
110
182
102
128
134
112
111
136
108
124
1935
122
184
104
137
141
123
118
145
124
129
* Usinq metropolitan growth rates
-------
Table B-5 3
Projected NOX Air Quality Concentration, pg/m
* 3.1 gm/rni 197/-81
0.4 gm/mi 1982-90
Ambient
cone.
Region
015 Phoenix
024 Los Angeles
030 San Francisco
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
067 Chicago
115 Baltimore
220 Wasatch Front
1972-73
78
148
82
100
113
89
88
117
96
100
1980
110
182
102
128
134
112
in
136
108
124
1935
118
177
100
134
138
121
114
147
120
125
* Using metropolitan growth rates
8
-------
Table B-6 3
Projected NOX Air Quality Concentration. |ig/m
x 2.0 gm/mi 1977-90 *
Ambient
cone.
Region
015 Phoenix
024 Los Angeles
030 San Francisco
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
067 Chicago
115 Baltimore
220 Wasatch Front
1972-73
,78
148
82
100
113
89
88
117
96
100
1980
104
171
96
122
130
109
106
132
104
118
1935
122
184
104
137
141
123
118
149
124
129
* Using metropolitan growth rates
-------
Table B- 7
Projected NC) Air Quality Concentration,
x 2.0 gm/rm 1977-81
1.0 gm/mi 1982-90 *
Ambient
cone.
Region
015 Phoenix
024 Los Angeles
030 San Francisco
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
067 Chicago
115 Baltimore
220 Wasatch Front
1972-73
78
148
82
100
113
89
88
117
96
100
1980
104
171
96
122
130
109
106
132
104
118
1935
115
173
98
131
136
120
112
145
118
122
* Usinq metropolitan growth rates
10-
-------
Table B-8
Projected N0₯ Air Quality Concentration,
* 2.0 gm/mi 1977-81
0.4 gm/mi 1982-90 *
Ambient
cone.
Region
015 Phoenix
024 Los Angeles
030 San Francisco
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
067 Chicago
115 Baltimore
220 Wasatch Front
1972-73
78
148
82
100
113
89
88
117
96
100
1980
104
171
96
122
130
109
106
132
104
118
1935
110
165
94
127
133
118
109
143
115
118
* Using metropolitan growth rates
11
-------
Table
Ambient
cone.
Region
015 Phoenix
024 Los Angeles
030 San Francisco
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
067 Chicago
115 Baltimore
220 Wasatch Front
1972-73
78
148
82
100
113
89
88
117
96
100
1980
97
158
89
116
124
106
101
128
100
111
1935
101
152
86
120
128
114
102
138
109
no
* Using metropolitan growth rates
-------
TABLE B-10
COMPARISON OF THE EFFECT OF VARIOUS ALTERNATIVE LDV
STANDARDS ON MO AIR QUALITY CONCENTRATIONS*
A
LDV Standard
(g/nri)
Number of AQCR's
exceeding NAAQS
(10 cities ana-
lyzed
Average percent
increase in air
quality concen-
tration
1977-31
1982-90
1980
1985
1980
1985
3.1
3.1
10
10
24
46
3.1
2.0
10
10
24
39
3.1 3.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 0,4 (1978-81)
1.0 0.4 2.0 1.0 0.4 0.4
10 10 9 9 9 8
10 9 10 9 9 9
24 24 18 18 18 12
32 29 33 27 23 16
* Usino metropolitan growth rates
-------
No.
Table B-ll
[Using metropolitan growth rates)
Projected Impact of Statutory HC LDV Emission Standard,
1977-1990
Predicted Ambient Cone, and No. of Occasions
Standard is Exceeded (f?)
Region
1971/73
1980
1985
cone, opm
004 Birmingham .22
009 Mobile-Pensacola .11
013 Clark-Mohave .22
015 Phoenix-Tucson .19
024 Los Angeles .62
028 Sacremento Valley .24
029 San Diego .30
030 San Francisco .30
031 San Joaquin -26
033 S.E. Desert .28
036 Denver .28
043 NY-NJ-Conn, .26
045 Philadelphia .20
047 National Capitol .38
079 Cincinnati .17
080 Indianapolis .14
106 S. Lou. -S.E. Texas .32
119 Boston .21
124 Toledo .14
153 El Paso-Las Cruces .13
160 Genesse-Finger Lakes -15
173 Dayton .18
193 Portland .14
197 S.W. Pennsylvania .21
212 Austin-Waco .16
214 Corpus-Christi .19
215 Da 11 as -Ft. Worth .13
216 Houston-Gal veston .32
217 San Antonio .15
229 punet Sound -16
cone . #
.18
.06
.18
.18
.48
.22
.25
.26
.24
.30
.21
.18
.14
201
-
201
201
4204
490
780
902
666
1507
412
201
58
.31 1621
.15 ! 80
.11 14
.27 1034
.14 58
.10 ; 6
.10 > 6
j
.11 '- 14
.14 i 58
cone. #
.15
.04
.15
.17
.42
.21
.22
.24
.23
.32
.17
.14
.11
.28
.13
.09
.23
.11
.07
.08
.09
.13
80
-
80
153
3416
412
490
666
578
1366
153
58
14
1165
39
j
i
578
14
-
3 i
39
.10 : 6 S .08 i
.15 ' 80
.10 ' 6
.17 j 153
.09 i 3
.31 '1621
.11 j 14
.10 i 6
.12 ! 24
.08
.15
.07
.29
.09
.07
80 i
1331
3
Total # of Regions
Exceedinr Standards
30
29
23
Total # of Occasions
Standard is Exceeded 14,6C3
Average c' Air Qua! ity
Reduction from 1970 21
1 Hiahest recorded concentration recorded from
1971
11,245
33
through 1973.
-------
No.
Projected
1977-1981
Region
Table B-12
(Using metropolitan growth rates)
Impact of California HC LDV Standard,
Statutory LDV Standard, 1982-1990
Predicted Ambient Cone, and Mo. of Occasions
Standard is Exceeded (#)
1985
1971/731
1980
cone, opm
004 Birmingham .22
009 Mobile-Pensacola .11
013 Clark-Mohave .22
015 Phoenix-Tucson .19
024 Los Angeles .62
028 Sacremento Valley ,24
029 San Diego .30
030 San Francisco .30
031 San Joaquin .26
033 S.E. Desert .28
036 Denver .28
043 NY-NJ-Conn. .26
045 Philadelphia .20
047 National Capitol .38
079 Cincinnati .17
080 Indianapolis .14
106 S. Lou. -S.E. Texas .32
119 Boston .21
124 Toledo .14
153 El Paso-Las Cruces .13
160 Genesse-Finger Lakes .15
173 Dayton .18
193 Portland .14
197 S.W. Pennsylvania .21
212 Austin-Waco .16
214 Corpus-Christi .19
215 Dallas-Ft. Worth -13
216 Houston-Galveston .32
217 San Antonio -15
229 Puget Sound -16
cone.
.19
.07
.18
.18
.49
.22
.25
.26
.24
.30
.21
.18
.14
.31
.15
.11
.28
.15
.10
.10
.11
.15
.10
.15
.10
.17
.10
.31
.11
.10
__t_ i . L -
#
263
-
201
201
4468
490
780
902
666
1507
412
201
58
1621
80
14
1165
80
6
6
14
80
6
80
6
153
6
3621
14
6
i ...
cone.
.15
.05
.16
.18
.43
.21
.23
.24
.23
.33
.18
.14
.11
.28
.13
.09
.24
.11
.08
.08
.09
.13
.08
.12
.08
.15
.07
.29
.09
.07
#
80
-
114
201
3630
412
578
666
578
2040
201
58
14
1165
39
3
666
14
-
-
3
39
-
24
-
80
-
1331
3
i
Total # of Regions
Exceed IT"! Standards
30
29
23
Total # of Occasions
Standard is Exceeded
Average % Air Quality
Reduction from 1970
1. Highest recorded concentration recorded
15,107
20
from 1971
11,939
31
through 1973.
15
-------
No.
Table B-13
(Using metropolitan growth rates)
Projected Impact of Interim HC LDV Standard 1977-1981,
Statutory LDV Standard 1982-1990
Region
Predicted Ambient Cone, and No. of Occasions
Standard is Exceeded (#)
1971/731 1980 1985
004
009
013
015
024
028
029
030
031
033
036
043
045
047
079
080
106
119
124
153
160
173
193
197
212
214
215
216
217
229
cone.
Birmingham
Mobile-Pensacola
Clark-Mohave
Phoenix-Tucson
Los Angeles
Sacremento Valley
San Diego
San Francisco
San Joaquin
S.E. Desert
Denver
NY-NJ-Conn,
Philadelphia
National Capitol
Cincinnati
Indianapolis
S. Lou. -S.E. Texas
Boston
Toledo
El Paso-Las Cruces
Genesse-Finger Lakes
Dayton
Portland
S.W, Pennsylvania
Austin-Waco
Corpus-Christi
Dallas-Ft. Worth
Houston-Gal veston
San Antonio
Punet Sound
opm
.22
.11
.22
.19
.62
.24
.30
.30
.26
.28
.28
.26
.20
.38
.17
.14
.32
.21
.14
.13
.15
.18
.14
.21
.16
.19
.13
.32
.15
.16
cone. #
.19
.07
.19
.18
.49
.22
.25
.26
.25
I .30
.22
.18
.14
263
263
201
4468
490
780
902
780
1507
490
201
58
.32 1866
.15 80
i
.11
14
.28 1165
.15 : 80
.10 : 6
.10 s 6
1 .12 ! 24
.15 ! 80
10 , 6
.15 : 80
.n j 14
.17 I 153
.10 1 6
.31 H621
cone. #
.16
.05
.16
.18
.44
.22
.23
.24
.24
.33
.18
.14
.11
.29
.14
.09
.24
.11
= 08
.08
.10
.13
.08
.12
.08
.15
.08
.29
.11 ! 14 .09
.10 j 6 } .08
1 *
114
-
114
201
3723
490
578
666
666
2040
201
58
14
1331
58
3
666
14
-
6
39
_
24 j
-
80
__
1331
3
Total # of Regions
Exceedinc Standards
30
29
23
Total # of Occasions
Standard is Exceeded
15,624
12,420
Average % Air Quality
Reduction from 1970 " 19 30
1. Highest recorded concentration recorded from 1971 through 1973.
-------
No.
