# 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 Inventorie s .................................................. .......7

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

................................................... ...................................... 7

2.2 Custom processing configuration for TR Emissions Mo deling ............................................. ......... 9



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

3.1 Stationary Source Projections: IPM sector (ptipm) .

................................................... ................. 15

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

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

................................................... ......................................16

3.2.2 Residential wood combustion growth (nonpt).........

................................................... ........................................17

3.2.3 Gasoline Stage II growth and control (nonpt, ptnoni pm) ................................................ ...................................18

3.2.4 Portable fuel container growth and control (nonpt) .

................................................... ........................................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 states (nonpt) ................................ ........................23

3.2.8 Future Year VOC Speciation for gasoline-related sou rces (ptnonipm, nonpt) ............................. ......................23



# 3.3 Mobile source projections ..........................

................................................... ................................... 24

3.3.1 Onroad mobile (on_noadj, on_moves_runpm, on_moves_s tartpm)............................................ .......................24

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

................................................... ................................................... 27

3.3.3 Locomotives and Class 1 & 2 commercial marine vesse ls (alm_no_c3)..................................... .......................28

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

................................................... .........................................30

3.3.5 Future Year VOC Speciation (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 aspects 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 Changes 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 adjustment f unctions 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 support of the TR air quality modeling............................... ...........6

Table 2-1. Sectors Used in the TR Emissions Modeli ng Platform........................................ .........8

Table 3-1. Control strategies and growth assumptio ns 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......................1 7

Table 3-3. Projection Factors for growing year 200 5 Residential Wood Combustion Sources

to future years....................................

................................................... ......................18

Table 3-4. Factors used to project base case 2005 aircraft emissions to future years ................. .20

Table 3-5. States with post-2012 controls.........

................................................... .........................21

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

on the 2012 Base Case..............................

................................................... ...............22

Table 3-7. Pollutants covered by the draft MOVES m odel in the 2005 Platform ........................26

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

Class 2 Commercial Marine Vessel Emissions......... .................................................28

Table 3-9. Factors applied to year 2005 emissions to grow Class 3 Commercial Marine

Vessel emissions...................................

................................................... ...................30

Table 3-10. List of known local measures needing de tails for applying to the ptnonipm sector ..33

Table 3-11. List of known local measures needing de tails, including which sectors to apply......34

Table 3-12. List of known local measures needing de tails for applying to the nonpt sector.........35

Table 6-1. State-level Total NO X 

# Emissions (not including fires) for each TR Modeli ng Case

in 48 States and Washington, D.C...................

................................................... ........40

Table 6-2. State-level Total SO 2 

# Emissions(not including fires) for each TR Modelin g Case in

48 States and Washington, D.C......................

................................................... .........42

Table 6-3. State-level Electric Generating Unit Se ctor NO X 

# Emissions for each TR Modeling

Case in 48 States and Washington, D.C..............

................................................... ....44

# v

Table 6-4. State-level Electric Generating Unit Se ctor 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 Electric Generating Unit Sector Summer NO X 

# Emissions for

each TR Modeling Case ..............................

................................................... ............51

Table 7-1. Eastern Modeling Domain State Total Emi ssions for 2005, 2014, and 2020 Base

Cases..............................................

................................................... ..........................54

Table 7-2. Eastern Modeling Domain State-Sector Em issions for 2005, 2014, and 2020 Base

Cases..............................................

................................................... ..........................55



# List of Appendices

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

Files

APPENDIX B: Inventory Data Files Used for Each TR Modeling Ca se – SMOKE Input

Inventory Datasets

APPENDIX C: OECA Consent Decrees

# 6 

# 1 Introduction

This document provides the details of emissions dat a processing done in support of the Environmental

Protection Agency’s (EPA) rulemaking effort for the Federal Transport Rule proposal (hereafter referre d to

as TR). The TR air quality modeling results were e valuated with respect to the 1997 annual and 2006 2 4-

hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5 

# ),

as well as the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The emissi ons and modeling effort for TR consists of four

‘complete’ emissions cases: 2005 base case, 2012 ba se case, 2014 base case, and 2014 Control case. Ta ble

1-1 provides more information on these emissions ca ses. The 2012 base case modeling was used to ident ify

future nonattainment and maintenance locations. No t listed in Table 1-1 are source apportionment runs that

were based on the 2012 base case to quantify the co ntributions of emissions in upwind states to annual

average 24-hour PM 2.5 

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

base and control cases were then used to quantify t he 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 avera ge-year fires data and an average-year

temporal allocation approach for Electrical Generat ing Units

(EGUs), to use for computing relative response fact ors with 2012

and 2014 scenarios

2012 base case 2012ck 2012 “baseline” scenario, rep resenting the best estimate for the

future year without implementation of EGU remedy co ntrols.

2014 base case 2014ck2 2014 “baseline” scenario, re presenting the best estimate for the

future year without implementation of EGU remedy co ntrols.

2014 Control case 2014ck2_catr1 2014 EGU “control” scenario for attaining 1997 ozone and annual

PM standards, and 2006 daily PM standard.

The data used in the 2005 emissions cases are the s ame as those described in the 2005-based, v4 platfo rm

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 extens ions

(CAM X 

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

# is used to estimate base year, future base case an d post-control

concentrations of ozone and PM, along with depositi on of nitrogen and sulfur, which are combined with

monitoring data to estimate population-level exposu res to changes in ambient concentrations for use in

estimating health and welfare effects.

In TR, we used a 2005 base case approach for the ye ar 2005 emissions scenario. The base case approach

uses an average-year fire emissions inventory and a verage-year EGU temporal profiles, which were based on

3 years of hourly Continuous Emissions Monitoring ( CEM) data for EGUs. We use a base case approach

because we want to reduce year-specific variability in fires and EGUs between 2005 and the future year s.

For example, each year has different days and diffe rent locations with large fires, unplanned EGU

shutdowns, and periods of high electricity demand. By using a base-case approach, the temporal and sp atial

aspects of the inventory for these sources are main tained into the future year modeling, which avoids

potentially spurious year-specific artifacts in air quality modeling estimates. In addition, the v4 p latform (see

reference above) biogenic emissions data was held c onstant between the 2005 case for TR and all future -year

cases run for TR. For TR, the only significant dat a changes between the 2005 and future-year cases ar e

emission inventories (from all categories but avera ge fires and biogenics) and speciation approaches.

# 7 The future-year inventories, ancillary files, and d etailed projection data used for this modeling are available

as part of the rulemaking Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-04 91. Since the data are large, the data files

themselves are not posted with online access throug h the docket, and so a more convenient access locat ion is

the EPA Emissions Modeling Clearinghouse website fo r its 2005 platform

( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/index.html#2005 ). The TR data files are provided as a subheading

under this main link.

In the remainder of this document, we provide a des cription of the approaches taken for the emissions in

support of air quality modeling for TR. In Section 2, we briefly review the 2005 base case inventory,

including ancillary data and issues related to CAM X 

# support. In Section 3 we describe the development of

the future year 2012 and 2014 base cases. We descr ibe the 2012 Source Tagging scenarios in Section 4. In

Section 5, we describe the 2014 EGU control (remedy ) case as compared to the 2014 base case. In Secti on 6

we provide data summaries comparing all four modeli ng cases and request for comments on specific issue s.

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 progra ms that exist but have not been included in the emi ssions

projections. We also seek comment on all significa nt source category emissions; for example, we are a ware

that our upstream oil and gas inventory can be furt her improved, but do not have data available to do so. The

US EPA requests that all such comments be of a quan titative nature with supporting documentation on th e

source of the information provided. Comments with specific information or new data will supercede mor e

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 Inventorie s

As mentioned previously, the 2005 emissions modelin g 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 20 05 base

case and future year cases as well as the TR-specif ic issues related to processing emissions for CAM X



# .



# 2.1 Base case 2005 overview

Table 2-1 lists the platform sectors used for the 2005 base c ase and all future year cases. It also indicates t he

platform sectors that include HAP emissions and the associated sectors from the National Emission

Inventory (NEI). Subsequent sections refer to thes e platform sectors for identifying the emissions

differences between the 2005 base case (v4 platform ) and the TR future-year cases. The inputs to the air

quality model; including emissions, meteorology, in itial conditions, boundary conditions; along with t he

methods used to produce the inputs and the configur ation of the air quality model are collectively kno wn as a

‘modeling platform’.

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

Platform Sector 2005 NEI

Sector Description and resolution of the data input to SMO KE

IPM sector: ptipm Point 2005v2 NEI point source EGUs mapped to the In tegrated Planning

Model (IPM) model using the National Electric Energ y Database

System (NEEDS, 2006 version 3.02) database. Hourly files for

continuous emission monitoring (CEM) sources are in cluded only

for the 2005 evaluation case. Day-specific emissio ns for non-CEM

sources created for input into SMOKE.

Non-IPM sector:

ptnonipm Point All 2005v2 NEI point source records not match ed to the ptipm

sector, annual resolution. Includes all aircraft e missions.

Average-fire

sector: avefire N/A Average-year wildfire and prescribed fire emiss ions derived from

the 2002 Platform avefire sector, county and annual resolution.

Used for the 2005 base year and the future base mod el runs, but not

for the model evaluation case.

Agricultural

sector: ag Nonpoint NH 3 

# emissions from NEI nonpoint livestock and fertiliz er

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 construction, road constr uction, paved

roads, unpaved roads, agricultural dust), county/an nual resolution.

Remaining

nonpoint sector:

nonpt Nonpoint Primarily 2002 NEI nonpoint sources not ot herwise included in

other SMOKE sectors, county and annual resolution. Also includes

updated Residential Wood Combustion emissions and y ear 2005

non-California Western Regional Air Partnership (WR AP) oil and

gas “Phase II” inventory.

Nonroad sector:

nonroad Mobile:

Nonroad Monthly nonroad emissions from the National Mobile Inventory

Model (NMIM) using NONROAD2005 version nr05c-BondBa se

for all states except California. Monthly emission s for California

created from annual emissions submitted by the Cali fornia 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 cat egory 1 and

category 2 commercial marine vessel (CMV) emissions sources,

county and annual resolution. Unlike prior platfor ms, aircraft

emissions are now included in the ptnonipm sector a nd category 3

CMV emissions are now contained in the seca_c3 sect or

C3 commercial

marine: seca_c3 Mobile :

Nonroad Annual point source formatted year 2005 category 3 (C3) CMV

emissions, developed for the EPA rule called “Contr ol of Emissions

from New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30

Liters per Cylinder”, usually described as the Emis sions 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 s ubmitted

by CARB for the 2005v2 NEI.

Onroad gasoline non-motorcycle vehicle emissions fr om draft

MOVES not subject to temperature adjustments: exha ust

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 adjustmen ts. 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 SMO KE

to temperature

adjustments:

on_moves_startpm emissions that contain different temperature adjust ment 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 adjustmen ts. Limited to

exhaust mode only for PM species and Naphthalene. California

emissions not included. This sector is limited to running mode

emissions that contain different temperature adjust ment curves from

cold start exhaust (see on_moves_startpm sector).

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

BEIS3.14 model -includes emissions in Canada and Me xico.

Other point

sources not from

the NEI: othpt N/A Point sources from Canada’s 2006 inventory and Mexico’s Phase III

1999 inventory, annual resolution. Also includes a nnual 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) a nd year 1999

Mexico Phase III (municipio resolution) nonpoint an d 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 inve ntories, annual

resolution.



# As discussed in the 2005 v4 platform documentation, we processed all emissions data with a custom vers ion

of the Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions (SMO KE) modeling system, version 2.5. Users seeking to

replicate modeling done for this effort can use ver sion 2.6 of SMOKE. More details about SMOKE

including user documentation are available at its w ebsite ( http://www.smoke-model.org ).

For the 2005 base case, all inventory and ancillary input data files used as inputs for this rule can be found at

the 2005-based platform website ( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/index.html#2005 ).



# 2.2 Custom processing configuration for Transport R ule Emissions

Modeling

In support of the TR proposal, EPA modeled the air quality in the East using a horizontal grid resolut ion of

12 x 12 km. This Eastern 12 km modeling domain cov ers 37 states from Texas to North Dakota and all

states to the east of those, and was “nested” withi n a modeling domain covering the remainder of the l ower

48 states using a grid resolution of 36 x 36 km 1 

# . Therefore, unless noted to the contrary, the tab les 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 Contine ntal US (CONUS) domain were used to provide incomin g “initial” and

“boundary” concentrations for the Eastern 12 km dom ain.

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

national 36km domain. The 12km West 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-Conformal projection, with Alpha = 33o, Beta = 45o and Gamma = -97o, wit h a

center of X = -97o and Y = 40o. Other specific par ameters for these grids are provided in the TR Air Quality

Modeling Technical Support Document.

Emissions are first processed for the Community Mul tiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model, and then postprocessed via conversion scripts into a form approp riate for use by CAM X 

# These conversion scripts are a

series of programs run using shell scripts and simp le programs to convert the merged 2-dimensional CMA Q

emissions into CAM X 

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

sector into CAM X 

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



# 3 Development of 2012 and 2014 Future Year Base Cas e Emission

Inventories

This section describes the methods we used for deve loping the 2012 and 2014 future year base case

emissions. The year 2012 source apportionment scen arios and the 2014 EGU control case are discussed i n

Sections 4 and 5, respectively. The ancillary inpu t data are very similar in the future year scenario s as those

in the 2005 base case except for the speciation pro files used for gasoline-related sources, which chan ge in the

future to account for increased ethanol usage in ga soline. Appendix A provides a table of differences

# 11 between these ancillary input data between the 2005 base case and these future year scenarios. The sp ecific

speciation profile changes are discussed in Section s 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 further c ontrols beyond those Federal measures already

promulgated. For EGU emissions (ptipm sector), all rules and settlements that were finalized by Febru ary 3,

2009 have been included. For mobile sources (on_no adj, on_moves_runpm, and on_moves_startpm

sectors), all national measures for which data were available at the time of modeling have been includ ed.

