EPA-AA-TEB-80-21
Air Quality Impact of Proposed 1985 and Later
Model Year Light Duty Truck and Heavy Duty Vehicle
Emissions Standards for Oxides of Nitrogen
- Summary of Results -
Mark Wolcott
July 1980
Test and Evaluation Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Environmental Protection Agency
-------
-2-
Air Quality Impact of Proposed 1985 and Later
Model Year Light Duty Truck and Heavy Duty Vehicle
Emission Standards for Oxides of Nitrogen - Summary of Results
This report describes the data, assumptions and methodology for assessing the
air quality impact of the proposed 1985 and later model year light duty truck
(LDT) and heavy duty vehicle (HDV) emission standards for oxides of nitrogen.
The proposed 0.9 gram per mile LDT and the 1.7 gram per brake horsepower hour
HDV standards were assumed to apply to 1985 and later model year vehicles in
this analysis. These standards represent a 75 percent reduction from
1972-1973 baseline NOx emissions. Those scenarios dealing with the proposed
standards are referred to hereafter as the control case. The base case, with
which the control case is compared, assumes no further standards beyond what
has already been promulgated.
Emission Factors
The Mobile Source Emission Factors document (Reference 1) and its associated
computer model, MOBILE1, were the primary sources for the highway vehicle
emission rates used in this analysis. A few emission factor assumptions were
modified to meet the requirements of this analysis. Corresponding changes
were made to the computer model, MOBILE1. The modifications are documented in
Reference 2. Briefly, the mobile source emission factor assumptions used in
the current analysis include the following:
1. Light duty vehicle emission factors were assumed to be identical to
those presented in the March, 1978 Mobile Source Emission Factors document.
2. Light duty diesel passenger vehicle and truck emission factors were
assumed to be identical to their gasoline counterparts. (The air quality
analysis will be redone using actual diesel emission factor rates in time for
final rulemaking. The rates are not presently available in MOBILE1.)
3. Inspection maintenance programs were assumed not to change NOx
emission factor rates.
4. Parameter adjustment regulations were assumed not to change NOx
emission factor rates.
5. Light duty truck, heavy duty gas truck (HDG), and heavy duty diesel
truck (HDD) emission rates were changed from those presented in the March,
1978 Mobile Source Emission Factors document to reflect new NOx test data.
For the control case, additional changes were made in the rates to reflect the
proposed regulations. These changes are also documented in Reference 2.
The inputs to the computer program MOBILE1 were set to the normal Federal Test
Procedure (FTP) conditions for this analysis. These are 75°F ambient
temperature and average vehicle speeds of 26, 16, and 26 miles per hour for
FTP segments 1, 2, and 3. In addition, 21 percent of vehicle mileage is
assumed to be accumulated in the cold start mode and 27 percent of vehicle
mileage is assumed to be accumulated in the hot start mode. The composite
-------
-3-
emission factors for calendar year 1976, calculated by MOBILE1, are presented
in Appendix A. These are the sane for both the base and control cases. For
the four evaluation years - 1985, 1990, 1995, and 1999 - the emission factors
for the two cases are different. The differences reflect the impact of the
proposed NOx regulations. Appendix B gives the future year emission factors.
To project future NOx emission inventories, mobile source emission ratios were
calculated for each vehicle category. These are presented in Table 1 and were
derived by dividing the emission factors projected for future calendar years
by the 1976 base year emission factor.
Inventories
The air quality control regions (AQCRs) selected for this analysis include 28
low altitude, non-California AQCRs, 4 California AQCRs and 2 high altitude
AQCRs. These 34 regions represent all of the AQCRs in which the highest
annual mean N02 concentration recorded was at least 60 percent of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for N02 (100 ug/m ). This selection
criterion was employed to obtain those AQCRs that are most likely to exceed
the N02 standard in the future, since NOx emissions are expected to increase
over time.
The National Emission Data System (NEDS) contains NOx inventory estimates for
each AQCR. (Reference 3.) Estimates are available for both mobile and
stationary emission sources. The mobile source portion of the NEDS inventory
for each AQCR was constructed using emission factors from the March, 1978
version of MOBILE1. These factors are given as the first of the two sets of
emission factors presented in Appendix A. The second set of factors presented
in that appendix corresponds to a version of MOBILE1 modified to accomodate
the revised emission estimates referred to above. The ratio of these two sets
of factors (revised emission factors divided by the 'NEDS emission factors)
were used to adjust the mobile source portion of the NEDS inventory for use in
this analysis. These ratios are presented in Table 2. The adjusted base year
inventory is presented in Appendix C.
The stationary area source emissions used in this analysis were obtained
directly from NEDS. Stationary point source emissions, however, were not
included with the base year inventory, since dispersion models have indicated
that N02 emissions from these remote sources do not influence the ambient
concentration measurements made at urban monitors. (Reference 4). Any small
contributions to annual average N02 at urban sites that may result from point
sources are assumed to be accounted for in background concentration levels.
Rollback Air Quality Model
The modified linear rollback model (ROLLBACK) was used to estimate future N02
ambient concentrations. In its simplest form, a proportional relationship is
assumed to exist between the ambient concentration of a pollutant at a
monitoring site and the total inventory of pollutants emitted in the vicinity
of that site. Thus, if emissions decline over time, ambient concentrations
are assumed to decline in the same proportion. A detailed description of
ROLLBACK is contained in Reference 5.
-------
-4-
For the base year, the air quality level that is used as input to the ROLLBACK
model is called a design value. The air quality design values that were used
represent the highest 1976 annual mean N02 concentration recorded in each of
the 34 AQCRs that were included in the study. Since more than one monitor may
be operating in a region, the monitor with the highest annual mean was chosen
to represent each AQCR. This methodology is consistent with the draft
N02 NAAQS Regulatory Analysis described in Reference 4. Based on information
in References 6 and 7, a background concentration of 8 ug/m N02 has also been
included.
Growth Rate and Stationary Source Control Assumptions
In order to project base year inventories and air quality concentration
levels, it is necessary to estimate future activity levels of pollution
sources. Two sets of growth rates were used in this analysis to provide a
range of air quality estimates. It is likely that actual future ambient
concentrations will fall within the predicted ranges. The growth rates that
were applied to the individual mobile and stationary sources are listed in
Table 3.
LDV, LDT, and off-highway vehicle miles traveled were assumed to grow at a one
percent rate in the low growth scenario and at a three percent rate in the
high growth scenario. These rates were compounded annually and are based on
historical trends. (Reference 6.) On the other hand, HDG and HDD VMT were
assumed to change at the rate of negative two and plus five percent,
respectively, in both the low and high growth rate scenarios. These heavy
duty vehicle growth rates are based on sales figures indicating that diesel
trucks are replacing gasoline powered trucks in the heavy duty fleet.
(Reference 8).
In the low growth scenario stationary area sources were assumed to grow at the
expected population annual compound growth rate of one percent. (Reference 4.)
For the high growth scenario these sources were assumed to grow at two
percent. Stationary point sources were assumed to grow at the same rate as
the real gross national product (GNP) for both the low and high growth
scenarios. GNP is expected to increase at a two and one half percent compound
annual rate. (Reference 9).
The stationary source emissions control assumptions used are described in
Reference 10 and summarized in Table 3. These new source performance
standards (NSPS) assumptions apply more stringent controls from 1983 to 1999.
Summary of Results
The region by region air quality projections for each scenario are presented
in Appendix D. Generally, when comparing emission control strategies, it is
better to focus on the relative differences in air quality levels among the
various alternatives, rather than on the absolute predictions of those levels.
A summary of the average percent reductions in expected ambient N02
concentrations from the 1976 base year is presented in Table 4. Under the
proposed NOx standards with low mobile and stationary source growth, the
ROLLBACK model predicts that 1999 concentration levels will be reduced an
-------
-5-
average of 22 percent from the 1976 base year concentrations. In the high
growth scenario, 1999 concentrations are expected to increase by 6 percent.
Without the implementation of the proposed NOx standards, however, ROLLBACK
predicts an average 6 and 36 percent increase in, respectively, the low and
high growth rate scenarios.
These reductions indicate, as shown in Table 5, that complete attainment of
the annual N02 NAAQS will occur under the proposed standard, low growth rate
scenario. However, seven AQCRs are expected to exceed the NAAQS in 1999 under
the proposed standard with the high growth scenario. On the other hand,
without the proposed standard, six AQCRs are projected exceed the NAAQS in
1999, if growth rates are low. If growth rates are high, 20 of the 34 AQCRs
analyzed will exceed the NAAQS.
In 1976, just 3 AQCRs exceeded the NAAQS. Thus, under both high and low growth
rate scenarios, the proposed NOx standards are expected to reduce
substantially the potential number of AQCRs in violation of the annual average
N02 NAAQS.
-------
-6-
Table 1
Oxides of Nitrogen Emission Factor Ratios (xlO )
Region
Low Altitude
Non-California
Projection
Strategy Year
No
Further
Standard
Proposed
Standard
California
No
Further
Standard
Proposed
Standard
High Altitude
No
Further
Standard
Proposed
Standard
80
85
90
95
99
80
85
90
95
99
80
85
90
95
99
80
85
90
95
99
80
85
90
95
99
80
85
90
95
99
LDV
LOT
HDG
HDD
76
52
45
45
45
*
*
*
*
*
72
51
48
47
47
*
*
*
*
*
92
71
68
69
69
*
*
*
*
*
83
63
57
55
55
*
62
39
28
25
78
53
44
42
41
*
*
*
*
*
86
69
65
64
64
*
67
50
41
38
96
95
94
94
94
*
90
50
31
26
92
84
77
74
73
*
81
45
30
26
98
96
94
92
92
*
92
58
43
39
96
38
86
86
86
*
81
33
21
19
82
67
60
59
59
*
63
29
20
18
100
101
102
102
102
*
93
39
25
22
* No change from "No Further Standard" strategy.