Table 5-14
(Using metropolitan growth rates)
Projected Impact of California HC LDV Standard 1977-1990
Region
Predicted Ambient Cone, and No. of Occasions
Standard is Exceeded (#)
,1
1971/73'
1980
1985
cone . opm
004 Birmingham .22
009 Mobile-Pensacola .11
013 Clark-Mohave .22
015 Phoenix-Tucson .19
024 Los Angeles .62
028 Sacremento Valley .24
029 San Diego .30
030 San Francisco .30
031 San Joaquin .26
033 S.E. Desert .28
036 Denver .28
043 NY-NJ-Conn. .26
045 Philadelphia .20
047 National Capitol .38
079 Cincinnati .17
080 Indianapolis .14
106 S. Lou. -S.E. Texas .32
119 Boston .21
124 Toledo .14
153 El Paso-Las Cruces .13
160 Genesse-Finger Lakes -15
173 Dayton .18
193 Portland .14
197 S.W. Pennsylvania .21
212 Austin-Waco .16
214 Corpus-Christi .19
215 Dallas-Ft. Worth .13
216 Houston-Galveston .32
217 San Antonio .15
229 Puget Sound .16
cone. #
.19
.07
.18
.18
.49
.22
.25
.26
.24
.30
.21
.18
263
201
201
4468
490
780
902
666
1507
412
201
.14 1 58
.31 11621
.15
.11
.28
80
14
1165
.15 i 80
.10 6
.10 6
.11 14
.15 80
.10 i 6
.15 : 80
.10
.17
6
153
.10 6
.31 1621
.11 ! 14
.10
6
'
cone. #
.16
.05
.17
.18
.44
.22
.23
.25
.24
.33
.18
.15
.12
.29
.14
.09
.24
.11
.08
.08
.10
.13
.08
.12
.08
.15
.08
.30
.09
.08
114
153
201
3723
490
578
780
666
2040
201
80
24
1331
58
3
666
14
-
-
6
39
-
24
-
80
-
1507
3
-
Total # of Regions
Exceeding Standards
Total # of Occasions
Standard is Exceeded
30
29
23
15,107
Average % Air Quality
Reduction from 1970 20
1. Highest recorded concentration recorded from 1971
12,781
28
through 1973.
17
-------
Table B-15
(Using metropolitan growth rates)
Projected Impact of Interim HC LDV Standard 1977-1990
No.
Predicted Ambient Cone, and No. of Occasions
Standard is Exceeded (#)
197 1/73
1980
1985
- --_/---
cone, opm
004 Birmingham .22
009 Mobi le-Pensacola .11
013 Clark-Mohave .22
015 Phoenix-Tucson .19
024 Los Angeles .62
028 Sacremento Valley .24
029 San Diego .30
030 San Francisco .30
031 San Joaquin .26
033 S.E. Desert .28
036 Denver .28
043 NY-NJ-Conn, .26
045 Philadelphia .20
047 National Capitol .38
079 Cincinnati .17
080 Indianapolis .14
106 S. Lou. -S.E. Texas .32
119 Boston .21
124 Toledo .14
153 El Paso-Las Cruces .13
160 Genesse-Finger Lakes .15
173 Dayton .18
193 Portland .14
197 S.W. Pennsylvania .21
212 Austin-Waco .16
214 Corpus-Christi .19
215 Dallas-Ft. Worth .13
216 Houston-Galveston .32
217 San Antonio .15
229 Punet Sound 16
cone.
.19
.07
.19
.18
.49
.22
.25
.26
.25
.30
.22
.18
.14
#
263
-
263
201
4468
490
780
902
780
1507
490
201
58
.32 ^366
.15 ! 80
>
.11
i 14
.28 JJ165
.15 j 80
.10 ' 6
.10 i 6
\
.12 ! 24
.15 i 80
.10 i 6
.15 1 80
.11 ) 14
i
.17 J153
.10 ! 6
.31 ;i621
.11 i 14
.10 1 6
i
cone.
.17
.05
.18
.19
.46
.22
.24
.25
.25
.33
.19
.15
.12
.30
.15
.10
.25
.12
.08
.09
.11
.14
.09
.13
.09
.15
.09
.30
.10
.08
#
153
-
201
263
3942
490
666
780
780
2040
263
80
24
1507
80
6
780
24
_
j
3 ]
1
14 |
58 i
3
i
39 !
3
80
3
1507
6
i
i
i
Total # of Regions
Exceed1'^ Standards
Total # of Occasions
Standard is Exceeded
Average % Air Quality
Reduction from 1970
1. Highest recorded concentration
30
29
27
15,624
13,795
19
recorded from
26
1971 through 1973.
-------
TA3LE 8-16
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE EMISSION STANDARDS ON PROJECTED AIR QUALITY CONCENTRATIONS*
r
I Number ] of AQCR's
j above NAAQS;
j Average % Decrease
in A. Q. Conc.( );
and Number^of
Occasions NAAQS
are exceeded [ ]
OX
CO
1930
1985
19RO
1985
1990
Statutory
Standard
1977-1990
29(21}[14603i'
23(33) [11, 245]
Calif. Sta«
1977-81
Stat. Std.
1982-90
29(20) [15107]
23(31) [11939]
Interim Std.
1977-81
Stat. Std.
1982-90
29(19) [ 15624]
23(30) [12420]
Same as in Table?P._
Calif. Std.
^977-90
29(20) [15107]
23(28) [12781]
Intfc.-im Std.
1977-90
'
29(19)15624]
27(26) [13795]
-
1. 26 AQCR's analyzed for CO; 30 AQCR's analyzed for oxidant.
2. For CO, violations of NAAQS are based on non-overlapping 8-ho,ur intervals which exceed 9 ppm.
Using metropolitan growth rates
-------
Table B-17
Comparison of Total Number of Occassions Ox Standard is Exceeded Under
Different Emission Standards and Mobile Source Growth Rates
CBD Metropolitan % Change
Statutory : 1977-1985
1980 11,438 14,603 27.6
1985 9,154 12,707 38.8
California: 1977-1981 Statutory 1982-1985
1980 12,128 15,107 24.6
1985 9,296 11,939 28.4
Interim: 1177-1981 - Statutory 1982-1985
1980 12,228 15,624 27.8
1985 9,654 12,420 28.7
California: 1977-1985
1980 12,128 15,107 24.6
1935 9,784 12,781 30.6
Interim: 1977-1985
1980 12,228 15,624 27.8
1985 10,490 13,795 31.5
20
-------
ADDENDUM C
TABULATION OF EMISSIONS CONTRIBUTION
BY SOURCE CATEGORY
-------
Because the calculated impact on air quality brought about by the
different LDV standards investigated is dependent upon the distribution
of emissions from the various sources, this addendum provides a tabula-
tion of the percentage contribution of emissions from these sources,
grouped into three categories: (1) LDV, (2) Other Mobile, and (3)
Stationary. Distributions are given for the years 1970, 1980, and 1985
for all the LDV standards investigated, and data are presented for two
VMT growth rates. Tables C-l through C-18 contain source percentage
contributions for NO , CO, and HC for a VMT growth rate essentially equal
.A
to the historic CBD growth rate. Data corresponding to these tables
are discussed in the main text. Tables C-19 through C-31 contain source
percentage contributions for NO and HC where VMT growth rate is based
A
upon the entire metropolitan area growth rate. Data corresponding to
these latter tables is discussed in Addendum B.
-------
Table C-l
Source Contribution- (by percent)
Pollutant: NOX
Standard: 3.1 gpm 1977-85
Growth Rate: CBD
No. City
015 Phoenix-Tucson
024 Los Angeles
030 San Francisco
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
067 Chicago
115 Baltimore
220 Wasatch Front
LDV '
40
46
45 :
32
26
21
31
21
20
37
1970
Other ,
Mobile I
22
18
20
15
10
11
12
12
11
18
Stationary
38
36
35
53
64
68
57
67
69
45
LDV
35
39
39
27
22
16
27
18
22
34
1980
Other
Mobile
22
18
20
15
9
9
12
11
14
19
Stationary
43
43
41
58
69
75
61
71
64
47
LDV
33
36
36
25
20
14
26
16
21
33
1985
Other i
Mobile
20
16
18
13
8
8
11
10
13
19
Stationar
47
48
46
62
72
78
63
74
66
48
Average:
32
15
53
28
15
57
26
14
60
-------
Table C-2
Source Contribution (by percent)
Pollutant: NOX
Standard: 3J gpm 1977-81, 2.0 gpm 1982-85
Growth Rate: CBD
No. City
015 Phoenix-Tucson
024 Los Angeles
030 San Francisco
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
067 Chicago
115 Baltimore
220 Wasatch Front
LDV
40
4£
45
32
26
21
31
21
20
37
1970
Other |
Mobile i
22
18
20
15
10
11
12
12
11
18
Stationary
38
36
35
53
64
68
57
67
69
45
LDV
35
39
39
27
22
16
27
18
22
34
1980
Other
Mobile
22
18
20
15
9
13
12
11
14
19
Stationary
43
43
41
58
69
71
61
71
64
47
LDV
29
32
32
21
17
12 ;
23 :
14
18
29
1985
Other
Mobi 1 e
21
17
19
14
9
8
12 i
1
10 |
13 !
19
Stationary
50
51
49
65
74
80
65
76
69
52
Average:
32
15
53
28
15
57
23
14
63
-------
Table C-3
Source Contribution (by percent)
Pollutant: NOX
Standard: 3.1 gprn 1977-81, 1.0 gpm 1982-85
Growth Rate: CBD
No. City
015 Phoenix-Tucson
024 Los Angeles
030 San Francisco
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
067 Chicago
115 Baltimore
220 Wasatch Front
LDV
40
46 i
45
32 I
I
26
21
31
21
20
37
1970
Other ,
Mobile ! Stationary
i
22
18
20
15
10
11
12
12
11
18
38
1980
LDV
35
36 39
35 | 39
53 I 27
F
64
68
22
16
i
57
67
69
45
27
18
22
34
Other
Mobile Stationary
22 43
18 43
1935
LDV
26
28
20 ' 41 28
|
15 58
9
18
(
1
69
i
13
12
11
14
19
71
61
71
64
47
14 ;
10
19
!