The future base case scenarios do reflect projected economic changes and fuel usage for EGU and mobile

sectors. For nonEGU point (ptnonipm sector) and no npoint stationary sources (nonpt, ag, and afdust

sectors), local control programs that might have be en 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 , and the corresponding state implementation plans

(SIPs) were not due until 2007 and 2008, thereby pr eventing the inclusion of these local measures in t he

2005 emissions inventory. Whether any of these SIP s controls are included in the final rule depends o n a

couple of factors: 1) the SIPs must be approved an d made available, and 2) the control measures and

technologies are provided in such a way that they c an be applied to our inventories (e.g., control eff iciencies

or emission reductions matched to specific NEI faci lities, units, and/or source category codes (SCCs). The

following bullets summarize the projection methods used for sources in the various sectors, while addi tional

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

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

• Non-IPM sector (ptnonipm): Projection factors and percent reductions reflect emission reductions

due to control programs, plant closures, consent de crees and settlements. Also used projection

approaches for point source livestock and aircraft and gasoline stage II emissions that are consistent

with projections used for the sectors that contain the bulk of these emissions. Terminal area forecas t

(TAF) data aggregated to the national level were us ed for aircraft to account for projected changes in

landing/takeoff activity. Year-specific speciation was applied to some portions of this sector and is

discussed in Section 3.2.8.

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

• Agricultural sector (ag): Projection factors for l ivestock estimates based on expected changes in

animal population from 2005 Department of Agricultu re data; no growth or control for NH 3 

# emissions from fertilizer application.

• Area fugitive dust sector (afdust): Projection fac tors for dust categories related to livestock estim ates

based on expected changes in animal population; no growth or control for other categories in this

sector.

• Remaining Nonpoint sector (nonpt): Projection fact ors 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 projectio n factors reflecting impact of the final Mobile

Source Air Toxics (MSAT2) rule. Gasoline stage II projection factors based on National Mobile

Inventory Model (NMIM)-estimated VOC refueling esti mates for future years. Year-specific

speciation was applied to some portions of this sec tor and is discussed in Section 3.2.8.

• Nonroad mobile sector (nonroad): Output from the N ONROAD2005 model, which was run using

NMIM, includes final controls from the final loco-m arine and small spark ignition OTAQ rules.

California-specific data provided by the state of C alifornia. Year-specific speciation was applied to

some portions of this sector and is discussed in Se ction 3.3.5.

# 12

• Aircraft, locomotive, and non-Class 3 commercial ma rine sector (alm_no_c3): Projection factors for

Class 1 and Class 2 commercial marine and locomotiv es 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 Internation al Marine Organization (IMO) global NO X 

# and

SO 2 

# controls.

• Onroad no-adjustment for temperature mobile sector (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 naphthalene which are in th e on_moves_startpm and on_moves_runpm

sectors. California-specific data provided by the state of California. VOC speciation uses same

combination of profiles as are used for exhaust and evaporative nonroad mobile profiles.

• Onroad PM gasoline running mode sector (on_moves_st artpm): Running mode draft MOVES future

year state-month estimates for PM and naphthalene, apportioned to the county level using NMIM

state-county ratios matched to vehicle and road typ es.

• Onroad PM gasoline start mode sector (on_moves_star tpm): Cold start draft MOVES future year

state-month estimates for PM and naphthalene, appor tioned to the county level using NMIM statecounty ratios of local urban and rural roads by veh icle type.

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

• Other nonpoint speciated mercury (othar_hg): No gr owth or control.

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

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

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

• Other point speciated mercury (othpt_hg): No growt h or control.

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

Table 3-1 summarizes the control strategies and gro wth assumptions by source type used to create the 2 012

and 2014 base case emissions from the 2005 base cas e inventories. Note that mercury (Hg) is listed in the

pollutants column; however, we did not include Hg i n our future year modeling. All Mexico, Canada, an d

offshore oil emissions are unchanged in all future case scenarios from those in the 2005 base case. E mission

summaries by sector for 2005 and future years are p rovided in Section 6. Note that a few controls are not

fully promulgated by 2012 but are by 2014. For exa mple the Maximum Achievable Control Technology

(MACT) rule “Boat Manufacturing” has a compliance d ate in year 2013; therefore the VOC control

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

control cases.

The detailed projection factors used for these futu re year emissions have hundreds of thousands of rec ords

and are not therefore listed in this document or in a spreadsheet. Rather, the detailed projection da ta can be

obtained from docket for this rule and from the Emissions Modeling Clearinghouse websi te listed in Section

1.

The remainder of this section is organized either b y source sector or by specific emissions category w ithin a

source sector for which a distinct set 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 acros s the sectors are consistent, and do not need to be

repeated. Sector names associated with the emissio ns categories are provided in parentheses. A list of

inventory datasets used for this and all cases is p rovided in Appendix B.

# 13

Table 3-1. Control strategies and growth assumptions for creating 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 App roach 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 (formerly 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 reflecte d 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: national applied by SCC, MACT

Boat Manufacturing (promulgated in year 2013, thus not reflected in t he 2012

base case)

Wood Building Products Surface Coating

Generic MACT II: Spandex Production, Ethylene manuf acture

Large Appliances

Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP (MON): Alkyd Resins, C helating Agents,

Explosives, Phthalate Plasticizers, Polyester Resin s, 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 Regul ations NOx, PM, SO 2 

# EPA, 2005

# 14

Control Strategies and/or growth assumptions

(Grouped by Affected Pollutants or Standard and App roach 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 a pplied VOC EPA, 2007a

Livestock Emissions Growth from year 2002 to years 2012 and year 2015 NH 3 

# 9

Residential Wood Combustion Growth and Changeouts f rom 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 Controls (list inc ludes all key mobile

control strategies but is not exhaustive)

National Onroad Rules:

Tier 2 Rule

2007 Onroad Heavy-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 Ignit ion Engines and

Recreational Engines (Marine and Land Based): “Pent athalon Rule”

Clean Bus USA Program

Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Locomoti ves and Marine

Compression-Ignition Engines Less than 30 Liters pe r Cylinder all 15, 16, 17

Aircraft, Locomotives, and Commercial Marine Assump tions

Aircraft:

Itinerant (ITN) operations at airports to year 2020 all 18

Locomotives:

Energy Information Administration (EIA) fuel consum ption 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 Locomoti ves 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 En gines, 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.go v/compliance/cases/index.cfm; for MOTIVA: used

information sent by State of Delaware

2. Used data provided by EPA, OAQPS, Sector Policies a nd 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 f rom 2001-based platform; required mapping the 2001 plants

to 2002 NEI plants due to plant id changes across i nventory years. See Section 3.2.6.

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

6. Percent reductions recommended and plants to apply to reduction to were based on recommendations by ru le

lead engineer, and are consistent with the referenc e: EPA, 2007a

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

reductions as shown in the Federal Register Notice for the rule. SO 2 

# % reduction will therefore be

6147/30,783 = 20% and PM10 and PM2.5 reductions wil l both be 3786/13588 = 28%

8. Same approach as used in the 2006 Clean Air Interst ate Rule (CAIR) -estimates reductions of "PM emissi ons

by 10,538 tpy, a reduction of about 62%." Used sam e list of plants as were identified based on tonnag e and

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

9. Except for dairy cows and turkeys (no growth), base d on animal population growth estimates from USDA a nd

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 activ ity growth from VMT, Stage II control programs at

gasoline stations, and phase in of newer vehicles w ith onboard Stage II vehicle controls.

12. VOC and benzene emissions for year 2020 from year 2 002 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.faa.gov/main/taf.asp

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



# 3.1 Stationary Source Projections: IPM sector (pti pm)

The future year data for the ptipm sector were crea ted by the IPM model version3.02 EISA. The EPA Cle an

Air Markets Division (CAMD) manages the development of this model and maintains a website that

documents the latest IPM version used in the TR pro posal “Updates to EPA Base Case v3.02 EISA Using th e

Integrated Planning Model”:

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/ind ex.html

.

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

sector. IPM Version 3.02 EISA features an updated T itle IV SO 2 

# allowance bank assumption, reflects state

rules and consent decrees through February 3, 2009, and incorporates updates related to the Energy

Independence and Security Act of 2007. Units with advanced controls (e.g., scrubber, SCR) that were n ot

required to run for compliance with Title IV, New S ource Review (NSR), state settlements, or state-spe cific

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

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 emissions that incl ude temporal allocation information from three year s of

Continuous Emissions Monitoring (CEM) data. The te mporal 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: non-IPM sectors (ptnonipm, nonpt, ag,

afdust)

To project U.S. stationary sources other than ptipm , we applied growth factors and/or controls to cert ain

categories within the ptnonipm, nonpt, ag and afdus t platform sectors. This subsection provides detai ls on

the data and projection methods used for these sect ors. In estimating future-year emissions, we assum ed that

emissions growth does not track with economic growt h for many stationary non-IPM sources. This “nogrowth” assumption is based on an examination of hi storical emissions and economic data. While we are

working toward improving the projection approach in future emissions platforms, we are still using the nogrowth assumption for the 2005, v4 platform. More details on the rationale for this approach can be f ound in

Appendix D of the Regulatory Impact Assessment for the PM NAAQS rule (EPA, 2006).

Year-specific projection factors for year 2012 were used for creating the 2012 base case; however, yea r 2015

projection factors were used to create the 2014 bas e case unless noted otherwise. A 2015 base case wa s

initially developed and it was decided rather late in the TR modeling process to instead use a year 20 14 base

case. Most projections are not year-specific, and most of the year-specific projections do not differ

significantly between year 2014 and year 2015. We intend to use 2014-specific emissions for all secto rs in

the final Transport Rule modeling.

Growth factors (and control factors) are provided i n the following sections where feasible. However, some

sectors used growth or control factors that varied geographically and their contents could not be prov ided in

the following sections (e.g., gasoline distribution varies by county and pollutant and has thousands o f

records). If the growth or control factors for a s ector are not provided in a table in this document, they are

available as a “projection” or “control” packet for input to SMOKE on:

ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2005v4/projection_c ontrol_packets



# 3.2.1 Livestock emissions growth (ag, afdust, ptnon ipm)

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. Table 3-2 provides the grow th

factors from the base case 2005 emissions to future years 2012 and 2014 for animal categories. For ex ample,

year 2015 (2014) beef emissions are 1.8% larger tha n the 2005 base case emissions. Except for dairy c ows

and turkey production, the animal projection factor s are derived from national-level animal population

projections from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Agriculture Policy and

Research Institute (FAPRI). For dairy cows and tur keys we assumed that there would be no growth in

emissions. This assumption was based on an analysi s of historical trends in the number of such animal s

compared to production rates. Although productions rates have increased, the number of animals has

declined. Thus, we do not believe that production forecasts provide representative estimates of the f uture

number of cows and turkeys; therefore, we did not u se these forecasts for estimating future-year emiss ions

from these animals. In particular, the dairy cow p opulation 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 rel ated to animal population but also nitrogen excreti on.

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 n ot have a quantitative estimate.

The inventory for livestock emissions used 2002 emi ssions values therefore, our projection method proj ected

from 2002 rather than from 2005. For the 2012 base case, year 2009 and year 2014 projection factors w ere

interpolated to create year 2012 projection factors . For the 2014 base case, year 2015 projection fac tors were

used because of the late change from 2015 to 2014, and were developed by interpolating year 2014 and y ear

2020 projection factors. We intend to update the p rojections in the final rule using the latest avail able data

from the Department of Agriculture and for 2014 ins tead of 2015.

# 17 Appendix E in the 2002v3 documentation provides the animal population data and regression curves used to

derive the growth factors:

http://www.epa.gov/scram001/reports/Emissions%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 combustion growth (nonpt)

We projected residential wood combustion emissions based on the expected increase in the number of low

emitting wood stoves and the corresponding decrease in other types of wood stoves. As newer, cleaner

woodstoves replace older, higher-polluting wood sto ves, there will be an overall reduction of the emis sions

from these sources. The approach cited here was de veloped as part of a modeling exercise to estimate the

expected benefits of the woodstoves change-out prog ram ( 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 2104 008051: decrease 2%/yr

 New woodstoves, SCC=2104008003, 2104008004, 2104008 030, 2104008050, 2104008052 or

2104008053: increase 2%/yr

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

distribution based on 19.4% fireplaces, 71.6% old w oodstoves, 9.1% new woodstoves using 2002v3

Platform (these emissions have not been updated for the 2005v4 platform used for the TR proposal)

emissions for PM 2.5 

# . These fractions are based on the fraction of emi ssions from these processes in the states

that did not have the “general woodstoves and firep laces” SCC in the 2002 NEI. This approach results in an

overall decrease of 1.056% per year for this source category.

Table 3-3 presents the projection factors used to p roject the 2005 base case (2002 emissions) for resi dential

wood combustion. For the 2012 base case, year 2009 and year 2014 projection factors were interpolated to

create year 2012 projection factors. For example, year 2015 (2014) “Fireplaces: General”

(SCC=2104008001) emissions are 13% higher than the base case 2005 emissions. For the 2014 base case,

year 2015 projection factors were used because of t he late change from 2015 to 2014, and were develope d by

interpolating year 2014 and year 2020 projection fa ctors. We intend to use 2014 projects in the final rule.

