### Technical Support Document (TSD)

for the Transport Rule

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491



## Emissions Inventories

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air and Radiation

June 2010

### ii 

## TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acronyms....................................................................................................................... ................ iii

List of Figures ................................................................................................................ ................iv

List of Tables ................................................................................................................. .................iv

List of Appendices ............................................................................................................. ..............v

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. ............6

2 Development of Base Case 2005 Emission Inventories .........................................................7

2.1 Base case 2005 overview........................................................................................................ ............. 7

2.2 Custom processing configuration for TR Emissions Modeling ...................................................... 9



### 3 Development of 2012 and 2014 Future Year Base Case Emission Inventories..................10

3.1 Stationary Source Projection s: IPM sector (ptipm) ..................................................................... 15

3.2 Stationary Source Projections: non-IPM sectors (ptnonipm, nonpt, ag, afdust)....................... 16

3.2.1 Livestock emissions growth (ag, afdust, ptnonipm) .............................................................................. .............16

3.2.2 Residential wood com bustion growth (nonpt)..................................................................................... ...............17

3.2.3 Gasoline Stage II growth an d control (no npt, ptnonipm) ......................................................................... ..........18

3.2.4 Portable fuel container gr owth and cont rol (n onpt)............................................................................. ...............19

3.2.5 Aircraft growth (ptnonipm) ..................................................................................................... ...........................19

3.2.6 Stationary Source control programs, consent decrees & settlements, and plant closures (ptnonipm, nonpt) .....20

3.2.7 Upstream oil and gas projections in non -California WRAP st ates (nonpt) ........................................................2 3

3.2.8 Future Year VOC Speciation for gasoline- related sources (ptn onipm, nonpt) ...................................................23

3.3 Mobile source projections ...................................................................................................... .......... 24

3.3.1 Onroad mobile (on_noadj, on_m oves_runpm, on_moves_startpm)...................................................................24

3.3.2 Nonroad mobile (nonroad) ....................................................................................................... ..........................27

3.3.3 Locomotives and Class 1 & 2 commerci al marine vessels (alm_no_c3)............................................................28

3.3.4 Class 3 commercial mari ne vessels (seca_c3) .................................................................................... ................30

3.3.5 Future Year VOC Speciatio n (on_noadj, nonroad) ................................................................................. ...........30

3.4 Canada, Mexico, and Offshore sources (othar, othon, othpt, othar_hg, and othpt_hg)............. 31

3.5 Description of specific growth and control asp ects of stationary projections for comment ...... 31



### 4 Source Apportionment Scenarios for 2012 ..........................................................................36

5 EGU Control Case for 2014 ..................................................................................................37

6 Emission Summaries for the Base Cases and Control Case................................................38

7 Summary of Projected Emissions Change s over Time and Likely Affect on

Maintenance .................................................................................................................... ......52

8 References................................................................................................................... ...........64

### iii 

## Acronyms

AEO Annual Energy Outlook

BEIS Biogenic Emission Inventory System

C3 Category 3 (commercial marine vessels)

CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule

CAMD EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division

CAM X 

### Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions

CAP Criteria Air Pollutant

CARB California Air Resources Board

CEM Continuous Emissions Monitoring CMAQ Community Multiscale Air Quality

CMV Commercial Marine Vessel

DOE Department of Energy

ECA Emissions Control Area

EGU Electric Generating Unit

EISA Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

EMFAC CARB’s Emission Factors mobile model

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FIPS Federal Information Processing Standard

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant

HWI Hazardous Waste Incinerator

IMO International Marine Organization

IPM Integrated Planning Model

ITN Itinerant (aircraft operations)

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology

MOBILE6 Mobile Source Emission Factor Model, version 6

MOVES Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator

MSAT2 Final Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule

MWC Municipal Waste Combustor NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEEDS National Electric Energy Database System

NEI National Emission Inventory

NLEV National Low Emission Vehicle

NMIM National Mobile Inventory Model

NSR New Source Review OAQPS EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

OECA EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance

ORL One Record per Line (a SMOKE input format)

OTC Ozone Transport Commission

MP Multipollutant

PFC Portable Fuel Container

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis

RFS2 Revised annual Renewable Fuel Standard

RWC Residential Wood Combustion

SMOKE Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions

### iv SCC Source Category Code

SPPD Sector Policies and Programs Division

TAF Terminal Area Forecast

TPY Tons per Year

TR Federal Transport Rule

TSD Technical Support Document

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

WRAP Western Regional Air Partnership



## List of Figures

Figure 2-1. Air quality modeling domains................................................................................... 10 Figure 3-1. MOVES exhaust temperature ad justment functions for 2005, 2012, and 2014........ 27 Figure 5-1. States Covered under Annual SO 2 

### and NO X 

### Reductions for PM 2.5 

### . ......................... 38 Figure 5-2. States Covered under Summer NO X 

### Reductions for Ozone ..................................... 38



## List of Tables

Table 1-1. List of cases run in supp ort of the TR air quality modeling..........................................6

Table 2-1. Sectors Used in the TR Emissions Modeling Platform.................................................8 Table 3-1. Control strategies and growth assumptions for creating 2012 and 2014 base case

emissions inventories from the 2005 base case..........................................................13 Table 3-2. Growth factors from year 2005 to future years for Animal Operations......................17 Table 3-3. Projection Factor s for growing year 2005 Reside ntial Wood Combustion Sources to future years.............................................................................................................18 Table 3-4. Factors used to project base cas e 2005 aircraft emissions to future years ..................20

Table 3-5. States wi th post-2012 controls..................................................................................... 21 Table 3-6. Impact on Total Non-Biogenic Emi ssions of Not Applying “Additional” Controls

on the 2012 Base Case................................................................................................22 Table 3-7. Pollutants covered by the dr aft MOVES model in the 2005 Platform........................26 Table 3-8. Factors applied to year 2005 emi ssions to project locomotives and Class 1 and

Class 2 Commercial Marine Vessel Emissions..........................................................28 Table 3-9. Factors applied to year 2005 emi ssions to grow Class 3 Commercial Marine

Vessel emissions.........................................................................................................30

Table 3-10. List of known local measures needin g details for applying to the ptnonipm sector ..33

Table 3-11. List of known local measures needin g details, including which sectors to apply......34

Table 3-12. List of known local measures need ing details for applying to the nonpt sector.........35

Table 6-1. State-level Total NO X 

### Emissions (not including fires) for each TR Modeling Case in 48 States and Washington, D.C..............................................................................40

Table 6-2. State-level Total SO 2 

### Emissions(not including fires) for each TR Modeling Case in 48 States and Washington, D.C..................................................................................42

Table 6-3. State-level Elect ric Generating Unit Sector NO X 

### Emissions for each TR Modeling Case in 48 States and Washington, D.C.....................................................................44

### v Table 6-4. State-level Elect ric Generating Unit Sector SO 2 

### Emissions for each TR Modeling Case in 48 States and Washington, D.C.....................................................................46 Table 6-5. Group 1 and Group 2 States NO X 

### Total Emissions (not including fires) for each TR Modeling Case......................................................................................................48 Table 6-6. Group 1 and Group 2 States SO 2 

### Total Emissions (not including fires) for each TR Modeling Case......................................................................................................49 Table 6-7. Group1 and Group 2 States NO X 

### EGU Sector Emissions for each TR Modeling

Case ........................................................................................................................... .50 Table 6-8. Group 1 and Group 2 States SO 2 

### EGU Sector Emissions for each TR Modeling

Case ........................................................................................................................... .51

Table 6-9. 26-State Total and Electr ic Generating Unit Sector Summer NO X 

### Emissions for each TR Modeling Case .............................................................................................51

Table 7-1. Eastern Modeli ng Domain State Total Emissions for 2005, 2014, and 2020 Base

Cases.......................................................................................................................... .54 Table 7-2. Eastern Modeling Domain State-Sector Emissions for 2005, 2014, and 2020 Base

Cases.......................................................................................................................... .55



## List of Appendices

APPENDIX A: Ancillary Data Files Used for TR Ca se Compared to 2005 v4 Platform Data

Files

APPENDIX B: Inventory Data Files Used for E ach TR Modeling Case – SMOKE Input Inventory Datasets

APPENDIX C: OECA Consent Decrees

### 6 

## 1 Introduction

This document provides the details of emissions da ta processing done in suppor t of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) rulemaking effort for the Fe deral Transport Rule proposal (hereafter referred to as TR). The TR air quality modeling results were evaluated with respect to the 1997 annual and 2006 24- hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulat e matter less than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5 

### ), as well as the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The emissions and modeling effort for TR consists of four ‘complete’ emissions cases: 2005 base case, 2012 base case, 2014 base case, and 2014 Control case. Table 1-1 provides more information on these emissions cases. The 2012 base case modeling was used to identify

future nonattainment and maintenance locations. Not lis ted in Table 1-1 are source apportionment runs that

were based on the 2012 base case to quantify the contributions of emi ssions in upwind states to annual average 24-hour PM 2.5 

### and 8-hour ozone concentrations in othe r states. The modeling outputs for the 2014

base and control cases were then used to quantify the benefits of this proposal.

Table 1-1. List of cases run in support of the TR air quality modeling

Case Name Internal EPA Abbreviation Description 2005 base case 2005ck 2005 case created using averag e-year fires data and an average-year temporal allocation approach fo r Electrical Generating Units (EGUs), to use for computing re lative response factors with 2012

and 2014 scenarios 2012 base case 2012ck 2012 “baseline” scenario, representing the best estimate for the future year without implemen tation of EGU remedy controls. 2014 base case 2014ck2 2014 “baseline” scenario, representing the best estimate for the future year without implemen tation of EGU remedy controls.
2014 Control case 2014ck2_catr1 2014 EGU “control” sc enario for attaining 1997 ozone and annual PM standards, and 2006 daily PM standard.

The data used in the 2005 emissions cases are the sa me as those described in the 2005-based, v4 platform document ( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/index.html#2005 ). The 2005 and future-year emissions scenarios were processed in a form that is required by the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions (CAM X 

### ) version 5 (Environ, 2009). CAM X 

### is used to estimate base year, future base case and post-control concentrations of ozone and PM, along with depositi on of nitrogen and sulfur, which are combined with monitoring data to estimate populati on-level exposures to changes in am bient concentrati ons for use in estimating health and welfare effects.

In TR, we used a 2005 base case approach for the y ear 2005 emissions scenario. The base case approach uses an average-year fire emissions inventory and aver age-year EGU temporal prof iles, which were based on 3 years of hourly Continuous Emissi ons Monitoring (CEM) data for EGUs . We use a base case approach because we want to reduce year-speci fic variability in fires and EGUs between 2005 and the future years. For example, each year has different days and di fferent locations with large fires, unplanned EGU shutdowns, and periods of high electricity demand. By using a base-case approach, the temporal and spatial aspects of the inventory for these sources are maintained into the fu ture year modeling, which avoids potentially spurious year-specific arti facts in air quality modeling estimates. In addition, the v4 platform (see reference above) biogenic emissions data was held cons tant between the 2005 case for TR and all future-year cases run for TR. For TR, the only significant data changes between the 2005 and future-year cases are emission inventories (from all categ ories but average fires and bioge nics) and speciation approaches.

### 7 The future-year inventories, ancillary files, and detailed projection data used for this modeling are available as part of the rulemaking Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491. Since the data are large, the data files themselves are not posted with onlin e access through the docket, and so a more convenient access location is the EPA Emissions Modeling Cleari nghouse website for its 2005 platform ( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/index.html#2005 ). The TR data files ar e provided as a subheading

under this main link.

In the remainder of this document, we provide a desc ription of the approaches taken for the emissions in support of air quality modeling for TR. In Sectio n 2, we briefly review th e 2005 base case inventory, including ancillary data a nd issues related to CAM X 

### support. In Section 3 we describe the development of the future year 2012 and 2014 base cases. We describe the 2012 Source Tagging scen arios in Section 4. In Section 5, we describe the 2014 EGU control (remedy) cas e as compared to the 2014 base case. In Section 6 we provide data summaries compari ng all four modeling cases and reques t for comments on specific issues. Section 7 provides a brief discussion on anticipated emissions changes over time for various source sectors and how those changes might impact the maintenance of the proposed standard.

The US EPA seeks comment on growth and control appr oaches for all modeling sectors, particularly the

identification of nonEGU controls or control programs that exist but have not been included in the emissions projections. We also seek comment on all significant source category emi ssions; for example, we are aware that our upstream oil and gas inventory can be further im proved, but do not have data available to do so. The US EPA requests that all such comments be of a qua ntitative nature with supporting documentation on the source of the information provided. Comments with sp ecific information or new data will supercede more vague comments such as “the emissions seem too low or too high.” Refer to Section 7 for an additional list of specific emissions issues of interest to EPA for comment.



## 2 Development of Base Case 2005 Emission Inventories

As mentioned previously, the 2005 emi ssions modeling approach for TR used the same data and approaches as the 2005 v4 base case platform. In this section, we briefly discuss the modeling sectors in the 2005 base case and future year cases as well as the TR-speci fic issues related to pr ocessing emissions for CAM X



### .



## 2.1 Base case 2005 overview

Table 2-1 lists the platform sectors used for the 2005 base case and all future ye ar cases. It also indicates the platform sectors that include HAP emissions and the associated sectors from the National Emission Inventory (NEI). Subsequent sect ions refer to these platform sect ors for identifying the emissions differences between the 2005 base case (v4 platform) a nd the TR future-year cases. The inputs to the air quality model; including emissions, meteorology, init ial conditions, boundary conditions; along with the methods used to produce the inputs and the configurati on of the air quality model are collectively known as a ‘modeling platform’.

### 8 Table 2-1. Sectors Used in the TR Emissions Modeling Platform

Platform Sector 2005 NEI

Sector Description and resolution of the data input to SMOKE

IPM sector: ptipm Point 2005v2 NEI point source EGUs mapped to the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) model using the National Electric Energy Database System (NEEDS, 2006 version 3.02) database. Hourly files for continuous emission monitoring (CEM) sources are included only for the 2005 evaluation case. Day-specific emissions for non-CEM sources created for input into SMOKE.

Non-IPM sector: ptnonipm Point All 2005v2 NEI point source records not matched to the ptipm sector, annual resolution. Includes all aircraft emissions. Average-fire

sector: avefire N/A Average-year wildfire and prescribed fire emissions derived from the 2002 Platform avefire sector, county and annual resolution. Used for the 2005 base year and the future base model runs, but not

for the model evaluation case. Agricultural

sector: ag Nonpoint NH 3 emissions from NEI nonpoint livestock and fertilizer application, county and annual resolution. Area fugitive dust

sector: afdust Nonpoint PM 10 and PM 2.5 from fugitive dust sources from the NEI nonpoint inventory (e.g., building construc tion, road construction, paved roads, unpaved roads, agricultural dust), county/annual resolution. Remaining nonpoint sector:

nonpt Nonpoint Primarily 2002 NEI nonpoint sources not otherwise included in other SMOKE sectors, county and annual resolution. Also includes updated Residential Wood Combus tion emissions and year 2005 non-California Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) oil and gas “Phase II” inventory.

Nonroad sector:

nonroad Mobile:

Nonroad Monthly nonroad emissions from the National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM) using NONROA D2005 version nr05c-BondBase for all states except California. Monthly emissions for California created from annual emissions submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for the 2005v2 NEI

. locomotive, and

non-C3

commercial

marine: alm_no_c3 Mobile:

Nonroad Year 2002 non-rail maintenance locomotives, and category 1 and category 2 commercial marine vessel (CMV) emissions sources, county and annual resolution. Unlike prior platforms, aircraft emissions are now included in the ptnonipm sector and category 3
CMV emissions are now contained in the seca_c3 sector

C3 commercial

marine: seca_c3 Mobile :

Nonroad Annual point source formatted year 2005 category 3 (C3) CMV emissions, developed for the EPA ru le called “Control of Emissions from New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder”, usually described as the Emissions Control Area (ECA) study, originally called SO 2 (“S”) ECA.

Onroad California, NMIM-based, and

MOVES sources not subject to
temperature adjustments: on_noadj Mobile:

onroad Three, monthly, county-level components: 1) Onroad emissions from NMIM using MOBILE6.2, other

than for California. 2) California onroad, created using annual emissions submitted by CARB for the 2005v2 NEI. Onroad gasoline non-motorcycle vehicle emissions from draft MOVES not subject to temperature adjustments: exhaust CO, NO X , VOC, some VOC HAPs, and evaporative VOC and some VOC Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs).

Onroad cold-start gasoline exhaust

mode vehicle from MOVES subject Mobile:

onroad Monthly, county-level draft MOVES-based onroad non-motorcycle gasoline emissions subject to temperature adjustments. Limited to exhaust mode only for PM species and Naphthalene. California

emissions not included. This sector is limited to cold start mode

### 9 Platform Sector 2005 NEI

Sector Description and resolution of the data input to SMOKE

to temperature adjustments:

on_moves_startpm emissions that contain different temperature adjustment curves from running exhaust (see on_moves_runpm sector).

Onroad running gasoline exhaust

mode vehicle from MOVES subject
to temperature adjustments:

on_moves_runpm Mobile:

onroad Monthly, county-level draft MOVES-based onroad non-motorcycle gasoline emissions subject to temperature adjustments. Limited to exhaust mode only for PM species and Naphthalene. California

emissions not included. This sect or is limited to running mode emissions that contain different temperature adjustment curves from cold start exhaust (see on_moves_startpm sector).

Biogenic: biog N/A Hour-specific, grid cell-specific emissions generated from the

BEIS3.14 model -includes emissi ons in Canada and Mexico. Other point

sources not from

the NEI: othpt N/A Point sources from Canada’s 20 06 inventory and Mexico’s Phase III 1999 inventory, annual resolution. Also includes annual U.S. offshore oil 2005v2 NEI point source emissions. Other point

sources not from the NEI, Hg only: othpt_hg N/A Annual year 2000 Canada speciated mercury point source emissions.

Other nonpoint

and nonroad not

from the NEI:

othar N/A Annual year 2006 Canada (province resolution) and year 1999 Mexico Phase III (municipio resolution) nonpoint and nonroad mobile inventories, annual resolution.

Other nonpoint

sources not from the NEI, Hg only: othar_hg N/A Annual year 2000 Canada speciated mercury from nonpoint sources.

Other onroad

sources not from

the NEI: othon N/A Year 2006 Canada (province resolution) and year 1999 Mexico Phase III (municipio resolution) onroad mobile inventories, annual

resolution.



### As discussed in the 2005 v4 platform documentation, we processed all emissions data with a custom version of the Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions (S MOKE) modeling system, version 2.5. Users seeking to replicate modeling done for this effort can use version 2.6 of SMOKE. Mo re details about SMOKE including user documentation ar e available at its website ( http://www.smoke-model.org ).

For the 2005 base case, all inventory a nd ancillary input data f iles used as inputs for this rule can be found at the 2005-based platform website ( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ch ief/emch/index.html#2005 ).



## 2.2 Custom processing configuration for Transport Rule Emissions Modeling

In support of the TR proposal, EPA modeled the air quality in the East using a horizontal grid resolution of 12 x 12 km. This Eastern 12 km modeling domain covers 37 states from Texas to North Dakota and all states to the east of those, and was “nested” within a modeling domain covering the remainder of the lower 48 states using a grid resolution of 36 x 36 km 1 

### . Therefore, unless noted to the contrary, the tables of

emissions in this document cover the contiguous 48 states. A map of the air quality modeling domains is in

1 The air quality predictions from the 36 km Continental US (CONUS) domain were used to provide incoming “initial” and “boundary” concentrations for the Eastern 12 km domain.

### 10 Figure 2-1. The domains relevant to TR are the 12km East domain within the blue boundary, and the

national 36km domain. The 12km We st domain is not used for TR.

Figure 2-1. Air quality modeling domains

36km Domain Boundary

12km East Domain Boundary 12km West Domain Boundary



### All three grids use a Lambert-Confor mal projection, with Alpha = 33o, Beta = 45o and Gamma = -97o, with a

center of X = -97o and Y = 40o. Other specific parameters for these grids are provided in the TR Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document.

Emissions are first processed for the Community Mu ltiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model, and then postprocessed via conversion scripts into a form appropriate for use by CAM X 

### These conversion scripts are a series of programs run using shell scripts and simple programs to convert the merged 2-dimensional CMAQ

emissions into CAM X 

### format. These scripts also convert the elevated inline CMAQ emissions files for each

sector into CAM X 

### format and merge each converted sector file into one daily elevated emissions file.



## 3 Development of 2012 and 2014 Fut ure Year Base Case Emission

Inventories

This section describes the methods we used for developing the 2012 and 2014 future year base case emissions. The year 2012 source apportionment scenar ios and the 2014 EGU control case are discussed in Sections 4 and 5, respectively. The an cillary input data are very similar in the future year scenarios as those in the 2005 base case except fo r the speciation profiles used for gasoline- related sources, which change in the future to account for increased ethanol usage in ga soline. Appendix A provide s a table of differences

### 11 between these ancillary input data be tween the 2005 base case and these futu re year scenarios. The specific speciation profile changes are di scussed in Sections 3.2.8 and 3.3.5.

The future base case projection methodologies vary by sector. The 2012 and 2014 base cases represent predicted emissions in the absence of any furthe r controls beyond those Fe deral measures already promulgated. For EGU emissions (ptipm sector), all rule s and settlements that were finalized by February 3,

2009 have been included. For mobile sources (on_noadj, on_moves_runp m, and on_moves_startpm sectors), all national measures for which data were av ailable at the time of mode ling have been included. The future base case scenarios do reflect projected economic changes and fuel usage for EGU and mobile sectors. For nonEGU point (ptnoni pm sector) and nonpoint stationary sources (nonpt, ag, and afdust sectors), local control programs that might have been necessary for areas to attain the 1997 PM 2.5 

### NAAQS annual standard, 2006 PM NAAQS ( 24-hour) standard, and the 1997 ozone NAAQS are not included in the future base case projections. This is because the nonattainment areas for the 1997 PM 2.5 

### and ozone standards were not announced until 2004 and 2005 respectively, a nd the corresponding state implementation plans (SIPs) were not due until 2007 and 2008, thereby preventi ng the inclusion of these local measures in the 2005 emissions inventory. Whether any of these SIPs controls are include d in the final rule depends on a couple of factors: 1) the SIPs mu st be approved and made available, and 2) the control measures and technologies are provided in such a wa y that they can be applied to our inventories (e.g., control efficiencies or emission reductions matched to specific NEI facilitie s, units, and/or source category codes (SCCs). The following bullets summarize the projection methods used for sources in the various sectors, while additional

details and data sources are given in Table 3-1:

• IPM sector (ptipm): Unit-specific estimates from IPM, version 3.02.

• Non-IPM sector (ptnonipm): Pr ojection factors and percent reduc tions reflect emission reductions due to control programs, plant closures, consent decrees and settlements. Also used projection approaches for point source livestock and aircraft a nd gasoline stage II emissions that are consistent with projections used for the sectors that contain th e bulk of these emissions. Terminal area forecast (TAF) data aggregated to the nation al level were used for aircraft to account for projected changes in landing/takeoff activity. Year-specifi c speciation was applied to some portions of this sector and is

discussed in Section 3.2.8.

• Average fires sector (avefire): No growth or control.

• Agricultural sector (ag) : Projection factors for livestock estim ates based on expected changes in animal population from 2005 Department of Agri culture data; no growth or control for NH 3 

### emissions from fertilizer application.

• Area fugitive dust sector (afdust): Projection factor s for dust categories related to livestock estimates based on expected changes in animal population; no growth or c ontrol for other cate gories in this

sector.

