## A p p e n d i x H

. 4

P e c h a n , D e v e l

o p m e n t o f G r o w t h a n d C o n t r o l I n p u t s f o r C E N R A P

2 0 1 8 E m i s s i o n s D r a f t T e c h n i c a l S u

p p o r t D o c u m e n t ( M a y 2 0 0 5 )

.

# PECHAN

5528-B Hempstead Way Springfield, VA 22151

703-813-6700 telephone

703-813-6729 facsimile

3622 Lyckan Parkway

Suite 2002
Durham, NC 27707

919-493-3144 telephone

919-493-3182 facsimile

P.O. Box 1345
El Dorado, CA 95623

530-295-2995 telephone

530-295-2999 facsimile 

## D EVELOPMENT OF 

## G ROWTH

AND 

## C ONTROL 

## I NPUTS FOR 

## CENRAP 2018 E MISSIONS


## D RAFT 

## T ECHNICAL 

## S UPPORT


## D OCUMENT

Prepared for:

Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP) 10005 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite C Oklahoma City, OK 73159

Prepared by:

E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. 5528-B Hempstead Way Springfield, VA 22151

May 2005

Contract No. 04-0628-RPO-018 Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document iii 

## CONTENTS

Page

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................................... viii

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................1

CHAPTER II. DEVELOPMENT OF GROW TH AND CONTROL FACTORS FOR THE
CENRAP STATES .................................................................................................................. ........3
A. DEVELOPMENT OF GROWTH FACTORS FOR NON-EGU POINT AND
AREA SOURCES....................................................................................................3 1. Overview......................................................................................................4 2. Alternative Forecast.....................................................................................6
B. DEVELOPMENT OF CONTROL FACTORS FOR NON-EGU POINT
SOURCES..............................................................................................................13 1. State Controls.............................................................................................14 2. Federal Maximum Achievable C ontrol Technology (MACT) Standards .17 3. Non-EGU Point Source Analysis Results..................................................17
C. DEVELOPMENT OF CONTROL FACTORS FOR AREA SOURCES .............21 1. State Controls.............................................................................................21 2. Federal Controls.........................................................................................27
D. DEVELOPMENT OF NONRO AD 2018 EMISSION INVENTORY..................29 1. Growth .......................................................................................................36 2. Controls......................................................................................................40 3. Non-NONROAD Model............................................................................48
E. DEVELOPMENT OF ONROAD DATA..............................................................53 1. VMT Growth .............................................................................................53 2. SMOKE MOBILE6 Inputs ........................................................................58

CHAPTER III. DEVELOPMENT OF DATA FOR AREAS OUTSIDE OF THE CENRAP
STATES......................................................................................................................... ................71
A. WRAP....................................................................................................................71
B. VISTAS..................................................................................................................71
C. MRPO ....................................................................................................................71
D. MANE-VU.............................................................................................................72
E. CANADA ..............................................................................................................72
F. MEXICO................................................................................................................72

CHAPTER IV. ISSUES OF CONCERN .....................................................................................75

CHAPTER V. REFERENCES .....................................................................................................77

APPENDIX A. METHODS FOR DEVELOPM ENT OF GROWTH AND CONTROL INPUTS FOR 2018 EMISSIONS (SCHED ULES 3 AND 9) ................................................................... A-1PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document iv APPENDIX B. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF
GROWTH AND CONTROL INPUTS FOR 2018 EMISSIONS MODELING (SCHEDULES 3 AND 9)......................................................................................................................... ................B-1

APPENDIX C. CENRAP STATE POPULATION PROJECTIONS ........................................C-1



## TABLES AND FIGURES

Page

Table II-1 Regions and States Included in Emission Activity Growth Factor Files.................3 Table II-2 Base Year Inventor y Files for Non-CENRAP States ..............................................4 Table II-3 Additional Source Categories Utilizing Regression Equation Approach................6 Table II-4 Summary of Non-EGAS Growth I ndicators Used For Highest-Emitting SCCs in CENRAP Region ...................................................................................................12 Table II-5 Post-2002 MACT Standards and Expected VOC, NO
x , and PM Reductions .......18 Table II-6 VOC Solvent Rule Summary.................................................................................22 Table II-7 VOC Solvent Controls As Modeled ......................................................................24 Table II-8 Residential Wood Combustion Control Factors for CENRAP States ...................28 Table II-9 Statewide Temperature and RVP Inputs for 2018 NONROAD Model Runs .......30 Table II-10 CENRAP Stage II Refueling Programs .................................................................31 Table II-11 CENRAP Reformulated Gasoline Programs .........................................................32 Table II-12 CENRAP Low RVP Programs ..............................................................................33 Table II-13 CENRAP Oxygenated Fuel Inputs ........................................................................36 Table II-14 NONROAD Model Priority Growth Categories and REMI Data for Adjusting National NONROAD Growth Rates......................................................................37 Table II-15 NONROAD Model Cate gory Growth Factors for 2018........................................38 Table II-16 REMI State and Nati onal Growth Factors for 2018 ..............................................39 Table II-17 Adjusted 2018 Growth Factors fo r Nonroad Priority Equipment Categories........41 Table II-18 Horsepower-Related Rule Pene tration Values by Category for Large S-I Evaporative Standards ...........................................................................................44 Table II-19 Control Effectiveness Values by SCC for Large S-I Evaporative Standards in
2018........................................................................................................................45 Table II-20 2018 VOC Emission Reductions by S CC for Texas Portable Container Rule......49 Table II-21 2018 Emission Reductions and Contro l Information for Federal Rail Standards .51 Table II-22 2018 Emission Reductions and Control Information for Federal Diesel Commercial Marine Standards ..............................................................................54 Table II-23 2002 to 2018 Non-Default VMT Grow th Factors Applied in CENRAP States....57

Figure II-1 Baton Rouge I/M Prog ram and ATP Characteristics...................................... 60 Figure II-2 Franklin County I/M Pr ogram and ATP Characteristics ................................ 60 Figure II-3 St. Louis Enhanced I/M Program Characteristics........................................... 61 Figure II-4 Harris, Dallas, and Tarrant Counties I/M Program Characteristics................ 63 Figure II-5 El Paso County I/M Program Characteristics ................................................. 64 Figure II-6 Collin and Denton Countie s I/M Program Characteristics ............................. 65PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document v Figure II-7 9-County Texas, 2003 Start Year, I/M Program Characteristics.................... 66 Figure II-8 Austin Area I/M Program Characteristics....................................................... 67PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document vi [This page intentionally left blank.]PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document vii 

## ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AEO Annual Energy Outlook AIM architectural and industrial maintenance BPA Beaumont/Port Arthur CENRAP Central Regiona l Air Planning Association CO carbon monoxide CTG control techniques guideline DFW Dallas/Ft. Worth DOE U.S. Department of Energy EGAS Economic Growth Analysis System EGUs electricity generating units FIFRA Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act HAPs hazardous air pollutants HGA Houston/Galveston Area IPM Integrated Planning Model MERR mobile equipment repair and refinishing NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NH 3 ammonia
NO
x oxides of nitrogen NSPS New Source Performance Standards
O 2 oxygen OSD ozone season daily Pechan E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. PM particulate matter
PM 10 particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers
PM 2.5 particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers REMI Regional Economic Models, Inc. RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis RPOs Regional Planning Organizations RVP Reid vapor pressure SCCs source classification codes SIP State Implementation Plan
SO
x sulfur oxides STI Sonoma Technology, Inc. TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality TSD Technical Support Document USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture VMT vehicle miles traveled VOC volatile organic compoundPECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document viii [This page intentionally left blank.]PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 1 

## CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this project was to prepare emi ssion growth and control factors that can be applied to the Central Regional Air Planning As sociation (CENRAP) 200 2 base year emission inventory to obtain a 2018 emi ssions inventory for the CENRAP region. The CENRAP region includes the States and Tribal ar eas of Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas. In addition to the CENRAP States, additional factors were compiled under this project to include the en tire CENRAP modeling dom ain. This includes projected emissions data or projection year gr owth and control factor data from the other Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs), Canada, a nd Mexico. All data products were prepared in SMOKE-compatible format.

These projection year growth and control factor data wi ll be used to support air quality modeling and State Implementation Plan (SIP) development and implementation activities for the regional haze rule and fine particulate matter (PM) a nd ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The data are applicable to all so urce categories and polluta nts included in the CENRAP 2002 emission inve ntory. This includes the followi ng pollutants: sulfur oxides (SO
x ), oxides of nitrogen (NO
x ), volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia (NH 3 ), and particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 and 2.5 micrometers (i.e., primary PM 10 and PM 2.5 ).

This Technical Support Document (TSD) explai ns the data sources that E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. (Pechan) used and the procedures Pechan followed in developing the necessary growth and control data for this project. Appendix A of this document contains the Methods Document that was prepared under this project. The purpose of this TSD is not to duplicate the information contained in that document, but to supplement it with the actual data obtained under this project and to note areas where the methods were modified from those included in the Methods Document. Chapter II of this document presents information on the control factors and growth factors that Pechan developed for th e CENRAP States. The methods are presented separately for each of the major source categories. Chapter III of this document presents the data sources and methods that Pechan used to comp ile the data for areas outside of the CENRAP States, including other RPOs a nd Canada and Mexico. Issues of concern are discussed in Chapter IV and references are included in Chapter V. Appendix A contains the Methods document prepared for this project and Appendix B contains the Quality Assurance Project Plan for this work.

This TSD is accompanied by a set of SMOKE-formatted modeling files, as well as a set of Statelevel Excel spreadsheets. The State spreadsheets are included for area source controls, point source controls, VMT growth, area and point sour ce growth factors, and nonroad emissions. These spreadsheets summarize data contained in the modeling files, in a more readable format. The control files also co ntain 2002 emissions, in most cases, so that the effects of the controls can be estimated, using the 2002 emissions as a ba se (e.g., without the growth factors applied). These spreadsheets can be used by the States to review the inputs to the SMOKE modeling in more detail and can be used to help in quali ty assuring the emissions calculated by the SMOKE model.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 2 [This page intentionally left blank.]PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 3 

## CHAPTER II. DEVELOPMENT OF GROWTH AND CONTROL
FACTORS FOR THE CENRAP STATES

A. DEVELOPMENT OF GROWTH FACTORS FOR NON-EGU POINT
AND AREA SOURCES

This chapter identifies the data sources and met hods that Pechan used to develop point and area source emission activity growth factors to s upport 2018 emission projections for CENRAP. Table II-1 identifies the Regions and States for which Pechan developed emission activity growth factors. It is important to note that this section describes th e development of growth factors for all point and area sour ces in the CENRAP base year inventory. For the EGU sector, CENRAP will be using emission da ta projected by the Integrated Planning Model (IPM). These IPM projections are not expected to be comple ted until late in the summer of 2005. Because these data were not available at the time Pechan prepar ed the point source growth factors, the growth factors Pechan prepared included growth factors for al l EGU source classification codes (SCCs) that were included in the base year inventory as described in this section. When the IPM model runs are completed, the IPM-based emissi ons should overwrite EGU emissions projected with these growth factors. As such, these EGU growth factors should be considered as temporary placeholders.

Table II-1. Regions and States Included in Emission Activity Growth Factor Files

Region States Region States Region States
Arkansas Connecticut Indiana
Iowa District of Columbia Illinois Kansas Delaware Michigan
Louisiana Massachusetts Ohio Minnesota Maryland
Missouri Maine Nebraska New Hampshire Oklahoma New Jersey
New York Pennsylvania
Rhode Island CENRAP

Texas MANE_VU

Vermont Midwest RPO

Wisconsin

NOTE: growth factors are also included for offshore emi ssion source categories located in the Gulf of Mexico.

In addition to all point and area source categories, it was necessary to develop growth factors for the following nonroad source categories because they are not included in EPA’s NONROAD model: railroads, commercial ma rine vessels, and aircraft.

To identify the State/County/SCC combinations for which growth factors are required, Pechan summarized the CENRAP 2002 base year inventory (Pechan and CEP, 2005) and the base year inventories for MANE-VU and Midwest RPO ava ilable from CENRAP’s visibility modelingPECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 4 website (CENRAP, 2005). 1 A zip file containing all of the data files titled “NonCENRAP States Inventory SMOKE Input Files” wa s available at CENRAP’s website (see Table II-2 for list of files contained in the zip file). Because some of these files provide information for States outside of the geographic area of interest, the State/County/SCC summary did not include all of the States reported in these non-CENRAP State files.

Table II-2. Base Year Inventory Files for Non-CENRAP States

File Name Contents
arinv_nei02_032404_MW_MVU_NOnh3.ida.txt Midwest RPO and MANE-VU area sources excluding agriculture-related ammonia SCCs and fugitive dust emissions
ar_dust_phaseii_22mar04_USnoCENRAP.ida U.S. fugitive dust inventory (excluding road dust)

nr_2002_23mar04_MW_MVU.ida CENRAP, Midwest RPO, and MANE-VU 2002 nonroad mobile inventory
rdinv.pvd_US_${season}02_ida.txt U.S. annual 2002 paved road dust inventory
rdinv.unp_US_${season}02_ida.txt U.S. seasonal 2002 unpaved road dust inventory

ptinv_2002NEI_041504_MW_MVU.ida.txt CENRAP, Midwest RPO, & MANE-VU point source inventory

In addition to the CENRAP web-site files noted above, Pechan was supplied with a separate file that listed SCCs used to report agriculture-r elated ammonia emissions in the non-CENRAP States (Omary, 2005). Because this file did not contain any geographic identifiers, Pechan developed a comprehensive list of MANE-VU an d Midwest RPO State/SCC combinations that may exist in each region’s base year inventory. 2

The following sections describe the data and met hods that were used to prepare emission activity growth factors for the State/Count y/SCC combinations of interest.

1. Overview

For most source categories, Pechan developed de fault emission activity growth factors utilizing data and methods that are expect ed to be incorporated into the final Economic Growth Analysis System (EGAS) Version 5.0. CENRAP select ed EGAS 5.0-based growth factors over the growth factors available from EGAS 4.0 because the EGAS 5.0 growth f actors will be based on the latest set of economic/demographic proj ections developed by Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI) and the latest energy forecasts prep ared by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) (Houyoux, 2004; DOE, 2004). In addition, the cro sswalk between SCCs and emission activity

1 Note that projections/growth factors for the following regions were not developed because they were available from other studies: Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) and Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP).

2 Except for oil and gas production, Pechan did not have access to offshore-specific projections data. Therefore, Pechan assumed that Texas area growth factors could be used to re present growth in all offshore non-oil and gas production SCCs.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 5 growth indicators and the regression equations relating socioeconomic indicators to emission activity levels will both be refined in EGAS 5.0. Furthermore, the REMI economic models in EGAS 5.0 allocate national economic activity base d on relative production costs at the 53-sector level rather than the 14-sector level used in EGAS 4.0. Local relative factor costs may be substantially different for a give n detailed industry within one of the 14-sectors included in the REMI models in EGAS Version 4.0. Howeve r, the 14-sector models cannot model this distinction, since they are constrai ned by data specified at this level of detail. More accurate regional forecasts result from the more detailed representation of relative cost competitiveness that is available from the EGAS 5.0 REMI models.

Because EGAS represents a default set of growth f actors, Pechan investigat ed alternatives to the EGAS default indicators for the highest-emitti ng point, nonpoint, and nonroad SCCs in the base year inventory for the CENRAP States. 3 Based on this review, Pechan identified a number of alternatives that were de emed preferable to the EGAS defaults, including:

• Use of regression equations developed for EG AS 5.0, but not incorporated into the beta version (for architectural coating and commercial pesticide application SCCs); 4

• Replacement of suspect beta EGAS 5.0 growth factors with values deemed to be more reasonable; 5

• Use of county-level population projections available from each State in the CENRAP region;

• Use of Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) projections (for o il and gas production SCCs);

• Use of average historical values (for prescribed burning SCCs);

• Extrapolation of historical trend (for unpaved road SCCs);

• Use of United States Department of Agricu lture (USDA) projections of planted acreage for major crops (for crop tilling SCCs);

• Use of onroad vehicle miles traveled projections (for paved road SCCs); and

• Use of USDA livestock proj ections (for swine, cattle a nd calves, and poultry SCCs).

3 Note that this discussion only applies to nonroad SCCs th at are not included in the NONROAD model. A separate Pechan memorandum addressed refinements to the NONROAD model default growth information.

4 The current EGAS 5.0 design does not support incorporation of some of the emission activity forecasting equations that Pechan developed for use in EGAS 5.0.

5 The beta version of EGAS 5.0 has not yet undergone beta testing to identify/fix suspect values.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 6 Further details on these emissi on activity growth surrogates are provided in the following section.

2. Alternative Forecast

There are a number of problems and shortcomings of the beta version of EGAS 5.0 that was available during this project’s pe riod of performance. Although some of these limitations were known at the time the beta version was released in November 2004 (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/EGAS5limitations.pdf ), a number of additional problems have since been identified. Therefore, except as noted below, point and non-point source emission projections rely on the methods a nd data that are expected to be incorporated into the final version of EGAS 5.0 rather than the information in the beta version. The following subsections summarize differences between the information deve loped for this effort and the EGAS 5.0 beta version.

a. Use of Regression Equations No t Yet Incorporated into EGAS

For certain sectors, Pechan utilized regression equations developed for EGAS 5.0, but not incorporated into the beta version. For the SCCs displayed in Table II-3, Pechan replaced the beta EGAS 5.0 growth factors based on REMI soci oeconomic data with growth factors derived from the emission estimation approaches deve loped for EGAS 5.0 that have yet to be incorporated. The following sections identify the emission activity forecasting methods that were applied to these SCCs. 6

Table II-3. Additional Source Categori es Utilizing Regression Equation Approach

SCC SCC Description

2401001000 Solvent Utilization; Surface C oating; Architectural Coati ngs; Total: All Solvent Types

2461800000 Solvent Utilization; Miscellaneo us Non-industrial: Commercial; Pesticide Application: All Processes; Total: All Solvent Types

2810030000 Miscellaneous Area Sources; Other Co mbustion; Structure Fires; Total

i. Architectural Coating

To estimate growth factors representing the futu re year to base year change in volume of architectural coatings consumed, Pechan developed the following equation by regressing national coating shipments over the period 1981-2001 against data for a number of potential explanatory variables:

6 Note that there may be other SCCs for which the final ve rsion of EGAS 5.0 will incorporate additional regression equations. Pechan will update the growth factor files to reflect the latest available information as to the list of SCCs for which the final EGAS 5.0 will utilize the approaches identified in this section. 

### y b b x b LAG y = + + 01 2 

### * * () ( E q . 1 )PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 7 where:

y = ratio of current year architectur al coating shipments to base year shipments
b 0 = -0.017 b 1 = 0.614 b 2 = 0.437

x = current year housing expenditures LAG(y) = ratio of previous year’s architect ural coating shipments to base year shipments.

This equation is not incorporated into the be ta EGAS 5.0 because the program currently does not support equations with lagged variables. In additi on to the total volume of coatings used, it is important to reflect any projecte d change in the solvent content of these coatings because the emission activity for these SCCs is the amount of solvent emitted from these coatings. Therefore, Pechan recommended that EPA incor porate factors into EGAS 5.0 that reflect the projected future year architectur al coating solvent content relativ e to base year solvent content (Pechan, 2004). Although these f actors are not incorporated into the beta EGAS 5.0, they are expected to be included in th e final EGAS 5.0. Therefore, Pech an obtained data representing the proportion of forecast year total and 2002 total arch itectural paints shipments that are solventbased from the Freedonia Group, Inc. (Freedoni a, 2002). Based on the available forecast information, Pechan applied a factor of 0.729 to the 2018 growth factor developed from the output of equation 1 for each State. The Freedon ia data were reported for 1992 and each fifth year over the period 1996 to 2011. Pechan interpolated between the 2001 and 2006 values to obtain a 2002 value and used the 2011 value for 2018 in lieu of any forecast information beyond
2011.

ii. Commercial Pesticide Application

To estimate the amount of commercial pesticid es applied, Pechan computed the following equation by regressing the national volume of active pesticide ingredients a pplied over the period 1980-1999 against data for a number of potential explanatory variables:

where: LOG(y) = ratio of current year log of vol ume of active pesticide ingredients to base year log of volume of ingredients
b 0 = -0.003 b 1 = 0.480 b 2 = 0.334

x = current year Agricultural Chemicals sector (SIC code 287) employment LAG(LOG(y)) = ratio of previous year’s log of volume of active pesticide ingredients to base year’s log of volume of ingredients. 

## LOG ybb LAG LOG y b LOG x () * ( ( )) * () = + + 01 2 (Eq. 2)PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 8 This equation is not incorporated into the be ta EGAS 5.0 because the program currently does not support equations with lagged variab les. It is important to refl ect any projected change in the solvent content of the pesticides . Therefore, Pechan recommended that EPA incorporate factors into EGAS 5.0 that reflect the ratio of future y ear volume of solvents pe r dollar of Agricultural Chemical sector shipments to base year volume of solvents for these shipments (Pechan, 2004). Although these factors are not inco rporated into the beta EGAS 5.0, they are expected to be included in the final EGAS 5.0. Therefore, Pech an obtained data repres enting the proportion of forecast year and 2002 volume of solvents per dollar of Agricultural Chemicals sector shipments from the Freedonia Group, Inc. (Freedonia, 2003). Based on the available forecast information, Pechan applied a factor of 1.048 to the 2018 gr owth factor developed from the output of equation 2 for each State. Freedonia’s solvent cont ent data were reported for each fifth year over the period 1992 to 2012, including 2002. In lieu of any forecast information beyond 2012, Pechan used the 2012 value to represent 2018.

iii. Structure Fires

EPA acknowledges that the structure fires fo recast methodology/data were not properly incorporated into the beta vers ion of EGAS 5.0. Therefore, Pech an replaced the beta EGAS 5.0 structure fire growth factors to follow the two- step approach that Pechan developed for use in EGAS 5.0, and, which is expected to be incorp orated into the final EGAS 5.0 (Pechan, 2004). This approach relies on an equation that relates the number of housing units to housing expenditures and factors representing the projected cha nge in the number of structure fires per 10,000 housing units. For this study, Pechan applied a factor of 0.905 to the housing unit projections that represents the change in structure fires per 10,000 housing units between 2002 and 2018.

b. Revisions To Beta EGAS 5.0 Regression-Based Growth Factors

Because the EGAS 5.0 emission activity projecti on equations were developed using national historical data, it is unclear if the EGAS 5.0 equation growth rates will appear reasonable when incorporating State-level values into each equation. Therefore, P echan reviewed the output for each State to identify potentially anomalous growth factors. Pechan select ed growth factors of 2 and 0.2 to represent thresholds in determining suspect values. In cases where State-level values were deemed to be questionable, Pechan implemented one of two types of refinements, depending on the number of States for which the equation-based approach resulted in suspect growth rates. The following summarizes the two types of refinements that were applied.

The first refinement, which was used when the equation output appeared questionable for many States, was to use a combination of national and St ate REMI data. This a pproach first projects national growth factors up th rough 2009 by inputting national values of the independent variable in the emission activity equati on. The 2009-2018 national growth rates were estimated using methods that were unique for each source category. 7 Pechan developed State-level growth factors by multiplying the national equation-based factors by ratios representing each State’s

7 Post-2009 growth factors were not projected using the equati on-based approach because of concerns that the estimated national post-2009 growth rates appear to be unsustainable.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 9 growth relative to National growth for the RE MI indicator used in the regression equation. Section a below provides further de tails on this projection approach.

The second refinement, which was applied to a fe w specific States when the State-level equation output appeared reasonable in most cases, was to use the State-level output of the equation only up through either 2007 or 2009. The 2018 growth f actors were estimated for these States by extrapolating each State’s projected growth over the 2002 to 2007/9 timeframe using an exponential curve fitted to the data for this pe riod. Further details on this refinement are provided in Section ii below.

i. National Equation-Based Growth Factors

For three source categories – C onsumer/Commercial Solvents: All Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Relate d Products; Surface Coating: Miscellaneous Manufacturing; and Consumer/Comme rcial Solvents: All Coatings and Related Products, the use of State-level REMI forecasts in the nationally-derived emissi on activity estimation equations results in numerous anomalous growth rates. Fo r these source categories, Pechan first utilized national REMI projections in the emission activity equations. Because of the dramatically higher growth/decline predicted after 2009, Pechan used the regression equation to directly develop national growth factors only through 2009.

Consumer/Commercial Solvents: All FIFRA Products

The 2009 national growth factor was held consta nt through 2018 for this category because the emission activity equation first predicted a continuation of the historical decline in activity for this category through 2009, then fo recasted an increase in activity that was uncharacteristically large by 2018. Because of the uncertainty of the predicted post-2009 trend, Pechan held the 2018 national growth factor cons tant at 2009 levels. Pechan developed State-level growth factors for this category by multiplying the nati onal growth factors by State/National growth factor ratios. These ratios were determined using State/National projections for the REMI indicator (population) that was include d in the emission activity equation.

Surface Coating: Miscellane ous Manufacturing and Consumer /Commercial Solvents: All Coatings

To estimate national 2018 growth factors for each of these two categories, Pechan reduced each national post-2009 annual growth rate, as es timated by each emission estimation equation, by one-half. This adjustment factor was used b ecause it resulted in post-2009 growth rates that approximated those predicted ov er the 2002-2009 period. Pechan developed State-level growth factors by multiplying the national growth factors by State/National growth factor ratios. These ratios were determined using State/National pr ojections for the REMI indicators that were included in each regression equation (value a dded in Miscellaneous Ma nufacturing Industries sector and value added in Chemi cals and Allied Products sector).PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 10 ii. State Equation-Based Growth Factor Changes

Sulfite Pulping

The use of State-level REMI forecasts in the na tionally-derived Sulfite Pulping emission activity equation resulted in uncharacteristically large post -2009 growth rate change s in the District of Columbia. For DC, Pechan used the output of the regression equatio ns up through 2009; 2018 growth factors were developed by extrapolati on using an exponential curve fitted to the 2002- 2009 growth factor projections.

Electronic and Other Electrical Surface Coating

For Iowa, the use of State-level REMI forecasts in the nationally-derived Electronic and Other Electrical emission activity equatio n resulted in unusually large pos t-2007 growth rate changes. For this State, Pechan utilized the State-level equation output to develop growth factors through 2007. The 2018 growth factor was developed for Io wa via extrapolation using an exponential curve fitted to the projected 2002-2007 Iowa growth factors.

c. Non-EGAS Data Sources

Because EGAS provides a default set of emission activity growth indicators, Pechan reviewed the availability of better projections sources where time and resources permitted. The following two sections describe specific areas where EG AS default information was replaced with projections from alternative data sources.

i. Population

EGAS is geographically defined by State, and so differences in growth within a State are not reflected in the EGAS default growth factors. Therefore, to account fo r differences in population projections within a State, P echan obtained county-level popula tion projections from each State in the CENRAP region and replaced the State-le vel EGAS population projections with these county-level population projec tions (Kansas, 2004; LPDC, 2003; MNPLAN, 2002; MO, 1999; ODOC, 2002; SLI, 2004; TXCD S, 2004; UALR, 2003; and UNE , 2002). Appendix Table C-1 presents the population projecti ons complied for this effort.

ii. Other Data

Because of resource constraints, Pechan’s research into potential alternat ive data sources focused on the EGAS growth surrogates that are app lied to the highest-emitting point, nonpoint, and nonroad SCCs in the base year i nventory for the CENRAP States. 8 Tables III-1 through III-5 in an earlier Pechan report present the top 10 SCCs responsible for the highest 2002 emissions in the CENRAP States for each of the following pollutants: NO
x , PM25-PRI, NH 3 , SO 2 , and VOC (Pechan, 2005). Based on this review, Pechan was able to identify alternative data sources that

8 Note that this discussion only applies to nonroad SCCs that not included in the NONROAD model. Refinements to the NONROAD model default growth information are addressed in Section D.1.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 11 were deemed to provide better emission activity surrogates for many of these SCCs. These surrogates are summarized in Table II-4. The fo llowing sections describe the rationale for the use of these non-EGAS growth surrogates for projecting emissions in the CENRAP States.

Oil and Gas Production Forecasts

Pechan used DOE’s Annual Energy Outlook 2004 regional forecasts of onshore and offshore oil and gasoline production (DOE, 2004). From maps of the regions , the production values were allocated to the lower 48 continental States. New Mexico and Texas were the only States to belong to multiple onshore production regions. Fo r these States, Pechan calculated the total production from all regions associated with each State. For SCC 2310000000, on and offshore drilling, the offshore area of the Pacific was added the onshore West Coast region and the offshore area of the Gulf was added to the on-sh ore region the Gulf Coast to develop growth factors for the States within the overlapping regions.

Historical Average Acres Prescribed Burned

Historical prescribed burning acreage data in dicate that 2002 represented a year with uncharacteristically high levels of burning activ ity. Therefore, Pechan computed the average acreage burned in each State from data available over the period 1996 through 2003 (EPA, 2005). The 2018 growth factors were then developed for each State by computing the ratio of 2002 acreage to the averag e acreage over the 1996 to 2003 period.

Planted Crop Acreage Forecasts

Pechan obtained 2002 through 2013 national planted acreage projections for major crops from the USDA (ERS, 2004). Pechan then developed an estimated national 2018 planted acreage value via linear extrapolation of the 2002 through 2013 trend.

USDA Livestock Projections

Pechan obtained national livestock projecti ons from USDA’s “February 2004 Agricultural Baseline, Projection Tables to 2013" for b eef cows, cattle, young chickens and turkeys (ERS, 2004). The USDA’s 2002 to 2013 estimates were projected to 2018 using linear extrapolation. The USDA data for young chickens and turkey data were combined for use in projecting poultry SCC emissions activity.PECHANMay 2005Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002Draft Technical Support Document12Table II-4. Summary of Non-EGASGrowth Indicators Used For Highest-Emitting SCCs in CENRAP RegionGrowth IndicatorSCCSCC DescriptionEGAS5 This Study2294000000 Mobile Sources; Paved Roads; All PavedRoads; Total: Fugitives Population Onroad VMT2296000000 Mobile Sources; Unpaved Roads; All Unpaved Roads; Total:Fugitives Population Extrapolation of regional historicaltrend2310000000 Industrial Processes; Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13; All Processes;Total: All ProcessesSIC 13 constant $ output AEOregional production forecast2310001000 Industrial Processes; Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13; All Processes;On-shore; Total: All ProcessesSIC 13 constant $ output AEOregional production forecast2310002000 Industrial Processes; Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13; All Processes;Off-shore; Total: All ProcessesSIC 13 constant $ output AEOregional production forecast2801000003 Miscellaneous Area Sources; Agriculture Production - Crops;Agriculture - Crops; TillingFarm sector constant $ value added USDA national crop projections2810015000 Miscellaneous Area Sources; Other Combustion; Prescribed Burningfor Forest Management; TotalNo growth Historical average (2002 levels weregreater than average)2805020002 Miscellaneous Area Sources; Agriculture Production - Livestock; Cattleand Calves Waste Emissions; Beef CowsFarm sector constant $ value addedUSDA national beef cow inventoryprojection2805020004 Miscellaneous Area Sources; Agriculture Production - Livestock; Cattleand Calves Waste Emissions; Steers, Steer Calves, Bulls, and BullCalvesFarm sector constant $ value added USDA national cattle inventoryprojection2805025000 Miscellaneous Area Sources; Agriculture Production - Livestock;Swine production composite; Not Elsewhere Classified (see also 28-05-039, -047, -053)Farm sector constant $ valueadded USDA national hog inventoryprojection2805030000 Miscellaneous Area Sources; Agriculture Production - Livestock;Poultry Waste Emissions; Not Elsewhere Classified (see also 28-05-007, -008, -009)Farm sector constant $ value addedUSDA national turkey plus youngchicken inventory projection2805047100 Miscellaneous Area Sources; Agriculture Production - Livestock;Swine production - deep-pit house operations (unspecified animalage); ConfinementFarm sector constant $ valueadded USDA national hog inventoryprojection30202001 Industrial Processes; Food andAgriculture; Beef Cattle Feedlots;Feedlots: GeneralFarm sector constant $ value addedUSDA national beef cow inventoryprojectionPECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 13 Onroad Vehicle Miles Traveled Projections

Pechan used onroad VMT projections to forecast paved road fugitive dust emissions activity. The VMT projections are discussed in Section E.1 of this report.