# 18

Table 3-3. Projection Factors for growing year 2005 Resident ial Wood Combustion Sources to future years

Projection Factors

SCC SCC Description 2012 2015 (used for 2014)

2104008000 Total: Woodstoves and 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 certif ied 0.8000 0.7400

2104008003 Fireplaces: Insert; EPA certified; non-c atalytic

2104008004 Fireplaces: Insert; EPA certified; catal ytic

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 operations in the 2005 base case are contained in both nonpt and ptno nipm

sectors. The only SCC in the nonpt inventory used for gasoline Stage II emissions is 2501060100 (Stor age

and Transport; Petroleum and Petroleum Product Stor age; Gasoline Service Stations; Stage II: Total). The

following SIC and SCC codes are associated with gas oline Stage II emissions in the ptnonipm sector:

 SIC 5541 (Automotive Dealers & Service Stations, Ga soline Service Stations, Gasoline service

stations)

 SCC 40600401 (Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Tra nsportation and Marketing of Petroleum

Products;Filling Vehicle Gas Tanks - Stage II;Vapor Loss w/o Controls)

 SCC 40600402 (Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Tra nsportation and Marketing of Petroleum

Products;Filling Vehicle Gas Tanks - Stage II;Liqui d Spill Loss w/o Controls)

 SCC 40600403 (Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Tra nsportation and Marketing of Petroleum

Products;Filling Vehicle Gas Tanks - Stage II;Vapor Loss w/o Controls)

 SCC 40600499 (Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Tra nsportation and Marketing of Petroleum

Products;Filling Vehicle Gas Tanks - Stage II;Not C lassified

We used a consistent approach across nonpt and ptno nipm to projection these gasoline stage II emission s.

The approach involved computing VOC-specific projec tion factors from the NMIM results for onroad

refueling, using ratios of future–year emissions to 2005 base case emissions. The approach accounts f or

three elements of refueling growth and control: (1) activity growth (due to VMT growth as input into

NMIM), (2) emissions reductions from Stage II contr ol programs at gasoline stations, and (3) emissions

reductions resulting from the phase in over time of newer vehicles with onboard Stage II vehicle contr ols.

We assumed that all areas with Stage II controls in 2005 continue to have Stage II controls in all fut ure

calendar years.

We computed the VOC projection factors at a county- specific, annual resolution as shown below:

PF [county, future year] 

# = VOC_RFL [county, future year] 

# /VOC_RFL [county, 2005]



# where VOC_RFL is the VOC refueling emissions for on road sources from NMIM.

We applied these projection factors to both nonpt a nd ptnonipm sector gasoline stage II sources.

# 19 Chemical speciation requires certain VOC HAPs for i ntegrated sources, specifically, benzene, acetaldeh yde,

formaldehyde, and methanol. Therefore, for integra ted sources such as this category, the VOC HAPs are

also projected based on ratios of future year and b ase year VOC. However, only benzene (and naphthale ne,

a VOC HAP that does not impact speciation) refuelin g emissions were supplied, and so only VOC and

benzene emissions were projected. For benzene and naphthalene projection factors, simply replace “VOC ”

in the above equation.

For the 2012 base case, year 2012 NMIM refueling em issions were used to create county-level by-polluta nt

ratios to year 2005 NMIM refueling emissions. For the 2014 base case, year 2015 projection factors we re

used because of the late change from 2015 to 2014, developed from ratios of 2015 to 2005 NMIM refuelin g

emissions.



# 3.2.4 Portable fuel container growth and control (n onpt)

We obtained future-year VOC emissions from Portable Fuel Containers (PFCs) from inventories developed

and modeled for EPA’s MSAT rule (EPA, 2007b). Addi tional information on the PFC inventories can be

found in Section 2.2.3, above. The future-year emi ssions reflect projected increases in fuel consumpt ion,

state programs to reduce PFC emissions, standards p romulgated in the MSAT rule, and impacts of the

Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) on gasoline volatilit y. Future-year emissions for PFCs were available f or

2010, 2015, 2020, and 2030. In creating the invent ories for the TR proposal, we created year 2012 emi ssions

by linearly interpolating year 2010 and year 2015 i nventories. The year 2015 PFC inventory was used a s-is

for the 2014 base case because of the late change f rom 2015 to 2014. Benzene future-year PFC emission s

were also added to the inventory for the 2005 v4 pl atform 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 contained in the ptnonipm inventory. These 2005 po int

source emissions are projected to future years usin g the same method, by applying activity growth usin g data

on itinerant (ITN) operations at airports. The ITN operations are defined as aircraft take-offs where by the

aircraft leaves the airport vicinity and lands at a nother airport, or aircraft landings whereby the ai rcraft has

arrived from outside the airport vicinity. We used projected ITN information available from the Feder al

Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Terminal Area Forec ast (TAF) System:

http://www.apo.data.faa.gov/main/taf.asp (publication date December 2008). This informatio n is available

for approximately 3300 individual airports, for all years up to 2025. We aggregated and applied this

information at the national level by summing the ai rport-specific (U.S. airports only) ITN operations to

national totals by year and by aircraft operation, for each of the four available operation types: com mercial,

general, air taxi, military. We computed growth fa ctors for each operation type by dividing future-ye ar ITN

by 2005-year ITN. We assigned factors to inventory SCCs based on the operation type.

The methods that the FAA used for developing the IT N 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 factor s for aircraft; all factors are applied to year 200 5

emissions. For example, year 2014 commercial aircr aft emissions are 8.9% higher than year 2005 emissi ons.

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 dif ferences between year 2014 and year 2015 factors ar e

within 1-3%.

# 20

Table 3-4. Factors used to project base case 2005 aircraft e missions 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 Air craft L & TO

Exhaust;Military;Jet Engine: JP-5 0.967 0.968

27502001 Internal Combustion Engines;Fixed Wing Air craft L & TO

Exhaust;Commercial;Piston Engine: Aviation Gas 1.019 1.089

27502011 Internal Combustion Engines;Fixed Wing Air craft L & TO

Exhaust;Commercial;Jet Engine: Jet A 1.019 1.089

27505001 Internal Combustion Engines;Fixed Wing Air craft L & TO

Exhaust;Civil;Piston Engine: Aviation Gas 0.962 0.986

27505011 Internal Combustion Engines;Fixed Wing Air craft L & TO

Exhaust;Civil;Jet Engine: Jet A 0.962 0.986

27601014 Internal Combustion Engines;Rotary Wing Ai rcraft L & TO

Exhaust;Military;Jet Engine: JP-4 0.967 0.968

27601015 Internal Combustion Engines;Rotary Wing Ai rcraft L & TO

Exhaust;Military;Jet Engine: JP-5 0.967 0.968



# We did not apply growth factors to any point source s with SCC 27602011 (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 indu strial facilities rather than airports. This SCC i s only in

one county, Santa Barbara, California (State/County FIPS 06083).

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

# standard adopted by the International Civil Aviatio n Organization’s (ICAO) Committee on Aviation

Environmental Protection (CAEP) in February 2004, w hich is expected to reduce NO X 

# by approximately 2%

in 2015 and 3% in 2020. However, this rule has not yet been adopted as an EPA (or U.S.) rule; therefo re, the

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



# 3.2.6 Stationary Source control programs, consent d ecrees & settlements, and

plant closures (ptnonipm, nonpt)

We applied emissions reduction factors to the 2005 emissions for particular sources in the ptnonipm an d

nonpt sectors to reflect the impact of stationary-s ource control programs –including consent decrees a nd

settlements- and plant closures. Our approach is v ery similar to what we did for the 2002v3 platform in that

we included many of the same plant closures and con trols. Here we describe the complete contents of t he

controls and closures for the 2012 and 2014 base ca ses.

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 La rge Internal Combustion Engines in the Northeast

states covered by the NOx SIP call. The future-yea r base controls consist of the following:

• We did not include MACT rules where compliance date s were prior to 2005 because we assumed

these were already been reflected in the 2005 inven tory. The EPA OAQPS Sector Policies and

Programs Division (SPPD) provided all controls info rmation related to the MACT rules.

# 21

• We included plant closures (i.e., emissions were ze roed out for future years) where information

indicated that the plant was actually closed. Howe ver, plants projected to close in the future (post2008) were not removed in the future years because these projections can be inaccurate due to

economic improvements. These plant closures affect the following sources: auto plants, pulp and

paper plants, large and small municipal waste combu stors (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 effe cts of the Department of Justice Settlements and

Consent Decrees on ptnonipm sector emissions. We a lso included estimated impacts of HAP

standards per Section 112, 129 of the Clean Air Act on ptnonipm and nonpt sector emissions, based

on expected CAP co-benefits to sources in these sec tors.

• The same reductions were applied across all years w ith the exception of the Boat Manufacturing

MACT and refinery facility/SCC reductions for the s tates and pollutants listed in Table 3-5.

• Numerous controls have compliance dates beyond 2008 ; these include refinery and the Office of

Compliance and Enforcement (OECA) consent decrees, Department of Justice (DOJ) settlements, as

well as most national VOC MACT controls. Additiona l OECA consent decrees information is

provided in Appendix C, and the details data used a re 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 20 12 or 2014 base cases. The EPA OAQPS SPPD

provided these controls at the facility and SCC lev el.

• We applied most of the control programs as replacem ent 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 con trol programs. Exceptions to replacement controls

are “additional” controls, which were applied for m any settlements and consent decrees where

specific plant and multiple-plant-level reductions/ targets were desired. Applying controls as

“additional” controls ensures that the controlled e missions match desired reductions regardless of the

baseline control efficiencies in the NEI. Another exception is municipal waste landfills where VOC

was reduced 75% via a MACT control using projection factors of 0.25 instead of control efficiencies

because no other nonpt sector source category was s ubject 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 factors that implement kn own

emissions reductions and plant closures from point sources. However, many of the “additional” control s

were inadvertently not applied for the 2012 base ca se. Specifically, many of the consent decrees appo rtioned

to several plants (see Table 3-1) were not correctl y matched with the inventory and hence were not app lied.

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 state, with the larges t 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-estimated are provided in Table 3-6.

Table 3-6. Impact on Total Non-Biogenic Emissions of Not App lying “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 t he District of Columbia



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

The upstream oil and gas nonpt inventory in the non -California WRAP (Western Regional Air Partnership)

states is unchanged from the year 2005 Phase II inv entory used in the 2005 base case. Year 2018 emiss ions

Phase II WRAP data was available; however, we decid ed to not interpolate these emissions for the 2012 and

2014 modeling scenarios. Upstream oil and gas emis sions in all other states are also unchanged from t he

2005 base case.



# 3.2.8 Future Year VOC Speciation for gasoline-relat ed sources (ptnonipm,

nonpt)

To account for the future projected increase in the ethanol content of fuels, different future year VO C

speciation was used for certain gasoline-related em ission sources. Such sources include gasoline stag e II,

PFCs, and finished fuel storage and transport-relat ed sources related to bulk terminals (where the eth anol

may be mixed) and downstream to the pump. We ident ified this last group of sources as “btp” (from bul k

terminals to pumps). While most of these sources a re in the nonpt sector, there were also some in the

ptnonipm. The same profiles were used for 2012 and 2014, and were developed based on AEO projections

of ethanol fuels for the year 2022. All gasoline s tage II and “btp” sources used the same combination of E0

and E10 headspace profiles and an E85 evaporative p rofile (since no E85 headspace profile was availabl e).

The combinations used were: 10.894% E0, 89.031% E1 0 and 0.075% E85. The PFC emissions used only

E10 profiles.

VOC speciation for gasoline stage II and finished f uel storage and transport (from bulk terminals to p umps)

utilizes a combination of E0, E10 and E85 gasoline 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 non road mobile emissions were created for 2012 and 201 4

using a combination of the NMIM and draft MOVES mod els. Mobile source emissions were further linearly

interpolated between 2012 and 2015 to estimate 2014 emissions. Emissions for these years reflect onro ad

mobile control programs including the Light-Duty Ve hicle Tier 2 Rule, the Onroad Heavy-Duty Rule, and

the Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT2) final rule. N onroad mobile emissions reductions for these years

include reductions to locomotives, various nonroad engines including diesel engines and various marine

engine types, fuel sulfur content, and evaporative emissions standards.

Onroad mobile sources are comprised of several comp onents and are discussed in the next subsection (3. 3.1).

Monthly nonroad mobile emission projections are dis cussed in subsection 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 Cl ass

3 (C3) CMV projected emissions are discussed in sub section 3.3.4.



# 3.3.1 Onroad mobile (on_noadj, on_moves_runpm, on_m oves_startpm)

The onroad emissions were primarily based on the Na tional Mobile Inventory 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 prelimin ary version of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulato r

(MOVES) as was used for 2005. The preliminary MOVE S data more closely reflects the PM 2.5 

# and NO X



# emissions in the final release of MOVES 2010 than t hose 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-b ased

PM 2.5 

# temperature adjustment factors were applied as wer e 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 wer e based on the use of MOVES national default inputs

rather than county-specific inputs, because a count y-specific database for input to MOVES was not avai lable

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 this is ch aracterized as a minor limitation.

NMIM-based onroad emissions (on_noadj)

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

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

1. Used as-is for all non-California motorcycles and d iesel vehicles;

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

# , evaporative mode VOC, benzene, and naphthalene, and exhaust mode PM, 1,3-butadiene (106990),

acetaldehyde (75070), acrolein (107028), benzene (7 1432), and formaldehyde (50000), and

naphthalene (91203);

3. Used as-is for all California NH 3 

# ;

4. Used to resolve road type resolution for California SCCs for Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicles (HDDV)

class 6 & 7 (2230073XXX) emissions. California doe s not specify road types, so we used NMIM

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

5. Used to allocate 2005 MOVES-based emissions from th e state to the county resolution;

Both year 2012 and 2014 NMIM emissions account for increased vehicle miles traveled (VMT) activity and

changes in fuels, fleet turnover, and inspection an d maintenance programs that account for implementat ion

of national and local regulations. Future-year VMT data for year 2012 were projected from 2005 to 201 2

# 25 using year 2006 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) data. Year 2014 NMIM emissions are interpolated from

year 2015 and year 2012 NMIM estimates. Since the 2015 emissions were based on newer, lower VMT

projections using 2009-based AEO data, we first adj usted the 2015 emissions 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 interpolating to cr eate 2014 emissions values. This explanation is

captured in the formula for 2014 NMIM-based emissio ns, 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 control programs. For national

control programs, they incorporated the expected im pacts of national regulations promulgated prior to July

2007; these include the “Tier 2 Rule,” the “2007 On road Heavy-Duty Rule,” the Final “Mobile Source Air

Toxics Rule” (MSAT2 Final), and the “Renewable Fuel Standard” (RFS).