12
16
25
Other
Mobile
23
18
20
15
9
9
12
10
14
21
Stationar
51
54
52
67
77
81
69
78
70
54
Average:
32
15
53
28
15
57
20
15
65
-------
Table C-4
Source Corvtribution (by percent)
Pollutant: NOX
Standard: 3.1 gpm 1977-81; 0.4 gpm 1982-85
Growth Rate: CBD
No. City
015 Phoenix-Tucson
024 Los Angeles
030 San Francisco
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
067 Chicago
115 Baltimore
220 Wasatch Front
1970
LDV
4C
46
45
32
26
21
31
21
20
37
Other ;
Mobile i Stationary
",
22 ! 38
18
20
15
10
11
12
12
11
18
1980 [
LDV
35
36 ! 39
i
35 39
53 \ 27
64
68
57
67
69
45
22
16
27
18
22
34
Other :
Mobile Stationary
22 ; 43
18 43
LDV
23
25
20 41 | 25
15 i 57 16
i
I
9 ! 69 '13
13 | 71
12
11
14
19
61
71
64
57
n
17 :
10 !
14 i
23
1985
Other
Mobile Stationary
23 54
18 57
21 54
15 69
9 78
9 82
12 ; 71
11 1 79
14 ! 72
I
21 : 56
!
i
Average:
32
15
53
28
15
57
18
15
67
-------
Table C-5
Source Contribution (by percent)
Pollutant: NOX
Standard-. 2.0 gpm 1977-85
Growth Rate: CBD
No. City
015 Phoenix-Tucson
024 Los Angeles
030 San Francisco
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 -Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
067 Chicago
115 Baltimore
220 Wasatch Front
LDV
40
46
45 -
32
26
21
1
31
21
20
37
197Q
Other ,
Mobile
f
22
18
20
15
10
11
12
12
11
18
Stationary
38
36
35
53
64
68
57
67
69
45
LDV
31
35
35
24
19
14
24
16
20
30
1980
Other
Mobile
23
19
21
16
10
10
13
12
14
20
Stationary
46
46
44
60
71
76
63
72
66
50
i
LDV
26
28
28
18
14
10 '
19
12
16
25
1985
Other
Mob i 1 e
23
18
20
15
9
9
12
10
14
21
Stationar
51
54
52
67
77
81
69
78
70
54
Average:
32
15
53
25
16
59
20
15
65
-------
Table C-6
Source Contribution (by percent)
Pollutant: NOX
Standard; 2.0 gpm 1977-81; 1.0 gpm 1982-85
Growth Rate: CBD
No. City
015 Phoenix-Tucson
024 Los Angeles
030 San Francisco
036 Denver
043 MY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
067 Chicago
115 Baltimore
220 Wasatch Front
1970
LDV
40
46
45
32
26
21
31
21
20
37
Other ,
Mobile i Stationary
I;
J
22
18
20
15
10
11
12
12
11
18
38
1980
LDV
31
1
36
35
35 i 35
53 . 24
64
68
57
67
69
45
19
14
24
16
20
30
Other
Mobile Stationary
1985
LDV
23 A6
21
19 46
21 44
16
60
10 71
24 :
23
15
12
10 76 j 8
13 63
12
14
20
72
66
50
16 !
1
9
i
13
21
Other :
Mobile
24
19
21
15
10
9 ;
13 ;
i
n j
14
22
Stationary
55
57
56
70
78
83
71
80
73
57
Average:
32
15
53
25
16
59
16
16
68
-------
Table C-7
Source Contribution (by percent)
Pollutant: NOX
Standard'. 2.0 gpm 1977-81; 0.4 gpm 1982-85
Growth Rate: CBD
No. City
015 Phoenix-Tucson
024 Los Angeles
030 San Francisco
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
067 Chicago
115 Baltimore
220 Wasatch Front
i
LDV !
40
46
45
32
26
21
1
31
21
20
37
197Q
Other ;
Mobile j
i
i
22
18
20
15
10
11
12
12
11
18
Stationary
38
36
35
53
64
68
57
67
69
45
LDV
31
35
35
24
19
14
24
16
20
30
1980
Other
Mobile
23
19
21
16
,0
10
13
12
14
20
Stationary
46
46
44
60
71
76
63
72
66
50
LDV
18
20
20
13
10
7
14
8
11
18
1985
Other
Mobile
25
20
22
16
9
9
13
11
14
22
j
Stationa*
57
60
58
71
81
84
73
81
75
60
Average :
32
15
53
25
16
59
14
16
70
-------
Table C-8
Source Contribution (by percent)
Pollutant: NOX
Standard: 0.4 gpm 1978-85
Growth Rate: CBD
No. City
015 Phoenix-Tucson
024 Los Angeles
030 San Francisco
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
067 Chicago
115 Baltimore
220 Wasatch Front
LDV
40
46
45
32
26
21
31
21
20
37
1970
Other
Mobile
22
18
20
15
10
11
12
12
11
18
Stationary
38
36
35
53
64
68
57
67
69
45
LDV
27
30
30
20
15
12
20
13
16
25
1980
Other
Mobile
25
20
23
7
10
10
13
12
15
22
Stationary
48
50
47
73
75
78
67
75
69
53
LDV
12
14
13
8
6
4 !
9
5
7
12
1985
Other
Mobile
27
21
24
16
10
9
14
11
15
24
Stationary
61
65
63
76
84
87
77
84
78
64
Average:
32
15
53
21
16
63
17
74
10
-------
Table O9
Source Contribution (by percent)*
Pollutant: CO
Standard: Statutory Standard 1977-
Growth Rate: CBD
--!« 1 ' V
No.
004
009
013
015
024
028
029
030
031
036
042
043
045
047
062
067
080
094
115
M9
131
158
193
197
220
229
City
Birmingham
North Alaska
Clark-Mohave
Phoenix-Tucson
Los Angeles
Sacremento Valley
San Diego
San Francisco
San Joaquin Valley
:
Denver
Hartford-N. Haven
NY-NJ-Conn.
Philadelphia
National Capitol
E. Wash.-N. Idaho
1 Chicago
Indianapolis
[ Kansas City
Baltimore
Boston
Minn. -St. Paul
[ Central New York
Portland
S. W. Penna.
Wasatch Front
| Puget Sound
LDV
71
69
73
73
74
72
74
73
72
; 73
74
i 74 1
72
73
73
70
: 72
i 72
jj
72
74
|73
'i 7/i
74
; 71
!i_
72
,; 70
i / J
1970
Other
Mobile
23
21
27
26
25
25
26
26
27
26
26
25
26
26
26
26
26
27
26
26
26
25
25
26
26
26
Stationary
6
10
0
1
1
3
0
1
1
0
1
2
1
1
4
2
1
2
0
1
1
4
2
2
1
LDV
52
44
58
57
59
54
59
57
55
57
59
59
56
58
57
51
54
55
56
59
58
59
52
56
56
1 58
i
1980
Other
Mobile
33
25
41
40
39
37
61
38
38
40
40
39
38
37
37
36
36
40
39
39
40
33
37
39
39
40
_
Stationary
15
31
1
3
2
9
0
5
7
3
1
2
6
5
6
13
10
5
5
2
2
8
11
5
5
2
LDV
31
24
40
37
40
33
40
36
35
38
40
44
40
42
43
35
38
39
36
40
39
39
31
36
37
38
1985
Other
Mobile
41
25
57
56
56
48
59
53
50
57
58
52
50
50
49
44
48
55
54
56
58
56
47
55
56
57
.Station.
28
51
3.
7
4
19
1
11
15
5
2
4
10
8
8
21
14
6
10
4
3
5
22
9
7
5
Average:
72
26
56
38
7
52
Note.: Tables reflect an adjustment factor for stationary source categories to account for receptor
location (see text).
11
11
-------
Table C-10
Source Contribution (by percent)*
Pollutant: CO
Standard: California Standard 1977-81, Statutory Standard 1982-8*
Growth Rate: CBD
; i
No. ; City
f L
r
004 ; Birmingham 7
C09 ( North Alaska 6
013 : Clark-Mohave \ 1
015 ; Phoenix-Tucson 7
(}?.-:; j Los Angeles 7
028 ! Sacremento Valley 7
029 ; San Diego J 7
03 J | San crancisco ; 7
031 San Joaquin Valley; 7
036 ! Denver 7
C42 : Hartford-N. Haven 1 7
C43 1 NY-NJ-Corm. \ 7
O'K: ' Philadelphia .: 7
C-7 i National Capitol " 7
062 ! E. Wash.-N. Idaho j 7
067 l Chicago 7
080 ( Indianapolis | 7
094 i Kansas City 7
i »
115 ; Baltimore j 7
119 | Boston j 7
131 j Minn. -St. Paul 7
158 f Central New York j 7'
193 i Portland "7
197 : S. W. Penna. 1 7;
220 i Wasatch Front J 7-
229 ) Puget Sound t 7:
I 1
1970
Other
DV Mobile
|
1 ! 23
9 : 21
3 27
3 26
4 . 25
2 25
4 26
3 26
2 27
3 26
4 26
4 25
2 26
3 26
3 26
0 26
2 26
2 i 27
I
2 26
4 j 26
3 26
4 1 25
25
26
: 26
3 26
l
Stationary
6
10
0
1
1
3
0
1
1
1
0
1
2
i"
i
4
2
1
2
0
1
1
4
2
2
1
LDV
5.4
47
59
58
61
55
61
58
57
59
61
60
57
59
59
! 53
' 56
57
I 57
61
60
60
54
58
58
60
1
1980
Other
Mobile
32
25
38
39
37
35
39
37
36
38
38
38
37
36
35
35
34
39
i
38
37
38
37
35
37
i 37
38
(
i
Stationary
14
28
3
3
- 2
10
0
5
7
3
1
2
6
5
6
12
10
{
5
2
2
3
11
1
i 5
! 5
2
i
LDV
35
25
44
41
44
37
45
41
39
42
44
40
36
38
38
31
34
35
i
j
40
44
43
45
35
41
42
43
J »
198J:
Other
Mobile
38
31
54
52
52
45
54
49
47
54
54
56
53
54
53
46
51
4
51
53
54
50
' 44
i
51
51
52
Stationai
27
44
2
7
4
18
1
10
14
4
2
4
11
8
9
23
15
7
9 -, .,
3
3
5
21
8
7
5
--.
72
26
Average:
Note: Tables reflect an adjustment factor
location (see text).
58
36
40
50
for stationary source- categories to account for receptor
1C
-------
Table C-ll
Source Contribution (by percent)*
Pollutant: CO
Standard: Interim Standard 1977-81, Statutory Standard 1982-85
Growth Rate: CBD
1
No. !
i
i
1
004
009 (
013 |
015 1
024 i
028
029
030
031 !
036
042 :
p/1 "?
L T ,J [
045 :
047
062
067
080
094
115
119
131
158
1S3
197
220
229
City
Birmingham
North Alaska
Clark-Mohave
Phoenix-Tucson
Los Angeles
Sacrernento Valley '
San Diego !
San Francisco :
San Joaquin Valley
Denver
Hartford-N. Haven
NY-NJ-Conn.