-------
-7-
Table 2
Oxides of Nitrogen Base Year Inventory Adjustments
Low Altitude
Non-California
California
High Altitude
Light Light
Duty Duty
Vehicles Trucks
1.0294
1.0227
1.0365
1.0321
Heavy
Duty
Gas
0.9424
1.0186 0.9854
1.0365 0.9388
Heavy
Duty
Diesel
1.0534
1.0625
0.9696
Off-Highway
Mobile
Sources
1.00
1.00
1.00
* Adjustment Factor = Modified 1976 MOBILE1 Emission Factor
Original 1976 MOBILE1 Emission Factor
-------
-8-
Table 3
Mobile and Stationary Source Growth Rates and
Stationary Source NSPS Control Efficiencies
Mobile Sources
Light Duty Vehicles
Light Duty Trucks
Heavy Duty Gasoline Trucks
Heavy Duty Diesel Trucks
Off-Highway Vehicles
Stationary Area Sources
Residential Oil and Gas
Commercial Coal
Commercial Oil and Gas
Industrial Coal
Industrial Oil and Gas
All Other
Stationary Point Sources
Annual
Compound
Growth
(percent)
Low
+1.0
+1.0
-2.0
+5.0
+1.0
+1.0
+1.0
+1.0
+1.0
+1.0
+1.0
+2.5
High
+3.0
+3.0
-2.0
+5.0
+3.0
+2.0
+2.0
+2.0
+2.0
+2.0
+2.0
+2.5
@
L
Control
Efficiency
(percent)
50
24
50
24
50
0
0
Assumed to apply in 1983 and later calendar years.
Mobile source control efficiencies are incorporated in the emission factors
predicted by MOBILEl and are therefore not estimated separately.
-------
-9-
Table 4
Average Percent Change in Expected
Ambient N02 Concentrations from 1976 Base Year
Projection Year
Growth Strategy 1980 1985 1990 1995 1999
Low No Further Standard -6 -12 -9 -1 +6
Proposed Standard -6 -13 -24 -25 -22
High No Further Standard -1 -2 +7 +21 +36
Proposed Standard -1 -4 -9 -3 +6
-------
-10-
Table 5
Number of Air Quality Control Regions Expected
to Exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for N02
Growth Strategy
Low . No Further Standard
Proposed Standard
High No Further Standard
Proposed Standard
Projection Year
1980 1985 1990 1995
1999
2
2
3
3
1
1
3
3
2
0
5
2
4
0
13
2
6
0
20
7
* 100 ug/nr
-------
-11-
References
1. Mobile Source Emission Factors; Final Document, EPA 400/9-78-006, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., March, 1978.
2. Wallace, J., "MOBILE1 Modifications and Emission Rate Assumptions for the
LDT and HDV NOx Regulatory Analysis", Memorandum to J. Anderson, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Michigan, June, 1980.
3. AEROS, Volume II, EPA 450/2-76-029, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1976.
4. Keyes, D. L., J. H. Wilson, and V. M. Daub, "Alternative Short-term N02
Standards: Second Round Analyses", draft report by Energy and Environmental
Analysis, Inc., submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, August 1979.
5. N. De Nevers and J. R. Morris, "Rollback Modeling: Basic and Modified",
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 25, 943, September, 1975.
6. "An Analysis of Alternative Motor Vehicle Emission Standards", prepared by
the U. S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and the U. S. Federal Energy Administration, Washington, D. C., May, 1977.
7. Nitrogen Oxides, The National Research Council, National Academy of
Sciences, Washington, D. C., 1977.
8. Draft Regulatory Analysis, Environmental Impact Statement and NOx Pollutant
Specific Study for Proposed Gaseous Emissions for 1985 and Later Model Year
Light Duty Trucks and Heavy Duty Engines, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1980.
9. Telephone conversation with J. Wilson, Energy and Environmental Analysis,
Inc., April 2, 1980.
10. Freas, W., "Data Base for Air Quality Impact Assessment of Proposed
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emission Standards", Memorandum to M. Wolcott, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Michigan, March, 1980.
-------
-12-
Appendix A
Base Year Mobile Source Emission Factor Estimates
-------
-13-
BASE CASE FOR THE NOX REG PACKAGE 5/02/80 UNMODIFIED MOBILE1 ESTIMATES
EMISSION FACTOR MODIFICATION PROFILE:
REGION MODE POLLUTANT FIRST MY LAST MY
1 2 1 1983 1999
122 1983 1999
131 1983 1999
132' 1983 1999
123 1985. ' 1999
133 1985 1999
1 43 1985 1999
153 1985 1999
24 3 1985 1999
253 1985 1999
323 1985 1999
333 1985 1999
34 3 1985 1999
353 1985 1999
12.30
DEL
0.35
4.31
0.35
4.31
0.11
0.11
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.11
0.11
0.0
0.0
ALTERED
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
*NON-METH HC EMISSION FACTORS INCLUDE EVAP. HC EMISSION FACTORS
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1976 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: 49-STATE 19.6/19.6/19.6 MPH (19.6) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
NON-METH HC:
EXHAUST CO:
EXHAUST NOx:
LDV
7.42
64.80
3.40
LDT1
8.16
62.01
3.15
LDT2
9.45
71.59
4.71
HDG
25.38
275.51
10.77
HDD
4.20
32.12
20.98
MC
10.30
36.29
0.13
ALL MODES
8.31
73.36
4.32
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1976 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: CALIF. 19.6/19.6/19.6 MPH (19.6) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
NON-METH HC:
EXHAUST CO:
EXHAUST NOx:
LDV
7.52
61.63
3.08
LDT1
8.03
68.77
3.21
LDT2
11.46
81.66
5.37
HDG
27.59
272.52
10.24
HDD
3.92
30.91
20.80
MC
10.08
37.14
0.13
ALL MODES
8.59
71.62
4.08
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1976 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: HI-ALT. 19.6/19.6/19.6 MPH (19.6) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
LDV
NON-METH HC: 9.59
EXHAUST CO: 97.56
EXHAUST NOx: 2.19
LDT1
10.39
100.99
2.14
LDT2
11.83
125.85
3.34
HDG
33.99
414.32
6.86
HDD
5.24
51.98
12.48
MC
13.52
50.53
0.08
ALL MODES
10.75
112.00
2.77
-------
-14-
BASE CASE FOR THE NOX REG PACKAGE 5/02/80
REVISED MOBILE1 ESTIMATES
EMISSION FACTOR MODIFICATION PROFILE:
REGION MODE POLLUTANT FIRST MY LAST MY
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
4
5
4
5
2
3
4
5
1
2
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1983
1983
1983
1983
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
7.30
13.00
12.30
DEL
0.35
4.31
0.35
4.31
0.11
0.11
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.11
0.11
0.0
0.0
ALTERED
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
*NON-METH HC EMISSION FACTORS INCLUDE EVAP. HC EMISSION FACTORS
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1976 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: 49-STATE 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS
NON-METH HC:
EXHAUST CO:
EXHAUST NOx:
LDV
7.19
62.45
3.50
LDT1
7.91
65.83
3.47
LDT2
10.72
79.36
5.54
HDG
21.00
252.55
10.15
(GM/MILE)
HDD
4.10
11.28
22.10
MC
10.72
35.23
0.14
ALL MODES
7.98
70.46
4.47
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1976 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: CALIF. 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
NON-METH HC:
EXHAUST CO:
EXHAUST NOx:
LDV
7.26
59.22
3.15
LDT1
7.76
65.84
3.29
LDT2
11.09
78.24
5.45
HDG
26.91
266.98
10.09
HDD
4.33
30.27
22.10
MC
10.42
36.05
0.14
ALL MODES
8.32
69.05
4.18
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1976 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: HI-ALT. 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
LDV
NON-METH HC: 9.30
EXHAUST CO: 92.98
EXHAUST NOx: 2*27
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC ALL MODES
10.09 13.95 40.05 5.82 13.96 10.92
96.35 120.54 405.38 50.93 48.62 107.31
2.22 3.46 6.44 12.10 0.08 2.82
-------
-15-
Appendix B
Future Mobile Source Emission Factor Estimates
-------
-16-
BASE CASE FOR THE NOX REG PACKAGE 5/02/80
EMISSION FACTOR MODIFICATION PROFILE:
REGION MODE POLLUTANT FIRST MY LAST.MY
-1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
4
5
4
5
2
3
4
5
I
2
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1983
1983
1983
1983
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1999
1999
1999
'1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
DEL
0.35
4.31
0.35
4.31
0.11
0.11
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.11
0.11
0.0
0.0
ALTERED
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
*NON-METH HC EMISSION FACTORS INCLUDE EVAP. HC EMISSION FACTORS
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1976 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.303/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: 49-STATE 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
NON-METH HC:
EXHAUST CO:
EXHAUST NOx:
LDV
7.19
62.45
3.50
LDT1
7.91
65.83
3.47
LDT2
10.72
79.36
5.54
HDG
21.00
252.55
10.15
HDD
4.10
11.28
22.10
MC
10.72
35.23
0.14
ALL MODES
7.98
70.46
4.47
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1980 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: 49-STATE 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS
NON-METH HC:
EXHAUST CO:
EXHAUST NOx:
LDV
4.77
47.07
2.66
LDT1
5.89
57.14
2.73
LDT2
8.75
73.17
4.71
HDG
18.22
256.29
9.76
(GM/MILE)
HDD
4.10
11.28
21.20
MC
7.17
26.44
0.26
ALL MODES
5.66
57.37
3.67
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1985 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: 49-STATE 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECU. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
LDV
30N-METH HC: 1.88
EXHAUST CO: 17.17
EXHAUST NOx: 1.81
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC ALL MODES
3.44 4.91 12.43 3.69 1.97 2.67
37.69 46.48 221.91 11.28 7.91 29.05
2.42 3.28 9.62 19.39 0.47 2.82
-------
-17-
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1990 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: 49-STATE 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS
NON-METH HC:
EXHAUST CO:
EXHAUST NOx:
LDV
1.00
9.39
1.59
LDT1
2.46
29.28
2.39
LDT2
3.10
34.03
2.75
HDG
6.07
105.62
9.59
(GM/MILE)
HDD
2.86
11.28
19.00
MC
0.46
3.36
0.18
ALL MODES
1.49
16.33
2.60
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1995 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: 49-STATE 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
NON-METH HC:
EXHAUST CO :
EXHAUST NOx:
LDV
0.85
7.83
1.57
LDT1
2.12
26.83
2.41
LDT2
2.47
30.16
2.57
HDG
3.27
56.72
9.53