For the state and voluntary programs, we included t he 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 included based on sta te submission of the relevant NMIM input files. Th ese

programs affect northeastern states. We also model ed reformulated gasoline opt-in programs using stat esubmitted NMIM input files and EPA fuel tables. In addition, we assumed that all state programs exist ing in

2005 continued in all future calendar years.

We included programs that might affect future VMT ( e.g., public transportation, car-pooling, congestio n

pricing) only if states submitted 2005 base-year VM T 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 p rograms that encourage no refueling or evening refu eling

on Ozone Action Days. We also did not include dies el retrofit and anti-idling programs affecting scho ol

buses and diesel trucks.

Both year 2012 and 2014 (2015) NMIM onroad inventor ies use NMIM version 20071009, with county

database NCD20070912 (with 2006 meteorology copied 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 yea r

emissions were based on CARB’s Emission Factors mob ile model (EMFAC), which CARB submitted for

the 2005 NEI. For California, we chose an approach that would maintain consistency between the base y ear

and future year emissions. This approach involved computing projection factors from a consistent set of

future and 2005-year data based on the EMFAC2007 mo del provided by CARB. We generated projection

factors by dividing the EMFAC2007-based emissions f or the future years by the EMFAC2007-based

emissions for 2005. California does not specify ro ad types, so we used NMIM California ratios to brea k out

vehicle emissions to the match the more detailed NM IM 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 use the MOVES-based emissions. Year 2012 Californi a

CAP emissions were linearly interpolated between ye ar 2009 and year 2014 projections. For both 2012 a nd

2014, future year HAP emissions were computed as 20 05v2-based HAP-CAP ratios applied at the pollutant

# 26 and Level 3 SCC (first 7 characters) to 2012 and 20 14 CAP emissions. HAPs were scaled to either of th ree

pollutants: exhaust PM 2.5 

# (e.g., metals), exhaust VOC (e.g., exhaust mode VO C HAPs such as acetaldehyde

and formaldehyde), or evaporative VOC (e.g., evapor ative mode VOC HAPs such as benzene).

MOVES-based no-adjust (on_noadj)

As discussed in the 2005v4 documentation, a draft v ersion 2 

# of the MOVES model was used to provide year

2005 non-California emissions from onroad gasoline vehicles for several pollutants. We used this draf t

MOVES model to make sure to include the PM 2.5 

# emissions from onroad gasoline vehicles, which inc lude

temperature affects and are much larger than previo us estimates of onroad PM 2.5 

# . The onroad gasoline

emissions, except for motorcycles, were based on MO VES for the pollutants listed in Table 3-7. Unlike our

use of NMIM, we used the MOVES data to create emiss ions by state and month and then allocated these to

counties based on 2005 NMIM county-level data. Whi le 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 MOVES approach by (1) reducing the run time needed for

county resolution modeling, and (2) completing effo rts to create a national database of county-specifi c inputs

to MOVES.

Table 3-7. Pollutants covered by the draft MOVES model in th e 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 gasolin e vehicles with the exception of motorcycles. Draf t MOVES

data were not used for any California onroad emissi ons

2 

# Exhaust mode PM 2.5 

# species from MOVES consist of: PEC, PSO4 and the difference between PM 2.5 

# and PEC

(named as “PM25OC”). Brake wear and tire wear PM 2.5 

# emissions were not available from draft MOVES.

3 

# Used for the RFS2 version of the platform (EPA, 20 10)

4 

# Used for the RFS2 and LD GHG versions of the platf orm



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

NMIM emissions from 2012 and 2005. These ratios we re computed at the pollutant and SCC-level. This

simple scaling was done for all MOVES emissions in 2012 –including pre-temperature adjusted PM

emissions (PM species calculated at 72 oF) discusse d in the next section. The very simple formula for

computing MOVES 2012 emissions for each month, coun ty, SCC, pollutant, and mode is:

MOVES 2012 

# = MOVES 2005 

# * NMIM 2012 

# / NMIM 2005



# Year 2014 MOVES-based emissions were scaled from th e 2012 MOVES (scaled from 2005) to year 2014

using OTAQ-provided annual, national, SCC7-level (v ehicle type) 2012-2014 ratios by pollutant and mode

. These national-level adjustments, based on annual n ational runs of draft MOVES for years 2012 and 2014

, were applied to the detailed 2012 MOVES level of th e inventory – by month, county, pollutant, and SCC

2 

# As of December 2009, this draft version was replac ed by the publicly released :MOVES2010 version at

www.epag.gov/otaq/models/moves/

# 27 (vehicle and road type). The formula for computing 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 c onsist 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 equati ons discussed in the previous paragraphs for MOVESbased no-adjust emissions.

MOVES-based temperature adjustment factors were app lied to gridded, hourly emissions using gridded,

hourly meteorology. As seen in Figure 3-1, for yea r 2012, we used the same temperature adjustment fac tors

as the 2005 base case for both start and running mo des. However, cold start temperature adjustment fa ctors

decrease slightly in future years, and for year 201 4 processing, we updated the temperature adjustment

curves for these cold start emissions. These have little impact, reducing cold-start mode temperature

adjusted PM and naphthalene by under 4% for tempera tures down to 0 ° F. Note that running exhaust

temperature adjustment factors are the same for all years. Also, these running mode exhaust mode emis sions

are considerably larger than cold start mode emissi ons.

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

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

-20

- 10 0 1

0 2 0 3 0 4 0 50 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 a nd refueling emissions from nonroad engines (not

including commercial marine, aircraft, and locomoti ves) derived from NMIM for all states except Califo rnia.

Like the onroad emissions, NMIM provides nonroad em issions for VOC by three emission modes: exhaust,

evaporative and refueling. Unlike the onroad secto r, nonroad refueling emissions for nonroad sources are

not dropped from processing.

With the exception of California, U.S. emissions fo r the nonroad sector (defined as the equipment type s

covered by NMIM) were created using a consistent NM IM-based approach as was used for 2005, but

projected for 2012 and 2015. Similar to the onroad mobile NMIM inventories, year 2014 NMIM emissions

# 28 were created by interpolating year 2012 and year 20 15 NMIM inventories. These future-year emissions

account for increases in activity (based on NONROAD model default growth estimates of future year

equipment population) and changes in fuels and engi nes that reflect implementation of national regulat ions

and local control programs.

The national regulations incorporated in the modeli ng are those promulgated prior to December 2009, an d

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 Spark-Ignit ion Engines, and Recreational Engines

(Marine and Land-Based), November 8, 2002 (“Pentath alon 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 pro grams encouraging either no refueling or evening

refueling on Ozone Action Days and diesel retrofit programs. NMIM version 20071009, with county

database NCD20070912, and NONROAD model version NON ROAD2008a (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 gene rate future-year nonroad emissions for California,

other than for NH 3 

# . We used NMIM for California future nonroad NH 3 

# emissions because CARB did not

provide these data for any nonroad vehicle types. As we did for onroad emissions, we chose a projecti on

approach that would maintain consistency between th e base year and future-year emissions for nonroad

emissions in California.

California year 2014 nonroad CAP emissions are simi lar to those used in the 2002v3 projected inventory

. However, similar to onroad mobile, California nonro ad HAPs were computed as ratios to select CAPs usin g

2005 NMIM CAP-HAP ratios.

California year 2012 nonroad CAP emissions were com puted by linearly interpolating year 2009 and 2014

inventories. And 2012 HAP emissions were also comp uted using the same 2005-based CAP-HAP ratios

used to create 2014 HAP emissions.



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

Future locomotive and Class 1 and Class 2 commercia l marine vessel (CMV) emissions were calculated

using projection factors that were computed based o n national, annual summaries of locomotive emission s in

2002 and future years. These national summaries we re used to create national by-pollutant, by-SCC

projection factors; these factors include final loc omotive-marine controls and are provided in Table 3 -8.

Similar to the year-specific projections as the sta tionary sectors (ptnonipm and nonpt), year 2015 fac tors

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 e missions CO 0.972 0.950

# 29

SCC SCC Description Pollutant Year

2012

Factor Year

2014

Factor

2280002X00 Marine Vessels, Commercial;Diesel;Underway & port e missions NH 3 

# 1.094 1.124

2280002X00 Marine Vessels, Commercial;Diesel;Underway & port e missions NO X 

# 0.851 0.765

2280002X00 Marine Vessels, Commercial;Diesel;Underway & port e missions PM 10 

# 0.875 0.707

2280002X00 Marine Vessels, Commercial;Diesel;Underway & port e missions PM 2.5 

# 0.890 0.720

2280002X00 Marine Vessels, Commercial;Diesel;Underway & port e missions SO 2 

# 0.531 0.111

2280002X00 Marine Vessels, Commercial;Diesel;Underway & port e missions VOC 0.951 0.863

2285002006 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Loco motives: Class I Operations CO 1.232 1.292

2285002006 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Loco motives: Class I Operations NH 3 

# 1.223 1.283

2285002006 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Loco motives: Class I Operations NO X 

# 0.732 0.689

2285002006 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Loco motives: Class I Operations PM 10 

# 0.768 0.663

2285002006 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Loco motives: Class I Operations PM 2.5 

# 0.778 0.672

2285002006 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Loco motives: Class I Operations SO 2 

# 0.166 0.005

2285002006 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Loco motives: Class I Operations VOC 0.839 0.707

2285002007 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Loco motives: Class II / III Operations CO 0.303 0.318

2285002007 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Loco motives: Class II / III Operations NH 3 

# 1.223 1.283

2285002007 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Loco motives: Class II / III Operations NO X 

# 0.339 0.350

2285002007 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Loco motives: Class II / III Operations PM 10 

# 0.283 0.286

2285002007 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Loco motives: Class II / III Operations PM 2.5 

# 0.286 0.288

2285002007 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Loco motives: Class II / III Operations SO 2 

# 0.038 0.001

2285002007 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Loco motives: Class II / III Operations VOC 0.291 0.305

2285002008 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Loco motives: Passenger Trains (Amtrak) CO 1.030 1.054

2285002008 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Loco motives: Passenger Trains (Amtrak) NH 3 

# 1.223 1.283

2285002008 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Loco motives: Passenger Trains (Amtrak) NO X 

# 0.667 0.572

2285002008 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Loco motives: Passenger Trains (Amtrak) PM 10 

# 0.660 0.541

2285002008 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Loco motives: Passenger Trains (Amtrak) PM 2.5 

# 0.662 0.543

2285002008 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Loco motives: Passenger Trains (Amtrak) SO 2 

# 0.156 0.005

2285002008 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Loco motives: Passenger Trains (Amtrak) VOC 0.738 0.586

2285002009 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Loco motives: Commuter Lines CO 1.015 1.040

2285002009 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Loco motives: Commuter Lines NH 3 

# 1.223 1.283

2285002009 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Loco motives: Commuter Lines NO X 

# 0.658 0.564

2285002009 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Loco motives: Commuter Lines PM 10 

# 0.650 0.533

2285002009 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Loco motives: Commuter Lines PM 2.5 

# 0.651 0.533

2285002009 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Loco motives: Commuter Lines SO 2 

# 0.155 0.005

2285002009 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Loco motives: Commuter Lines VOC 0.728 0.578

2285002010 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Yard Locomotiv es CO 1.239 1.299

2285002010 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Yard Locomotiv es NH 3 

# 1.223 1.283

2285002010 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Yard Locomotiv es NO X 

# 1.133 1.136

2285002010 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Yard Locomotiv es PM 10 

# 0.942 0.926

2285002010 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Yard Locomotiv es PM 2.5 

# 0.962 0.946

2285002010 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Yard Locomotiv es SO 2 

# 0.183 0.006

2285002010 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Yard Locomotiv es VOC 1.548 1.539



# The future-year locomotive emissions account for in creased fuel consumption based on Energy Informatio n

Administration (EIA) fuel consumption projections f or freight rail, and emissions reductions resulting from

emissions standards from the Final Locomotive-Marin e rule (EPA, 2007c). This rule lowered diesel sulf ur

content and tightened emission standards for existi ng 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 Die sel

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 the VO C 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 = 2280004 000) are not changed for future year processing.

C1/C2 diesel emissions (SCC = 2280002100 and 228000 2200) are projected based on the Final Locomotive

Marine rule national-level factors provided in Tabl e 3-8. Similar to locomotives, VOC HAPs are projec ted

based on the VOC factor and other HAPs and metals a re 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-International Marine Organiz ation (ECA-IMO) project began in 2005. The (S)ECA

C3 year 2002 base case was grown to year 2005 for t he 2005 base case and to years 2012 and 2014 for th e

respective future base cases. Both future base cas es do not include ECA or IMO controls and are proje cted

from year 2002 using robust growth rate estimates c reated 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 rates and NOx receives different rates.

The projection factors used to create the 2012 and 2014 base case seca_c3 sector emissions are provide d in

Table 3-9. The geographic regions are described in the ECA proposal technical support document:

http://www.epa.gov/oms/regs/nonroad/marine/ci/420r0 9007-chap2.pdf . These regions extend up to 200

nautical miles offshore, though less at internation al boundaries. North and South Pacific regions are divided

by the Oregon-Washington border, and East Coast and Gulf Coast regions are divided east-west by roughl y

the upper Florida Keys just southwest of Miami.

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

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

integration.

Table 3-9. Factors applied to year 2005 emissions to grow Cl ass 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 account 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 profi les used for onroad and nonroad exhaust and evapora tive

VOC. The nonroad refueling profiles were the same as used for stationary gasoline related sources des cribed

# 31 in Section 3.2.8. For evaporative emissions, combi nations of E0 and E10 evaporative profiles were use d.

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 fleet was Tier 2. The E0 and E10 ratios were base d on

the AEO projections of E0 and E10 fuels in 2022. A fter the run, it was recognized that nonroad profil es

should not include Tier 2 vehicle profiles or any E 85 (nonroad refueling had a very small contribution from

an E85 profile). However, some sensitivity runs do ne showed no impact on the use of the Tier 2 and E8 5

profiles for nonroad on the modeling results.