Extrapolation of Historical Unpaved Road VMT Trend

Unpaved road VMT for 1990 to 2002 were compiled for each of the CENRAP States, based on data used in EPA’s National Emi ssion Inventory. A review of the data indicated a disconnect between the 1995 and 1996 values and questionable State-level unpaved road VMT trends. In addition, data for Arkansas and Minnesota appeared questionable for multiple years. Therefore, Pechan concluded that the most reasonable ap proach would be to develop a single regional growth factor based on post-1995 unpaved road VMT data excluding data for Arkansas and Minnesota. First, Pechan summed the VMT es timates for each year across CENRAP States (excluding Arkansas, and Minnesota). Next, Pechan identified a best fit linear function from the 1996 to 2002 regional data and used that functi on to estimate 2018 unpaved road VMT in the CENRAP region. The 2002 to 2018 regional growth f actor (0.813) was then applied to all of the
CENRAP States.

Point Source NOx Cap in Texas Ozone Nonattainment Areas

To account for a point source NO
x emissions cap in certain Texas ozone nonattainment area counties, Pechan applied a no growth assu mption (growth factor of 1.0) to all NO
x point sources in the following Texas counties: Brazoria, Chambers, Collin, Dallas, Denton, Fort Bend, Galveston, Hardin, Harris, Jefferson, Libert y, Montgomery, Orange, Tarrant, and Waller.

Integrated Planning Model

Pechan compiled a comprehensive set of growth factors for all base year EGU SCC records using EGAS 5.0. The EGAS 5.0 defaults are based on DOE’s Annual Energy Outlook electric generation sector energy forecasts (DOE, 2004). For the final CENRAP modeling, it is anticipated that some, but not all, base year EGU SCC records will be projected using forecast information from IPM runs.



### B. DEVELOPMENT OF CONTROL FACTORS FOR NON-EGU POINT
SOURCES

This section describes control factor development for non-EGU poi nt sources. This analysis focused on Federal, State, and lo cal rules and regulations that are expected to reduce emissions or emission rates for criteria pollutants in th e CENRAP States post-2002. After the control factor development is described, some examples of resulting emissions are provided as a point of reference.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 14 1. State Controls

a. Texas

For developing control factors (expected emi ssion reductions) for the non-EGU point source categories in Texas, it was recommended by Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) staff that the most recent Houston/Ga lveston Area (HGA) ozone episode modeling files be reviewed. Appropriate data are those lis ted in Chapter 3: Photochemical Modeling 2007 Future Base Case Summary of Controls A pplied found on the TCEQ website (TCEQ, 2004). Separate files are posted according to the geogr aphic area covered, and the applicable control programs. The non-EGU portion of th is table is summarized below:

Geographic Area Base Inventory Controls Applied File Name
Beaumont/Port Arthur NEGU Ch. 117 controls via Emission Factor Survey; assuming no VOC controls control.2007.BPA.NEGU

Houston/Galveston NEGU 2007 NO x Cap control.HG_07NO x Cap_NEGU HRVOC Cap Revised Speciation and Cap Cutoff Levels control.new_hga_hrvoc_cap.to2n2_negu and then apply control.new_hga_hrvoc_cap.less20inharris Dallas/Ft. Worth NEGU Ch. 117 controls via Emission Factor Survey; assuming no VOC controls control.2007.dfw.negu

East Texas Cement Kiln NO x Permit modifications Already ap plied permit modifications to afs.MidloKilns._v5 via ellis_kilns.TIPI.00- 07 Agreed Orders and Consent Decree for East Texas Specific reductions at ALCOA and Eastman AgreedOrdersControlFactors00to07

West Texas NEGU None None

i. Beaumont/Port Arthur (BPA)

The Beaumont/Port Arthur ozone nonattainment area includes Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange counties. TCEQ (2000a) expects that Tier 1 reductions in NO
x emissions from these three counties will be enough for Beaumont/Port Arth ur to attain the 1- hour ozone standard.

The BPA.NEGU file lists the point sources in the Beaumont-Port Arthur ozone nonattainment area that have control factors applied for NO
x . Control factors were developed by facility and unit by the TCEQ by comparing survey re sults that established base year NO
x emission factors with Chapter 117 NO
x emission limits (which are by source category). The survey included all
BPA NO
x sources with 25 tons per year or more of NO
x . Source-specific NO
x control factors range from 0.16 to 1.00 for affected sources.

ii. Houston/Galveston (HGA)

The Houston/Galveston ozone nonattainment area includes Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Mont gomery, and Waller counties. On December 6, 2000, the TCEQ adopted a program for the trading of NO
x allowances in the HGA nonattainment area. ThePECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 15 trading of these allowances takes place under an area-wid e cap. The program requires incremental reductions beginning in 2003 and c ontinuing through 2007, when the full reductions of the program are to be achieved. The tradi ng program is expected to provide as much flexibility in meeting th ese limits as possible.

The most recent HGA SIP revision is based on analys is to date showing that limiting emissions of ethylene, propylene, 1,3-butadie ne, and butanes in conjunction with an 80 percent reduction in
NO
x is equivalent in terms of air quality benefit to that resulti ng from a 90 percent point source
NO
x reduction requirement.

The Control.HG_NOxCap_NEGU files for 2007 and 2010, when applied to estimate a control factor for 2018, yield a control fa ctor of 0.45 (a 55 percent reduction) . The control factor affects all non-EGU point source NO
x emissions in this nonattainment area.

There are also requirements for additional fugitive VOC emission reductions in HoustonGalveston. These include new rules to reduce em issions of highly reactive VOCs from four key industrial sources: fugiti ves, flares, process vents, and coo ling towers. The highly reactive VOC rules are performance-based, emphasizing m onitoring, record keeping, reporting, and enforcement, rather than establishing individual unit emission rates. After evaluation of how these rules were applied in the Houston SIP analysis, which involved adding highly reactive VOCs to the 2000 emission inventory and removing those HRVOC emissions in the future case, it was decided to not apply any VOC control factors to the 2002 VOC emissions in the 2018 emission projections.

iii. Dallas/Fort Worth

Appendix F of the Dallas/Fort Worth ozone nonattainment demonstration (TNRCC, 1999a) identifies NO
x control factors proposed for specific indus trial boilers and engines and EGUs in that area. These unit-specific reducti ons will be applied to estimate 2018 NO
x emissions.

30 TAC 117, Subchapter 13 limits NO
x emissions from cement kilns in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. This rule establishes emission limits on the basis of pounds of NO
x per ton of clinker produced. These limits are based on the NO
x emissions averaged over each 30 consecutive day period (later changed to a 365 da y period), and vary depending on the type of cement kiln. These NO
x emission limits by kiln type are as follows:

1. For each long wet kiln: a. In Bexar, Comal, Hays, and McLe nnan Counties, 6.0 lb s/ton of clinker produced b. In Ellis County, 4.0 lbs/ton 2. For each long dry kiln, 5.1 lbs/ton 3. For each preheater kiln, 3.8 lbs/ton 4. For each preheater-precalciner or precalciner kiln, 2.8 lbs/ton

These emission limits are expected to achie ve a 30 percent reduction in cement kiln NO
x emissions.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 16 Appendix F of the Dallas/Fort Worth ozone nonattainment demonstration (TNRCC, 1999a) identifies eleven cement kilns modeled as part of the proposed Dallas/Fort Worth NO
x emission reduction strategy. The level of NO
x controls required by TNRCC ranged by unit from 6 percent to 66 percent. These controls we re applied on a un it-by-unit basis.

The DFW.NEGU file lists the point sources in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area that have control factors applied for NO
x . Control factors were developed by f acility and unit by the TCEQ using the same emission factor survey and comparison with NO
x emission limit technique that was described above for Beaumont-Port Art hur. The survey included all DFW NO
x sources that reported 2 tons per year or more of NO
x . Source-specific control factors range from 0.13 to 1.00 for affected sources.

Agreed order control factors from the TCEQ were applied to simulate the effects of such orders on two facilities. A control factor of zer o is applied to the Eastman plant (482030019), simulating the shutdown of this facility. NO
x control factors are applie d to three boilers at the Alcoa (483310001) aluminum production facility.

Another TCEQ control factor file contains information about the future year criteria pollutant emissions for the cement kilns in Ellis County. These emission estimates were used to estimate appropriate growth and control factors for th e 2018 emission forecasts for this area/source category.

b. Missouri

The fine grid counties in eastern Missouri are affected by EPA NO
x SIP Call requirements. The State of Missouri supplied info rmation about unit-specific NO
x emission reductions for affected facilities. For non-EGUs, this incl uded an 8 ton per ozone season NO
x emission limit applied to Anheuser Busch-Unit 6, a 9 ton per ozone season limit applied to Trigen-Unit 5, and a 36 ton per ozone season limit applied to Trigen-Unit 6.

c. Kansas

Rule 28-19-717 requires control of VOC emissions from commercial bakery ovens in Johnson and Wyandotte counties. This ru le applies to bakery ovens with a potential to emit VOCs equal to or greater than 100 tons per year. Each co mmercial bakery oven subj ect to this regulation shall install and operate VOC emi ssions control devices for each ba kery oven to achieve at least an 80 percent total removal efficiency on the combined VOC emissions of all baking ovens, calculated as the capture efficiency times the control device efficiency. Each bakery oven (Keebler Company) in these two counties with more than 100 tons per year of VOC emissions in 2002 had an 80 percent VOC control effici ency applied in the 2018 projections.

d. Louisiana

Point sources in the Baton Rouge nonattainment area and the nearby region of influence are affected by Chapter 22 NO
x control provisions. The provisions of this chapter apply to anyPECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 17 affected facility in the Baton R ouge nonattainment area (the enti re parishes of Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livi ngston, and West Baton Rouge) and the Region of Influence (affected facilities in the attainment parishes of East Feliciana, Pointe Coupee, St. Helena, and West Feliciana). The provisions of this ch apter apply during the ozone season (May 1 to September 30) of each year. Compliance is expect ed to occur as expeditiously as possible, but no later than May 1, 2005.

The effects of this NO
x regulation were included in the analysis by applying a 34 percent NO
x emission reduction to the 2002 non-EGU point s ource emissions in the greater Baton Rouge area. This control factor application is consis tent with what was included in the most recent Houston-Galveston area modeling do main assessments by the TCEQ.

2. Federal Maximum Achievable Co ntrol Technology (MACT) Standards

Numerous MACT standards have been promulga ted pursuant to Section 112 of Title I of the Clean Air Act, and are controlling emissions of hazardous air pollutants ( HAPs) from stationary sources of air pollution. Many of the MACT standards are expect ed to produce associated VOC reductions, since many HAPs are also VOCs, so the emission projections need to capture the expected effects of pos t-2002 MACT standards.

Pechan performed the following steps to determin e the MACT standards expected to have the greatest impact of VOC, NO
x , and PM emissions for the forecast year:

1. Identified the source categories and associat ed SCCs for each MACT standard having a post-2002 compliance date for existing sources. 2. Eliminated MACT categories that do not achieve significant VOC emission reductions. 3. VOC emission reduction estimates for the reciprocating internal combustion engine MACT category are based on information from EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule technical support document (Alpine, 2004). 4. VOC emission reduction estimates for all other MACT categories are based on information found in the preamble to the fina l rule of each MACT Subpart as published in the Federal Register . Table II-5 lists those MA CT categories for which VOC, NO
x , and/or PM emission reduction percentage s could be estimated based on emission reduction information found in the preamble to each respective final rule.

3. Non-EGU Point Source Analysis Results

a. Houston Galveston Area (HGA)

Pechan’s modeling of the NO
x emissions cap in the 8-c ounty HGA applies a 55 percent NO
x emission reduction to the 2002 NO
x point source emissions. NO
x emissions in the HGA are expressed in annual tons. These annual tons and the equivalent ozone season daily (OSD) tons are listed below. Then, the right-most column below shows the comparable values from the TCEQ analysis for HGA.PECHANMay 2005Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002Draft Technical Support Document18Table II-5. Post-2002 MACT Standards and Expected VOC, NOx, and PM ReductionsMACT Standard - SourceCategoryCode of FederalRegulationsSubpartCompliance Date(existing sources)VOC(% Reduction)NOx(% Reduction)Total PM(% Reduction)Affected SCCsAsphalt 5/1/2006 85305001XX, 305002XX, 305050XX, 306011XXAuto and Light Duty TrucksIIII4/26/20074040201601 to 40201632; 40201699Coke Ovens: Pushing,Quenching and Battery StacksCCCCC4/14/20064330300304; 30300303Fabric Printing, Coating &DyeingOOOO5/29/20066040201101 to 40201199; 40201201; 40201210Friction Products ManufacturingQQQQQ10/18/20054430111103; 30111199; 31401001; 31401002Integrated Iron and SteelFFFFF5/20/2006202030301501 to 30301596Large AppliancesNNNN7/23/20054540201401 to 40201499Leather Finishing OperationsTTTT2/27/20055132099997; 32099998; 32099999Lime ManufacturingAAAAA1/5/200723305016XXManufacturing Nutritional YeastCCCC5/21/20041030203404 to 30203424; 30203504 to 30203540Metal CanKKKK6/10/20057040201702; 40201703 to 40201799Metal CoilSSSS6/10/200553402018XXMetal FurnitureRRRR5/23/200673402020XXMisc. Coating ManufacturingHHHHH12/11/200664402026XXMisc. Metal Parts and ProductsMMMM1/2/200748402025XXMisc. Organic ChemicalProduction and Processes(MON)FFFF11/10/200666645200XX; 30113001 to 30113007; 684300XX;30101005 to 30101099; 68445001; 68445010;68445013; 68445020; 68445022; 68445101;68445201; 30110002 to 30110099; 64820001;64820010; 64821001; 64821010; 64822001;64822010; 64823001; 64823010; 64823001;64823010; 64880001; 64882001; 64882002;64882599; 30105001; 30105101 to 30105130;30801001; 31604001; 31604002; 31600403;68510001; 68510010; 68510011; 68580001;68582001; 68582002; 68582599; 30101837;64610301 to 64610350; 64610001 to 64610050;64610101 to 64610150; 64610201 to 64610250;64615001 to 64615030; 64620001 to 64620038;64630001 to 64630083; 64631001 to 64631083;64632001 to 64632083; 64680001; 64682001;64682002; 64682501; 64682502; 64682599;64130001 to 64130025; 64130101 to 64130125;64130201 to 64130225; 64131010 to 64131030;64132001 to 64132030; 64133001 to 64133030;64180001; 64182001; 64182002; 64182599;64615001; 64620001; 65135001PECHANMay 2005Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002Draft Technical Support Document19Table II-5 (continued)MACT Standard - SourceCategoryCode of FederalRegulationsSubpartCompliance Date(existing sources)VOC(% Reduction)NOx(% Reduction)Total PM(% Reduction)Affected SCCsPaper and Other WebJJJJ12/4/20058030701199; 402013XXPesticide Active IngredientProductionMMM12//23/20036530103301Petroleum RefineriesUUU4/11/200555Catalytic cracking: 30600201; 30600202; 30600301Catalytic reforming: 30601601; 30601602;30601603; 30601604Plastic PartsPPPP4/19/200780402022XXPlywood and Composite WoodProductsDDDD9/28/200754307007XX; 30700921 to 30700971; 30701001 to30701057; 30700602 to 30700661Polymers and Resins IIIOOO1/20/200351Phenolic resins: 30101805; “polyamide” resins:30101827Reciprocating InternalCombustion Engines (RICE)ZZZZ6/15/2007131720100102; 20100202; 20100702; 20100802;20100902; 20200102; 20200104; 20200202;20200204; 20200301; 20201001; 20201002;20201012, 20201014; 20201602; 20201702,20200501; 20200702; 20200706; 20200902;20300101; 20300201; 20300301Rubber Tire ManufacturingXXXX7/11/200552308001XXSecondary AluminumProductionRRR3/24/20036130400101 to 30400199Site RemediationGGGGG10/8/200650504001XX; 50400201, 50400202; 504002XX;504100XX; 504101XX; 504102XX; 504103XX;504102XX; 504103XX; 504104XX; 504105XX;504106XX; 504107XX; 50480001; 50482001;50482002; 50482599; 50480004Solvent Extraction for VegetableOil ProductionGGGG4/12/200425302019XXStationary Combustion TurbinesYYYY3/5/20079020100101, 20100201, 20200101, 20200103,20200201, 20200203, 20200901, 20300102,20300202, 20300203Taconite Iron Ore ProcessingRRRRR10/30/20066232302371 to 32302399Wet Formed Fiberglass MatProductionHHHH4/11/20057430501201 to 30501299Wood Building ProductsQQQQ5/28/20066340202101 to 40202199NOTE: **Based on organic HAP emission reductionsPECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 20 HGA Non-EGU NO x Emissions Annual Tons Daily Tons TCEQ Analysis OSD Tons 2002 Point Source NO x 113,109 309.9 283 Post-cap NO x 50,899 139.4 135

The TCEQ analysis OSD NO
x cap summary values above are for non-EGU 2000 NO
x and 2007 modeled NO
x (see Table 3.5-16 in their report). Th e above comparison indicates that the
CENRAP NO
x modeling for HGA will be consistent with prior analyses by TCEQ for this area.

b. Beaumont-Port Arthur (BPA)

Pechan’s modeling of the NO
x emissions cap in the 3-county BPA area applies NO
x control efficiencies based on an emission factor survey for the area. These results are summarized below.

BPA Area Non-EGU NO x Emissions Annual Tons Daily Tons TCEQ Analysis Daily Tons 2002 Point Source NO x 35,441 97.0 96.6 Post-cap NO x 28,254 77.4 81.9

The TCEQ analysis OSD NO
x cap summary values above are for non-EGU 2000 NO
x OSD and 2007 modeled NO
x with growth and contro ls. The CENRAP non-EGU NO
x emissions in the 2002 point source file are about th e same as the 2000 estimates on an OSD basis. However, the expected emission benefit of the non-EGU NO
x controls is greater th an that modeled by TCEQ on both a percentage and an absolute tonnage basis.

c. Dallas Fort Worth (DFW)

Pechan’s modeling of the NO
x emissions cap in the 4- county DFW area applies NO
x control efficiencies to certain sources based on an emissi on factor survey for the area. These results are summarized below.

DFW Area Non-EGU NO x Emissions Annual Tons Daily Tons TCEQ Analysis Daily Tons 2002 Point Source NO x 846 2.3 6.9 Post-cap NO x 647 1.8 13.1

The TCEQ analysis OSD NO
x ton values listed above are for non-EGU 2000 NO
x OSD and 2007 modeled NO
x with growth and contro ls. The 2002 and post-cap NO
x tons listed for the DFW area only include sources affected by the NO
x control program, so these values are much lower than the TCEQ emissions, which include all non-EGU point source emissions in the area.

d. Baton Rouge

Pechan’s modeling of the NO
x emissions cap in the greate r Baton Rouge area applies a 34 percent NO
x emissions reduction to the 2002 NO
x point source emissions. These results are summarized below.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 21 Baton Rouge 9-Parish Area Non-EGU NO x Emissions Annual Tons Daily Tons TCEQ Analysis Daily Tons 2002 Point Source NO x 74,847 205 630.9 Post-cap NO x 49,399 135 586.2

The TCEQ analysis daily tons summary values ab ove are for the entire State of Louisiana, and are for non-EGU 2000 NO
x and 2007 NO
x with growth and LDEQ SIP controls. Because the TCEQ summaries are for the entire State, the values are necessar ily higher than those for the 9- parish area. Pechan estimates a 70 tpd NO
x reduction for the 9-parish NO
x control program. TCEQ estimates that the Statewide emission bene fit of the LDEQ SIP controls is a 45 tpd reduction from 2000 levels, or a 61 t pd reduction from what the 2007 NO
x emissions would be expected to be without th e Baton Rouge SIP controls.



### C. DEVELOPMENT OF CONTROL FACTORS FOR AREA SOURCES

1. State Controls

Table II-6 summarizes regulations in the CE NRAP States for which more stringent State requirements relative to Federal rules are in place for the mobile equipment repair and refinishing (MERR), architectur al and industrial maintenan ce (AIM) coatings, consumer products and solvent cleaning ar ea source VOC emission categories. For categories where more stringent rules for these categor ies are not found in the State re gulations, “National Rule” is stated to refer to the applicable Federal requi rements. The sections below describe how the information from these rules were used to deve lop control efficiencies. Table II-7 summarizes the final control efficiencies that were used to model these rules, a nd the counties and SCCs where these rules were applied.

Stage II, or at-the-pump, refueling control program s are in place in three States in the CENRAP region—Louisiana, Missouri, and Texas. Although these programs may have been in place prior to 2002, these controls are included here becaus e the phase-in of the onboard vapor recovery systems controls changes the overall refueli ng control efficiency of Stage II programs.PECHANMay 2005Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002Draft Technical Support Document22Table II-6. VOC Solvent Rule SummarySCCs2465000000 2401001000 2415360000, 2415300000, 2415230000, 2415200000 2401005000StateConsumerProductsAIM Coating Solvent Cleaning OperationsMobile Equipment Repairand RefinishingState Contact, e-mailArkansas National Rule National Rule National Rule National RuleIowa National Rule National Rule National Rule National Rule Marnie SteinMarnie.stein@dnr.state.ia.usKansas National Rule National Rule 28-19-714The provisions of this regulation apply to cold cleaning, open-topvapor degreasing, and conveyorized degreasing operationslocated in Johnson and Wyandotte counties, and to the sale ofcold cleaner solvents for use within either county. Theserequirements apply after August 31, 2002. Only cold cleaningsolvents with a vapor pressure less than 1.0 mm Hg at 68F shallbe used. Only cold cleaning solvents with a vapor pressure lessthan 5.0 mm Hg at 68F shall be used for each cold cleaningoperation that is used for cleaning carburetors. Each coldsolvent cleaner shall be equipped with a cover. Open-top vapordegreasers shall be equipped with a cover. Conveyorizeddegreasers shall have a processingsystem with an overall VOCcontrol efficiency of 65 percent or greater.National RuleLouisiana National Rule National RuleTitle 33, Part III Subchapter C, Section 2125 (Vapor Degreasers)These requirements were last amended April 2004. Open-topvapor degreasers shall achieve anoverall VOC control efficiencyof 85 percent or greater.National RuleMinnesota National Rule National Rule National Rule National Rule Paul KimPaul.kim@state.mn.usMissouri - Statewide(metro and outstateareas)National Rule National Rule National Rule National RuleMissouri - St. Louismetro area only (cityof St. Louis, and St.Louis, St. Charles,Jefferson & Franklincounties)National Rule National Rule - 10 CSR 10-5.300 (degreasing operations)- 10 CSR 10-5.455 (solvent cleanup operations not subject todegreasing operations)- Effective 2001- Rule covers entire areasof counties specified- Cold cleaners, open-top vapor degreasers and conveyorizedcleaner requirements modeled after 1977 CTG- Restrictions on cold cleaning more stringent than CTG in somecases- EPA NESHAP Subpart T requirements override some solventcleaning requirements- Degreasers meeting certain size/solvent criteria required tomeet minimum 65% VOC reduction efficiencyNational RulePECHANMay 2005Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002Draft Technical Support Document23Table II-6 (continued)SCCs2465000000 2401001000 2415360000, 2415300000, 2415230000, 2415200000 2401005000StateConsumerProductsAIM Coating Solvent Cleaning OperationsMobile Equipment Repairand RefinishingState Contact, e-mailMissouri - KansasCity metro area only(Clay, Jackson, Plattecounties)National Rule National Rule - 10 CSR 10-2.210 (degreasing operations)- 10 CSR 10-2.215 (solvent cleanup operations not subject todegreasing operations)- Effective 2001- Rule covers entire areasof counties specified- Cold cleaners, open-top vapor degreasers and conveyorizedcleaner requirements modeled after 1977 CTG- Restrictions on cold cleaning more stringent than CTG in somecases- EPA NESHAP Subpart T requirements override some solventcleaning requirements- Degreasers meeting certain size/solvent criteria required tomeet minimum 65% VOC reduction efficiencyNational RuleNebraska National Rule National Rule National Rule National Rule David BrownDavid.brown@ndeq.state.ne.usOklahoma National Rule National Rule National Rule National Rule Ray BishopRay.bishop@deq.state.ok.usTexas Chapter 115.612establishes controlrequirementseffective inFebruary 2004 forautomotivewindshield washerfluid. No personshall sell, supply,offer for sale,distribute, ormanufacture foruse in Texas anyautomotivewindshield washerfluid containingVOCs in excess of23.5% by weight.Rule 115.420applies tosurface coatingprocesses.Degreasing processes in the Beaumont/Port Arthur, Dallas/Ft.Worth, and Houston/Galveston areas and in Gregg, Nueces,Victoria, Bexar, Comal, Guadalupe, Wilson, Bastrop, Caldwell,Hays, Travis, and Williamson counties have VOC controlrequirements via Chapter 115.412 for cold solvent cleaning andopen-top vapor or conveyorized degreasers. The cold solventcleaner requirement is equivalentto a VOC reduction efficiencyof 65 percent or greater. The open-top vapor or conveyorizeddegreaser requirement is equivalent to a VOC reductionefficiency of 85 percent or greater.Rule 115.422 controlrequirements apply inBeaumont/Port Arthur,Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso,and Houston/Galveston.Vehicle refinishing operationsshall minimize VOCemissions during equipmentcleanup via enclosedcontainers for washing,rinsing, and draining, keepingwash solvents in an enclosedreservoir, and waste solventsand other cleaning materialsin closed containers. Coatingapplication equipment shallhave a transfer efficiency ofat least 65 percent.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 24 Table II-7. VOC Solvent Controls As Modeled

Counties Pollutant Control Efficiency* (%) SCC Description KS: Johnson, Wyandotte VOC 66 2415000000 Solvent Utilization: Degreasing: All Processes/All Industries TX: Dallas, El Paso, Galveston, Hardin, Harris, Jefferson, Tarrant VOC 35 2401005000 Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532

2415105000 Furniture and Fixt ures (SIC 25): Open Top Degreasing 2415110000 Primary Metal Industries (SIC 33): Open Top Degreasing 2415120000 Fabricated Metal Products (SIC 34): Open Top Degreasing 2415125000 Industrial Machinery and Equipment (SIC 35): Open Top Degreasing
2415130000 Electronic and Other Elec. (SIC 36): Open Top Degreasing 2415135000 Transportation Equipment (SIC 37): Open Top Degreasing

2415140000 Instruments and Rela ted Products (SIC 38): Open Top Degreasing TX: Bastrop, Bexar, Caldwell, Comal, Gregg, Guadalupe, Hays, Nueces, Travis, Victoria, Williamson, Wilson VOC 83

2415145000 Miscellaneous Manufacturing (SIC 39): Open Top Degreasing TX: Statewide VOC 17 2460400000 Solvent Ut ilization: Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commercial: All Automotive Aftermarket Products

*These control efficiencies are all applied with a rule penetra tion of 100 percent and a rule effectiveness of 100 percent.

a. Kansas

i. Solvent Cleaning Operations

Kansas Rule 28-19-714 contains a 1.0 mm Hg maximum vapor pre ssure requirement for solvent cleaning operations, effective September 2002. Ba sed on an evaluation of the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) model rule for this source category, a 1.0 mm Hg at 68°F maximum VOC vapor pressure requirement lead s to an estimated 66 percent re duction in VOC emissions relative to the national rule for cold cleaners and vapor degreasers (Pechan, 2001). The Kansas rule also includes a higher (5.0 mm Hg at 68°F) maximum va por pressure requirement for the cleaning of carburetors, but this difference may not be sign ificant relative to the OTC rule. Conveyorized degreasers are required to achieve an overall VOC control efficiency of 65 percent or greater; however, the Kansas rule does not appear to incl ude any additional requirem ents relative to the national rule (other than the ma ximum vapor pressure requirements). Therefore, a 66 percent post-2002 VOC control efficiency was applied in Johnson and Wyandotte Counties, based on data from the OTC model rule.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 25 b. Missouri

i. Solvent Cleaning Operations

Based on Pechan’s review of Missouri’s regulati ons, solvent cleaning regu lations applicable to the Kansas City and St. Louis metropolitan areas appear to be more stringent than the national rule; however, these rules became effective be fore 2002. Therefore, no additional solvent controls were applied in Missouri.

ii. Stage II Refueling Controls

Stage II controls are required in the city of St . Louis and the following St. Louis area counties: Franklin County, Jefferson County, St. Charles Count y, and St. Louis County. This is required under 10 CSR 10-5.220 “Control of Petroleum Liquid Storage, Loading and Transfer.” This regulation requires that gasolin e stations with a minimum m onthly throughput of 10,000 gallons of gasoline are required to maintain a 95 per cent efficiency of total capture and emission reduction. These gasoline station owners are required to comply with the Missouri Performance Evaluation Test Proced ures beginning in 1998.

c. Louisiana

i. Solvent Cleaning Operations

Title 33, Part III, Section 2125 specifies additio nal operational requirements for open top vapor degreasers not found in EPA’s 1977 control techni ques guideline (CTG). One requirement of the Louisiana Code specifies a minimum 85 pe rcent VOC reduction efficiency for open top vapor degreasers not found in the CTG. Section 2125 was last amended in April 2004.

ii. Stage II Refueling Controls

A Stage II control program is in place in the fo llowing parishes in Louisiana: Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livings ton, Pointe Coupee, and West Baton Rouge. The Stage II controls are required to attain a minimum of 95 percent gasoline vapor control efficiency at stations with a minimum throughput of 10,000 gallons of gasoline per month. This rule is under Title 33, Part III, Section 2132 “Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems for Control of Vehicle Refueling Emissions at Gasoline Dispensing Facil ities.” Compliance with these regulations was first required in 1993.

d. Texas

i. Cold Cleaners

The 1977 CTG for cold solvent cleaners is esti mated to achieve VOC emission reductions of between 55 and 69 percent relative to 1977 baselin e (uncontrolled) levels (Pechan, 2002). Texas rule 115.412 is equivalent to VOC emission re ductions of at least 65 percent relative to uncontrolled levels. There do not appear to be a ny significant differences between the Texas rulePECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 26 and the CTG, and therefore no additional VOC reductions were applied to the 2002 Texas inventory for cold cleaners.

ii. Open-top Vapor or Conveyorized Degreasers

The national rule for vapor degreasing is es timated to achieve VOC emission reductions of between 10 and 15 percent (Pechan, 2002). Th e Texas rule 115.412 requires VOC emission reductions of at least 85 percent from these sources for the following counties: Bastrop, Bexar, Caldwell, Comal, Gregg, Guadalupe, Hays, Nueces, Travis, Victoria, Williamson, and Wilson. Assuming that the baseline 2002 vapor degreasing em issions include a 10 percent reduction from the national rule and that a total control of 85 percent would be a pplied to comply with the Texas rule, the incremental reduction from the Texas rule, relative to the 2002 emissions, would be 83 percent. This rule became effective in December 2004.

iii. Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing

Texas rule 115.422 requires that coating application equipment shall have a transfer efficiency of at least 65 percent and requires the use of high volume low pressure (HVLP) spray guns. This rule applies in the following count ies: Dallas, El Paso, Galvest on, Hardin, Harris, Jefferson, and Tarrant. Based on an evaluation of the OTC model rule for this source category, the use of “high transfer efficiency” HVLP guns is estimated to achieve a 35 percent VOC emission reduction relative to the national rule (Pechan, 2001). Spra y gun controls are estimated to contribute an additional 3 percent VOC emission reduction. However, the Texas ru le contains a less stringent requirement for the enclosure of spray guns and related parts. Theref ore, a 35 percent post-2002 VOC control efficiency incremental to the national rule was applied in th e counties listed above to account for this rule. This rule became effective in May 2002.

iv. Consumer Products

The national rule limits the VOC content of wi ndshield wiper fluid to 35 percent by weight (effective December 1998). The Texas rule 115 .612 limits the VOC content to 23.5 percent by weight. This represents a 33 percent reduction in the VOC cont ent (and as a result, emissions) from the 2002 baseline. A single SCC includes all “auto aftermarket products”. Therefore, an assumption must be made as to what fraction of emissions from auto aftermarket products can be attributed to auto wiper fluid. An engineeri ng estimate of 50 percent was applied, based on the assumption that the other major VOC-emitting auto aftermarket products (waxes, polishes and cleaning products) are likely consumed in le sser quantities by volume than windshield wiper fluid. Thus, the reduction applie d to VOC emissions from the S CC representing auto aftermarket products was 17 percent. This rule became effective in February 2004.

v. Portable Fuel Containers

Texas has a portable fuel containe r rule (Statewide). In TCEQ analyses, this has been modeled as a reduction in evaporative VOC emissions using lawn and garden equipment SCCs within EPA’s NONROAD model. See the Nonroad section of this chap ter for information about how the rule effects were incorporated in the analysis.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 27 vi. Stage II Refueling Controls

Stage II refueling controls are required in the following Texas counties: Brazoria, Chambers, Collin, Dallas, Denton, El Pas o, Fort Bend, Galveston, Hardin, Harris, Jefferson, Liberty, Montgomery, Orange, Tarrant, and Waller. Th is is regulated by the TCEQ Chapter 115, Sections 240 through 249 “Control of Vehicle Re fueling Emissions (Stage II) at Motor Vehicle Fuel Dispensing Facilities.” Th is regulation requires that gasoline stations with a minimum monthly throughput of 10,000 gallons of gasoline ar e required to have installed an approved Stage II vapor recovery system which is certifie d to reduce VOC emissions to the atmosphere by at least 95 percent. Annua l inspections are required and the program began in 1992.

vii. Gas-fired Water Heaters, Sm all Boilers, and Process Heaters

A Statewide rule, adopted as part of the Ap ril 2000 Dallas/Forth Worth SIP revision, reduces
NO
x emissions from new natural gas-fired water h eaters, small boilers, and process heaters sold and installed in Texas beginning in 2002. The rule applies to each new water heater, boiler, or process heater with a maximum rated capacity of up to 2.0 million British thermal units per hour. This is Rule 117.461. It should be noted that this control on natural gas- fired water heaters may be overturned by the SB 473 prohibition on regulating water heater emissions.