HDD
2.68
11.28
18.92
MC
0.31
2.87
0.16
ALL MODES
1.18
12.51
2.57
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1999 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: 49-STATE 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
NON-METH HC:
EXHAUST CO:
EXHAUST NOx:
LDV
0.82
7.58
1.57
LDT1
2.03
26.03
2.43
LDT2
2.21
28.40
2.51
HDG
2.21
40.13
9.54
HDD
2.64
11.28
18.90
MC
0.31
2.87
0.16
ALL MODES
1.09
11.41
2.56
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1976 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: CALIF. 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
LDV
NON-METH HC: 7.26
EXHAUST CO: 59.22
EXHAUST NOx: 3.15
LDT1
7.76
65.84
3.29
LDT2
11.09
78.24
5.45
HDG
26.91
266.98
10.09
HDD
4.33
30.27
22.10
MC
10.42
36.05
0.14
ALL MODES
8.32
69.05
4.18
-------
-18-
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1980 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: CALIF. 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS
NON-METH HC:
EXHAUST CO:
EXHAUST, NOx:
LDV
4.60
37.67
2.26
LDT1
5.45
53.43
2.50
LDT2
8.42
70.34
4.34
HDG
19.17
254.91
9.33
(GM/MILE)
HDD
4.39
27.88
18.04
MC
6.88
27.36
0.26
ALL MODES
5.53
49.90
3.19
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1985 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.053/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: CALIF. 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
NON-METH HC:
EXHAUST CO:
EXHAUST NOx:
LDV
1.79
15.14
1.61
LDT1
2.63
26.40
1.93
LDT2
4.09
39.07
2.67
HDG
11.11
193.16
8.49
HDD
3.68
27.20
14.30
MC
1.48
8.46
0.47
ALL MODES
2.45
25.53
2.40
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1990 " TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: CALIF. 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS
NON-METH HC:
EXHAUST CO:
EXHAUST NOx:
LDV
1.00
10.05
1.50
LDT1
1.63
15.91
1.66
LDT2
2.24
21.70
2.15
HDG
5.91
93.40
7.74
(GM/MILE)
HDD
2.97
27.02
13.37
MC
0.40
3.46
0.18
ALL MODES
1.39
15.31
2.19
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1995 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: CALIF. 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
NON-METH HC:
EXHAUST CO:
EXHAUST NOx:
LDV
0.86
8.79
1.49
LDT1
1.25
12.28
1.63
LDT2
1.51
15.53
2.01
HDG
3.13
52.57
7.45
HDD
2.83
27.00
13.06
MC
0.31
2.87
0.16
ALL MODES
1.08
11.88
2.15
-------
-19-
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1999 TEMP: 75.0(F) . 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: CALIF. 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/-20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 302, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
NON-METH HC:
EXHAUST CO:
EXHAUST NOx:
LDV
0.83
8.60
1.49
LDT1
1.17
11.12
1.62
LDT2
1.29
12.60
2.00
HDG
2.27
38.16
7.37
HDD
2.80
27.00
13.01
MC
0.31
2.87
0.16
ALL MODES
1.00
10.85
2.14
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1976 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: HI-ALT. 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
NON-METH HC:
EXHAUST CO:
EXHAUST NOx:
LDV
9.30
92.98
2.27
LDT1
10.09
96.35
2.22
LDT2
13.95
120.54
3.46
HDG
40.05
405.38
6.44
HDD
5.82
50.93
12.10
MC
13.96
48.62
0.08
ALL MODES
10.92
107.31
2.82
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1980 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: HI-ALT. 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS
NON-METH HC:
EXHAUST CO:
EXHAUST NOx:
LDV
5.93
63.85
2.09
LDT1
7.18
75.59
1.85
LDT2
11.33
105.81
3.05
HDG
36.35
386.96
6.28
(GM/MILE)
HDD
5.93
45.73
12.16
MC
10.08
36.30
0.16
ALL MODES
7.70
80.80
2.62
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1985 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: HI-ALT. 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
LDV
NON-METH HC: 2.17
EXHAUST CO: 20.87
EXHAUST NOx: 1.62
LDT1
3.87
43.78
1.69
LDT2
5.94
57.33
2.21
HDG
20.78
275.33
6.19
HDD
4.71
39.44
12.27
MC
2.70
10.49
0.17
ALL MODES
3.40
36.29
2.19
-------
-20-
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1990 "TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: HI-ALT. 26.0/16.0/26.X) MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1*982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
NON-METH HC:
EXHAUST CO:
EXHAUST NOx:
LDV
1.05
9.90
1.55
LDT1
2.12
21.89
1.71
LDT2
3.04
28.82
1.96
HDG
9.50
119.80
6.05
HDD
3.18
29.65
12.29
MC
0.51
3.58
0.15
ALL MODES
1.67
17.22
2.11
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1995 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: HI-ALT. 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS
NON-METH HC:
EXHAUST CO:
EXHAUST NOx:
LDV
0.86
7.89
1.57
LDT1
1.52
15.16
1.75
LDT2
1.95
18.91
1.87
HDG
4.49
61.74
5.94
(GM/MILE)
HDD
2.88
27.54
12.30
MC
0.31
2.88
0.16
ALL MODES
1.18
11.96
2.12
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1999 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: HI-ALT. 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
NON-METH HC:
EXHAUST CO:
EXHAUST NOx:
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC ALL MODES
0.82 1.33 1.48 2.55 2.81 0.31 1.03
7.58 12.49 14.29 40.86 27.14 2.87 10.34
1.57 1.77 1.85 5.93 12.30 0.16 2.12
-------
-21-
CONTROL CASE FOR THE NOX REG PACKAGE 5/02/80
*NON-METH HC EMISSION FACTORS INCLUDE EVAP. HC EMISSION FACTORS
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1976 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: 49-STATE 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
NON-METH UC:
EXHAUST CO:
EXHAUST NOx:
LDV
7.19
62.45
3.50
LDT1
7.91
65.83
3.47
LDT2
10.72
79.36
5.54
HDG
21.00
252.55
10.15
HDD
4.10
11.28
22.10
MC
10.72
35.23
0.14
ALL MODES
7.98
70.46
4.47
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1980 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: 49-STATE 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS
NON-METH HC:
EXHAUST CO:
EXHAUST NOx:
LDV
4.77
47.07
2.66
LDT1
5.89
57.14
2.73
LDT2
8.75
73.17
4.71
HDG
18.22
256.29
9.76
(GM/MILE)
HDD
4.10
11.28
21.20
MC
7.17
26.44
0.26
ALL MODES
5.66
57.37
3.67
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 KDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1985 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: 49-STATE 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
NON-METH HC:
EXHAUST CO:
EXHAUST NOx:
LDV
1.88
17.17
1.81
LDT1
3.21
34.18
2.31
LOT 2
4.72
43.45
3.21
HDG
12.43
221.91
9.15
HDD
3.69
11.28
17.87
MC
1.97
7.91
0.47
ALL MODES
2.65
28.67
2.74
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1990 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: 49-STATE 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
NON-METH HC:
EXHAUST CO:
EXHAUST NOx:
LDV
1.00
9.39
1.59
LDT1
1.57
16.20
1.50
LDT2
2.26
21.74
1.97
HDG
6.07
105.62
5.05
HDD
2.86
11.28
7.37
MC
0.46
3.36
0.18
ALL MODES
1.39
14.86
1.94
-------
.r-22-
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1995 'TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: 49-STATE 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS
NON-METH HC:
EXHAUST CO:
EXHAUST NOx:
LDV
0.85
7.83
1.57
LDT1
0.98
10.13
1.16
LDT2
1.28
12.91
1.38
HDG
3.27
56.72
3.18
(GM/MILE)
HDD
2.68
11.28
4.58
MC
0.31
2.87
0.16
ALL MODES
1.05
10.54
1.70
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1999 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: 49-STATE 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS
NON-METH HC:
EXHAUST CO:
EXHAUST NOx:
LDV
0.82
7.58
1.57
LDT1
0.76
7.56
1.08
LDT2
0.83
8.50
- 1.17
HDG
2.21
40.13
2.69
(GM/MILE)
HDD
2.64
11.28
4.14
MC
0.31
2.87
0.16
ALL MODES
0.94
9.18
1.64
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1976 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
.REGION: CALIF. 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999 -
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS
NON-METH HC:
EXHAUST CO:
EXHAUST NOx:
LDV
7.26
59.22
3.15
LDT1
7.76
65.84
3.29
LDT2
11.09
78.24
5.45
HDG
26.91
266.98
10.09
(GM/MILE)
HDD
4.33
30.27
22.10
MC
10.42
36.05
0.14
ALL MODES
8.32
69.05
4.18
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1980 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: CALIF. 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
NON-METH HC:
EXHAUST CO:
EXHAUST NOx:
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC ALL MODES
4.60 5.45 8.42 19.17 4.39 6.88 5.53
37.67 53.43 70.34 254.91 27.88 27.36 49.90
2.26 2.50 4.34 9.33 18.04 0.26 3.19
-------
-23-
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1985 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: CALIF. 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
NON-METH HC:
EXHAUST CO:
EXHAUST NOx:
LDV
1.79
15.14
1.61
LDT1
2.63
26.21
1.93
LDT2
4.08
38.85
2.67
HDG
11.11
193.16
8.15
HDD
3.68
27.20
13.88
MC
1.48
8.46
0.47
ALL MODES
2.45
25.51
2.36
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1990 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: CALIF. 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS
NON-METH HC:
EXHAUST CO :
EXHAUST NOx:
LDV
1.00
10.05
1.50
LDT1
1.35
13.12
1.66
LDT2
1.97
18.98
2.15
HDG
5.91
93.40
4.55
(GM/MILE)
HDD
2.97
27.02
6.33
MC
0.40
3.46
0.18
ALL MODES
1.36
14.99
1.82
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1995 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: CALIF. 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS
NON-METH HC:
EXHAUST CO:
EXHAUST NOx:
LDV
0.86
8.79
1.49
LDT1
0.86
8.38
1.63
LDT2
1.07
11.30
2.01
HDG
3.13
52.57
3.02
(GM/MILE)
HDD
2.83
27.00
4.39
MC
0.31
2.87
0.16
ALL MODES
1.03
11.41
1.68
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1999 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: CALIF. 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
NON-METH HC:
EXHAUST CO:
EXHAUST NOx:
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC ALL MODES
0.83 0.71 0.76 2.27 2.80 0.31 0.95
8.60 6.71 7.60 38.16 27.00 2.87 10.31
1.49 1.62 2.00 2.61 4.07 0.16 1.65
-------
. X J.-.-.'