• Remaining Nonpoint sector (nonpt): Projection factors that reflect emission reductions due to control programs. Residential wood combustion projections based on growth in lower-emitting stoves and a reduction in higher emitting stoves. PFC projection factors reflecti ng impact of the final Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT2) rule. Gasoline stag e II projection factors based on National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM)-estimated VOC refueling estimates for future years. Year-specific speciation was applied to some portions of this sector and is discu ssed in Section 3.2.8.

• Nonroad mobile sector (nonroad): Output fr om the NONROAD2005 model, which was run using NMIM, includes final controls from the final lo co-marine and small spark ignition OTAQ rules. California-specific data pr ovided by the state of California. Y ear-specific speciation was applied to some portions of this sector a nd is discussed in Section 3.3.5.

### 12 • Aircraft, locomotive, and non-Cla ss 3 commercial marine sector (a lm_no_c3): Projection factors for

Class 1 and Class 2 commercial marine and loco motives which reflect activity growth and final

locomotive-marine controls.

• Class 3 commercial marine vessel sector (seca_c3): base year 2002 emissions grown to future years without Emissions Control Area (ECA) or Inte rnational Marine Orga nization (IMO) global NO X 

### and

SO 2 

### controls.

• Onroad no-adjustment for temperature mobile sect or (on_noadj): Non-refueling NMIM-based except for gasoline vehicle NO X 

### , CO, VOC, and select VOC HAPs which are from draft MOVES, and gasoline vehicle PM and naphtha lene which are in the on_moves _startpm and on_moves_runpm sectors. California-specific data provided by th e state of California. VOC speciation uses same combination of profiles as are used for exha ust and evaporative nonr oad mobile profiles.

• Onroad PM gasoline running mode sector (on_move s_startpm): Running m ode draft MOVES future year state-month estimates for PM and naphthale ne, apportioned to the county level using NMIM state-county ratios matched to vehicle and road types.

• Onroad PM gasoline start mode sector (on_moves_st artpm): Cold start draft MOVES future year state-month estimates for PM and naphthalene, a pportioned to the county le vel using NMIM statecounty ratios of local urban a nd rural roads by vehicle type.

• Other nonroad/nonpoint (othar): No growth or control.

• Other nonpoint speciated mercury (oth ar_hg): No growth or control.

• Other onroad sector (othon): No growth or control.

• Other nonroad/nonpoint (othar): No growth or control.

• Other point (othpt): No growth or control.

• Other point speciated mercury (oth pt_hg): No growth or control.

• Biogenic: 2005 emissions used for all future-year scenarios.

Table 3-1 summarizes the control stra tegies and growth assumptions by s ource type used to create the 2012

and 2014 base case emissions from the 2005 base case inventories. Note that mercury (Hg) is listed in the pollutants column; however, we did not include Hg in our future year modeling. All Mexico, Canada, and offshore oil emissions are unchanged in all future case sc enarios from those in the 2005 base case. Emission summaries by sector for 2005 and future years are provided in Section 6. Note that a few controls are not fully promulgated by 2012 but are by 2014. For ex ample the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rule “Boat Manufacturing” has a complian ce date in year 2013; th erefore the VOC control

associated with this MACT rule is not reflected in the 2012 base Case but is reflected in the 2014 base and

control cases.

The detailed projection factors used for these future year emissions have hundreds of thousands of records

and are not therefore listed in this document or in a spreadsheet. Rath er, the detailed projection data can be

obtained from docket for this rule and from the Emissions Modeling Clear inghouse website listed in Section

1.

The remainder of this section is organized either by source sector or by specific emissions category within a

source sector for which a distinct se t of data were used or developed for the purpose of projections. This organization allows consolidation of the discussion of the emissions categories that are contained in multiple sectors, because the data and approaches used acro ss the sectors are consistent , and do not need to be repeated. Sector names associated with the emissions categories are provided in parentheses. A list of inventory datasets used for this and all cases is provided in Appendix B.

### 13 Table 3-1. Control strategies and growth assumptions for creati ng 2012 and 2014 base case emissions

inventories from the 2005 base case

Control Strategies and/or growth assumptions (Grouped by Affected Pollutants or Standard and Approach Used to Apply to the Inventory) Pollutants

Affected Approach or

Reference:
Non-EGU Point (ptnonipm) Controls

Consent decrees apportioned to several plants VOC, CO, NOx, PM, SO 2 some VOC

HAPs DOJ Settlements: plant SCC controls Alcoa, TX Premcor (formerl y MOTIVA), DE NOx, SO 2 1

Refinery Consent Decrees: plant/SCC controls (a few of these controls are promulgated in year 2013, and thus are not reflected in the 2012 base case) NOx, PM, SO 2 2

Closures, pre-2008: plant control of 100% Auto plants Pulp and Paper Large Municipal Waste Combustors Small Municipal Waste Combustors Plants closed after the 2005v2 point inventory was released (pre-2008 closures) All 3

Industrial Boiler/Process Heater plant/SCC controls for PM PM 4

Large Municipal Waste Combustors (LMWC) PM, Hg, and

metals 5

Small Municipal Waste Combustors (SMWC) PM, Hg, metals, NOx, SO 2 5

MACT rules, national, VOC: nati onal applied by SCC, MACT Boat Manufacturing (promulgated in year 2013, thus not reflected in the 2012 base case) Wood Building Produ cts Surface Coating Generic MACT II: Spandex Production, Ethylene manufacture Large Appliances Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP (MON): Alkyd Resins, Chelating Agents, Explosives, Phthalate Plasticizers, Po lyester Resins, Polymerized Vinylidene

Chloride

Reinforced Plastics Asphalt Processing & Roofing

Iron & Steel Foundries Metal: Can, Coil

Metal Furniture

Miscellaneous Metal Parts & Products Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Paper and Other Web

Plastic Parts Plywood and Composite Wood Products

Carbon Black Production Cyanide Chemical Manufacturing Friction Products Manufacturing Leather Finishing Operations Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Refractory Products Manufacturing

Sites Remediation VOC EPA, 2007a

Solid Waste Rules (Section 129d/111d) Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerator Regulations NOx, PM, SO 2 EPA, 2005

### 14 Control Strategies and/or growth assumptions (Grouped by Affected Pollutants or Standard and Approach Used to Apply to the Inventory) Pollutants

Affected Approach or

Reference:
MACT rules, plant-level, VOC: Auto Plants VOC 6
MACT rules, plant-level, PM & SO 2 : Lime Manufacturing PM, SO 2 7

MACT rules, plant-level, PM: Taconite Ore PM 8

Stationary Area Assumptions

Municipal Waste Landfills: project factor of 0.25 applied VOC EPA, 2007a Livestock Emissions Growth from year 2002 to years 2012 and year 2015 NH 3 9 Residential Wood Combustion Growth and Changeouts from year 2005 to years 2012 and 2015 all 10

Gasoline Stage II growth and control from year 2005 to years 2012 and 2015 VOC 11
Portable Fuel Container MSAT2 inventory growth and control from year 2005 to years 2012 and 2015 VOC 12

EGU Point Controls Updated Title IV SO2 allowance bank assumption and Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) using IPM 3.0.2 EISA 3e NO X , SO 2 , PM 13

Onroad Mobile and Nonroad Mobile Co ntrols (list includes all key mobile control strategies but is not exhaustive)

National Onroad Rules:

Tier 2 Rule

2007 Onroad H eavy-Duty Rule Final Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule (MSAT2)

Renewable Fuel Standard all

Local Onroad Programs: National Low Emission Vehicle Program (NLEV) Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) LEV Program VOC 14

National Nonroad Controls:

Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Final Rule – Tier 4 Control of Emissions from Nonroad Large-Spark Ignition Engines and Recreational Engines (Marine and La nd Based): “Pentathalon Rule” Clean Bus USA Program

Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Locomotives and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines Less than 30 Liters per Cylinder all 15, 16, 17

Aircraft, Locomotives, and Co mmercial Marine Assumptions

Aircraft: Itinerant (ITN) oper ations at airports to year 2020 all 18

Locomotives: Energy Information Administration (EIA) fuel consumption projections for freight rail

Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Final Rule – Tier 4 Locomotive Emissions Final Rulemaking, December 17, 1997

Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Locomotives and Marine all EPA, 2009; 19; 16

Commercial Marine: EIA fuel consumption projections for diesel-fueled vessels OTAQ ECA C3 Base 2020 inventory for residual-fueled vessels

Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Final Rule – Tier 4 Emissions Standards for Commercial Marine Diesel Engines, December 29,

1999 Tier 1 Marine Diesel Engines, February 28, 2003 all 19; EPA,

2009

APPROACHES:

1. For ALCOA consent decree, used http:// cfpub.epa.gov /compliance/cases/index.cfm; for MOTIVA: used information sent by State of Delaware

2. Used data provided by EPA, OAQPS, Sector Policies and Programs Division (SPPD) –see Section 3.2.6.

### 15 3. Closures obtained from EPA SPPD sector leads; most verified using the World Wide Web –see Section 3.2.6.

4. Used data list of plants provided by project lead from 2001-based platform; required mapping the 2001 plants to 2002 NEI plants due to plant id changes across inventory years. See Section 3.2.6.

5. Used data provided by EPA, OAQPS SPPD expert –see Section 3.2.6.

6. Percent reductions recommended and plants to apply to reduction to were based on recommendations by rule lead engineer, and are consistent with the reference: EPA, 2007a

7. Percent reductions recommended are determined from the existing plant estimated baselines and estimated

reductions as shown in the Federa l Register Notice for the rule. SO 2 % reduction will therefore be 6147/30,783 = 20% and PM10 and PM2.5 reductions will both be 3786/13588 = 28%

8. Same approach as used in the 2006 Clean Air Intersta te Rule (CAIR) -estimates reductions of "PM emissions by 10,538 tpy, a reduction of about 62%." Used same list of plants as were identified based on tonnage and

SCC from CAIR: http://www.envinfo.com/caain/June04updates/tiop_fr2.pdf

9. Except for dairy cows and turkeys (no growth), based on animal population growth estimates from USDA and Food and Agriculture Policy and Research Institute. See Section 3.2.1.

10. Expected benefits of woodstoves change-out program: http://www.epa.gov/woodstoves/index.html

11. VOC emission ratios of year 2020-specific from year 2005 from the National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM) results for onroad refueling including activity growth from VMT, Stage II control programs at gasoline stations, and phase in of newer vehicles with onboard Stage II vehicle controls.

12. VOC and benzene emissions for year 2020 from year 2002 from MSAT2 rule (EPA, 2007b)

13. http://www.epa.gov/airmarkt/progsregs/epa-ipm/index.html

14. Only for states submitting these inputs: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/lev-nlev.htm

15. http://www.epa.gov/nonroad-diesel/2004fr.htm

16. http://www.epa.gov/cleanschoolbus/

17. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/marinesi.htm

18. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) System, December 2007: http://www.apo.data.fa a.gov/main/taf.asp

19. http://www.epa.gov/nonroad-diesel/2004fr.htm



## 3.1 Stationary Source Projections: IPM sector (ptipm)

The future year data for the ptipm sector were cr eated by the IPM model version3.02 EISA. The EPA Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) manages the developmen t of this model and maintains a website that documents the latest IPM version used in the TR pr oposal “Updates to EPA Base Case v3.02 EISA Using the Integrated Planning Model”: http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/index.html

.

The IPM is a multiregional, dynamic, deterministic linear programming model of the U.S. electric power

sector. IPM Version 3.02 EISA f eatures an updated Title IV SO 2 

### allowance bank assumption, reflects state rules and consent decrees through Fe bruary 3, 2009, and incorporates updates related to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Units with adva nced controls (e.g., scrubbe r, SCR) that were not required to run for compliance with T itle IV, New Source Review (NSR), stat e settlements, or state-specific

rules were allowed in IPM to decide on the basis of economic efficiency whether to operate those controls.

We used IPM results for 2012 directly and used IPM results to represent 2014.

OAQPS post-processed these data in the same way as described in the 2005 v4 platform documentation for the “base case” to create daily emi ssions that include temporal allocati on information from three years of Continuous Emissions Monitoring (CEM) data. The tempor al allocation approach is the same as for the

2005 base case to eliminate artificial differences in temporal allocation between the base and future years.

### 16 

## 3.2 Stationary Source Projections: no n-IPM sectors (ptnonipm, nonpt, ag, afdust)

To project U.S. stationary sources other than ptipm, we applied growth factors an d/or controls to certain categories within the ptnonipm, nonpt, ag and afdust pl atform sectors. This subsection provides details on the data and projection methods used for these sectors. In estimating fu ture-year emissions, we assumed that emissions growth does not track with economic grow th for many stationary non-IPM sources. This “nogrowth” assumption is based on an examination of hist orical emissions and economic data. While we are working toward improving the projection approach in fu ture emissions platforms, we are still using the nogrowth assumption for the 2005, v4 platform. More details on the rationale for this approach can be found in Appendix D of the Regulatory Impact Asse ssment for the PM NAAQS rule (EPA, 2006).

Year-specific projection factors for year 2012 were used for creating th e 2012 base case; however, year 2015 projection factors were used to create the 2014 base case unless noted otherwise. A 2015 base case was initially developed and it was decide d rather late in the TR modeling pr ocess to instead use a year 2014 base case. Most projections are not y ear-specific, and most of the yea r-specific projections do not differ significantly between year 2014 and year 2015. We intend to use 2014-sp ecific emissions for all sectors in the final Transport Rule modeling.

Growth factors (and control factors) are provided in the following sections where feasible. However, some sectors used growth or control factor s that varied geographically and their contents could not be provided in the following sections (e.g., gasolin e distribution varies by county and pollutant and has thousands of records). If the growth or control factors for a sector are not provided in a table in this document, they are available as a “projection” or “contro l” packet for input to SMOKE on: ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2005v4/projection_control_packets



### 3.2.1 Livestock emissions grow th (ag, afdust, ptnonipm)

Growth in ammonia (NH 3 

### ) and dust (PM 10 

### and PM 2.5 

### ) emissions from livestock in the ag, afdust and ptnonipm sectors was based on projections of growth in animal population. Tabl e 3-2 provides the growth

factors from the base case 2005 emissi ons to future years 2012 and 2014 for animal categories. For example, year 2015 (2014) beef emissions are 1.8% larger than the 2005 base case emissions. Except for dairy cows and turkey production, the animal projection factors are derived from national-level animal population projections from the U.S. Department of Agricult ure (USDA) and the Food and Agriculture Policy and Research Institute (FAPRI). For dairy cows and tu rkeys we assumed that there would be no growth in emissions. This assumption was based on an analysis of historical trends in the number of such animals compared to production rates. Although productions rates have increased, th e number of animals has declined. Thus, we do not believe that production for ecasts provide representative estimates of the future number of cows and turkeys; therefore, we did not use these forecasts for estimating future-year emissions from these animals. In particular, the dairy cow populati on is projected to decrease in the future as it has for the past few decades; however, milk production will be increasing over the same period. Note that the

ammonia emissions from dairies are not directly related to animal populat ion but also nitrogen excretion. With the cow numbers going down and the production going up we suspect the excretion value will be changing, but we assumed no change because we did not have a quantitative estimate.

The inventory for livestock emissions used 2002 emissi ons values therefore, our projection method projected

from 2002 rather than from 2005. For the 2012 base cas e, year 2009 and year 2014 projection factors were interpolated to create year 2012 proj ection factors. For the 2014 base cas e, year 2015 projection factors were used because of the late change from 2015 to 2014, and were developed by interpol ating year 2014 and year 2020 projection factors. We intend to update the projections in the final ru le using the latest available data from the Department of Agriculture and for 2014 instead of 2015.

### 17 Appendix E in the 2002v3 documentation provides the anim al population data and regr ession curves used to derive the growth factors: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/reports/Emi ssions%20TSD%20Vol2_Appendices_01-15-08.pdf . Appendix F in the same document provides the cross references of livestock sources in the ag, afdust and ptnonipm sectors to the animal categories in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2. Growth factors from year 2005 to future years for Animal Operations

Projection Factors Animal Category 2012 2015 (used for 2014) Dairy Cow 1.000 1.000

Beef 1.014 1.018

Pork 1.060 1.077

Broilers 1.230 1.298 Turkeys 1.000 1.000 Layers 1.160 1.209 Poultry Average 1.178 1.232 Overall Average 1.0623 1.081



### 3.2.2 Residential wood co mbustion growth (nonpt)

We projected residential wood combus tion emissions based on the expected increase in the number of lowemitting wood stoves and the corresponding decrease in ot her types of wood stoves. As newer, cleaner woodstoves replace older, higher-pollu ting wood stoves, there will be an ov erall reduction of the emissions from these sources. The approach cited here was devel oped as part of a modeling exercise to estimate the expected benefits of the w oodstoves change-out program ( http://www.epa.gov/woodstoves/index.html ). Details of this approach can be found in Section 2.3.3 of the PM NAAQS Regulatory Impact Analysis (EPA, 2006).

The specific assumptions we made were:

 Fireplaces, SCC=2104008001: increase 1%/yr

 Old woodstoves, SCC=2104008002, 2104008010, or 2104008051: decrease 2%/yr

 New woodstoves, SCC=2104008003, 2104008004, 2104008030, 2104008050, 2104008052 or 2104008053: increase 2%/yr

For the general woodstoves and fireplaces categor y (SCC 2104008000) we computed a weighted average

distribution based on 19.4% fire places, 71.6% old woodstoves, 9.1% new woodstoves using 2002v3 Platform (these emissions have not been update d for the 2005v4 platform used for the TR proposal)

emissions for PM 2.5 

### . These fractions are based on the fraction of emissions from these processes in the states that did not have the “general woodst oves and fireplaces” SCC in the 2002 NE I. This approach results in an overall decrease of 1.056% per ye ar for this source category.

Table 3-3 presents the projection factors used to pr oject the 2005 base case (2002 emissions) for residential

wood combustion. For the 2012 base cas e, year 2009 and year 2014 projection factors were interpolated to create year 2012 projection factors. For ex ample, year 2015 (2014) “Fireplaces: General” (SCC=2104008001) emissions are 13% higher than the ba se case 2005 emissions. For the 2014 base case, year 2015 projection factors were used because of the late change from 2015 to 2014, and were developed by interpolating year 2014 and year 2020 projection factors. We intend to use 2014 projects in the final rule.

### 18 Table 3-3. Projection Factors for growi ng year 2005 Residential Wood Combus tion Sources to future years

Projection Factors SCC SCC Description 2012 2015 (used for 2014)

2104008000 Total: Woodstoves a nd Fireplaces 0.8944 0.8627 2104008001 Fireplaces: General 2104008070 Outdoor Wood Burning Equipment 1.1000 1.1300

2104008002 Fireplaces: Insert; non-EPA certified

2104008010 Woodstoves: General 2104008051 Non-catalytic Woodstoves: Non-EPA certified 0.8000 0.7400

2104008003 Fireplaces: Insert; EPA certified; non-catalytic 2104008004 Fireplaces: Insert; EPA certified; catalytic 2104008030 Catalytic Woodstoves: General 2104008050 Non-catalytic Woodstoves: EPA certified 2104008052 Non-catalytic Woodstoves: Low Emitting 2104008053 Non-catalytic Woodstoves: Pellet Fired 1.2000 1.2600



### 3.2.3 Gasoline Stage II growth and control (nonpt, ptnonipm)

Emissions from Stage II gasoline ope rations in the 2005 base case are co ntained in both nonpt and ptnonipm sectors. The only SCC in the nonpt inventory used for gasoline Stage II emissions is 2501060100 (Storage and Transport; Petroleum and Petroleu m Product Storage; Gasoline Service Stations; Stage II: Total). The following SIC and SCC codes are asso ciated with gasoline Stage II emissions in the ptnonipm sector:

 SIC 5541 (Automotive Dealers & Service Stations , Gasoline Service Stations, Gasoline service stations)

 SCC 40600401 (Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation; Transportation and Marketing of Petroleum Products;Filling Vehicle Gas Tanks - Stage II;Vapor Loss w/o Controls)

 SCC 40600402 (Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation; Transportation and Marketing of Petroleum Products;Filling Vehicle Gas Tanks - Stag e II;Liquid Spill Loss w/o Controls)

 SCC 40600403 (Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation; Transportation and Marketing of Petroleum Products;Filling Vehicle Gas Tanks - Stage II;Vapor Loss w/o Controls)

 SCC 40600499 (Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation; Transportation and Marketing of Petroleum Products;Filling Vehicle Gas Tanks - Stage II;Not Classified

We used a consistent approach acro ss nonpt and ptnonipm to projection th ese gasoline stage II emissions. The approach involved computing VOC-specific projection factors fr om the NMIM results for onroad refueling, using ratios of future–year emissions to 2005 base case emissions. The approach accounts for three elements of refueling growth and control: (1) activity growth ( due to VMT growth as input into NMIM), (2) emissions reductions fr om Stage II control programs at ga soline stations, and (3) emissions reductions resulting from the phase in over time of newer vehicles with onboard Stage II ve hicle controls. We assumed that all areas with Stage II controls in 2005 continue to have Stage II controls in all future calendar years.

We computed the VOC projection fa ctors at a county-specific, a nnual resolution as shown below:

PF [county, future year] 

### = VOC_RFL [county, future year] 

### /VOC_RFL [county, 2005]



### where VOC_RFL is the VOC refueling em issions for onroad sources from NMIM.

We applied these projection factors to both nonpt and ptnonipm sector gaso line stage II sources.

### 19 Chemical speciation requires certain VOC HAPs for inte grated sources, specificall y, benzene, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and methanol. Therefore, for integrated sources such as this category, the VOC HAPs are also projected based on ratios of fu ture year and base year VOC. Ho wever, only benzene (and naphthalene, a VOC HAP that does not impact speciation) refue ling emissions were supplied, and so only VOC and benzene emissions were projected. For benzene and na phthalene projection factors, simply replace “VOC” in the above equation.

For the 2012 base case, year 2012 NMIM refueling emissions were used to create county-level by-pollutant ratios to year 2005 NMIM refueling emissions. For the 2014 base case, year 2015 projection factors were used because of the late change from 2015 to 2014, developed from ratios of 2015 to 2005 NMIM refueling

emissions.



### 3.2.4 Portable fuel containe r growth and control (nonpt)

We obtained future-year VOC emissions from Portable Fuel Containers (PFCs) from inventories developed and modeled for EPA’s MSAT rule (EPA, 2007b). Additional information on the PFC inventories can be found in Section 2.2.3, above. The future-year emissions reflect projected increase s in fuel consumption, state programs to reduce PFC emissions, standards pr omulgated in the MSAT rule, and impacts of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) on ga soline volatility. Future-year emissi ons for PFCs were available for 2010, 2015, 2020, and 2030. In creating the inventories for th e TR proposal, we created year 2012 emissions by linearly interpolating year 2010 and year 2015 inventories. The year 2015 PFC inventory was used as-is for the 2014 base case because of the late change from 2015 to 2014. Benzene future-year PFC emissions

were also added to the inventor y for the 2005 v4 platform and used in VOC speciation for CMAQ through HAP-CAP integration calculations.