To simulate the effects of this rule in 2018, th e following factors were applied Statewide in
Texas.

SCC NO x Control Efficiency Rule Penetration Rule Effectiveness 2103006000 75% 80% 100% 2104006000 75% 80% 100%

2. Federal Controls

a. Residential Wood Combustion

For this analysis, a 20 year estimated lifetime for woodstoves and firepl ace inserts was used along with the SCC-specific growth factors, and emission factor ratios by SCC, to account for the replacement of retired woodstoves that emit at pre-new source performance standard (NSPS) levels, with new catalyst-equippe d wood burning equipment. This was done using an equation to estimate equipment turnover for a situation with a 4 percent per year re tirement rate, and the SCC-specific growth factors. Emission factor ra tios are pollutant-specific. The growth and retirement equation was used to estimate the relationship between base year (2002) emissions and 2018 emissions by SCC and pollutant.

Then, this relationship was used to estimate the c ontrol efficiency that w ould have to be applied along with the growth factor to yield the appropriate future ye ar emission value. SCCs for controlled woodstoves and fireplace inserts ha ve no control efficiency applied. Their 2018 emissions will change in proportion to the grow th rate. Table II-8 displays the various residential woodstove and firepl ace area source SCCs that ar e used in the CENRAP State emission inventories and the associated 2018 control factors used in this analysis.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 28 Table II-8. Residential Wood Combusti on Control Factors for CENRAP States

SCC Description Growth Factor 2002 to

2018 Pollutant CF* 2018 Ratio of Controlled/ Uncontrolled

Emissions 2018 Control Factor (Emission Reduc. %) States: AR, LA, OK, TX

2104008000 1.034 VOC 0.28 0.664 35.8
1.034 CO 0.45 0.751 27.3
1.034 NOx 0.71 0.885 14.4 Total Woodstoves and Fireplaces

1.034 PM 0.67 0.864 16.4 2104008002 Fireplace inserts 1.034 VOC 0.28 0.664 35.8
1.034 CO 0.45 0.751 27.3
1.034 NOx 0.71 0.885 14.4
1.034 PM 0.67 0.864 16.4 2104008010 Woodstoves-genera l 1.034 VOC 0.28 0.654 34.6
1.034 CO 0.45 0.736 26.4
1.034 NOx 0.71 0.861 13.9
1.034 PM 0.67 0.842 15.8 2104008001 Fireplaces 1.034 1.034 0

2104008003 Fireplace inserts-certifiednon-catalytic 1.034 1.034 0

2104008004 Fireplace inserts-certifiedcatalytic 1.034 1.034 0

2104008030 Woodstoves-certifiedcatalytic 1.034 1.034 0

2104008050 Woodstoves-certifiednon-catalytic 1.034 1.034 0 States: IA, KS, NE, MO, MN
2104008000 0.986 VOC 0.28 0.65 34
0.986 CO 0.45 0.73 26
0.986 NOx 0.71 0.851 13.7 Total Woodstoves and Fireplaces

0.986 PM 0.67 0.832 15.6 2104008002 Fireplace inserts 0.986 VOC 0.28 0.65 34
0.986 CO 0.45 0.73 26
0.986 NOx 0.71 0.851 13.7
0.986 PM 0.67 0.832 15.6 2104008010 Woodstoves-genera l 0.986 VOC 0.28 0.654 34.6
0.986 CO 0.45 0.736 26.4
0.986 NOx 0.71 0.861 13.9
0.986 PM 0.67 0.842 15.8 2104008001 Fireplaces 0.986 0.986 0

2104008003 Fireplace inserts-certifiednon-catalytic 0.986 0.986 0

2104008004 Fireplace inserts-certifiedcatalytic 0.986 0.986 0

2104008030 Woodstoves-certifiedcatalytic 0.986 0.986 0

2104008050 Woodstoves-certifiednon-catalytic 0.986 0.986 0

NOTE: *The ratio between the emission factor for a certified- catalyst equipped woodstove/fireplace insert and for an uncontrol led unit.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 29 b. Onboard Vapor Recovery Systems

The control efficiency from refueling onroad vehi cles will be greater in 2018 than in 2002 due to vehicle turnover and the Federal requirement for onboard vapor recovery systems in onroad vehicles. Percentage reductions in VOC emissions from this c ontrol measure in 2018, relative to 2002, were calculated using a sampling of MOBI LE6 runs, including the effect of Stage II programs where they are in place. These result ing reduction factors were included in the area source sector control files.



### D. DEVELOPMENT OF NONROA D 2018 EMISSION INVENTORY

Pechan estimated NONROAD model mass emissi ons for 2018 for all CENRAP States using EPA’s NONROAD2004 model (EPA, 2004a). Pechan developed nonr oad option files to reflect season-specific inputs that applied to an entire State or gr oup of counties. These runs also incorporated revised activity, seasonal allocation, and count y allocation files developed by Sonoma Technology, Inc. (STI) to improve the re creational marine compon ent of the 2002 base year NONROAD inventory (STI, 2004).

Pechan ran NONROAD for four s cenarios: 1) typical January weekday (JanWD); 2) typical January weekend day (JanWE); 3) typical July weekday (JulWD); and 4) typical July weekend day (JulWE). The January runs represented aver age daily emissions for the time period October 1 through April 30, and the July runs represente d average daily emissions for the time period May 1 through September 30. Annual emissions we re estimated using these daily results as input to the formula below:

(JanWD x 152 days) + (JanWE x 60 days) + (J ulWD x 109 days) + (JulWE x 44 days) = Annual Average Emissions

In Table II-9, the default Statewide temperatures and Reid vapor pressure (RVP) values used are listed for each model scenario. Pechan also acc ounted for local fuel-related programs that would affect NONROAD model engine em issions. A listing of the areas with county-specific fuel programs are presented in Tables II-10 through I I-13. In addition, the characteristics or input values needed to model these programs in NONROAD are presen ted. Table II-10 provides a list of those areas that have year-round Stage II progr ams in place. Tables II-11 and II-12 show the summer season RVP values assumed for areas with reformulated gasoline and low RVP programs, as well as year-round oxygenated fuel pr ograms that are part of RFG programs. Table II-13 presents the wei ght percent oxygen (O 2 ) levels used for the 2018 runs. Iowa, Minnesota, and El Paso County, Texas are the only areas with official oxygenated fuel programs. For the remaining areas, it was established that some bl ending of ethanol into their fuel is occurring, even though no regulatory requireme nt is in effect (STI, 2004). The 2018 diesel fuel sulfur values reflect the requirements of the Clean Air Diesel Rule that all nonroad diesel fuel meet 15 parts per million sulfur content by the year 2015. Per the requirements of the Tier 2 and gasoline sulfur rulemaking, the gasoline sulfur levels were also revised to 30 parts per million.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 30 Table II-9. Statewide Temperatur e and RVP Inputs for 2018 NONROAD Model Runs

State FIPS State Typical Day Minimum Temperature, oF Maximum Temperature, oF Average Temperature, oF RVP, psi 5 Arkansas July 72 93 82 9 January 31 50 40 13 19 Iowa July 66 86 76 8.3

January 12 29 20 13.2 20 Kansas July 68 89 78 8.2

January 17 37 27 13.2 22 Louisiana July 73 91 82 9

January 40 60 50 13 27 Minnesota July 63 83 73 8.7

January 4 22 13 13.4 29 Missouri July 67 90 78 8.4

January 22 42 32 13.2 31 Nebraska July 66 88 77 8.3

January 13 33 23 13.2 40 Oklahoma July 71 93 82 9

January 26 47 36 13 48 Texas July 77 96 86 9 January 36 55 45 13PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 31 Table II-10. CENRAP Stage II Refueling Programs

FIPS State Code State Name FIPS County Code County Name Effectiveness 22 LOUISIANA 5 Ascension Parish 95 22 LOUISIANA 33 East Baton Rouge Parish 95
22 LOUISIANA 47 Iberville Parish 95 22 LOUISIANA 63 Livingston Parish 95 22 LOUISIANA 77 Pointe Coupee Parish 95 22 LOUISIANA 121 West Baton Rouge Parish 95 29 MISSOURI 71 Franklin County 95 29 MISSOURI 99 Jefferson County 95 29 MISSOURI 183 St. Charles County 95 29 MISSOURI 189 St. Louis County 95 29 MISSOURI 510 St. Louis city 95 48 TEXAS 39 Brazoria County 95 48 TEXAS 71 Chambers County 95 48 TEXAS 85 Collin County 95 48 TEXAS 113 Dallas County 95 48 TEXAS 121 Denton County 95 48 TEXAS 141 El Paso County 95 48 TEXAS 157 Fort Bend County 95 48 TEXAS 167 Galveston County 95 48 TEXAS 199 Hardin County 95 48 TEXAS 201 Harris County 95 48 TEXAS 245 Jefferson County 95 48 TEXAS 291 Liberty County 95 48 TEXAS 339 Montgomery County 95 48 TEXAS 361 Orange County 95 48 TEXAS 439 Tarrant County 95 48 TEXAS 473 Waller County 95PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 32 Table II-11. CENRAP Reformulated Gasoline Programs

FIPS State Code State Name FIPS Count y Code County Name RVP O2, wt % 29 MISSOURI 71 Franklin County 6.8 2.1 29 MISSOURI 99 Jefferson County 6.8 2.1 29 MISSOURI 183 St. Charles County 6.8 2.1 29 MISSOURI 189 St. Louis County 6.8 2.1 29 MISSOURI 510 St. Louis city 6.8 2.1 48 TEXAS 39 Brazoria County 6.7 2.1 48 TEXAS 71 Chambers County 6.7 2.1 48 TEXAS 85 Collin County 6.7 2.1 48 TEXAS 113 Dallas County 6.7 2.1 48 TEXAS 121 Denton County 6.7 2.1 48 TEXAS 157 Fort Bend County 6.7 2.1 48 TEXAS 167 Galveston County 6.7 2.1 48 TEXAS 201 Harris County 6.7 2.1 48 TEXAS 291 Liberty County 6.7 2.1 48 TEXAS 339 Montgomery County 6.7 2.1 48 TEXAS 439 Tarrant County 6.7 2.1 48 TEXAS 473 Waller County 6.7 2.1PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 33 Table II-12. CENRAP Low RVP Programs

FIPS State Code State Name FIPS County Code County Name RVP
20 KANSAS 091 JOHNSON 7.0
20 KANSAS 209 WYANDOTTE 7.0
22 LOUISIANA 005 ASCENSION PARISH 7.8
22 LOUISIANA 033 EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH 7.8
22 LOUISIANA 047 IBERVILLE PARISH 7.8
22 LOUISIANA 063 LIVINGSTON PARISH 7.8
22 LOUISIANA 077 POINTE COUPEE PARISH 7.8
22 LOUISIANA 121 WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH 7.8
29 MISSOURI 047 CLAY 7.0
29 MISSOURI 095 JACKSON 7.0
29 MISSOURI 165 PLATTE 7.0
48 TEXAS 001 ANDERSON 7.5
48 TEXAS 005 ANGELINA 7.5
48 TEXAS 007 ARANSAS 7.5
48 TEXAS 013 ATASCOSA 7.5
48 TEXAS 015 AUSTIN 7.5
48 TEXAS 021 BASTROP 7.5
48 TEXAS 025 BEE 7.5
48 TEXAS 027 BELL 7.5
48 TEXAS 029 BEXAR 7.5
48 TEXAS 035 BOSQUE 7.5
48 TEXAS 037 BOWIE 7.5
48 TEXAS 041 BRAZOS 7.5
48 TEXAS 051 BURLESON 7.5
48 TEXAS 055 CALDWELL 7.5
48 TEXAS 057 CALHOUN 7.5
48 TEXAS 063 CAMP 7.5
48 TEXAS 067 CASS 7.5
48 TEXAS 073 CHEROKEE 7.5
48 TEXAS 089 COLORADO 7.5
48 TEXAS 091 COMAL 7.5
48 TEXAS 097 COOKE 7.5
48 TEXAS 099 CORYELL 7.5
48 TEXAS 119 DELTA 7.5
48 TEXAS 123 DEWITT 7.5
48 TEXAS 139 ELLIS 7.5
48 TEXAS 141 EL PASO 7.0
48 TEXAS 145 FALLS 7.5
48 TEXAS 147 FANNIN 7.5
48 TEXAS 149 FAYETTE 7.5
48 TEXAS 159 FRANKLIN 7.5
48 TEXAS 161 FREESTONE 7.5PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 34 Table II-12 (continued)

FIPS State Code State Name FIPS County Code County Name RVP
48 TEXAS 175 GOLIAD 7.5
48 TEXAS 177 GONZALES 7.5
48 TEXAS 181 GRAYSON 7.5
48 TEXAS 183 GREGG 7.5
48 TEXAS 185 GRIMES 7.5
48 TEXAS 187 GUADALUPE 7.5
48 TEXAS 199 HARDIN 7.5
48 TEXAS 203 HARRISON 7.5
48 TEXAS 209 HAYS 7.5
48 TEXAS 213 HENDERSON 7.5
48 TEXAS 217 HILL 7.5
48 TEXAS 221 HOOD 7.5
48 TEXAS 223 HOPKINS 7.5
48 TEXAS 225 HOUSTON 7.5
48 TEXAS 231 HUNT 7.5
48 TEXAS 239 JACKSON 7.5
48 TEXAS 241 JASPER 7.5
48 TEXAS 245 JEFFERSON 7.5
48 TEXAS 251 JOHNSON 7.5
48 TEXAS 255 KARNES 7.5
48 TEXAS 257 KAUFMAN 7.5
48 TEXAS 277 LAMAR 7.5
48 TEXAS 285 LAVACA 7.5
48 TEXAS 287 LEE 7.5
48 TEXAS 289 LEON 7.5
48 TEXAS 293 LIMESTONE 7.5
48 TEXAS 297 LIVE OAK 7.5
48 TEXAS 309 MCLENNAN 7.5
48 TEXAS 313 MADISON 7.5
48 TEXAS 315 MARION 7.5
48 TEXAS 321 MATAGORDA 7.5
48 TEXAS 331 MILAM 7.5
48 TEXAS 343 MORRIS 7.5
48 TEXAS 347 NACOGDOCHES 7.5
48 TEXAS 349 NAVARRO 7.5
48 TEXAS 351 NEWTON 7.5
48 TEXAS 355 NUECES 7.5
48 TEXAS 361 ORANGE 7.5
48 TEXAS 365 PANOLA 7.5
48 TEXAS 367 PARKER 7.5
48 TEXAS 373 POLK 7.5
48 TEXAS 379 RAINS 7.5PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 35 Table II-12 (continued)

FIPS State Code State Name FIPS County Code County Name RVP
48 TEXAS 387 RED RIVER 7.5
48 TEXAS 391 REFUGIO 7.5
48 TEXAS 395 ROBERTSON 7.5
48 TEXAS 397 ROCKWALL 7.5
48 TEXAS 401 RUSK 7.5
48 TEXAS 403 SABINE 7.5
48 TEXAS 405 SAN AUGUSTINE 7.5
48 TEXAS 407 SAN JACINTO 7.5
48 TEXAS 409 SAN PATRICIO 7.5
48 TEXAS 419 SHELBY 7.5
48 TEXAS 423 SMITH 7.5
48 TEXAS 425 SOMERVELL 7.5
48 TEXAS 449 TITUS 7.5
48 TEXAS 453 TRAVIS 7.5
48 TEXAS 455 TRINITY 7.5
48 TEXAS 457 TYLER 7.5
48 TEXAS 459 UPSHUR 7.5
48 TEXAS 467 VAN ZANDT 7.5
48 TEXAS 469 VICTORIA 7.5
48 TEXAS 471 WALKER 7.5
48 TEXAS 477 WASHINGTON 7.5
48 TEXAS 481 WHARTON 7.5
48 TEXAS 491 WILLIAMSON 7.5
48 TEXAS 493 WILSON 7.5
48 TEXAS 497 WISE 7.5
48 TEXAS 499 WOOD 7.5PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 36 Table II-13. CENRAP Oxygenated Fuel Inputs

FIPS State Code State Name Area/County O2, wt %
05 ARKANSAS Statewide 0.30
19 IOWA Statewide 1.94
20 KANSAS Statewide 0.14
22 LOUISIANA Statewide 0.27
27 MINNESOTA Statewide 3.32
29 MISSOURI Statewide 0.32
31 NEBRASKA Statewide 1.47
40 OKLAHOMA Statewide 0.0 48 TEXAS El Paso County 2.7

1. Growth

Growth factors in NONROAD2004 are based on nati onal, historical chan ges in fuel-specific equipment populations. Pechan has concerns about using growth rates that vary significantly from the model growth rates without fully eval uating the impact the re vised growth rates may have on other related activity vari ables such as median life and scrappage rates. Pechan did, however, reflect State differences in growth rates by adjusting the NONROAD model growth rates for several significant nonr oad categories, as identified in CENRAP’s 2002 base year NONROAD model inventory (STI , 2004). These adjustments were made using State-level growth rates based on surrogate socioeconomic i ndicators believed to corr elate with activity for each category. These data are available from the REMI model, and are incorporated into EGAS (Houyoux, 2004). The proposed methodology for making these adjustments was first documented in a technical memorandum prepared for CENRAP (Pechan, 2005). The NONROAD priority categories, along with the socioeconomic indicator used to adjust the national growth rate for each category, are listed in Table II-14. Note that employment and value added data are available from REMI for the Agri cultural Production sector (SIC 01, 02). This is expected to be a suitable surroga te for the growth in farm equipment, but growth rates for these variables were not calculated separately in RE MI for each State, and are reported as the same value for all States. As such, Pechan used Output in Agricultural Services (SIC 07) as a surrogate indicator for farm equipment growth.

Table II-15 lists the NONROAD na tional growth factor value fo r 2018 (relative to 2002 base year) for each of the priority categories. Unlik e other nonroad categories, separate growth rates are included in NONROAD for some of the specific recreational equipment applications, such as ATVs and Off-Highway Motorcycles. Table II-16 lists the 2018 growth factors for each chosen REMI surrogate indicator. Values are presente d for each CENRAP State, as well as the nation. The general equation used to make this adjustme nt is shown below, along with an example of this calculation for gasoline lawn and garden equipment:

NRDGR ST = NRDGR NAT x (REMIGR ST /REMIGR NAT )PECHANMay 2005Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002Draft Technical Support Document37Table II-14. NONROAD Model Priority Growth Categories and REMI Data for Adjusting National NONROADGrowth RatesSCCSCC DescriptionNONROAD Model GrowthIndicator CodeREMI CodeREMI Code Description2270002000Diesel Construction21604Construction Employment -SIC 15, 16, 172270005000Diesel Farm31165Agricultural Services Output - SIC 07226000400022650040002-Stroke Gasoline Lawn and Garden4-Stroke Gasoline Lawn and Garden52901Population (Thousands)228200500022820100002-Stroke Gasoline Recreational Marine4-Stroke Gasoline Recreational Marine92903Real Disposable Personal Income226000103022650010302-Stroke Gasoline ATVs4-Stroke Gasoline ATVs9596903Real Disposable Personal Income226000101022650010102-Stroke Gasoline Off-Highway Motorcycles4-Stroke Gasoline Off-Highway Motorcycles97903Real Disposable Personal Income22600010202-Stroke Gasoline Snowmobiles98903Real Disposable Personal Income22820050152-Stroke Gasoline RecreationalMarine - Personal Watercraft99903Real Disposable Personal IncomePECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 38 Table II-15. NONROAD Model Cate gory Growth Factors for 2018

Category Indicator Code Growth Factor 1

Diesel Construction 21 1.432 Diesel Farm 31 1.389 2 and 4-stroke Gasoline Lawn and Garden 52 1.337 2 and 4-stroke Gasoline Recreational Marine 92 1.146 2-stroke Gasoline ATVs 95 2.756 4-stroke Gasoline ATVs 96 2.105 2 and 4-stroke Gasoline Off-Highway Motorcycles 97 1.925 2-Stroke Gasoline Snowmobiles 98 1.705 2-Stroke Gasoline Recreational Marine - Personal Watercraft 99 1.146

NOTE: 1 Growth factor values calculated relative to base year 2002.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 39 Table II-16. REMI State and Na tional Growth Factors for 2018

REMI CODE CODEDESC STFIPS Geographic Area Growth Factor 1
604 Construction - SIC 15, 16, 17 05 Arkansas 1.035 604 Construction - SIC 15, 16, 17 19 Iowa 1.049 604 Construction - SIC 15, 16, 17 20 Kansas 1.016 604 Construction - SIC 15, 16, 17 22 Louisiana 1.120 604 Construction - SIC 15, 16, 17 27 Minnesota 1.005 604 Construction - SIC 15, 16, 17 29 Missouri 1.023 604 Construction - SIC 15, 16, 17 31 Nebraska 1.011 604 Construction - SIC 15, 16, 17 40 Oklahoma 1.098 604 Construction - SIC 15, 16, 17 48 Texas 1.011 604 Construction - SIC 15, 16, 17 NA National 1.025 165 Agricultural Services 05 Arkansas 1.117 165 Agricultural Services 19 Iowa 1.301 165 Agricultural Services 20 Kansas 1.329 165 Agricultural Services 22 Louisiana 1.330 165 Agricultural Services 27 Minnesota 1.334 165 Agricultural Services 29 Missouri 1.391 165 Agricultural Services 31 Nebraska 1.281 165 Agricultural Services 40 Oklahoma 1.358 165 Agricultural Services 48 Texas 1.400 165 Agricultural Services NA National 1.376 901 Population (Thousands) 05 Arkansas 1.173 901 Population (Thousands) 19 Iowa 1.126 901 Population (Thousands) 20 Kansas 1.160 901 Population (Thousands) 22 Louisiana 1.138 901 Population (Thousands) 27 Minnesota 1.171 901 Population (Thousands) 29 Missouri 1.150 901 Population (Thousands) 31 Nebraska 1.144 901 Population (Thousands) 40 Oklahoma 1.253 901 Population (Thousands) 48 Texas 1.299 901 Population (Thousands) NA National 1.218 903 Real Disposable Personal Income 05 Arkansas 1.561 903 Real Disposable Personal Income 19 Iowa 1.519 903 Real Disposable Personal Income 20 Kansas 1.550 903 Real Disposable Personal Income 22 Louisiana 1.588 903 Real Disposable Personal Income 27 Minnesota 1.576 903 Real Disposable Personal Income 29 Missouri 1.540 903 Real Disposable Personal Income 31 Nebraska 1.530 903 Real Disposable Personal Income 40 Oklahoma 1.621 903 Real Disposable Personal Income 48 Texas 1.665 903 Real Disposable Personal Income NA National 1.596

NOTE: 1 Growth factor values calculated relative to base year 2002.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 40 where:
NRDGR ST = Revised NONROAD State-level Growth Rate
NRDGR NAT = Base NONROAD National Growth Rate
REMIGR ST = State REMI Growth Rate
REMIGR NAT = National REMI Growth Rate

The revised growth rate for gasoline lawn and ga rden equipment in Oklahoma is calculated as follows:

NRDGR ST = 1.337 x (1.253 ÷ 1.218)
= 1.374

Table II-17 shows the adjusted 2018 growth factors calculated for all CENRAP States for all priority equipment categories, and compares these values to the NONROAD model default growth factor values.

Pechan prepared a revised NATION.GRW file for use in the NONROAD model. Once 2002- based growth rates were calculated, Pechan norma lized these rates to re flect the 2002 year value in the NATION.GRW file. Since this year was not reported for most category codes, these 2002 data were calculated us ing linear interpolation of values reported for the most recent prior year and closest future year. Pechan then incorporated 2018 data for each of the appropriate indicator codes for all CENRAP States. St ate-specific records for historic years prior to 2002 were also added (since base year populat ion values for most equipment types are for 1996 or 1998) using the same values as the national-level indicators.

2. Controls

EPA’s NONROAD2004 model incorporates the e ffects of most final Federal standards, including the Tier 4 diesel engine standards a nd the exhaust emission standards for large sparkignition (S-I) engines, diesel marine, and land-based recreationa l engines. The only remaining federal standards not modeled by NONROAD2004 in clude permeation and evaporative emission standards for gasoline recrea tional and large S-I engines, respectively. The evaporative standards for recreational equipment only affect permeation emissions, which are not currently included in NONROAD2004. These standards do not affect any other evaporative emission components in the model (i.e., diurnal or refue ling). Therefore, Pechan did not model the recreational equipment permeation emission standard s. Pechan developed an estimate of the emission reductions due to the large S-I standa rd to apply to the affected SCCs as a postprocessing adjustment, which is discussed below.

For the large S-I evaporative standards, Pechan obtained overall emission reduction information from the Large S-I Regulatory Support Docume nt (EPA, 2002). Using large S-I evaporative base and control case future ye ar inventories, emission reductions were estimated for 2018. These emission reductions vary by evaporative co mponent, but for this analysis Pechan summed the emissions across all components to estimat e emission reductions for all evaporativePECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 41 Table II-17. Adjusted 2018 Growth Fact ors for Nonroad Priority Equipment Categories

State FIPS State Name NONROAD Growth Factor 1 Adjusted Growth Factor 1 Percent Difference 2 and 4-stroke Gasoline Lawn and Garden - Indicator Code 52
5 Arkansas 1.337 1.287 -3.9
19 Iowa 1.337 1.235 -8.3
20 Kansas 1.337 1.273 -5
22 Louisiana 1.337 1.249 -7
27 Minnesota 1.337 1.284 -4.1
29 Missouri 1.337 1.261 -6
31 Nebraska 1.337 1.255 -6.5 40 Oklahoma 1.337 1.374 2.7
48 Texas 1.337 1.424 6.1 Diesel Construction - Indicator Code 21
5 Arkansas 1.432 1.446 1
19 Iowa 1.432 1.466 2.3
20 Kansas 1.432 1.419 -0.9
22 Louisiana 1.432 1.565 8.5
27 Minnesota 1.432 1.404 -2
29 Missouri 1.432 1.429 -0.2
31 Nebraska 1.432 1.412 -1.4 40 Oklahoma 1.432 1.534 6.6
48 Texas 1.432 1.412 -1.4 Diesel Farm - Indicator Code 31
5 Arkansas 1.389 1.127 -23.2
19 Iowa 1.389 1.314 -5.7 20 Kansas 1.389 1.342 -3.5
22 Louisiana 1.389 1.343 -3.4
27 Minnesota 1.389 1.346 -3.2
29 Missouri 1.389 1.404 1.1
31 Nebraska 1.389 1.293 -7.4 40 Oklahoma 1.389 1.37 -1.4
48 Texas 1.389 1.413 1.7 2 and 4-stroke Gasoline Recreational Marine - Indicator Code 92
5 Arkansas 1.146 1.121 -2.2
19 Iowa 1.146 1.091 -5
20 Kansas 1.146 1.113 -3
22 Louisiana 1.146 1.141 -0.4
27 Minnesota 1.146 1.132 -1.2
29 Missouri 1.146 1.106 -3.6
31 Nebraska 1.146 1.099 -4.3 40 Oklahoma 1.146 1.165 1.6
48 Texas 1.146 1.196 4.2 2-stroke Gasoline ATVs - Indicator Code 95
5 Arkansas 2.756 2.696 -2.2
19 Iowa 2.756 2.623 -5.1
20 Kansas 2.756 2.677 -3
22 Louisiana 2.756 2.742 -0.5PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 42 Table II-17 (continued)

State FIPS State Name NONROAD Growth Factor 1 Adjusted Growth Factor 1 Percent Difference
27 Minnesota 2.756 2.721 -1.3
29 Missouri 2.756 2.659 -3.6
31 Nebraska 2.756 2.642 -4.3 40 Oklahoma 2.756 2.8 1.6
48 Texas 2.756 2.875 4.1 4-stroke Gasoline ATVs - Indicator Code 96
5 Arkansas 2.105 2.059 -2.2
19 Iowa 2.105 2.003 -5.1
20 Kansas 2.105 2.045 -2.9
22 Louisiana 2.105 2.095 -0.5
27 Minnesota 2.105 2.078 -1.3
29 Missouri 2.105 2.031 -3.6
31 Nebraska 2.105 2.018 -4.3 40 Oklahoma 2.105 2.139 1.6
48 Texas 2.105 2.196 4.1 2 and 4-stroke Gasoline Off-Highway Motorcycles - Indicator Code 97
5 Arkansas 1.925 1.884 -2.2
19 Iowa 1.925 1.832 -5.1
20 Kansas 1.925 1.87 -2.9
22 Louisiana 1.925 1.916 -0.5
27 Minnesota 1.925 1.901 -1.3
29 Missouri 1.925 1.858 -3.6
31 Nebraska 1.925 1.846 -4.3 40 Oklahoma 1.925 1.956 1.6
48 Texas 1.925 2.009 4.2 2-Stroke Gasoline Snowmobiles - Indicator Code 98
5 Arkansas 1.705 1.669 -2.2
19 Iowa 1.705 1.623 -5.1
20 Kansas 1.705 1.657 -2.9
22 Louisiana 1.705 1.697 -0.5
27 Minnesota 1.705 1.684 -1.2
29 Missouri 1.705 1.646 -3.6
31 Nebraska 1.705 1.635 -4.3 40 Oklahoma 1.705 1.733 1.6
48 Texas 1.705 1.779 4.2 2-Stroke Gasoline Recreational Marine - Personal Watercraft - Indicator Code 99
5 Arkansas 1.146 1.121 -2.2
19 Iowa 1.146 1.091 -5
20 Kansas 1.146 1.113 -3
22 Louisiana 1.146 1.141 -0.4
27 Minnesota 1.146 1.132 -1.2
29 Missouri 1.146 1.106 -3.6
31 Nebraska 1.146 1.099 -4.3 40 Oklahoma 1.146 1.165 1.6
48 Texas 1.146 1.196 4.2

NOTE: 1 Growth factor values calculated relative to base year 2002.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 43 emissions combined, as well as crankcase emissi ons. Large S-I evaporative emission reductions for 2018 were estimated to be 78.1 percent.

Pechan calculated two rule penetration adjustment s to account for the fraction of the SCC-level emissions that are affected by the rule. Since the rule only affects large S-I engines greater than 25 horsepower, the first adjustment was develo ped to reflect that fraction of the activity associated with these larger engines. This was estimated us ing 2002 national gasoline consumption results by horsepower and equi pment category from NONROAD2004. As a simplifying assumption, we used the 2002 rule pene tration value for 2018 and for all applications within a category, though this is likely to vary by year and application. Table II-18 provides a summary of the horsepower-related rule penetrat ion values by equipment category. A second rule penetration adjustment by SCC was also deve loped to account for that fraction of the SCClevel emissions associated with evaporative VOC relative to the total VOC emissions (i.e., exhaust plus evaporative). Final emission redu ctions by SCC are presented in Table II-19. These emission reductions were applied directly to the SCC-level output from the NONROAD model as a post-processing step.