-24-
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1976 TEMP: 75.0(F) . 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: HI-ALT. 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.b/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
NON-METH HC:
EXHAUST CO:
EXHAUST NOx:
LDV
9.30
92.98
2.27
LDT1
10.09
96.35
2.22
LDT2
13.95
120.54
3.46
HDG
40.05
405.38
6.44
HDD
5.82
50.93
12.10
MC
13.96
48.62
0.08
ALL MODES
10.92
107.31
2.82
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1980 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: HI-ALT. 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS
NON-METH HC:
EXHAUST CO:
EXHAUST NOx:
LDV
5.93
63.85
2.09
LDT1
7.18
75.59
1.85
LDT2
11.33
105.81
3.05
HDG
36.35
386.96
6.28
(GM/MILE)
HDD
5.93
45.73
12.16
MC
10.08
36.30
0.16
ALL MODES
7.70
80.80
2.62
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1985 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: HI-ALT. 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS
NON-METH HC:
EXHAUST CO:
EXHAUST NOx:
LDV
2.17
20.87
1.62
LDT1
3.81
43.19
1.64
LDT2
5.88
56.74
2.18
HDG
20.78
275.33
5.94
(GM/MILE)
HDD
4.71
39.44
11.28
MC
2.70
10.49
0.17
ALL MODES
3.40
36.22
2.14
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1990 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: HI-ALT. 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
NON-METH HC:
EXHAUST CO:
EXHAUST NOx:
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC ALL MODES
1.05 1.76 2.70 9.50 3.18 0.51 1.63
9.90 18.89 25.88 119.80 29.65 3.58 16.88
1.55 1.26 1.56 3.72 4.72 0.15 1.72
-------
-25-
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HOD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1995 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: HI-ALT. 26'.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS
NON-METH HC:
EXHAUST CO:
EXHAUST NOx:
LDV
0.86
7.89
1.57
LDT1
1.03
11.17
1.09
LDT2
1.43
14.57
1.24
HDG
4.49
61.74
2.75
(GM/MILE)
HDD
2. CS
27.54
2.97
MC
0.31
2.88
0.16
KLL MODES
1.12
11.47
1.61
VEH. TYPE: LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC
CAL. YEAR: 1999 TEMP: 75.0(F) 0.803/0.058/0.058/0.045/0.031/0.005
REGION: HI-ALT. 26.0/16.0/26.0 MPH (20.0) 20.6/ 27.3/ 20.6
LDV I/M PROGRAM STARTING IN 1982, STRINGENCY LEVEL 30%, MECH. TRAINING: NO
I/M PROG. BENEFITS APPLY ONLY TO MODEL YEARS 1951 THROUGH 1999
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS (GM/MILE)
LDV LDT1 LDT2 HDG HDD MC ALL MODES
NON-METH HC: 0.82 0.78 0.86 2.55 2.81 0.31 0.96
EXHAUST CO: 7.58 8.01 9.20 40.86 27.14 2.87 9.78
EXHAUST NOx: 1.57 1.05 1.13 2.50 2.69 0.16 1.58
-------
-26-
Appendix C
Adjusted Base Year Emission Inventories
-------
DISTRIBUTION OF MOBILE AND POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS
FOR NITROGEN DIOXIDE
(1000 TONS/YR)
AQCR
4
15
la
42
43
45
47
56
67
76
79
80
85
115
119
122
REGION NAME
BIRMINGHAM
PHOENIX-TUCSON
MEMPHIS
HARTFORD
NY-NJ-CONN
PHILADELPHIA
NAT. CAPITAL
ATLANTA
CHICAGO
LOUISVILLE
CINCINNATI
INDIANAPOLIS
OMAHA
BALTIMORE
BOSTON
CENT MICHIGAN
N02
.04
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.06
.04
.05
.04
.03
.04
.05
.05
LDV
23.8
I 37.3)
19.1 ;
( 30.1)
15.3
( 36.0)
55.4
( 38.1)
186.6
( 36.1)
93.1
( 37.6)
59.5
( 43.2)
48.7
( 44.4)
115.0
( 36.7)
14.7
( 27.4)
32.1
< 35.5) '
29.9
I 40.6)
10.2
( 27.0)
37.5
( 44.5)
44.4
( 38.3)
52.5
( 47.9)
LTRUCKS
4.6
( 7.2)
3.7
1 5.8)
3.0
C 7.1)
10.7
( 7.4)
36.5
( 7.1)
18.3
( 7.4)
11. B
( 8.6)
9.7
( 8.8)
22.8
( 7.3)
2.9
< 5.4)
6.2
< 6.9)
5.9
( 8.0)
2.0
< 5.3)
7.4
( 8.8)
8.6
< 7.4)
10.4
( 9.5)
HDV GAS
(
<
(
(
f
(
C
(
<
(
1
(
<
(
(
(
7.0
11.0)
.2
.3)
1.8
4.2)
5.8
4.0)
21.8.
4.2)
21.5
8.7)
9. a
7.1)
3.3
3.0)
37.6
12.0)
2.6
4.9)
4.2
4.6)
5.9
8.0)
4.1
10.8)
6.5
7.7)
7.3
6.3)
10.7
9,H)
HDV DIE
(
(
(
(
1
<
<
1
i
i
(
(
(
<
<
I
9.0
14.1)
16.2
25.6)
8.4
19.8)
11.2
7.7)
55.5
10.7)
36.9
14.9)
14.3
10.4)
18.4
16.8)
37.9
12.1)
6.4
11.9)
12.4
13.7)
12.2
16.6)
6.2
16.4)
8.6
10.2)
8.3
7.2)
9.7
8.9)
OTHER
13.8
C 21.6)
17.6
( 27.8)
11.4
( 26.8)
30.8
( 21.2)
88.7
( 17.2)
47.7
C 19.3)
29.3
( 21.3)
1H.1
( 16.5)
31.3
< 10.0)
21.0
( 39.2)
23.8
( 26.3)
8.7
( 11.8)
10.8
( 28.6)
17.1
( 20.3)
14.9
( 12.8)
16.1
( 14.7)
NON-HIGHWAY REGION TOTAL
.0
( .0)
.0
( .0)
.0
( .0)
.0
( .0)
.0
( .0)
.0
( .or
.0
( .0)
.0
( .0)
.0
( .0)
.0
( .0)
.0
( .0)
.0
< .0)
.0
( .0)
.0
( .0)
.0
< .0)
.0
( .0)
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
1
(
<
(
(
(
,
(
<
5.6
8.8)
6.6
10. 4>
2.6
6.1)
31.6
21.7)
127.2
24.6)
30.0
12.1)
13.0
9.4)
11.5
10.5)
69.0
22.0)
6.0
11.2)
11.7
12.9)
11.1
15.1)
4.5
11.9)
7.2
8*. 5)
32.5
28.0)
10.2
9.3)
63.8
63.4
42.5
_14S.S
516.3
247.5
137.7
to
109.7 '
313.6
53.6
90.4
73.7
37.8
84.3
116.0
109.6
-------
1*
!*
DISTRIBUTION OF MOBILE AND POINT bOUHCE EMISSIONS
FOH NITROGEN DIOXIDE
UOOO TONS/YH)
9 AQCR
f 123
^ 125
% 131
^ 167
173
174
^ 178
^ 1 208
9 215
* 216
«» 229
^ 239
-------
DISTRIBUTION OF MOHILE AND POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS
AOCR REGION NAME NO?
