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 t—vlw
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-

-------