The following equation shows an example of ho w overall adjusted emi ssion reductions were estimated for 4-stroke in dustrial forklifts in 2018:

ER ADJ = RP hp x RP evap x ERPECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 44 Table II-18. Horsepower-Related Rule Pe netration Values by Category for Large S-I Evaporative Standards

Fuel Type Classification Rule Penetration
Gasoline Agricultural Equipment 0.40
Gasoline Airport Equipment 0.74
Gasoline Commercial Equipment 0.05
Gasoline Construction and Mining Equipment 0.14
Gasoline Industrial Equipment 0.59
Gasoline Commercial Lawn and Garden Equipment 0.07
Gasoline Railroad Equipment 0.04
Gasoline Recreational Equipment 1 0.43
CNG All Classifications 1.0
LPG All Classifications 1.0

NOTE: 1 Applies to specialty vehicle carts only; other re creational equipment covered by recreational standards.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 45 Table II-19. Control Effectiveness Valu es by SCC for Large S-I Evaporative Standards in 2018

SCC Percent Control Effectiveness
2260001060 11.2
2260002006 0.3
2260002009 0.6
2260002021 0.6
2260002027 0.3
2260002039 0.1
2260002054 0.3
2260003030 3.8
2260003040 2.7
2260004016 0.9
2260004021 1
2260004026 1.1
2260004031 0.4
2260004036 0.2
2260004071 0.2
2260005035 3.7
2260005050 1.6
2260006005 0.4
2260006010 0.3
2260006015 0.2
2265001060 7.3
2265002003 1.4
2265002006 1.5
2265002009 1.1
2265002015 1.2
2265002021 1.7
2265002024 1.1
2265002027 1
2265002030 1.2
2265002033 2
2265002039 1
2265002042 2.8
2265002045 4.1
2265002054 1.3
2265002057 5.7
2265002060 6.5
2265002066 1
2265002072 2.7
2265002078 2.9
2265002081 5
2265003010 14.5
2265003020 24.4
2265003030 9
2265003040 5 2265003050 13.1
2265003060 5
2265003070 25.8PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 46 Table II-19 (continued)

SCC Percent Control Effectiveness
2265004011 1.5
2265004016 1.9
2265004026 2.6
2265004031 1.8
2265004036 1.8
2265004041 0.9
2265004046 1.2
2265004051 1.9
2265004056 0.8
2265004066 0.9
2265004071 0.6
2265004076 1.9
2265005010 3.4
2265005015 8.3
2265005020 18.4
2265005025 20.4
2265005030 4.7
2265005035 9.5
2265005040 7.2
2265005045 18.3
2265005050 3.6
2265005055 11.6
2265005060 14.5
2265006005 1
2265006010 0.8
2265006015 0.6
2265006025 0.7
2265006030 0.8
2265008005 11.5
2265010010 3
2267001060 17.5
2267002003 6.6
2267002021 12.6
2267002024 6.1
2267002030 6.3
2267002033 17
2267002045 10.9
2267002054 10.4
2267002057 7.7
2267002060 1
2267002072 11.7
2267002081 13.1
2267003010 13.7
2267003020 0.8
2267003030 0.1
2267003050 9.6
2267005050 8
2267005055 17.6PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 47 Table II-19 (continued)

SCC Percent Control Effectiveness
2267006005 17.2
2267006010 13.8
2267006015 4.7
2267006025 4.3
2267006030 11.5
2268002081 12.9
2268003020 0.9
2268003030 0.3
2268003060 2.7
2268006005 17.6
2268006010 15.3
2268006015 5.8
2285004015 0.6
2285006015 9.8PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 48 where:
ER ADJ = adjusted emission reduction accounting for rule penetration
RP hp = rule penetration for affected horsepower fraction
RP evap = rule penetration for evaporativ e fraction of total VOC emissions
ER = evaporative emission reduction for affected engines

ER ADJ = 0.590 x 0.529 x 0.781
= 0.244 = 24.4 percent

a. State Controls

In addition to Federal controls , Pechan accounted for regulations in Texas that control nonroad refueling spillage emissions from use of portabl e fuel containers. Similar to the large S-I evaporative standard modeling discussed above , Pechan calculated two rule penetration adjustments accounting for the appropriate fracti on of the SCC-level emissions affected by the rule. The first adjustment was developed to refl ect that fraction of the SCC emissions associated with equipment fueled with a portable fuel cont ainer. Nonroad equipment refueled by a portable container are generally smaller horsepower engines than those refueled at service stations. A second rule penetration adjustment by SCC was also developed to account for that fraction of the SCC-level emissions associated with evaporative spillage VOC relative to the total VOC emissions (i.e., exhaust plus evaporative). These adjustments were both estimated using 2002 national evaporative VOC emissions data by hor sepower, equipment category, and evaporative component, from NONROAD2004. Cont rol efficiency was assumed to be 100 percent, and full equipment turnover of gas cans should be achieved by 2018.

The final emission reductions by SCC are presente d in Table II-20. These emission reductions were applied directly to the appr opriate SCCs as a post-processing step for all counties in Texas.

3. Non-NONROAD Model

Pechan compiled control information for commerci al marine vessels and locomotives. Standards affecting these categories are Fede ral standards that aff ect all areas of the nation. No additional local controls were modeled in the CE NRAP region for these categories.

In 2003, EPA proposed aircraft engine NO
x emission standards that will bring U.S. aircraft standards into alignment with standards de veloped by the Internat ional Civil Aviation Organization. EPA did not prepare emission reduc tion estimates for these standards because any such reductions would be modest (e.g., 94 percent of aircraft engines ar e currently meeting or exceeding these standards). Therefore, Pechan did not account for emission reductions from these standards for this analysis.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 49 Table II-20. 2018 VOC Emission Reductions by SCC for Texas Portable Container Rule

SCC Percent VOC Reduction
2260001010 0.8%
2260001030 2.7%
2260003030 6.6%
2260003040 4.2%
2260004015 14.3%
2260004016 15.7%
2260004020 39.1%
2260004021 17.7%
2260004025 19.9%
2260004026 19.7%
2260004030 5.5%
2260004031 5.4%
2260004035 3.2%
2260004071 2.1%
2260006005 6.1%
2260006010 5.4%
2260006015 4.0%
2260007005 9.1%
2265001010 5.5%
2265001030 7.0%
2265001060 0.1%
2265003010 0.3%
2265003030 2.3%
2265003040 4.3%
2265003050 0.0%
2265004010 23.5%
2265004011 25.7% 2265004015 29.9%
2265004016 33.0%
2265004025 39.4%
2265004026 46.7%
2265004030 13.0%
2265004031 28.7%
2265004035 15.6%
2265004040 6.3%
2265004041 9.1%
2265004046 8.8%
2265004051 31.8%
2265004055 7.0%
2265004056 8.7%
2265004066 3.1%
2265004071 4.2%
2265004075 3.8%
2265004076 3.8%
2265006005 4.6%
2265006010 9.7%
2265006015 6.4%
2265006025 10.2%
2265006030 9.6%
2265007010 52.4%PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 50 a. Locomotives

Emission reduction impacts of the Federal locomotive engine standa rds are available in an EPA Regulatory Support Document (EPA, 1998). Th is document contains emission reduction information specific to Class I Operations, Class II/III Operations, Passenger Trains (Amtrak and Commuter Lines), and Switch (Yard) Locomotiv es. Year-specific percentage reduction estimates for select pollutants are available fo r each locomotive sector for each year over the 1999-2040 period. These emission reductions reflect the control technology efficiencies, as well as the expected rule penetration for the years of interest. Rule effectiveness was assumed to be 100 percent.

In addition, overall SO 2 , PM 10 , and PM 2.5 emission reductions associated with decreases in the diesel fuel sulfur content were also included. These were estimated from future base case and control case locomotive emission inventories prep ared for EPA’s regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for the Clean Air Diesel Rule (EPA, 2004). In the case of PM, since exhaust PM standards already apply to locomotives, a comb ined emission reduction was calculated for each future year that accounted for both the exhaust st andards and reductions in PM sulfate due to the fuel sulfur limits. Table II-21 presents the 2018 emission reductions that apply to locomotive SCC emissions.

b. Commercial Marine Vessels

EPA has promulgated two sets of commercial ma rine vessel regulations: a regulation setting Category 1 and 2 marine diesel engine standards and a regula tion setting Category 3 marine diesel engine standards. Categor y 1 marine diesel engines are defi ned as engines of greater than 37 kilowatts but with a per-cylinder displacement of 5 liters/cylinder or less. Category 2 marine diesel engines cover engines of 5 to 30 liters/cylinder, and Ca tegory 3 marine diesel engines include the remaining, very large, engines. For this analysis, overall emission reductions were estimated for each projection year of interest using information from the regulatory support documents prepared for these rulemakings (E PA, 1999; EPA, 2003). In addition to the EPA standards, beginning in 2000, marine diesel engines greater than or equal to 130 kilowatts are subject to an international NO
x emissions treaty (MARPOL) de veloped by the International Maritime Organization. The emission reductions re flect both the MARPOL and EPA standards.

Because the reductions vary by category of ve ssel, assumptions were made concerning the characterization of engines associated with dies el commercial marine vessel SCCs included in the base year inventory. For SCC 2280002100 (Marine Vessels, Commercial Diesel Port emissions), Category 2 engines were a ssumed. For SCC 2280002200 (Marine Vessels, Commercial Diesel Underway emissions ), Category 3 engines were assumed.PECHANMay 2005Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002Draft Technical Support Document51Table II-21. 2018 Emission Reductions and Control Information for Federal Rail Standards1SCC SCC Description Pollutant2018 EmissionReduction, %2018 ControlEfficiency2018 RuleEffectiveness2018 RulePenetration2285000000 Railroad Equipment All Fuels Total NOX 47.7 62 100 76.92285002000 Railroad Equipment Diesel Total NOX 47.7 62 100 76.92285002006 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives:Class I OperationsNOX 52 62 100 83.92285002007 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives:Class II / III OperationsNOX 13 62 100 212285002008 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives:Passenger Trains (Amtrak)NOX 51 62 100 82.32285002009 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives:Commuter LinesNOX 51 62 100 82.32285002010 Railroad Equipment Diesel Yard Locomotives NOX 31 58 100 53.42285000000 Railroad Equipment All Fuels Total PM10-PRI 42.312285002000 Railroad Equipment Diesel Total PM10-PRI 42.312285002006 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives:Class I OperationsPM10-PRI 44.82285002007 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives:Class II / III OperationsPM10-PRI 22.25 22.3 100 99.82285002008 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives:Passenger Trains (Amtrak)PM10-PRI 43.242285002009 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives:Commuter LinesPM10-PRI 43.242285002010 Railroad Equipment Diesel Yard Locomotives PM10-PRI 30.82285000000 Railroad Equipment All Fuels Total PM25-PRI 42.312285002000 Railroad Equipment Diesel Total PM25-PRI 42.312285002006 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives:Class I OperationsPM25-PRI 44.82285002007 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives:Class II / III OperationsPM25-PRI 22.25 22.3 100 99.82285002008 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives:Passenger Trains (Amtrak)PM25-PRI 43.242285002009 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives:Commuter LinesPM25-PRI 43.242285002010 Railroad Equipment Diesel Yard Locomotives PM25-PRI 30.8PECHANMay 2005Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002Draft Technical Support Document52Table II-21 (continued)SCC SCC Description Pollutant2018 EmissionReduction, %2018 ControlEfficiency2018 RuleEffectiveness2018 RulePenetration2285000000 Railroad Equipment All Fuels Total SO2 97.58 97.6 100 1002285002000 Railroad Equipment Diesel Total SO2 97.58 97.6 100 1002285002006 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives:Class I OperationsSO2 97.58 97.6 100 1002285002007 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives:Class II / III OperationsSO2 97.58 97.6 100 1002285002008 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives:Passenger Trains (Amtrak)SO2 97.58 97.6 100 1002285002009 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives:Commuter LinesSO2 97.58 97.6 100 1002285002010 Railroad Equipment Diesel Yard Locomotives SO2 97.58 97.6 100 1002285000000 Railroad Equipment All Fuels Total VOC 23.6 47 100 50.22285002000 Railroad Equipment Diesel Total VOC 23.6 47 100 50.22285002006 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives:Class I OperationsVOC 27 47 100 57.42285002008 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives:Passenger Trains (Amtrak)VOC 26 47 100 55.32285002009 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives:Commuter LinesVOC 26 47 100 55.32285002010 Railroad Equipment Diesel Yard Locomotives VOC 10 50 100 20NOTE:1Values for CE, RE, and RP for PM10 and PM25 were not estimated since these values account for PMreductions due to both exhaustand fuel sulfur standards.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 53 Similar to locomotives, overall SO 2 , PM 10 and PM 2.5 emission reductions associated with decreases in the diesel fuel sulfur content were also included based on information in EPA’s RIA for the Clean Air Diesel Rule (EPA, 2004b). See Table II-22 for the 2018 emission reductions that apply to commercial ma rine vessel SCC emissions.



### E. DEVELOPMENT OF ONROAD DATA

For the onroad projections in the CENRAP air quality modeling, Pechan provided a set of VMT growth factors in SMOKE format, along with SMOKE-formatted MOBILE6 input files. The MOBILE6 input files incorporate any Federal, State, or local control program information. Thus, control factors or emission reduction perc entages are not explicitly provided for this sector, but rather are incorporated in the MOBILE6 modeling. The development of the VMT growth factors and the MOBILE6 input files ar e discussed below. Once VMT growth factors were calculated for all of the CENRAP Stat es, the growth factors were multiplied by the CENRAP base year 2002 VMT data to cal culate 2018 VMT. The projected 2018 VMT by county and SCC (vehicle type and roadway t ype) were then provided in a SMOKE-formatted file, along with the corresponding average vehicl e speed for that county/SCC combination. These speed inputs are the same as those used in the 2002 CENRAP base case—no updates were made to the modeled speeds.

1. VMT Growth

a. Default VMT Growth Methodology

As indicated in the Methods Document, Pech an’s proposed default VMT growth methodology was to use EGAS VMT growth factors when more specific data were not supplied by the State or local agencies. However, when attempting to prepare the EGAS VMT gr owth factors using the beta version of EGAS 5, Pechan encountered a bug in the EGAS c ode that prevented data from being output for the onroad mobile SCCs. As an alternative (but si milar) methodology, Pechan developed a set of 2002 to 2018 VMT growth f actors using the same methodology used by EPA in their CAIR rule analysis that had origin ally been developed for EPA’s draft Section 812 second prospective analysis (Mullen and Neumann, 2004).

The VMT projections account fo r vehicle class-specific growth factors and population growth factors. The data used for the vehicle class-spec ific growth factors are vehicle category-specific 2002 VMT and VMT projections to 2018, both at th e national level, for the following three vehicle classes: 1) Light-duty ve hicles (under 8,500 lbs); 2) Comm ercial light trucks (between 8,500 and 10,000 lbs); and 3) Freight trucks (gre ater than 10,000 lbs). These national VMT projections were obtained from the 2005 Annual Energy Outlook (DOE, 2005).

The national 2002 VMT and the 2018 VMT projections were allocated to the MOBILE6 vehicle categories using the default MOBILE6 VMT fractions by vehicle type in 2002 and 2018. Overall vehicle-specific growth factors were th en calculated by multiplying the ratio of the 2018 to 2002 VMT at the MOBILE6 vehicle type level.PECHANMay 2005Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002Draft Technical Support Document54Table II-22. 2018 Emission Reductions and Control Information for Federal Diesel Commercial Marine StandardsSCC SCC Description Pollutant2018 EmissionReduction, %2018ControlEfficiency2018 RuleEffectiveness2018 RulePenetration2280002100 Marine Vessels, Commercial Diesel Port emissions PM25-PRI 12.14 12.1 100 1002280002100 Marine Vessels, Commercial Diesel Port emissions PM10-PRI 12.14 12.1 100 1002280002100 Marine Vessels, Commercial Diesel Port emissions SO2 97.58 97.6 100 1002280002100 Marine Vessels, Commercial Diesel Port emissions NOX 20.46 43.7 100 46.82280002200 Marine Vessels, Commercial DieselUnderway emissions PM25-PRI 12.14 12.1 100 1002280002200 Marine Vessels, Commercial DieselUnderway emissions PM10-PRI 12.14 12.1 100 1002280002200 Marine Vessels, Commercial Diesel Underway emissions SO2 97.58 97.6 100 1002280002200 Marine Vessels, Commercial DieselUnderway emissions NOX 14.88 43.2 100 34.4PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 55 Different levels of population growth throughou t the CENRAP States were accounted for by calculating the ratio of county level population growth to na tional population growth. The population estimates used in these calculations were the EGAS population projections derived from Census population estimates and the REMI demographic/migration module which forecasts regional population ch ange (REMI, 1997).

These resulting growth factors were then multiplied by the CENRAP 2002 VMT data at the county/roadway type/vehicle type level of deta il to obtain projected 2018 VMT data. This is illustrated in the following equation:

VMT18 C,V,R = VMT02 ,C,V,R * (VMT EIA18,V / VMT EIA02,V ) * [(POP 18,C /POP02 ,C )/(POP 18,US /POP 02,US )]

where:
VMT18 C,V,R = 2018 projected VMT for county C , vehicle type V , road type R (million miles)
VMT02 C,V,R = 2002 CENRAP VMT for county C , vehicle type V , road type R (million miles)
VMT EIA20, V = 2020 EIA-based VMT projection for vehicle type V (billion miles)
VMT EIA99,V = 1999 EIA-based VMT for vehicle type V (billion miles)
POP 20,C = 2020 EGAS 4.0 population of county C
POP 99,C = 1999 EGAS 4.0 population of county C
POP 20,US = 2020 EGAS 4.0 population of US
POP 99,US = 1999 EGAS 4.0 population of US

It should be noted that this equation does not specifically account for varying growth rates by functional roadway class. Our research in 2003 did not reveal a consistent national basis on which to make roadway-class-specific projections.

b. State or Local VMT Growth Methodology

Several State and local agencies within the CE NRAP States provided data to be used in projecting VMT growth for that State or local area. Early in this project, Pechan asked the CENRAP emission inventory contacts for inform ation on appropriate contacts from their State Departments of Transportation and from the majo r metropolitan planning organizations in their State. Pechan then inquired of these cont acts whether they had developed their own VMT growth projections, and if so, the VMT grow th data and will request any available documentation on the development of these growth factors and the growth factors themselves so that these growth factors would be applied correctly in the CENR AP projections. Responses to this request were provided by Ar kansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraksa, and Oklahoma. However, the VMT projection data provided by Arkansas and Missouri were for 2003 only, and the VMT projection data provided by Nebraska were to 2009 only. Neither of these projections were considered sufficient for use in projecti ng VMT to 2018, so these data were discarded. Within the resources available, Pechan also attempted to locate publicly available projected VMT data for major cities within the CENRAP States that were not included in the State-PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 56 provided VMT projection data and was able to obtain projected VMT information for several cities in Texas. The non-default VMT pr ojection data used are described below.

i. Iowa

The Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Orga nization (MPO) provided projected VMT data for four counties in the Des Moin es area: Dallas, Madison, Polk, and Warren. For each of these counties, daily link-level VMT data were provided for the years 2000, 2005, 2010, 2020, and 2030. For each of these years, Pechan summe d the total VMT for each county and then performed a linear interp olation between the 2000 and 2005 count y-level VMT totals to estimate county-level 2002 VMT. Similarly, Pechan linearl y interpolated the coun ty-level VMT totals from 2010 and 2020 to obtain an estimate of the 2018 county-level VMT totals. Finally, for each of these four counties, Pechan divided the interpolated 2018 county-level VMT by the interpolated 2002 county-level VMT to calculate a 2002 to 2018 VMT growth factor. These county-level VMT growth factors we re then applied to all road types and vehicle types within the corresponding county. These growth factors are as follows: 2.09 for Dallas County, 1.64 for Madison County, 1.48 for Polk County, and 1.64 for Warren County. Default VMT growth factors were used in a ll other Iowa counties.

ii. Minnesota

The Minnesota Department of Transportation (M nDOT) provided a series of historical annual VMT data from 1983 to 2003. From these data, P echan conducted a set of regression analyses with the Minnesota historical VMT as the depend ent variable, and histor ical Minnesota values (from REMI model incorporated into EGAS 5) for the following potential independent variables: year, driving age popul ation, gasoline and oil expenditure s, real disposable per capita income, and total output. Although population came in a close second, the variable with the best statistical fit was year. Pechan solved the re sulting equation with valu es for year of 2002 and 2018 and computed the ratio of the 2018 equatio n value to the 2002 equation value. This resulted in 2002 to 2018 VMT growth factor of 1.37 that was applied Statew ide to all road types and vehicle types.

iii. Oklahoma

The Oklahoma DEQ provided a spreadsheet containing State total VMT from 1983 through 2020. The VMT from 1983 through 2003 were daily Highway Performance Modeling System (HPMS) actual VMT totals. The 2004 through 2020 daily VMT totals were estimated by Oklahoma DEQ using linear regression based on the actual VMT data. From these data, Pechan estimated a 2002 to 2018 State-level VMT growth factor by dividing the projected 2018 daily VMT value by the 2002 Oklahoma HPMS daily VMT value. This resulted in a growth factor of 1.2754 and was applied Statewide to a ll road types and vehicle types.

iv. Texas

Pechan estimated VMT growth factors for the c ounties in the Austin and Dallas areas, based on publicly available data.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 57 Pechan obtained VMT for the Austin area from August 2003 TCEQ-sponsor ed on-road mobile source emission inventories for the Austin/San Marcos Metropolitan Statistical Area. The following counties were included in these invent ories: Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis, and Caldwell. For each of these counties, daily September VMT were provided for 1995, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2007, and 2012, with separate values for Monday through Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Pechan summed the VMT by county in each year to obtain total VMT for a week in September. Using the 2007 a nd 2012 weekly September VMT data, Pechan performed a linear extr apolation to estimate 2018 weekly Se ptember VMT. County-level VMT growth factors from 2002 to 2018 were then cal culated by dividing the 2018 weekly September VMT by the 2002 weekly September VMT.

Pechan obtained VMT projection data for th e Dallas area from the 2004 update to the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, prepared by the North Central Te xas Council of Governments. This document included 1999 and 2025 VMT data for five individual countie s (Dallas, Tarrant, Denton, Collin, and Rockwall) plus two additional area groups including two counties each (Ellis and Kaufman in one group and Johnson and Parker in another group). Pechan used linear interpolation to estimate 2002 and 2018 VMT data for each of these counties or county groups and then calculated the 2002 to 2018 VMT grow th factors by dividing the estimated 2018 VMT by the estimated 2002 VMT.

Table II-23 summarizes the non-defa ult VMT growth factors applied in the CENRAP States. All of these non-default growth factor s were applied to all road t ypes and vehicle types in that county.

Table II-23. 2002 to 2018 Non-Default VMT Growth Factors Applied in CENRAP States

State County 2002 to 2018 VMT Growth Factor
Iowa Dallas 2.09

Madison 1.64 Polk 1.48 Warren 1.64
Minnesota All 1.37 Oklahoma All 1.28

Texas Bastrop 1.62 Caldwell 1.43 Collin 1.85 Dallas 1.32 Denton 1.99 Ellis 1.79 Hays 1.44 Johnson 1.75 Kaufman 1.79 Parker 1.75 Rockwall 1.70 Tarrant 1.47 Travis 1.75 Williamson 2.18PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 58 2. SMOKE MOBILE6 Inputs

Each SMOKE-formatted MOBILE6 input file re presents a single representative MOBILE6 scenario for a specific county or group of c ounties. For each county or group of counties modeled, two SMOKE-formatted MOBILE6 files were prepared: one representing July conditions and one representing January conditions. Within SMOKE, the July input files will be used to model the ozone season months (i.e., Ma y through September) and the January input files will be used to represent all other months. Fo r counties with no State or local control programs and no locally-provided inputs, these MOBILE6 i nputs primarily contain th e calendar year being modeled (2018) and fuel input parameters for the season being modeled. Temperature data are also provided, but these are ove rridden in SMOKE by temperatures specific to the month being modeled. A simple SMOKE-formatted MOBILE6 input file for a county with no local inputs is shown below:

SCENARIO RECORD : ARKANSAS COUNTY, AR - WINTER
CALENDAR YEAR : 2018
EVALUATION MONTH : 1
ALTITUDE : 1 MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE: 50.0 70.0

FUEL RVP : 13.0
FUEL PROGRAM : 1
DIESEL SULFUR : 15.0
OXYGENATED FUELS : 0.500 0.001 0.006 0.001 1
PARTICULATE EF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDR1.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDR1.CSV PMDDR2.CSV

Note that no speed information is included in th is input file. The speedinformation is provided in the projected VMT files at the county/roadway type level of detail. In all cases, CALENDAR YEAR was set to 2018, ALTITUDE was set to “1” (i.e., low alt itude), MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE was set as shown above (as du mmy temperature values), DIESEL SULFUR was set to 15.0 (i.e., 15 ppm sulfur in the dies el fuel), and the PARTICULATE EF command was set using the files listed in the example above. The EVALUATION MONTH command was set to “1” for the January input files and to “2” for the July input files. The remaining commands listed in the example above (FUEL RVP, FU EL PROGRAM, ands OXYGENATED FUELS), as well as any additional commands needed, were set according to the specifics of the county or counties being modeled.

Note that the diesel sulfur input of 15 ppm sulfur in the diesel fuel represents the expected national diesel sulfur content in 2018. This reflects the requir ements of the Federal heavy-duty vehicle/low sulfur diesel rulemaking. Other Federal control programs are included in the MOBILE6 defaults, with no additi onal inputs needed. This includes the emission standards associated with the heavy-duty vehicle rulemaki ng, the Tier 2 emission standards for light-duty vehicles and trucks, as well as all prior emission standards.

Optional local inputs that were included in th e MOBILE6 files that are not related to control programs are the registration distributions a nd diesel sales fractions. The registration distributions (a distribution of registered vehicles by age for 16 vehicle types) used in the CENRAP 2002 base year modeling were used without change in the 2018 modeling. All CENRAP States except Arkansas has included registration dist ributions in the 2002 modeling.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 59 The diesel sales fractions (the fraction of vehicl es sales by model year that are diesel-fueled for 14 weight categories of vehicles) from 2002 were projected forward to 2018. To do this, the vehicles sales fractions listed for the 2002 model year were carri ed forward to all model years from 2003 to 2018. The diesel sales fractions values from the 1994 through 2002 model years, as listed in the 2002 diesel sales fractions files, were not change d. The diesel sales fractions from model years 1978 were removed from the files, as these model years are not needed in the 2018 calendar year modeling. Diesel sales frac tions were provided in the 2002 CENRAP base year modeling for all CENRAP States except Arkansas and Texas.

A set of January and July SMOKE MOBILE6 input files were created for each group of counties with a unique combination of local inputs, fuels, and control programs. Thus, since Arkansas had supplied no local inputs, and there are no coun ty-specific control programs in the State, a single set of MOBILE6 input files is used to model the entire State of Arkansas. In most of the other States, a single set of input files models a single county si nce most States provided countyspecific registration distributions or diesel sales fraction data.

Area-specific control programs modeled in each State are described below.

a. Inspection and Maintenance and Anti-tampering Programs

Onroad vehicle inspection and maintenance (I /M) programs and/or anti-tampering programs (ATPs) are required in specific c ounties in Louisiana, Missouri, and Texas. Changes to these programs have occurred or will occur such that the versions needed for the 2002 modeling were updated to best reflect the programs e xpected to be in place in 2018.

i. Louisiana

The Louisiana I/M program applies to the 5- parish Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment area (Ascension Parish, East Baton R ouge Parish, Iberville Parish, Li vingston Parish, and West Baton Rouge Parish). The specifics of this program , in MOBILE6 format, are shown in Figure II-1.

ii. Missouri

Missouri includes a basic I/M program in Fr anklin County, per State regulation 11 CSR 50- 2.400 “Emission Test Procedures” and an enhanced I/M program in the remainder of the St. Louis area (St. Louis City, Jefferson County, St . Charles County, and St. Louis County), per State regulation 10 CSR10-5.380 “Mot or Vehicle Emissions Inspectio n.” The specifics of the Franklin County program, in MOBILE6 format, are shown in Figure II-2. The St. Louis enhanced program is shown in Figure II-3.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 60 Figure II-1. Baton Rouge I/M Program and ATP Characteristics

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 1 2
I/M PROGRAM : 1 2002 2050 1 TRC OBD I/M
I/M MODEL YEARS : 1 1996 2050
I/M VEHICLES : 1 22222 21111111 1
I/M STRINGENCY : 1 20.0 I/M EFFECTIVENESS : 0.75 0.75 0.75

I/M COMPLIANCE : 1 96
I/M WAIVER RATES : 1 0.0 0.0

I/M PROGRAM : 2 2000 2001 1 TRC GC
I/M MODEL YEARS : 2 1980 2001
I/M VEHICLES : 2 22222 21111111 1
I/M COMPLIANCE : 2 96.0

I/M PROGRAM : 3 2002 2006 1 TRC GC
I/M MODEL YEARS : 3 1980 2006 I/M VEHICLES : 3 11111 21111111 1
I/M COMPLIANCE : 3 96.0

I/M PROGRAM : 4 2002 2050 1 TRC EVAP OBD & GC

I/M MODEL YEARS : 4 1996 2050
I/M VEHICLES : 4 22222 21111111 1 I/M STRINGENCY : 4 20.0

I/M COMPLIANCE : 4 96.0

I/M PROGRAM : 5 2007 2050 1 TRC EVAP OBD & GC I/M MODEL YEARS : 5 2007 2050 I/M VEHICLES : 5 11111 21111111 1
I/M STRINGENCY : 5 20.0 I/M COMPLIANCE : 5 96.0

ANTI-TAMP PROG : 00 80 50 22222 21111111 1 11 072. 22212222

Figure II-2. Franklin County I/M Program and ATP Characteristics

I/M PROGRAM : 1 2000 2050 2 T/O IDLE
I/M MODEL YEARS : 1 1971 2050
I/M VEHICLES : 1 22222 11111111 1
I/M STRINGENCY : 1 15.2
I/M COMPLIANCE : 1 96.0
I/M WAIVER RATES : 1 10.9 9.9
I/M GRACE PERIOD : 1 2

I/M PROGRAM : 2 2000 2050 2 T/O GC
I/M MODEL YEARS : 2 1981 2050
I/M VEHICLES : 2 22222 11111111 1
I/M COMPLIANCE : 2 96.0
I/M GRACE PERIOD : 2 2

ANTI-TAMP PROG :
00 71 50 22222 11111111 1 12 096. 12212122PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 61 Figure II-3. St. Louis Enhanced I/M Program Characteristics

I/M PROGRAM : 1 2003 2050 2 T/O OBD I/M
I/M MODEL YEARS : 1 1996 2050
I/M VEHICLES : 1 22222 11111111 1
I/M STRINGENCY : 1 20.0
I/M COMPLIANCE : 1 96.0
I/M WAIVER RATES : 1 3.0 3.0
I/M GRACE PERIOD : 1 2

I/M PROGRAM : 2 1990 2002 2 T/O IDLE
I/M MODEL YEARS : 2 1971 1980
I/M VEHICLES : 2 22222 11111111 1
I/M STRINGENCY : 2 18.0
I/M COMPLIANCE : 2 96.0
I/M WAIVER RATES : 2 25.3 25.3
I/M GRACE PERIOD : 2 2

I/M PROGRAM : 3 1990 2002 2 T/O IM240
I/M MODEL YEARS : 3 1981 2050
I/M VEHICLES : 3 22222 11111111 1
I/M STRINGENCY : 3 18.0
I/M COMPLIANCE : 3 96.0
I/M WAIVER RATES : 3 25.3 25.3 I/M CUTPOINTS : 3 MO_IM240.cut
I/M GRACE PERIOD : 3 2

I/M PROGRAM : 4 2003 2050 2 T/O OBD & GC
I/M MODEL YEARS : 4 1996 2050
I/M VEHICLES : 4 22222 11111111 1
I/M COMPLIANCE : 4 96.0
I/M GRACE PERIOD : 4 2

I/M PROGRAM : 5 2000 2002 2 T/O GC
I/M MODEL YEARS : 5 1981 2050
I/M VEHICLES : 5 22222 11111111 1
I/M COMPLIANCE : 5 96.0
I/M GRACE PERIOD : 5 2PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 62 iii. Texas