### 3.2.5 Aircraft growth (ptnonipm)

Unlike the 2002v3 platform, aircraft emissions are c ontained in the ptnonipm i nventory. These 2005 point source emissions are projected to future years using th e same method, by applying acti vity growth using data on itinerant (ITN) operations at airports. The ITN opera tions are defined as aircraft take-offs whereby the aircraft leaves the airport vicinity and lands at another airport, or airc raft landings where by the aircraft has arrived from outside the airport vici nity. We used projected ITN info rmation available from the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) System: http://www.apo.data.faa.gov/main/taf.asp (publication date December 2008). This information is available for approximately 3300 individual airports, for all years up to 2025. We aggreg ated and applied this information at the national level by summing the air port-specific (U.S. airports only) ITN operations to national totals by year and by aircra ft operation, for each of the four av ailable operation types: commercial, general, air taxi, military. We computed growth fact ors for each operation type by dividing future-year ITN by 2005-year ITN. We assigned factors to inve ntory SCCs based on the operation type.

The methods that the FAA used for developing the ITN data in the TAF are documented in: http://www.faa.gov/data_research/ aviation/aerospace_forecasts/2009- 2025/media/2009%20Forecast%20Doc.pdf

Table 3-4 provides the national level growth factors for aircraft; all factors are applied to year 2005 emissions. For example, year 2014 commercial aircraft emissions are 8.9% higher than year 2005 emissions. Year 2014 factors are actually year 2015 factors as the future base year was developed before we had a chance to rerun for a year 2014 base year. The diffe rences between year 2014 and year 2015 factors are

within 1-3%.

### 20 Table 3-4. Factors used to project base case 200 5 aircraft emissions to future years

SCC SCC Description Year 2012

factor Year 2014

factor 2275001000 Military aircraft 0.967 0.968

2275020000 Commercial aircraft 1.019 1.089

2275050000 General aviation 0.962 0.986

2275060000 Air taxi 0.872 0.910 27501015 Internal Combustion Engines;Fixed Wing Aircraft L & TO Exhaust;Military;Jet Engine: JP-5 0.967 0.968

27502001 Internal Combustion Engines;Fixed Wing Aircraft L & TO Exhaust;Commercial;Piston Engine: Aviation Gas 1.019 1.089

27502011 Internal Combustion Engines;Fixed Wing Aircraft L & TO Exhaust;Commercial;Jet Engine: Jet A 1.019 1.089

27505001 Internal Combustion Engines;Fixed Wing Aircraft L & TO Exhaust;Civil;Piston Engine: Aviation Gas 0.962 0.986

27505011 Internal Combustion Engines;Fixed Wing Aircraft L & TO Exhaust;Civil;Jet Engine: Jet A 0.962 0.986

27601014 Internal Combustion Engines;Rotary Wing Aircraft L & TO Exhaust;Military;Jet Engine: JP-4 0.967 0.968

27601015 Internal Combustion Engines;Rotary Wing Aircraft L & TO Exhaust;Military;Jet Engine: JP-5 0.967 0.968



### We did not apply growth factors to any point sources with SCC 2760201 1 (Internal Combustion Engines; Rotary Wing Aircraft L & TO Exhaust; Commercial; Je t Engine: Jet A) because the plant names associated with these point sources appeared to represent industrial facilities rather than airports. This SCC is only in one county, Santa Barbara, Calif ornia (State/County FIPS 06083).

None of our aircraft emission projections account for any control programs. We considered the NO X 

### standard adopted by the International Civil Av iation Organization’s (IC AO) Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) in Februa ry 2004, which is expected to reduce NO X 

### by approximately 2% in 2015 and 3% in 2020. However, this rule has not yet be en adopted as an EPA (or U.S.) rule; therefore, the

effects of this rule were not included in the future-year emissions projections.



### 3.2.6 Stationary Source control program s, consent decrees & settlements, and plant closures (ptnonipm, nonpt)

We applied emissions reduction factor s to the 2005 emissions for partic ular sources in the ptnonipm and nonpt sectors to reflect the impact of stationary-s ource control programs –including consent decrees and settlements- and plant closures. Our approach is very similar to what we did for the 2002v3 platform in that we included many of the same plant cl osures and controls. Here we desc ribe the complete contents of the

controls and closures for the 2012 and 2014 base cases.

Controls from the NO X 

### SIP call were assumed to have been implemented by 2005 and captured in the 2005 base case (2005 NEI v2 point inventory). This assu mption was confirmed by review of the 2005 NEI that showed reductions from Large Boiler/Turbines and Large Internal Combustion Engines in the Northeast states covered by the NOx SIP call. The future -year base controls c onsist of the following:

• We did not include MACT rules where compliance dates were prior to 2005 because we assumed these were already been reflected in the 2005 in ventory. The EPA OAQPS Sector Policies and Programs Division (SPPD) provide d all controls information related to the MACT rules.

### 21 • We included plant closures (i.e., emissions were zeroed out for future years) where information indicated that the plant was actually closed. However, plants projec ted to close in the future (post2008) were not removed in the future years beca use these projections can be inaccurate due to economic improvements. These plant closures aff ect the following sources: auto plants, pulp and paper plants, large and small municipal waste co mbustors (LMWC and SMWC), as well as plants closed before 2008 but following the release of the 2005v2 point inventory. The EPA OAQPS SPPD provided the closures information.

• In addition to plant closures, we included the eff ects of the Department of Justice Settlements and Consent Decrees on ptnonipm sector emissions. We also included estimated impacts of HAP standards per Section 11 2, 129 of the Clean Air Act on ptnonipm and nonpt sector emissions, based on expected CAP co-benefits to sources in these sectors.

• The same reductions were applied across all year s with the exception of the Boat Manufacturing MACT and refinery facility/SCC reductions for th e states and pollutants listed in Table 3-5.

• Numerous controls have compliance dates beyond 2008; these include refine ry and the Office of Compliance and Enforcement (OECA) consent decrees, Department of Justice (DOJ) settlements, as

well as most national VOC MACT controls. A dditional OECA consent decrees information is provided in Appendix C, and the de tails data used are available at the website listed in Section 1.

• The refinery consent decrees are the only controls in which some of the compliance dates are beyond June 2014 and are thus not applied to either the 2012 or 2014 base cases. The EPA OAQPS SPPD provided these controls at th e facility and SCC level.

• We applied most of the control programs as re placement controls, which means that any existing percent reductions (“baseline control efficiency”) reported in the NEI were removed prior to the addition of the percent reductions due to these cont rol programs. Exceptions to replacement controls are “additional” controls, which were applied for many settlements and consent decrees where specific plant and multiple-plant-level reductions /targets were desired. Applying controls as

“additional” controls ensures that the controlled emissions match desi red reductions regardless of the

baseline control efficiencies in the NEI. Anot her exception is municipal waste landfills where VOC was reduced 75% via a MACT control using projecti on factors of 0.25 instead of control efficiencies because no other nonpt sector source category was subject to controls.

Table 3-5. States with post-2012 controls

Control type State NO X 

### SO 2 

### PM VOC

Post-2012 controls Refinery controls IL X X X Refinery controls OK X Refinery controls PA X X X Refinery controls TX X X Boat Manufacturing, national MACT rule All X

We intended to use a SMOKE “control” packet (data f ile) to apply all control fa ctors that implement known emissions reductions and plant closures from point sources. However, many of the “additional” controls were inadvertently not applied for th e 2012 base case. Specifically, many of the consent decrees apportioned to several plants (see Table 3-1) were not correctly ma tched with the inventory and hence were not applied. This emissions processing error is confined to the 2012 base case and was fixed when we processed the 2014 base case. The impact of these “missed” reductions is very small for any given stat e, with the largest impact

### 22 being a 2.6% overestimate of all SO2 emissions in L ouisiana. The percent of the total non-biogenics

emissions that were over-estima ted are provided in Table 3-6.

Table 3-6. Impact on Total Non-Biogenic Emissions of Not Applying “Additional” Controls on the 2012

Base Case

State Pollutant 2012 Base

Case:

Modeled 2012 Base

Case:

Corrected Missing

Reductions Percent of Total non-biogenic Inventory Erroneously Not

Reduced

Alabama CO 1,344,754 1,344,560 194 0.0%

Indiana CO 1,639,008 1,638,902 106 0.0%

Iowa CO 770,339 761,169 9,170 1.2%

Texas CO 3,994,619 3,994,353 266 0.0%

US Total * CO 63,028,528 63,018,558 9,970 0.0%

Alabama NO X 364,171 363,942 229 0.1%

California NO X 1,103,014 1,102,114 900 0.1%

Indiana NO X 505,127 504,960 167 0.0%

Iowa NO X 251,721 251,239 482 0.2%

Pennsylvania NO X 566,418 565,213 1,205 0.2%

Texas NO X 1,343,319 1,337,590 5,729 0.4%

Washington NO X 273,839 273,115 724 0.3%

US Total * NO X 15,083,338 15,073,725 9,613 0.1%

Alabama PM 10 195,954 195,828 126 0.1%

Indiana PM 10 475,925 475,789 136 0.0%

Michigan PM 10 288,392 288,094 298 0.1%

Minnesota PM 10 512,813 511,148 1,665 0.3%

Missouri PM 10 521,063 520,715 348 0.1%

US Total * PM 10 12,572,792 12,569,781 3,011 0.0%

Indiana PM 2.5 121,110 120,976 134 0.1%

Michigan PM 2.5 83,415 83,262 153 0.2%

Minnesota PM 2.5 111,407 110,725 682 0.6%

Missouri PM 2.5 103,327 103,073 254 0.2%

Texas PM 2.5 299,720 299,322 398 0.1%

US Total * PM 2.5 3,960,713 3,958,793 1,920 0.0%

Alabama SO 2 462,297 461,099 1,198 0.3%

California SO 2 230,482 227,828 2,654 1.2%

Georgia SO 2 676,193 676,059 134 0.0%

Illinois SO 2 866,396 866,262 134 0.0%

Indiana SO 2 986,626 986,458 168 0.0%

Iowa SO 2 250,954 249,906 1,048 0.4%

Kentucky SO 2 781,249 779,229 2,020 0.3%

Louisiana SO 2 341,731 333,221 8,510 2.6%

### 23 State Pollutant 2012 Base

Case:

Modeled 2012 Base

Case:

Corrected Missing

Reductions Percent of Total non-biogenic Inventory Erroneously Not

Reduced

Missouri SO 2 570,761 569,522 1,239 0.2%

Ohio SO 2 1,076,493 1,076,201 292 0.0%

Pennsylvania SO 2 1,119,712 1,116,811 2,901 0.3%

Texas SO 2 640,682 633,445 7,237 1.1%

US Total * SO 2 13,390,283 13,362,585 27,698 0.2%

Alabama VOC 316,558 316,337 221 0.1%

Delaware VOC 26,227 26,097 130 0.5%

Illinois VOC 472,361 472,145 216 0.0%

Indiana VOC 319,116 318,217 899 0.3%

Iowa VOC 156,642 156,433 209 0.1%

Kansas VOC 187,046 186,655 391 0.2%

Kentucky VOC 221,416 221,155 261 0.1%

Michigan VOC 465,273 462,798 2,475 0.5%

Mississippi VOC 271,525 271,417 108 0.0%

Missouri VOC 277,715 276,585 1,130 0.4%

US Total * VOC 14,604,636 14,598,595 6,041 0.0%

* The US Totals represent contiguous U.S. including the District of Columbia



### 3.2.7 Upstream oil and gas projections in non-California WRAP states (nonpt)

The upstream oil and gas nonpt invent ory in the non-California WRAP (Wes tern Regional Air Partnership) states is unchanged from the year 2005 Phase II inventory used in the 2005 base case. Year 2018 emissions Phase II WRAP data was available; however, we deci ded to not interpolate these emissions for the 2012 and 2014 modeling scenarios. Upstream oil and gas emissions in all other states are also unchanged from the

2005 base case.



### 3.2.8 Future Year VOC Speciation for gasoline-related sources (ptnonipm, nonpt)

To account for the future projected increase in the ethanol content of fuels, different future year VOC speciation was used for certain gasoline-related emissi on sources. Such sources in clude gasoline stage II, PFCs, and finished fuel storage and transport-related sources related to bulk terminals (where the ethanol may be mixed) and downstream to the pump. We identif ied this last group of sources as “btp” (from bulk terminals to pumps). While most of these sources ar e in the nonpt sector, there were also some in the ptnonipm. The same profiles were used for 2012 a nd 2014, and were developed based on AEO projections of ethanol fuels for the year 2022. A ll gasoline stage II and “btp” sources used the same combination of E0 and E10 headspace profiles and an E85 evaporative pr ofile (since no E85 headspace profile was available). The combinations used were: 10.894% E0, 89.031% E10 and 0.075% E85. The PFC emissions used only E10 profiles.

VOC speciation for gasoline stage II and finished fuel storage and transport (from bulk terminals to pumps) utilizes a combination of E0, E10 and E85 gasolin e VOC headspace profiles and an E85 evaporative VOC profile, instead of using all E0 gasoline profiles as did the 2005 base case.

### 24 

## 3.3 Mobile source projections

Mobile source monthly inventories of onroad and nonr oad mobile emissions were created for 2012 and 2014 using a combination of the NMIM and draft MOVES mode ls. Mobile source emissions were further linearly interpolated between 2012 and 2015 to estimate 2014 emissions. Emissions for these years reflect onroad mobile control programs including th e Light-Duty Vehicle Tier 2 Rule, the Onroad Heavy-Duty Rule, and the Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT2) final rule. N onroad mobile emissions re ductions for these years

include reductions to locomotives , various nonroad engines including di esel engines and various marine engine types, fuel sulfur content, and evaporative emissions standards.

Onroad mobile sources are comprised of several components and are discu ssed in the next subsection (3.3.1). Monthly nonroad mobile emission pr ojections are discussed in subsect ion 3.3.2. Locomotives and Class 1 and Class 2 commercial marine vessel (C1/C2 CMV) pr ojections are discussed in subsection 3.3.3, and Class 3 (C3) CMV projected emissions are discussed in subsection 3.3.4.



### 3.3.1 Onroad mobile (on_noadj, on _moves_runpm, on_moves_startpm)

The onroad emissions were primarily based on the National Mobile Inventor y Model (NMIM) monthly, county, process level emissions. For both 2012 and 2014, emissions from onroad gasoline sources were augmented with emissions based on the same preliminar y version of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) as was used for 2005. The preliminar y MOVES data more closely reflects the PM 2.5 

### and NO X 

### emissions in the final release of MOVES 2010 than those from NMIM. MOVES-based emissions were computed for CO, NO X 

### , VOC, PM 2.5 

### , PM 10 

### , naphthalene, and some VOC HAPs. The same MOVES-based

PM 2.5 

### temperature adjustment factor s were applied as were used in 2005 for running mode emissions; however, cold start emissions used year-specific te mperature adjustment factors. The temperature adjustments have the minor limitation that they were based on the use of MOVE S national default inputs rather than county-specific inputs, because a county-specific database fo r input to MOVES was not available at the time this approach was needed. However, the PM 2.5 

### temperature adjustments are fairly insensitive to the county-specific inputs, which is why th is is characterized as a minor limitation.

NMIM-based onroad emissions (on_noadj)

Future-year NMIM emissions are the key compon ent to creating the future-year 2012 and 2014 onroad

mobile emissions. These emissions were used as described here for the 2012 and 2014 cases:

1. Used as-is for all non-California mo torcycles and diesel vehicles;

2. Used as-is for all non-California gasoline onroad vehicles except the following pollutants: CO, NO X 

### , evaporative mode VOC, benzene, and naphthale ne, and exhaust mode PM, 1,3-butadiene (106990), acetaldehyde (75070), acrolein (107028), benz ene (71432), and formaldehyde (50000), and naphthalene (91203);

3. Used as-is for all California NH 3 

### ;

4. Used to resolve road type reso lution for California SCCs for Hea vy Duty Diesel Vehicles (HDDV) class 6 & 7 (2230073XXX) emissions. California does not specify road types, so we used NMIM

California ratios to break out ve hicle emissions to the match the more detailed NMIM level.

5. Used to allocate 2005 MOVES-based emissions fr om the state to the county resolution;

Both year 2012 and 2014 NMIM emissions account for in creased vehicle miles traveled (VMT) activity and changes in fuels, fleet turnover, and inspection and mainte nance programs that account for implementation of national and local regulations. Future-year VMT data for year 2012 were projected from 2005 to 2012

### 25 using year 2006 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) data. Y ear 2014 NMIM emissions are interpolated from year 2015 and year 2012 NMIM estimates. Since th e 2015 emissions were based on newer, lower VMT projections using 2009-based AEO da ta, we first adjusted the 2015 em issions using ratios of 2006-AEO VMT to 2009-AEO VMT. This VMT adjustment slightly increased the 2015 emissions to create a consistent VMT approach with 2012 prior to in terpolating to create 2014 emissions values. This explanation is captured in the formula for 2014 NMIM-based emissions, which is provided below. The calculations are performed for each month, county, and SCC:

NMIM 2014 = 1/3 × NMIM 2012 + 2/3 × NMIM 2015 × AEO2006-based VMT 2015 / AEO2009-based VMT 2015



### The NMIM future-year inputs also accounted for nati onal and some local contro l programs. For national control programs, they incorporated the expected impacts of national regu lations promulgated prior to July 2007; these include the “Tier 2 Rule,” the “2007 Onroad Heavy-Duty Rule,” the Final “Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule” (MSAT2 Final), and th e “Renewable Fuel Standard” (RFS).

For the state and voluntary programs, we included th e National Low Emission Vehicle Program (NLEV) and the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) LEV program ( http://www.epa.gov/otaq/levnlev.htm ) in the future year inventories. These were incl uded based on state submission of the relevant NMIM input files. These programs affect northeastern states. We also modele d reformulated gasoline op t-in programs using statesubmitted NMIM input files and EPA fuel tables. In addition, we assumed that all state programs existing in 2005 continued in all future calendar years.

We included programs that might affect future VM T (e.g., public transportati on, car-pooling, congestion pricing) only if states submitted 2005 base-year VMT that modeled these programs. We do not have documentation from the states describing whether or not such programs were incorporated in the states’

VMT estimates.

We did not include state regulations or voluntary programs that encourag e no refueling or evening refueling on Ozone Action Days. We also did not include diesel retrofit and an ti-idling programs affecting school

buses and diesel trucks.

Both year 2012 and 2014 (2015) NMIM onroad inve ntories use NMIM version 20071009, with county database NCD20070912 (with 2006 meteorology c opied from 2005), and MOBILE version M6203CHC\M6203ChcOxFixNMIM.exe.

California onroad (on_noadj)

We did not use NMIM to generate future-year onroad emissions for California, because the 2005 base year

emissions were based on CARB’s Emission Factors mobile model (EMFAC), which CARB submitted for the 2005 NEI. For California, we chose an approach th at would maintain consiste ncy between the base year and future year emissions. This approach involved computing projection factors from a consistent set of future and 2005-year data based on the EMFAC2007 model provided by CARB. We generated projection factors by dividing the EMFAC2007-based emissions for the future years by the EMFAC2007-based emissions for 2005. California does not specify road type s, so we used NMIM California ratios to break out

vehicle emissions to the match th e more detailed NMIM level.

Like year 2005 emissions, future-year California NH 3 

### emissions are from NMIM runs for California. In addition, the California onroad inventory does not us e the MOVES-based emissions. Year 2012 California CAP emissions were linearly interp olated between year 2009 and year 2014 projections. For both 2012 and 2014, future year HAP emissions were computed as 2005v2-based HAP-CAP ratios applied at the pollutant

### 26 and Level 3 SCC (first 7 characters) to 2012 and 2014 CAP emissions. HAPs were scaled to either of three pollutants: exhaust PM 2.5 

### (e.g., metals), exhaust VOC (e.g., exhaus t mode VOC HAPs such as acetaldehyde and formaldehyde), or evaporative VOC (e.g., ev aporative mode VOC HAPs such as benzene).

MOVES-based no-adjust (on_noadj)

As discussed in the 2005v4 documentation, a draft version 2 

### of the MOVES model was used to provide year 2005 non-California emissions from onroad gasoline vehicles for several pollutants. We used this draft

MOVES model to make sure to include the PM 2.5 

### emissions from onroad gasoline vehicles, which include temperature affects and are much larger than previous estimates of onroad PM 2.5 

### . The onroad gasoline emissions, except for motorcycles, were based on MOVE S for the pollutants listed in Table 3-7. Unlike our use of NMIM, we used the MOVES data to create emi ssions by state and month and then allocated these to counties based on 2005 NMIM county-level data. While EPA will eventually replace this approach with a county-specific implementation of MOVES, it was the best available approach for this modeling. EPA continues to work towards a county resolution MOVE S approach by (1) reducing the run time needed for county resolution modeling, and (2) completing efforts to create a national database of county-specific inputs

to MOVES.

Table 3-7. Pollutants covered by the draf t MOVES model in the 2005 Platform 1



### Used in all TR Year 2005, 2012, and 2014

Cases Available from draft MOVES, but not used

in TR Cases

PM 2.5 

### ; exhaust, partially speciated 2 

### Naphthalene 3



### VOC; except refueling 1,3 butadiene 4



### CO Acrolein 4



### NO X 

### Benzene; except refueling Formaldehyde Acetaldehyde

1 Draft MOVES data were used only for onroad gasoline vehi cles with the exception of motorcycles. Draft MOVES

data were not used for any California onroad emissions

2 Exhaust mode PM 2.5 species from MOVES consist of: PE C, PSO4 and the difference between PM 2.5 and PEC

(named as “PM25OC”). Br ake wear and tire wear PM 2.5 emissions were not available from draft MOVES.

3 Used for the RFS2 version of the platform (EPA, 2010)

4 Used for the RFS2 and LD GHG versions of the platform



### Year 2012 MOVES-based emissions were estimated by scaling year 2005 MOVES emissions by ratios of

NMIM emissions from 2012 and 2005. These ratios were computed at the pollutant and SCC-level. This simple scaling was done for all MOVES emissions in 2012 –including pre-temp erature adjusted PM emissions (PM species calculated at 72 oF) discussed in the next sec tion. The very simple formula for computing MOVES 2012 emissions for each month, county, SCC, pollutant, and mode is:

MOVES 2012 

### = MOVES 2005 

### * NMIM 2012 

### / NMIM 2005



### Year 2014 MOVES-based emissions were scaled from the 2012 MOVES (scaled from 2005) to year 2014 using OTAQ-provided annual, national, SCC7-level (vehicle type) 2012- 2014 ratios by pollutant and mode. These national-level adjustments, based on annual national runs of draft MOVES for years 2012 and 2014, were applied to the detailed 2012 MOVES level of the inventory – by month, county, pollutant, and SCC

2 As of December 2009, this draft version was replaced by the publicly released :MOVES2010 version at www.epag.gov/otaq/models/moves/

### 27 (vehicle and road type). The formula for com puting MOVES 2014 emissions for each month, county, SCC, pollutant, and mode is:

MOVES 2014 

### = MOVES 2012 

### * MOVES_US_ANNUAL 2014 

### / MOVES_US_ANNUAL 2012



### MOVES-based cold start and running mode (on_moves_startpm and on_moves_runpm)

MOVES-based cold start and running mode emissions consist of non-motorcycle gasoline exhaust speciated PM and naphthalene. These pre-temperature-adjusted emissions are projected to year 2012 and 2014 from year 2005 inventories using the same scaling equations discussed in th e previous paragraphs for MOVESbased no-adjust emissions.

MOVES-based temperature adjustment factors were applied to gridde d, hourly emissions using gridded, hourly meteorology. As seen in Figure 3-1, for year 2012, we used the same temperature adjustment factors

as the 2005 base case for both start a nd running modes. However, cold st art temperature adjustment factors decrease slightly in future years, and for year 2014 processing, we updated th e temperature adjustment

curves for these cold start emissions. These have little impact, reducing cold-start mode temperatureadjusted PM and naphthalene by under 4% for temperatures down to 0 ° F. Note that running exhaust temperature adjustment factors are th e same for all years. Also, these running mode exhaust mode emissions are considerably larger than cold start mode emissions.