# 3.4 Canada, Mexico, and Offshore sources (othar, ot hon, othpt, othar_hg,

and othpt_hg)

Emissions for Canada, Mexico, and offshore sources were not projected to future years, and are therefo re the

same as those used in the 2005 base case. Therefor e, the Mexico emissions are based on year 1999, off shore

oil is based on year 2005, and Canada is based on y ear 2006. For both Mexico and Canada, their respon sible

agencies could not provide future year emissions th at were consistent with the base year emissions.



# 3.5 Description of specific growth and control aspe cts of stationary

projections for comment

While the TR remedy affects EGUs, the future-year e missions of other stationary sources impact the res ults

of the modeling because they impact the 2012 contri bution analysis and the proportional contribution o f

EGUs in 2014. Here, EPA identified specific issues that could have impacts on our future-year modelin g

efforts. In addition, if reviewers of this work in tend to provide comment on some of these issues, th ere is a

specific mechanism using an Excel ® 

# file that we describe here.



# 3.5.1 Impact of unavailable future-year emissions f rom Canada and Mexico

For the states on the southern and northern US bord ers, the emissions from Canada and Mexico and any

associated transport could be important to the asse ssment of TR. As described above, since neither of these

countries were able to provide future-year emission s estimates that were projected from the available baseyear emissions, we needed to simply hold emissions constant from base year values. Therefore, we were

unable to characterize any expected emissions reduc tions or increases from sources 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 f rom Canada and Mexico would not significantly chang e

the outcome of the 2012 contribution analyses. Thi s is because those modeling runs used source

apportionment modeling techniques to attribute the emissions from individual states to particular down wind

nonattainment receptors, and this apportionment is independent of emissions from surrounding regions.

For the analysis that supports the TR remedy in 201 4, since the forecast air quality would be lower or higher

with decreased or increased emissions from Canadian and Mexican sources, it is conceivable that our 20 14

analyses could change with changed emissions. We d o not believe that the details of the remedy would have

been affected, since the remedy addresses only the contribution from each state. However, our forecas ts of

continued future-year nonattainment could be affect ed as a result of a greater or lesser contribution from

neighboring countries, which we would ideally be ab le to address in the TR final rule. Therefore, add itional

information about future-year emissions for Canada and Mexico and the impact of these country’s base a nd

future-year emissions on US modeled air quality pre dictions 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 stationary point and nonpoint inventories are an area of our work to da te that

could be improved with additional information. Thi s subsection describes information about emissions

projections that we were unable to use in our proje ctions because of lack of details.

As part of this documentation and to facilitate com ments, 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 the m

to our inventories. It also summarizes nonEGU poin t source facilities, units, and associated processe s, which

reviewers should use to provide comments. The stat e-specific tabs in the spreadsheet include only fac ilities

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.xl s ” is available as part of the TR docket as well as on

the CHIEF website at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/e mch/index.html#transport_rule_proposal

. Instructions

to use the spreadsheet for providing comments are p rovided in the tab called “Commenter Instructions”.

The following elements of the nonEGU point and stat ionary area projections could be improved in future

work.

• Plant closures occurring between 2005 and 2014

• Expected industry growth or contraction for particu lar plants, industries, nonpoint SCCs, counties, or

states. As described in Section 3.2, we assumed th at emissions growth held flat during the time

period between 2005 and the future years. If revie wers have data or documentation that shows this

assumption is poor for a particular industry, and t hese reductions or increases in emissions are not

captured by plant closures, we are interested in re ceiving comment on this approach.

• Emission controls that are not represented (or are improperly represented) in 2012 or 2014. EPA did

not include any expected reductions described by SI Ps that are not due to federal measures. Table 3-

10 lists measures that we learned about for potenti al application to the ptnonipm sector, but that did

not have specific information that we could use to determine affected plants and units. Table 3-11

lists additional measures that we do not know wheth er they affect point sources, nonpoint sources, or

both. Finally, Table 3-12 lists measures that we a ssume are relevant for nonpoint sources, but for

which we did not have enough information to apply t hem in our projections. We seek comment

using our Excel ® 

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

• Emissions controls at cement facilities that EPA ha s identified as possible controls, but were not

applied in our 2012 or 2014 inventories. We had th e 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 sug gest 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 need mor e specific information about actual

reductions on specific units rather than planned re ductions.

• Emission controls based on OECA consent decrees (se e Section 3.2.6) that are represented

improperly. This can easily happen because of assu mptions 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 facilitie s, EPA may have assumed reductions at facilities th at

are not expected to receive controls because contro ls are applied at other facilities to achieve the

required company-wide reductions.

Table 3-10. List of known local measures needing details for a pplying 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, Sunoco 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 details, incl uding 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 a pplying 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.asp?a=2684&q=331196& depNav_GID=1619.

# 36

3) "State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for the A ttainment and Maintenance of the Fine

Particulate Matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Qua lity Standard PM2.5 Attainment Demonstration

Proposal, Chapter 4: Control Measures", The State o f New Jersey Depart

4) "Delaware Administrative Code Title 7, 1100 Air Qua lity Management Section, Sub-Section 1144

Control of Stationary Generator Emissions", State o f Delaware, January 2006,

http://regulations.delaware.gov/AdminCode/title7/10 00/1100/1144.shtml.

5) "Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the St ate of Alabama", Alabama Department of

Environmental Management Air Division, February, 20 08.

6) "Chapter NR 428: Control of Nitrogen Compound Emiss ions", Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources, NR 428.04, Register No. 619, July 2007.

7) "Title 35, Subtitle B, Chapter 1, Subchapter c, Par t 214, Subpart D, Section 162: Combination of

Fuels", Illinois Pollution Control Board,

http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/SLR/IPCBandIEPAEnvironm entalRegulations-Title35.asp.

8) "Title 35, Subtitle B, Chapter 1, Subchapter C, Par t 214, Subpart Q, Section 421: Combination of

Fuels", Illinois Pollution Control Board,

http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/SLR/IPCBandIEPAEnvironm entalRegulations-Title35.asp.

9) "Title 35, Subtitle B, Chapter 1, Subchapter C, Par t 217, Subpart Q, Section 388: Control and

Maintenance Requirements", Illinois Pollution Contr ol Board,

http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/SLR/IPCBandIEPAEnvironm entalRegulations-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 P articulate Matter from Industrial Processes",

Missouri Department of Natulra Resources, 2009

13) "DRAFT 10 CSR 10-6.260 Restriction of Emission of S ulfur Compounds", Missouri Department of

Natulra Resources, 2009

14) "DRAFT 10 CSR 10-5.570 Control of Sulfur Emissions 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 model ing was used to quantify the impact of emissions in

specific upwind states on projected downwind nonatt ainment and maintenance receptors for both PM 2.5 

# and

8-hour ozone. To prepare these emissions, EPA prep ared special tagging input files 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 emissions were not tagged by state because they

are generally considered not feasible for emissions controls, but these were tagged as “other sources” and

their contributions could be tracked in total witho ut association with individual states. 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, Connecticut, Delaware, Flo rida, Georgia,

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisian a, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,

Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Ham pshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina,

North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode I sland, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,

Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Washington D.C., and Wisconsin. There were also several othe r

# 37 states that are only partially contained within the 12 km modeling domain (i.e., Colorado, Montana, Ne w

Mexico, and Wyoming). However, EPA did not individ ually track the emissions or assess the contributio n

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 contr ol case modeling, the

emissions for all sectors were unchanged from the b ase case modeling except for those from EGUs (the

ptipm sector). EPA used the IPM model to prepare t he 2014 control case EGU emissions. The changes in

EGU SO 2 

# and NO

x 

# emissions as a result of the control case for the lower 48 states are summarized in Section

6. Section 6 also provides state-specific summarie s of EGU NO X 

# and SO 2 

# for the lower 48 states.

Additional details on the changes that resulted fro m the control case are provided in the TR Proposal

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), Chapter 7 (Cost, Economic, and Energy 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 green in Figur e 5-1. The 15 “group 1” states in blue are in a st ringent

SO 2 

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

# tier. Each group of states is of

uniform stringency which would lead to two exclusiv e 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 2 012 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 pr ovides 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 the 8-hour ozone stan dard in the

control case are highlighted in Figure 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 difference s between the 2005 base case, 2012 base case, 2014

base case, and 2014 EGU control case at various lev els of geographic, temporal, and emission sector

resolution.

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

# and SO 2 

# emissions, respectively (except for biogenic emiss ions,

wildfires, and prescribed burning) by state for the 2005 base case, 2012 base case, 2014 base case, an d 2014

EGU control cases, as well as differences and perce nt differences between these cases. The TR proposa l

preamble contains similar summaries but unlike the summaries here, the preamble summaries differ in th e

following: 1) they include emissions from wildfires and prescribed burning, and 2) are restricted to o nly the

eastern states –all states are provided in the tabl es here. See Table 7-2 in Section 7 for state-leve l summaries

containing wildfire and prescribed burning emission s. Note that these “fires” emissions are the same for all

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

# and SO 2 

# emissions

(respectively) by state for the 2005 base case, 201 2 base case, 2014 base case, and 2014 EGU control c ases,

as well as differences and percent differences betw een these cases.

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

# and SO 2 

# emissions, respectively (except for biogenic emiss ions,

wildfires and prescribed burning) for 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 grou p 2 states.

Note that these emissions summaries are different i n the TR proposal preamble in the following: 1) we do

not include emissions from fires (see Table 7-2 for the contribution from fires), and 2) Oklahoma is i n the

25-state “group 2” summaries in these tables. Emis sions are provided for the 2005 base case, 2012 bas e

case, 2014 base case, and 2014 EGU control (“remedy ”) cases, as well as differences and percent differ ences

between these cases. We also provide summaries for all “Eastern Modeling Domain” states and “All

Western States”. The western states are defined as Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nev ada,

New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. States in the eastern modeling domain are defined

as the rest of the contiguous (lower 48 states) U.S . plus the District of Columbia.

Table 6-7 and Table 6-8 provide EGU sector only (pt ipm) 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. sum of emissions that TR

covers for PM2.5. See Figure 5-1 for a map of the group 1 and group 2 states. Emissions are provided for

the 2005 base case, 2012 base case, 2014 base case, and 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, Oklahoma is included in the “eas tern

modeling domain states” in these tables.

Table 6-9 provides summer (defined as May through S eptember) 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 provi ded 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 c ases.