The Texas I/M program and ATP differ by the st art date of the program in various county groups. In addition, the El Paso pr ogram is different from that in the other parts of the State. The Texas I/M program is defined in State regulation section 114.50 “Vehicle Emissions Inspection Requirements. The specifics of the Texas program, in MOBILE6 format, are shown in Figure II-4 for Harris, Dallas, and Tarrant Coun ties. The El Paso program is shown in Figure II-5. I/M inspections began in Collin and Denton Counties in 2002. This program is shown in Figure II-6. Testing began in 2003 for Brazori a, Ellis, Fort Bend, Galveston, Johnson, Kaufman, Montgomery, Parker, and Rockwall Counties. This program is shown in Figure II-7. Finally, testing is scheduled to begin in 2005 for the Au stin area counties of Travis and Williamson. The characteristics of this program are shown in Figure II-8.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 63 Figure II-4. Harris, Dallas, and Tarra nt Counties I/M Program Characteristics

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 1 2
I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 1 25
I/M PROGRAM : 1 1996 2001 1 TRC 2500/IDLE
I/M MODEL YEARS : 1 1978 2050
I/M VEHICLES : 1 22222 22222222 2
I/M STRINGENCY : 1 20
I/M COMPLIANCE : 1 96
I/M WAIVER RATES : 1 3.0 3.0

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 2 2
I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 2 25
I/M PROGRAM : 2 2002 2050 1 TRC OBD I/M
I/M MODEL YEARS : 2 1996 2050
I/M VEHICLES : 2 22222 11111111 1
I/M STRINGENCY : 2 20
I/M COMPLIANCE : 2 96
I/M WAIVER RATES : 2 3.0 3.0

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 3 2
I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 3 25
I/M PROGRAM : 3 2002 2050 1 TRC ASM 2525/5015 FINAL
I/M MODEL YEARS : 3 1978 1995
I/M VEHICLES : 3 22222 22222222 2
I/M STRINGENCY : 3 20
I/M COMPLIANCE : 3 96
I/M WAIVER RATES : 3 3.0 3.0

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 4 2
I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 4 25
I/M PROGRAM : 4 2002 2050 1 TRC ASM 2525/5015 FINAL
I/M MODEL YEARS : 4 1996 2050
I/M VEHICLES : 4 11111 22222222 2
I/M STRINGENCY : 3 20
I/M COMPLIANCE : 4 96
I/M WAIVER RATES : 4 3.0 3.0

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 5 2
I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 5 25
I/M PROGRAM : 5 2002 2050 1 TRC EVAP OBD & GC
I/M MODEL YEARS : 5 1996 2050
I/M VEHICLES : 5 22222 11111111 1
I/M COMPLIANCE : 4 96

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 6 2
I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 625
I/M PROGRAM : 6 2002 2050 1 TRC GC
I/M MODEL YEARS : 6 1978 1995
I/M VEHICLES : 6 22222 22222222 2
I/M COMPLIANCE : 6 96PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 64 Figure II-4 (continued)

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 7 2
I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 7 25
I/M PROGRAM : 7 2002 2050 1 TRC GC
I/M MODEL YEARS : 7 1996 2050
I/M VEHICLES : 7 11111 22222222 2
I/M COMPLIANCE : 7 96

ANTI-TAMP PROG :
84 78 16 22222 22222222 2 11 096. 22112222

Figure II-5. El Paso Count y I/M Program Characteristics

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 1 2
I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 1 25
I/M PROGRAM : 1 1996 2050 1 TRC 2500/IDLE
I/M MODEL YEARS : 1 1978 2050
I/M VEHICLES : 1 22222 22222222 2
I/M STRINGENCY : 1 20
I/M COMPLIANCE : 1 96
I/M WAIVER RATES : 1 3.0 3.0

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 2 2
I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 2 25
I/M PROGRAM : 2 1996 2050 1 TRC GC
I/M MODEL YEARS : 2 1978 2050
I/M VEHICLES : 2 22222 22222222 2
I/M COMPLIANCE : 2 96

ANTI-TAMP PROG :
86 78 16 22222 22222222 2 11 096. 22112222PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 65 Figure II-6. Collin and Denton Counties I/M Program Characteristics

I/M GR A CE PERIOD : 1 2
I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 1 25
I/M PROGRAM : 1 2002 2050 1 TRC OBD I/M
I/M MODEL YEARS : 1 1996 2050
I/M VEHICLES : 1 22222 11111111 1
I/M STRINGENCY : 1 20
I/M COMPLIANCE : 1 96
I/M WAIVER RATES : 1 3.0 3.0

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 2 2
I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 2 25
I/M PROGRAM : 2 2002 2050 1 TRC ASM 2525/5015 FINAL
I/M MODEL YEARS : 2 1978 1995
I/M VEHICLES : 2 22222 22222222 2
I/M STRINGENCY : 2 20
I/M COMPLIANCE : 2 96
I/M WAIVER RATES : 2 3.0 3.0

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 3 2
I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 3 25
I/M PROGRAM : 3 2002 2050 1 TRC ASM 2525/5015 FINAL
I/M MODEL YEARS : 3 1996 2050
I/M VEHICLES : 3 11111 22222222 2
I/M STRINGENCY : 3 20
I/M COMPLIANCE : 3 96
I/M WAIVER RATES : 3 3.0 3.0

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 4 2
I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 4 25
I/M PROGRAM : 4 2002 2050 1 TRC EVAP OBD & GC
I/M MODEL YEARS : 4 1996 2050
I/M VEHICLES : 4 22222 11111111 1
I/M COMPLIANCE : 4 96

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 5 2
I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 5 25
I/M PROGRAM : 5 2002 2050 1 TRC GC
I/M MODEL YEARS : 5 1978 1995
I/M VEHICLES : 5 22222 22222222 2
I/M COMPLIANCE : 5 96

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 5 2
I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 5 25
I/M PROGRAM : 5 2002 2050 1 TRC GC
I/M MODEL YEARS : 5 1996 2050
I/M VEHICLES : 5 11111 22222222 2
I/M COMPLIANCE : 5 96

ANTI-TAMP PROG :
84 78 16 22222 22222222 2 11 096. 22112222PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 66 Figure II-7. 9-County Texas, 2003 Start Year, I/M Program Characteristics

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 1 2
I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 1 25
I/M PROGRAM : 1 2003 2050 1 TRC OBD I/M
I/M MODEL YEARS : 1 1996 2050
I/M VEHICLES : 1 22222 11111111 1
I/M STRINGENCY : 1 20
I/M COMPLIANCE : 1 96
I/M WAIVER RATES : 1 3.0 3.0

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 2 2
I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 2 25
I/M PROGRAM : 2 2003 2050 1 TRC ASM 2525/5015 FINAL
I/M MODEL YEARS : 2 1978 1995
I/M VEHICLES : 2 22222 22222222 2
I/M STRINGENCY : 2 20
I/M COMPLIANCE : 2 96
I/M WAIVER RATES : 2 3.0 3.0

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 3 2
I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 3 25
I/M PROGRAM : 3 2003 2050 1 TRC ASM 2525/5015 FINAL
I/M MODEL YEARS : 3 1996 2050
I/M VEHICLES : 3 11111 22222222 2
I/M STRINGENCY : 3 20
I/M COMPLIANCE : 3 96
I/M WAIVER RATES : 3 3.0 3.0

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 4 2
I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 4 25
I/M PROGRAM : 4 2003 2050 1 TRC EVAP OBD & GC
I/M MODEL YEARS : 4 1996 2050
I/M VEHICLES : 4 22222 11111111 1
I/M COMPLIANCE : 4 96

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 5 2
I/M EXEMPTION A GE : 5 25
I/M PROGRAM : 5 2003 2050 1 TRC GC
I/M MODEL YEARS : 5 1978 1995
I/M VEHICLES : 5 22222 22222222 2
I/M COMPLIANCE : 5 96

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 6 2
I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 6 25
I/M PROGRAM : 6 2003 2050 1 TRC GC
I/M MODEL YEARS : 6 1996 2050
I/M VEHICLES : 6 11111 22222222 2
I/M COMPLIANCE : 6 96

ANTI-TAMP PROG :
84 78 16 22222 22222222 2 11 096. 22112222PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 67 Figure II-8. Austin Area I/M Program Characteristics

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 1 2
I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 1 25
I/M PROGRAM : 1 2005 2050 1 TRC OBD I/M
I/M MODEL YEARS : 1 1996 2050
I/M VEHICLES : 1 22222 11111111 1
I/M STRINGENCY : 1 20
I/M COMPLIANCE : 1 96
I/M WAIVER RATES : 1 3.0 3.0

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 2 2
I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 2 25
I/M PROGRAM : 2 2005 2050 1 TRC 2500/IDLE
I/M MODEL YEARS : 2 1978 1995
I/M VEHICLES : 2 22222 22222222 2
I/M STRINGENCY : 2 20
I/M COMPLIANCE : 2 96
I/M WAIVER RATES : 2 3.0 3.0

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 3 2
I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 3 25
I/M PROGRAM : 3 2005 2050 1 TRC 2500/IDLE
I/M MODEL YEARS : 3 1996 2050
I/M VEHICLES : 3 11111 22222222 2
I/M STRINGENCY : 3 20
I/M COMPLIANCE : 3 96
I/M WAIVER RATES : 3 3.0 3.0

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 4 2
I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 4 25
I/M PROGRAM : 4 2005 2050 1 TRC EVAP OBD & GC
I/M MODEL YEARS : 4 1996 2050
I/M VEHICLES : 4 22222 11111111 1
I/M COMPLIANCE : 4 96

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 5 2
I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 5 25
I/M PROGRAM : 5 2005 2050 1 TRC GC
I/M MODEL YEARS : 5 1978 1995
I/M VEHICLES : 5 22222 22222222 2
I/M COMPLIANCE : 5 96

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 6 2
I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 6 25
I/M PROGRAM : 6 2005 2050 1 TRC GC
I/M MODEL YEARS : 6 1996 2050
I/M VEHICLES : 6 11111 22222222 2
I/M COMPLIANCE : 6 96

ANTI-TAMP PROG :
84 78 16 22222 22222222 2 11 096. 22112222PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 68 b. Gasoline Programs

The control programs modeled in the SMOKE MOBILE6 input f iles included th e effects of several gasoline programs. Reformulated gaso line was modeled in the St. Louis, Missouri; Houston, Texas; and Dallas, Texas ozone nonatt ainment areas. The specific counties modeled with Federal reformulated gasoline are the same as those modeled with this program in the NONROAD model runs, as shown in Table II-11. No changes were expected in oxygenated fuel programs or inputs. Therefore, the MOBILE6 ox ygenated fuel input parameters did not change from the 2002 base year modeling.

State-run low RVP gasoline control programs are in place in three of the CENRAP States: Kansas, Missouri, and Texas. These low RVP pr ograms are not statewide, but are in specific counties. The Kansas and Missouri programs are in 1-hour ozone maintenance areas. The Texas program covers a broader area of the State. In addition to these Stat e low RVP programs, the six-parish Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment area is subject to a 7.8 psi RVP maximum during the ozone season months, as regulated by th e Federal RVP program for southern ozone nonattainment areas. Descriptions of the indivi dual State low RVP programs are given below. Note that these RVP limits were applied to the nonroad gasoline e ngines covered in the NONROAD model, as well as onr oad vehicles, for the counties and months discussed below, and this information was summarized in Table II-12.

i. Kansas

The Kansas low RVP program is specified unde r Section 28-19-719 “Fuel Volatility” of the Kansas Air Quality Regulations and applies in Johnson and Wyandotte Counties. These two counties are part of the Kansas City ozone main tenance area. This regulation specifies that gasoline dispensed for use in motor vehicles in Johnson and Wyandotte Counties not exceed an RVP of 7.0 pounds per square inch (psi). Gasolin e containing between 9 and 10 percent ethanol by volume is limited to an RVP of 8.0 psi. Thes e regulations are in effect from June 1 through September 15 of each year, starting in 2001. To account for the time needed for individual gasoline stations to comply with these limits , the low RVP program is modeled from May through September in the MOBILE6 SMOKE input files.

ii. Missouri

The Missouri low RVP program is specified unde r Section 10-2.330 “Control of Gasoline Reid Vapor Pressure” of the Missouri Code of St ate Regulations for the Air Conservation Commission and applies in Clay, Platte, and Jackson Counties. These counties are part of the Kansas City ozone maintenance area. This regula tion specifies that gasoline dispensed for use in motor vehicles in Clay, Platte, and Jackson C ounties not exceed an RVP of 7.0 psi. Gasoline containing between 9 and 10 percen t ethanol by volume is limited to an RVP of 8.0 psi. These regulations are in effect from June 1 through September 15 of each year, starting in 2001. To account for the time needed for individual gasoline stations to comply with these limits, the low RVP program is modeled from May through Sept ember in the MOBILE6 SMOKE input files.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 69 iii. Texas

The Texas low RVP program is specifi ed under Section 114.301 through 114.309 “Low Emission Fuels, Division 1: Gasoline Volati lity” of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission regulations and applies in a 95-county area of eastern Texas. This area excludes the eastern Texas counties in the Dallas and H ouston area that are in cluded in the Federal reformulated gasoline program. This regulation sp ecifies that gasoline dispensed for use in the 95 affected counties not exceed an RVP of 7.8 psi. These regulations are in effect at gasoline dispensing facilities from June 1 through Octobe r 1 of each year, beginning in 2001. To account for the time needed for individual gasoline statio ns to comply with these limits, the low RVP program is modeled from May through Septem ber in the MOBILE6 SMOKE input files.

A separate low RVP program is in place in El Paso County. Under this program, gasoline dispensed in El Paso County is limited to an RVP of 7.0 psi from June 1 through September 16. This program began in 1996. To account for the time needed for individual gasoline stations to comply with these limits, the low RVP program is modeled from May through September in the MOBILE6 SMOKE input files.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 70 [This page intentionally left blank.]PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 71 

## CHAPTER III. DEVELOPMENT OF DATA FOR AREAS
OUTSIDE OF THE CENRAP STATES

A. WRAP

The Western Regional Air Partners hip (WRAP) includes all of the States west of the CENRAP region. WRAP’s current schedule for preparing ne w emission projections for its States did not include any new information by March 2005, so the previous WRAP 2018 emission forecasts will be used as the basis for CENRAP’s proj ection year emissions modeling. The existing WRAP 2018 emission forecasts are made from a 1996 base year. The CENRAP emission modelers already have access to these WRAP emission inventory pr ojection files, so Pechan did not expend any further effort in preparing or modifying the WRAP emission projection data.



### B. VISTAS

The Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Asso ciation of the Southeas t (VISTAS) includes the States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentuc ky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. VISTAS had recently completed 2018 emission projections for its States in March 2005. VISTAS agreed that CENRAP may use the 2018 SMOKE-ready emission modeling files that VISTAS developed for its States once all QA has been completed on these files. Because the CE NRAP emission modelers are the same as those performing the emission modeling for VISTAS, P echan did not expend any further effort in preparing or modifying the VISTAS emission inventory.

For the EGU sector, CENRAP determined that it w ould be best to use a c onsistent IPM data set for all of the non-WRAP States. Therefore, fo r the EGU sector, the VISTAS EGU data will be replaced by the EGU data from the summer 2005 IPM projections.



### C. MRPO

The Midwest Regional Planning Organization (MRPO) includes the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Pechan developed growth factors for the point and area source emissions for the MRPO States as discussed in section II.A of this document. Pechan obtained the mobile source inputs for the MRPO States from 2018 modeling prepared by VISTAS, with the permission of both VISTAS and MRPO. Thes e are the inputs that were used in VISTAS 2018 modeling for these States, with inputs provided by MRPO Stat es. Pechan prepared point and area source control factors, based on projecti on year modeling we had prepared earlier for MRPO. The emission inventory file for 2018 for the NONROAD model categories was based on interpolating the 2015 and 2020 nonroad emission inventories prepared by EPA in support of the Clean Air Interstate Rule in 2004 (EPA, 2004c ). Emissions from the MRPO States for the EGU sector will be obtained by CENR AP from the summer 2005 IPM runs.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 72 

### D. MANE-VU

The Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Uni on (MANE-VU) MRPO includes the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Mass achusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont, a nd the District of Columbia. For the MANEVU States, Pechan used the point and area source growth factors developed for the MRPO States as discussed in section II.A of this document. Pechan obtained the mobile source inputs for the MANE-VU States from the 2018 mo deling prepared by VISTAS, as discussed above for MRPO. These are the inputs that were used in VI STAS 2018 modeling for the MANE-VU States. Pechan prepared point and area source control fa ctors, based on projection year modeling we had prepared earlier for MRPO that include the MANE -VU States. The emission inventory file for 2018 for the NONROAD model categories wa s based on interpol ating the 2015 and 2020 nonroad emission inventories prepared by EPA in support of the Clean Air Interstate Rule in 2004 (EPA, 2004c). Emissions from the MRPO St ates for the EGU sector will be obtained by CENRAP from the summer 2005 IPM runs.



### E. CANADA

Available emission data sets for Canada are cu rrently limited to historical emission years--1995 and 2000. EPA and LADCO/MRPO are using these i nventories to estimate current and future year emissions for these provinces. It is our understanding that LADCO is using/planning to use 1995 point source emission estimates and 2000 onroa d/off-road/area source emission estimates to estimate Canadian emissions for their m odeling domain. (The 2000 point source emissions data are not being used because of confidentia lity limitations.) The 2000 Canadian emission data sets for the three nonproprietary sectors (non-po int/area, nonroad mobile, and onroad mobile) are available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/canada.html#data . This file contains information in both dBaseIV and SMOKE IDA format.

While we know that Environment Canada compile s emission projections on a regular basis to support the development of Federa l and provincial emission control strategies, it is not expected that Environment Canada would be able to provi de growth and control factors on a timely basis for this CENRAP project. Pechan recommende d that CENRAP use the base year 1995 and 2000 Canadian emissions data without adjustments for all future year model simulations. The CENRAP emission modelers already have access to these Canadian emission inventory files, so Pechan did not expend any further effort in preparing or modifying the Canadian emission inventory.



### F. MEXICO

The emissions inventory base year for Mexico is for 1999, from the BRAVO study. Inventories for the years 2002 and 2012 were also estimated in order to understand how growth and existing control strategies may impact future emissi ons. Currently, the 1999 emission inventory is available, but the emission databases for the ot her years are not. Moreover, the point source database will most likely be proprietary, and could require si gning a non-disclosure agreement for access. Pechan has recommended, and CENRAP has agreed, that the 1999 Mexican emission database be used as is for the CENR AP 2018 modeling, due to th e uncertainty inherentPECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 73 in applying growth and control factors to th is inventory. The CENRAP emission modelers already have access to these Mexican emission i nventory files, so Pechan did not expend any further effort in preparing or modi fying the 1999 Mexican emission inventory.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 74 [This page intentionally left blank.]PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 75 

## CHAPTER IV. ISSUES OF CONCERN

Due to the timing of the growth and control factor development under this project, some adjustments may need to be made in the future to the factors developed under this project. As the CENRAP 2002 emission inventory continues to be revised, as well as the base year inventories for the other RPOs, issues may aris e related to matching the growth and control factors to a revised base year in ventory. In cases where SCCs ar e changed, added to, or deleted from the base year inventory, the growth and c ontrol factors may no long er match correctly to the base year inventory. In these cases, the projection year inventor ies will be incorrect.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 76 [This page intentionally left blank.]PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 77 

## CHAPTER V. REFERENCES

Alpine, 2004: Alpine Geophysics, “Technical Me morandum: Control Packet Development and Data Sources, Burnsville, NC, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standa rds, Research Triangle Park, NC, ( www.epa.gov/interstateairquality ), July 14, 2004.

CENRAP, 2005: CENRAP Visi bility Modeling, Interim 2002 Emissions QA (scen02a_36), “NonCENRAP States Inventory SMOKE Input Files,” Riverside, CA; weblink: http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/cenrap/scen02a _36.shtml. last updated February 15, 2005.

DOE, 2004: U.S. Department of Energy, Annual Energy Outlook 2004, with Projections through 2025 , DOE/EIA-0383(2004), Energy Informati on Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecas ting, Washington, DC, January 2004.

DOE, 2005: Department of Energy, En ergy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2005 With Projections to 2025 , DOE/EIA-0383(2005), February 2005.

EPA, 1998: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Locomotive Emission Standards, Regulatory Support Document,” Office of Mobile Sources, Ann Arbor, MI, April 1998.

EPA, 1999: U.S. Environmental Protection Agenc y, “Final Regulatory Imp act Analysis: Control of Emissions from Marine Diesel Engines, ” EPA420-R-99-026, Office of Mobile Sources, Ann Arbor, MI, November 1999.

EPA, 2002: U.S. Environmental Protection Ag ency, “Final Regulatory Support Document: Control of Emissions from Unregulated Nonroad Engines,” EPA420-R-02-022, Office of Mobile Sources, Ann Arbor, MI, September 2002.

EPA, 2003: U.S. Environmental Protection Ag ency, “Final Regulatory Support Document: Control of Emissions from New Marine Co mpression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder,” EPA420-R-03-004, Offi ce of Mobile Sources, Ann Arbor, MI, January 2003.

EPA, 2004a: U.S. Environmental Protect ion Agency, Draft NONROAD2004, [Computer software], Office of Transportation and Ai r Quality, Ann Arbor, MI, available May 21, 2004 at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/nonroadmdl.htm

EPA, 2004b: U.S. Environmental Protection Agen cy, “Final Regulatory Analysis: Control of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines,” EPA420-R-04-007, Office of Mobile Sources, Ann Arbor, MI, May 2004.

EPA, 2004c: U.S. Environmental Protection Agen cy, “Clean Air Interstate Rule Emissions Inventory Technical Support Document,” available from http://www.epa.gov/CAIR/pdfs/finaltech01.pdf , March 4, 2005.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 78 EPA, 2005: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, data compiled in support of 2002 and previous versions of the National Emissi ons Inventory (NEI), 2002 NEI documentation available from http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2002inventory.html , web page last updated March 4, 2005.

ERS, 2004: Economic Research Service, “February 2004, USDA Agricultural Baseline, Projection Tables to 2013,” WAOB-2004- 1, TAB06.WK1, TAB21- 27.WK1, Washington, D.C., February 2004.

Freedonia, 2002: The Freedonia Group, Inc., “P aints & Coatings to 2006,” Cleveland, OH, September 2002.

Freedonia, 2003: The Freedonia Group, Inc., “Sol vents: Green & Conventional to 2007,” April
2003.

Houyoux, 2004: Houyoux, M., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, REMI ver 5.5 baseline.zip [Electronic File], Emission Fact or and Inventory Group, Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Di vision, Office of Air Qualit y Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 2, 2004.

Kansas, 2004: State of Kansas, Division of the B udget, "Kansas Population Projections," Topeka, Kansas, accessed December, 2004 from http://da.state.ks.us/budge t/files/FY2006/Kansas_Popula tion_Projections_through_2027.xls

.

LPDC, 2003: Louisiana Populati on Data Center, "LA Populati on Projections to 2020," Baton Rouge, Louisiana, available for download from http://www.lapop.lsu.edu/products.html

, web page last updated October, 2003.

MNPLAN, 2002: Minnesota Planning (Agency) , Minnesota State De mographic Center, "Minnesota Population Projections: 2000-2030," St. Paul, Minnesota, available from http://server.admin.state.m n.us/resource.html?Id=3124#viewer , October, 2002.

MO, 1999: State of Missouri, Office of Admini stration, "Projections of the Population by Age and Sex: 1990 to 2025," Jefferson City, MO, available from http://www.oa.mo.gov/bp/tables02.htm , May 1999.

Mullen and Neumann, 2004: “Documentati on of 2003 VMT Projection Methodology, EPA Contract No. 68-W-02-048, WA B-41,” technical memorandum from Maureen Mullen, E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. and Jim Ne umann, Industrial Economic s, Incorporated to Jim DeMocker, U.S. Environmental Pr otection Agency, OAR/OPAR, March 4, 2004.

ODOC, 2002: Oklahoma Departme nt of Commerce, "Population Projections for the State, Metropolitan Areas, and Counties: 2000-2030," Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, available from http://www.okcommerce.gov/index.php?opti on=com_docman&task=view_category&Item id=99&subcat=45&catid=64&limitstart=0&limit=20 , November, 2002.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 79 Omary, 2005: Mohammed Omary, University of California Riverside, “scc_nh_expanded1.txt,” [Electronic file], transmitted to Lee Warden, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, February 23, 2005.

Pechan, 2001. E.H. Pechan & Associates, In c., “Control Measure Development Support – Analysis of Ozone Transport Commission Mode l Rules,” Final Report prepared for Ozone Transport Commission, March 31, 2001.

Pechan, 2002. E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., “Evaluation of U.S. Measures to Reduce Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds from the Solvent Sector,” Final Report prepared for Environment Canada, May 31, 2002.

Pechan, 2004. E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., “EGAS 5.0 Regression Analyses, Final Technical Memorandum,” available from http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/models/EGAS_regression_memo.pdf

, August 6, 2004.

Pechan, 2005a. E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc ., “Background Information on Versions 4.0 and 5.0 of the Economic Growth Analysis Sy stem (EGAS), Technical Memorandum,” prepared for Central Regional Air Planning Association, January 3, 2005.

Pechan, 2005b: E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., “NONROAD Model Growth Rates for CENRAP,” Draft Technical Me morandum prepared by Pechan for Central Regional Air Planning Association, February 1, 2005.

Pechan and CEP, 2005: E.H. Pechan & Associ ates, Inc. and Carolina Environmental Program, “Consolidation of Emissions Inventories (Sched ule 9; Work Item 3) Draft,” prepared for Central Regional Air Planning Association, January 4, 2005.

REMI, 1997: Regional Economic Models, Inc., “Model Documentation for the REMI EDFS-14 Forecasing Simulation Model,” REMI Reference Set, Volume 1, March 1997.

STI, 2004: Sonoma Technology, Inc., “Emission Inventory Development for Mobile Sources and Agricultural Dust Sources for the Centra l States, Draft Final Report,” Prepared by STI for Central States Air Resource Agen cies and Central Regional Air Planning Association, September 22, 2004.

SLI, 2004: State Library of Iowa, State Data Ce nter of Iowa (projecti ons prepared by Woods and Poole Economics, Inc.), "Projections of Total Population for U.S., Iowa, and its Counties: 2005-2030," accessed December, 2004 fromhttp://www.silo.lib.ia.us/specializedservices/datacenter/da tatables/CountyAll/co2004populationprojections20002030.xls

.

TCEQ, 2004: Texas Commission on Environmen tal Quality, “Revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Control of Ozone Pollution –PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 80 Houston/Galveston/Brazoria Oz one Nonattainment Area,” Chapte r 3, Part 1, Austin, Texas, Adopted December 1, 2004 ( http://www.tnrcc.state. tx.us/oprd/sips/june2004hgb

.

TXSDC, 2004: Texas State Data Center and O ffice of the State Demographer, Institute for Demographic and Socioeconomic Research," 2004 Population Projections- Texas Counties (use of migration scenario 0.5 projections)," Co llege of Business, University of Texas at San Antonio, available from http://txsdc.utsa.edu/tpepp/2004projections/ , June 2004.

UALR, 2003: University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Institute for Economic Advancement, "Arkansas 2003-2027 County and State Populati on Projections," Little Rock, Arkansas, available from http://www.aiea.ualr.edu/research /demographic/population/proj2027.xls

, July 8, 2003.

UNE, 2002: University of Nebraska, Bureau of Business Researc h, “Nebraska County Population Projection,” Lincoln, Nebraska, http://info.neded.org/stathand/bsect12.htm

, web page last updated June, 2002.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 

# PECHAN

5528-B Hempstead Way Springfield, VA 22151

703-813-6700 telephone

703-813-6729 facsimile

3622 Lyckan Parkway

Suite 2002
Durham, NC 27707

919-493-3144 telephone

919-493-3182 facsimile

P.O. Box 1345
El Dorado, CA 95623

530-295-2995 telephone

530-295-2999 facsimile 

## A PPENDIX 

## A
M ETHODS FOR 

## D EVELOPMENT

OF 

## G ROWTH AND 

## C ONTROL


## I NPUTS FOR 

## 2018 E MISSIONS 

## (S CHEDULES 

## 3 AND 

## 9)

D RAFT

Prepared for:

Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP) 10005 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite C Oklahoma City, OK 73159

Prepared by:

E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. 5528-B Hempstead Way Springfield, VA 22151

January 20, 2005

Contract No. 04-0628-RPO-018PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support DocumentPECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 A-iii Draft Technical Support Document 

## CONTENTS

Page

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... A-1

CHAPTER II. METHODS FOR THE CENRAP REGION...................................................... A-3
A. CONTROL FACTOR DEVELOPMENT METHODS AND DATA
SOURCES........................................................................................................... A-3 1. Non-EGU Point Sources......................................................................... A-3
2. Area Sources ........................................................................................... A-4 3. EGU Point Sources ................................................................................. A-4 4. Nonroad Sources..................................................................................... A-5 5. Onroad Sources....................................................................................... A-6
B. GROWTH FACTOR DEVELOPMENT METHODS AND DATA
SOURCES........................................................................................................... A-6 1. Non-EGU Point Sources and Area Sources (EGAS).............................. A-6 2. EGU Point Sources ................................................................................. A-7 3. Nonroad Sources..................................................................................... A-9 4. VMT for Onroad Sources ....................................................................... A-9

CHAPTER III. METHODS FOR AREAS OU TSIDE OF THE CENRAP REGION ............ A-11
A. CANADIAN EMISSION ESTIMATES .......................................................... A-11
B. MEXICAN EMISSION ESTIMATES............................................................. A-11
C. WRAP EMISSION ESTIMATES .................................................................... A-12
D. VISTAS EMISSION ESTIMATES.................................................................. A-12
E. MRPO PROJECTIONS.................................................................................... A-12

CHAPTER IV. REFERENCES............................................................................................... A-13PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 A-iv Draft Technical Support Document [This page intentionally left blank.]PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document A-1 

## CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this project is to prepare emission growth and control fact ors that can be applied to the Central Regional Air Planning Associatio n (CENRAP) 2002 base year emission inventory to obtain a 2018 emissions inventory for the CE NRAP region. The CENRAP region includes the States and Tribal areas of Ar kansas, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas. In addition to the CENRAP States, additional factors will be compiled under this project to include the entire CENRAP modeling domain. This will include projected emissions data or projection year growth and control factor data from the other Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs), Ca nada, and Mexico. All data products will be prepared in SMOKE-compatible format.

These projection year growth and control factor data wi ll be used to support air quality modeling and State Implementation Plan (SIP) development and implementation activities for the regional haze rule and fine particulate matter (PM) a nd ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The data will be applicable to a ll source categories and po llutants included in the CENRAP 2002 emission inve ntory. This includes the followi ng pollutants: sulfur oxides (SO
x ), oxides of nitrogen (NO
x ), volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia (NH 3 ), and particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 and 2.5 micrometers (i.e., primary PM 10 and PM 2.5 ).

This Methods Document explains the data sources that E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. (Pechan) plans to use and the procedures Pechan will follow in developing the necessary growth and control data for this project. Chapter II of this document presents Pechan’s planned methods for developing control factors and growth factors for the CENRAP States. The methods are presented separately for each of the major sour ce categories. Chapter III of this document presents the data sources and methods that Pechan will use for developing the data for areas outside of the CENRAP States, including other RPOs and Canada and Mexico. References are included in Chapter IV.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document A-2 [This page intentionally left blank.]PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document A-3 

## CHAPTER II. METHODS FOR THE CENRAP REGION

A. CONTROL FACTOR DEVELO PMENT METHODS AND DATA
SOURCES

1. Non-EGU Point Sources

a. Federal Controls

For non-electricity generating unit (EGU) point s ources, the analysis of Federal controls will focus on maximum achievable control technolo gy (MACT) standards. Numerous MACT emission standards have been promulgated sin ce 1990, and are designed to control emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from stationary sources. Ma ny of the MACT standards are expected to produce associated VOC emission re ductions, so the 2018 control factors need to capture the expected effects of post-2002 MACT standards.

Pechan prepared criteria pollutant-specific emi ssion control factors for various projection years (including 2018) for the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) during late 2004. The procedure for developing the MACT standard -associated control factors included identifying source categories and associated Source Classi fication Codes (SCCs) for each MACT standard having a post-2002 compliance date for existing s ources. The control factors for most MACT categories are based on information found in th e preamble to the fina l rule of each MACT subpart as published in the Federal Register . Pechan plans to circulate this table of control factors to the CENRAP States for review before using this table to develop non-EGU point source control factors for the CENRAP States.

b. State/Local Controls

CENRAP States will be surveyed to gather information on control programs for the 2018 inventory. The general approach is to use State contacts and information for 1-hour ozone and
PM 10 SIPs to determine where post-2002 emission re ductions are expected. Two States where we expect there to be post-2002 non-EGU point source emission reductions include Texas and Missouri. For Texas, it is expected that contro l factors will be based on the control factor file developed by Pechan during 2001 for the prio r Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) emission forecast to 2018, with updates to a 2002 base year and to reflect recent SIP updates (Houston-Galveston area). Another possible way to approach this is to obtain the most recent Texas control factor file from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and incorporate it into the CENRAP State control factor database. Key issues in determining whether using any new Texas CEQ control factor files in this analysis is advisable include whether this file is for a 2002 base year inventory, and how th e reductions in highly reactive VOCs that are required in the Houston-Galveston area SIP are tr eated in 2002 and any forecast

years.