36 DENVER .05
220 WASATCH FRONT .04
TOTALS
PERCENT TOTALS
LOV
18.4
( 30.0)
11.6
1672.9
I 3B.8)
FOW NITROGEN OIOXIUE
<1000 TONS/YR)
LTRUCKS
HDV GAS
HDV DIE
OTHER
NON-HIGHWAY
3.5
( 5.7)
2.2
( 4.4)
331.9
( 7.7)
5.7
9.3)
2.5
5.1)
297.7
( 6.9)
5.3
( 8.6)
5.1
( 10.3)
545.3
( 12.6)
18.2
( 29.6)
17.6
( 35.6)
649.8
( 19.7)
.0
.0)
.0
.0)
.0
.0)
10.3
( 16.8)
10.S
( 21.2)
617.5
( 14.3)
REGION TOTAL
61.4
49.5
4315.1
I
N)
-------
-30-
Appendix D
Regional Air Quality Projections
-------
-31-
LINEAR
STRATEGY: i BASE
ROLLBACK
GROWTH RATE SCENARIO: 1 LO
N02 AIR QUALITY CONCENTRATION ( PPM) AND VIOLATIONS
(STANDARD IS .05 PPM)
PROJECTED
REGION
004 BIRMINGHAM
015 PHOENIX-TUCSON
018 MEMPHIS
042 HARTFORD
043 NY-NJ-CONN
045 PHILADELPHIA
047 NAT. CAPITAL
056 ATLANTA
067 CHICAGO
078 LOUISVILLE
079 CINCINNATI
080 INDIANAPOLIS
085 OMAHA
115 BALTIMORE
119 BOSTON
122 CENT MICHIGAN
123 DETROIT
125 SOUTH MICHIGAN
131 .MINNEAPOLIS
167 CHARLOTTE
173 DAYTON
174 CLEVELAND
178 YOUNGSTOWN
208 MIDDLE TENN
215 DALLAS-FTWOPTH
216 HOUSTON
229 PUGET SOUND
239 SE WISCONSIN
024 LOS ANGELES
028 SACRAMENTO
029 SAN DIEGO
030 SAN FRANCISCO
036 DENVER
220 WASATCH FRONT
AVERAGE PERCENT CHANGE
NO. OF CITIES'ABOVE STD
TOTAL NO. OF VIOLATIONS
B
YEAR
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
NGE
STD
IONS
A S
CONG
.04
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.06
.04
.05
.04
.03
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.03
.05
.04
.04
.04
.05
.04
.03
.07
.03
06
.04
.05
.04
E
BKGD
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
1980
CONC
.04
.04
.05
.04
.05
.04
.04
.03
.06
.04
.05
.04
.03
.03
.04
.04
.05
.03
.03
.04
.03
.04
.04
.03
.04
.04
.04
.03
.06
.03
.05
.03
.05
.04
NUMB
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
-6.
2
2
-------
-32-
LINEAR
STRATEGY: i BASE
ROLLBACK
GROWTH RATE SCENARIO: 1 LO
N02 AIR QUALITY CONCENTRATION ( PPM) AND VIOLATIONS
(STANDARD IS .05 PPM)
PROJECTED
REGION
004 BIRMINGHAM
015 PHOENIX-TUCSON
018 MEMPHIS
042 HARTFORD
043 NY-NJ-CONN
045 PHILADELPHIA
047 NAT. CAPITAL
056 ATLANTA
067 CHICAGO
078 LOUISVILLE
079 CINCINNATI
080 INDIANAPOLIS
085 OMAHA
115 BALTIMORE
119 BOSTON
122 CENT MICHIGAN
123 DETROIT
125 SOUTH MICHIGAN
131 MINNEAPOLIS
167 CHARLOTTE
173 DAYTON
174 CLEVELAND
178 YOUNGSTOWN
208 MIDDLE TENN
215 DALLAS-FTWORTH
216 HOUSTON
229 PUGET SOUND
239 SE WISCONSIN
024 LOS ANGELES
028 SACRAMENTO
029 SAN DIEGO
030 SAN FRANCISCO
036 DENVER
220 WASATCH FRONT
AVERAGE PERCENT CHANGE
NO. OF CITIES ABOVE STD
TOTAL NO. OF VIOLATIONS
B
YEAR
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
XNGE
L STD
riONS
A S E
CONG
.04
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.06
.04
.05
.04
.03
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.03
.05
.04
.04
.04
.05
.04
.03
.07
.03
.06
.04
.05
.04
1985
BKGD
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
CONC
.04
.04
.05
.04
.04
.04
.04
.03
.05
.04
.05
.03
.03
.03
.04
.04
.04
.03
.03
.03
.03
.04
.03
.03
.03
.04
.04
.03
.06
.03
.04
.03
.05
.04
NUMB
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
-12.
1
1
"IT"
-------
-33-
LINEAR
STRATEGY: i BASE
ROLLBACK
GROWTH RATE SCENARIO: 1 LO
N02 AIR QUALITY CONCENTRATION ( PPM> AND VIOLATIONS
(STANDARD IS .05 PPM)
PROJECTED
REGION
004 BIRMINGHAM
015 PHOENIX-TUCSON
018 MEMPHIS
042 HARTFORD
043 NY-NJ-CONN
045 PHILADELPHIA
047 NAT. CAPITAL
056 ATLANTA
067 CHICAGO
078 LOUISVILLE
079 CINCINNATI
080 INDIANAPOLIS
085 OMAHA
115 BALTIMORE
119 BOSTON
122 CENT MICHIGAN
123 DETROIT
125 SOUTH MICHIGAN
131 MINNEAPOLIS
167 CHARLOTTE
173 DAYTON
174 CLEVELAND
178 YOUNGSTOWN
208 MIDDLE TENN
215 DALLAS-FTWORTH
216 HOUSTON
229 PUGET SOUND
239 SE WISCONSIN
024 LOS ANGELES
028 SACRAMENTO
029 SAN DIEGO
0130 %AN FRANCISCO
036 DENVER
220 WASATCH FRONT
AVERAGE PERCENT CHANGE
NO. OF CITIES ABOVE STO
TOTAL NO. OF VIOLATIONS
B
YEAR
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
NGE
STO
IONS
A S
CONC
.04
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.06
.04
.05
.04
.03
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.03
.05
.04
.04
.04
.05
.04
.03
.07
.03
.06
.04
05
.04
E
BKGD
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
1990
CONC
.04
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.04
.03
.05
.04
.05
.03
.03
.03
.04
.04
.05
.03
.03
.04
.03
.04
.04
.03
.03
.04
.04
.03
.06
.03
.04
.03
.06
.05
NUMB
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
-9.
2
2
-------
-34-
LINEAR
STRATEGY: i BASE
ROLLBACK
GROWTH RATE SCENARIO: 1 LO
N02 AIR QUALITY CONCENTRATION ( PPM) AND VIOLATIONS
(STANDARD IS .05 PPM)
PROJECTED
REGION
004 BIRMINGHAM
015 PHOENIX-TUCSON
018 MEMPHIS
042 HARTFORD
043 NY-NJ-CONN
045 PHILADELPHIA
047 NAT. CAPITAL
056 ATLANTA
067 CHICAGO
078 LOUISVILLE
079 CINCINNATI
080 INDIANAPOLIS
085 OMAHA
115 BALTIMORE
119 BOSTON
122. CENT MICHIGAN
123 DETROIT
125 SOUTH MICHIGAN
131 MINNEAPOLIS
167 CHARLOTTE
173 DAYTON
174 CLEVELAND
178 YOUNGSTOWN
208 MIDDLE TENN
215 DALLAS-FTWORTH
216 HOUSTON
229 PUGET SOUND
239 SE WISCONSIN
024 LOS ANGELES
028 SACRAMENTO
029 SAN DJEGO
030 SAN FRANCISCO
036 DENVER
220 WASATCH FRONT
AVERAGE PERCENT CHANGE
NO. OF CITIES ABOVE STD
TOTAL NO. OF VIOI
B
YEAR
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
197b
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
iNGE
: STD
'IONS
A S E
CONC
.04
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.06
.04
.05
.04
.03
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.03
.05
.04
.04
.04
.05
.04
.03
.07
.03
.06
.04
.05
.04
1995
BKGD
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
CONC
.04
.05
.06
.04
.05
.04
.04
.04
.06
.05
.05
.04
.04
.03
.04
.04
.05
.03
.04
.04
.03
.05
.04
.04
.04
.05
.04
.03
.06
.03
.05
.03
.06
.05
NUMB
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
-1.