Philadelphia
National Capitol
E. Wash.-N. Idaho
Chicago
Indianapolis
Kansas City
Baltimore
Boston
Minn. -St. Paul
Central New York
Portland
S. W. Penna.
Wasatch Front
Puget Sound
Average:
LDV
71 i
69 :
73 ;
73
74 ;
72
74
73
72
73
74
74
72
j 73
73
70
72
72
j
1 72
74
73
74
71
72
; 72
J73
fl
' 72
1970
Other
Mobile
23
21
27
26
25
25
26
26
27
26
26
25
26
26
26
26
26
27
26
26
26
25
0-
2o
26
26
26
26
Stationary
6
10
0
1
1
3
0
1
1
^
0
1
2
1
1
4
2
1
2
0
1
1
4
2
2
1
2
LDV
56
51
62
61
63
58
63
61
59
60
63
63
59
61
61
55
58
59
59
63
62
63
56
60
60
62
HT~
1980
Other
Mobile
30
25
36
36
35
34
37
35
34
36
36
35
35
35
34
33
33
37
36
35
36
34
34
36
36
36
35
Stationary
14
34
2
3
. 2
8
0
4
7
!
3
1
2
6
4
6
12
! 9
4
5
2
2
3
10
4
4
1 2
i
i
6
LDV
40
32
49
47
50
42
50
46
45
48
50
50
45
48
48
40
43
i . -
4b
i
! 46
50
j 49
49
41
46
47
48
46
198
Other
Mobile
35
24
49
4?
46
42
49
45
42
48
48
47 >
46
45
45
40
45
49
46
47
48
47
40
46
47
, -.
48
45
Station.
25
44
2
6
4
16
1
9
13
4
2
3
9
7
7
20
Irt
I
6
8
3
^ f\
19
9
Note: Tables reflect an adjustment factor for stationary source categories to account for receptor
location (see text).
13
-------
Table C-12
Source Contribution (by percent)*
Pollutant: CO
Standard: California Standard 1977-85
Growth Rate: CBD
No.
004
009
013
015
024
023
029
030
031
036
042
043
045
047
062
057
030
094
115
119
13;
158
193
197
220
229
City
Bi rmi nghain
North Alaska
Clark-Mohave
Phoenix-Tucson
Los Angeles
Sacremento Valley
San Diego !
San Francisco
San Joaquin Valley
Denver i
Hartford-N. Haven
NY-NJ-Conn.
Philadelphia
National Capitol
E. Wash.-N. Idaho
1 Chicago
! Indianapolis
I Kansas City
i Baltimore
! Boston
I Minn. -St. Paul
| Central New York
Portland
S. W. Penna.
| Wasatch Front
i Puget Sound
Average:
LDV
71
69
73 j
73 i
74
72 j
74
73
72
73
74
74
72
73
73
70
72
72
72
^ 74
! 73
|74
71
72
72
i73
72
1970
Other
Mobile
23
21
27
26
25
25
26
26
27
26
26
25
26
26
26
26
26
27
26
26
26
25
25
26
26
26
26
Stationary
6
10
0
1
1
3
0
1
1
1
0
1
2
1
1
4
2
1
2
0
1
1
4
2
2
1
2
1
LDV i
" !
54
47
60
58
61
55
61
58
57
59
61
61
57
59
59
53
56
57
57
61
60
61
54
58
58
60
58
1980
Other
Mobile
31
25
39
39
37
36
39
37
36
39
38
37
37
37
37
35
37
j 40
38
37
39
37
35
37
38
| 38
J
37
Stationary
15
28
1
3
2
9
0
5
7
2
1
2
6
4
4
12
7
3
5
2
1
2
11
5
4
1 2
5
LDV
36
28
46
43
46
39
47
43
41
44
47
46
42
44
44
36
40
41
42
46
45
46
37
43
44
45
42
1985
Other
Mobile
38
26
52
51
50
43
52
47
46
51
51
51
48
48
48
43
48
53
49
51
52
49
43
49
50
50
48
Statior
26
46
2
6
4
18
1
10
13
5
2
3
10
8
8
21
12
6
9
3
3
5
20
8
6
5
10
Note: Tables reflect an adjustment factor for stationary source categories to account for receptor
location (see text).
14
-------
Table C-73
Source Contribution (by percent)*
Pollutant: CO
Standard: Interim Standard 1977-85
Growth Rate: CBD
No.
004
009
013
015
024
028
029
030
031
036
042
043
045
047
062
067
080
094
115
119
131
158
193
City
Birmingham
North Alaska
Clark-Mohave
Phoenix-Tucson
Los Angeles
Sacremento Valley
San Diego
San Francisco
San Joaquin Valley
Denver
Hartford-N. Haven
NY-NJ-Conn.
Philadelphia
National Capitol
E. Wash.-N. Idaho
Chicago
Indianapolis
Kansas City
Baltimore
1970
Other
LDV Mobile
71
69
73
73
23
21
27
26
74 j 25
72
74
73
72
73
74
74
72
73
73
70
72
72
72
Boston ! 74
Minn. -St. Paul
Central New York
Portland
197 ) S. W. Penna.
220
229
Wasatch Front
Puget Sound
73
74
71
72
72
73
25
26
26
27
26
26
25
26
26
26
26
26
27
26
26
26
25
25
26
26
26
Stationary
6
10
0
1
1
3
0
1
1
1
0
1
2
1
1
4
2
1
2
0
1
1
4
2
1980
LDV
56
49
62
61
63
58
63
61
59
61
63
63
60
61
61
55
58
59
60
63
62
63
56
60
2 | 60
1 1 62
Other
Mobile
30
24
37
36
35
33
37
35
35
37
36
36
35
35
35
34
35
38
35
36
37
35
34
36
36
36
Stationary^
14
27
1
3
2
9
0
4
6
2
1
1
1985
LDV
46
36
55
53
55
48
56
52
50
54
56
56
5 52
4 54
4 54
11
7
3
5
1
1
2
10
.
4
4
2
46
49
51
51
56
55
55
46
52
53
54
Other
Mobile
31
23
43
42
42
37
43
40
39
42
Station
23
41
2
5
3
15
1
o
11
4
42 2
41 i
40
40
39
36
40
44
42
41
43
41
36
41
42
42
3
8
6
7
18
11
5
7
3
2
4
17
7
5
4
Average: *~72 26 2 60 35 5 52 40
* Note: Tables reflect an adjustment factor for stationary source categories to account for receptor
location (see text).
8
15
-------
Table C-14
Source Contribution (by percent)
Pollutant: Hydrocarbons
Standard: Statutory Standard 1978-85
Growth Rate:CBD
No. City
004 Birmingham
009 Mobile-Pensacola
013 Clark-Mohave
015 Phoenix-Tucson
024 Los Angeles
028 Sacramento Valley
029 San Diego
030 San Francisco
n31 San Joaquin
033 S.E. Desert
035 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
079 Cincinnati
080 Indianapolis
106 S. Lou. -S.E. Texas
119 Boston
124 Toledo
153 El Paso-Las Cruces
160 Genesse-Finger Lakes
173 Dayton
193 Portland
197 S.W. Pennsylvania
212 Austin- Waco
214 Corpus-Christi
215 Dallas-Ft. Worth
216 Houston-Gal vaston
217 San Antonio
229 Pudget Sound
1970
LDV
46
61
61
39
47
39
54
39
37
23
55
50
54
55
48
44
43
49
36
59
57
47
42
48
61
18
62
28
60
59
Other
Mobile
21
28
31
10
22
18
25
18
17
9
26
23
25
25
22
21
20
23
18
28
26
22
19
23
28
9
29
13
29
27
Stationary
33
11
8
51
31
43
21
64
46
68
19
27
21
20
30
35
37
28
46
13
17
31
39
29
11
73
9
59
11
14
1980
LDV
31
51
50
23
29
20
36
22
19
9
41
36
40
38
32
28
28
35
22
46
41
33
29
34
48
9
50
14
47
48
Other
Mobile
17
27
32
14
16
11
20
12
10
4
23
20
22
21
10
16
16
19
14
28
21
19
16
20
27
5
28
8
27
27
Stationary
52
22
18
63
55
69
44
66
71
87
36
44
38
41
58
56
56
46
64
26
38
48
55
46
25
86
22
78
26
25
LDV
21
37
35
12
16
10
20
12
10
4
27
25
26
22
18
17
18
24
15
31
25
20
19
22
32
5
35
7
31
40
1985
Other
Mobile
18
33
38
13
15
9
19
11
9
3
26
23
25
20
17
16
17
22
16
33
21
19
17
22
30
5
33
7
30
37
Stationary
61
30
27
75
69
81
t>]
77
81
93
47
52
nr\
T J
58
65
67
65
54
69
36
54
/- -i
61
64
56
38
90
32
86
-) O
39
23
|
Average:
47
22
31
16
33
18
49
21
20
59
-------
Table C-15
Source Contribution (by percent)
Pollutant: Hydrocarbons
Standard:California Standard 1977-31
Growth Rate: CBD
Statutory Syandard 1982-85
No. City
004 Birmingham
009 Mobile-Pensacola
013 Clark-Mohave
015 Phoenix- Tucson
024 Los Angeles
028 Sacramento Valley
029 San Diego
030 San Francisco
031 San Joaquin
033 S.E. Desert
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
079 Cincinnati
080 Indianapolis
106 S. Lou. -S.E. Texas
119 Boston
124 Toledo
153 El Paso-Las Cruces
160 Genesse-Finger Lakes
"73 Dayton
193 Portland
197 S.W. Pennsylvania
212 Austin-Waco
214 Corpus-Christi
215 Dallas-Ft. Worth
216 Houston-Galvaston
217 San Antonio
229 Pudget Sound
1970
LDV
46
61
61
39
47
39
54
39
37
23
55
50
54
55
48
44
43
49
36
59
57
47
42
48
61
18
62
28
60
59
Other
Mobile
21
28
31
10
22
18
25
18
17
9
26
23
25
25
22
21
20
23
18
28
26
22
19
23
28
9
29
13
29
27
Stationary
33
11
8
51
31
43
21
64
46
68
19
27
21
20
30
35
37
28
45
13
17
31
39
29
11
73
9
59
n
14
LDV
33
52
52
24
30
21
37
22
20
9
42
37
41
40
33
29
29
36
23
47
43
34
30
35
49
9
51
14
48
50
1980
Other
Mobile
16
27
31
13
16
11
20
12
10
4
23
19
22
20
17
16
16
19
14
28
21
18
16
19
26
5
27
8
27
26
Stationary
51
21
17
63
64
68
43
66
70
87
35
44
37
40
50
55
55
45
63
25
36
48
54
46
25
86
22
78
25
24
LDV
23
39
37
14
18
11
22
13
11
4
29
27
28
24
20
19
19
26
16
33
27
22
20
24
34
6
37
8
33
37
1
1985
Other
Mobile
18
32
36
12
15
9
19
11
9
3
25
22
24
20
9
I/-
b
17
22
16
32
20
19
17
21
29
5
31
7
29
31
T rt
Stationary
59
29
27
74
67
80
59
76
80
93
46
51
48
56
~y T
/I
£~ r-
65
64
52
68
35
53
59
63
55
37
89
32
85
38
32
ro
Average:
22
31
34
18
48
17
-------
Table C-16
Source Contribution (by percent)
Pollutant: Hydrocarbons
Standard: Interim Standard 1977-81
Growth Rate: CBD
Statutory Standard 1982-85
No. City
OU4 Birmingham
009 Mobile-Pensacola
013 Clark-Mohave
015 Phoenix-Tucson
024 Los Angeles
028 Sacramento Valley
029 San Diego
v *" j
030 San Francisco
031 San Joaquin
u33 S.E. Desert
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
079 Cincinnati
030 Indianapolis
106 S. Lou. -S.E. Texas
119 Boston
124 Toledo
153 El Paso-Las Cruces
160 Geriesse-Finger Lakes
173 Dayton
193 Portland
197 S.W. Pennsylvania
212 Austin-Waco
214 Corpus- Chris ti
215 Dallas-Ft. Worth
216 Houston-Gal vaston
217 San Antonio
229 Purlgot Sound
1970
LDV
46
61
61
39
47
39
54
39
37
23
55
50
54
55
48
44
43
49
36
59
57
47
42
48
61
18
62
28
60
59
Other
Mobile
21
28
31
10
22
18
25
18
17
9
26
23
25
25
22
21
20
23
18
28
26
22
19
23
28
9
29
13
29
27
Stationary
33
11
8
51
31
43
21
64
46
68
19
27
21
20
30
35
37
28
46
13
17
31
39
29
11
73
9
59
11
14
1980
LDV
34
53
53
25
31
22
38
23
21
10
43
38
42
41
34
30
30
38
24
48
44
35
31
36
50
10
53
15
50
51
Other
Mobile
16
26
30
13
15
11
19
12
10
4
22
19
13
20
17
16
15
19
14
27
20
18
15
19
25
5
27
8
26
25
Stationary
50
21
17
62
54
67
43
65
69
86
35
43
45
39
49
54
55
43
62
25
36
47
54
45
25
85
20
77
24
24
LDV
25
42
39
15
19
12
24
14
11
5
31
29
30
26
22
20
21
28
18
35
29
24
22
26
36
6
40
7
35
39
1985
Other
Mobile
17
31
35
12
14
9
18
11
9
3
24
22
24
19
16
16
16
21
15
31
20
19
17
21
28
5
30
7
28
30
Stationary
58
27
26
73
67
79
58
75
80
92
45
49
46
55
62
64
63
51
67
34
51
57
61
53
36
<~V A
89
30
86
37
31.