The portion of eastern Missouri that is with in the fine grid is affected by the NO
x SIP Call, so controls would be expected to be added in those counties to reduce point source NO
x emissionsPECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document A-4 between 2002 and 2018. It appears to us that the associated Miss ouri rule affects NO
x emissions from EGUs but not some of the non-EGU source categories like industr ial boilers/turbines, stationary internal combustion engines, and cement kilns that are regulated in other NO
x SIP Call affected States. Rules that pot entially affect the non-EGU source categories appear to be under development. Pechan plans to inquire with th e Missouri Department of Natural Resources to determine whether control factors for these non -EGU categories should be included in the 2018 control factor file. The number of affected sources appears to be small enough that sourcespecific control factors can be developed.

We can also survey the other CENRAP States (besides Texas and Missouri) to determine whether these are State/local regulations that would be expected to provide post-2002 emissions reductions. If there are, polluta nt-specific control factors will be developed for those geographic areas by SCC.

2. Area Sources

For the CENRAP States, Pechan will contact eachState to obtain information for any on-thebooks controls affecting non-EGU point and area sources from 2002 to 2018. Pechan will also compile information for national controls aff ecting these sources from EPA regulatory support documents. Based on the analyses performed by P echan for other RPOs, the Federal controls for which area source control factors are expected to be developed is limited to residential wood combustion. For this analysis, a 20-year estimat ed lifetime for woodstoves and fireplace inserts will be used along with the SCC-specific growth factors, and emission f actor ratios by SCC, to account for the replacement of retired woodstove s that emit at pre-new source performance standard levels, with new wood burning equipment, that would be cataly st-equipped. Emission factor ratios will be pollutant-specific.

Federal rules affecting VOC solvent emissions such as those from consumer products and architectural and industrial maintenance coatings are expected to be incorporated in the 2002 emission databases, so no post-2002 emission rate reductions are expected for these categories.

3. EGU Point Sources

Data sources to be used for developing EGU co ntrol factors include CE NRAP’s 2002 nine State point source National Emissions Inventory (NEI ) input format (NIF) data files (prepared by Pechan and Carolina Environmental Progr am and delivered on December 10, 2004), the Workgroup-selected growth factor s, and the U.S. Environmenta l Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 2020 Integrated Planning Model (IPM) Base and Cl ean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Control postprocessed scenario data files (developed by P echan for EPA from IPM parsed output files). Because 2018 IPM data from two RPOs are unavaila ble, 2020 data will be used as a surrogate (with CENRAP’s agreement). This should pose no significant problem since no known pollutant regulations are in effect in 2020 and not 2018. The 2020 Base and Control (CAIR) postprocessed IPM scenario data files include annua l emission values for seven pollutants – sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), NO
x , CO, VOC, NH 3 , primary PM 10 , and primary PM 2.5 – as well as annual heat input; only SO 2 , NO
x , and heat input are provided in the in itial IPM files; the other emissions, along with throughput, were develo ped during the post-processing phase. Because EPA requiredPECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document A-5 that Pechan use an older emissi on factor file from 2003, and new NH 3 emissions factors for EGUs were developed in Spring 2004, the post- processed files delivered to EPA included ammonia emissions developed using the old emi ssion factors; as agreed to in a January 10 th conference call, Pechan will recalcula te these emissions using the new NH 3 emissions factors.

For EGUs in the CENRAP States and in the 2020 IPM Base Case and CAIR post-processed data files, Pechan will provide growth and control f actors in SMOKE format. The control factors will be provided in SMOKE CONTRO L (Table 8.66 in the SMOKE v2.1 User’s Manual) formatted files.

Each EGU record in both the 2020 Base and Control Cases will be ORISPL-BLRID matched into the EGU extract of the CENRAP NIF files (i f at all possible) to obtain the FIPS State and county, plant ID, and point ID (whe re a point is generally equiva lent to a boiler) as needed. Since the IPM scenarios only have one SCC per bo iler, the emissions for all SCCs at a given point in CENRAP will be assigned to th e SCC with the largest emissions.

The control factor (cf) for each 2020 Base and Control Case EGU unit will be calculated as follows for each of the seven pollutant emissions:

2020 EGU pollutant’s emissions cf = (2020 pollu tant’s emissions) / (2002 EGU’s State-SCC gf

∗

2002 CENRAP pollutant’s emissions summed to the point-level and assigned to the SCC with the largest emissions)

.

The IPM units that operate in 2020 but either are not in the 2002 CENRAP data (i.e., generic or committed/planned units) or could not be matched, will not be included in the SMOKE CONTROL formatted files because no control f actors can be calculated. Yet, they have emissions that need to be accounted for. Ba sed on a conversation with EPA’s Marc Houyoux, a principal developer of SMOKE, it would be best for Pechan to provide the projected emissions for those units in either an Excel file or a SMOKE IDA (Table 8.45 in the SMOKE v2.1 User’s Manual) point source formatted file.

4. Nonroad Sources

Pechan will contact CENRAP States to determ ine whether each State has specific nonroad equipment regulations beyond the Federal engine st andards that are expected to be in place by 2018. In cases where State regulations do exist, Pechan will determine the affected SCCs and pollutants, and will compile or develop estimates of the percent emission reduction of the rule in 2018. To date, Pechan has determined that the States of Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Oklahoma do not have additional air requirements for nonroad sources.

Pechan has compiled estimates of control effectiv eness for 2018 for Federal regulations affecting diesel locomotives and commercial marine engines. This info rmation is available from the relevant Regulatory Support Documents prepar ed by EPA (EPA, 1998; EPA, 1999; EPA, 2003). These regulations include engine ex haust standards, as well as dies el fuel sulfur limits that will reduce SO 2 and PM emissions. For th eir 2003 aircraft engine NO
x emission standards, EPA did not prepare emission reduction estimates because any such reductions were believed to bePECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document A-6 modest (e.g., 94 percent of aircraft engines are currently mee ting or exceeding these standards). Therefore, Pechan does not propose to account for aircraft emission reductions from these standards for this analysis.

In running the NONROAD2004 model, all Federal en gine standards are accounted for, with the exception of evaporative emission standards for large spark-ignition and land-based recreational gasoline equipment. The evaporative standa rds for recreational equipment only affect permeation emissions, which are not currently included in NONROAD2004. As such, baseline emissions and reductions will not be modeled. The large spark ignition standards affect a subset of evaporative emissions for engines of a speci fied horsepower (EPA, 2002). Under contract to LADCO, Pechan has developed estimates of SCC- specific emission reductions for this standard, which can be applied to the NONROAD mode l output as a post-processing step.

5. Onroad Sources

For the onroad sources, control measures are defined in terms of inputs to the SMOKE MOBILE6 files rather than a c ontrol factors file. These input files will incorporate all promulgated Federal control programs, including th e heavy-duty diesel (2007) engine standard and low sulfur diesel fuel as well as the Ti er 2 emission standards and low sulfur gasoline program. Federal control programs are generally modeled through the MOBILE6 defaults, with no specific user input commands necessary. Reformulated gasoline will be modeled in the following nonattainment areas: St. Louis (4 Missour i counties plus St. L ouis City), Dallas-Fort Worth (4 counties), and Houst on-Galveston (8 counties).

Pechan will contact each of the CENRAP State contacts to determine whether any changes in fuel programs or inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs, from those modeled in the CENRAP 2002 emission inventor y, are expected to take pl ace by 2018. Pechan will also determine from these contacts whether any other ar ea-specific control programs are planned. If any programs are planned that cannot be modele d with MOBILE6 (e.g., transportation control measures), Pechan either will develop control factors that can be applied by the emission modelers to the resulting onroad emissions or will adjust the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) growth factors to account for the control meas ure, depending upon which a pproach is appropriate for the specific measure.



### B. GROWTH FACTOR DEVELO PMENT METHODS AND DATA
SOURCES

1. Non-EGU Point Sources and Area Sources (EGAS)

Pechan will develop emission activity growth data for the CENRAP States using a combination of approaches/data sources. For the most part, Pechan will rely on growth factors that are produced by EPA’s Economic Growth Analysis System (EGAS). Under Task 5, Pechan prepared a Technical Memorandum compari ng EGAS Versions 4.0 and 5.0 (Pechan, 2005).

In preparing the Task 5 memorandum, Pechan re viewed the indicators selected as default emission activity growth surrogates in EGAS 4.0 and 5.0 for the highest-emitting point andPECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document A-7 nonpoint SCCs in the CENRAP base year inventor y. Pechan then reviewed alternative data sources for the availability of be tter growth surrogates. Based on this review, Pechan identified alternative growth indicator recommendations for a number of important CENRAP source categories (e.g., use of Annual Energy Outlook projections for oil and gas production SCCs). In addition, Pechan identified alterna tives to the State-le vel population projections from EGAS (i.e., county-level population projections prepared by government agen cies/universities in each CENRAP State).

Chapter III of the Task 5 memorandum details Pechan's recommendations for the methods and data sources to use in developing stationary poi nt and nonpoint (area) source growth factors for the CENRAP States. Pechan will prepare emission activity growth data for the stationary source emission sources in the CENRAP States that reflects CENRAP feedback on the recommended methods and data sources that are outlined in this chapter.

2. EGU Point Sources

a. Data Sources/Quality Assurance Issues

Data sources to be used to calculate EGU growth factors include EPA’s 2020 IPM Base postprocessed scenario data file (developed by Pech an for EPA from IPM parsed output files), EPA’s 2002 EGU inventory, and EGAS 5 EGU 2020 growth factors. Reasons for these choices are explained below.

Pechan will compare the CENRAP nine State-SC C level (2002 to 2020) EGAS 5 growth factors with growth factors calculated as throughput (fuel consumption) ratios derived from EPA’s 2020 Base Case Scenario and the 2002 EGU inve ntory developed for EPA (and based on the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) Form EIA-767 and EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD)’s Emi ssion Tracking System/ Continuous Emissions Monitoring (ETS/CEM) reported data).

For the IPM-based growth factor development, Pechan originally planned to use the EGUs extracted from the CENRAP data files for the 2002 throughput, but found th at several States did not report throughput. We tried to fill in missi ng values by back calculating throughput using CENRAP reported CO emissions (whi ch would be uncontrolled, unlike SO 2 and NO
x ; and larger in magnitude than VOC) and its emissions fact or (or the SCC-based EP A-approved uncontrolled emission factor for CO if no emission factor wa s included in the CENRAP files). However, from a check of some CENRAP records with bo th throughput and CO reported, it was found that the back-calculated throughput was frequently diffe rent from the reported throughput (i.e., had a greater than ten percent difference).

An additional issue with using the CENRAP data files is that we first broadly defined EGUs as those records with a positive ORISPL or SIC=4911, 4932, or 4939, and SCCs beginning with 101 or 201. However, we found several plants “missing” from the CENRAP EGU data that were in either the EIA-767 or ETS/CEM data f iles; these plants may be in the CENRAP data files, but not in our EGU extract. Also, some sets of records with ORISPLs and SCCs beginning with 101 or 201 did not have any boiler IDs included in the data files and/or some had somePECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document A-8 boiler IDs identified and some not (and some seemingly duplicated). Additionally, we found some discrepant ORISPLs.

Pechan also compared total SO 2 , NO
x , and CO emissions for each of the nine CENRAP States from the 2002 Inventory and the all inclusive CE NRAP EGU extract. In most cases, the 2002 EGU inventory emission totals were greater. All three pollutant emissions are within a 10 percent difference for three States (Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska); NO
x is within a 10 percent difference for five more States (Iowa, Louisi ana, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Texas); and SO 2 is within an 11 percent difference for three mo re States (Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Texas); Arkansas’ emissions for all three pollutants were not cl ose, perhaps because some plant data in the CENRAP files were missing, some emissions may be reversed, etc.

Pechan had not anticipated nor allotted hours fo r performing quality assurance (QA) on the CENRAP data, but found it necessary to do so to some extent to determine whether the data could be used for throughput. To avoid further expenditure of hours, we determined that it would be best to use the 2002 EP A EGU Inventory for the 2002 thr oughput data, rather than the CENRAP data files. Please note that we are not st ating that all nine of the CENRAP States have all or any of the issues addressed above, but th at enough of them did that we were not able to either use the reported throughput or calculated throughput at th e State-SCC level with a high degree of confidence.

b. Growth Factor Calculation

The growth factor (gf) for each Stat e-SCC will be calculated as follows:

gf = (2020 IPM Base Case throughput aggr egate) / (2002 EGU inventory throughput aggregate),

where: the 2020 IPM Base Case throughput is derived from the given heat input and a default fuel heat content; and the 2002 EGU inventory throughput is reported data if the boileris included in the EIA767, and is derived from the given heat input and a default fuel heat c ontent if it is not in the EIA-767 but is in the ETS/CEM data file.

Pechan will provide an Excel data file which w ill include the nine State-SCC level records and their EGAS 5 and IPM-based growth factors fo r 2020 as well as a Technical Memorandum that includes a recommendation and rationale fo r the proposed growth factor methodology.

A summary report of the changes in 2018 IPM input s requested by the Visibility Improvement – State and Tribal Association of the Southeas t (VISTAS) and the Midwest Regional Planning Organization (MRPO) was provided to Pechan, al ong with a response to a follow-up question. If VISTAS and MRPO approve the release of this information, with CENRAP’s agreement, it will be included in the final repor t and will serve as the part of the deliverable Technical Memorandum that presents a summary of the ch anges made to IPM inputs by the other RPOs.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document A-9 The growth factors (whose methodology will be determined by the CENRAP Workgroup) from Task 6 will be provided in SMOKE PROJEC TION format (Table 8.70 in the SMOKE v2.1 User’s Manual).

3. Nonroad Sources

For the aircraft, commercial marine vessel and locomotive categories, Pechan will develop emission activity growth data for the CENRAP St ates using EGAS. Pechan’s recommendations for developing growth factors for these cate gories were outlined in a Task 5 Technical Memorandum, and the final methods will refl ect any additional feedback from CENRAP.

Also as part of Task 5, Pechan will prepare a separate Techni cal Memorandum to describe the proposed adjustments to the NONROAD model nationa l growth rates to reflect State data for significant categories. The data to regiona lize the NONROAD model growth factors will be obtained from REMI, as incorporated into EGAS (Houyoux, 2004).

4. VMT for Onroad Sources

To estimate growth in onroad VMT, Pechan will first ask CENRAP for appropriate contacts from their State Departments of Transporta tion and from the majo r metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in their State. Pechan will then inquire of these contacts whether they have developed their own growth projections, and if so, will request any available documentation on the development of these growth factors and the growth factors themselves. The documentation will be important in understandi ng the geographic area covered by the growth factors, the base and projection ye ars of the growth factors, and the sources of data driving the projections. The documentation should also prov ide information on the level of detail at which the growth factors were develope d (e.g., do the factors vary by inte rstates vs. arterials, by rural area vs. urban area, by vehicle type, etc.). Any gr owth factor data will need to be provided electronically in database (Access, DBF, or MySQL) , spreadsheet (Excel), or text file format for processing under this project. When VMT growth factors are provided fo r a different base and projection year, Pechan will cons ult with the agency supplying the data to determine the best method for converting the growth factors to a 2002 to 2018 projection. Fo r areas with no local VMT growth factor information available, or those for which growth factors cannot be appropriately calculated within th e time and resources available unde r this contract, Pechan will use EGAS VMT growth factors.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document A-10 [This page intentionally left blank.]PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document A-11 

## CHAPTER III. METHODS FOR AREAS OUTSIDE OF THE
CENRAP REGION

A. CANADIAN EMISSION ESTIMATES

Pechan expects to provide emission estimates fo r Canada to CENRAP using data and methods that are consistent with those being used by LADCO/MRPO and EPA to estimate current and future year emissions for these provinces. These data sets are currently limited to historical emission years (1995 and 2000). It is our understa nding that LADCO is us ing/planning to use 1995 point source emission estimates and 2000 onroa d/off-road/area source emission estimates to estimate Canadian emissions for their m odeling domain. (The 2000 point source emissions data is not being used because of confidentiality limitations.) The 2000 Canadian emission data sets for the three sectors (non- point/area, nonroad mobile, and onr oad mobile) are available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/canada.html#data . This file contains information in both dBaseIV and SMOKE IDA format.

While we know that Environment Canada compile s emission projections on a regular basis to support the development of Federa l and provincial emission contro l strategies, it is not clear whether Environment Canada would be able to provide growth and control factors on a timely basis for this CENRAP project. Pechan will co ntact Marc Deslauriers of Environment Canada on this issue. In short, though, Pechan expect s that its recommendati on will be that CENRAP use the base year Canadian emissions data wi thout adjustments for all future year model simulations. If we want to pursue the course of developing our own growth and control factors to apply to Canadian base y ear emissions to estimate 2018 emissions, some information on the forecasting methods that Environment Canada uses is available from a draft NARSTO report. However, the description in the NARSTO report is less detailed than is needed to develop source category-specific growth and cont rol factors. This alternative is probably best pursued by our contacting Marc Deslauriers to determine that organization’s willingness/ ability to provide us with either the data or the methods that they have developed to prepar e emission forecasts to a year close to 2018.



### B. MEXICAN EMISSION ESTIMATES

The baseline emissions inventory base year fo r Mexico is for 1999. Inventories for the years 2002 and 2012 were also estimated in order to understand how growth and existing control strategies may impact future emissions. Curre ntly, the 1999 emission invent ory is available, but the emission databases for the other years are not. Moreover, the point source database will most likely be proprietary, and could require signi ng a non-disclosure agreement for access. Therefore, the three alternativ es for estimating 2018 emissions for Mexico for this CENRAP project appear to be:

1. Use the available 1999 emission databases as is. 2. Pursue obtaining the 2012 Mexican emissi ons database via Leonora Rojas to see if it might be available on a timely basis.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document A-12 3. Develop growth and control factors to apply to the 1999 emissions data to better estimate 2018 emissions. We have a summary description of how Mexico performs its own projections to use as a guide for doing this. In general, growth factors are applied to all s ectors, but control factors ar e only applied for onroad vehicles.



### C. WRAP EMISSION ESTIMATES

WRAP’s current schedule for preparing any ne w emission projections for its States will not provide any new information by March 2005, so Pech an expects to use the previous WRAP 2018 emission forecasts as the basis for what it provides to CENRAP. The existing WRAP 2018 emission forecasts are made from a 1996 base year. One potential update to the previous nonEGU point and area source forecasts is adapting th e previous projections (which were prepared by Pechan) to incorporate updated growth factors, and to use the 2002 emissions data set as the new base year. However, these updates may be difficult to accomplish within the project constraints.



### D. VISTAS EMISSION ESTIMATES

Pechan has contacted the VISTAS Technical Coordinator, Pat Brewer, to determine the availability of emission projection data for th is project. VISTAS has recently completed 2018 emission projections for its States. These projection data are now being reviewed by the States. VISTAS will need to get permission from the States in order to release the data to CENRAP. It is expected that this would occur during Fe bruary. SMOKE-ready modeling files for VISTAS are expected to be completed in January. Pech an will have further conversations with VISTAS to determine whether the mass emissions files or SMOKE files are more appropriate for CENRAP’s purposes. It may be preferable to obtain the annual mass em ission files, as the SMOKE modeling files were set up to model specific episodes that may not be consistent with the modeling that CENRAP will do. If CENRAP de termines that it is pr eferable to use the emissions, Pechan will format the emissions in SMOKE/IDA format.



### E. MRPO PROJECTIONS

For these five States, Pechan has developed 2018 (and other year) growth and control factors for LADCO for all man-made emission sectors, except on-road vehicles. Therefore, we expect that these same growth and control factors will be delivered to CENRAP. Because LADCO is performing the emissions processing of these files, Pechan plans to check with Mark Janssen to determine whether LADCO made any revisions to th ese files during its pro cessing steps. If so, the revised files will be obtained from LADCO. We will also check with LADCO about the status and availability of thei r on-road vehicle emission files.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document A-13 

## CHAPTER IV. REFERENCES

EPA, 1998: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Locomotive Emission Standards, Regulatory Support Document,” Office of Mobile Sources, Ann Arbor, MI, April 1998.

EPA, 1999: U.S. Environmental Protection Agenc y, “Final Regulatory Imp act Analysis: Control of Emissions from Marine Diesel Engines,” EPA420-R-99-026, Office of Mobile Sources, Ann Arbor, MI, November 1999.

EPA, 2002: U.S. Environmental Protection Ag ency, “Final Regulatory Support Document: Control of Emissions from Unregulated Nonr oad Engines,” EPA420-R-02-022, Office of Mobile Sources, Ann Arbor, MI, September 2002.

EPA, 2003: U.S. Environmental Protection Ag ency, “Final Regulatory Support Document: Control of Emissions from New Marine Compressi on-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder,” EPA420-R-03-004, Office of Mobile Sources, Ann Arbor, MI, January 2003.

Houyoux, 2004: Houyoux, M., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, REMI ver 5.5 baseline.zip [Electronic File], Emission Factor and Inventor y Group, Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. March 2, 2004.

NARSTO, 2005: “Improving Emission Inventor ies for Effective Air Quality Management Across North America: A NARSTO Assessment,” January 2005.

Pechan, 2005: E.H. Pechan & Associates, In c. “Background Information on Versions 4.0 and 5.0 of The Economic Growth Analysis System (EGAS), Technical Memorandum,” prepared for Central Regional Air Planning Asso ciation (CENRAP), January 3, 2005.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document A-14 [This page intentionally left blank.]PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 

## APPENDIX B QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF GROWTH AND CONTROL INPUTS FOR
2018 EMISSIONS MODELING (SCHEDULES 3 AND 9)

DRAFT

Prepared by E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. 5528 Hempstead Way Springfield, VA 22151

January 6, 2005

for the Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP) 10005 S. Pennsylvania, Suite C

Oklahoma City, OK 73159

______________________________________________ Date ___________________ Ms. Kathy Pendleton, CENRAP Project Manager

______________________________________________ Date ___________________ Ms. Lisa Brenneman, CENRAP Project Manager

______________________________________________ Date ___________________ Ms. Annette Sharp, CENRAP Quality Assurance OfficerPECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support DocumentPECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 B-iii Draft Technical Support Document 

### CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................B-1

II. QA PLAN FOR CONSOL IDATION OF EMISSIONS INVENTORIES ......................B-1 A. Project Management ............................................................................................B-1 1. Distribution List.......................................................................................B-1 2. Project / Task Organization .....................................................................B-2 3. Problem Definition / Background............................................................B-2 4. Project / Task Description........................................................................B-3 5. Data Quality Objectives...........................................................................B-3 6. Documents and Records ..........................................................................B-4 B. Data Generation and Acquisition.........................................................................B-4 C. Assessment and Oversight ...................................................................................B-8 D. Data Review and Validation ................................................................................B-9PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 B-iv Draft Technical Support Document [This page intentionally left blank.]PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document B-1 

## INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this project is to prepare emi ssion growth and contro l factors that can be applied to the Central Regional Air Planning As sociation (CENRAP) 200 2 base year emission inventory to obtain a 2018 emi ssion inventory for the CENRAP region. The CENRAP region includes the States and Tribal ar eas of Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas. In addition to the CENRAP States, additional factors will be compiled under this project to include the entire CE NRAP modeling domain. This will include projected emissions data or projection year gr owth and control factor data from the other Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs), Canada , and Mexico. All data products will be prepared in SMOKE-compatible format.

These projection year growth and control fact or data will be used to support air quality modeling and State Implementation Plan (SIP) development and implementation activities for the regional haze rule and fine PM and ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The data will be applicable to all source categories and pollutants included in the CENRAP 2002 emission inventory. This in cludes the following pollutants: sulfur oxides (SO
x ), oxides of nitrogen (NO
x ), volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia (NH 3 ), and particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 and 2.5 micrometers (i.e., primary PM 10 and PM 2.5 ).

This Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) specifies how data quality objectives of accuracy, completeness, and representativeness will be met in compiling the growth and control factor data to be used as i nputs to 2018 projection year regi onal emissions modeling for the CENRAP region for air quali ty modeling purposes.

A series of checklists will be prepared to implement the quality assurance (QA) steps. The QA checklists will include information on the specific QA item, the date that the QA check was performed, and the person who performed the QA check.



## II. QA PLAN FOR CONSOLIDATION OF EMISSIONS
INVENTORIES

A. Project Management

Specific project management elem ents are discussed below.

1. Distribution List

Ms. Kathy Pendleton, CENRAP Project Manager Ms. Lisa Brenneman, CENRAP Project Manager Ms. Annette Sharp, CENRAP Technical Director and Quality Assurance Officer Mr. James H. Wilson, E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. (Pechan) Corporate QA/QC Coordinator Ms. Maureen Mullen, Pechan Project ManagerPECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document B-2 Mr. Steve Roe, Pechan QA Reviewer

2. Project / Task Organization

Ms. Kathy Pendleton of CENRAP will be th e primary technical contact and Project Manager. She will be assisted by Ms. Lisa Brenneman. Ms. Annette Sharp, will be the Technical Director and Quality Assurance Manage r (QAM). Ms. Sharp will be involved in all quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) activities.

Pechan’s QA/QC policy requires that all wo rk be documented, defensible, of known and acceptable quality, and consistent with all contract requirements. This policy is implemented through an integrated three-tier ed approach that includes corp orate, department, and program elements. At the corporate level, Pechan mana gement provides oversight of the QA/QC program and approves and enforces the overall program. To assist in implementing these functions, Pechan maintains a corporate QA/QC unit that m onitors the program, prep ares guidelines, and conducts independent program audits.

The Pechan Corporate QA/QC Program is implemented through the Corporate QA/QC Plan and corporate guidelines. The Corporate Plan is an internal document that states the corporate policy and the requirements for depa rtment and project plans. The plan is supplemented by guidelines that are used to deve lop or update department plans and standard operating procedures (SOPs). Department manage ment ensures the technical and fiscal quality of work through management oversight of proj ects assigned to the department and work performed by department staff; establishes a nd enforces department plans; approves project plans, budgets and schedules; and ensures a t horough technical and de partment management review of work.

The Pechan Corporate QA/QC Coordinator, Mr. James H. Wilson, is responsible for QA/QC functions throughout the firm, and has the necessary authority and independence to identify, report, and correct a ny existing quality problems. The Pechan QA reviewer for this project will be Mr. Steve Roe. Mr. Roe w ill conduct QA review on each of the SMOKE files developed under this project, on the data and met hods used to develop growth and control factors in the SMOKE files, and on the final documentation.

Pechan’s Project Manager, Ms. Maureen Mullen , will direct all work to be completed for this project. Ms. Mullen will ensure that all support staff are familiar with and understand the data quality objectives, and the procedures to be followed for meeting the objectives, as well as the requirements of the QA plan (e .g., completion of QA/QC forms).

3. Problem Definition / Background

SIPs for regional haze mitigation must cont ain emission inventories. Related emission inventories are needed for air quality modeling of regional haze. Inventories prepared for the SIP submittal and for use in modeling are prepared in different formats, but both should be derived from the same or comparable inpu t data. Furthermore, regional modeling will encompass States outside the CENRAP region, so inventory methods should be coordinated withPECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document B-3 other regions to the extent possible. The eas tern RPOs (including CE NRAP) have selected 2002 as the baseline year for regional haze modeling. Also, in order to demonstrate progress in improving visibility, it will be necessary to forecas t emissions for future years. This project will result in a set of growth and control factors that can be used in SMOKE emissions modeling to project the CENRAP 2002 base ye ar emission inventory to 2018.

4. Project / Task Description

The description of this project by task can be found in Pechan’s response (dated November 18, 2004) to the Request for Quotes (R FQ) for “Schedules 3 and 9 - Development of Growth and Control Inputs for 2018 Emissions M odeling” and the “Award of Work and Notice to Proceed” that CENRAP issued to Pechan (Contract Number 04-0628-RPO-018) on December 1, 2004.

5. Data Quality Objectives

The main data quality objectives th at Pechan will work to fulfill include:

• Accuracy – Pechan’s QA Reviewer will ensure that 100 percent of the procedures/calculations that a Pechan staff member devel ops and applies to develop growth or control factors will be checked for accuracy and completeness. The procedures/calculations will first be tested on a data sample and the results will be reviewed to ensure that the pro cedures/calculations are applied as intended and that the results make sense. Adjust ments to the procedures/calculations will be made if the results indicate flaws in the initial procedures/calculations. The procedures/calculations will be applied to the entire data set after the procedures/calculations have been tested for accuracy. Sample calculations will be documented covering all procedures.

• Completeness – As part of the quality cont rol (QC) process, review by Pechan, as well as State/local/Tribal (S/L/T) agen cies, may indicate missing growth or control factors for certain sources and/or pollutants for a part icular county or jurisdiction. Pechan will compare the growth and control factor files to the CENRAP 2002 base year emission invent ory to identify source category/county combinations that may be missing growth factors and source category/county/pollutant combinations that should be controlled but that have no control factors in the control factor database.

• Representativeness –Representative growth and control factors will be compiled that can be used by CENRAP to develop a representative 2018 emission inventory. The QA checks on data content discussed in section D of this QAP will be used to identify missing data or da ta that exceed typical ranges for review with CENRAP and the S/L/T agencies. Th ese factors will be corrected or revised as approved by CENRAP.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document B-4 • Comparability – The CENRAP 2018 growth and control factors will be compared to those used by the U.S. Environmenta l Protection Agency (EPA) in its Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) modeling as well as those used by other RPOs for similar projection year emission inventor ies. Significant differences between these growth and control factor data will be evaluated and any necessary corrections to the data will be made.

6. Documents and Records

Pechan maintains a records management syst em to ensure that completed work meets EPA documentation requirements. Pechan also ma intains a record-keeping plan to identify and file information. The company assigns unique control numbers to all documents and records prepared for and delivered to all clients. These numbers link the ma terials to the correct contract and work assignment and are used to store the materials in hard copy and electronically in chronological order. The records management c oordinator at each Pechan office location assigns the control numbers and maintains these files. Pe chan’s Contracts Administrator also stores hard copy or electronic versions of all documents and records submitted as contract deliverables as part of the company’s contract files.

The Pechan Project Manager will be res ponsible for the followi ng document and records management activities:

• Determining all deliverables under a proj ect, including work plans, progress reports, and all technical products;

• Determining the time lines for various stages of the document (that is, outline, draft, and final);

• Determining the appropriate review cycl e (internal versus external review);

• Determining the appropriate reviewers; and

• Ensuring that all documents and records are incorporated into Pechan’s filing system and are distributed to the appropriate recipients.



### B. Data Generation and Acquisition

The following explains how data will be ac quired or generated for each task of the project:

Task 1. Develop a Quality Assuran ce Project Plan (QAPP) and Work Plan

This QAPP is being prepared under this tas k. The following discussi on explains the data sources that will be acquired and data that will be generated during preparation of the draft and final deliverables for Tasks 2 through 10. Sectio n D of this QAPP explains the data review andPECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document B-5 validation procedures that will be applied during preparation of the draft and final deliverables for Tasks 2 through 10.

Pechan has also prepared a draft work plan for the project. The work plan includes the tasks, budgets, and schedules specified in Pechan ’s response (dated November 18, 2004) to the RFQ for “Schedules 3 and 9 - Development of Growth and Control Inputs for 2018 Emissions Modeling” and the “Award of Work and Notice to Proceed” that CENRAP issued to Pechan (Contract Number 04-0628-RPO- 018) on December 1, 2004.

Task 2. Develop a Methods Document

In the Methods Document, Pechan will explain the data sources to be used and the procedures to be followed for developing the necessary growth and control data for this project. Through this task, Pechan will determine the appropr iate contacts and data sources to be used to obtain and develop the growth and control data fo r the CENRAP States, control data sources for Federal control measures, and vehicle miles travel ed (VMT) projection data and sources. Pechan will also determine the available sources for obtaining projection year inventory data for other RPOs, Canada, and Mexico. The methods document will also explain the procedures to be followed when data are not available for a specific source category or geographic area.