4
4
-------
LINEAR
STRATEGY: i BASE
-35-
ROLLBACK
GROWTH RATE SCENARIO: 1 LO
N02 AIR QUALITY CONCENTRATION ( PPM) AND VIOLATIONS
(STANDARD IS .05 PPM)
PROJECTED
REGION
004 BIRMINGHAM
015 PHOENIX-TUCSON
018 MEMPHIS
042 HARTFORD
043 NY-NJ-CONN
045 PHILADELPHIA
047 NAT. CAPITAL
056 ATLANTA
067 CHICAGO
078 LOUISVILLE
079 CINCINNATI
080 INDIANAPOLIS
085 OMAHA
115 BALTIMORE
119 BOSTON
122 CENT MICHIGAN
123 DETROIT
125 SOUTH MICHIGAN
131 MINNEAPOLIS
167 CHARLOTTE
173 DAYTON
174 CLEVELAND
178 YOUNGSTOWN
208 MIDDLE TENN
215 DALLAS-FTWORTH
216 HOUSTON
229 PUGET SOUND
239 SE WISCONSIN
024 LOS ANGELES
028 SACRAMENTO
029 SAN DIEGO
030 SAN FRANCISCO
036 DENVER
220 WASATCH FRONT
AVERAGE PERCENT
NO. OF CITIES ABOVE STD
TOTAL NO. OF VIOLATIONS
B
YEAR
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
>NGE
: STD
'IONS
A S E
CONC
.04
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.06
.04
.05
.04
.03
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.03
.05
.04
.04
.04
.05
.04
.03
.07
.03
.06
.04
.05
.04
BKGD
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
1999
CONC NUMB
.05
.06
.06
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.06
.05
.06
.04
.04
.03
.04
.04
.05
.03
.04
.04
.04
.05
.04
.04
.04
.05
.04
.03
.07
.03
.05
.03
.06
.05
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
6.
6
6
-------
-36-
LINEAR
STRATEGY: i CONTROL
ROLLBACK
GROWTH RATE SCENARIO: 1 LO
N02 AIR QUALITY CONCENTRATION ( PPM) AND VIOLATIONS
(STANDARD IS .05 PPM)
PROJECTED
REGION
004 BIRMINGHAM
015 PHOENIX-TUCSON
018 MEMPHIS
042 HARTFORD
043 NY-NJ-CONN
045 PHILADELPHIA
047 NAT. CAPITAL
056 ATLANTA
067 CHICAGO
078 LOUISVILLE
079 CINCINNATI
080 INDIANAPOLIS
085 OMAHA
115 BALTIMORE
119 BOSTON
122 CENT MICHIGAN
123 DETROIT
125 SOUTH MICHIGAN
131 MINNEAPOLIS
167 CHARLOTTE
173 DAYTON
174 CLEVELAND
178 YOUNGSTOWN
208 MIDDLE TENN
215 OALLAS-FTWORTH
216 HOUSTON
229 PUGET SOUND
239 SE WISCONSIN
024 LOS ANGELES
028 SACRAMENTO
029 SAN DIEGO
030 SAN FRANCISCO
036 DENVER
220 WASATCH FRONT
AVERAGE PERCENT CHANGE
NO. OF CITIES ABOVE STD
TOTAL NO. OF VIOLATIONS
B
YEAR
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
kNGE
STD
riONS
A S E
CONC
.04
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.06
04
.05
.04
.03
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.03
.05
.04
.04
.04
.05
.04
.03
.07
.03
.06
.04
.05
.04
3KGD
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
1980
CONC NUMB
.04
.04
.05
.04
.05
.04
.04
.03
.06
.04
.05
.04
.03
.03
.04
.04
.05
.03
.03
.04
.03
.04
.04
.03
.04
.04
.04
.03
.06
.03
.05
.03
.05
.04
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
-6.
2
2
-------
-37-
4 LINEAR
STRATEGY: i CONTROL
ROLLBACK
GROWTH RATE SCENARIO: 1 LO
N02 AIR QUALITY CONCENTRATION ( PPM) AND VIOLATIONS
(STANDAHD IS .05 PPM)
PROJECTED
REGION
004 BIRMINGHAM
015 PHOENIX-TUCSON
018 MEMPHIS
042 HARTFORD
043 NY-NJ-CONN
045 PHILADELPHIA
047 NAT. CAPITAL
056 ATLANTA
067 CHICAGO
078 LOUISVILLE
079 CINCINNATI
080 INDIANAPOLIS
085 OMAHA
115 BALTIMORE
119 BOSTON
122 CENT MICHIGAN
123 DETROIT
125 SOUTH MICHIGAN
131 MINNEAPOLIS
167 CHARLOTTE
173 DAYTON
174 CLEVELAND
178 YOUNGSTOWN
208 MIDDLE TENN
215 DALLAS-FTWORTH
216 HOUSTON
229 PUGET SOUND
239 SE WISCONSIN
624 LOS -ANGELES
028 SACRAMENTO
029 SAN DIEGO
030 SAN FRANCISCO
036 DENVER
220 WASATCH FRONT
AVERAGE PERCENT CHANGE
NO. OF CITIES ABOVE STD
TOTAL NO. OF VIOLATIONS
B
YEAR
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
iNGE
: STD
'IONS
A S E
CONG
.04
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.06
.04
.05
.04
.03
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.03
.05
.04
.04
.04
.05
.04
.03
.07
.03
.06
.04
.05
.04
1985
BKGO
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
CONC
.04
.04
.05
.04
.04
.04
.04
.03
.05
.04
.05
.03
.03
.03
.04
.04
.04
.03
.03
.03
.03
.04
.03
.03
.03
.04
.03
.03
.06
.03
.04
.03
.05
.04
.
NUMB
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
-13.
1
1
-------
LINEAR
STRATEGY: i CONTROL
-38-
ROLLBACK 5>
GROWTH RATE SCENARIO: 1 LO
N02 AIR QUALITY CONCENTRATION ( PPM) AND VIOLATIONS
(STANDARD IS .05 PPM)
PROJECTED
REGION
004 BIRMINGHAM
015 PHOENIX-TUCSON
018 MEMPHIS
042 HARTFORD
043 NY-NJ-CONN
045 PHILADELPHIA
047 NAT. CAPITAL
056 ATLANTA
067 CHICAGO
078 LOUISVILLE
079 CINCINNATI
080 INDIANAPOLIS
085 OMAHA
115 BALTIMORE
119 BOSTON
122 CENT MICHIGAN
123 DETROIT
125 SOUTH MICHIGAN
131 MINNEAPOLIS
167 CHARLOTTE
173 DAYTON
174 CLEVELAND
178 YOUNGSTOWN
208 MIDDLE TENN
£15 DALLAS-FTWORTH
216 HOUSTON
229 PUGET SOUND
239 SE WISCONSIN
024 LOS ANGELES
028. SACRAMENTO
029 SAN DIEGO
030 SAN FRANCISCO
036 DENVER
220 rfASATCH FRONT
AVERAGE PERCENT CHANGE
NO. OF CITIES ABOVE STD
TOTAL NO. OF'VIOLATIONS
B
YEAR
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
INGE
: STD
FIONS
A S E
CONC
.04
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
04
.04
.06
.04
.05
.04
.03
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.03
.05
.04
.04
.04
.05
.04
.03
.07
.03
.06
.04
.05
.04
1990
BKGD
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.0.04
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
CONC
.03
.03
.04
.04
.04
.03
.03
.03
.04;
.04
.04
.03
.03
.03
.04
.03
.04
.03
.03
.03
.03
.04
.03
.03
.03
.04
.03
.02
.05
.02
.04
.03
.05
.04
.
NUMB
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-24.
0
o
-------
LINEAR
STRATEGY: i CONTROL
-39-
ROLLBACK
GROWTH RATE SCENARIO: 1 LO
N02 AIR QUALITY CONCENTRATION < PPM) AND VIOLATIONS
(STANDARD IS .05 PPM)
PROJECTED
R EG ION
004 BIRMINGHAM
015 PHOENIX-TUCSON
018 MEMPHIS
042 HARTFORD
043 NY-NJ-CONN
045 PHILADELPHIA
047 NAT. CAPITAL
056 ATLANTA
067 CHICAGO
078 LOUISVILLE
079 CINCINNATI
080 INDIANAPOLIS
085 OMAHA
115 BALTIMORE
119 BOSTON
122 CENT MICHIGAN
123 DETROIT
125 SOUTH MICHIGAN
131 MINNEAPOLIS
167 CHARLOTTE
173 DAYTON
174 CLEVELAND
178 YOUNGSTOWN
208 MIDDLE TENN
215 DALLAS-FTWORTH
216 HOUSTON
229 PUGET SOUND
239 SE WISCONSIN
024 LOS ANGELES
028 SACRAMENTO
029 SAN DIEGO
030 SAN FRANCISCO
036 DENVER
220 WASATCH FRONT
AVERAGE PERCENT CHANGE
NO. OF CITIES ABOVE STD
TOTAL NO. OF VIOLATIONS
B
YEAR
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
WGE
'. STD
PIONS
A S E
CONC
.04
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.06
.04
.05
.04
.03
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.03
.05
.04
.04
.04
.05
.04
.03
.07
.03
.06
.04
.05
.04
1995
BKGD
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
CONC
.03
.03
.04
.04
.04
.03
.03
.03
.04
.04
.04
.03
.03
.03
.04
.03
.04
.03
.03
.03
.03
.04
.03
.03
.03
.04
.03
.02
.05
.02
.04
.03
.05
.04
NUMB
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-25.