Average: 47 22 3T 35 18 47 24 19 57
-------
Table C-1Z
source contrTDution (.toy percent)
Pollutant: Hydrocarbons
Standard: California Standard 1977-85
Growth Rate: CBD
No. City
004 Birmingham
009 Mobile-Pensacola
013 Clark-Mohave
015 Phoenix-Tucson
024 Los Angeles
028 Sacramento Valley
029 San Diego
030 San Francisco
031 San Joaquin
033 S.E. Desert
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
079 Cincinnati
080 Indianapolis
106 S. Lou. -S.E. Texas
119 Boston
124 Toledo
153 El Paso-Las Cruces
160 Genesse-Finger Lakes
'73 Dayton
193 Portland
197 S.W. Pennsylvania
212 Austin-Waco
214 Corpus-Christi
215 Dallas-Ft. Worth
216 Houston-Gal vaston
217 San Antonio
229 Pudget Sound
1970
LDV
46
61
61
39
47
39
54
39
37
23
55
50
54
55
48
44
43
49
36
59
57
47
42
48
61
18
62
28
60
59
Other
Mobile
21
28
31
10
22
18
25
18
17
9
26
23
25
25
22
21
20
23
18
28
26
22
19
23
28
9
29
13
29
27
Stationary
33
11
8
51
31
43
21
64
46
68
19
27
21
20
30
35
37
28
45
13
17
31
39
29
11
73
9
59
11
14
1980,
LDV
33
52
52
24
30
21
37
22
20
9
42
37
41
40
33
29
29
36
23
48
43
34
30
35
49
9
51
14
48
50
Other
Mobile
16
27
31
13
16
11
20
12
10
4
23
19
22
20
17
16
16
19
14
21
13
16
19
26
5
27
8
27
26
Stationary
51
21
17
63
54
68
43
66
70
87
35
44
37
40
50
55
55
45
63
24
36
48
54
46
25
O/"
86
22
"7 O
78
25
24
LDV
26
43
41
15
20
12
25
14
12
5
32
30
38
27
23
21
22
29
13
36
30
24
23
27
38
41
36
41
1985
Other
Mobile
17
30
34
12
14
9
18
10
9
3
24
22
28
19
16
Ib
16
21
15
30
20
18
16
20
27
30
7
27
29
Stationary
57
27
25
73
66
79
57
76
79
92
44
48
34
54
61
£ A
54
62
50
/- -7
67
34
50
58
61
53
35
00
29
37
30
Average:
47
22
31
34
18
25
19
56
19
-------
Table C-18
Source Contribution (by percent)
Pollutant: Hydrocarbons
Standard: Interim Standard 1977-85
Growth Rate: CBD
No. City
C04 Birmingham
009 Mobile-Pensacola
013 Clark-Mohave
015 Phoenix-Tucson
024 Los Angeles
028 Sacramento Valley
029 San Diego
030 San Francisco
031 San Joaquin
C33 S.E. Desert
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Co-nn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
079 Cincinnati
OSO Indianapolis
106 S. Lou. -S.E. Texas
119 Boston
124 Toledo
I L. " 1 \J 1 tvlw
153 El Paso-Las Cruces
160 Genesse-Finger Lakes
173 Dayton
193 Portland
197 S.W. Pennsylvania
212 Austin-Waco
214 Corpus-Christi
215 Dallas-Ft. Worth
216 Houston-Gal vaston
217 San Antonio
229 Pudget Sound
1970
LDV
46
61
61
39
47
39
54
39
37
23
55
50
54
55
48
44
43
49
36
59
57
47
42
48
61
18
62
28
60
59
Other
Mobile
21
28
31
10
22
18
25
18
17
9
26
23
25
25
22
21
20
23
18
28
26
22
19
23
28
9
29
13
29
27
Stationary
33
11
8
51
31
43
21
64
46
68
19
27
21
20
30
35
37
28
46
13
17
31
39
29
11
73
9
59
11
14
1980
LDV
34
53
53
25
31
22
38
23
21
10
43
38
42
41
34
30
30
38
24
48
44
35
31
36
50
10
53
15
50
51
Other
Mobile
16
26
30
13
15
11
19
12
10
4
22
19
22
20
17
16
15
19
14
27
20
18
15
19
25
5
27
o
u
26
25
Stationary
50
21
17
62
54
67
43
65
69
86
35
43
36
39
49
54
55
43
62
25
36
47
54
45
25
85
20
77
24
24
LDV
29
47
45
18
23
14
23
17
14
6
36
34
35
30
26
24
25
33
21
40
33
28
26
30
42
8
45
11
40
45
1985
Other
Mobile
16
28
32
12
14
9
17
10
8
3
23
20
22
18
16
15
16
20
15
28
19
18
16
19
26
5
28
7
26
27
Stationary
55
25
23
70
63
77
55
73
78
91
41
46
43
52
58
61
59
47
64
32
48
54
58
51
32
37
27
82
34
28
Average:
47
22
31
35
18
47
28
18
54
20
-------
Source. Contribution (by percent)
Pollutant: NOX
Standard*. 3.1 gpm 1977-85
Growth Rate: Metroplitan
No. City
015 Phoenix-Tucson
024 Los Angeles
030 San Francisco
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
067 Chicago
115 Baltimore
220 Wasatch Front
LDV
.
40
46
45
32
26
21
31
21
20
37
197Q
Other i
Mobile I
c
!
22
18
20
15
10
11
12
12
n
18
Stationary
38
36
35
53
64
68
57
67
69
45
-'- -" ~ ~" :
LDV
39
41
41
29
23
18
30
19
26
34
1980
Other i
Mobile
24
18
21
I
16
10
11
14
12
16
20
Stationary___
37
41
38
55
67
71
56
69
58
46
LDV
39
39 ;
40
29
22
18 ;
31
17
27
34
1985
Other
Mobile
24
17 i
20
is ;
9
10
13
11
16
19
Stationar
37
44
40
55
69
72
56
72
57
57
Average:
32
15
53
30
16
54
30
15
55
21
-------
Average:
Table C-20
Source Contribution (by percent)
Pollutant: NOX
Standard; 3.1 qpm 1977-81, 2.0 gpm 1982-85
Growth Rate:Metropolitan
No. City
015 Phoenix-Tucson
024 Los Angeles
030 San Francisco
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
067 Chicago
115 Baltimore
220 Wasatch Front
LDV
40
46
45
32
26
21
31
21
20
37
1970
Other
Mobile
22
18
20
15
10
n
12
12
n
18*
Stationary
38
36
35
53
64
68
57
67
69
45
LDV
39
41
41
29
23
18
30
19
26
34
1980
Other
Mobile
1
i
24 i
1
18
21
!