# 40Table 6-1.State-level Total NOXEmissions (not including fires) for each TR Modeling 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 443,748360,357337,924280,763-83,391-18.8%-22,433-6.2%-57,161-16.9%Arizona 326,613246,578218,261218,219-80,036-24.5%-28,316-11.5%-420.0%Arkansas 238,845197,438186,969168,438-41,407-17.3%-10,468-5.3%-18,532-9.9%California 1,408,5851,078,4511,005,5191,005,553-330,135-23.4%-72,932-6.8%350.0%Colorado 298,619237,869221,796222,172-60,751-20.3%-16,073-6.8%3770.2%Connecticut 116,67374,78667,07067,082-41,887-35.9%-7,717-10.3%120.0%Delaware 58,87939,66437,33037,750-19,215-32.6%-2,334-5.9%4201.1%District of Columbia 15,9049,8028,5688,568-6,101-38.4%-1,234-12.6%00.0%Florida 1,038,937837,914769,998699,801-201,023-19.3%-67,916-8.1%-70,198-9.1%Georgia 577,858405,825341,695337,889-172,032-29.8%-64,130-15.8%-3,806-1.1%Idaho 97,63683,04677,61777,616-14,590-14.9%-5,429-6.5%-10.0%Illinois 773,276542,886503,605480,743-230,390-29.8%-39,281-7.2%-22,862-4.5%Indiana 614,861505,039474,770386,251-109,822-17.9%-30,269-6.0%-88,519-18.6%Iowa 312,015251,632236,602221,442-60,383-19.4%-15,030-6.0%-15,160-6.4%Kansas 365,907294,634289,452250,489-71,273-19.5%-5,183-1.8%-38,963-13.5%Kentucky 435,837345,073324,465247,270-90,764-20.8%-20,608-6.0%-77,195-23.8%Louisiana 670,571583,659561,795553,494-86,912-13.0%-21,864-3.7%-8,301-1.5%Maine 78,68063,99459,33759,333-14,687-18.7%-4,656-7.3%-50.0%Maryland 294,519181,595171,843171,923-112,924-38.3%-9,752-5.4%800.0%Massachusetts 270,987191,570181,754182,151-79,417-29.3%-9,816-5.1%3970.2%Michigan 638,546478,625444,639410,319-159,921-25.0%-33,986-7.1%-34,320-7.7%Minnesota 466,985350,394327,977311,544-116,591-25.0%-22,417-6.4%-16,433-5.0%Mississippi 288,816218,968202,800188,757-69,848-24.2%-16,168-7.4%-14,043-6.9%Missouri 505,195353,407332,634317,092-151,787-30.0%-20,774-5.9%-15,541-4.7%Montana 132,627104,53999,05499,044-28,088-21.2%-5,485-5.2%-100.0%Nebraska 244,225193,852182,029164,126-50,374-20.6%-11,823-6.1%-17,903-9.8%Nevada 137,86285,52788,35688,358-52,335-38.0%2,8293.3%20.0%New Hampshire 65,08643,93039,74639,687-21,156-32.5%-4,183-9.5%-59-0.1%New Jersey 323,327220,188203,784200,233-103,140-31.9%-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 305,732240,892230,868230,886-64,840-21.2%-10,024-4.2%180.0%New York 609,630423,170393,753393,996-186,460-30.6%-29,417-7.0%2430.1%North Carolina 536,639384,430362,593360,509-152,209-28.4%-21,837-5.7%-2,085-0.6%North Dakota 175,182135,870130,012130,003-39,312-22.4%-5,858-4.3%-90.0%Ohio 816,239552,864518,780453,167-263,375-32.3%-34,084-6.2%-65,612-12.6%Oklahoma 426,907367,457346,081315,393-59,450-13.9%-21,376-5.8%-30,688-8.9%Oregon 212,698186,809174,782174,782-25,890-12.2%-12,026-6.4%00.0%Pennsylvania 704,936566,301535,515454,248-138,635-19.7%-30,786-5.4%-81,267-15.2%Rhode Island 26,92620,93619,58119,577-5,990-22.2%-1,355-6.5%-40.0%South Carolina 300,083236,546222,148209,141-63,538-21.2%-14,398-6.1%-13,007-5.9%South Dakota 81,62565,33460,55160,546-16,290-20.0%-4,783-7.3%-50.0%Tennessee 471,705338,154310,870270,171-133,550-28.3%-27,284-8.1%-40,699-13.1%Texas 1,736,2761,338,4291,253,4641,235,289-397,847-22.9%-84,965-6.3%-18,175-1.4%Utah 199,580160,744151,272151,254-38,836-19.5%-9,473-5.9%-180.0%Vermont 21,80117,61115,53415,534-4,189-19.2%-2,078-11.8%00.0%Virginia 461,689340,933313,546311,867-120,756-26.2%-27,387-8.0%-1,680-0.5%Washington 326,857272,354250,161250,146-54,503-16.7%-22,193-8.1%-150.0%West Virginia 294,016206,630196,923144,970-87,385-29.7%-9,707-4.7%-51,954-26.4%Wisconsin 358,787257,290241,488228,637-101,496-28.3%-15,803-6.1%-12,851-5.3%Wyoming 222,878185,963181,502181,492-36,915-16.6%-4,461-2.4%-100.0%Grand Total 19,531,80514,879,95913,906,81313,087,712-4,651,846-23.8%-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 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 592,389461,314446,070296,138-131,075-22.1%-15,244-3.3%-149,932-33.6%Arizona 88,33450,33548,28250,815-37,998-43.0%-2,053-4.1%2,5325.2%Arkansas 114,021126,532128,986160,74412,51111.0%2,4541.9%31,75824.6%California 217,595223,748217,669217,6696,1522.8%-6,079-2.7%00.0%Colorado 79,95681,37781,08697,2901,4211.8%-291-0.4%16,20420.0%Connecticut 34,31627,38927,41924,493-6,928-20.2%300.1%-2,926-10.7%Delaware 85,16738,96339,62940,742-46,203-54.3%6651.7%1,1132.8%District of Columbia 3,9142,2962,2912,291-1,618-41.3%-5-0.2%00.0%Florida 649,114460,481431,641376,723-188,633-29.1%-28,840-6.3%-54,918-12.7%Georgia 748,020674,183295,607214,726-73,837-9.9%-378,575-56.2%-80,882-27.4%Idaho 23,16520,33220,26420,263-2,832-12.2%-68-0.3%-10.0%Illinois 516,950866,376340,576304,834349,42767.6%-525,800-60.7%-35,742-10.5%Indiana 1,047,371986,601960,098396,403-60,770-5.8%-26,503-2.7%-563,695-58.7%Iowa 221,877250,930244,423182,87529,05313.1%-6,507-2.6%-61,547-25.2%Kansas 195,902109,812114,915101,037-86,090-43.9%5,1034.6%-13,878-12.1%Kentucky 572,424780,885798,392182,630208,46236.4%17,5062.2%-615,761-77.1%Louisiana 353,597340,839326,979327,046-12,758-3.6%-13,860-4.1%670.0%Maine 36,93448,31044,49044,50811,37630.8%-3,820-7.9%190.0%Maryland 379,842142,640136,078136,198-237,202-62.4%-6,563-4.6%1200.1%Massachusetts 158,15291,56493,79786,838-66,588-42.1%2,2332.4%-6,959-7.4%Michigan 490,190415,042402,783300,560-75,148-15.3%-12,259-3.0%-102,223-25.4%Minnesota 154,55095,366102,37489,746-59,184-38.3%7,0087.3%-12,628-12.3%Mississippi 118,96580,11681,02695,233-38,850-32.7%9101.1%14,20717.5%Missouri 421,979570,575623,287315,283148,59535.2%52,7129.2%-308,004-49.4%Montana 37,95026,48427,19229,421-11,467-30.2%7082.7%2,2298.2%Nebraska 121,484157,817151,967111,36736,33229.9%-5,849-3.7%-40,601-26.7%Nevada 71,53528,37535,11735,493-43,160-60.3%6,74223.8%3761.1%New Hampshire 63,53318,14617,43918,121-45,388-71.4%-707-3.9%6823.9%New Jersey 101,38081,26682,52459,410-20,114-19.8%1,2581.5%-23,114-28.0%New Mexico 46,71124,93025,03624,354-21,781-46.6%1050.4%-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 391,103341,705337,581253,274-49,398-12.6%-4,124-1.2%-84,307-25.0%North Carolina 648,485264,544282,484238,822-383,940-59.2%17,9406.8%-43,661-15.5%North Dakota 159,71393,65696,341104,341-66,057-41.4%2,6862.9%8,0008.3%Ohio 1,276,2701,076,470969,383361,138-199,799-15.7%-107,088-9.9%-608,245-62.7%Oklahoma 165,819201,322210,800211,02135,50321.4%9,4784.7%2210.1%Oregon 47,22848,24447,97154,7911,0162.2%-273-0.6%6,82114.2%Pennsylvania 1,173,2961,119,6801,122,844303,071-53,616-4.6%3,1640.3%-819,773-73.0%Rhode Island 8,9869,0689,3219,321820.9%2532.8%00.0%South Carolina 303,747234,200242,482217,515-69,547-22.9%8,2823.5%-24,968-10.3%South Dakota 28,18325,64925,61441,053-2,534-9.0%-35-0.1%15,43860.3%Tennessee 388,191708,905711,369218,065320,71482.6%2,4640.3%-493,304-69.3%Texas 934,009639,505677,484771,299-294,505-31.5%37,9795.9%93,81513.8%Utah 51,59336,16036,47940,182-15,433-29.9%3190.9%3,70310.2%Vermont 6,9876,3836,3906,390-603-8.6%70.1%00.0%Virginia 344,860263,564254,359176,114-81,296-23.6%-9,205-3.5%-78,245-30.8%Washington 65,83475,90676,08775,79510,07215.3%1810.2%-292-0.4%West Virginia 535,586645,431553,002184,341109,84520.5%-92,429-14.3%-368,662-66.7%Wisconsin 263,615181,760191,391159,927-81,855-31.1%9,6315.3%-31,464-16.4%Wyoming 122,25384,50882,65587,405-37,745-30.9%-1,853-2.2%4,7505.7%Grand Total 14,663,07613,339,68412,281,4757,857,117-1,323,392-9.0%-1,058,208-7.9%-4,424,358-36.0%

# 44Table 6-3.State-level Electric Generating 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 133,051121,809118,42061,259-11,241-8.4%-3,389-2.8%-57,161-48.3%Arizona 79,77680,32372,74772,7055460.7%-7,576-9.4%-42-0.1%Arkansas 35,40743,22244,79226,2607,81522.1%1,5703.6%-18,532-41.4%California 6,99220,19618,39418,42913,204188.9%-1,802-8.9%350.2%Colorado 73,90961,53461,64162,018-12,375-16.7%1070.2%3770.6%Connecticut 6,8652,7702,8212,833-4,094-59.6%511.8%120.4%Delaware 11,9174,6394,5134,933-7,278-61.1%-126-2.7%4209.3%District of Columbia 492211-491-99.7%0-14.3%03.7%Florida 217,263195,673180,801110,603-21,590-9.9%-14,873-7.6%-70,198-38.8%Georgia 111,01778,01148,09144,285-33,006-29.7%-29,921-38.4%-3,806-7.9%Idaho 193973983973771961.3%10.3%-1-0.3%Illinois 127,92377,92080,22857,366-50,003-39.1%2,3083.0%-22,862-28.5%Indiana 213,503203,107200,899112,379-10,397-4.9%-2,208-1.1%-88,519-44.1%Iowa 72,80666,31668,14652,986-6,490-8.9%1,8302.8%-15,160-22.2%Kansas 90,22070,82378,92039,958-19,397-21.5%8,09711.4%-38,963-49.4%Kentucky 164,743149,179148,50971,314-15,564-9.4%-670-0.4%-77,195-52.0%Louisiana 63,79144,77345,45737,156-19,018-29.8%6841.5%-8,301-18.3%Maine 1,1003,1392,5352,5302,039185.3%-604-19.2%-5-0.2%Maryland 62,57417,37619,99020,070-45,199-72.2%2,61415.0%800.4%Massachusetts 25,6186,3126,6197,016-19,305-75.4%3064.9%3976.0%Michigan 120,00596,87497,45563,135-23,131-19.3%5800.6%-34,320-35.2%Minnesota 83,83651,28551,85935,426-32,551-38.8%5741.1%-16,433-31.7%Mississippi 45,16637,51737,14223,099-7,649-16.9%-375-1.0%-14,043-37.8%Missouri 127,43177,57182,97967,437-49,860-39.1%5,4087.0%-15,541-18.7%Montana 39,85836,76136,80036,789-3,097-7.8%390.1%-100.0%Nebraska 52,42652,82052,97035,0673940.8%1490.3%-17,903-33.8%Nevada 47,29720,05929,19829,200-27,237-57.6%9,13845.6%20.0%New Hampshire 8,8272,5142,5152,456-6,312-71.5%10.0%-59-2.3%New Jersey 30,11415,98716,26812,717-14,128-46.9%2821.8%-3,552-21.8%New Mexico 75,48351,32451,34051,358-24,159-32.0%160.0%180.0%

# 452012 Base minus 2005 Base2014 Base minus 2012Base2014 Control minus 2014BaseState 2005 Base 2012 Base 2014 Base2014ControlDifference% Difference Difference % Difference Difference % DifferenceNew York 63,46525,75528,35028,593-37,709-59.4%2,59510.1%2430.9%North Carolina 111,57661,64361,74759,663-49,932-44.8%1040.2%-2,085-3.4%North Dakota 76,38159,54759,55659,548-16,834-22.0%90.0%-90.0%Ohio 258,687159,627164,94599,333-99,060-38.3%5,3183.3%-65,612-39.8%Oklahoma 86,20486,85881,12250,4346540.8%-5,735-6.6%-30,688-37.8%Oregon 9,38313,78013,88913,8894,39646.9%1100.8%00.0%Pennsylvania 176,870193,032196,151114,88416,1639.1%3,1191.6%-81,267-41.4%Rhode Island 545221281278-324-59.4%6027.1%-4-1.4%South Carolina 53,82347,76247,51234,505-6,061-11.3%-251-0.5%-13,007-27.4%South Dakota 15,65015,49315,51415,509-157-1.0%210.1%-50.0%Tennessee 102,93468,42568,77928,079-34,509-33.5%3540.5%-40,699-59.2%Texas 176,170159,738166,177148,002-16,432-9.3%6,4394.0%-18,175-10.9%Utah 65,26164,07364,08864,070-1,188-1.8%140.0%-180.0%Vermont 297000-297-100.0%00.0%00.0%Virginia 62,51236,03632,11530,436-26,475-42.4%-3,921-10.9%-1,680-5.2%Washington 17,63418,21418,37418,3595793.3%1600.9%-15-0.1%West Virginia 159,804102,725100,10348,149-57,079-35.7%-2,622-2.6%-51,954-51.9%Wisconsin 72,17049,35153,77440,923-22,819-31.6%4,4239.0%-12,851-23.9%Wyoming 89,31573,91173,91973,908-15,404-17.2%70.0%-100.0%Grand Total 3,728,1122,926,4272,908,8442,089,743-801,685-21.5%-17,583-0.6%-819,101-28.2%