Figure 3-1. MOVES exhaust temperature adjustment functions for 2005, 2012, and 2014

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

-20

- 1 0 0 10 20 30 40 5 0 60 70

Temperature (F)Adjustment Factor 

### Run Exhaust:

All Years

Start Exhaust:

2005 & 2012

Start Exhaust:

2014



### 3.3.2 Nonroad mobile (nonroad)

This sector includes monthly exhaust, evaporative and refueling emissions from nonroad engines (not including commercial marine, aircraft, and locomotives) derived from NMIM for all states except California. Like the onroad emissions, NMIM provides nonroad em issions for VOC by three emission modes: exhaust, evaporative and refueling. Unlike the onroad sector , nonroad refueling emissions for nonroad sources are not dropped from processing.

With the exception of California, U.S. emissions for the nonroad sector (defined as the equipment types covered by NMIM) were created using a consistent NMIM-based approach as was used for 2005, but projected for 2012 and 2015. Similar to the onroad mob ile NMIM inventories, year 2014 NMIM emissions

### 28 were created by interpolating year 2012 and year 2015 NMIM inventorie s. These future-year emissions account for increases in activity (based on NONROAD m odel default growth estimates of future year equipment population) and changes in fuels and engines that reflect implementation of national regulations and local control programs.

The national regulations incorporated in the modeli ng are those promulgated pr ior to December 2009, and beginning about 1990. Recent rules include:

• “Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Final Rule - Tier 4”: ( http://www.epa.gov/nonroaddiesel/2004fr.htm ), published June 29, 2004, and,

• Control of Emissions From Nonroad Large Spar k-Ignition Engines, and Recreational Engines (Marine and Land-Based), Novemb er 8, 2002 (“Pentathalon Rule”).

• OTAQ’s Locomotive Marine Rule: ( http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/420f08004.htm )

• OTAQ’s Small Engine Spark Ignition (“Bond”) Rule: ( http://www.epa.gov/otaq/equip-ld.htm )

We have not included voluntary programs such as programs encouraging either no refueling or evening refueling on Ozone Action Days a nd diesel retrofit programs. NMIM version 20071009, with county database NCD20070912, and NONROAD mode l version NONROAD2008a (see http://www.epa.gov/otaq/nonrdmdl.htm#model ) was used to create NMIM inventories for 2012 and 2015.

California nonroad emissions

Similar to onroad mobile, NMIM was not used to ge nerate future-year nonroad emissions for California,

other than for NH 3 

### . We used NMIM for Ca lifornia future nonroad NH 3 

### emissions because CARB did not provide these data for any nonroad ve hicle types. As we did for onroa d emissions, we chose a projection approach that would maintain cons istency between the base year and future-year emissions for nonroad

emissions in California.

California year 2014 nonroad CAP emissions are simila r to those used in the 2002v3 projected inventory. However, similar to onroad mobile, California nonroad HAP s were computed as ratios to select CAPs using

2005 NMIM CAP-HAP ratios.

California year 2012 nonroad CAP emissions were co mputed by linearly inter polating year 2009 and 2014

inventories. And 2012 HAP emissi ons were also computed using the same 2005-based CAP-HAP ratios

used to create 2014 HAP emissions.



### 3.3.3 Locomotives and Cl ass 1 & 2 commercial marine vessels (alm_no_c3)

Future locomotive and Class 1 and Class 2 commercial marine vessel (CMV) emissions were calculated using projection factors that were computed based on nationa l, annual summaries of locomotive emissions in 2002 and future years. These national summaries we re used to create nati onal by-pollutant, by-SCC projection factors; these f actors include final locomotive-marine cont rols and are provided in Table 3-8. Similar to the year-specific projec tions as the stationary sectors (p tnonipm and nonpt), year 2015 factors were used for year 2014 projections.

Table 3-8. Factors applied to year 2005 emissions to project locomotives and Class 1 and Class 2

Commercial Marine Vessel Emissions

SCC SCC Description Pollutant Year

2012

Factor Year

2014

Factor 2280002X00 Marine Vessels, Commercial;Diesel;Underway & port emissions CO 0.972 0.950

### 29 SCC SCC Description Pollutant Year

2012

Factor Year

2014

Factor 2280002X00 Marine Vessels, Commercial;Diesel;Underway & port emissions NH 3 1.094 1.124 2280002X00 Marine Vessels, Commercial;Diesel;Underway & port emissions NO X 0.851 0.765 2280002X00 Marine Vessels, Commercial;Diesel;Underway & port emissions PM 10 0.875 0.707 2280002X00 Marine Vessels, Commercial;Diesel;Underway & port emissions PM 2.5 0.890 0.720 2280002X00 Marine Vessels, Commercial;Diesel;Underway & port emissions SO 2 0.531 0.111 2280002X00 Marine Vessels, Commercial;Diesel;Underway & port emissions VOC 0.951 0.863 2285002006 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Class I Operations CO 1.232 1.292 2285002006 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Class I Operations NH 3 1.223 1.283 2285002006 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Class I Operations NO X 0.732 0.689 2285002006 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Class I Operations PM 10 0.768 0.663 2285002006 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Class I Operations PM 2.5 0.778 0.672 2285002006 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Class I Operations SO 2 0.166 0.005 2285002006 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Class I Operations VOC 0.839 0.707 2285002007 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Class II / III Operations CO 0.303 0.318 2285002007 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Class II / III Operations NH 3 1.223 1.283 2285002007 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Class II / III Operations NO X 0.339 0.350 2285002007 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Class II / III Operations PM 10 0.283 0.286 2285002007 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Class II / III Operations PM 2.5 0.286 0.288 2285002007 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Class II / III Operations SO 2 0.038 0.001 2285002007 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Class II / III Operations VOC 0.291 0.305 2285002008 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Passenger Trains (Amtrak) CO 1.030 1.054 2285002008 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Passenger Trains (Amtrak) NH 3 1.223 1.283 2285002008 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Passenger Trains (Amtrak) NO X 0.667 0.572 2285002008 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Passenger Trains (Amtrak) PM 10 0.660 0.541 2285002008 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Passenger Trains (Amtrak) PM 2.5 0.662 0.543 2285002008 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Passenger Trains (Amtrak) SO 2 0.156 0.005 2285002008 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Passenger Trains (Amtrak) VOC 0.738 0.586 2285002009 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Commuter Lines CO 1.015 1.040 2285002009 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Commuter Lines NH 3 1.223 1.283 2285002009 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Commuter Lines NO X 0.658 0.564 2285002009 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Commuter Lines PM 10 0.650 0.533 2285002009 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Commuter Lines PM 2.5 0.651 0.533 2285002009 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Commuter Lines SO 2 0.155 0.005 2285002009 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Commuter Lines VOC 0.728 0.578 2285002010 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Yard Locomotives CO 1.239 1.299 2285002010 Railroad Equipmen t;Diesel;Yard Locomotives NH 3 1.223 1.283 2285002010 Railroad Equipmen t;Diesel;Yard Locomotives NO X 1.133 1.136 2285002010 Railroad Equipmen t;Diesel;Yard Locomotives PM 10 0.942 0.926 2285002010 Railroad Equipmen t;Diesel;Yard Locomotives PM 2.5 0.962 0.946 2285002010 Railroad Equipmen t;Diesel;Yard Locomotives SO 2 0.183 0.006 2285002010 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Yard Locomotives VOC 1.548 1.539



### The future-year locomotive emissions account for increased fuel consumption based on Energy Information Administration (EIA) fuel consumpti on projections for freight rail, and emissions reductions resulting from

emissions standards from the Final Locomotive-Marine ru le (EPA, 2007c). This rule lowered diesel sulfur content and tightened emission standa rds for existing and new locomotives and marine diesel emissions to lower future year PM, SO 2 

### , and NO X 

### , and is documented at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/420f08004.htm . Voluntary retrofits under the National Clean Diesel Campaign ( http://www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel/index.htm ) are not included in our projections.

### 30 We applied HAP factors for VOC HAPs by using th e VOC projection factors to obtain 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, and formaldehyde. The remaining HAP-metals and other non-VOC HAPs not already provided are held at base-year levels (the 2002 emissions estimates used in the 2005 base case).

Class 1 and 2 CMV gasoline emissions (SCC = 2280004000) are not changed for future year processing. C1/C2 diesel emissions (SCC = 2280002100 and 2280002200) are projected based on the Final Locomotive

Marine rule national-level factors provided in Table 3-8. Similar to locomotives, VOC HAPs are projected

based on the VOC factor and other HAPs and metals ar e held at levels in the 2005 (2002 inventory) base

case.



### 3.3.4 Class 3 commercial marine vessels (seca_c3)

The seca_c3 sector emissions data were provided by OTAQ in an ASCII raster format used since the SO 2 

### Emissions Control Area-Internationa l Marine Organization (ECA-IMO) pr oject began in 2005. The (S)ECA C3 year 2002 base case was grown to year 2005 for the 2005 base case and to years 2012 and 2014 for the respective future base cases. Both future base case s do not include ECA or IMO controls and are projected from year 2002 using robust growth rate estimates created by EPA in 2006. These growth rates vary depending on geographic region and pollutant; where VOC HAPs and all criteria air pollutants (CAPs) except for NO X 

### are assigned region-specific growth ra tes and NOx receives different rates.

The projection factors used to cr eate the 2012 and 2014 base case seca_c3 sector emissions are provided in Table 3-9. The geographic regions are described in the ECA propos al technical support document: http://www.epa.gov/oms/regs/ nonroad/marine/ci/420r09007-chap2.pdf . These regions extend up to 200 nautical miles offshore, though less at international boundaries. North and South Pacifi c regions are divided by the Oregon-Washington border, and East Coast and Gu lf Coast regions are divided east-west by roughly the upper Florida Keys just southwest of Miami.

OTAQ also provided factors to comp ute HAP emission (based on emissions ratios) on 2/28/2008; these are

discussed in the 2005v4 documentation. As with the 2005 base case, this sect or uses CAP-HAP VOC integration.

Table 3-9. Factors applied to year 2005 emissions to gr ow Class 3 Commercial Marine Vessel emissions

Region Year 2012 factor:

NO X 

### Year 2012 factor:

other CAPs & VOC

HAPs Year 2014

factor:

NO X 

### Year 2014 factor:

other CAPs & VOC

HAPs

Outside U.S. 1.374 1.483 1.472 1.599

East Coast 1.441 1.559 1.557 1.696

Gulf Coast 1.233 1.333 1.294 1.409

Great Lakes 1.174 1.184 1.211 1.224

North Pacific 1.282 1.386 1.355 1.476

South Pacific 1.513 1.637 1.649 1.796



### 3.3.5 Future Year VOC Speciation (on_noadj, nonroad)

We used speciation profiles for VOC in the nonroad and on_noadj sectors that acc ount for the increase in ethanol content of fuels in future years. The same future year profiles were used for 2012 and 2014. In addition, there was no difference between the profiles used for onroad and nonroad exhaust and evaporative VOC. The nonroad refueling profiles were the same as us ed for stationary gasoline related sources described

### 31 in Section 3.2.8. For evaporative em issions, combinations of E0 and E 10 evaporative profiles were used. For exhaust, combinations of Tier 1 E0 and E10, and Tier 2 E0 and E10 exhaust profiles were used. The

combinations for exhaust assumed 50% of the vehicle fl eet was Tier 2. The E0 and E10 ratios were based on the AEO projections of E0 and E10 fuels in 2022. After the run, it was recogni zed that nonroad profiles

should not include Tier 2 ve hicle profiles or any E85 (nonroad refue ling had a very small contribution from an E85 profile). However, some sensitivity runs done showed no impact on the use of the Tier 2 and E85 profiles for nonroad on the modeling results.



## 3.4 Canada, Mexico, and Offshore so urces (othar, othon, othpt, othar_hg, and othpt_hg)

Emissions for Canada, Mexico, and offshore sources were not projected to future ye ars, and are therefore the same as those used in the 2005 base case. Therefore, the Mexico emissions are based on year 1999, offshore oil is based on year 2005, and Canada is based on year 2006. For both Mexico and Canada, their responsible agencies could not provide future ye ar emissions that were consistent with the base year emissions.



## 3.5 Description of specific growth and control aspects of stationary projections for comment

While the TR remedy affects EGUs, the future-year emissi ons of other stationary sources impact the results of the modeling because they impact the 2012 contribu tion analysis and the propor tional contribution of EGUs in 2014. Here, EPA identified specific issues th at could have impacts on our future-year modeling efforts. In addition, if reviewers of this work intend to provide comment on some of these issues, there is a specific mechanism using an Excel ® 

### file that we describe here.



### 3.5.1 Impact of unavailable future-yea r emissions from Canada and Mexico

For the states on the southern and northern US borde rs, the emissions from Canada and Mexico and any associated transport could be important to the assessmen t of TR. As described abov e, since neither of these countries were able to provide future-year emissions es timates that were projected from the available baseyear emissions, we needed to simply hold emissions c onstant from base year valu es. Therefore, we were unable to characterize any expected emissions reducti ons or increases from s ources within Canada and Mexico, and the resulting potential changes in air quality estimates from these emissions changes are

unknown.

We believe that the lack of future -year emissions from Canada and Mexi co would not significantly change the outcome of the 2012 contribution analyses. This is because those modeling runs used source apportionment modeling techniques to attribute the emissi ons from individual states to particular downwind nonattainment receptors, and this apportionment is independent of emissions from surrounding regions.

For the analysis that supports the TR remedy in 2014, si nce the forecast air quality would be lower or higher

with decreased or increased emissions from Canadian and Mexican sources, it is conceivable that our 2014 analyses could change with changed emissions. We do not believe that the details of the remedy would have been affected, since the remedy addre sses only the contribution from each st ate. However, our forecasts of continued future-year nonatta inment could be affected as a result of a greater or lesser contribution from neighboring countries, which we would ideally be able to address in the TR final ru le. Therefore, additional information about future-year emissions for Canada a nd Mexico and the impact of these country’s base and future-year emissions on US modeled air quality predictions would be helpful in the future.

### 32 

### 3.5.2 Possible additional improvements to base and future-year stationary point and nonpoint inventories for projection needs

The future-year projections of statio nary point and nonpoint inventories are an area of our work to date that could be improved with additional information. This subsection describes information about emissions projections that we were unabl e to use in our projections because of lack of details.

As part of this documentation and to fac ilitate comments, we have created an Excel ® 

### spreadsheet that provides a mechanism to submit comments on our proj ection assumptions. This spreadsheet provides control programs that we know exist, but for which we need more information regarding how to apply them

to our inventories. It also summa rizes nonEGU point source facilities, un its, and associated processes, which reviewers should use to provide comment s. The state-specific tabs in th e spreadsheet include only facilities that emit 100 tons/year or more of SO 2 

### or NO X 

### or PM 2.5 

### in one of the modeled years (2005, 2012, or 2014) because changes to the projections at these larger facilities are most likely to have an impact on our analysis. The spreadsheet “TR proposal projection comments.xls ” is available as part of the TR docket as well as on the CHIEF website at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ chief/emch/index.html#transport_rule_proposal

. Instructions to use the spreadsheet for providing comments are provi ded in the tab called “Com menter Instructions”.

The following elements of the nonEGU point and stationa ry area projections could be improved in future

work.

• Plant closures occurring between 2005 and 2014

• Expected industry growth or contraction for partic ular plants, industries, nonpoint SCCs, counties, or

states. As described in Secti on 3.2, we assumed that emissions gr owth held flat during the time period between 2005 and the future year s. If reviewers have data or documentation that shows this assumption is poor for a particular industry, and thes e reductions or increases in emissions are not captured by plant closures, we are interest ed in receiving comment on this approach.

• Emission controls that are not represented (or ar e improperly represented) in 2012 or 2014. EPA did not include any expected reductions described by SIPs that are not due to federal measures. Table 3- 10 lists measures that we learned about for potentia l application to the ptnoni pm sector, but that did not have specific information that we could use to determine affect ed plants and units. Table 3-11

lists additional measures that we do not know whethe r they affect point sour ces, nonpoint sources, or both. Finally, Table 3-12 lists measures that we assume are relevant for nonpoint sources, but for which we did not have enough information to appl y them in our projections. We seek comment using our Excel ® 

### spreadsheet that clarifies how these progr ams can be used to characterize futureyear nonEGU emissions.

• Emissions controls at cement facilities that EPA has identified as possible controls, but were not applied in our 2012 or 2014 inventories. We had the following information and are interested in comment on how to apply this information to our TR final inventory. We are also interested in

cement controls on other facilities.

o In Georgia, CEMEX burns tires to reduce NO X 

### emissions up to 60% in some cases, which is now required by their permit

o In VA, conversations with state representatives su ggest that at least one cement facility in that state has reduced their emissions or plans to do so. Comments on these units in relation to the

reductions from our 2005 NEI v2 would be welcomed.

### 33 o The NOx SIP call budget demonstration from Missouri, dated 4/26/2005, calls for a 30% reduction in NOx from cement kilns, but we n eed more specific information about actual reductions on specific units ra ther than planned reductions.

• Emission controls based on OECA consent decr ees (see Section 3.2.6) that are represented improperly. This can easily happen because of a ssumptions EPA needed to make to lieu of more specific information in the decree documentation. For example, since a company can have latitude in how reductions are distributed across its facilities, EPA may have assumed reducti ons at facilities that are not expected to receive contro ls because controls are applied at other facilities to achieve the required company-wide reductions.

Table 3-10. List of known local measures needing de tails for applying to the ptnonipm sector

State Description Effective

Date Pollutants

affected NO X Reductions SO 2 Reductions PM 2.5 Reductions Source *

IL Section 214.421 Combination of fuels at Steel Mills in Metropolitan Areas: regulates the emission of SO 2 in any one hour period from any fuel

combustion emission source at a steel mill located in the Chicago or St. Louis (IL) major metropolitan area 2006 NO X , SO 2 , PM 2.5 8

IL Section 214.162 Combination of fuels: Regulates the emission of SO 2 in any one hour period from any fuel

combustion emission source 2006 SO 2 7

IL Section 217.388 Control and Maintenance Requirements: Regulates

NO X emissions from stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines and turbines 2007 NO X 9

MN Cargill Inc. Consent Decree: Implement

enforceable emissions reductions of

SO 2 and NO X from its corn processing and oilseed processing plants of at least 40,000 tpy. ? NO X , SO 2 2,500 tpy 15,000 tpy 5

MO 10 CSR 10-5.570 Restriction of Sulfur Emissions from Stationary Boilers:

Controls sulfur emissions from station boilers located in Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles, St. Louis Counties and the City of St. Louis 2009 SO 2 14

MO 10 CSR 10-6.260 Restriction of Emission of Sulfur Compounds: Restricts sulfur compound emissions from any installation except those

under CSR 10-6.070 or combustion equipment that uses only pipeline grade natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas 2009 SO 2 13

MO Controls NO X emissions from any large stationary internal combustion engine located in Billinger, Butler, Cape Girardeau, Carter, Clark, Crawford, Dent, Dunklin, Franklin, Gasconade, Iron, Jefferson, Lewis, Lincoln, Madison, Marion, Mississippi, Montgomery 2009 NO X 14

MO 10 CSR 10-6.400 Restriction of 2009 PM 2.5 12

### 34 State Description Effective

Date Pollutants

affected NO X Reductions SO 2 Reductions PM 2.5 Reductions Source *

Emission of PM from Industrial Processes: Regulates industrial operation process or activity that emits particulate matter

OH Paulding County Emission Limits: Sets

emission limits of SO 2 on any coalfired steam generating unit 2006 PM 2.5 11

PA Consent decree, Suno co Chemicals 2007 SO 2 1,350 tpy

PA Cement Kilns – proposed rulemaking approved by the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) on 2/19/2008 ? NO X 1,180 tpy

PA Glass Furnaces - proposed rulemaking approved by the EQB on 2/19/2008 ? NO X 1,300 tpy

PA Anti Idling– final rulemaking to the EQB on 8/19/2008 ? NO X 3.2 tpd

PA Consent decree, Sunoco Refinery Signed 3/20/06, Heater and Boiler NO X Reduction Plan July 2008 2008 (?) NO X

TX Control of Emissions of NO X from

Cement Kilns ?

WV Permit issued to Capitol Cement in 2006. It requires the shutdown of existing Kiln 9, which is a BART subject source. Low NO X burners were

installed on Kiln 9 in 2004. 2004 NO X



### * See Source codes listed below Table 3-12

Table 3-11. List of known local measures needing de tails, including which sectors to apply

State Description Effective

Date Pollutants

affected NO X Reductions SO 2 Reductions PM 2.5 Reductions Source *

CT NO X Reductions from ICI Boilers: Sets

emission limitations for NO X from reciprocating engines of at least 3MMBtu/hr, fuel-burning equipment of at least 5 MMBtu/hr, and waste combustors with capacity of at least 1 ton of waste per hour 2009 NO X 2

IN Regulations of Emissions from Outdoor

Furnaces and Outdoor Boilers: Regulates the emissions from outdoor furnaces and outdoor boilers; proposed

in 2005 ? PM 2.5 10

MA Amendments to 310CMR 7.00 Combined heat and power: Amendments to provide an adjustment to CHP emission limits creating “emission credits, ” which are intended to encourage new facilities to capture

and use heat from the electrical generating equipment and avoid the

installation of a new boiler. ? NO X , SO 2 NO X neutral reductions as

facilities

shift from

oil to nat.

gas 2

MD Diesel Particulate Reductions ? Chapter

5 Control

Measures

30708 WI NR 428.05 Requirements and 2007 NO X 6

### 35 performance standards for existing sources: Regulates NO X emissions for emission units located in Kenosha, Milwaukee, Manitowoc, Racine, Ozaukee, Washington or Waukesha County that are constructed or last

modified before 2/1/2001

WI NR 428.22 Emission limitation requirements: Provides NO X emission limitations on a 30-day rolling average

basis 2007 NO X 6



### * See Source codes listed below Table 3-12

Table 3-12. List of known local measures needing details for applying to the nonpt sector

State Description Effective

Date Pollutants

affected NO X Reductions SO 2 Reductions PM 2.5 Reductions Source *

DE Regulation No. 1144 Control of Stationary Generator Emission: Ensures

emissions of NO X , PM and SO 2 (among other pollutants) from stationary generators do not adversely impact public health, safety and welfare. ? NO X , SO 2 , PM 2.5 4

IL Section 214.162 Combination of fuels: Regulates the emission of SO 2 in any one hour period from any fuel

combustion emission source. 2006 SO 2 7

MA Amendments (to 310CMR 7.00) to control of air pollution in Berkshire, Pioneer Valley, Merrimack Valley, Metropolitan Boston, Central Mass., and SE Mass. Air pollution control districts; boilers must use natural gas or LSDF only beginning in 2009; PM and

NO X emission limit. 2009 NOX, SO 2 , PM 2.5 1

NJ NOx RACT Rule 2009: the proposed multi-pollutant (VOC, NO X , SO 2 , PM 2.5 ) rule will impact 13 source categories including sources with alternative or facility specific maximum

allowable NO X emission rates; asphalt used for paving; asphalt pavement production plants; and boilers. 2009 - 2015,

PHASE

D NO X , SO 2 , PM 2.5 3

PA Consent decree, Temple Signed on 8/16/2007, Temple modified NO X controls on three boilers at the Health Science Campus. NO X emission reduction expected is 27.4 tons. SEPs included lighting retrofit, diesel retrofit and purchasing wind power. 2008 NO X



### * See Source codes below

Reference codes for Tables 3-10, 3-11, and 3-12 1) "310 CMR 7.00: Air Pollution Control", Section 7.26: Outdoor Hydronic Heater, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 2) Section 10, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.a sp?a=2684&q=331196&depNav_GID=1619.