16
10
n
14
12
16
20
Stationary
37
41
38
55
67
71
56
69
58
46
LDV '
i
35
35
36
25
19
15
27
15
24
30
1985
Other i
Mobile
26
18 |
,
21
i
16
10
10
,4
17
20
Stationer
39
47
43
59
~7T "'"
75
59
74
59
50
i
i
32
15
53
30
16
54
26
16
58
22
-------
Table C-21
Source Contribution (by percent)
Pollutant: NOX
Standard: 3.1 gpm 1977-81; 1.0 gpm 1982-85
Growth Rate: Metropolitan
No. City
015 Phoenix-Tucson
024 Los Angeles
030 San Francisco
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
067 Chicago
115 Baltimore
220 Wasatch Front
t
LDV
40
46
45
32
26
21
31
21
20
37
1970
Other j
Mobile !
ij
!
i
22
18
20
15
10
11
12
12
11
18
Stationary
38
36
35
53
64
68
57
67
69
45
LDV
39
41
41
29
23
18
30
19
26
34
1980
Other
Mobile
24
18
21
16
10
11
14
12
16
20
Stationary
37
41
38
55
67
71
56
69
58
46
LDV
i
31
30 :
32
22
16
13
23
13
21
26
1985
Other
Mobile
27
19
23
17
10
11
15
11
18
21
Stationar
42
51
45
61
74
76
62
76
61
52
Average:
32
15
53
30
16
54
23
17
60
23 ,
-------
Table C-22
Source Contribution (by percent)
Pollutant: NOX
Standard: 3.1 gpm 1977-81; 0.4 gpm 1982-85
Growth Rate: Metropolitan
No. City
015 Phoenix-Tucson
024 Los Angeles
030 San Francisco
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
067 Chicago
115 Baltimore
220 Wasatch Front
Average:
LDV
40
46
45
32
26
21
31
21
20
37
32
1970
Other
Mobile
22
18
20
15
10
11
12
12
11
18
15
Stationary
38
36
35
53
64
68
57
67
69
45
53
LDV
39
41
41
29
23
18
30
19
26
34
30
1980
Other
Mobi 1 e
24 ;
18
21
16
10
11
14
12
16
20
16
Stationary
37
41
38
55
67
71
56
69
58
46
54
LDV
28
27
29
19
14
11
21
i
11
18
23
20
1985
Other !
Mobi 1 e
28
20
24
18
9
11
15
12
18
22
18
Stationary
44
53
47
63
77
--"-. "7 O
-- .-'' -. f o
64
77
64
55
62
24
-------
Average:-
Source Contribution (by percent)
Pollutant: NOX
Standard: 2.0 gpm 1977-85
Growth Rate: Metropolitan
No. City
015 Phoen: x-Tucson
024 Los Angeles
030 San Francisco
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
067 Chicago
115 Baltimore
220 Wasatch Front
i
LDV 1
40
46
t
45
32
26
21
31
21
20
37
1970
Other t
Mobile
22
18
20
15
10
n
12
12
n
18
__Stationary_
38
36
35
53
64
68
57
67
69
45
LDV
35
37
37
26
20
16
27
16
23
30
1980
Other
Mobile i
26
20
23
17
11
11
14
12
17
21
Stationa_ry_____
39
43
40
57
69
73
59
72
60
49
LDV
31
30
32
22
16
13
23
i
13
21
26
1985
Other j
Mobile
27
19
23
17 i
10
11
i
I
15
11
18
21
Stationar
42
51
45
61
74
76
62
76
61
53
32
15
53
27
17
56
23
17
60
25 \
-------
Table C-24
Source Contribution (by percent)
Pollutant: NOX
Standard', 2.0 gpm 1977-01; 1.0 gpm 1982-85
Growth Rate: Metropolitan
i-io. City
015 Phoetr x-Tucson
024 Los Angeles
030 San Francisco
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
067 Chicago
115 Baltimore
220 V.'asatch Front
*
LDV
40
46
45
32
26
21
31
21
20
37
1970
Other i
Mobile 1
j
22
18
20
15
10
11
12
12
n
18
Stationary
38
36
35
53
64
68
57
67
69
45
LDV
35
37
37
26
20
16
27
16
23
30
1980
Other
Mobile '
26
20
23
17
11
11
14
12
17
21
Stationary
39
43
40
57
69
73
59
72
60
49
LDV
26
25 i
27
18
13
10
19
10
i
17
21
1985
Other ;
Mobile
29
20 i
25
18
10
11
15
12
19
22
Stationary
45
55
48
64
77
79
66
78
64
57
Average:
32
15
53
27
17
56
19
63
26
-------
Table C-25
Source Contribution (by percent)
Pollutant: NOX
Standard*. 2.0 gpm 1977-81; 0.4 gpm 1932-85
Growth Rate: Metropolitan
,
No. City
015 Phoenix-Tucson
024 Los Angeles
030 San Francisco
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
067 Chicago
115 Baltimore
220 Wasatch Front
Average:
!
LDV '
40
46
45
32
26
21
31
21
20
37
32
1970
Other ;
Mobile I
1
j
22
18
20
15
10
11
12
12
11
18
15
Stationary
38
36
35
53
64
68
57
67
69
45
53
LDV
35
37
37
26
20
16
27
16
23
30
27"
1980
Other
Mobile
26 :
20 :
23
17
n
n
14
12
17
21
-17
Stationary
39
43
40
57
69
73
59
72
60
49
56""
i
r
LDV
22
22
23
15
11
9 j
17 ,
9 ;
14
18
1985
Other :
Mobile Stationer
31 47
21 57
26 51
19 ; 66
11 78
11 . 80
16 i 67
12 ; 79
19 i 67
j
22 60
i
i
iy 65
27
-------
Table C-26
Source Contribution (by percent)
Pollutant: NOX
Standard: 0.4 gpm 1978-85
Growth Rate: Metropolitan
Average:
32
15
53
23
18
No. j;Hy_
015 Phoenix-Tucson
024 Los Angeles
030 San Francisco
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
067 Chicago
115 Baltimore
220 Wasatch Front
»
LDV
40
46
45
32
26
21
31
21
20
37
197Q
i Other
1 Mobile
22
18
20
15
10
11
12
12
n
18
Stationary
38
36
35
53
64
68
57
67
69
45
LDV
30
31
32
22
17
13
23
13
19
26
1980
Other
Mobile
28
21
24
18
11
11
15
13
18
22
Stationary
42
48
44
60
72
76
62
74
63
52
1985
Other
LDV Mobile
15 33
15 23
16 28 :
(
10 20
I
7 11
6 | 11
11 I 17
6 | 13
9 20
12 25
Stationa
52
62
56
70
82
83
72
81
71
63
59
11
20
69
28
-------
Source Contribution (by percent)
Pollutant: Hydrocarbons
Standard: Statutory standard 1977-85
Growth Rate: Metropolitan
No. City
004 Birmingham
009 Mobile-Pensacola
013 Clark-Mohave
015 Phoenix-Tucson
024 Los Angeles
028 Sacramento Valley
029 San Diego
030 San Francisco
031 San Joaquin
033 S.E. Desert
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
079 Cincinnati
080 Indianapolis
106 S. Lou. -S.E. Texas
'119 Boston
124 Toledo
153 El Paso-Las Cruces
160 Genesse-Finger Lakes
173 Dayton
193 Portland
197 S.W. Pennsylvania
212 Austin-Waco
214 Corpus-Christi
215 Dallas-Ft. Worth
216 Houston-Galvaston
217 San Antonio
229 Pudget Sound
Average:
1970
LDV
46
61
61
39
47
39
54
39
37
23
55
50
54
55
48
44
43
49
36
59
57
47
42
48
61
18
62
28
60
59
Other
Mobile
21
28
31
10
22
18
25
18
17
9
26
23
25
25
22
21
20
23
18
28
26
22
19
23
28
9
29
13
29
27
- 47 22
Stationary
33
11
8
51
31
43
21
64
46
68
19
27
21
20
30
35
37
28
45
13
17
31
39
29
11
73
9
59
11
14
31
, 1980
LDV
39
53
53
27
31
23
41
25
24
10
44
38
42
42
37
32
35
37
24
50
46
34
29
35
50
11
54
19
51
48
Other
Mobile
21
29
33
32
17
13
23
14
13
5
25
21
24
23
20
18
20
20
15
30
24
20
16
20
28
7
30
11
29
26
Stationary
40
18
14
41
52
64
36
61*
63
85
31
41
34"
35
43
50
45
43
61
20
30
46
55
45
22
82
16
70
20
26
LDV
31
40
39
16
18
13
26
15
14
5
31
28
30
27
24
22
26
27
17
36
31
22
19
23
35
7
41
12
36
34
1985
Other
Mobile
27
36
42
17
17
12
25
14
13
4
30
25
28
24
23
21
25
24
18
38
27
21
18
23
33
7
38
11
36
31
Stationary
42
24
19
67
65
75
49
71
73
91
39
47
42
49
53
57
49
49
65
26
42
57
63
54
32
86
21
77
28
35
36 21 43 25 24 51
29
-------
Table C-23
bource Contribution (by percent}
Pollutant: Hydrocarbons
Standard: California standard 1977-
Growth Rate: Metropolitan
81.Statutory standard 1982-85
o. City
34 Birmingham
D9 Mobile-Pensacola
13 Clark-Mohave
15 Phoenix-Tucson
24 Los Angeles
28 Sacramento Valley
29 San Diego
30 San Francisco
31 San Joaquin
33 S.E. Desert
36 Denver
-13 MY-NJ-Conn.
45 Philadelphia
47 National Capitol
r
79 Cincinnati
BO Indianapolis
J6 S. Lou.-S,E. Texas
19 Boston
24 Toledo
53 El Paso-Las Cruces
60 Genesse- Finger Lakes
73 Day tor;
33 Portland
'-)'/' S.I/. Pennsylvania
12 Auf. tin- Waco
I Co rpus- Chris ti
]?' De 11 as- Ft. Worth
6 Koi:ston-Galvaston
7 San Antonio
"9 Puciget Sound
1970
LDV
46
61
61
39
47
39
54
39
37
23
55
50
54
55
48
44
43
49
36
59
57
47
42
48
61
18
62
23
60
59
Other
Mobile
21
28
31
10
22
18
25
18
17
9
26
23
25
25
22
21
20
23
18
28
26
22
19
23
28
9
29
13
29
27
Stationary
33
11
8
51
31
43
21
64
46
68
19
27
21
20
30
35
37
28
46
13
17
31
39
29
11
73
9
59
11
14
1980
LDV
41
54
54
28
32
24
42
26
25
11
45
39
44
43
38
33
36
39
25
51
48
35
30
36
51
11
55
20
52
49
Other
Mobile
20
28
32
16
33
13
22
14
13
5
24
20
23
22
20
18
19
20
15
30
23
19
16
20
27
6
29
11
29
26
Stationary
39
18
14
56
35
63
36
60
62
34
31
41
33
35
42
49
45
41
60
19
29
46
54
44
22
83
16
69
19
25
LDV
33
43
41
18
20
14
29
16
16
5
33
30
32
29
26
23
28
29
19
38
34
24
21
26
38
7
43
13
39
36
1985
Other
Mob i 1 e
26
35
40
16
16
12
24
13
13
4
29
25
27
23
22
20
24
24
18
37
26
21
17
23
32
7
37
11
34
30
Stationary
41
22
19
66
64
74
47
71
71
91
38
45
41
48
52
57
48
47
63
25
40
55
62
51
30
86
20
76
27
34
00
04
1
Average:
47
22
31
37
21
42
23
50
-------
Table C-29
oource oontr-i Dutl on (L>y percent;