# 46Table 6-4.State-level Electric Generating Unit Sector SO2Emissions 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 460,123335,734322,130172,198-124,389-27.0%-13,604-4.1%-149,932-46.5%Arizona 52,73322,77320,94523,477-29,960-56.8%-1,828-8.0%2,53212.1%Arkansas 66,38485,06888,187119,94518,68328.1%3,1193.7%31,75836.0%California 6225,0525,0525,0524,430712.1%00.0%00.0%Colorado 64,17472,26972,11988,3248,09512.6%-149-0.2%16,20422.5%Connecticut 10,3565,4935,5122,586-4,863-47.0%190.3%-2,926-53.1%Delaware 32,3787,8417,8068,919-24,538-75.8%-35-0.4%1,11314.3%District of Columbia 1,082000-1,082-100.0%00.0%00.0%Florida 417,321228,360192,903137,985-188,960-45.3%-35,458-15.5%-54,918-28.5%Georgia 616,054552,007173,21092,329-64,048-10.4%-378,796-68.6%-80,882-46.7%Idaho 00100-100.0%1N/A -1-100.0%Illinois 330,382724,657200,475164,733394,274119.3%-524,182-72.3%-35,742-17.8%Indiana 878,978829,988804,294240,599-48,990-5.6%-25,694-3.1%-563,695-70.1%Iowa 130,264169,039163,966102,41938,77529.8%-5,073-3.0%-61,547-37.5%Kansas 136,52059,56765,12551,248-76,953-56.4%5,5589.3%-13,878-21.3%Kentucky 502,731718,980739,592123,831216,24943.0%20,6122.9%-615,761-83.3%Louisiana 109,851100,23994,82494,892-9,612-8.8%-5,415-5.4%670.1%Maine 3,88715,75911,65011,66911,872305.4%-4,109-26.1%190.2%Maryland 283,20549,07842,63542,756-234,127-82.7%-6,443-13.1%1200.3%Massachusetts 85,76816,29916,2999,340-69,468-81.0%00.0%-6,959-42.7%Michigan 349,877287,807275,637173,414-62,070-17.7%-12,170-4.2%-102,223-37.1%Minnesota 101,66653,59661,44748,819-48,071-47.3%7,85214.6%-12,628-20.6%Mississippi 74,11746,43248,14962,356-27,685-37.4%1,7173.7%14,20729.5%Missouri 284,384445,643500,649192,644161,25956.7%55,00612.3%-308,004-61.5%Montana 19,71515,89316,86319,093-3,822-19.4%9716.1%2,22913.2%Nebraska 74,955120,790115,69575,09445,83661.2%-5,095-4.2%-40,601-35.1%Nevada 53,36313,32320,15520,531-40,040-75.0%6,83251.3%3761.9%New Hampshire 51,4457,2906,6087,290-44,155-85.8%-682-9.4%68210.3%New Jersey 57,04437,74637,66914,555-19,298-33.8%-78-0.2%-23,114-61.4%New Mexico 30,62813,21113,70813,027-17,417-56.9%4973.8%-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 180,847144,074141,35457,047-36,773-20.3%-2,720-1.9%-84,307-59.6%North Carolina 512,231126,620140,58596,924-385,611-75.3%13,96511.0%-43,661-31.1%North Dakota 137,37177,38380,32088,320-59,988-43.7%2,9373.8%8,00010.0%Ohio 1,116,084946,667841,194232,948-169,418-15.2%-105,473-11.1%-608,245-72.3%Oklahoma 110,081156,032165,773165,99445,95041.7%9,7416.2%2210.1%Oregon 12,30414,38113,36620,1872,07716.9%-1,015-7.1%6,82151.0%Pennsylvania 1,002,202966,136972,977153,204-36,066-3.6%6,8410.7%-819,773-84.3%Rhode Island 176000-176-100.0%00.0%00.0%South Carolina 218,782149,515156,096131,128-69,267-31.7%6,5814.4%-24,968-16.0%South Dakota 12,21513,45313,45928,8971,23710.1%60.0%15,438114.7%Tennessee 266,148596,987600,066106,762330,839124.3%3,0790.5%-493,304-82.2%Texas 534,949327,873373,950467,765-207,076-38.7%46,07714.1%93,81525.1%Utah 34,81324,97225,41429,117-9,842-28.3%4421.8%3,70314.6%Vermont 9000-9-100.0%00.0%00.0%Virginia 220,248145,452135,74157,496-74,796-34.0%-9,711-6.7%-78,245-57.6%Washington 3,40919,66319,15518,86316,255476.9%-508-2.6%-292-1.5%West Virginia 469,456588,392496,307127,646118,93625.3%-92,085-15.7%-368,662-74.3%Wisconsin 180,200107,365117,25385,788-72,836-40.4%9,8889.2%-31,464-26.8%Wyoming 89,87455,02553,50558,254-34,849-38.8%-1,520-2.8%4,7508.9%Grand Total 10,381,4089,499,9238,469,8194,045,461-881,485-8.5%-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 TRModeling 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 12,721,9739,527,221 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 Domain 15,862,11711,997,18811,207,62610,388,190-1,608,998-13.4% -819,435-7.3%Annual Total NOXEmissions for AllWestern States 3,669,688 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 TRModeling 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 PM2.512,173,77111,390,59810,285,7465,661,606-5,728,992-50.3% -4,624,139-45.0%Annual Total SO2Emissions for All StatesFully within the Eastern Modeling Domain 13,810,92112,639,28311,583,6377,123,638-5,515,645-43.6% -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 11,945,4461,445,5751,432,270918,963 -526,613-36.4% -513,308-35.8%Annual EGU NOXEmissions for 12 States + DCin Group 2831,991 632,031 626,150 401,542 -230,489-36.5% -224,608-35.9%Annual EGU NOXfor 27 States + DC Coveredfor PM2.52,777,4372,077,6062,058,4211,320,505-757,101-36.4% -737,916-35.8%Annual EGU NOXEmissions for All States Fullywithin the Eastern Modeling Domain 3,223,1842,485,8562,468,0571,648,621-837,234-33.7% -819,435-33.2%Annual EGU NOXEmissions for All WesternStates504,928 440,572 440,787 441,121 550 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 7,349,8146,303,3002,007,783-5,342,031-72.7% -4,295,516-68.1%Annual EGU SO2Emissions for 12 States +DC in Group 2 1,989,050 1,164,2591,118,141789,518 -374,740 -32.2% -328,623 -29.4%Annual EGU SO2for 27 States + DC Coveredfor PM2.59,029,138 8,514,0737,421,4412,797,302-5,716,771-67.1% -4,624,139-62.3%Annual EGU SO2Emissions for All StatesFully within the Eastern Modeling Domain 10,019,7749,243,3628,209,5363,749,537-5,493,825-59.4% -4,459,999-54.3%Annual EGU SO2Emissions for All WesternStates361,634 256,561 260,283 295,924 39,364 15.3% 35,64113.7%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 Ozone905,345 718,142 698,827 585,584 -132,559-18.5% -113,243-16.2%Summer Total NOxEmissions for 26 StatesIncluded for Ozone5,363,2784,085,5163,784,4303,671,187-414,329-10.1% -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 202 0 base case was developed using a similar

projections methodology as described in Section 3 f or the 2012 and 2014 base cases. The

primary difference in 2020 base case emissions is t he continued overall decrease in SO 2 

# emissions in 2020 compared to 2014. This is primar ily due to EGU reductions between 2014

and 2020. However, several states without EGU redu ctions show small SO 2 

# increases resulting

from increasing Class 3 Commercial Marine Vessel em issions (the C3 CMV control case will

significantly reduce these emissions in 2020 but wa s not signed prior to TR modeling) and other

minor source categories. NO X 

# emissions decrease between 2014 and 2020 in all st ates because

of continued EGU reductions and mobile source reduc tions. Showing emissions totals for 2014

and 2020 gives a sense as to whether control strate gies for TR in 2014 will be enough to

maintain air quality improvements in subsequent fut ure years (such as 2020).

Table 7-1 summarizes emissions as they are projecte d to change over time in the eastern

modeling domain states. Note that unlike the TR pr eamble, 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 sign ificantly

decreasing over time. Therefore, the reductions an d corresponding benefits achieved from the

EGU sector as a result of the proposed rule should be maintained over time. Table 7-2 provides

details for projected changes to each of the sector s.

As noted in the preamble to the proposed transport rule, EPA considers the maintenance concept

to have two components: (1) year-to-year variabilit y in emissions and air quality, and (2)

continued maintenance of the air quality standard o ver time. Regarding component (2), for

example, if emissions increases were expected durin g the time period after the rule took effect,

these increases might call into question whether th ere were sufficient emissions reductions

required by the rule to provide for continued maint enance 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 reduction s requirements.

Table 7-2 shows that:

• Region-wide emissions of both SO 2 

# and NO X 

# are substantially decreased 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 source s ector, 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 increases seen in a few generall y low-emitting states.

We acknowledge that there are some SO 2 

# increases projected in some states, such as Arkans as

and New York. Therefore, we cannot claim that ther e 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 inclu sion of new federal rules that have recently

# 53

been or will be promulgated in the intervening time (e.g., ECA-IMO, Boiler MACT, Portland

Cement NESHAP, RICE and Compression Engines and Spa rk Engines, and Light Duty

Greenhouse Gas Rule), will be available that will g ive us a more realistic estimate of the

probable level of emissions in 2020.

In our current future base case platform, there are no additional rules between years 2014 and

2020 that would impact the future year baseline inv entories, with the exception that full

implementation for some mobile rules (Light Duty Gr eenhouse 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 low er proportion of mobile emissions to overall

anthropogenic emissions in year 2020 than year 2014

.

# 54Table 7-1.Eastern Modeling Domain State Total Emissions for2005, 2014, and 2020 Base CasesState 2005 NOX2014 NOX2020NOX% ChangeNOX2020-2014 2005 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% 221,902 244,448187,608 -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% 158,24593,890 103,111 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% 120,01682,077 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 9,32310,270 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% 935,187678,662 665,567 -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-Sector Emissions for 2005, 2014, and 2020 Base CasesNOXSO2State Region Sector2005 BaseCase2014 BaseCase2020 BaseCase2020 Base -2014 Base2005 BaseCase2014 BaseCase2020 BaseCase2020 Base -2014 BaseNonEGU74,830 74,622 74,654 32 70,346 69,150 69,154 4Nonpoint32,024 31,939 31,906 -3352,325 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 0983 983 983 0Alabama SoutheastEGU 133,051 118,420 61,625 -56,795 460,123 322,130173,878 -148,252NonEGU37,478 37,491 37,512 21 13,066 13,055 13,058 3Nonpoint21,453 21,422 21,410 -1227,260 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 0728 728 728 0ArkansasSoutheastEGU 35,407 44,792 24,731 -20,061 66,384 88,187 102,681 14,494NonEGU5,824 5,854 5,896 42 1,831 1,834 1,838 4Nonpoint12,554 12,451 12,411 -4018,455 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 04440ConnecticutNortheastEGU 6,865 2,821 2,654 -16710,356 5,512 5,576 64

# 56NOXSO2State Region Sector2005 BaseCase2014 BaseCase2020 BaseCase2020 Base -2014 Base2005 BaseCase2014 BaseCase2020 BaseCase2020 Base -2014 BaseNonEGU5,567 5,567 5,568 134,859 10,974 10,974 0Nonpoint3,259 3,245 3,239 -65,859 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 06660DelawareNortheastEGU 11,917 4,513 4,107 -40632,378 7,806 7,786 -20NonEGU501 501 501 0686 686 686 0Nonpoint1,740 1,738 1,738 01,559 1,559 1,559 0Nonroad 3,494 2,398 1,637 -761414 440Onroad 9,677 3,929 3,240 -689172 42 42 0Fires 00000000District ofColumbiaSoutheastEGU 492 10-11,082 000NonEGU53,778 55,343 55,901 558 57,475 57,521 57,572 51Nonpoint29,533 29,457 29,428 -2970,490 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 2,1592,239 80Fires 25,600 25,600 25,600 07,018 7,018 7,018 0FloridaSoutheastEGU 217,263 180,801 104,861 -75,940 417,321 192,903135,962 -56,941NonEGU53,297 53,557 54,038 481 56,116 56,014 56,058 44Nonpoint38,919 38,797 38,750 -4756,829 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 1,3071,357 50Fires 7,955 7,955 7,955 02,010 2,010 2,010 0GeorgiaSoutheastEGU 111,017 48,091 45,072 -3,019 616,054 173,210 104,427 -68,783NonEGU97,504 93,059 94,160 1,101 156,154 133,109 133,18172Nonpoint47,645 47,540 47,500 -405,395 5,381 5,376 -5Nonroad 223,697 151,373 114,002 -37,371 19,302 390290 -100IllinoisMidwestOnroad 276,507 131,403 104,549 -26,854 5,716 1,2211,238 17