### 36 3) "State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for the Attainment and Maintenance of the Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Qu ality Standard PM2.5 Attainment Demonstration Proposal, Chapter 4: Control Measures", The State of New Jersey Depart 4) "Delaware Administrative Code Title 7, 1100 Air Quality Management Section, Sub-Section 1144 Control of Stationary Generator Emi ssions", State of Delaware, January 2006, http://regulations.delaware.gov/ AdminCode/title7/1000/1100/1144.shtml. 5) "Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for th e State of Alabama", Alabama Department of Environmental Management Air Division, February, 2008. 6) "Chapter NR 428: Control of Nitrogen Compound Emissions", Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, NR 428.04, Register No. 619, July 2007. 7) "Title 35, Subtitle B, Chapter 1, Subchapter c, Part 214, Subpart D, Section 162: Combination of Fuels", Illinois Pollution Control Board, http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/SLR/IPCBandI EPAEnvironmentalRegulations-Title35.asp. 8) "Title 35, Subtitle B, Chapter 1, Subchapter C, Part 214, Subpart Q, Sect ion 421: Combination of Fuels", Illinois Pollution Control Board, http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/SLR/IPCBandI EPAEnvironmentalRegulations-Title35.asp. 9) "Title 35, Subtitle B, Chapter 1, Subchapter C, Part 217, Subpart Q, S ection 388: Control and Maintenance Requirements", Illi nois Pollution Control Board, http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/SLR/IPCBandI EPAEnvironmentalRegulations-Title35.asp. 10) "Development of New Rules Concerning Regulations of Emissions from Outdoor Furnaces and Outdoor Boilers", IC 13-14-9 Notice, Register Page Number 29 IR 901, December 2005, Indiana Register Volume 29 Number 3. 11) "Paulding County Emission Limits", OAC 3745-18-69, Ohio Division of Air Pollution Control, January 2006. 12) "DRAFT 10 CSR 10-6.400 Restriction of Emission of Particulate Matt er from Industrial Processes", Missouri Department of Natulra Resources, 2009 13) "DRAFT 10 CSR 10-6.260 Restricti on of Emission of Sulfur Com pounds", Missouri Department of Natulra Resources, 2009 14) "DRAFT 10 CSR 10-5.570 Control of Sulfur Em issions from Stationary Boilers", Missouri Department of Natulra Resources, 2009



## 4 Source Apportionment Scenarios for 2012

EPA prepared special emissions inputs for the CAM X 

### model to allow CAM X 

### to be used for source apportionment modeling. Source apportionment modeling was used to quantify the impact of emissions in specific upwind states on projected downwind nona ttainment and maintenance receptors for both PM 2.5 

### and 8-hour ozone. To prepare these emissions, EPA prepar ed special tagging input f iles called GSTAG files for the SMOKE speciation processor.

The tagging input files and custom SMOKE scripts im plemented tagging by state of all source emissions except for biogenic and wildfire emissions for all ozone and PM 2.5 

### precursors. Separate tagging runs were

done for ozone and PM 2.5 

### precursors. Biogenic and wildfire emissi ons were not tagged by state because they are generally considered not feasible for emissions cont rols, but these were tagged as “other sources” and

their contributions could be tracked in total without a ssociation with individual st ates. Prescribed burning and agricultural burning were included in the tagged emissions. The states EPA analyzed using source apportionment for ozone and for PM 2.5 

### are: Alabama, Arkansas, Connectic ut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas , Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Ma ryland, Massachuset ts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virg inia, Washington D.C., and Wisconsin. There were also several other

### 37 states that are only partially co ntained within the 12 km modeling domain (i.e., Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, and Wyoming). However, EP A did not individually track the em issions or assess the contribution

from emissions in these states.



## 5 EGU Control Case for 2014

The 2014 TR Control Case was intended to represent the implementation of NO X 

### and SO 2 

### reductions to attain the existing ozone and PM 2.5 

### NAAQS standards in the eastern U.S. For the control case modeling, the emissions for all sectors were unchanged from the ba se case modeling except fo r those from EGUs (the ptipm sector). EPA used the IPM model to prepar e the 2014 control case EGU emissions. The changes in

EGU SO 2 

### and NO

x 

### emissions as a result of the control case for th e lower 48 states are summarized in Section 6. Section 6 also provides stat e-specific summaries of EGU NO X 

### and SO 2 

### for the lower 48 states. Additional details on the changes th at resulted from the control cas e are provided in the TR Proposal Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), Chapter 7 (Cost, Economic, and En ergy Impacts), which describes the modeling conducted to estimate the cost, economic , and energy impacts to the power sector.

States covered by the annual SO 2 

### and NO X 

### reductions for annual and/or 24-hour PM 2.5 

### standard in the control case are colored in blue and gr een in Figure 5-1. The 15 “group 1” states in blue are in a stringent

SO 2 

### tier and the 12 (+ D.C.) green “group 2” states are in a moderate SO 2 

### tier. Each group of states is of uniform stringency which would lead to two exclusive SO 2 

### trading groups; that is, states in SO 2 

### group 1

could not trade with states in SO 2 

### group 2. The smaller SO2 budgets would begin in 2012 for both groups and become smaller for the group 1 states in 2014 . All 27 states (+ D.C.) would be in one NO X 

### tier with uniform stringency beginning in 2012. Section 6 provides annual SO 2 

### and NO X 

### summaries for these selected groups/tiers of states.

States covered by the summer-only NO X 

### reductions for attainment of th e 8-hour ozone standard in the control case are highlighted in Figur e 5-2. These 25 “group 1” states NO X 

### reductions would begin after the 2012 ozone season. Section 6 also provides summer-only NO X 

### summaries for this selected group of states.

### 38 Figure 5-1. States Covered under Annual SO 2 

### and NO X 

### Reductions for PM 2.5



### .

Figure 5-2. States Covered under Summer NO X 

### Reductions for Ozone



## 6 Emission Summaries for the Base Cases and Control Case

The following tables summarize emissions differences between the 2005 base case, 2012 base case, 2014 base case, and 2014 EGU control case at various leve ls of geographic, tempor al, and emission sector

resolution.

### 39 Table 6-1 and Table 6-2 provide NO X 

### and SO 2 

### emissions, respectively (except for biogenic emissions, wildfires, and prescribed burning) by state for the 2005 base case, 2012 base case, 2014 base case, and 2014 EGU control cases, as well as differences and percent differences between these cases. The TR proposal preamble contains similar summaries but unlike the su mmaries here, the preamble summaries differ in the following: 1) they include emissions from wildfires and prescribed burning, and 2) are restricted to only the eastern states –all states are provided in the tables he re. See Table 7-2 in Secti on 7 for state-level summaries containing wildfire and prescribed bu rning emissions. Note that these “f ires” emissions are the same for all

emissions cases. Table 6-3 and Table 6-4 provide EGU sector only (ptipm) NO X 

### and SO 2 

### emissions (respectively) by state for the 2005 base case, 2012 base case, 2014 base case, and 2014 EGU control cases, as well as differences and percent differences between these cases.

Table 6-5 and Table 6-6 provide NO X 

### and SO 2 

### emissions, respectively (except for biogenic emissions, wildfires and prescribed burning) fo r the 15 state “group 1”,12 state + D. C. “group 2”, as well as 27 state +

D.C. sum of emissions that TR covers for PM 2.5 

### . See Figure 5-1 for a map of the group 1 and group 2 states.

Note that these emissions summaries are different in the TR proposal prea mble in the following: 1) we do not include emissions from fires (see Table 7-2 for the contribution from fires), and 2) Oklahoma is in the 25-state “group 2” summaries in these tables. Emi ssions are provided for the 2005 base case, 2012 base case, 2014 base case, and 2014 EGU cont rol (“remedy”) cases, as well as di fferences and percent differences between these cases. We also provide summaries for all “Eastern Modeling Domain” states and “All

Western States”. The western stat es are defined as Arizona, Californi a, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. States in the eas tern modeling domain are defined as the rest of the contiguous (lower 48 st ates) U.S. plus the District of Columbia.

Table 6-7 and Table 6-8 provide EGU sector only (ptipm) NO X 

### and SO 2 

### emissions (respectively) for the same 15 state “group 1”,12 state + D.C. “group 2”, as well as 27 state + D.C. su m of emissions that TR covers for PM2.5. See Figure 5-1 for a map of the gr oup 1 and group 2 states. Emissions are provided for the 2005 base case, 2012 base case, 2014 base case, a nd 2014 EGU control case, as well as differences and percent differences between these cases. Summaries for the eastern modeling domain states and western states are also provided. Note that unlike the TR proposal preamble, Okla homa is included in the “eastern modeling domain states” in these tables.

Table 6-9 provides summer (defined as May through September) EGU and Total Anthropogenic NO X 

### for the 26 states that TR covers for ozone. See Figure 5-2 for a map of these 26 states. Emissions are provided for the 2005 base case, 2012 base case, 2014 base case, and 2014 EGU control (“remedy”) cases, as well as differences and percent differences between these cases.

### 40Table 6-1.State-level Total NOXEmissions (not including fires) for each TRModeling Case in 48 States and Washington, D.C.2012 Base minus 2005Base2014 Base minus 2012Base2014 Control minus 2014BaseState 2005 Base 2012 Base 2014 Base2014ControlDifference % Difference Difference % Difference Difference % DifferenceAlabama 443,748 360,357 337,924 280,763 -83,391 -18.8% -22,433 -6.2% -57,161 -16.9%Arizona 326,613 246,578 218,261 218,219 -80,036 -24.5% -28,316 -11.5% -42 0.0%Arkansas 238,845 197,438 186,969 168,438 -41,407 -17.3% -10,468 -5.3% -18,532 -9.9%California 1,408,585 1,078,451 1,005,519 1,005,553 -330,135 -23.4% -72,932 -6.8% 35 0.0%Colorado 298,619 237,869 221,796 222,172 -60,751 -20.3% -16,073 -6.8% 377 0.2%Connecticut 116,673 74,786 67,070 67,082 -41,887 -35.9% -7,717 -10.3% 12 0.0%Delaware 58,879 39,664 37,330 37,750 -19,215 -32.6% -2,334 -5.9% 420 1.1%District of Columbia 15,904 9,802 8,568 8,568 -6,101 -38.4% -1,234 -12.6% 0 0.0%Florida 1,038,937 837,914 769,998 699,801 -201,023 -19.3% -67,916 -8.1% -70,198 -9.1%Georgia 577,858 405,825 341,695 337,889 -172,032 -29.8% -64,130 -15.8% -3,806 -1.1%Idaho 97,636 83,046 77,617 77,616 -14,590 -14.9% -5,429 -6.5% -1 0.0%Illinois 773,276 542,886 503,605 480,743 -230,390 -29.8% -39,281 -7.2% -22,862 -4.5%Indiana 614,861 505,039 474,770 386,251 -109,822 -17.9% -30,269 -6.0% -88,519 -18.6%Iowa 312,015 251,632 236,602 221,442 -60,383 -19.4% -15,030 -6.0% -15,160 -6.4%Kansas 365,907 294,634 289,452 250,489 -71,273 -19.5% -5,183 -1.8% -38,963 -13.5%Kentucky 435,837 345,073 324,465 247,270 -90,764 -20.8% -20,608 -6.0% -77,195 -23.8%Louisiana 670,571 583,659 561,795 553,494 -86,912 -13.0% -21,864 -3.7% -8,301 -1.5%Maine 78,680 63,994 59,337 59,333 -14,687 -18.7% -4,656 -7.3% -5 0.0%Maryland 294,519 181,595 171,843 171,923 -112,924 -38.3% -9,752 -5.4% 80 0.0%Massachusetts 270,987 191,570 181,754 182,151 -79,417 -29.3% -9,816 -5.1% 397 0.2%Michigan 638,546 478,625 444,639 410,319 -159,921 -25.0% -33,986 -7.1% -34,320 -7.7%Minnesota 466,985 350,394 327,977 311,544 -116,591 -25.0% -22,417 -6.4% -16,433 -5.0%Mississippi 288,816 218,968 202,800 188,757 -69,848 -24.2% -16,168 -7.4% -14,043 -6.9%Missouri 505,195 353,407 332,634 317,092 -151,787 -30.0% -20,774 -5.9% -15,541 -4.7%Montana 132,627 104,539 99,054 99,044 -28,088 -21.2% -5,485 -5.2% -10 0.0%Nebraska 244,225 193,852 182,029 164,126 -50,374 -20.6% -11,823 -6.1% -17,903 -9.8%Nevada 137,862 85,527 88,356 88,358 -52,335 -38.0% 2,829 3.3% 2 0.0%New Hampshire 65,086 43,930 39,746 39,687 -21,156 -32.5% -4,183 -9.5% -59 -0.1%New Jersey 323,327 220,188 203,784 200,233 -103,140 -31.9% -16,403 -7.4% -3,552 -1.7%

### 412012 Base minus 2005Base2014 Base minus 2012Base2014 Control minus 2014BaseState 2005 Base 2012 Base 2014 Base2014ControlDifference % Difference Difference % Difference Difference % DifferenceNew Mexico 305,732 240,892 230,868 230,886 -64,840 -21.2% -10,024 -4.2% 18 0.0%New York 609,630 423,170 393,753 393,996 -186,460 -30.6% -29,417 -7.0% 243 0.1%North Carolina 536,639 384,430 362,593 360,509 -152,209 -28.4% -21,837 -5.7% -2,085 -0.6%North Dakota 175,182 135,870 130,012 130,003 -39,312 -22.4% -5,858 -4.3% -9 0.0%Ohio 816,239 552,864 518,780 453,167 -263,375 -32.3% -34,084 -6.2% -65,612 -12.6%Oklahoma 426,907 367,457 346,081 315,393 -59,450 -13.9% -21,376 -5.8% -30,688 -8.9%Oregon 212,698 186,809 174,782 174,782 -25,890 -12.2% -12,026 -6.4% 0 0.0%Pennsylvania 704,936 566,301 535,515 454,248 -138,635 -19.7% -30,786 -5.4% -81,267 -15.2%Rhode Island 26,926 20,936 19,581 19,577 -5,990 -22.2% -1,355 -6.5% -4 0.0%South Carolina 300,083 236,546 222,148 209,141 -63,538 -21.2% -14,398 -6.1% -13,007 -5.9%South Dakota 81,625 65,334 60,551 60,546 -16,290 -20.0% -4,783 -7.3% -5 0.0%Tennessee 471,705 338,154 310,870 270,171 -133,550 -28.3% -27,284 -8.1% -40,699 -13.1%Texas 1,736,276 1,338,429 1,253,464 1,235,289 -397,847 -22.9% -84,965 -6.3% -18,175 -1.4%Utah 199,580 160,744 151,272 151,254 -38,836 -19.5% -9,473 -5.9% -18 0.0%Vermont 21,801 17,611 15,534 15,534 -4,189 -19.2% -2,078 -11.8% 0 0.0%Virginia 461,689 340,933 313,546 311,867 -120,756 -26.2% -27,387 -8.0% -1,680 -0.5%Washington 326,857 272,354 250,161 250,146 -54,503 -16.7% -22,193 -8.1% -15 0.0%West Virginia 294,016 206,630 196,923 144,970 -87,385 -29.7% -9,707 -4.7% -51,954 -26.4%Wisconsin 358,787 257,290 241,488 228,637 -101,496 -28.3% -15,803 -6.1% -12,851 -5.3%Wyoming 222,878 185,963 181,502 181,492 -36,915 -16.6% -4,461 -2.4% -10 0.0%Grand Total 19,531,805 14,879,959 13,906,813 13,087,712 -4,651,846 -23.8% -973,146 -6.5% -819,101 -5.9%

### 42Table 6-2.State-level Total SO2Emissions(not including fires) for each TR Modeling Case in 48 Statesand Washington, D.C.2012 Base minus 2005 Base2014 Base minus 2012Base2014 Control minus 2014BaseState 2005 Base 2012 Base 2014 Base2014ControlDifference % Difference Difference % Difference Difference % DifferenceAlabama 592,389 461,314 446,070 296,138 -131,075 -22.1% -15,244 -3.3% -149,932 -33.6%Arizona 88,334 50,335 48,282 50,815 -37,998 -43.0% -2,053 -4.1% 2,532 5.2%Arkansas 114,021 126,532 128,986 160,744 12,511 11.0% 2,454 1.9% 31,758 24.6%California 217,595 223,748 217,669 217,669 6,152 2.8% -6,079 -2.7% 0 0.0%Colorado 79,956 81,377 81,086 97,290 1,421 1.8% -291 -0.4% 16,204 20.0%Connecticut 34,316 27,389 27,419 24,493 -6,928 -20.2% 30 0.1% -2,926 -10.7%Delaware 85,167 38,963 39,629 40,742 -46,203 -54.3% 665 1.7% 1,113 2.8%District of Columbia 3,914 2,296 2,291 2,291 -1,618 -41.3% -5 -0.2% 0 0.0%Florida 649,114 460,481 431,641 376,723 -188,633 -29.1% -28,840 -6.3% -54,918 -12.7%Georgia 748,020 674,183 295,607 214,726 -73,837 -9.9% -378,575 -56.2% -80,882 -27.4%Idaho 23,165 20,332 20,264 20,263 -2,832 -12.2% -68 -0.3% -1 0.0%Illinois 516,950 866,376 340,576 304,834 349,427 67.6% -525,800 -60.7% -35,742 -10.5%Indiana 1,047,371 986,601 960,098 396,403 -60,770 -5.8% -26,503 -2.7% -563,695 -58.7%Iowa 221,877 250,930 244,423 182,875 29,053 13.1% -6,507 -2.6% -61,547 -25.2%Kansas 195,902 109,812 114,915 101,037 -86,090 -43.9% 5,103 4.6% -13,878 -12.1%Kentucky 572,424 780,885 798,392 182,630 208,462 36.4% 17,506 2.2% -615,761 -77.1%Louisiana 353,597 340,839 326,979 327,046 -12,758 -3.6% -13,860 -4.1% 67 0.0%Maine 36,934 48,310 44,490 44,508 11,376 30.8% -3,820 -7.9% 19 0.0%Maryland 379,842 142,640 136,078 136,198 -237,202 -62.4% -6,563 -4.6% 120 0.1%Massachusetts 158,152 91,564 93,797 86,838 -66,588 -42.1% 2,233 2.4% -6,959 -7.4%Michigan 490,190 415,042 402,783 300,560 -75,148 -15.3% -12,259 -3.0% -102,223 -25.4%Minnesota 154,550 95,366 102,374 89,746 -59,184 -38.3% 7,008 7.3% -12,628 -12.3%Mississippi 118,965 80,116 81,026 95,233 -38,850 -32.7% 910 1.1% 14,207 17.5%Missouri 421,979 570,575 623,287 315,283 148,595 35.2% 52,712 9.2% -308,004 -49.4%Montana 37,950 26,484 27,192 29,421 -11,467 -30.2% 708 2.7% 2,229 8.2%Nebraska 121,484 157,817 151,967 111,367 36,332 29.9% -5,849 -3.7% -40,601 -26.7%Nevada 71,535 28,375 35,117 35,493 -43,160 -60.3% 6,742 23.8% 376 1.1%New Hampshire 63,533 18,146 17,439 18,121 -45,388 -71.4% -707 -3.9% 682 3.9%New Jersey 101,380 81,266 82,524 59,410 -20,114 -19.8% 1,258 1.5% -23,114 -28.0%New Mexico 46,711 24,930 25,036 24,354 -21,781 -46.6% 105 0.4% -681 -2.7%

### 432012 Base minus 2005 Base2014 Base minus 2012Base2014 Control minus 2014BaseState 2005 Base 2012 Base 2014 Base2014ControlDifference % Difference Difference % Difference Difference % DifferenceNew York 391,103 341,705 337,581 253,274 -49,398 -12.6% -4,124 -1.2% -84,307 -25.0%North Carolina 648,485 264,544 282,484 238,822 -383,940 -59.2% 17,940 6.8% -43,661 -15.5%North Dakota 159,713 93,656 96,341 104,341 -66,057 -41.4% 2,686 2.9% 8,000 8.3%Ohio 1,276,270 1,076,470 969,383 361,138 -199,799 -15.7% -107,088 -9.9% -608,245 -62.7%Oklahoma 165,819 201,322 210,800 211,021 35,503 21.4% 9,478 4.7% 221 0.1%Oregon 47,228 48,244 47,971 54,791 1,016 2.2% -273 -0.6% 6,821 14.2%Pennsylvania 1,173,296 1,119,680 1,122,844 303,071 -53,616 -4.6% 3,164 0.3% -819,773 -73.0%Rhode Island 8,986 9,068 9,321 9,321 82 0.9% 253 2.8% 0 0.0%South Carolina 303,747 234,200 242,482 217,515 -69,547 -22.9% 8,282 3.5% -24,968 -10.3%South Dakota 28,183 25,649 25,614 41,053 -2,534 -9.0% -35 -0.1% 15,438 60.3%Tennessee 388,191 708,905 711,369 218,065 320,714 82.6% 2,464 0.3% -493,304 -69.3%Texas 934,009 639,505 677,484 771,299 -294,505 -31.5% 37,979 5.9% 93,815 13.8%Utah 51,593 36,160 36,479 40,182 -15,433 -29.9% 319 0.9% 3,703 10.2%Vermont 6,987 6,383 6,390 6,390 -603 -8.6% 7 0.1% 0 0.0%Virginia 344,860 263,564 254,359 176,114 -81,296 -23.6% -9,205 -3.5% -78,245 -30.8%Washington 65,834 75,906 76,087 75,795 10,072 15.3% 181 0.2% -292 -0.4%West Virginia 535,586 645,431 553,002 184,341 109,845 20.5% -92,429 -14.3% -368,662 -66.7%Wisconsin 263,615 181,760 191,391 159,927 -81,855 -31.1% 9,631 5.3% -31,464 -16.4%Wyoming 122,253 84,508 82,655 87,405 -37,745 -30.9% -1,853 -2.2% 4,750 5.7%Grand Total 14,663,076 13,339,684 12,281,475 7,857,117 -1,323,392 -9.0% -1,058,208 -7.9% -4,424,358 -36.0%