Pollutant: Hydrocarbons
Standard: Interim standard 1977-81, Statutory standard 1982-85
Growth Rate: Metropolitan
No. City
004 Birmingham
009 Mobile-Pensacola
013 Clark-Mohave
015 Phoenix-Tucson
024 Los Angeles
028 Sacramento Valley
029 San Diego
030 San Francisco
031 San Joaqirin
033 S.E. Desert
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
079 Cincinnati
080 Indianapolis
106 S. Lou. -S.E. Texas
119 Boston
124 Toledo
153 El Paso-Las Cruces
160 Genesse-Finger Lakes
173 Dayton
193 Portland
197 S.W. Pennsylvania
212 Austin-Waco
214 Corpus-Christ!
215 Dallas-Ft. Worth
216 Houston-Gal vaston
217 San Antonio
229 Pudget Sound
1970
LDV
46
61
61
39
47
39
54
39
37
23
55
50
54
55
48
44
43
49
36
59
57
47
42
48
61
18
62
28
60
59
Other
Mobile
21
28
31
10
22
18
25
18
17
9
26
23
25
25
22
21
20
23
18
28
26
22
19
23
28
9
29
13
29
27
Stationary
33
11
8
51
31
43
21
64
46
68
19
27
21
20
30
35
37
28
46
13
17
31
39
29
11
73
9
59
11
14
LDV
42
55
55
29
33
25
44
27
26
11
46
40
45
44
39
35
37
40
26
52
49
36
32
37
52
12
57
20
53
50
1980
Other
Mobile
20
27
32
15
16
13
22
13
13
5
24
20
23
22
20
18
19
20
15
29
23
19
16
20
27
6
29
10
28
25
Stationary
38
18
13
56
51
62
34
60
61
84
30
40
32
34
41
47
44
40
59
19
28
45
52
43
21
82
14
70
19
25
LDV
35
45
44
19
21
15
31
18
17
6
36
32
34
31
28
25
30
31
20
41
36
26
23
27
40
8
46
14
41
39
1985
Other
Mobile
25
33
38
16
16
12
23
13
13
4
28
24
27
23
22
20
24
23
17
35
25
20
17
22
31
7
35
11
33
29
Stationary
40
22
18
65
63
73
46
69
70
90
36
44
39
46
50
55
46
46
63
24
39
54
60
51
29
85
19
75
26
32
Average:
47
22
31
oo
OO
20
29
22
49
31
-------
Table C-30
Source Contribution (by percent)
Pollutant: Hydrocarbons
Standard: California standard 1977-85
Growth Rate: Metropolitan
No. City
004 Birmingham
009 Mobile-Pensacola
013 Clark-Mohave
015 Phoenix-Tucson
024 Los Angeles
028 Sacramento Valley
029 San Diego
030 San Francisco
031 San Joaquin
033 S.E. Desert
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia "
047 National Capitol
079 Cincinnati
080 Indianapolis
106 S. Lou. -S.E. Texas
119 Boston
124 Toledo
153 El Paso-Las Cruces
160 Genesse-Finger Lakes
173 Dayton
193 Portland
197 S.W. Pennsylvania
212 Austin-Waco
214 CorDUS-Christi
215 Dal las- Ft. Worth
216 Houston-Galvaston
217 San Antonio
229 Pudget Sound
1970
LDV
46
61
61
39
47
39
54
39
37
23
55
50
54
55
48
44
43
49
36
59
57
47
42
48
61
18
62
28
60
59
Other
Mobile
21
28
31
10
22
18
25
18
17
9
26
23
25
25
22
21
20
23
18
28
26
22
19
23
28
9
29
13
29
27
Stationary
33
11
8
51
31
43
21
64
46
68
19
27
21
20
30
35
37
28
46
13
17
31
39
29
11
73
9
59
11
14
1980
LDV
41
54
54
28
32
24
42
26
25
11
45
39
44
43
38
33
36
39
25
51
48
35
30
36
51
11
55
20
52
49
Other
Mobile
20
28
32
16
17
13
22
14
13
5
24
20
23
22
20
18
19
20
15
30
23
19
16
20
28
6
29
11
29
26
Stationary
39
18
14
56
51
63
36
60
62
84
31
41
33
35
42
49
45
41
60
19
29
46
54
44
21
83
16
69
19
25
LDV
36
46
45
20
22
16
32
18
18
6
37
33
35
32
29
26
31
32
21
42
37
26
24
28
41
9
47
15
43
40
1985
Other
Mobile
25
33
38
16
16
12
23
13
26
4
27
24
26
22
21
20
23
23
17
35
24
20
17
22
30
7
34
11
32
28
Stationary
39
21
17
64
62
72
45
69
56
90
36
43
39
46
50
54
46
45
62
23
39
54
59
50
29
84
19
74
25
32
Average:
47
22
31
37
20
4-3
22
32
-------
Table C-31
Source Contribution (L>y percent)
Pollutant: Hydrocarbons
Standard: Interim standard 1977-85
Growth Rate: Metropolitan
No. City
004 Birmingham
009 Kobile-Pensacola
013 Clark-Mohave
015 Phoenix-Tucson
024 Los Angeles
028 Sacramento Valley
029 San Diego
030 San Francisco
031 San Joaquin
U33 S.E. Desert
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
079 Cincinnati
OCO Indianapolis
106 S. Lou.-S.E. Texas
119 Boston
124 Toledo
153 El Paso-Las Cruces
160 Genesse-Finger Lakes
173 Dayton
193 Portland
197 S.W. Pennsylvania
212 Austin-Waco
214 Corpus-Christi
215 Dallas-Ft. Worth
216 Houston-Galvaston
217 San Antonio
229 Pudget Sound
1970
LDV
46
61
61
39
47
39
54
39
37
23
55
50
54
55
48
44
43
49
36
59
57
47
42
48
61
18
62
28
60
59
Other
Mobile
21
28
31
10
22
18
25
18
17
9
26
23
25
25
22
21
20
23
18
28
26
22
19
23
28
9
29
13
29
27
Stationary
33
11
8
51
31
43
21
64
46
68
19
27
21
20
30
35
37
28
45
13
17
31
39
29
11
73
9
59
11
14
1980
LDV
42
55
55
29
33
25
44
27
26
11
46
40
45
44
39
35
37
40
26
52
49
36
32
37
52
12
57
20
53
50
Other
Mobile
20
27
32
15
16
13
22
13
13
5
24
20
23
22
20
18
19
20
15
29
23
19
16
20
27
6
29
10
28
25
Stationary
38
18
13
56
51
62
34
60
61
84
30
40
32
34
41
47
44
40
59
19
28
45
52
43
21
82
14
70
19
25
LDV
40
51
49
23
25
18
35
21
20
7
41
37
39
36
33
30
35
36
24
46
41
30
27
32
45
10
51
17
47
44
1985
Other
Mobile
23
30
35
15
15
12
22
13
12
3
25
22
24-
21
20
19
22
22
17
32
23
19
16
21
28
7
32
11
30
27
Stationary
37
19
16
62
60
70
43
66
68
90
34
41
37
43
47
51
43
42
59
22
36
51
57
47
27
83
17
72
23
29
Average:
47
22
31
38
20
42
33
21
46
33
-------
ADDENDUM D
IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY OF STANDARDS
SELECTED BY THE AGENCY
-------
This addendum contains the results of an analysis on the
projected air quality impacts as a result of the specific LDV
emissions standards selected by the Agency. This separate analysis
is presented because of slight differences between the selected
standards and those parametrically studied in the text.
Tables D-l and D-2 contain projected data and pertinent statistics
for CO and HC, respectively, under the assumption that VMT growth
rate is essentially the same as CBD growth rate. Tables D-3 and
D-4 provide a summary of emission contribution by various sources
for CO and HC under the CBD assumption for growth rate. Table D-5
contains projected air quality data for HC where the VMT growth
rate is based upon growth of the entire metropolitan area (see
Addendum B). Finally Table D-6 contains a summary of HC emission
contribution for various sources for a VMT growth rate based upon
the metropolitan area growth rate.
-------
TABLE D-l
Projected Impact of Decision Standard For
Carbon Monoxide (15 gm/mi 1977-1979,
9 gm/mi 1980-1981, Statutory 1982)
VMT Growth Rate Based on CBD
Predicted Ambient Cone, and No. or Occasions
Standard is Exceeded
|No. j Region
!
1 i
1 97T/7T~~^7^80^^~~T~ 1985
cbnc .
GO**- i Birmingham j 18
002 j North Alaska 35
013 | Clark-Mohave 15
015 j Phoenix- Tucson ! 42
024 1 Los Angeles I 41
028 1 Sacramento Valley | 22
J029
030
031
036
042
043
045
047
062
067
080
094
115
119
131
158
193
197
220
229
San Diego
San Francisco
San Joaquin
Denver
15
18
13
33
Hartford-N. Haven 27
NY-NJ-Conn. 51
Philadelphia
National Capitol
E. Wash. - N. Idaho
Chicago
Indianapolis
Kansas City
Baltimore
Boston
Minn. - St. Paul
Centra] New York
Portland
S. W. Pennsylvania
Wasatch Front
Puget Sound
32
20
18
23
15
15
18
18
22
15
25
22
41
24
cone.
7
13
8
21
19
9
7
8
6
15
12
22
13
10
10
9
7
7
9
8
12
7
12
10
19
13
# i cone.
10
157
lOf
_
_.
_
26
6
184
10
2
2
_
-
_
-
6
_
6
2
101
10
5
10
5
14
11
6
5
5
4
9
7
12
8
6
6
6
4
5
6
5
8
4
8
6
13
8
# \
j
- 1
2
16
4
. 1
-
~
_
-
_
6
_
_
-
^
_
-
_
-
_
_
_
_
10
-
Total # of Regions
Exceeding Standards
Total # of Occasions
Standard is Exceeded
Average % Air Quality
Reduction from 1970
26
14
54
623
70
38
-------
TABLE D-2
Projected Impact of Decision Standard for Hydrocarbons
(1.5 grn/nri 1977-1979, .9 gin/mi 1980-1981, Statutory 1982-)
VMT Growth Rate Based on CBD
Predicted Ambient Conc._and Ho. of Occasions
Standard is Exceeded (#)
Total # of Regions
Exceeding Standards
Total # of Occasions
Standard is Exceeded
Average % Air Quality-
Reduction from 1970
30
No.