0
0
-------
-40-
LINEAR
STRATEGY: i CONTROL
ROLLBACK
GROWTH RATE SCENARIO: 1 LO
N02 AIR QUALITY CONCENTRATION ( PPM) AND VIOLATIONS
(STANDAKD IS .05 PPM)
PROJECTED
REGION
004 BIRMINGHAM
015 PHOENIX-TUCSON
018 MEMPHIS
042 HARTFORD
043 NY-NJ-CONN
045 PHILADELPHIA
047 NAT. CAPITAL
056 ATLANTA
067 CHICAGO
078 LOUISVILLE
079 CINCINNATI
080 INDIANAPOLIS
085 OMAHA
115 BALTIMORE
119 BOSTON
122 CENT MICHIGAN
123 DETROIT
125 SOUTH MICHIGAN
131 MINNEAPOLIS
167 CHARLOTTE
173 DAYTON
174 CLEVELAND
178 YOUNGSTOWN
208 MIDDLE TENN
215 DALLAS-FTWORTH
216 HOUSTON
229 PUGET SOUND
239 SE WISCONSIN
024 LOS ANGELES
028 SACRAMENTO
029 SAN DIEGO
030 SAN FRANCISCO
036 DENVER
220 WASATCH FRONT
AVERAGE PERCENT CHANGE
NO. OF CITIES ABOVE STD
TOTAL NO.' OF VIOLATIONS
B
YEAR
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
iNGE
: STD
'IONS
A S
CONG
.04
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.06
.04
.05
.04
.03
.04
.05
.05
Ob
.04
.Of
.04
.03
.05
.04
.04
.04
.05
.04
.03
.07
.03
Ob
.04
.05
.04
E
BKGD
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
1999
CONC
.03
.04
.04
.04
.04
.03
.03
.03
.04
.04
.04
.03
.03
.03
.04
.03
.04
.03
.03
.03
.03
.04
.03
.03
.03
.04
.03
.02
.05
.02
.04
.03
.05
.04
NUMB
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-22.
0
0
-------
-41-
LINEAR
STRATEGY: i BASE
ROLLBACK
GROWTH RATE SCENARIO: 2 HI
N02 AIR QUALITY CONCENTRATION ( PPM) AND VIOLATIONS
(STANDARD IS .05 PPM)
PROJECTED
REG I ON
004 BIRMINGHAM
015 PHOENIX-TUCSON
018 MEMPHIS
042 HARTFORD
043 NY-NJ-CONN
045 PHILADELPHIA
047 NAT. CAPITAL
056 ATLANTA
067 CHICAGO
078 LOUISVILLE
079 CINCINNATI
080 INDIANAPOLIS
085 OMAHA
115 BALTIMORE
119 BOSTON
122 CENT MICHIGAN
123 DETROIT
125 SOUTH MICHIGAN
131 MINNEAPOLIS
167 CHARLOTTE
173 DAYTON
174 CLEVELAND
178 YOUNGSTOWN
208 MIDDLE TENN
215 DALLAS-FTWORTH
216 HOUSTON
229 PUGET SOUND
239 SE WISCONSIN
024 LOS ANGELES
'028 SACRAMENTO
029 SAN DIEGO
030 SAN 'FRANCISCO
036 DENVER
220 WASATCH FRONT
AVERAGE PERCENT CHANGE
NO. OF CITIES ABOVE STD
TOTAL NO. OF VIOLATIONS
B
YEAR
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
tNGE
STD
riONS
A S E
CONC
.04
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.06
.04
.05
.04
.03
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.03
.05
04
.04
.04
.05
.04
.03
.07
.03
.06
.04
.05
.04
BKGD
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
1980
CONC NUMB
.04
.04
.05
.04
.05
.04
.04
.04
.06
.04
.05
.04
.03
.03
.05
.04
.05
.03
.04
.04
.03
.05
.04
.04
.04
.05
.04
.03
.07
.03
.05
.03
.06
.05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
-1.
3
3
-------
LINEAR
STRATEGY: i BASE
-42-
ROLLBACK
GROWTH RATE SCENARIO: 2 HI
N02 AIR QUALITY CONCENTRATION < PPM) AND VIOLATIONS
(STANDARD IS .05 PPM)
PROJECTED
REGION
004 BIRMINGHAM
015 PHOENIX-TUCSON
018 MEMPHIS
042 HARTFORD
043 NY-NJ-CONN
045 PHILADELPHIA
047 NAT. CAPITAL
056 ATLANTA
067 CHICAGO
078 LOUISVILLE
079 CINCINNATI
080 INDIANAPOLIS
085 OMAHA
115 BALTIMORE
119 BOSTON
122 CENT MICHIGAN
123 DETROIT
125 SOUTH MICHIGAN
131 MINNEAPOLIS
167 CHARLOTTE
173 DAYTON
174 CLEVELAND
178 YOUNGSTOWN
208 MIDDLE TENN
215 DALLAS-FTWORTH
216 HOUSTON
229 PUGET SOUND
239 SE WISCONSIN
024 LOS ANGELES
028 SACRAMENTO
029 SAN DIEGO
030 SAN FRANCISCO
036 DENVER
220 WASATCH FRONT
B
YEAR
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
A S E
CONC
.04
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.06
.04
.05
.04
.03
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.03
.05
.04
.04
. 0<*
.05
0
-------
-43-
LINEAR
STRATEGY: i BASE
ROLLBACK
GROWTH RATE SCENARIO: 2 HI
N02 AIR QUALITY CONCENTRATION ( PPM) AND VIOLATIONS
(STANDARD IS .05 PPM)
PROJECTED
REGION
004 BIRMINGHAM
015 PHOENIX-TUCSON
018 MEMPHIS
042 HARTFORD
043 NY-NJ-CONN
045 PHILADELPHIA
047 NAT. CAPITAL
056 ATLANTA
067 CHICAGO
078 LOUISVILLE
079 CINCINNATI
080 INDIANAPOLIS
085 OMAHA
115 BALTIMORE
119 BOSTON
122 CENT MICHIGAN
123 DETROIT
125 SOUTH MICHIGAN
131 MINNEAPOLIS
167 CHARLOTTE
173 DAYTON
174 CLEVELAND
178 YOUNGSTOWN
208 MIDDLE TENN
215 DALLAS-FTWORTH
216 HOUSTON
229 PUGET SOUND
239 SE WISCONSIN
024 LOS ANGELES
028 SACRAMENTO
029 SAN DIEGO
030 SAN FRANCISCO
036 DENVER
220 HASATCH FRONT
AVERAGE PERCENT CHANGE
NO. OF CITIES ABOVE STD
TOTAL NO. OF VIOLATIONS
B
YEAR
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
kNGE
: STD
riONS
A S £
CONC
.04
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.06
.04
.05
.04
.03
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.03
.05
.04
.04
.04
.05
.04
.03
.07
.03
.06
.04
.05
.04
6KGD
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
1990
CONC NUMB
.05
.05
.06
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.06
.05
.06
.04
.04
.04
.05
.04
.05
.04
.04
.04
.04
.05
.04
.04
.04
.05
.04
.03
.07
.03
.05
.04
.07
.05
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
7.
5
5
-------
LINEAR
STRATEGY: i BASE
-44-
ROLLBACK
GROWTH RATE SCENARIO: 2 HI
N02 AIR QUALITY CONCENTRATION ( PPM) AND VIOLATIONS
(STANDARD IS .05 PPM)
PROJECTED
REGION
004 BIRMINGHAM
015 PHOENIX-TUCSON
018 MEMPHIS
042 HARTFORD
043 NY-NJ-CONN
045 PHILADELPHIA
0
-------
-45-
LINEAR
STRATEGY: i BASE
ROLLBACK
GROWTH RATE SCENARIO: 2 HI
N02 AIR QUALITY CONCENTRATION ( PPM) AND VIOLATIONS
(STANDARD IS .05 PPM)
PROJECTED
REGION
004 BIRMINGHAM
015 PHOENIX-TUCSON
018 MEMPHIS
042 HARTFORD
043 NY-NJ-CONN
045 PHILADELPHIA
047 NAT. CAPITAL
056 ATLANTA
067 CHICAGO
078 LOUISVILLE
079 CINCINNATI
080 INDIANAPOLIS
085 OMAHA
115 BALTIMORE
119 BOSTON
122 CENT MICHIGAN
123 DETROIT
125 SOUTH MICHIGAN
131 MINNEAPOLIS
167 CHARLOTTE
173 DAYTON
174 CLEVELAND
178 YOUNJGSTOWN
208 MIDDLE TENN
215 OALLAS-FTWORTH
216 HOUSTON
229 PUGET SOUND
239 SE WISCONSIN
024 LOS ANGELES
028 SACRAMENTO
029 SAN DIEGO
030 SAN FRANCISCO
036 DENVER
220 WASATCH FRONT
AVERAGE PERCENT* CHANGE
NO. OF CITIES ABOVE STD
TOTAL .NO. OF VIOI
B
YEAR
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
197b
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
WGE
: STD
rioNs
A S E
CONC
.04
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.06
.04
.05
.04
.03
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.03
.05
.04
.04
.04
.05
.04
.03
.07
.03
.06
.04
.05
.04
BKGD
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004-
.004
.00^
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
1999
CONC NUMB
.06
.07
.08
.06
.07
.06
.06
.05
.08
.06
.07
.05
.05
.05
.06
.06
.07
.04
.05
.05
.05
.07
.05
.05
.05
.07
.06
.04
.09
.04
.07
.04
.08
.07
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
36.