### 44Table 6-3.State-level ElectricGenerating Unit Sector NOXEmissions for each TR Modeling Case in 48 States and Washington, D.C.2012 Base minus 2005 Base2014 Base minus 2012Base2014 Control minus 2014BaseState 2005 Base 2012 Base 2014 Base2014ControlDifference % Difference Difference % Difference Difference % DifferenceAlabama 133,051 121,809 118,420 61,259 -11,241 -8.4% -3,389 -2.8% -57,161 -48.3%Arizona 79,776 80,323 72,747 72,705 546 0.7% -7,576 -9.4% -42 -0.1%Arkansas 35,407 43,222 44,792 26,260 7,815 22.1% 1,570 3.6% -18,532 -41.4%California 6,992 20,196 18,394 18,429 13,204 188.9% -1,802 -8.9% 35 0.2%Colorado 73,909 61,534 61,641 62,018 -12,375 -16.7% 107 0.2% 377 0.6%Connecticut 6,865 2,770 2,821 2,833 -4,094 -59.6% 51 1.8% 12 0.4%Delaware 11,917 4,639 4,513 4,933 -7,278 -61.1% -126 -2.7% 420 9.3%District of Columbia 492 2 1 1 -491 -99.7% 0 -14.3% 0 3.7%Florida 217,263 195,673 180,801 110,603 -21,590 -9.9% -14,873 -7.6% -70,198 -38.8%Georgia 111,017 78,011 48,091 44,285 -33,006 -29.7% -29,921 -38.4% -3,806 -7.9%Idaho 19 397 398 397 377 1961.3% 1 0.3% -1 -0.3%Illinois 127,923 77,920 80,228 57,366 -50,003 -39.1% 2,308 3.0% -22,862 -28.5%Indiana 213,503 203,107 200,899 112,379 -10,397 -4.9% -2,208 -1.1% -88,519 -44.1%Iowa 72,806 66,316 68,146 52,986 -6,490 -8.9% 1,830 2.8% -15,160 -22.2%Kansas 90,220 70,823 78,920 39,958 -19,397 -21.5% 8,097 11.4% -38,963 -49.4%Kentucky 164,743 149,179 148,509 71,314 -15,564 -9.4% -670 -0.4% -77,195 -52.0%Louisiana 63,791 44,773 45,457 37,156 -19,018 -29.8% 684 1.5% -8,301 -18.3%Maine 1,100 3,139 2,535 2,530 2,039 185.3% -604 -19.2% -5 -0.2%Maryland 62,574 17,376 19,990 20,070 -45,199 -72.2% 2,614 15.0% 80 0.4%Massachusetts 25,618 6,312 6,619 7,016 -19,305 -75.4% 306 4.9% 397 6.0%Michigan 120,005 96,874 97,455 63,135 -23,131 -19.3% 580 0.6% -34,320 -35.2%Minnesota 83,836 51,285 51,859 35,426 -32,551 -38.8% 574 1.1% -16,433 -31.7%Mississippi 45,166 37,517 37,142 23,099 -7,649 -16.9% -375 -1.0% -14,043 -37.8%Missouri 127,431 77,571 82,979 67,437 -49,860 -39.1% 5,408 7.0% -15,541 -18.7%Montana 39,858 36,761 36,800 36,789 -3,097 -7.8% 39 0.1% -10 0.0%Nebraska 52,426 52,820 52,970 35,067 394 0.8% 149 0.3% -17,903 -33.8%Nevada 47,297 20,059 29,198 29,200 -27,237 -57.6% 9,138 45.6% 2 0.0%New Hampshire 8,827 2,514 2,515 2,456 -6,312 -71.5% 1 0.0% -59 -2.3%New Jersey 30,114 15,987 16,268 12,717 -14,128 -46.9% 282 1.8% -3,552 -21.8%New Mexico 75,483 51,324 51,340 51,358 -24,159 -32.0% 16 0.0% 18 0.0%

### 452012 Base minus 2005 Base2014 Base minus 2012Base2014 Control minus 2014BaseState 2005 Base 2012 Base 2014 Base2014ControlDifference % Difference Difference % Difference Difference % DifferenceNew York 63,465 25,755 28,350 28,593 -37,709 -59.4% 2,595 10.1% 243 0.9%North Carolina 111,576 61,643 61,747 59,663 -49,932 -44.8% 104 0.2% -2,085 -3.4%North Dakota 76,381 59,547 59,556 59,548 -16,834 -22.0% 9 0.0% -9 0.0%Ohio 258,687 159,627 164,945 99,333 -99,060 -38.3% 5,318 3.3% -65,612 -39.8%Oklahoma 86,204 86,858 81,122 50,434 654 0.8% -5,735 -6.6% -30,688 -37.8%Oregon 9,383 13,780 13,889 13,889 4,396 46.9% 110 0.8% 0 0.0%Pennsylvania 176,870 193,032 196,151 114,884 16,163 9.1% 3,119 1.6% -81,267 -41.4%Rhode Island 545 221 281 278 -324 -59.4% 60 27.1% -4 -1.4%South Carolina 53,823 47,762 47,512 34,505 -6,061 -11.3% -251 -0.5% -13,007 -27.4%South Dakota 15,650 15,493 15,514 15,509 -157 -1.0% 21 0.1% -5 0.0%Tennessee 102,934 68,425 68,779 28,079 -34,509 -33.5% 354 0.5% -40,699 -59.2%Texas 176,170 159,738 166,177 148,002 -16,432 -9.3% 6,439 4.0% -18,175 -10.9%Utah 65,261 64,073 64,088 64,070 -1,188 -1.8% 14 0.0% -18 0.0%Vermont 297 0 0 0 -297 -100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Virginia 62,512 36,036 32,115 30,436 -26,475 -42.4% -3,921 -10.9% -1,680 -5.2%Washington 17,634 18,214 18,374 18,359 579 3.3% 160 0.9% -15 -0.1%West Virginia 159,804 102,725 100,103 48,149 -57,079 -35.7% -2,622 -2.6% -51,954 -51.9%Wisconsin 72,170 49,351 53,774 40,923 -22,819 -31.6% 4,423 9.0% -12,851 -23.9%Wyoming 89,315 73,911 73,919 73,908 -15,404 -17.2% 7 0.0% -10 0.0%Grand Total 3,728,112 2,926,427 2,908,844 2,089,743 -801,685 -21.5% -17,583 -0.6% -819,101 -28.2%

### 46Table 6-4.State-level ElectricGenerating Unit Sector SO2Emissions for each TR Modeling Casein 48 States and Washington, D.C.2012 Base minus 2005 Base2014 Base minus 2012Base2014 Control minus 2014BaseState 2005 Base 2012 Base 2014 Base2014ControlDifference % Difference Difference % Difference Difference % DifferenceAlabama 460,123 335,734 322,130 172,198 -124,389 -27.0% -13,604 -4.1% -149,932 -46.5%Arizona 52,733 22,773 20,945 23,477 -29,960 -56.8% -1,828 -8.0% 2,532 12.1%Arkansas 66,384 85,068 88,187 119,945 18,683 28.1% 3,119 3.7% 31,758 36.0%California 622 5,052 5,052 5,052 4,430 712.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Colorado 64,174 72,269 72,119 88,324 8,095 12.6% -149 -0.2% 16,204 22.5%Connecticut 10,356 5,493 5,512 2,586 -4,863 -47.0% 19 0.3% -2,926 -53.1%Delaware 32,378 7,841 7,806 8,919 -24,538 -75.8% -35 -0.4% 1,113 14.3%District of Columbia 1,082 0 0 0 -1,082 -100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Florida 417,321 228,360 192,903 137,985 -188,960 -45.3% -35,458 -15.5% -54,918 -28.5%Georgia 616,054 552,007 173,210 92,329 -64,048 -10.4% -378,796 -68.6% -80,882 -46.7%Idaho 0 0 1 0 0 -100.0% 1 N/A -1 -100.0%Illinois 330,382 724,657 200,475 164,733 394,274 119.3% -524,182 -72.3% -35,742 -17.8%Indiana 878,978 829,988 804,294 240,599 -48,990 -5.6% -25,694 -3.1% -563,695 -70.1%Iowa 130,264 169,039 163,966 102,419 38,775 29.8% -5,073 -3.0% -61,547 -37.5%Kansas 136,520 59,567 65,125 51,248 -76,953 -56.4% 5,558 9.3% -13,878 -21.3%Kentucky 502,731 718,980 739,592 123,831 216,249 43.0% 20,612 2.9% -615,761 -83.3%Louisiana 109,851 100,239 94,824 94,892 -9,612 -8.8% -5,415 -5.4% 67 0.1%Maine 3,887 15,759 11,650 11,669 11,872 305.4% -4,109 -26.1% 19 0.2%Maryland 283,205 49,078 42,635 42,756 -234,127 -82.7% -6,443 -13.1% 120 0.3%Massachusetts 85,768 16,299 16,299 9,340 -69,468 -81.0% 0 0.0% -6,959 -42.7%Michigan 349,877 287,807 275,637 173,414 -62,070 -17.7% -12,170 -4.2% -102,223 -37.1%Minnesota 101,666 53,596 61,447 48,819 -48,071 -47.3% 7,852 14.6% -12,628 -20.6%Mississippi 74,117 46,432 48,149 62,356 -27,685 -37.4% 1,717 3.7% 14,207 29.5%Missouri 284,384 445,643 500,649 192,644 161,259 56.7% 55,006 12.3% -308,004 -61.5%Montana 19,715 15,893 16,863 19,093 -3,822 -19.4% 971 6.1% 2,229 13.2%Nebraska 74,955 120,790 115,695 75,094 45,836 61.2% -5,095 -4.2% -40,601 -35.1%Nevada 53,363 13,323 20,155 20,531 -40,040 -75.0% 6,832 51.3% 376 1.9%New Hampshire 51,445 7,290 6,608 7,290 -44,155 -85.8% -682 -9.4% 682 10.3%New Jersey 57,044 37,746 37,669 14,555-19,298 -33.8% -78 -0.2% -23,114 -61.4%New Mexico 30,628 13,211 13,708 13,027 -17,417 -56.9% 497 3.8% -681 -5.0%

### 472012 Base minus 2005 Base2014 Base minus 2012Base2014 Control minus 2014BaseState 2005 Base 2012 Base 2014 Base2014ControlDifference % Difference Difference % Difference Difference % DifferenceNew York 180,847 144,074 141,354 57,047 -36,773 -20.3% -2,720 -1.9% -84,307 -59.6%North Carolina 512,231 126,620 140,585 96,924 -385,611 -75.3% 13,965 11.0% -43,661 -31.1%North Dakota 137,371 77,383 80,320 88,320 -59,988 -43.7% 2,937 3.8% 8,000 10.0%Ohio 1,116,084 946,667 841,194 232,948 -169,418 -15.2% -105,473 -11.1% -608,245 -72.3%Oklahoma 110,081 156,032 165,773 165,994 45,950 41.7% 9,741 6.2% 221 0.1%Oregon 12,304 14,381 13,366 20,187 2,077 16.9% -1,015 -7.1% 6,821 51.0%Pennsylvania 1,002,202 966,136 972,977 153,204 -36,066 -3.6% 6,841 0.7% -819,773 -84.3%Rhode Island 176 0 0 0 -176 -100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%South Carolina 218,782 149,515 156,096 131,128 -69,267 -31.7% 6,581 4.4% -24,968 -16.0%South Dakota 12,215 13,453 13,459 28,897 1,237 10.1% 6 0.0% 15,438 114.7%Tennessee 266,148 596,987 600,066 106,762 330,839 124.3% 3,079 0.5% -493,304 -82.2%Texas 534,949 327,873 373,950 467,765 -207,076 -38.7% 46,077 14.1% 93,815 25.1%Utah 34,813 24,972 25,414 29,117 -9,842 -28.3% 442 1.8% 3,703 14.6%Vermont 9 0 0 0 -9 -100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Virginia 220,248 145,452 135,741 57,496 -74,796 -34.0% -9,711 -6.7% -78,245 -57.6%Washington 3,409 19,663 19,155 18,863 16,255 476.9% -508 -2.6% -292 -1.5%West Virginia 469,456 588,392 496,307 127,646 118,936 25.3% -92,085 -15.7% -368,662 -74.3%Wisconsin 180,200 107,365 117,253 85,788 -72,836 -40.4% 9,888 9.2% -31,464 -26.8%Wyoming 89,874 55,025 53,505 58,254 -34,849 -38.8% -1,520 -2.8% 4,750 8.9%Grand Total 10,381,408 9,499,923 8,469,819 4,045,461 -881,485 -8.5% -1,030,103 -10.8% -4,424,358 -52.2%

### 48Table 6-5.Group 1 and Group 2 States NOXTotal Emissions (not including fires) for each TR Modeling Case2005 BaseYear2012 BaseCase2014 BaseCase2014Remedy2014Remedy -2012 BaseCasePercentChange:2014Remedyvs 2012BaseCase2014Remedy- 2014BaseCasePercentChange:2014Remedyvs 2014BaseCaseAnnual Total NOXEmissions for 15 Statesin Group 1 8,111,227 5,952,260 5,531,877 5,018,570 -933,690 -15.7% -513,308 -9.3%Annual Total NOXEmissions for 12 States+ DC in Group 2 4,610,746 3,574,961 3,361,673 3,137,064 -437,897 -12.2% -224,608 -6.7%Annual Total NOXfor 27 States + DC 12,721,973 9,527,221 8,893,550 8,155,634 -1,371,587 -14.4% -737,916 -8.3%Annual Total NOXEmissions for All StatesFully within the Eastern Modeling Domain15,862,117 11,997,188 11,207,626 10,388,190 -1,608,998 -13.4% -819,435 -7.3%Annual Total NOXEmissions for AllWestern States3,669,688 2,882,771 2,699,187 2,699,522 -183,249 -6.4% 334 0.0%

### 49Table 6-6.Group 1 and Group 2 States SO2Total Emissions (not including fires) for each TR Modeling Case2005 BaseYear2012 BaseCase2014 BaseCase2014Remedy2014Remedy -2012 BaseCasePercentChange:2014Remedyvs 2012BaseCase2014Remedy -2014 BaseCasePercentChange:2014Remedyvs 2014BaseCaseAnnual Total SO2Emissions for 15 Statesin Group 1 9,040,217 9,146,651 8,087,579 3,792,063 -5,354,589 -58.5% -4,295,516 -53.1%Annual Total SO2Emissions for 12 States +DC in Group 2 3,133,554 2,243,946 2,198,166 1,869,543 -374,403 -16.7% -328,623 -14.9%Annual Total SO2for 27 States + DCCovered for PM2.512,173,771 11,390,598 10,285,746 5,661,606 -5,728,992 -50.3% -4,624,139 -45.0%Annual Total SO2Emissions for All StatesFully within the Eastern Modeling Domain 13,810,921 12,639,283 11,583,637 7,123,638 -5,515,645 -43.6% -4,459,999 -38.5%Annual Total SO2Emissions for AllWestern States 852,154 700,400 697,838 733,479 33,079 4.7% 35,641 5.1%

### 50Table 6-7.Group 1 and Group 2 States NOXEGU Sector Emissions for each TR Modeling Case2005BaseYear2012BaseCase2014BaseCase2014Remedy2014Remedy- 2012BaseCasePercentChange:2014Remedyvs 2012BaseCase2014Remedy- 2014BaseCasePercentChange:2014Remedyvs 2014BaseCaseAnnual EGU NOXEmissions for 15 States inGroup 1 1,945,446 1,445,575 1,432,270 918,963 -526,613 -36.4% -513,308 -35.8%Annual EGU NOXEmissions for 12 States + DCin Group 2 831,991 632,031 626,150 401,542 -230,489 -36.5% -224,608 -35.9%Annual EGU NOXfor 27 States + DC Coveredfor PM2.52,777,437 2,077,606 2,058,421 1,320,505 -757,101 -36.4% -737,916 -35.8%Annual EGU NOXEmissions for All States Fullywithin the Eastern Modeling Domain 3,223,184 2,485,856 2,468,057 1,648,621 -837,234 -33.7% -819,435 -33.2%Annual EGU NOXEmissions for All WesternStates 504,928 440,572 440,787 441,121 550 0.1% 334 0.1%

### 51Table 6-8.Group 1 and Group 2 States SO2EGU Sector Emissions for each TR Modeling Case2005 BaseYear2012BaseCase2014BaseCase2014Remedy2014Remedy -2012 BaseCasePercentChange:2014Remedyvs 2012BaseCase2014Remedy -2014 BaseCasePercentChange:2014Remedyvs 2014BaseCaseAnnual EGU SO2Emissions for 15 States inGroup 1 7,040,088 7,349,814 6,303,300 2,007,783 -5,342,031 -72.7% -4,295,516 -68.1%Annual EGU SO2Emissions for 12 States +DC in Group 2 1,989,050 1,164,259 1,118,141 789,518 -374,740 -32.2% -328,623 -29.4%Annual EGU SO2for 27 States + DC Coveredfor PM2.59,029,138 8,514,073 7,421,441 2,797,302 -5,716,771 -67.1% -4,624,139 -62.3%Annual EGU SO2Emissions for All StatesFully within the Eastern Modeling Domain 10,019,774 9,243,362 8,209,536 3,749,537 -5,493,825 -59.4% -4,459,999 -54.3%Annual EGU SO2Emissions for All WesternStates 361,634 256,561 260,283 295,924 39,364 15.3% 35,641 13.7%Table 6-9.26-State Total and Electric Generating Unit Sector Summer NOXEmissions for each TR Modeling Case2005BaseYear2012BaseCase2014BaseCase2014Remedy2014Remedy- 2012BaseCasePercentChange:2014Remedyvs 2012BaseCase2014Remedy- 2014BaseCasePercentChange:2014Remedyvs 2014BaseCaseSummer EGU NOxEmissions for 26 StatesIncluded for Ozone 905,345 718,142 698,827 585,584 -132,559 -18.5% -113,243 -16.2%Summer Total NOxEmissions for 26 StatesIncluded for Ozone 5,363,278 4,085,516 3,784,430 3,671,187 -414,329 -10.1% -113,243 -3.0%

### 52 

## 7 Summary of Projected Emissions Changes over Time and Likely Affect on Maintenance

The purpose of this section is to illustrate the ov erall change in emissions from our TR base case years 2005 and 2014 to those in year 2020. The 2020 base case was developed using a similar projections methodology as described in Sect ion 3 for the 2012 and 2014 base cases. The primary difference in 2020 base case emissions is the continued ove rall decrease in SO 2 

### emissions in 2020 compared to 2014. This is primarily due to EGU reductions between 2014 and 2020. However, several states w ithout EGU reductions show small SO 2 

### increases resulting from increasing Class 3 Commercial Marine Vess el emissions (the C3 CMV control case will significantly reduce these emissions in 2020 but was not signed prior to TR modeling) and other minor source categories. NO X 

### emissions decrease between 2014 and 2020 in all states because

of continued EGU reductions and mobile source reductions. Showing em issions totals for 2014 and 2020 gives a sense as to whether control strategies for TR in 2014 will be enough to maintain air quality improvements in s ubsequent future years (such as 2020).

Table 7-1 summarizes emissions as they are pr ojected to change over time in the eastern modeling domain states. Note that unlike the TR preamble, Oklahoma is in the eastern modeling domain here. This information is important because it shows that for the most part, total

emissions of NO X 

### and SO 2 

### , considering both EGU and nonEGU sectors, are significantly decreasing over time. Therefore, the reductions and corresponding benefits achieved from the EGU sector as a result of the proposed rule shou ld be maintained over time. Table 7-2 provides details for projected changes to each of the sectors.

As noted in the preamble to the proposed tran sport rule, EPA considers the maintenance concept to have two components: (1) year-to-year vari ability in emissions a nd air quality, and (2) continued maintenance of the air quality standa rd over time. Regarding component (2), for example, if emissions increases were expected during the time period after the rule took effect, these increases might call into question whethe r there were sufficient emissions reductions required by the rule to provide for continue d maintenance of the NAAQS. EPA uses the

information in Table 7-1 to address this issue and to conclude that component (2) does not suggest the need for any further emission reductions requirements.

Table 7-2 shows that:

• Region-wide emissions of both SO 2 

### and NO X 

### are substantially d ecreased between 2014

and 2020.

• Emissions of NO X 

### are reduced between 2014 and 2020 by a significant degree across the US, largely due to decreases in the mobile s ource sector, and are reduced in every state.

• Emissions of SO 2 

### are reduced substantially over the region, about 1/3, and also in most states, with small increa ses seen in a few genera lly low-emitting states.

We acknowledge that there are some SO 2 

### increases projected in some states, such as Arkansas and New York. Therefore, we cannot claim that there will be no maintenance problems anywhere in the country. We propose to review this issue when we do the final rule modeling. At that time, additional information, such as in clusion of new federal rules that have recently

### 53 been or will be promulgate d in the intervening time (e.g., ECA-IMO, Boiler MACT, Portland Cement NESHAP, RICE and Co mpression Engines and Spark Engines, and Light Duty Greenhouse Gas Rule), will be available that will give us a more real istic estimate of the probable level of emissions in 2020.

In our current future base case platform, ther e are no additional rule s between years 2014 and 2020 that would impact the future year baselin e inventories, with th e exception that full implementation for some mobile rules (Light Duty Greenhouse Gas Rule) does not occur until 2020 -well after year 2014. The turnover rate for units (EGUs) and vehicles and equipment (onroad mobile and nonroad mobile) results in a lower proportion of mob ile emissions to overall anthropogenic emissions in year 2020 than year 2014.