Task 3. Identify State Controls

Pechan will query the CENRAP State contacts on State control programs expected to be in place in 2018. In addition, Pechan w ill use information from 1-hour ozone and PM 10 SIPs to determine where post-2002 emission reductions are expected. For Texas, Pechan will base the control factors on the control factor file deve loped by Pechan during 2001 for the prior Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) emission forecas t to 2018, and update this information to a 2002 base year and to reflect recent SIP updates (H ouston-Galveston area). Pechan will account for NO
x emission changes for Missouri counties affected by the NO
x SIP Call. This may include using future year NO
x allowances by unit to estimate unit- specific control factors. Where necessary, Pechan will convert the emission reductions to the cont rol efficiency, rule effectiveness, and rule penetra tion rates needed for the SMOKE m odeling. All rule citations will be fully documented.

For the onroad sources, Pechan will st art with the 2002 SMOKE-formatted MOBILE6 files developed for the 2002 CENRAP emission i nventory. Pechan will query the State contacts provided by CENRAP for expected changes in emission control programs, such as inspection and maintenance programs, and fuel properties or programs between 2002 and 2018. Local data on fleet information, such as vehicle age distribu tions, will be kept the same as in 2002. Federal control programs, such as the Tier 2 emission standards, will be accounted for by using the MOBILE6 defaults for such programs.

Task 4. Identify Federal Controls

Pechan will compile information on Federal c ontrol measures that will be in place in 2018. Pechan’s initial source of information w ill be the work conducted by Pechan to developPECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document B-6 2018 emission inventory control factors for the Midwest RPO (MRPO). Pechan will review documentation from other RPOs (e.g., VISTAS) and the analysis performed by EPA for the CAIR (this had a 2001 base year), as well as any new information on Federal rules. Pechan will focus its primary efforts for this task on maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards with post-2002 effects. Where necessa ry, Pechan will convert the emission reductions from the identified Federal control measures to the control efficiency, rule effectiveness, and rule penetration rates needed for the SMOKE modeling. All rule citations wi ll be fully documented.

Task 5. Compare and Provide a Writte n Summary of Differences Between the Economic Growth Analysis System (EGAS) 4 and EGAS 5 Models

Pechan will use EPA’s EGAS 4 and EGAS 5 data and models to compile 2002 to 2018 State- Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) growth factors for the CENRAP States. These data are available in internal Pechan databa ses which house the Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI) data used in EGAS 4 and EGAS 5. Within each State, the comparisons will be developed at the 3-digit SIC code level with a crosswalk between REMI sectors and SCCs.

For the NONROAD model source categories, Pechan will compile data to develop regional growth factors to reflect relative growth rates in the CENRAP States. These will be used to regionalize the default growth factors in NONROAD that use nati onal historic trends by fuel type to project equipment popula tions and emissions nationwide.

Task 6. Isolate and Examine Emission Growth Factors for CENRAP Electricity Generating Units (EGUs) using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) and the
EGAS 5 Model

Pechan will obtain the EGU EGAS growth factors from the Task 5 output. Pechan has obtained the IPM 2018 Base Case and IPM 2018 CAIR Ca se outputs from VISTAS/MRPO. Pechan has also obtained generalized information about the changes made by VISTAS/MRPO to the IPM inputs for this data set. However, MRPO has re quested that Pechan not use any of these data until they have been reviewed and approved by th e MRPO/VISTAS States. If approval of these files does not come in the timeframe needed for completion of this task, Pechan will use the Base Case and CAIR Case outputs from IPM prep ared for EPA during August through November 2004. Pechan has these data in-house for projection year s of 2010, 2015, and 2020. Pechan developed the final CENRAP 2002 base year emissions inventory for CENRAP that will be used in this task. Pechan will generate State-SCC gr owth factors for the EGU sector in the CENRAP States from the heat input or throughput data in the 2002 CENR AP emissions inventory and the IPM outputs.

Task 7. Develop Onroad Growth Factor s and Nonroad Emissions Inventory for the Future Case CENRAP Emissions Inventory

To prepare the 2018 NONROAD2004 model in puts, Pechan will first acquire from CENRAP the activity inputs that were used to develop the 2002 base year nonroad emissions inventory. Pechan will adjust th e growth rates and fuel program inputs with data obtained or generated under Task 5. Th ese data will then be input to EPA’s NONROAD2004 model toPECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document B-7 generate a 2018 nonroad emission inventory for th e CENRAP States, for all nonroad categories except locomotives, aircraft, and commercial mari ne vessels. Growth and control factors for these three nonroad categories wi ll be developed under Tasks 3, 4, and 5 with other area sources.

To develop VMT growth rates, Pechan w ill first develop a list of contacts in the following priority order: (1) major Metropolita n Planning Organizations, (2) State Departments of Transportation, and (3) State air agencies. P echan will then contact these agencies to obtain available data for projecting VMT from 2002 to 2018. If the data from these agencies are for a different base or projection year, Pechan will in quire as to whether the average annual growth rate over the period projected by that agency can be applied to the period from 2002 to 2018. If it cannot, Pechan will not use that data source (i n these instances, data from the next contact based on the above priority will be used). Fo r QA and tracking purposes, Pechan will log the contact information, data file names and date, geogra phic coverage of data, level of detail of data (e.g., by vehicle type or road type ), and base and projection years of data. Pechan will provide this information to the CENRAP QAM before pr oceeding to incorporate VMT projection data. For counties or States with no VMT projection data available, Pechan will use EGAS VMT growth factors as the defaults.

Task 8. Develop Future Case Inventor y of Areas Outside the CENRAP Region

This task will involve gath ering and consolidating projec tion year emissions data or growth and control data for ar eas outside the CENRAP region. The sources of data include emissions inventories compiled by the other RPOs, the EPA, and the most currently available Mexican and Canadian em issions inventories.

Pechan will generate a list of organizati ons (e.g., EPA, RPOs, Environment Canada) and contact information for each organization that poten tially has data that can be used to develop a 2018 emissions inventory for CENRAP air quality a pplications. This list will then be provided to the Workgroup for any feedback.

Once the data acquisition contact list has been finalized, Pechan will contact each organization to identify the projection year emissions data or growth and c ontrol data available, determine the quality and format of each available da ta set, and help facil itate the best mode of data transfer of the desired da ta sets for use in this task.

Modeling inventory databases or growth and control files acquired during this task will be summarized in tabular form so that CENRAP will know the date acquired, the sources used to assemble the data, the contractor(s) and/or or ganizations that assembled the data, possible deficiencies of the data, time period of the data (e.g., base year and pr ojection year), and other necessary information needed to enable CENRAP to best understand th e databases that are available.

Task 9. Prepare Future Case Growth and Control Summary

Pechan will develop the EGU growth factors at the point level of detail based on either IPM or EGAS model outputs, as determined by the Workgroups in Task 6. This will involvePECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document B-8 matching the EGU identifiers from the CENRAP 2002 emission inventory to the IPM data. IPM uses unique plant codes (ORISPL) and boiler ID s while the CENRAP inventory uses Federal Information Processing Standard State and county id entifiers, plant IDs, and point IDs. From the matched data set, Pechan will develop EGU-specifi c control factors for all relevant pollutants, based on 2018 IPM emissions data and the 2002 CENRAP EGU data.

For all source sectors covered by this c ontract, Pechan will develop Excel summary workbooks for each CENRAP State and Tribal ar ea at the SCC level for all relevant source categories and pollutants. The data used in these summaries will be obtained from data generated in Tasks 3 through 7.

Task 10. Prepare a Technical Support Document (TSD)

The Task 2 Methods Document will be used as the starting point for the TSD. Information from the technical memoranda deve loped under Tasks 5, 6, and 8 and the State and Federal control measure lists from Tasks 3 and 4 will also be included in the TSD. The TSD will document the methods and data sources used in preparing the SMOKE-rea dy growth and control factors, the nonroad emissions inventory, a nd the MOBILE6 SMOKE inputs. The Excel workbooks summarizing the growth and control f actors for the CENRAP States will be either included in or referenced in the TSD.



### C. Assessment and Oversight

Pechan uses assessments to evaluate and improve the quality of environmental data operations. The assessments are an independent pr ocess of evaluating the project to ensure that specified requirements of the project are being fulfilled. Pechan will perform periodic audits of data quality and will coordinate with CENRAP’s QAM to allow for ongoing oversight of project quality. For this project, QA Summary Reports will be prepared in Excel spreadsheets under Task 9, along with the growth and control factor summaries, to document any QA issues in the growth and control factors. The reports will be sent to each S/L/T agency to review. Each agency will be asked to provide corrections for the QA issues in the spreadsheets, or provide Pechan and CENRAP with directions in supplemen tal files or by e-mail. Each agency will then return the QA Summary Reports to Pechan. P echan will then use dire ctions provided in the reports to revise the appropriate growth and control factor files, and will update the reports to log directions that S/L/T agencies provide via e-mail and data provided in supplemental files. A Pechan staff member will then note the date on which revisions are made to the growth and control factor files as specifie d in the QA reports. Mr. Steve Ro e will manage the audit function, which will involve comparing the directions provided in the QA reports to the revised growth and control factor files to ensure that the directions are interp reted correctly, and the files are revised correctly. The auditor will then note in the QA report when corrections have been completed. If corrections are not implemented correctly, the auditor will note this in the QA Summary Report file and will provide follow-up to ensure that the Pechan staff member corrects the issue. Thus, each QA Summary Report file will be used as a chain-of-custody form to document QA issues, S/L/T agency approval for resolution of the issues, and corrections to growth and control factor files.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document B-9 

### D. Data Review and Validation

Task 1. Develop a QAPP and Work Plan

Pechan will prepare a draft QAPP and work plan that will undergo review by Pechan internally, and then be submitted to the CENR AP’s Workgroups for review and comment. Pechan will revise the QAPP and work plan to address comments provided by the Workgroups. The final QAPP and work plan will be submitted to CENRAP for final approval and signature. The draft and final QAPP and work plan will be submitted in Microsoft Word format.

Task 2. Develop a Methods Document

Pechan will prepare a draf t Methods Document that wi ll undergo review by Pechan internally, and then will be submitted to the CENRAP’s Workgroups for review and comment. Pechan will revise the Methods Document to address comments provided by CENRAP. The final Methods Document will be submitted to CENR AP for final approval. The draft and final Methods Document will be submitted in Microsoft Word format.

Task 3. Identify State Controls

Pechan will conduct a QA review of the SMOKE control factor file s. Range checks will be performed on all values includi ng control efficiency, rule effectiveness, and rule penetration to make sure that all values are valid and reas onable. Comparisons of the control efficiencies will be made with the 2002 CENRAP emissions inve ntory files to ensure that controls included in the 2002 emission inventory are not double-co unted for the projection year. Any pointspecific control information will be matched to the 2002 CENRAP emissions inventory to ensure that the correct point identifiers have been used. A QA summ ary will be developed listing State/SCC combinations in the 2002 CENRAP base year emissions inventory with no control efficiency listed in the State c ontrols file to ensure that all source categories that should have controls applied contain the necessary informati on in the SMOKE control factor file. Pechan will ensure that the format of the control fa ctor databases are correct based on the SMOKE2.1 User’s Guide documentation.

Pechan has developed programs to review MO BILE6 input files. These programs will be modified to perform QA on the SMOKE-formatted MOBILE6 input files to insure that all appropriate control measure commands and input data are included in th e appropriate MOBILE6 input files.

Each database in text or database format, as well as each set of MOBILE6 input files, developed during this task will be assigned a versi on control ID, so that any future modifications of these data sets can be tracked. The version co ntrol ID will contain the date that the file was revised, as well as a version number, if more th an one revision occurred on the same date (e.g. mobilexxx 2-15-05v2).PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document B-10 Task 4. Identify Federal Controls

Pechan will conduct a QA review of the SM OKE control factor files for the Federal controls as listed above for the State controls . Range checks will be performed on all values including control efficiency, rule effectiveness, a nd rule penetration to make sure that all values are valid and reasonable. Comparisons of the control efficiencies will be made with the 2002 CENRAP emission inventory files to ensure that controls include d in the 2002 emission inventory are not double-counted fo r the projection year. In addi tion, checks will be made to verify that source categories wi th both State and Federal control measures have been given the appropriate controls and that so urces are not inappropr iately over-controlled. Any point-specific control information will be matched to the 2002 CE NRAP emission inventory to ensure that the correct point identifiers have been used. A QA summary will be developed listing State/SCC combinations in the 2002 CENRAP base year em ission inventory with no control efficiency listed in either the State controls file or the Federal controls file to ensure that all source categories that should have cont rols applied contain the necessary information in the SMOKE control factor file. Pechan will ensure that the format of the control factor databases are correct based on documentation in the SMOKE2.1 User’s Gu ide. Each database developed during this task will be assigned a version control ID as described under Task 4, so that any future modifications of these data sets can be tracked.

Task 5. Compare and Provide a Writte n Summary of Differences Between the Economic Growth Analysis System (EGAS) 4 and EGAS 5 Models

Pechan will conduct a QA review of the SMOKE growth factor files prepared under this task. This will include range checks on all growth factors. Any growth factors above or below the expected range of growth factors will be revi ewed for reasonableness. Significant variations in growth factors for the same source categor ies across States will also be reviewed for reasonableness. The growth factor data will be cross-checked with the CENRAP 2002 emissions inventory to ensure that a ll State/SCC combinations present in the 2002 inventory have corresponding growth factors (with the exception of onr oad and NONROAD model source categories which will be handled in Task 7). Pechan will ensure that the format of the growth factor databases are correct based on the SMOKE 2.1 User’s Guide. Each database developed during this task will be assigned a version control ID as described under Task 4, so that any future modifications of these data sets can be tracked.

Task 6. Isolate and Examine Emission Growth Factors for CENRAP Electricity Generating Units (EGUs) using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) and the
EGAS 5 Model

The EGAS EGU growth factors to be used in this task will have undergone QA review under Task 5. In developing the IPM EGU grow th factors, Pechan will review State/SCC combinations that are present either in the base year or projection year da ta, but not both. These cases, and Pechan’s proposed approach for dea ling with these cases for the development of growth factors, will be documented in the Technical Memorandum to be prepared under this task for CENRAP’s review. In addi tion, cases with insufficient data in the CENRAP base year inventory to calculate growth factors will be documented for CENRAP review. The remainingPECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document B-11 IPM EGU growth factors by State/SCC will be ca refully reviewed. Growth factors that are outside of the expected range of factors will be reviewed for reasonableness and accuracy. If all calculations have been performed correctly, but the data seem unr easonable, these factors will be documented for CENRAP to review and provide corrections or comments on.

Task 7. Develop Onroad Growth Factor s and Nonroad Emissions Inventory for the Future Case CENRAP Emissions Inventory

Pechan will use EPA’s NIF Format and C ontent Check QA tool to perform initial QA on the NONROAD2004 NIF output file. Any errors fl agged by this tool will be reviewed and corrected as necessary. After the nonroad inventory data are converted into SMOKE format, QA checks will be performed to ensure that the SMOKE-formatted emissions are the same as the emissions in the NIF files. Cross-checks will be performed to ensure that all State/SCC combinations included in the 2002 emission invent ory for the source categories included in the NONROAD2004 model are also included in the SMOKE emission files.

Pechan will QA the VMT growth factors prepar ed in SMOKE format. Range checks will be performed on all VMT growth factors to make su re that all values are valid and reasonable. Any growth factors above or below the expected range of growth factors will be reviewed for reasonableness. Significant vari ations in growth factors for the same source categories across States will also be reviewed for reasonableness. The growth factor data will be cross-checked with the CENRAP 2002 onroad VMT data to ensu re that all onroad St ate/SCC combinations present in the 2002 inventory have corresponding VMT growth factors. Pechan will ensure that the format of the VMT growth factor data bases are correct based on the SMOKE2.1 User’s Guide.

Each database developed during this task will be assigned a version control ID as described under Task 4, so that any future modifi cations of these data sets can be tracked.

Task 8. Develop Future Case Inventor y of Areas Outside the CENRAP Region

Each projection year emission i nventory or set of growth and control factors for the areas outside the CENRAP region will be assigned a vers ion control ID as described under Task 4 and tracked accordingly. Pechan will ensure the data acquired are formatted correctly for use in SMOKE modeling based on the SMOKE2.1 User’s Guide and will document any deficiencies for each inventory database. Pechan will prepar e draft summaries for each database indicating the source of the data, base and projection years of the original data, and any data conversions needed from the original base and projection ye ars to the CENRAP base and projection years of 2002 and 2018 for review by CENRAP. Final revisi ons to the data will be made based on the feedback received.

Task 9. Prepare Future Case Growth and Control Summary

Growth and control factors developed in tasks 3 through 7, as well as the EGU control factors to be developed under this task, will be summarized in Excel spreadsheets by State or Tribal area and SCC. These reports will provid e the States and Tribal agencies with anPECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document B-12 opportunity to review the growth and control data developed unde r this project and to provide corrections or comments where the data do not correspond with the agencies’ expectations. As discussed in Section C, above, Pechan will also provide QA Summary Reports that show concerns that Pechan or the Stat es might have with some of the growth or control factors that should be given additional review by the agen cy. These QA Summary Reports will be used to track revisions that need to be made to the draft SMOKE growth and control factor files.

Once the State and Tribal agencies have doc umented the need for any revisions to the growth and control factors, Pechan will prepare final growth and control factor files in SMOKE format. These files will undergo the same QA checks described in the tasks above, along with the final QA audit ensuring that the requested revi sions to the growth a nd control factors have been appropriately implemented in the final SMOKE -formatted files. Each database revised or developed during this task will be assigned a ve rsion control ID as described under Task 4, so that any future modifications of th ese data sets can be tracked.

Task 10. Prepare a TSD

The TSD will undergo QA review to ensure that all methods and data sources are accurately documented and data are reported correctly. Pechan will revise the TSD to incorporate comments provide d by the CENRAP Workgroups.PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-1 

## APPENDIX C
CENRAP STATE POPULATION PROJECTIONS

Table C-1. CENRAP Stat e Population Projections

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF
ARKANSAS 05001 Arkansas 20,355 17,110 0.841 05003 Ashley 23,875 22,294 0.934 05005 Baxter 38,672 42,580 1.101 05007 Benton 165,500 257,479 1.556 05009 Boone 34,713 39,145 1.128 05011 Bradley 12,531 12,357 0.986 05013 Calhoun 5,681 5,430 0.956 05015 Carroll 26,166 32,181 1.23 05017 Chicot 13,623 10,529 0.773 05019 Clark 23,535 23,535 1 05021 Clay 17,127 14,968 0.874 05023 Cleburne 24,570 28,788 1.172 05025 Cleveland 8,541 8,541 1 05027 Columbia 25,343 25,343 1 05029 Conway 20,411 20,411 1 05031 Craighead 84,074 97,527 1.16 05033 Crawford 54,973 67,511 1.228 05035 Crittenden 51,291 51,291 1 05037 Cross 19,343 17,697 0.915 05039 Dallas 8,785 5,322 0.606 05041 Desha 14,805 10,730 0.725 05043 Drew 18,639 18,639 1 05045 Faulkner 89,590 110,979 1.239 05047 Franklin 17,868 18,213 1.019 05049 Fulton 11,527 10,893 0.945 05051 Garland 90,059 104,079 1.156 05053 Grant 16,848 19,377 1.15 05055 Greene 38,038 41,968 1.103 05057 Hempstead 23,492 23,492 1 05059 Hot Spring 30,558 31,999 1.047 05061 Howard 14,251 14,251 1 05063 Independence 34,431 37,350 1.085 05065 Izard 13,192 12,567 0.953 05067 Jackson 17,802 15,475 0.869 05069 Jefferson 83,374 78,668 0.944 05071 Johnson 23,148 26,711 1.154 05073 Lafayette 8,382 6,755 0.806 05075 Lawrence 17,587 17,597 1.001 05077 Lee 12,217 9,790 0.801 05079 Lincoln 14,247 14,247 1 05081 Little River 13,474 13,472 1 05083 Logan 22,394 23,965 1.07 05085 Lonoke 55,302 73,873 1.336PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-2 Table C-1 (continued)

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF 05087 Madison 14,345 15,785 1.1 05089 Marion 16,259 16,202 0.996 05091 Miller 41,133 43,426 1.056 05093 Mississippi 50,380 44,719 0.888 05095 Monroe 9,689 5,310 0.548 05097 Montgomery 9,243 9,699 1.049 05099 Nevada 9,742 8,052 0.827 05101 Newton 8,506 8,506 1 05103 Ouachita 27,868 22,234 0.798 05105 Perry 10,436 12,221 1.171 05107 Phillips 25,001 14,105 0.564 05109 Pike 11,137 10,278 0.923 05111 Poinsett 25,401 24,555 0.967 05113 Polk 20,200 20,785 1.029 05115 Pope 55,223 66,020 1.196 05117 Prairie 9,440 8,499 0.9 05119 Pulaski 364,381 379,945 1.043 05121 Randolph 18,102 17,701 0.978 05123 St. Francis 28,773 26,036 0.905 05125 Saline 86,290 107,280 1.243 05127 Scott 11,004 11,787 1.071 05129 Searcy 8,039 5,953 0.741 05131 Sebastian 117,220 136,374 1.163 05133 Sevier 15,811 16,804 1.063 05135 Sharp 17,270 18,451 1.068 05137 Stone 11,518 12,558 1.09 05139 Union 45,279 43,122 0.952 05141 Van Buren 16,314 16,865 1.034 05143 Washington 166,511 219,999 1.321 05145 White 69,354 83,925 1.21 05147 Woodruff 8,466 6,644 0.785 05149 Yell 21,410 24,162 1.129
IOWA
19001 Adair 8 8 0.962
19003 Adams 4 4 0.919
19005 Allamakee 15 15 1.046 19007 Appanoose 14 13 0.969
19009 Audubon 7 6 0.943
19011 Benton 26 30 1.153
19013 Black Hawk 128 131 1.022
19015 Boone 26 27 1.013
19017 Bremer 23 24 1.021
19019 Buchanan 21 21 1.005
19021 Buena Vista 20 21 1.031
19023 Butler 15 15 0.975
19025 Calhoun 11 10 0.927
19027 Carroll 21 21 0.983
19029 Cass 14 14 0.958PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-3 Table C-1 (continued)

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF
19031 Cedar 18 19 1.048
19033 Cerro Gordo 46 45 0.977
19035 Cherokee 13 12 0.962
19037 Chickasaw 13 13 0.972
19039 Clarke 9 10 1.085 19041 Clay 17 17 0.981 19043 Clayton 18 18 0.978
19045 Clinton 50 49 0.979
19047 Crawford 17 17 0.981
19049 Dallas 43 56 1.291
19051 Davis 9 9 1.029
19053 Decatur 9 9 1.007
19055 Delaware 18 19 1.053
19057 Des Moines 42 41 0.968
19059 Dickinson 17 18 1.097 19061 Dubuque 90 95 1.055
19063 Emmet 11 10 0.937 19065 Fayette 22 22 0.992 19067 Floyd 17 16 0.966
19069 Franklin 11 10 0.963
19071 Fremont 8 7 0.944
19073 Greene 10 10 0.987 19075 Grundy 12 13 1.016
19077 Guthrie 11 12 1.05
19079 Hamilton 16 16 0.99
19081 Hancock 12 12 0.978
19083 Hardin 19 18 0.955
19085 Harrison 16 16 1.038 19087 Henry 20 22 1.061
19089 Howard 10 10 0.975
19091 Humboldt 10 10 0.95
19093 Ida 8 8 0.987
19095 Iowa 16 17 1.058
19097 Jackson 20 21 1.041 19099 Jasper 37 39 1.047
19101 Jefferson 16 16 1.011
19103 Johnson 115 143 1.248
19105 Jones 20 21 1.011
19107 Keokuk 11 11 0.958
19109 Kossuth 17 16 0.922
19111 Lee 37 36 0.959
19113 Linn 196 229 1.17
19115 Louisa 12 13 1.066
19117 Lucas 9 10 1.045 19119 Lyon 12 11 0.966
19121 Madison 14 16 1.112
19123 Mahaska 22 23 1.012
19125 Marion 33 35 1.086PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-4 Table C-1 (continued)

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF
19127 Marshall 39 40 1.022
19129 Mills 15 16 1.115
19131 Mitchell 11 10 0.95
19133 Monona 10 10 0.98
19135 Monroe 8 8 0.959 19137 Montgomery 12 11 0.961
19139 Muscatine 42 45 1.062
19141 O'Brien 15 15 0.989
19143 Osceola 7 6 0.931 19145 Page 17 17 0.992
19147 Palo Alto 10 9 0.929 19149 Plymouth 25 26 1.038
19151 Pocahontas 8 8 0.899
19153 Polk 384 443 1.154
19155 Pottawattamie 88 92 1.04
19157 Poweshiek 19 19 1.016 19159 Ringgold 5 5 0.942
19161 Sac 11 10 0.916
19163 Scott 160 172 1.078 19165 Shelby 13 12 0.962
19167 Sioux 32 34 1.073 19169 Story 81 89 1.105
19171 Tama 18 18 1.023 19173 Taylor 7 7 0.942
19175 Union 12 12 0.974
19177 Van Buren 8 8 1.031 19179 Wapello 36 36 1.006
19181 Warren 42 49 1.183 19183 Washington 21 23 1.087 19185 Wayne 7 6 0.946
19187 Webster 40 38 0.961 19189 Winnebago 12 11 0.971
19191 Winneshiek 21 22 1.024 19193 Woodbury 104 108 1.038
19195 Worth 8 8 0.969 19197 Wright 14 13 0.946
KANSAS 20001 Allen 14,229 13,001 0.914 20003 Anderson 8,142 8,071 0.991 20005 Atchison 16,679 15,072 0.904 20007 Barber 5,084 4,563 0.898 20009 Barton 27,736 24,532 0.884 20011 Bourbon 15,167 15,043 0.992 20013 Brown 10,499 11,492 1.095 20015 Butler 60,536 82,104 1.356 20017 Chase 2,929 2,751 0.939 20019 Chautauqua 4,210 3,994 0.949PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-5 Table C-1 (continued)

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF 20021 Cherokee 21,947 20,693 0.943 20023 Cheyenne 3,122 3,084 0.988 20025 Clark 2,382 2,480 1.041 20027 Clay 8,702 7,681 0.883 20029 Cloud 9,931 8,625 0.868 20031 Coffey 8,899 8,832 0.992 20033 Comanche 1,984 1,711 0.862 20035 Cowley 36,416 34,277 0.941 20037 Crawford 38,041 38,870 1.022 20039 Decatur 3,406 2,952 0.867 20041 Dickinson 19,139 21,077 1.101 20043 Doniphan 8,211 7,982 0.972 20045 Douglas 102,290 112,566 1.1 20047 Edwards 3,339 2,406 0.721 20049 Elk 3,137 3,041 0.969 20051 Ellis 27,266 26,864 0.985 20053 Ellsworth 6,417 5,784 0.901 20055 Finney 39,720 42,589 1.072 20057 Ford 32,652 33,945 1.04 20059 Franklin 25,314 24,041 0.95 20061 Geary 26,403 25,905 0.981 20063 Gove 2,991 2,807 0.938 20065 Graham 2,845 2,479 0.871 20067 Grant 7,892 7,078 0.897 20069 Gray 6,044 7,510 1.243 20071 Greeley 1,472 1,338 0.909 20073 Greenwood 7,651 7,681 1.004 20075 Hamilton 2,656 2,423 0.912 20077 Harper 6,274 5,471 0.872 20079 Harvey 33,423 35,899 1.074 20081 Haskell 4,292 4,624 1.077 20083 Hodgeman 2,148 2,467 1.149 20085 Jackson 12,738 20,837 1.636 20087 Jefferson 18,659 17,896 0.959 20089 Jewell 3,495 3,125 0.894 20091 Johnson 476,642 604,251 1.268 20093 Kearny 4,543 4,367 0.961 20095 Kingman 8,424 8,187 0.972 20097 Kiowa 3,106 3,146 1.013 20099 Labette 22,273 21,940 0.985 20101 Lane 2,000 1,907 0.954 20103 Leavenworth 70,805 78,196 1.104 20105 Lincoln 3,542 3,458 0.976 20107 Linn 9,672 9,204 0.952 20109 Logan 2,997 2,918 0.974 20111 Lyon 35,893 34,835 0.971 20113 McPherson 29,404 29,217 0.994PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-6 Table C-1 (continued)

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF 20115 Marion 13,244 12,953 0.978 20117 Marshall 10,580 11,483 1.085 20119 Meade 4,619 4,423 0.958 20121 Miami 28,910 35,458 1.226 20123 Mitchell 6,691 6,096 0.911 20125 Montgomery 35,296 31,308 0.887 20127 Morris 6,082 6,213 1.022 20129 Morton 3,359 3,151 0.938 20131 Nemaha 10,459 10,064 0.962 20133 Neosho 16,634 15,009 0.902 20135 Ness 3,316 3,011 0.908 20137 Norton 5,877 5,860 0.997 20139 Osage 16,924 21,237 1.255 20141 Osborne 4,237 3,731 0.881 20143 Ottawa 6,287 6,183 0.983 20145 Pawnee 6,944 6,715 0.967 20147 Phillips 5,869 6,096 1.039 20149 Pottawatomie 18,485 19,005 1.028 20151 Pratt 9,540 8,741 0.916 20153 Rawlins 2,887 2,885 0.999 20155 Reno 63,771 55,264 0.867 20157 Republic 5,468 4,928 0.901 20159 Rice 10,500 10,053 0.957 20161 Riley 61,463 62,795 1.022 20163 Rooks 5,489 5,602 1.021 20165 Rush 3,492 3,252 0.931 20167 Russell 7,053 6,436 0.913 20169 Saline 53,897 54,778 1.016 20171 Scott 4,921 4,772 0.97 20173 Sedgwick 461,943 508,467 1.101 20175 Seward 23,065 22,499 0.975 20177 Shawnee 170,703 170,471 0.999 20179 Sheridan 2,641 2,405 0.911 20181 Sherman 6,396 7,428 1.161 20183 Smith 4,363 3,942 0.904 20185 Stafford 4,662 4,474 0.96 20187 Stanton 2,409 2,396 0.995 20189 Stevens 5,331 5,062 0.95 20191 Sumner 25,526 24,678 0.967 20193 Thomas 8,090 8,008 0.99 20195 Trego 3,141 2,940 0.936 20197 Wabaunsee 6,713 7,171 1.068 20199 Wallace 1,691 1,583 0.936 20201 Washington 6,268 5,917 0.944 20203 Wichita 2,502 2,743 1.096 20205 Wilson 10,141 10,612 1.046 20207 Woodson 3,668 3,261 0.889 20209 Wyandotte 158,366 153,806 0.971PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-7 Table C-1 (continued)

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF
LOUISIANA 22001 Acadia 59,246 64,410 1.087 22003 Allen 26,248 31,234 1.19 22005 Ascension 71,326 83,180 1.166 22007 Assumption 22,740 24,412 1.074 22009 Avoyelles 40,928 45,028 1.1 22011 Beauregard 33,124 36,678 1.107 22013 Bienville 16,368 18,256 1.115 22015 Bossier 93,962 103,806 1.105 22017 Caddo 247,834 268,132 1.082 22019 Calcasieu 180,196 197,882 1.098 22021 Caldwell 11,058 12,550 1.135 22023 Cameron 8,506 8,580 1.009 22025 Catahoula 11,572 12,702 1.098 22027 Claiborne 17,600 19,458 1.106 22029 Concordia 20,996 22,658 1.079 22031 De Soto 24,966 26,984 1.081 22033 East Baton Rouge 419,394 471,404 1.124 22035 East Carroll 9,340 10,110 1.082 22037 East Feliciana 22,278 25,978 1.166 22039 Evangeline 34,952 38,332 1.097 22041 Franklin 22,580 24,498 1.085 22043 Grant 18,108 19,564 1.08 22045 Iberia 74,270 82,838 1.115 22047 Iberville 31,382 34,130 1.088 22049 Jackson 15,740 17,088 1.086 22051 Jefferson 468,032 505,370 1.08 22053 Jefferson Davis 32,264 35,156 1.09 22055 Lafayette 191,976 219,210 1.142 22057 Lafourche 88,170 94,076 1.067 22059 La Salle 13,978 15,048 1.077 22061 Lincoln 45,514 51,604 1.134 22063 Livingston 86,918 100,042 1.151 22065 Madison 12,642 13,980 1.106 22067 Morehouse 32,456 35,486 1.093 22069 Natchitoches 38,372 42,554 1.109 22071 Orleans 478,430 517,570 1.082 22073 Ouachita 152,474 168,980 1.108 22075 Plaquemines 25,464 26,914 1.057 22077 Pointe Coupee 23,848 26,562 1.114 22079 Rapides 121,182 124,696 1.029 22081 Red River 9,354 10,186 1.089 22083 Richland 20,694 22,542 1.089 22085 Sabine 24,762 27,930 1.128 22087 St. Bernard 67,156 70,540 1.05 22089 St. Charles 50,146 57,400 1.145 22091 St. Helena 9,978 10,912 1.094PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-8 Table C-1 (continued)