004
009
013
015
024
028
029
030
031
033
036
043
045
047
079
080
106
119
124
153
150
173
193
197
212
214
215
216
217
229
Region
Birmi ngham
Mobile-Pensacola
Clark-Mohave
Phoenix-Tucson
Los Angeles
i
Sacreniento Valley
San Diego
San Francisco
San Joaquin
S.E. Desert
Denver
NY-NJ-Conn.
Philadelphia
National Capitol
Cincinnati
Indianapol is
S. Lou. ~ S.E. Texas
Boston
Toledo
El Paso-Las Cruces
Genesse-Fi nger Lakes
Dayton
Portland
S.W. Pennsylvania
Austin-Waco
Corpus-Christi
Dallas-Ft. Worth
Houston-Gal vaston
San Antonio
Puget Sound
19 71- 7 3
cone.
.22
.11
,22
'.19
.62
.24
.30
.30
.26
.28
.28
.26
.20
.38
,,17
.14
.32
.21
.14
.13
.15
.18
,14
,,21
.16
.19
.13
.32
15
.16
1980
cone.
.15
.06
.15
.17
.47
.21
.22
.25
.22
.30
.20
.17
.13
.28
,13
.10
.24
. 1 4
.10
.08
.09
. 1 4
.10
.15
.09
.17
.07
.29
.09
,11
#
80
_
80
153
4117
412
490
780
490
1507
333
153
39
1165
39
6
666
58
6
3
58
&
80
3
153
1331
3
14
1985 1
~[
cone .
-j Tj
! i
. 04
,'(2
. 16
.42
.20
,20
. 23
.21
.32
.16
. 1 3
10
,25
,12
.08
.19
.10
77 i
" )
14
~
24
114
3416
333
333 i
578 i
412 !
1 866
114
39
6 |
780
24
263
6
.07
.06
!
! 2 24
.08 - i
.11
.07
14
i
.14 58
.05
.27
,07
.08
~ 1
1034
12,225
20
9452
27
39
.4-
-------
source corrcri burl on ( by percent )*
Pollutant: CO
Standard: 15 gm/mi
Growth Rate: C8D
1977-79; 9 gm/mi 1980-81; Statutory 1982=
i
No.
i
004
009
013
015
024
028
029
030
031
036
042
043 .
045
047
062
067
080
094
115
119
131
158
193
197
220
229
City
Birmingham
North Alaska
Clark-Mohave
Phoenix-Tucson
Los Angeles
Sacremento Valley
San Diego
San Francisco
San Joaquin Valley
Denver
Hartford-N. Haven
NY-NJ-Conn.
Philadelphia
National Capitol
E. Wash.-N. Idaho
Chicago
Indianapolis
Kansas City
Baltimore
Boston
Minn. -St. Paul
Central New York
Portland
S. W. Penna.
Wasatch Front
Puget Sound
,
LDV
!
71 I
69 !
73 ;
73
74 .
72
1 74
1 73
1 72
J ;
I 73 i
1 74
j 74
3 79
f 1
-------
TABLE D-4
No.
004
009
013
015
024
028
029
030
031
033
036
043
045
047
079
080
106
119
124
153
160
173
193
197
21?
214
2'1'j
216
217
229
source lontriDution (by percent)
Pollutant: Hydrocarbons
Standard: 1.5 gm/mi 1977-79; 0.9-
Growth Rate: CBD
gm/mi 1980-81; Statutory 1982-
City
Tiiingham
)i le-Pensacol a
irk-Mohave
)enix-Tucson
> Angeles
:ramento Valley
i Diego
i Francisco
i Joaquin
.". Desert
wer
NJ-Conn,
1 a del phi a
:ional Capitol
ci nnati
ianapol i s
Lou.-S.E. Texas
ton
edo
Paso-Las Cruces
esse-Finger Lakes
ton
Hand
. Pennsylvania
tin -Waco
pus- Christi
las- Ft. Worth
ston~Gal vaston
Antonio
get Sound
1970
LDV
46
61
61
39
47
39
54
39
37
23
55
50
54
55
48
44
43
49
36
59
57
4/
42
48
61
18
62
28
60
59
Other
Mobile
21
28
31
10
22
18
25
18
17
9
26
23
25
25
22
21
20
23
18
28
26
22
19
23
28
9
29
i T
1 3
29
27
Stationary
33
11
8
51
31
43
21
64
46
68
19
27
21
20
30
35
37
28
46
13
17
31
39
29
11
73
9
59
11
14
1980
LDV
34
53
53
25
31
22
38
23
21
10
43
38
42
41
34
30
30
38
24
48
44
35
31
36
50
8
53
15
50
51
Other
Mobile
16
26
30
13
15
11
19
12
10
4
22
19
22
20
17
16
15
19
14
27
20
18
15
19
25
5
27
7
26
25
Stationary
50
21
17
62
54
67
43
65
69
86
35
43
36
39
49
54
55
43
62
25
36
47
54
45
25
88
20
78
24
24
LDV
24
41
38
14
19
11
23
13
11
4
30
28
29
25
21
19
20
27
17
34
28
23
21
25
35
6
39
8
34
38
1985
Other
Mobile
18
31
35
12
15
9
18
11
9
3
25
22
24
19
17
16
17
21
15
31
20
19
17
21
28
5
31
7
28
30
Stationary
58
28
27
74
66
80
59
76
80
93
45
50
47
56
62
65
63
52
68
35
52
58
62
54
37
89
30
85
38
32
S.E.
S,
Bo
To
El
S.W.
Aus
Cor |
Dal
Hoi
San
-Average
47
31
35
18
47
24
19
57
-------
TABLE D-
Projected Impact of Decision Standard for Hydrocarbons
(1.5 gm/mi 1977-1979, .9 gm/mi 1980-1981, Statutory 1982-)
VMT Growth Rate Based on Metropolitan Area
Predicted Ambient Lone, and No. of Occasions
Standard is Exceeded (#)
No.
004
009
013
015
024
028
029
030
031
033
036
043
045
047
079
080
106
119
124
153
150
173
193
197
212
214
215
216
217
229
Region
Birmingham
Mobile-Pensacola
Clark-Mohave
Phoenix-Tucson
Los Angeles
Sacremento Valley
San Diego
San Francisco
San Joaquin
S.E. Desert
Denver
NY-NJ-Conn.
Philadelphia
National Capitol
Cincinnati
Indianapol is
S. Lou. - S.E. Texas
Boston
Toledo
El Paso-Las Cruces
Genesse- Finger Lakes
Dayton
Portland
S.W. Pennsylvania
Austin-Waco
Corpus-Christi
Dal las- Ft. Worth
Houston-Gal vaston
San Antonio
Puget Sound
1971-73
cone.
.22
.11
.22
.19
.62
.24
.30
.30
.26
.28
.28
.26
.20
..38
.17
.14
.32
.21
.14
.13
.15
.18
.14
.21
.16
.19
.13
.32
.15
.16
198(
cone.
.19
.07
.19
.18
.49
.22
.25
.26
.25
.30
.22
.18
.14
.32
.15
.11
.28
.15
.10
.10
.12
.15
.10
.15
.11
.17
.10
.31
.11
.10
3 ~~ 1
__|.
#
263
-
263
201
4468
490
780
902
780
1507
490
201
58
1866
80
14
1165
80
6
6
24
80
6
80
14
153
6
1521
14
6
1985
1
cone.
,15
,05
.16
.18
.43
.22
,23
.24
,24
.33
.18
.14
.11
,28
.14
.09
.24
.11
.08
.08
.10
.13
.08
.12
.08
.15
.08
.29
.09
,08
#
80
-
114
201
3630
490
578
666
666
2040
201
58
14
1165
58
^j
666
14
-
-
39
-
24
-
80
-
1331
3
~
Total # of Regions
Exceeding Standards
Total # of Occasions
Standard is Exceeded
Average % Air Quality
Reduction from 1970
30
29
15,624
23
19
30
-7-
-------
: nyarocaroons
Standard: 1 .5 y,,i/mi -"'7-79,
Growth Rate: Metropolitan
0,9
g.../mi
.0-81
1932-
No. City
004 Birmingham
009 Mobile-Pensacola
013 Clark-Mohave
015 Phoenix-Tucson
024 Los Angeles
028 Sacramento Valley
029 San Diego
030 San Francisco
031 San Joaquin
033 S.E. Desert
036 Denver
043 NY-NJ-Conn.
045 Philadelphia
047 National Capitol
079 Cincinnati
080 Indianapolis
106 S. Lou. -S.E. Texas
119 Boston
124 Toledo
153 El Paso-Las Cruces
160 Genesse-Finger Lakes
173 Dayton
193 Portland
197 S.W. Pennsylvania
212 Austin-Waco
214 Corpus-Christi
215 Dallas-Ft. Worth
216 Houston-Galvaston
217 San Antonio
229 Pudget Sound
1970
LDV
46
61
61
39
47
39
54
39
37
23
55
50
54
55
48
44
43
49
36
59
57
47
42
48
61
18
62
28
60
59
Other
Mobile
21
28
31
10
22
18
25
18
17
9
26
23
25
25
22
21
20
23
18
28
26
22
19
23
28
9
29
13
29
27
Stationary
33
11
8
51
31
43
21
64
46
68
19
27
21
20
30
35
37
28
46
13
17
31
39
29
11
73
9
59
11
14
1980
LDV
42
55
55
29
33
25
44
27
26
11
46
40
45
44
39
35
37
40
26
52
49
36
32
37
52
12
57
20
53
50
Other
Mobile
20
27
32
15
16
13
22
13
13
5
24
20
23
22
20
18
19
20
15
28
23
19
16
20
27
6
29
10
28
25
Stationary
38
18
13
56
51
62
34
60
61
84
30
40
32
34
41
47
44
40
59
20
28
45
52
43
21
82
14
70
19
25
LDV
34
44
43
19
21
15
30
17
17
5
34
31
33
30
27
25
29
30
19
40
35
25
22
26
39
8
45
14
40
37
1985
Other
Mobile
25
34
39
16
16
12
24
13
13
4
28
24
27
23
22
20
23
23
18
36
25
20
17
22
31
7
36
11
33
30
Stationary
41
22
18
65
63
73
46
70
70
91
38
45
40
47
51
45
48
47
63
24
40
55
61
52
30
85
19
75
27
33
Average
47
22
31
38
20
42
28
24
50
-8-
------- |