### 54Table 7-1.Eastern Modeling Domain State Total Emissions for 2005, 2014, and 2020 Base CasesState 2005 NOX2014 NOX2020NOX% ChangeNOX2020-20142005 SO22014 SO22020 SO2% ChangeSO22020-2014Alabama 447,562 341,738 257,883 -24.5% 593,372 447,053 299,125 -33.1%Arkansas 241,499 189,623 151,411 -20.2% 114,749 129,714 144,144 11.1%Connecticut 116,688 67,084 58,314 -13.1% 34,320 27,423 27,839 1.5%Delaware 58,902 37,353 36,216 -3.0% 85,173 39,635 44,010 11.0%District of Columbia 15,904 8,568 7,117 -16.9% 3,914 2,291 2,292 0.0%Florida 1,064,537 795,599 672,868 -15.4% 656,131 438,658 410,056 -6.5%Georgia 585,812 349,650 311,804 -10.8% 750,031 297,618 231,541 -22.2%Illinois 773,347 503,676 415,949 -17.4% 516,969 340,596 272,106 -20.1%Indiana 614,949 474,858 326,615 -31.2% 1,047,396 960,123 438,592 -54.3%Iowa 312,105 236,692 187,129 -20.9% 221,902 244,448 187,608 -23.3%Kansas 366,285 289,829 263,644 -9.0% 196,005 115,018 115,556 0.5%Kentucky 437,163 325,791 218,884 -32.8% 572,787 798,755 260,604 -67.4%Louisiana 673,824 565,049 529,047 -6.4% 354,489 327,871 340,460 3.8%Maine 79,246 59,903 55,524 -7.3% 37,084 44,640 49,524 10.9%Maryland 294,656 171,980 166,535 -3.2% 379,874 136,109 135,835 -0.2%Massachusetts 271,327 182,095 182,258 0.1% 158,245 93,890 103,111 9.8%Michigan 638,876 444,969 358,917 -19.3% 490,280 402,874 330,022 -18.1%Minnesota 469,286 330,278 274,942 -16.8% 155,181 103,005 93,643 -9.1%Mississippi 292,649 206,633 162,685 -21.3% 120,016 82,077 77,858 -5.1%Missouri 505,873 333,312 276,041 -17.2% 422,165 623,473 316,552 -49.2%Nebraska 244,607 182,410 157,071 -13.9% 121,589 152,072 160,319 5.4%New Hampshire 65,223 39,884 34,249 -14.1% 63,571 17,476 18,796 7.6%New Jersey 323,550 204,007 194,489 -4.7% 101,441 82,585 70,764 -14.3%New York 610,042 394,165 363,885 -7.7% 391,216 337,694 355,542 5.3%North Carolina 548,064 374,018 359,664 -3.8% 649,181 283,180 288,137 1.8%Ohio 816,321 518,861 395,051 -23.9% 1,276,292 969,405 463,374 -52.2%Oklahoma 428,617 347,791 326,642 -6.1% 166,288 211,268 207,215 -1.9%Pennsylvania 705,053 535,631 410,031 -23.4% 1,173,328 1,122,876 476,402 -57.6%Rhode Island 26,930 19,585 18,987 -3.1% 8,987 9,323 10,270 10.2%South Carolina 302,441 224,505 199,164 -11.3% 304,393 243,129 225,431 -7.3%

### 55Tennessee 472,717 311,882 227,363 -27.1% 388,468 711,647 232,020 -67.4%Texas 1,741,166 1,258,354 1,132,869 -10.0% 935,187 678,662 665,567 -1.9%Vermont 21,980 15,713 12,808 -18.5% 7,036 6,439 6,444 0.1%Virginia 463,145 315,002 297,581 -5.5% 345,259 254,758 220,484 -13.5%West Virginia 294,801 197,708 139,731 -29.3% 535,802 553,218 181,812 -67.1%Wisconsin 359,042 241,743 200,083 -17.2% 263,685 191,461 163,196 -14.8%TOTAL 15,684,185 11,095,937 9,383,453 -15.4% 13,641,806 11,480,463 7,626,249 -33.6%Table 7-2.Eastern Modeling Domain State-SectorEmissions for 2005, 2014, and 2020 Base CasesNOXSO2State Region Sector2005 BaseCase2014 BaseCase2020 BaseCase2020 Base -2014 Base2005 BaseCase2014 BaseCase2020 BaseCase2020 Base -2014 BaseNonEGU 74,830 74,622 74,65432 70,346 69,150 69,154 4Nonpoint 32,024 31,939 31,906-33 52,325 52,313 52,308 -5Nonroad 61,623 45,932 37,278 -8,654 6,397 1,873 2,200 327Onroad 142,221 67,011 48,606 -18,405 3,199 605 602 -3Fires 3,814 3,814 3,814 0 983 983 983 0Alabama SoutheastEGU 133,051 118,420 61,625 -56,795 460,123 322,130 173,878 -148,252NonEGU 37,478 37,491 37,51221 13,066 13,055 13,058 3Nonpoint 21,453 21,422 21,410-12 27,260 27,256 27,254 -2Nonroad 63,493 44,299 34,187 -10,112 5,678 142 75 -67Onroad 81,014 38,965 30,917 -8,048 1,632 347 349 2Fires 2,654 2,654 2,654 0 728 728 728 0ArkansasSoutheastEGU 35,407 44,792 24,731 -20,061 66,384 88,187 102,681 14,494NonEGU 5,824 5,854 5,896 42 1,831 1,834 1,838 4Nonpoint 12,554 12,451 12,411-40 18,455 18,440 18,434 -6Nonroad 21,785 14,410 11,686 -2,724 2,548 1,294 1,654 360Onroad 69,645 31,534 25,654 -5,880 1,128 340 334 -6Fires 14 14 14 0 4 4 4 0ConnecticutNortheastEGU 6,865 2,821 2,654 -167 10,356 5,512 5,576 64

### 56NOXSO2State Region Sector2005 BaseCase2014 BaseCase2020 BaseCase2020 Base -2014 Base2005 BaseCase2014 BaseCase2020 BaseCase2020 Base -2014 BaseNonEGU 5,567 5,567 5,568 1 34,859 10,974 10,974 0Nonpoint 3,259 3,245 3,239 -6 5,859 5,857 5,857 0Nonroad 15,567 15,270 15,657 387 11,648 14,891 19,286 4,395Onroad 22,569 8,736 7,623 -1,113 422 101 101 0Fires 23 23 23 0 6 6 6 0DelawareNortheastEGU 11,917 4,513 4,107 -406 32,378 7,806 7,786 -20NonEGU 501 501 501 0 686 686 686 0Nonpoint 1,740 1,738 1,738 0 1,559 1,559 1,559 0Nonroad 3,494 2,398 1,637 -761 414 4 4 0Onroad 9,677 3,929 3,240 -689 172 42 42 0Fires 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0District ofColumbiaSoutheastEGU 492 1 0 -1 1,082 0 0 0NonEGU 53,778 55,343 55,901 558 57,475 57,521 57,572 51Nonpoint 29,533 29,457 29,428-29 70,490 70,480 70,476 -4Nonroad 277,888 278,920 286,675 7,755 93,543 108,579 136,790 28,211Onroad 460,474 225,478 170,403 -55,075 10,285 2,159 2,239 80Fires 25,600 25,600 25,600 0 7,018 7,018 7,018 0FloridaSoutheastEGU 217,263 180,801 104,861 -75,940 417,321 192,903 135,962 -56,941NonEGU 53,297 53,557 54,038 481 56,116 56,014 56,058 44Nonpoint 38,919 38,797 38,750-47 56,829 56,813 56,807 -6Nonroad 95,175 71,011 58,421 -12,590 13,331 8,263 10,881 2,618Onroad 279,449 130,240 107,567 -22,673 5,690 1,307 1,357 50Fires 7,955 7,955 7,955 0 2,010 2,010 2,010 0GeorgiaSoutheastEGU 111,017 48,091 45,072 -3,019 616,054 173,210 104,427 -68,783NonEGU 97,504 93,059 94,160 1,101 156,154 133,109 133,181 72Nonpoint 47,645 47,540 47,500 -40 5,395 5,381 5,376 -5Nonroad 223,697 151,373 114,002 -37,371 19,302 390 290 -100IllinoisMidwestOnroad 276,507 131,403 104,549 -26,854 5,716 1,221 1,238 17

### 57NOXSO2State Region Sector2005 BaseCase2014 BaseCase2020 BaseCase2020 Base -2014 Base2005 BaseCase2014 BaseCase2020 BaseCase2020 Base -2014 BaseFires 71 71 71 0 20 20 20 0EGU 127,923 80,228 55,666 -24,562 330,382 200,475 132,000 -68,475NonEGU 73,647 73,523 73,59067 95,200 95,037 95,044 7Nonpoint 30,185 30,107 30,077-30 59,775 59,764 59,760 -4Nonroad 110,100 76,024 57,512 -18,512 9,436 193 149 -44Onroad 187,426 94,217 67,816 -26,401 3,981 810 824 14Fires 88 88 88 0 24 24 24 0IndianaMidwestEGU 213,503 200,899 97,533 -103,366 878,978 804,294 282,791 -521,503NonEGU 39,299 38,831 38,85221 61,241 60,195 60,197 2Nonpoint 15,150 15,038 14,995-43 19,832 19,817 19,811 -6Nonroad 92,965 65,751 48,701 -17,050 8,838 85 74 -11Onroad 91,795 48,836 34,104 -14,732 1,702 360 364 4Fires 90 90 90 0 25 25 25 0IowaMidwestEGU 72,806 68,146 50,387 -17,759 130,264 163,966 107,136 -56,830NonEGU 70,785 70,730 70,7399 13,142 13,048 13,049 1Nonpoint 42,286 42,238 42,219-19 36,381 36,375 36,372 -3Nonroad 86,553 61,613 46,797 -14,816 8,035 54 56 2Onroad 76,062 35,950 26,255 -9,695 1,824 313 314 1Fires 378 378 378 0 103 103 103 0KansasMidwestEGU 90,220 78,920 77,257 -1,663 136,520 65,125 65,661 536NonEGU 35,432 34,979 35,157 178 25,811 23,804 23,822 18Nonpoint 17,557 17,413 17,358-55 34,229 34,210 34,203 -7Nonroad 90,669 65,805 51,233 -14,572 6,942 258 118 -140Onroad 127,435 57,759 43,037 -14,722 2,711 528 530 2Fires 1,326 1,326 1,326 0 364 364 364 0KentuckySoutheastEGU 164,743 148,509 70,773 -77,736 502,731 739,592 201,569 -538,023NonEGU 165,162 161,766 161,836 70 165,737 151,216 151,223 7LouisianaSoutheastNonpoint 27,559 27,515 27,498 -17 2,378 2,372 2,370 -2

### 58NOXSO2State Region Sector2005 BaseCase2014 BaseCase2020 BaseCase2020 Base -2014 Base2005 BaseCase2014 BaseCase2020 BaseCase2020 Base -2014 BaseNonroad 301,170 274,697 261,499 -13,198 73,233 78,097 91,792 13,695Onroad 112,889 52,360 38,760 -13,600 2,399 470 474 4Fires 3,254 3,254 3,254 0 892 892 892 0EGU 63,791 45,457 36,200 -9,257109,851 94,824 93,708 -1,116NonEGU 18,309 18,316 18,32610 18,519 18,520 18,521 1Nonpoint 7,423 7,257 7,192 -65 9,969 9,945 9,935 -10Nonroad 13,379 13,169 13,591 422 3,725 4,215 5,472 1,257Onroad 38,469 18,061 13,552 -4,509 834 160 159 -1Fires 566 566 566 0 150 150 150 0MaineNortheastEGU 1,100 2,535 2,296 -239 3,887 11,650 15,286 3,636NonEGU 24,621 24,687 24,794 107 34,988 34,994 35,004 10Nonpoint 21,715 21,626 21,592-34 40,864 40,851 40,846 -5Nonroad 55,812 52,501 53,050 549 17,819 16,966 21,676 4,710Onroad 129,796 53,040 49,679 -3,361 2,966 631 641 10Fires 137 137 137 0 32 32 32 0MarylandNortheastEGU 62,574 19,990 17,284 -2,706283,205 42,635 37,636 -4,999NonEGU 18,429 18,527 18,664 137 19,620 19,624 19,637 13Nonpoint 34,373 34,207 34,143-64 25,261 25,237 25,228 -9Nonroad 74,419 75,654 82,257 6,603 25,335 32,043 41,214 9,171Onroad 118,148 46,748 40,814 -5,934 2,168 594 594 0Fires 341 341 341 0 93 93 93 0MassachusettsNortheastEGU 25,618 6,619 6,039 -580 85,768 16,299 16,346 47NonEGU 94,139 94,079 94,294 215 76,510 76,437 76,460 23Nonpoint 43,499 43,360 43,306-54 42,066 42,066 42,066 0Nonroad 101,087 73,939 58,797 -15,142 14,533 7,536 8,286 750Onroad 279,816 135,806 98,222 -37,584 7,204 1,107 1,104 -3Fires 330 330 330 0 91 91 91 0MichiganMidwestEGU 120,005 97,455 63,968 -33,487 349,877 275,637 202,015 -73,622

### 59NOXSO2State Region Sector2005 BaseCase2014 BaseCase2020 BaseCase2020 Base -2014 Base2005 BaseCase2014 BaseCase2020 BaseCase2020 Base -2014 BaseNonEGU 64,438 64,372 64,580 208 25,169 25,112 25,133 21Nonpoint 56,700 56,545 56,485-60 14,747 14,728 14,721 -7Nonroad 115,873 84,040 64,212 -19,828 10,410 468 391 -77Onroad 146,138 71,161 53,790 -17,371 2,558 618 620 2Fires 2,300 2,300 2,300 0 631 631 631 0MinnesotaMidwestEGU 83,836 51,859 33,575 -18,284 101,666 61,447 52,147 -9,300NonEGU 53,985 52,440 52,45414 29,892 24,427 24,429 2Nonpoint 12,212 12,133 12,103 -30 6,796 6,785 6,781 -4Nonroad 79,394 58,559 46,391 -12,168 6,003 1,280 1,387 107Onroad 98,060 42,525 29,583 -12,942 2,158 385 386 1Fires 3,833 3,833 3,833 0 1,051 1,051 1,051 0MississippiSoutheastEGU 45,166 37,142 18,322 -18,820 74,117 48,149 43,823 -4,326NonEGU 38,604 38,744 38,988 244 78,307 77,086 77,111 25Nonpoint 32,910 32,677 32,588-89 44,573 44,543 44,531 -12Nonroad 123,228 88,233 68,567 -19,666 10,464 214 124 -90Onroad 183,022 90,001 69,493 -20,508 4,251 796 802 6Fires 678 678 678 0 186 186 186 0MissouriMidwestEGU 127,431 82,979 65,727 -17,252 284,384 500,649 193,799 -306,850NonEGU 12,156 12,173 12,196 23 6,429 6,431 6,434 3Nonpoint 13,820 13,779 13,763-16 29,575 29,570 29,568 -2Nonroad 107,180 75,252 58,478 -16,774 9,199 55 57 2Onroad 58,643 27,856 19,134 -8,722 1,326 217 218 1Fires 381 381 381 0 105 105 105 0NebraskaMidwestEGU 52,426 52,970 53,119 149 74,955 115,695 123,937 8,242NonEGU 3,241 3,255 3,275 20 3,245 3,246 3,248 2Nonpoint 11,235 11,129 11,088 -41 7,408 7,393 7,387 -6Nonroad 9,246 6,587 5,115 -1,472 805 45 48 3New HampshireNortheastOnroad 32,537 16,260 12,101 -4,159 630 148 149 1

### 60NOXSO2State Region Sector2005 BaseCase2014 BaseCase2020 BaseCase2020 Base -2014 Base2005 BaseCase2014 BaseCase2020 BaseCase2020 Base -2014 BaseFires 137 137 137 0 38 38 38 0EGU 8,827 2,515 2,533 18 51,445 6,608 7,926 1,318NonEGU 20,598 19,089 19,249 160 7,640 6,756 6,771 15Nonpoint 26,393 26,298 26,261-37 10,726 10,712 10,707 -5Nonroad 88,486 78,875 76,768 -2,107 23,484 26,589 34,436 7,847Onroad 157,736 63,254 59,180 -4,074 2,486 799 797 -2Fires 223 223 223 0 61 61 61 0New JerseyNortheastEGU 30,114 16,268 12,809 -3,45957,044 37,669 17,993 -19,676NonEGU 55,122 55,359 55,688 329 58,562 58,584 58,615 31Nonpoint 87,608 87,826 87,910 84 125,158 125,196 125,211 15Nonroad 121,363 92,841 82,308 -10,533 20,908 10,853 15,885 5,032Onroad 282,072 129,376 115,246 -14,130 5,628 1,594 1,589 -5Fires 412 412 412 0 113 113 113 0New YorkNortheastEGU 63,465 28,350 22,322 -6,028180,847 141,354 154,128 12,774NonEGU 44,502 44,573 44,766 193 66,150 66,046 66,066 20Nonpoint 18,869 18,669 18,591-78 22,020 21,994 21,984 -10Nonroad 135,936 133,455 142,195 8,740 42,743 52,897 68,844 15,947Onroad 225,756 104,150 80,908 -23,242 5,341 961 988 27Fires 11,424 11,424 11,424 0 696 696 696 0North CarolinaSoutheastEGU 111,576 61,747 61,780 33 512,231 140,585 129,559 -11,026NonEGU 71,715 69,157 69,297 140 118,468 105,123 105,138 15Nonpoint 41,466 41,352 41,307-45 19,810 19,810 19,810 0Nonroad 173,988 120,900 92,379 -28,521 15,615 2,085 2,116 31Onroad 270,383 122,426 93,881 -28,545 6,293 1,171 1,177 6Fires 81 81 81 0 22 22 22 0OhioMidwestEGU 258,687 164,945 98,106 -66,839 1,116,084 841,194 335,111 -506,083NonEGU 73,465 72,525 72,56742 40,482 36,924 36,929 5OklahomaSouthwestNonpoint 94,574 94,513 94,490 -23 7,542 7,534 7,531 -3

### 61NOXSO2State Region Sector2005 BaseCase2014 BaseCase2020 BaseCase2020 Base -2014 Base2005 BaseCase2014 BaseCase2020 BaseCase2020 Base -2014 BaseNonroad 55,424 39,539 30,318 -9,221 5,015 45 45 0Onroad 117,240 58,382 43,889 -14,493 2,699 524 536 12Fires 1,709 1,709 1,709 0 469 469 469 0EGU 86,204 81,122 83,669 2,547 110,081 165,773 161,705 -4,068NonEGU 89,208 84,111 84,363 252 85,411 76,256 76,281 25Nonpoint 53,435 53,246 53,173-73 68,349 68,324 68,314 -10Nonroad 118,774 83,885 65,340 -18,545 11,972 4,117 4,644 527Onroad 266,649 118,122 95,864 -22,258 5,363 1,169 1,160 -9Fires 117 117 117 0 32 32 32 0PennsylvaniaNortheastEGU 176,870 196,151 111,174 -84,977 1,002,202 972,977 325,971 -647,006NonEGU 2,164 2,186 2,217 31 2,743 2,745 2,748 3Nonpoint 2,964 2,957 2,955 -2 3,365 3,364 3,364 0Nonroad 7,798 7,384 7,762 378 2,494 3,128 4,072 944Onroad 13,456 6,772 5,816 -956 208 85 86 1Fires 4 4 4 0 1 1 1 0Rhode IslandNortheastEGU 545 281 233 -48 176 0 0 0NonEGU 29,069 28,969 28,99829 31,495 31,453 31,457 4Nonpoint 20,281 20,271 20,267-4 30,016 30,002 29,996 -6Nonroad 68,146 62,400 63,242 842 20,477 24,380 31,791 7,411Onroad 128,765 62,996 49,708 -13,288 2,976 551 556 5Fires 2,357 2,357 2,357 0 646 646 646 0South CarolinaSoutheastEGU 53,823 47,512 34,592 -12,920 218,782 156,096 130,984 -25,112NonEGU 60,353 59,694 59,864 170 78,206 77,605 77,623 18Nonpoint 18,676 18,542 18,490-52 32,714 32,696 32,690 -6Nonroad 82,331 59,145 45,448 -13,697 6,288 173 98 -75Onroad 207,410 104,711 74,911 -29,800 4,834 829 852 23Fires 1,012 1,012 1,012 0 277 277 277 0TennesseeSoutheastEGU 102,934 68,779 27,638 -41,141 266,148 600,066 120,481 -479,585

### 62NOXSO2State Region Sector2005 BaseCase2014 BaseCase2020 BaseCase2020 Base -2014 Base2005 BaseCase2014 BaseCase2020 BaseCase2020 Base -2014 BaseNonEGU 292,806 282,509 283,203 694 223,625 155,720 155,792 72Nonpoint 274,338 274,163 274,096 -67 109,215 109,194 109,185 -9Nonroad 377,246 289,605 239,110 -50,495 52,749 36,109 42,338 6,229Onroad 615,715 241,009 193,768 -47,241 13,470 2,511 2,584 73Fires 4,890 4,890 4,890 0 1,178 1,178 1,178 0TexasSouthwestEGU 176,170 166,177 137,803 -28,374 534,949 373,950 354,490 -19,460NonEGU 799 803 808 5 902 903 903 0Nonpoint 3,438 3,397 3,382 -15 5,385 5,380 5,378 -2Nonroad 3,951 2,771 2,112 -659 385 7 7 0Onroad 13,316 8,563 6,328 -2,235 305 101 107 6Fires 179 179 179 0 49 49 49 0VermontNortheastEGU 297 0 9 0NonEGU 60,101 60,216 60,412 196 69,440 69,177 69,196 19Nonpoint 53,605 53,464 53,409-55 32,923 32,899 32,889 -10Nonroad 91,298 75,461 68,679 -6,782 18,420 15,624 20,169 4,545Onroad 194,173 92,291 78,824 -13,467 3,829 918 933 15Fires 1,456 1,456 1,456 0 399 399 399 0VirginiaSoutheastEGU 62,512 32,115 34,801 2,686 220,248 135,741 96,897 -38,844NonEGU 36,913 35,700 35,7033 48,314 41,817 41,817 0Nonpoint 14,519 14,459 14,436-23 14,589 14,581 14,578 -3Nonroad 32,739 23,798 18,943 -4,855 2,133 96 64 -32Onroad 50,040 22,863 17,787 -5,076 1,095 201 195 -6Fires 785 785 785 0 215 215 215 0West VirginiaSoutheastEGU 159,804 100,103 52,077 -48,026 469,456 496,307 124,942 -371,365NonEGU 40,688 40,729 40,78960 66,807 66,456 66,463 7Nonpoint 21,994 21,974 21,967 -7 6,369 6,370 6,370 0Nonroad 75,981 53,848 41,958 -11,890 7,129 638 685 47WisconsinMidwestOnroad 147,952 71,163 56,315 -14,848 3,110 675 691 16

### 63NOXSO2State Region Sector2005 BaseCase2014 BaseCase2020 BaseCase2020 Base -2014 Base2005 BaseCase2014 BaseCase2020 BaseCase2020 Base -2014 BaseFires 256 256 256 0 70 70 70 0EGU 72,170 53,774 38,799 -14,975 180,200 117,253 88,917 -28,336Grand Total 15,684,185 11,095,937 9,383,453 -1,712,484 13,641,806 11,480,463 7,626,249 -3,854,214

### 64 

## 8 References

Arunachalam S., 2009: Peer Review of Source Apportionment Tools in CAMx and CMAQ, EPD-07-102. University of North Carolina, In stitute for the Environment, August 2009.

Environ, 2009: Comprehensive Air Quality Mode l with Extensions Version 5 User’s Guide. Environ International Corpor ation. Novato, CA. March 2009.

EPA, 2005. Clean Air Interstate Rule Emissions Inventory Technical Support Document, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, March

005. Available at http://www.epa.gov/cai r/pdfs/finaltech01.pdf

.

EPA, 2006. Regulatory Impact An alyses, 2006 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for

Particle Pollution. U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, October, 2006. Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0017, # EPAHQ-OAR-2006-

0834. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html

.

EPA, 2007a. Guidance for Estimating VOC and NOx Emission Changes from MACT Rules, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, Research Tr iangle Park, NC 27711, EPA-457/B-07-001, May 2007.

Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/o3im p8hr/documents/guidance/200705_epa457_b- 07- 001_emission_changes_mact_rules.pdf

.

EPA. 2007b. National Scale Modeling for the Fina l Mobile Source Air T oxics Rule, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standa rds, Emissions Analysis and Monitoring Division, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, EPA 454/R-07- 002, February 2007. Available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/toxics/454r07002.pdf

EPA, 2007c. Regulatory Impact Analysis for Fina l Rule: Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources, U.S. Environmental Pr otection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division, 

### Ann Arbor, MI 48105, EPA420-R-07-002, February 2007. Available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/r egs/toxics/420r07002.pdf

.

EPA, 2009. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Cont rol of Emissions of Air Pollution from Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression Ignition Engines Less than 30 Liters Per Cylinder. U.S. Environmental Protection Agen cy Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, EPA420-R-08-001a, May 2009.

Available at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq /regs/nonroad/420r08001a.pdf

EPA, 2010. RFS2 Emissions Inventory for Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document, February, 2010. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r10005.pdf

.A-1 

### APPENDIX A

Ancillary Data Files Used for TR 2005 Case Compared to 2012 and 2014 Base Case

Scenarios

To match the Datasets and Versions listed in this table to actual data files, combine the Dataset

name and the version number in the followi ng pattern: <Dataset Name>_<Date>_<Version number>.txt, where <Date> is the last date of change for that version and will have a unique

value for the combination of Dataset Name and Version number.