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF 22093 St. James 21,418 23,470 1.096 22095 St. John the Baptist 44,126 49,278 1.117 22097 St. Landry 85,284 94,860 1.112 22099 St. Martin 48,066 53,584 1.115 22101 St. Mary 56,430 59,374 1.052 22103 St. Tammany 198,430 242,360 1.221 22105 Tangipahoa 98,780 113,228 1.146 22107 Tensas 6,784 7,332 1.081 22109 Terrebonne 104,530 114,252 1.093 22111 Union 22,490 25,262 1.123 22113 Vermilion 51,776 55,980 1.081 22115 Vernon 51,726 50,504 0.976 22117 Washington 42,826 45,868 1.071 22119 Webster 42,862 46,920 1.095 22121 West Baton Rouge 21,034 23,428 1.114 22123 West Carroll 11,920 12,612 1.058 22125 West Feliciana 13,792 15,426 1.118 22127 Winn 18,032 20,514 1.138
MINNESOTA 27001 Aitkin 15,937 21,444 1.346 27003 Anoka 308,230 372,816 1.21 27005 Becker 30,520 34,878 1.143 27007 Beltrami 40,790 48,980 1.201 27009 Benton 35,228 41,944 1.191 27011 Big Stone 5,752 5,484 0.953 27013 Blue Earth 56,601 59,804 1.057 27015 Brown 26,939 28,232 1.048 27017 Carlton 32,291 37,004 1.146 27019 Carver 74,807 108,532 1.451 27021 Cass 28,450 38,826 1.365 27023 Chippewa 13,041 13,250 1.016 27025 Chisago 43,321 59,310 1.369 27027 Clay 51,629 52,780 1.022 27029 Clearwater 8,494 9,130 1.075 27031 Cook 5,385 7,134 1.325 27033 Cottonwood 12,092 12,026 0.995 27035 Crow Wing 57,491 77,012 1.34 27037 Dakota 370,438 461,880 1.247 27039 Dodge 18,155 21,778 1.2 27041 Douglas 33,629 40,776 1.213 27043 Faribault 16,037 15,834 0.987 27045 Fillmore 21,241 22,692 1.068 27047 Freeborn 32,806 34,524 1.052 27049 Goodhue 44,692 49,786 1.114 27051 Grant 6,293 6,620 1.052 27053 Hennepin 1,133,884 1,249,232 1.102 27055 Houston 19,923 21,808 1.095PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-9 Table C-1 (continued)

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF 27057 Hubbard 19,090 24,854 1.302 27059 Isanti 32,264 38,986 1.208 27061 Itasca 44,703 50,370 1.127 27063 Jackson 11,213 11,300 1.008 27065 Kanabec 15,786 19,388 1.228 27067 Kandiyohi 41,706 45,540 1.092 27069 Kittson 5,231 5,154 0.985 27071 Koochiching 14,177 13,244 0.934 27073 Lac qui Parle 7,924 7,324 0.924 27075 Lake 11,199 12,450 1.112 27077 Lake of the Woods 4,589 5,100 1.111 27079 Le Sueur 25,820 28,608 1.108 27081 Lincoln 6,385 6,392 1.001 27083 Lyon 25,503 26,226 1.028 27085 McLeod 35,447 39,344 1.11 27087 Mahnomen 5,222 5,472 1.048 27089 Marshall 10,001 9,258 0.926 27091 Martin 21,617 21,104 0.976 27093 Meeker 22,994 26,098 1.135 27095 Mille Lacs 23,102 29,500 1.277 27097 Morrison 32,067 35,198 1.098 27099 Mower 38,834 41,278 1.063 27101 Murray 9,051 8,638 0.954 27103 Nicollet 30,199 32,966 1.092 27105 Nobles 20,887 21,702 1.039 27107 Norman 7,377 7,140 0.968 27109 Olmsted 127,654 153,218 1.2 27111 Otter Tail 58,307 69,350 1.189 27113 Pennington 13,670 14,260 1.043 27115 Pine 27,302 33,588 1.23 27117 Pipestone 9,789 9,290 0.949 27119 Polk 31,177 31,122 0.998 27121 Pope 11,282 12,000 1.064 27123 Ramsey 516,633 552,076 1.069 27125 Red Lake 4,295 4,396 1.023 27127 Redwood 16,733 16,946 1.013 27129 Renville 17,104 17,220 1.007 27131 Rice 58,271 70,890 1.217 27133 Rock 9,689 9,826 1.014 27135 Roseau 16,543 18,200 1.1 27137 St. Louis 201,457 211,366 1.049 27139 Scott 96,259 147,138 1.529 27141 Sherburne 69,006 101,934 1.477 27143 Sibley 15,566 17,390 1.117 27145 Stearns 136,352 160,364 1.176 27147 Steele 34,256 38,210 1.115 27149 Stevens 10,060 10,112 1.005PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-10 Table C-1 (continued)

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF 27151 Swift 11,994 12,784 1.066 27153 Todd 24,620 26,798 1.088 27155 Traverse 4,052 3,744 0.924 27157 Wabasha 21,938 24,614 1.122 27159 Wadena 13,872 15,082 1.087 27161 Waseca 19,716 21,184 1.074 27163 Washington 211,906 286,342 1.351 27165 Watonwan 11,906 12,250 1.029 27167 Wilkin 7,083 6,986 0.986 27169 Winona 50,491 54,190 1.073 27171 Wright 94,096 123,258 1.31 27173 Yellow Medicine 11,000 10,826 0.984
MISSOURI 29001 Adair 23,945 22,652 0.946 29003 Andrew 15,808 17,000 1.075 29005 Atchison 6,733 5,873 0.872 29007 Audrain 24,287 24,807 1.021 29009 Barry 36,132 46,461 1.286 29011 Barton 12,300 13,717 1.115 29013 Bates 16,176 17,637 1.09 29015 Benton 17,773 21,214 1.194 29017 Bollinger 12,027 13,823 1.149 29019 Boone 137,011 168,775 1.232 29021 Buchanan 82,652 80,828 0.978 29023 Butler 41,397 43,463 1.05 29025 Caldwell 8,817 9,554 1.084 29027 Callaway 39,168 45,700 1.167 29029 Camden 36,567 45,152 1.235 29031 Cape Girardeau 68,404 75,037 1.097 29033 Carroll 9,858 8,889 0.902 29035 Carter 6,753 8,226 1.218 29037 Cass 86,299 112,085 1.299 29039 Cedar 13,700 15,350 1.12 29041 Chariton 8,477 7,884 0.93 29043 Christian 56,199 86,229 1.534 29045 Clark 7,480 7,549 1.009 29047 Clay 183,989 216,063 1.174 29049 Clinton 19,590 23,030 1.176 29051 Cole 70,819 76,706 1.083 29053 Cooper 16,849 18,354 1.089 29055 Crawford 23,944 29,357 1.226 29057 Dade 8,365 9,348 1.117 29059 Dallas 16,983 22,566 1.329 29061 Daviess 7,940 8,189 1.031 29063 DeKalb 13,482 14,488 1.075 29065 Dent 14,332 14,662 1.023 29067 Douglas 12,541 13,246 1.056PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-11 Table C-1 (continued)

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF 29069 Dunklin 32,627 31,891 0.977 29071 Franklin 96,978 116,194 1.198 29073 Gasconade 15,267 17,259 1.13 29075 Gentry 6,884 7,200 1.046 29077 Greene 237,440 260,399 1.097 29079 Grundy 10,141 9,592 0.946 29081 Harrison 8,181 7,931 0.969 29083 Henry 21,840 23,383 1.071 29085 Hickory 9,360 10,807 1.155 29087 Holt 5,398 4,903 0.908 29089 Howard 9,725 9,906 1.019 29091 Howell 38,114 45,840 1.203 29093 Iron 11,154 11,721 1.051 29095 Jackson 653,141 668,410 1.023 29097 Jasper 103,291 118,819 1.15 29099 Jefferson 205,743 247,773 1.204 29101 Johnson 50,194 59,158 1.179 29103 Knox 4,271 4,074 0.954 29105 Laclede 32,042 38,311 1.196 29107 Lafayette 33,443 36,866 1.102 29109 Lawrence 34,399 40,134 1.167 29111 Lewis 10,023 9,700 0.968 29113 Lincoln 38,970 53,491 1.373 29115 Linn 14,060 14,681 1.044 29117 Livingston 14,385 14,000 0.973 29119 McDonald 21,109 26,954 1.277 29121 Macon 15,088 14,876 0.986 29123 Madison 11,734 12,819 1.092 29125 Maries 8,496 9,169 1.079 29127 Marion 28,015 28,953 1.033 29129 Mercer 4,325 4,859 1.123 29131 Miller 23,815 28,155 1.182 29133 Mississippi 12,979 11,247 0.867 29135 Moniteau 14,560 16,349 1.123 29137 Monroe 8,847 8,904 1.006 29139 Montgomery 12,067 13,007 1.078 29141 Morgan 19,328 23,273 1.204 29143 New Madrid 20,428 19,695 0.964 29145 Newton 50,569 58,237 1.152 29147 Nodaway 20,521 18,673 0.91 29149 Oregon 10,506 11,236 1.069 29151 Osage 12,751 13,503 1.059 29153 Ozark 10,322 11,596 1.123 29155 Pemiscot 21,471 21,369 0.995 29157 Perry 18,005 19,443 1.08 29159 Pettis 38,000 40,961 1.078 29161 Phelps 39,610 42,920 1.084PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-12 Table C-1 (continued)

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF 29163 Pike 16,780 16,719 0.996 29165 Platte 75,949 95,760 1.261 29167 Polk 27,597 34,199 1.239 29169 Pulaski 41,942 37,494 0.894 29171 Putnam 4,934 4,625 0.937 29173 Ralls 9,112 9,811 1.077 29175 Randolph 23,863 23,397 0.98 29177 Ray 23,519 26,189 1.114 29179 Reynolds 6,722 6,536 0.972 29181 Ripley 14,997 18,480 1.232 29183 St. Charles 295,337 399,603 1.353 29185 St. Clair 9,375 10,254 1.094 29186 Ste. Genevieve 17,581 19,427 1.105 29187 St. Francois 57,936 66,648 1.15 29189 St. Louis 1,000,468 972,728 0.972 29195 Saline 22,426 21,654 0.966 29197 Schuyler 4,517 4,845 1.073 29199 Scotland 4,795 4,756 0.992 29201 Scott 40,920 42,065 1.028 29203 Shannon 8,500 9,450 1.112 29205 Shelby 6,747 6,682 0.99 29207 Stoddard 29,132 28,107 0.965 29209 Stone 31,887 44,919 1.409 29211 Sullivan 6,770 7,288 1.077 29213 Taney 39,389 53,373 1.355 29215 Texas 24,647 26,637 1.081 29217 Vernon 19,555 20,427 1.045 29219 Warren 26,349 35,226 1.337 29221 Washington 23,758 27,109 1.141 29223 Wayne 13,715 15,786 1.151 29225 Webster 31,186 40,596 1.302 29227 Worth 2,277 2,102 0.923 29229 Wright 21,191 26,671 1.259 29510 St. Louis City 308,084 203,291 0.66
NEBRASKA 31001 Adams 31,573 35,093 1.111 31003 Antelope 7,325 6,432 0.878
31005 Arthur 438 390 0.891
31007 Banner 810 743 0.918
31009 Blaine 561 410 0.731 31011 Boone 6,135 5,419 0.883 31013 Box Butte 11,998 10,816 0.901 31015 Boyd 2,352 1,760 0.748 31017 Brown 3,475 3,135 0.902 31019 Buffalo 43,358 52,767 1.217 31021 Burt 7,786 7,703 0.989 31023 Butler 8,807 9,355 1.062PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-13 Table C-1 (continued)

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF 31025 Cass 24,932 30,776 1.234 31027 Cedar 9,453 8,445 0.893 31029 Chase 3,996 3,496 0.875 31031 Cherry 6,086 5,570 0.915 31033 Cheyenne 9,915 10,650 1.074 31035 Clay 7,015 6,887 0.982 31037 Colfax 10,650 12,812 1.203 31039 Cuming 10,186 10,564 1.037 31041 Custer 11,637 10,555 0.907 31043 Dakota 21,004 28,123 1.339 31045 Dawes 9,103 9,356 1.028 31047 Dawson 25,038 31,659 1.264 31049 Deuel 2,069 1,900 0.918 31051 Dixon 6,354 6,581 1.036 31053 Dodge 36,719 42,744 1.164 31055 Douglas 475,053 575,897 1.212 31057 Dundy 2,236 1,815 0.812 31059 Fillmore 6,547 6,018 0.919 31061 Franklin 3,513 3,113 0.886 31063 Frontier 3,098 3,105 1.002 31065 Furnas 5,275 4,970 0.942 31067 Gage 23,078 24,509 1.062 31069 Garden 2,259 2,034 0.9 31071 Garfield 1,848 1,487 0.804 31073 Gosper 2,143 2,160 1.008
31075 Grant 732 625 0.854 31077 Greeley 2,639 2,097 0.795 31079 Hall 54,710 66,217 1.21 31081 Hamilton 9,510 10,598 1.114 31083 Harlan 3,755 3,627 0.966 31085 Hayes 1,032 767 0.743 31087 Hitchcock 3,002 2,232 0.743 31089 Holt 11,289 9,473 0.839
31091 Hooker 769 740 0.962 31093 Howard 6,640 7,321 1.102 31095 Jefferson 8,233 7,519 0.913 31097 Johnson 4,484 4,561 1.017 31099 Kearney 6,933 7,415 1.07 31101 Keith 8,947 9,453 1.056 31103 Keya Paha 960 778 0.811 31105 Kimball 4,078 4,021 0.986 31107 Knox 9,293 8,699 0.936 31109 Lancaster 259,022 339,780 1.312 31111 Lincoln 35,207 40,975 1.164 31113 Logan 754 619 0.821 31115 Loup 703 651 0.926
31117 McPherson 526 499 0.948PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-14 Table C-1 (continued)

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF 31119 Madison 35,797 41,896 1.17 31121 Merrick 8,221 8,511 1.035 31123 Morrill 5,464 5,720 1.047 31125 Nance 3,984 3,608 0.906 31127 Nemaha 7,518 7,029 0.935 31129 Nuckolls 4,923 3,939 0.8 31131 Otoe 15,678 18,653 1.19 31133 Pawnee 3,036 2,760 0.909 31135 Perkins 3,163 2,934 0.928 31137 Phelps 9,734 9,705 0.997 31139 Pierce 7,868 7,975 1.014 31141 Platte 32,052 36,498 1.139 31143 Polk 5,621 5,569 0.991 31145 Red Willow 11,389 11,002 0.966 31147 Richardson 9,450 8,973 0.95 31149 Rock 1,700 1,292 0.76 31151 Saline 14,109 16,745 1.187 31153 Sarpy 127,219 167,476 1.316 31155 Saunders 20,130 23,249 1.155 31157 Scotts Bluff 37,472 43,116 1.151 31159 Seward 16,635 18,095 1.088 31161 Sheridan 6,104 5,437 0.891 31163 Sherman 3,233 2,620 0.81 31165 Sioux 1,455 1,247 0.857 31167 Stanton 6,481 6,728 1.038 31169 Thayer 5,928 5,042 0.85
31171 Thomas 704 527 0.749 31173 Thurston 7,271 8,147 1.12 31175 Valley 4,545 3,835 0.844 31177 Washington 19,312 24,628 1.275 31179 Wayne 9,973 11,028 1.106 31181 Webster 4,007 3,726 0.93
31183 Wheeler 861 703 0.817 31185 York 14,660 15,532 1.06
OKLAHOMA 40001 Adair 21,743 27,960 1.286 40003 Alfalfa 6,063 5,900 0.973 40005 Atoka 14,167 17,040 1.203 40007 Beaver 5,834 5,960 1.022 40009 Beckham 20,039 22,800 1.138 40011 Blaine 12,066 13,500 1.119 40013 Bryan 37,360 44,060 1.179 40015 Caddo 30,210 31,820 1.053 40017 Canadian 89,538 104,960 1.172 40019 Carter 45,893 49,600 1.081 40021 Cherokee 44,073 56,420 1.28 40023 Choctaw 15,365 15,920 1.036PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-15 Table C-1 (continued)

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF 40025 Cimarron 3,169 3,360 1.06 40027 Cleveland 212,930 245,480 1.153 40029 Coal 6,139 7,400 1.205 40031 Comanche 116,758 130,360 1.117 40033 Cotton 6,568 6,660 1.014 40035 Craig 15,250 17,940 1.176 40037 Creek 68,220 76,040 1.115 40039 Custer 26,445 28,800 1.089 40041 Delaware 38,326 48,620 1.269 40043 Dewey 4,686 4,500 0.96 40045 Ellis 4,005 3,740 0.934 40047 Garfield 58,048 60,640 1.045 40049 Garvin 27,246 28,080 1.031 40051 Grady 46,110 51,620 1.12 40053 Grant 5,126 5,160 1.007 40055 Greer 5,997 5,900 0.984 40057 Harmon 3,250 3,300 1.015 40059 Harper 3,537 3,400 0.961 40061 Haskell 12,115 14,940 1.233 40063 Hughes 14,412 17,100 1.186 40065 Jackson 28,743 31,540 1.097 40067 Jefferson 6,731 6,660 0.989 40069 Johnston 10,708 12,720 1.188 40071 Kay 48,248 50,480 1.046 40073 Kingfisher 14,156 16,740 1.183 40075 Kiowa 10,136 9,900 0.977 40077 Latimer 10,735 11,380 1.06 40079 Le Flore 48,505 54,700 1.128 40081 Lincoln 32,568 37,200 1.142 40083 Logan 34,874 42,540 1.22 40085 Love 9,139 11,940 1.307 40087 McClain 28,764 37,320 1.297 40089 McCurtain 34,601 36,880 1.066 40091 McIntosh 19,874 23,780 1.197 40093 Major 7,527 7,500 0.996 40095 Marshall 13,910 20,040 1.441 40097 Mayes 39,061 45,460 1.164 40099 Murray 12,854 14,760 1.148 40101 Muskogee 69,671 72,820 1.045 40103 Noble 11,527 12,480 1.083 40105 Nowata 10,821 13,340 1.233 40107 Okfuskee 11,808 12,120 1.026 40109 Oklahoma 668,989 728,840 1.089 40111 Okmulgee 40,091 44,560 1.111 40113 Osage 45,022 50,260 1.116 40115 Ottawa 33,516 36,820 1.099 40117 Pawnee 16,887 19,800 1.172PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-16 Table C-1 (continued)

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF 40119 Payne 70,194 82,360 1.173 40121 Pittsburg 44,172 46,960 1.063 40123 Pontotoc 35,326 37,420 1.059 40125 Pottawatomie 66,393 73,880 1.113 40127 Pushmataha 11,920 14,380 1.206 40129 Roger Mills 3,422 3,400 0.994 40131 Rogers 72,465 88,040 1.215 40133 Seminole 24,896 25,840 1.038 40135 Sequoyah 39,863 47,280 1.186 40137 Stephens 43,069 43,280 1.005 40139 Texas 21,344 31,420 1.472 40141 Tillman 9,252 9,360 1.012 40143 Tulsa 570,659 625,040 1.095 40145 Wagoner 59,285 71,220 1.201 40147 Washington 49,118 50,600 1.03 40149 Washita 11,585 12,220 1.055 40151 Woods 9,093 9,200 1.012 40153 Woodward 18,612 19,840 1.066
TEXAS 48001 Anderson 55,825 62,092 1.112 48003 Andrews 13,238 15,107 1.141 48005 Angelina 81,575 94,579 1.159 48007 Aransas 22,934 26,209 1.143 48009 Archer 9,024 10,468 1.16 48011 Armstrong 2,158 2,290 1.061 48013 Atascosa 40,167 53,775 1.339 48015 Austin 24,077 28,473 1.183 48017 Bailey 6,735 8,082 1.2 48019 Bandera 18,390 25,243 1.373 48021 Bastrop 61,069 94,372 1.545 48023 Baylor 4,055 3,877 0.956 48025 Bee 32,849 36,562 1.113 48027 Bell 246,823 314,037 1.272 48029 Bexar 1,427,012 1,671,927 1.172 48031 Blanco 8,718 11,557 1.326
48033 Borden 733 781 1.065 48035 Bosque 17,437 20,107 1.153 48037 Bowie 89,580 91,580 1.022 48039 Brazoria 250,581 326,663 1.304 48041 Brazos 156,104 186,034 1.192 48043 Brewster 8,926 10,029 1.124 48045 Briscoe 1,804 1,932 1.071 48047 Brooks 8,144 9,519 1.169 48049 Brown 38,032 41,331 1.087 48051 Burleson 16,885 20,825 1.233 48053 Burnet 35,695 50,786 1.423 48055 Caldwell 33,656 48,066 1.428PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-17 Table C-1 (continued)

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF 48057 Calhoun 21,104 24,148 1.144 48059 Callahan 13,015 14,012 1.077 48061 Cameron 350,379 483,238 1.379 48063 Camp 11,822 14,014 1.185 48065 Carson 6,549 6,818 1.041 48067 Cass 30,445 30,639 1.006 48069 Castro 8,485 10,065 1.186 48071 Chambers 27,049 36,395 1.346 48073 Cherokee 47,518 55,687 1.172 48075 Childress 7,756 8,283 1.068 48077 Clay 11,083 11,653 1.051 48079 Cochran 3,801 4,447 1.17 48081 Coke 3,842 3,837 0.999 48083 Coleman 9,219 9,345 1.014 48085 Collin 526,153 822,200 1.563 48087 Collingsworth 3,184 3,160 0.992 48089 Colorado 20,586 22,907 1.113 48091 Comal 81,730 116,670 1.428 48093 Comanche 14,078 14,909 1.059 48095 Concho 4,005 4,113 1.027 48097 Cooke 36,899 42,123 1.142 48099 Coryell 77,652 101,132 1.302 48101 Cottle 1,892 1,928 1.019 48103 Crane 4,076 4,674 1.147 48105 Crockett 4,171 4,720 1.132 48107 Crosby 7,195 8,188 1.138 48109 Culberson 3,050 3,524 1.155 48111 Dallam 6,367 7,305 1.147 48113 Dallas 2,284,143 2,865,380 1.254 48115 Dawson 15,188 16,641 1.096 48117 Deaf Smith 19,054 22,958 1.205 48119 Delta 5,331 5,362 1.006 48121 Denton 465,947 753,768 1.618 48123 DeWitt 20,169 21,436 1.063 48125 Dickens 2,749 2,689 0.978 48127 Dimmit 10,495 12,165 1.159 48129 Donley 3,826 3,776 0.987 48131 Duval 13,353 14,883 1.115 48133 Eastland 18,293 18,668 1.02 48135 Ector 123,150 142,079 1.154 48137 Edwards 2,185 2,331 1.067 48139 Ellis 115,879 159,805 1.379 48141 El Paso 703,516 904,018 1.285 48143 Erath 34,293 41,401 1.207 48145 Falls 18,747 20,606 1.099 48147 Fannin 31,641 35,727 1.129 48149 Fayette 22,019 25,273 1.148PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-18 Table C-1 (continued)

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF 48151 Fisher 4,308 4,070 0.945 48153 Floyd 7,874 8,875 1.127 48155 Foard 1,618 1,618 1 48157 Fort Bend 373,357 540,789 1.448 48159 Franklin 9,552 10,277 1.076 48161 Freestone 18,062 20,161 1.116 48163 Frio 16,725 20,219 1.209 48165 Gaines 14,799 17,918 1.211 48167 Galveston 253,900 283,666 1.117 48169 Garza 4,942 5,472 1.107 48171 Gillespie 21,030 23,313 1.109 48173 Glasscock 1,425 1,654 1.161 48175 Goliad 7,036 7,739 1.1 48177 Gonzales 18,950 21,801 1.15 48179 Gray 22,624 22,406 0.99 48181 Grayson 111,888 123,924 1.108 48183 Gregg 112,696 125,782 1.116 48185 Grimes 24,203 30,486 1.26 48187 Guadalupe 92,465 123,890 1.34 48189 Hale 37,285 42,886 1.15 48191 Hall 3,799 3,951 1.04 48193 Hamilton 8,252 8,873 1.075 48195 Hansford 5,440 6,269 1.152 48197 Hardeman 4,720 4,746 1.006 48199 Hardin 48,944 55,591 1.136 48201 Harris 3,503,977 4,416,624 1.26 48203 Harrison 63,224 73,646 1.165 48205 Hartley 5,629 6,275 1.115 48207 Haskell 6,056 6,000 0.991 48209 Hays 106,152 174,701 1.646 48211 Hemphill 3,384 3,668 1.084 48213 Henderson 75,340 94,009 1.248 48215 Hidalgo 603,081 911,390 1.511 48217 Hill 33,057 40,340 1.22 48219 Hockley 23,092 25,645 1.111 48221 Hood 42,466 55,163 1.299 48223 Hopkins 32,358 36,114 1.116 48225 Houston 23,266 24,481 1.052 48227 Howard 33,901 36,108 1.065 48229 Hudspeth 3,417 3,945 1.155 48231 Hunt 80,012 105,234 1.315 48233 Hutchinson 23,974 25,212 1.052 48235 Irion 1,783 1,810 1.015 48237 Jack 8,840 9,508 1.076 48239 Jackson 14,622 16,558 1.132 48241 Jasper 36,303 42,026 1.158 48243 Jeff Davis 2,229 2,312 1.037PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-19 Table C-1 (continued)

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF 48245 Jefferson 254,598 273,841 1.076 48247 Jim Hogg 5,377 6,197 1.153 48249 Jim Wells 40,067 45,874 1.145 48251 Johnson 131,417 175,962 1.339 48253 Jones 20,871 22,002 1.054 48255 Karnes 15,785 18,764 1.189 48257 Kaufman 74,604 107,395 1.44 48259 Kendall 24,885 35,870 1.441 48261 Kenedy 424 499 1.177
48263 Kent 848 823 0.971 48265 Kerr 44,086 48,298 1.096 48267 Kimble 4,487 4,585 1.022 48269 King 359 401 1.117 48271 Kinney 3,403 3,513 1.032 48273 Kleberg 33,117 41,183 1.244 48275 Knox 4,238 4,340 1.024 48277 Lamar 48,834 51,485 1.054 48279 Lamb 14,911 16,850 1.13 48281 Lampasas 18,234 22,529 1.236 48283 La Salle 6,050 7,479 1.236 48285 Lavaca 19,194 19,632 1.023 48287 Lee 16,086 20,471 1.273 48289 Leon 15,593 17,889 1.147 48291 Liberty 72,445 93,467 1.29 48293 Limestone 22,368 25,486 1.139 48295 Lipscomb 3,065 3,215 1.049 48297 Live Oak 12,488 13,788 1.104 48299 Llano 16,945 16,260 0.96 48301 Loving 67 63 0.94 48303 Lubbock 249,130 278,019 1.116 48305 Lynn 6,648 7,364 1.108 48307 McCulloch 8,244 8,680 1.053 48309 McLennan 216,167 247,741 1.146
48311 McMullen 852 877 1.029 48313 Madison 13,176 15,081 1.145 48315 Marion 11,091 12,025 1.084 48317 Martin 4,847 5,700 1.176 48319 Mason 3,725 3,609 0.969 48321 Matagorda 38,580 44,184 1.145 48323 Maverick 49,212 65,897 1.339 48325 Medina 40,817 54,778 1.342 48327 Menard 2,363 2,442 1.033 48329 Midland 117,378 132,227 1.127 48331 Milam 24,569 27,688 1.127 48333 Mills 5,170 5,589 1.081 48335 Mitchell 9,723 9,930 1.021 48337 Montague 19,275 20,913 1.085PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-20 Table C-1 (continued)

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF 48339 Montgomery 309,930 461,971 1.491 48341 Moore 20,762 26,367 1.27 48343 Morris 13,099 13,530 1.033 48345 Motley 1,425 1,367 0.959 48347 Nacogdoches 59,776 67,457 1.128 48349 Navarro 46,048 55,397 1.203 48351 Newton 15,325 17,183 1.121 48353 Nolan 15,989 17,389 1.088 48355 Nueces 321,277 384,672 1.197 48357 Ochiltree 9,198 10,968 1.192 48359 Oldham 2,214 2,423 1.094 48361 Orange 85,840 91,950 1.071 48363 Palo Pinto 27,446 31,612 1.152 48365 Panola 22,978 24,587 1.07 48367 Parker 91,640 119,974 1.309 48369 Parmer 10,208 12,008 1.176 48371 Pecos 17,083 19,202 1.124 48373 Polk 42,165 51,096 1.212 48375 Potter 116,392 142,151 1.221 48377 Presidio 7,584 9,955 1.313 48379 Rains 9,402 11,529 1.226 48381 Randall 106,619 125,769 1.18 48383 Reagan 3,405 4,101 1.204 48385 Real 3,051 3,040 0.996 48387 Red River 14,351 14,641 1.02 48389 Reeves 13,369 14,786 1.106 48391 Refugio 7,943 8,652 1.089
48393 Roberts 897 998 1.113 48395 Robertson 16,287 19,279 1.184 48397 Rockwall 45,533 67,942 1.492 48399 Runnels 11,577 12,475 1.078 48401 Rusk 47,780 51,956 1.087 48403 Sabine 10,523 10,716 1.018 48405 San Augustine 9,069 9,770 1.077 48407 San Jacinto 22,977 29,104 1.267 48409 San Patricio 69,800 93,570 1.341 48411 San Saba 6,222 6,843 1.1 48413 Schleicher 2,970 3,342 1.125 48415 Scurry 16,476 17,562 1.066 48417 Shackelford 3,337 3,574 1.071 48419 Shelby 25,639 29,603 1.155 48421 Sherman 3,237 3,594 1.11 48423 Smith 177,083 201,037 1.135 48425 Somervell 6,979 8,490 1.217 48427 Starr 56,216 79,415 1.413 48429 Stephens 9,731 10,457 1.075 48431 Sterling 1,402 1,543 1.101PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-21 Table C-1 (continued)

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF 48433 Stonewall 1,694 1,695 1.001 48435 Sutton 4,181 4,814 1.151 48437 Swisher 8,496 9,523 1.121 48439 Tarrant 1,489,319 1,847,868 1.241 48441 Taylor 128,262 141,533 1.103 48443 Terrell 1,081 1,095 1.013 48445 Terry 12,997 14,910 1.147 48447 Throckmorton 1,860 1,866 1.003 48449 Titus 28,786 34,989 1.215 48451 Tom Green 105,294 116,825 1.11 48453 Travis 845,053 1,080,424 1.279 48455 Trinity 13,942 15,034 1.078 48457 Tyler 21,250 24,626 1.159 48459 Upshur 35,908 41,645 1.16 48461 Upton 3,461 3,902 1.127 48463 Uvalde 26,616 32,217 1.21 48465 Val Verde 46,318 57,703 1.246 48467 Van Zandt 49,269 59,968 1.217 48469 Victoria 86,205 102,198 1.186 48471 Walker 63,272 72,115 1.14 48473 Waller 34,583 49,277 1.425 48475 Ward 11,060 12,051 1.09 48477 Washington 30,752 35,292 1.148 48479 Webb 206,306 325,594 1.578 48481 Wharton 41,738 46,881 1.123 48483 Wheeler 5,231 4,997 0.955 48485 Wichita 133,000 143,299 1.077 48487 Wilbarger 14,793 16,126 1.09 48489 Willacy 20,651 25,372 1.229 48491 Williamson 267,736 434,237 1.622 48493 Wilson 33,943 48,616 1.432 48495 Winkler 7,273 7,999 1.1 48497 Wise 50,769 68,763 1.354 48499 Wood 37,500 43,929 1.171 48501 Yoakum 7,488 8,997 1.202 48503 Young 17,982 18,841 1.048 48505 Zapata 12,587 16,344 1.298 48507 Zavala 11,887 14,101 1.186PECHAN May 2005

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-22 [This page intentionally left blank.]