20
20
-------
-46-
L I N E A K
STRATEGY: i CONTROL
ROLLBACK
GROWTH RATE SCENARIO: 2 HI
N02 AIR QUALITY CONCENTRATION ( PPM) AND VIOLATIONS
(STANDARD IS .05 PPM)
PROJECTED
REGION
004 BIRMINGHAM
015 PHOENIX-TUCSON
018 MEMPHIS
042 HARTFORD
043 NY-NJ-CONN
045 PHILADELPHIA
047 NAT. CAPITAL
056 ATLANTA
067 CHICAGO
078 LOUISVILLE
079 CINCINNATI
080 INDIANAPOLIS
035 OMAHA
115 BALTIMORE
119 BOSTON
122 CENT MICHIGAN
123 DETROIT -
125 SOUTH MICHIGAN
131 MINNEAPOLIS
167 CHARLOTTE
173 DAYTON
174 CLEVELAND
178 YOUNGSTOWN
208 MIDDLE TENN
215 DALLAS-FTWORTH
216 HOUSTON
229 PUGET SOUND
239 SE WISCONSIN
024 LOS ANGELES
'028 SACRAMENTO
029 SAN DIEGO
030 SAN FRANCISCO
036 DENVER
220 WASATCH FRONT
AVERAGE PERCENT CHANGE
NO. OF CITIES' ABOVE STD
TOTAL NO. OF VIOLATIONS
B
YEAR
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
VNGE
i STD
riONS
A S E
CONC
.04
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.06
.04
.05
.04
.03
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.03
.05
.04
.04
.04
.05
.04
.03
.07
.03
.06
.04
.05
.04
BKGD
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
1980
CONC NUMB
.04
.04
.05
.04
.05
.04
.04
.04
.06
.04
.05
.04
.03
.03
.05
.04
.05
.03
.04
.04
.03
.05
.04
.04
.04
.05
.04
.03
.07
.03
.05
.03
.06
.05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
-1.
. 3
3
-------
-47-
LINEAR
STRATEGY: i CONTROL
ROLLBACK
GROWTH RATE SCENARIO: 2 HI
NOS AIR QUALITY CONCENTRATION < PPM> AND VIOLATIONS
(STANDARD IS .05 PPM)
PROJECTED
REGION
004 BIRMINGHAM
015 PHOENIX-TUCSON
018 MEMPHIS
042 HARTFORD
043 NY-NJ-CONN
0<*5 PHILADELPHIA
047 NAT. CAPITAL
056 ATLANTA
067 CHICAGO
078 LOUISVILLE
079 CINCINNATI
080 INDIANAPOLIS
085 OMAHA
115 BALTIMORE
119 BOSTON
122* CENT MICHIGAN
123 DETROIT
125 SOUTH MICHIGAN
131 MINNEAPOLIS
167 CHARLOTTE
173 DAYTON
174 CLEVELAND
178 YOUNGSTOWN
208 MIDDLE TENN
215 DALLAS-FTWORTH
216 HOUSTON
229 PUGET SOUND
239 SE WISCONSIN
024 LOS ANGELES
028 SACRAMENTO
029 SAN DIEGO
030 SAN FRANCISCO
036 DENVER
220 WASATCH FRONT
AVERAGE PERCENT CHANGE
NO. OF CITIES ABOVE STD
TOTAL NO. OF VIOLATIONS
B
YEAR
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
kNGE
: STD
'IONS
A S E
CONC
.04
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
04
.04
.06
.04
.05
.04
.03
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.03
.05
.04
.04
.04
.05
.04
.03
.07
.03
.06
.04
.05
.04
BKGD
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
1985
CONC NUMB
.04
.05
.05
.04
.05
.04
.04
.04
.06
.04
.05
.04
.03
.03
.04
.04
..05
.03
.04
.04
.03
.05
.04
.03
.04
.05
.04
.03
.06
.03
.05
.03
.06
.05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
-4.
3
3
-------
-48-
LINEAR
STRATEGY: i CONTROL
ROLLBACK
GROWTH RATE SCENARIO: 2 HI
N02 AIR QUALITY CONCENTRATION { PPM) AND VIOLATIONS
(STANDARD IS .05 PPM)
PROJECTED
REGION
004 BIRMINGHAM
015 PHOENIX-TUCSON
018 MEMPHIS
042 HARTFORD
043 NY-NJ-CONN
045 PHILADELPHIA
047 NAT. CAPITAL
056 ATLANTA
067 CHICAGO
078 LOUISVILLE
079 CINCINNATI
080 INDIANAPOLIS
085 OMAHA
115 BALTIMORE
119 BOSTON
122 CENT MICHIGAN
123 DETROIT
125 SOUTH MICHIGAN
131 MINNEAPOLIS
167 CHARLOTTE
173 DAYTON
174 CLEVELAND
178 YOUNGSTOWN
208 MIDDLE TENN
215 DALLAS-FTWORTH
216 HOUSTON
229 PUGET SOUND
239 SE WISCONSIN
024 LOS ANGELES
028 SACRAMENTO
029 SAN DIEGO
030 SAN FRANCISCO
036 DENVER"
220 WASATCH FRONT
B
YEAR
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
A S E
CONC
.04
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.06
.04
.05
.04
.03
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.03
.05
.04
.04
.04
.05
.04
.03
.07
.03
.06
.04
.05
.04
BKGD
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
1990
CONC NUMB
.04
.04
.05
.04
.05
.04
.04
.03
.05
.04
.05
.03
.03
.03
.04
.04
.04
.03
.03
.03
.03
.04
.03
.03
.04
.05
.04
.03
.06
.03
.05
.03
.06
.05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
AVERAGE PERCENT CHANGE
NO. OF CITIES ABOVE STD
TOTAL NO. OF VIOLATIONS
-9.
2
2
-------
-49-
LINEAR
STRATEGY: i CONTROL
ROLLBACK
GROWTH RATE SCENARIO: 2 HI
N02 AIR QUALITY CONCENTRATION ( PPM) AND VIOLATIONS
(STANDARD IS .05 PPM)
PROJECTED
REGION
004 BIRMINGHAM
015 PHOENIX-TUCSON
018 MEMPHIS
042 HARTFORD
043 NY-NJ-CONN
045 PHILADELPHIA
047 NAT. CAPITAL
056 ATLANTA
067 CHICAGO
078 LOUISVILLE
079 CINCINNATI
080 INDIANAPOLIS
085 OMAHA
115 BALTIMORE
119 BOSTON
122 CENT MICHIGAN
123 DETROIT
125 SOUTH MICHIGAN
131 MINNEAPOLIS
167 CHARLOTTE
173 DAYTON
174 CLEVELAND
178 YOUNGSTOWN
208 MIDDLE TENN
215 DALLAS-FTWORTH
216 HOUSTON
229 PUGET SOUND
239 SE WISCONSIN
024 LOS ANGELES
028 SACRAMENTO
029 SAN DIEGO
030 SAN FRANCISCO
036 DENVER
220 WASATCH FRONT
AVERAGE PERCENT CHANGE
NO. OF CITIES ABOVE STD
TOTAL NO. OF VIOI
B
YEAR
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
kNGE
STD
IONS
A S E
CONC
.04
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.06
.04
.05
.04
.03
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.03
.05
.04
.04
.04
.05
.04
.03
.07
.03
.06
.04
.05
.04
BKGD
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
1995
CONC NUMB
.04
.04
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.03
.05
.05
.05
.03
.03
.03
.04
.04
.05
.03
.03
.03
.03
.05
.04
.03
.04
.05
.04
.03
.07
.03
.05
.04
.06
.05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
-3.
2
2
-------
-50-
L I N
STRATEGY: i
R 0 L L BACK
RATE SCENARIO:' 2 HI
N02 AIR QUALITY CUNCtNTRATION ( PPM) AND VIOLATIONS
(STANDARD IS .05 PPM)
PROJECTED
b
A S E
REGION YEA* CONC 8KGD
004 BIRMINGHAM 197b
015 PHOENIX-TUCSON 197b
018 MEMPHIS 197b
042 HAWTFORD ls»7b
043 NY-NJ-CONN 1 97b
045 PHILADELPHIA 1976
047 NAT. CAPITAL lv7b
056 ATLANTA 1976
067 CHICAGO 1976
078 LOUISVILLE 1976
079 CINCINNATI 197b
080 INDIANAPOLIS l*7b
085 OMAHA 197b
115 BALTIMORE 1976
119 BOSTON 197b
122 CENT MICHIGAN 1976
123 DETROIT 197b
125 SOUTH MICHIGAN I97b
131 MINNEAPOLIS I97b
167 CHARLOTTE 1976
173 DAYTON 1976
174 CLEVELAND 1976
178 YOUNGSTOWN 1976
208 MIDDLE TENN 197b
215 DALLAS-FTWORTH 1976
216 HOUSTON 1976
229 PUGET SOUND 1976
239 SE WISCONSIN 1976
024 LOS ANGELES 1976
028 SACRAMENTO 1976
029 SAN DIEGO 1976
030 SAN FRANCISCO 1976
036 DENVER 1976
220 WASrATCH FRONT 1976
AVERAGE PERCENT CHANGE
NO. OF CITIES ABOVE STD
TOTAL NO. OF VIOLATIONS
.04 .004
.On .004
.05 .004
.Ob .004
.05 .004
.04 .004
.04 .004
.04 .004
.06 .004
.04 .004
.05 .004
.04 .004
.03 .004
On .004
.05 .004
.05 .004
.05 .004
.04 .004
.04 .004
.04 .004
.03 .004
.05 .004
.04 .004
.04 .004
04 .004
.05 .004
.04 .004
.03 .004
.07 .004
.03 .004
06 .004
.04 .004
.05 .004
.04 .004
1999
CONC NUMB
.05
.05
.06
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.06
.05
.06
.04
.04
.04
.05
.04
.05
.03
.04
.04
.04
.05
.04
.04
.04
.05
.04
.03
.07
.03'
.06
.04
.07
.06
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
6.
7
7
------- |