### A-1Table A-1.Detailed list of ancillaryfile data differences between the TR2005 Base Case and the 2012 and 2014 Base CasesInputEnvironmentVariableDataset 2005 basecaseVersion2005Base Sector Dataset 2012 base caseVersion2012cases Dataset 2014 casesVersion2014cases Impact? And commentsOnroad temperatureadjustmentsADJ_FACSMOVESPmOcEcTempAdjFactors 20051 on_moves_runpmMOVESPmOcEcTempAdjFactors 2005MOVESPmOcEcTempAdjFactors_2014_JAN20101No impact for running modeemisionsOnroad temperatureadjustments ADJ_FACSMOVESPmOcEcTempAdjFactors 2005 1 on_moves_startpmMOVESPmOcEcTempAdjFactors 2005MOVESPmOcEcTempAdjFactors_2014_JAN2010 1The upwards PM adjustment forcold start emissions is slightlyless in 2014 than 2005 (and2012)nonpoint & nonroadsurrogate xref AGREF amgref_us_can_mex_revised 5 All sectors amgref_us_can_mex_revised 7 same as 2012No impact. SCCs added forunrelated modeling inventories.Grid Description List GRIDDESC griddesc_lambertonly 24 All sectors griddesc_lambertonly 13 same as 2012No impact. Later versionscontain additional grids not usedin 2012 and 2014 TR modeling.GSCNV - pollutantto pollutantconversions GSCNV gscnv_cmaq_cb05_tx_pf4 2 All sectors gscnv_cmaq_cb05_tx_pf4 3 same as 2012No impact. Duplicate recordsremoved in 2012 and 2014 basecase.GSCNV - pollutantto pollutantconversions tier2GSCNV N/A All sectorsgscnv_cmaq_cb05_tier2_nontoxic0 same as 2012Yes. Future year contains Tier 1and Tier 2 E0 and E10combination profiles.GSCNV - pollutantto pollutantconversions tier2NONHAPVOC GSCNV N/A All sectors gscnv_cmaq_cb05_tier2_toxic 0 same as 2012Yes. Future year contains Tier 1and Tier 2 E0 and E10combination profiles.Combination profilesGSPRO_COMBOgspro_combo_2005 2 All sectors replaced with many datasets--same as 2012Yes. 2005 onroad, norroad, andstationary gasoline distributionrelated sources do not containTier 2 E0/E10 combinationprofiles.Combination profilesfor onroadGSPRO_COMBON/A on_noadjgspro_combo_2012_onroad_nonroad_exhevp1 same as 2012Yes. Contains Tier 2 E0 andE10 combination profiles foronroad mobile.Combination profilesfor noptGSPRO_COMBON/A nonptgspro_combo_stationary_aeo.TXT0 same as 2012Yes. Future year containsE0/E10/E85 blend based onethanol penetration for gasolinedistribution (bulk terminal topump) sources.Combination profilesfor nonroad rflGSPRO_COMBO N/A nonroad gspro_combo_nonroadrefuel_aeo 0 same as 2012Yes. Future year containsE0/E10/E85 blend based onethanol penetration for nonroadrefueling sources.Combination profilesfor ptnonipmGSPRO_COMBON/A ptnonipm gspro_combo_stationary_aeo.TXT 0 same as 2012Yes. Future year containsE0/E10/E85 blend based onethanol penetration for gasolinedistribution (bulk terminal topump) sources.

### A-2InputEnvironmentVariableDataset 2005 basecaseVersion2005Base Sector Dataset 2012 base caseVersion2012cases Dataset 2014 casesVersion2014cases Impact? And commentsCombination profilesfor nonroad exh-evpGSPRO_COMBON/A nonroadgspro_combo_2012_onroad_nonroad_exhevp1 same as 2012Yes. Contains Tier 2 E0 andE10 combination profiles foronroad mobile.Speciation profilesfor TOG -noBAFtier 2 mobile profilesused for future yearonlyGSPRO N/A All sectorsgspro_cmaq_cb05_tier2_nontoxic1 same as 2012Yes. Contains Tier 2 profilesfor onroad and nonroad mobileVOC (TOG) to toxics notincluding benzene, acetaldehydeand formaldehyde (BAF).Speciation profilesfor TOGBAF - tier 2mobile profiles usedfor future year only GSPRO N/A All sectors gspro_cmaq_cb05_tier2_BAF 2 same as 2012Yes. Contains onroad andnonroad Tier 2 E0 and E10profiles for VOC (TOG) tobenzene.Speciation profilesfor NONHAPTOG -tier 2 mobile profilesfor future only GSPRO N/A All sectors gspro_cmaq_cb05_tier2_toxic 0 same as 2012Yes. Contains Tier 2 profilesfor onroad and nonroad mobilenon-HAP VOC (TOG) to toxics.Speciation xref staticNOX -- HONO formobile sourcesGSREF gsref_static_nox_hono_pf4 3 Allsectors gsref_static_nox_hono_pf4 3gsref_static_nox_hono_pf44Yes. SCCs in California 2014nonroad inventory added thatwere not found in other cases.Speciation xref forVOC, not yearspecificGSREF gsref_voc_general 19 All sectors gsref_voc_general_rfs2_2022 3 same as 2012Yes. Gasoline DistributionSCCs removed in future year foralternate future year VOCspeciation -seegsref_voc_future_rfs2_nomobileSpeciation xref forVOC, year-specific GSREF gsref_voc_2005 2 All sectors gsref_voc_future_rfs2_mobile 1 same as 2012Yes. Future year onroad andnonroad mobile assigned to Tier2 E0/E10 combination profilesfor all VOC modes.Speciation xref forNONHAPVOC, notyear-specific GSREFgsref_nonhapvoc_general_update3 All sectorsgsref_nonhapvoc_general_rfs2_20224 same as 2012Yes. Same asgsref_voc_general_rfs2_2022but for non-HAP VOCemissions for future yearemissions.Speciation xref forNONHAPVOC,year-specificGSREF gsref_nonhapvoc_2005 1 All sectors N/A same as 2012Yes. Same asgsref_voc_general for 2005 basecase but for non-HAP VOCemissions.Speciation xref HG GSREF gsref_hg 5 All sectors gsref_hg 7 same as 2012No. Mercury emissions notincluded in TR.Speciation xref forNONHAPVOC,year-specific, mobilerecords GSREF N/A All sectorsgsref_nonhapvoc_future_rfs2_mobile0 same as 2012Yes. Same asgsref_voc_future_rfs2_mobilebut for non-HAP VOCemissions for future yearemissions.

### A-3InputEnvironmentVariableDataset 2005 basecaseVersion2005Base Sector Dataset 2012 base caseVersion2012cases Dataset 2014 casesVersion2014cases Impact? And commentsSpeciation xref forNONHAPVOC,year-specific,stationary records GSREF N/A All sectorsgsref_nonhapvoc_future_rfs2_nomobile0 same as 2012Yes. Same asgsref_voc_future_rfs2_nomobile but for non-HAP VOCemissions for future yearemissions.Speciation xref forspeciated VOCGSREF gsref_speciated_voc 1 othptgsref_voc_future_rfs2_nomobile3 same as 2012Yes. Gasoline DistributionSCCs in future year use E0/E10combination assignments.Inventory Table -HAPCAP integrationbut no toxicsINVTABLEinvtable_hapcapintegate_cb05soa_nomp4 All sectorsinvtable_hapcapintegate_cb05soa_nomp4invtable_hapcapintegate_cb05soa_nomp7No impact. VOC mode speciessaved for reporting purposes in2012 and 2014.onroad surrogate xrefdefaultMGREF amgref_us_can_mex_revised 7 All sectors amgref_us_can_allmex3 10 same as 2012No impact. Updated Canadiansurrogates in the 2005 dataset,but these emissions were notrerun for 2012 and 2014.

### 1 B-1 APPENDIX B

Inventory Data Files Used for Each TR Mode ling Case - SMOKE Input Inventory Datasets

In any of the following dataset names where the placeholder <mon> has been provided, this is intended to mean 12 separate files with the <mon> placeholder replaced with either jan, feb, mar, apr, may, jun, jul, aug, sep, oct, nov, or dec, each associated with a particular month of the year.

Several inventories are the same in the 2005 base case and all future year cases. These inventories are listed

in the “All Cases” in Table B-1. In addition, only the EGU sector (pti pm) emissions are different between

the 2014 base case and 2014 control case.

### B-2Table B-1.List of inventory data associated with TR modeling cases.Case Sector SMOKE Input FilesAnnual: ptinv_ptipm_hap2005v2_allHAPs_revised12mar2009_12mar2009_v0_orl.txtAnnual: ptinv_ptipm_cap2005v2_revised12mar2009_12mar2009_v0_orl.txtDaily: ptday_ptipm_caphap_cem_2005ck_<mon>_ida.txtptipmDaily: ptday_ptipm_caphap_noncem_2005ck_<mon>_ida.txtptinv_ptnonipm_xportfrac_cap2005v2_20nov2008_revised_20jan2009_v0_orl.txtptnonipmptinv_ptnonipm_hap2005v2_revised_24feb2009_v0_orl.txtafdustarinv_afdust_2002ad_xportfrac_26sep2007_v0_orl.txtagarinv_ag_cap2002nei_06nov2006_v0_orl.txtarinv_lm_no_c3_cap2002v3_20feb2009_v0_orl.txtalm_no_c3arinv_lm_no_c3_hap2002v4_20feb2009_v0_orl.txtarinv_nonpt_pf4_cap_nopfc_04feb2009_v1_orl.txtarinv_pfc_2002_caphap_27dec2007_v0_orl.txtarinv_nonpt_pf4_hap_nopfc_20feb2009_v1_orl.txtnonptarinv_nonpt_cap_2005_WRAP_OilGas_04feb2009_v0_orl.txtarinv_nonroad_calif_caphap_2005v2_<mon>_02apr2008_v0_orl.txtarinv_nonroad_caps_2005v2_<mon>_revised_08sep2008_v0_orl.txtnonroadarinv_nonroad_haps_2005v2_<mon>_revised_05sep2008_v0_orl.txtmbinv_on_noadj_moves_<mon>_14NOV08_14nov2008_v0_orl.txtmbinv_onroad_calif_caphap_2005v2_<mon>_02apr2008_v0_orl.txton_noadjmbinv_onroad_capshaps_2005v2_nmim_not2moves_<mon>_08sep2008_v0_orl.txton_moves_runpmmbinv_onroad_moves_runpm_<mon>_20oct2008_v0_orl.txton_moves_startpmmbinv_onroad_moves_startpm_<mon>_20oct2008_v0_orl.txtptinv_seca_c3_caps2005pf4_31jul2008_v0_orl.txtptinv_seca_c3_haps_NonUS_central2005pf4_09sep2008_v0_orl.txtptinv_seca_c3_haps_NonUS_east2005pf4_09sep2008_v0_orl.txtptinv_seca_c3_haps_NonUS_west2005pf4_09sep2008_v0_orl.txtptinv_seca_c3_haps_central2005pf4_31jul2008_v0_orl.txtptinv_seca_c3_haps_east2005pf4_31jul2008_v0_orl.txt2005 Base(2005ck_05b)seca_c3ptinv_seca_c3_haps_west2005pf4_31jul2008_v0_orl.txtarinv_avefire_2002ce_21dec2007_v0_ida.txtavefirearinv_avefire_2002_hap_18nov2008_v0_orl.txtarinv_canada_afdust_xportfrac_cap_2006_03feb2009_v0_orl.txtarinv_canada_ag_cap_2006_03feb2009_v0_orl.txtarinv_canada_aircraft_cap_2006_04feb2009_v0_orl.txtAll Casesothararinv_canada_marine_cap_2006_03feb2009_v0_orl.txt

### B-3Case Sector SMOKE Input Filesarinv_canada_oarea_cap_2006_02mar2009_v3_orl.txtarinv_canada_offroad_cap_2006_04feb2009_v0_orl.txtarinv_canada_rail_cap_2006_03feb2009_v0_orl.txtarinv_nonpt_mexico_border1999_21dec2006_v0_ida.txtarinv_nonpt_mexico_interior1999_21dec2006_v0_ida.txtarinv_nonroad_mexico_border1999_21dec2006_v0_ida.txtarinv_nonroad_mexico_interior1999_21dec2006_v0_ida.txtothar_hgarinv_area_canada_hg_2000_noduplicates_23jul2008_v0_ida.txtmbinv_canada_onroad_cap_2006_04feb2009_v0_orl.txtmbinv_onroad_mexico_border1999_21dec2006_v0_ida.txtothonmbinv_onroad_mexico_interior1999_21dec2006_v0_ida.txtptinv_canada_point_2006_orl_09mar2009_v2_orl.txtptinv_canada_point_cb5_2006_orl_10mar2009_v0_orl.txtptinv_canada_point_uog_2006_orl_02mar2009_v0_orl.txtptinv_mexico_border99_03mar2008_v1_ida.txtptinv_mexico_interior99_05feb2007_v0_ida.txtothptptinv_ptnonipm_offshore_oil_cap2005v2_20nov2008_20nov2008_v0_orl.txtothpt_hgptinv_point_canada_hg_2000_08sep2008_v1_ida.txtptinv_ptipm_2012ck_05b_summer_23apr2009_v0_orl.txtptinv_ptipm_2012ck_05b_winter_23apr2009_v0_orl.txtptday_ptipm_caphap_cem_2012ck_<mon>_ida.txtptipmptday_ptipm_caphap_noncem_2012ck_<mon>_ida.txtptnonipmptinv_ptnonipm_2012ck_05b_BASE_17Apr2009_orl_17apr2009_v0_orl.txtafdustarinv_afdust_2012ck_05b_BASE_09apr2009_v0_orl.txtagarinv_ag_2012ck_05b_BASE_09apr2009_v0_orl.txtalm_no_c3arinv_alm_no_c3_2012ck_05b_BASE_13apr2009_v0_orl.txtnonptarinv_nonpt_2012ck_05b_BASE_09apr2009_v0_orl.txtarinv_nonroad_calif_caphap_2012_<mon>_07apr2009_v0_orl.txtnonroadarinv_nonroad_caphap_2012_<mon>_27mar2009_v0_orl.txtmbinv_onroad_calif_caphap_2012_<mon>_07apr2009_v0_orl.txtmbinv_onroad_caphap_not2moves_2012_<mon>_13apr2009_v0_orl.txton_noadjmbinv_onroad_moves_noadj_2012_<mon>_13apr2009_v0_orl.txton_moves_runpmmbinv_onroad_moves_runpm_2012_aug_07apr2009_v0_orl.txton_moves_startpmmbinv_onroad_moves_startpm_2012_aug_07apr2009_v0_orl.txtptinv_eca_c3_caps2012pf4_16mar2009_v0_orl.txt2012 Base(2012ck_05b)seca_c3ptinv_eca_c3_haps_NonUS_central2012pf4_16mar2009_v0_orl.txt

### B-4Case Sector SMOKE Input Filesptinv_eca_c3_haps_NonUS_east2012pf4_16mar2009_v0_orl.txtptinv_eca_c3_haps_NonUS_west2012pf4_16mar2009_v0_orl.txtptinv_eca_c3_haps_central2012pf4_16mar2009_v0_orl.txtptinv_eca_c3_haps_east2012pf4_16mar2009_v0_orl.txtptinv_eca_c3_haps_west2012pf4_16mar2009_v0_orl.txtptinv_ptnonipm_hap2015ck1_CoST_27nov2009_v0_orl.txtptnonipmptinv_ptnonipm_xportfrac_cap2015ck1_CoST_27nov2009_v0_orl.txtafdustarinv_afdust_xportfrac_2015ck_27nov2009_v0_orl.txtagarinv_ag_cap2015ck_27nov2009_v0_orl.txtarinv_lm_no_c3_cap2015ck_27nov2009_v0_orl.txtalm_no_c3arinv_lm_no_c3_hap2015ck_27nov2009_v0_orl.txtarinv_nonpt_cap_2005_WRAP_OilGas_04feb2009_v0_orl.txtarinv_nonpt_pf4_cap_nopfc_2015ck1_27nov2009_v0_orl.txtarinv_nonpt_pf4_hap_nopfc_2015ck1_fixed_no_wrap_oilgas_07dec2009_v0_orl.txtnonptarinv_pfc_caphap2015_02apr2008_v0_orl.txtarinv_nonroad_calif_cap2014_<mon>_29jun2007_v0_orl.txtarinv_nonroad_calif_hap_2014_<mon>_15dec2009_v0_orl.txtnonroadarinv_nonroad_caphap_2014ck_<mon>_07jan2010_v0_orl.txtmbinv_onroad_calif_cap2014_<mon>_10aug2007_v0_orl.txtmbinv_onroad_calif_hap_2014_<mon>_13jan2010_v0_orl.txtmbinv_on_noadj_caps_hg_baf2014ck_<mon>_07JAN2010_07jan2010_v0_orl.txton_noadjmbinv_on_noadj_MOVES_2014ck2_<mon>_11feb2010_v0_orl.txton_moves_runpmmbinv_on_moves_runpm_2014ck2_<mon>_11feb2010_v0_orl.txton_moves_startpmmbinv_on_moves_startpm_2014ck2_<mon>_11feb2010_v0_orl.txtptinv_eca_c3_BAF_HAPs2014pf31_08jan2010_v0_orl.txt2014 Base + Control(2014ck_05b +2014ck2_catr1_05b)seca_c3ptinv_eca_c3_CAPs2014pf31_08jan2010_v0_orl.txtptinv_PTINV_EPA302_EISA_3e_summer_2015_18MAY2009_12jan2010_v0_orl.txtptinv_PTINV_EPA302_EISA_3e_winter_2015_18MAY2009_12jan2010_v0_orl.txtptday_ptipm_caphap_cem_2014ck_<mon>_ida.txt2014 Base(2014ck2_05b)ptipmptday_ptipm_caphap_noncem_2014ck_<mon>_ida.txtptinv_PTINV_EPA302_EISA_98_summer_2015_25JAN2010_25jan2010_v0_orl.txtptinv_PTINV_EPA302_EISA_98_winter_2015_25JAN2010_25jan2010_v0_orl.txtptday_ptipm_caphap_cem_2014ck_catr1_<mon>_ida.txt2014Control(2014ck2_catr1_05b)ptipmptday_ptipm_caphap_noncem_2014ck_catr1_<mon>_ida.txt

### C-1 APPENDIX C – OECA Consent Decrees

Table C-1. Description of applicat ion of OECA Consent Decrees for future-year projections

Corporation Pollutant Compliance Date Description of reductions 2005

Emissions (tons/year)

NO X 31DEC2005 Combined NO X emissions reduced by 278 tons per year. Combined is over select Bunge

facilities. 942

PM 31DEC2005 Combined PM emissions reduced by 258 tons per year. Combined is over select Bunge facilities. 1,266

SO 2 31DEC2005 Combined SO 2 emissions reduced by 574 tons per year. Combined is over select Bunge

facilities. 2,926 Bunge

VOC 31DEC2005 Combined VOC emissions reduced by 1,122 tons per year. Combined is over select Bunge

facilities. 2,761

CO 01SEP2010 Combined CO emissions reduced by 10,900 tons per year. Combined over select Cargill facilities. 11,167

NO X 01SEP2007 Combined NO X emissions reduced by 1,350 tons per year. Combined over select Cargill facilities. 4,451

SO 2 01SEP2008 Combined SO 2 emission reduced by 2,250 tons per year. Combined over select Cargill facilities. 10,527 Cargill

VOC 01SEP2008 Combined VOC emissions reduced by 98% or 10,450 tons per year. Combined over select Cargill facilities. 6,617

NO X 31DEC2008 Combined NO X emissions reduced by 10,000 tons per year. Combined over select Conoco Phillips facilities. 17,409

Conoco Phillips

SO 2 31DEC2008 Combined SO 2 emissions reduced by 37,100 tons per year. Combined over select Conoco Phillips

facilities 31,003

01MAR2010 Annual SO 2 emissions cap at 123 tons per year at

James River 0

Annual SO 2 emissions cap at 248 tons per year at

Wurtland 2,268

01MAR2012 Annual SO 2 emissions cap at 281 tons per year at

Fort Hill 2,228 Dupont SO 2

01SEP2009 Annual SO 2 emissions cap at 1,007 tons per year

at Burnside. 9,517

NO X 31DEC2010 Must meet heat input capacity of 150 mmBTU/hr or greater such that weighted average is no greater than 0.044 lbs/mmBTU, applied at Lumberton, Sandersville, and Tuscaloosa. 350

Hunt

SO 2 31DEC2007 No burning of fuel greater than 5 wt% sulfur.

SO 2 emissions will not exceed 20ppm or that weighted average H 2 S concentrations will not exceed 162 ppm H 2 S, applied at Lumberton, Sandersville, and Tuscaloosa. 939

CO 2009 CO reductions by 90% 31 MGP Ingredients VOC 2009 VOC reductions by 95% 112

### C-2 Corporation Pollutant Compliance Date Description of reductions 2005

Emissions (tons/year)

Annual emission limit of 2.2 lbs/ton. 240

Annual emission limit of 2.5 lbs/ton 396 01JUL2007
Must meet SCAQMDR limit (1.7lbs/ton or less) 392

01JUL2009 Annual emission limit of 2.2 lbs/ton. 282

01MAY2012 Baton Rouge #1 -> limit of 1.9 lbs/ton. Baton Rouge #2 -> limit of 2.2 lbs/ton 7,920 Rhodia Inc SO 2

2008 Houston #8 -> limit of 2.5 lbs/ton within 1 year of Date of Entry. Houston #2 -> limit of 1.8 /lbs/ton within 1 year of Date of Entry 9,686

St. Mary's Cement NO X 30APR2009 Reduce combined NO X emissions by 2,700 tons

per year. 1,700

2006 (Marcus Hook, PA) Combined NO X emissions reduced by 4,500 tons per year. Combined over select Sunoco facilities. 746

31DEC2009 (Toledo, OH) Combined NO X emissions reduced by 4,500 tons per year. Combined over select Sunoco facilities. 2,339 NO X

31DEC2010 (Philadelphia, PA) Combined NO X emissions reduced by 4,500 tons per year. Combined over select Sunoco facilities. 3,390

2006 (Marcus Hook, PA) Combined PM emissions reduced by 300 tons per year. Combined over select Sunoco facilities. 34

31DEC2009 (Toledo, OH) Combined PM emissions reduced by 300 tons per year. Combined over select Sunoco facilities. 391 PM

31DEC2010 (Philadelphia , PA) Combined PM emissions reduced by 300 tons per year. Combined over select Sunoco facilities. 591

2006 (Marcus Hook, PA) Combined SO 2 emissions reduced by 19,500 tons per year. Combined over select Sunoco facilities. 3,536

31DEC2009 (Toledo, OH) Combined SO 2 emissions reduced by 19,500 tons per year. Combined over select Sunoco facilities. 9,072 Sunoco

SO 2

31DEC2010 (Philadelphia , PA) Combined SO 2 emissions reduced by 19,500 tons per year. Combined over select Sunoco facilities. 3,353

CO 2007 Annual CO emissions cap at 120 tons per year. 386

NO X 31DEC2009 Annual NO X emissions cap at 180 tons per year. 798 Total

Petrochemicals

USA SO 2 2010 Annual SO 2 emissions cap at 800 tons per year. 146

### C-3 Corporation Pollutant Compliance Date Description of reductions 2005

Emissions (tons/year)

2011 Combined NO X emissions reduced by 1870 tons per year. Combined is over facilities: Lima, Memphis, and Port Arthur. 4,165

NO X

31DEC2011 Combined NO X emissions reduced by 4,000 tons per year. Combined over Valero facilities in Ardmore OK, Benicia CA, Martinez CA, Wilmington CA, Denver CO, St. Charles LA, Krotz Spring LA, Paulsboro NJ, Corpus Christi TX (east and west), Houston TX, Sunray TX, Texas City TX, and Three Rivers TX. 13,742

PM 31DEC2011 Combined PM emissions reduced by 526 tons per year. Combined over Valero facilities listed in

other two lists for NOx and SO2. 3,027

2011 Combined SO 2 emissions reduced by 1,810 tons per year. Combined is over facilities: Lima, Memphis, and Port Arthur. 4,105 Valero

SO 2

31DEC2011 Combined SO 2 emissions reduced by 16,000 tons per year. Combined over Valero facilities in Ardmore OK, Benicia CA, Martinez CA, Wilmington CA, Denver CO, St. Charles LA, Krotz Spring LA, Paulsboro NJ, Corpus Christi TX (east and west), Houston TX, Sunray TX, Texas City TX, and Three Rivers TX. 19,618