# 57NOXSO2State Region Sector2005 BaseCase2014 BaseCase2020 BaseCase2020 Base -2014 Base2005 BaseCase2014 BaseCase2020 BaseCase2020 Base -2014 BaseFires 71 71 71 020 20 20 0EGU 127,923 80,228 55,666 -24,562 330,382 200,475 132,000 -68,475NonEGU73,647 73,523 73,590 67 95,200 95,037 95,044 7Nonpoint30,185 30,107 30,077 -3059,775 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 82414Fires 88 88 88 024 24 24 0IndianaMidwestEGU 213,503 200,899 97,533 -103,366 878,978 804,294282,791 -521,503NonEGU39,299 38,831 38,852 21 61,241 60,195 60,197 2Nonpoint15,150 15,038 14,995 -4319,832 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 90 025 25 25 0IowaMidwestEGU 72,806 68,146 50,387 -17,759 130,264 163,966 107,136 -56,830NonEGU70,785 70,730 70,739 913,142 13,048 13,049 1Nonpoint42,286 42,238 42,219 -1936,381 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 0103 103 103 0KansasMidwestEGU 90,220 78,920 77,257 -1,663 136,520 65,125 65,661 536NonEGU35,432 34,979 35,157 178 25,811 23,804 23,822 18Nonpoint17,557 17,413 17,358 -5534,229 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 5302Fires 1,326 1,326 1,326 0364 364 364 0KentuckySoutheastEGU 164,743 148,509 70,773 -77,736 502,731 739,592201,569 -538,023NonEGU165,162 161,766 161,836 70 165,737 151,216 151,2237LouisianaSoutheastNonpoint27,559 27,515 27,498 -172,378 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 4744Fires 3,254 3,254 3,254 0892 892 892 0EGU 63,791 45,457 36,200 -9,257 109,851 94,824 93,708 -1,116NonEGU18,309 18,316 18,326 10 18,519 18,520 18,521 1Nonpoint7,423 7,257 7,192 -659,969 9,945 9,935 -10Nonroad 13,379 13,169 13,591 422 3,725 4,215 5,4721,257Onroad 38,469 18,061 13,552 -4,509 834 160 159 -1Fires 566 566 566 0150 150 150 0MaineNortheastEGU 1,100 2,535 2,296 -2393,887 11,650 15,286 3,636NonEGU24,621 24,687 24,794 107 34,988 34,994 35,004 10Nonpoint21,715 21,626 21,592 -3440,864 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 137 137 137 032 32 32 0MarylandNortheastEGU 62,574 19,990 17,284 -2,706 283,205 42,635 37,636 -4,999NonEGU18,429 18,527 18,664 137 19,620 19,624 19,637 13Nonpoint34,373 34,207 34,143 -6425,261 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 341 341 341 093 93 93 0MassachusettsNortheastEGU 25,618 6,619 6,039 -58085,768 16,299 16,346 47NonEGU94,139 94,079 94,294 215 76,510 76,437 76,460 23Nonpoint43,499 43,360 43,306 -5442,066 42,066 42,066 0Nonroad 101,087 73,939 58,797 -15,142 14,533 7,5368,286 750Onroad 279,816 135,806 98,222 -37,584 7,204 1,107 1,104 -3Fires 330 330 330 091 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 BaseNonEGU64,438 64,372 64,580 208 25,169 25,112 25,133 21Nonpoint56,700 56,545 56,485 -6014,747 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 6202Fires 2,300 2,300 2,300 0631 631 631 0MinnesotaMidwestEGU 83,836 51,859 33,575 -18,284 101,666 61,447 52,147 -9,300NonEGU53,985 52,440 52,454 14 29,892 24,427 24,429 2Nonpoint12,212 12,133 12,103 -306,796 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 01,051 1,051 1,051 0MississippiSoutheastEGU 45,166 37,142 18,322 -18,820 74,117 48,149 43,823 -4,326NonEGU38,604 38,744 38,988 244 78,307 77,086 77,111 25Nonpoint32,910 32,677 32,588 -8944,573 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 8026Fires 678 678 678 0186 186 186 0MissouriMidwestEGU 127,431 82,979 65,727 -17,252 284,384 500,649 193,799 -306,850NonEGU12,156 12,173 12,196 23 6,429 6,431 6,434 3Nonpoint13,820 13,779 13,763 -1629,575 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 0105 105 105 0NebraskaMidwestEGU 52,426 52,970 53,119 149 74,955 115,695 123,9378,242NonEGU3,241 3,255 3,275 20 3,245 3,246 3,248 2Nonpoint11,235 11,129 11,088 -417,408 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 137 137 137 038 38 38 0EGU 8,827 2,515 2,533 18 51,445 6,608 7,926 1,318NonEGU20,598 19,089 19,249 160 7,640 6,756 6,771 15Nonpoint26,393 26,298 26,261 -3710,726 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 223 223 223 061 61 61 0New JerseyNortheastEGU 30,114 16,268 12,809 -3,459 57,044 37,669 17,993 -19,676NonEGU55,122 55,359 55,688 329 58,562 58,584 58,615 31Nonpoint87,608 87,826 87,910 84 125,158 125,196 125,211 15Nonroad 121,363 92,841 82,308 -10,533 20,908 10,85315,885 5,032Onroad 282,072 129,376 115,246 -14,130 5,628 1,5941,589 -5Fires 412 412 412 0113 113 113 0New YorkNortheastEGU 63,465 28,350 22,322 -6,028 180,847 141,354 154,128 12,774NonEGU44,502 44,573 44,766 193 66,150 66,046 66,066 20Nonpoint18,869 18,669 18,591 -7822,020 21,994 21,984 -10Nonroad 135,936 133,455 142,195 8,740 42,743 52,89768,844 15,947Onroad 225,756 104,150 80,908 -23,242 5,341 961 98827Fires 11,424 11,424 11,424 0696 696 696 0North CarolinaSoutheastEGU 111,576 61,747 61,780 33 512,231 140,585 129,559 -11,026NonEGU71,715 69,157 69,297 140 118,468 105,123 105,138 15Nonpoint41,466 41,352 41,307 -4519,810 19,810 19,810 0Nonroad 173,988 120,900 92,379 -28,521 15,615 2,0852,116 31Onroad 270,383 122,426 93,881 -28,545 6,293 1,171 1,177 6Fires 81 81 81 022 22 22 0OhioMidwestEGU 258,687 164,945 98,106 -66,839 1,116,084 841,194 335,111 -506,083NonEGU73,465 72,525 72,567 42 40,482 36,924 36,929 5OklahomaSouthwestNonpoint94,574 94,513 94,490 -237,542 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 53612Fires 1,709 1,709 1,709 0469 469 469 0EGU 86,204 81,122 83,669 2,547 110,081 165,773 161,705 -4,068NonEGU89,208 84,111 84,363 252 85,411 76,256 76,281 25Nonpoint53,435 53,246 53,173 -7368,349 68,324 68,314 -10Nonroad 118,774 83,885 65,340 -18,545 11,972 4,1174,644 527Onroad 266,649 118,122 95,864 -22,258 5,363 1,169 1,160 -9Fires 117 117 117 032 32 32 0PennsylvaniaNortheastEGU 176,870 196,151 111,174 -84,977 1,002,202 972,977 325,971 -647,006NonEGU2,164 2,186 2,217 31 2,743 2,745 2,748 3Nonpoint2,964 2,957 2,955 -23,365 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 -956208 85 86 1Fires 44401110Rhode IslandNortheastEGU 545 281 233 -48176 000NonEGU29,069 28,969 28,998 29 31,495 31,453 31,457 4Nonpoint20,281 20,271 20,267 -430,016 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 5565Fires 2,357 2,357 2,357 0646 646 646 0South CarolinaSoutheastEGU 53,823 47,512 34,592 -12,920 218,782 156,096 130,984 -25,112NonEGU60,353 59,694 59,864 170 78,206 77,605 77,623 18Nonpoint18,676 18,542 18,490 -5232,714 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 85223Fires 1,012 1,012 1,012 0277 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 BaseNonEGU292,806 282,509 283,203 694 223,625 155,720 155,79272Nonpoint274,338 274,163 274,096 -67109,215 109,194 109,185 -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 2,5112,584 73Fires 4,890 4,890 4,890 01,178 1,178 1,178 0TexasSouthwestEGU 176,170 166,177 137,803 -28,374 534,949 373,950354,490 -19,460NonEGU799 803 808 5902 903 903 0Nonpoint3,438 3,397 3,382 -155,385 5,380 5,378 -2Nonroad 3,951 2,771 2,112 -659385 770Onroad 13,316 8,563 6,328 -2,235 305 101 107 6Fires 179 179 179 049 49 49 0VermontNortheastEGU 297 090NonEGU60,101 60,216 60,412 196 69,440 69,177 69,196 19Nonpoint53,605 53,464 53,409 -5532,923 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 93315Fires 1,456 1,456 1,456 0399 399 399 0VirginiaSoutheastEGU 62,512 32,115 34,801 2,686 220,248 135,741 96,897 -38,844NonEGU36,913 35,700 35,703 348,314 41,817 41,817 0Nonpoint14,519 14,459 14,436 -2314,589 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 0215 215 215 0West VirginiaSoutheastEGU 159,804 100,103 52,077 -48,026 469,456 496,307124,942 -371,365NonEGU40,688 40,729 40,789 60 66,807 66,456 66,463 7Nonpoint21,994 21,974 21,967 -76,369 6,370 6,370 0Nonroad 75,981 53,848 41,958 -11,890 7,129 638 68547WisconsinMidwestOnroad 147,952 71,163 56,315 -14,848 3,110 675 69116

# 63NOXSO2State Region Sector2005 BaseCase2014 BaseCase2020 BaseCase2020 Base -2014 Base2005 BaseCase2014 BaseCase2020 BaseCase2020 Base -2014 BaseFires 256 256 256 070 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 Apport ionment Tools in CAMx and CMAQ, EPD-07-102. University of North Carolina, Institute f or the Environment, August 2009.

Environ, 2009: Comprehensive Air Quality Model wit h Extensions Version 5 User’s Guide.

Environ International Corporation. Novato, CA. Marc h 2009.

EPA, 2005. Clean Air Interstate Rule Emissions Inve ntory Technical Support Document, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Qual ity Planning and Standards, March

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

.

EPA, 2006. Regulatory Impact Analyses, 2006 Nationa l Ambient Air Quality Standards for

Particle Pollution. U.S. Environmental Protection A gency, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards, October, 2006. Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2 001-0017, # EPAHQ-OAR-2006-

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

.

EPA, 2007a. Guidance for Estimating VOC and NOx Emi ssion Changes from MACT Rules,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air

Quality Policy Division, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, EPA-457/B-07-001, May 2007.

Available at

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/o3imp8hr/documen ts/guidance/200705_epa457_b- 07-

001_emission_changes_mact_rules.pdf

.

EPA. 2007b. National Scale Modeling for the Final M obile Source Air Toxics Rule, Office of

Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emissions Analy sis 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 Final Ru le: Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants

from Mobile Sources, U.S. Environmental Protection 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/regs/toxics/420r07002.pdf

.

EPA, 2009. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from

Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression Ignition Engines Less than 30 Liters Per

Cylinder. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Off ice of Transportation and Air Quality,

Assessment and Standards Division, Ann Arbor, MI 48 105, EPA420-R-08-001a, May 2009.

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

EPA, 2010. RFS2 Emissions Inventory for Air Qualit y Modeling Technical Support Document,

February, 2010. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r10005.pd f

.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 t able to actual data files, combine the Dataset

name and the version number in the following patter n: <Dataset Name>_<Date>_<Version

number>.txt, where <Date> is the last date of chang e for that version and will have a unique

value for the combination of Dataset Name and Versi on number.

# A1Table A-1.Detailed list of ancillary file data differences between the TR 2005 Base Case and the 2012 and 2014 Base CasesInputEnvironmentVariableDataset 2005 basecaseVersion2005Base Sector Dataset 2012 base caseVersion2012cases Dataset 2014 casesVersion2014cases Impact? And commentsOnroad temperatureadjustmentsADJ_FACSMOVESPmOcEcTempAdjFactors 20051on_moves_runpmMOVESPmOcEcTempAdjFactors 2005MOVESPmOcEcTempAdjFactors_2014_JAN20101No impact for running modeemisionsOnroad temperatureadjustmentsADJ_FACSMOVESPmOcEcTempAdjFactors 20051on_moves_startpmMOVESPmOcEcTempAdjFactors 2005MOVESPmOcEcTempAdjFactors_2014_JAN20101The upwards PM adjustment forcold start emissions is slightlyless in 2014 than 2005 (and2012)nonpoint & nonroadsurrogate xref AGREF amgref_us_can_mex_revised5All sectors amgref_us_can_mex_revised 7same as 2012No impact. SCCs added forunrelated modeling inventories.Grid Description ListGRIDDESCgriddesc_lambertonly 24All sectors griddesc_lambertonly 13same as 2012No impact. Later versionscontain additional grids not usedin 2012 and 2014 TR modeling.GSCNV - pollutantto pollutantconversions GSCNV gscnv_cmaq_cb05_tx_pf4 2All sectors gscnv_cmaq_cb05_tx_pf4 3same as 2012No impact. Duplicate recordsremoved in 2012 and 2014 basecase.GSCNV - pollutantto pollutantconversions tier2 GSCNV N/A All sectorsgscnv_cmaq_cb05_tier2_nontoxic 0same 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 0same as 2012Yes. Future year contains Tier 1and Tier 2 E0 and E10combination profiles.Combination profilesGSPRO_COMBOgspro_combo_2005 2All 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_COMBO N/A on_noadjgspro_combo_2012_onroad_nonroad_exhevp 1same as 2012Yes. Contains Tier 2 E0 andE10 combination profiles foronroad mobile.Combination profilesfor noptGSPRO_COMBO N/A nonptgspro_combo_stationary_aeo.TXT 0same 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 0same as 2012Yes. Future year containsE0/E10/E85 blend based onethanol penetration for nonroadrefueling sources.Combination profilesfor ptnonipmGSPRO_COMBO N/A ptnonipm gspro_combo_stationary_aeo.TXT0same as 2012Yes. Future year containsE0/E10/E85 blend based onethanol penetration for gasolinedistribution (bulk terminal topump) sources.

# A2InputEnvironmentVariableDataset 2005 basecaseVersion2005Base Sector Dataset 2012 base caseVersion2012cases Dataset 2014 casesVersion2014cases Impact? And commentsCombination profilesfor nonroad exh-evpGSPRO_COMBO N/A nonroadgspro_combo_2012_onroad_nonroad_exhevp 1same 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_nontoxic1same 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 2same 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 0same 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 3All sectors 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 19All sectors gsref_voc_general_rfs2_2022 3same 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 2All sectors gsref_voc_future_rfs2_mobile 1same as 2012Yes. Future year onroad andnonroad mobile assigned to Tier2 E0/E10 combination profilesfor all VOC modes.Speciation xref forNONHAPVOC, notyear-specificGSREFgsref_nonhapvoc_general_update3All sectorsgsref_nonhapvoc_general_rfs2_20224same as 2012Yes. Same asgsref_voc_general_rfs2_2022but for non-HAP VOCemissions for future yearemissions.Speciation xref forNONHAPVOC,year-specific GSREF gsref_nonhapvoc_2005 1All sectors N/A same as 2012Yes. Same asgsref_voc_general for 2005 basecase but for non-HAP VOCemissions.Speciation xref HG GSREF gsref_hg 5All sectors gsref_hg 7same as 2012No. Mercury emissions notincluded in TR.Speciation xref forNONHAPVOC,year-specific, mobilerecordsGSREF N/A All sectorsgsref_nonhapvoc_future_rfs2_mobile0same as 2012Yes. Same asgsref_voc_future_rfs2_mobilebut for non-HAP VOCemissions for future yearemissions.

# A3InputEnvironmentVariableDataset 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_nomobile 0same as 2012Yes. Same asgsref_voc_future_rfs2_nomobile but for non-HAP VOCemissions for future yearemissions.Speciation xref forspeciated VOC GSREF gsref_speciated_voc 1othptgsref_voc_future_rfs2_nomobile 3same as 2012Yes. Gasoline DistributionSCCs in future year use E0/E10combination assignments.Inventory Table -HAPCAP integrationbut no toxicsINVTABLEinvtable_hapcapintegate_cb05soa_nomp4All sectorsinvtable_hapcapintegate_cb05soa_nomp4invtable_hapcapintegate_cb05soa_nomp7No impact. VOC mode speciessaved for reporting purposes in2012 and 2014.onroad surrogate xrefdefault MGREF amgref_us_can_mex_revised7All sectors amgref_us_can_allmex3 10same 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 Modeling Case - SMOKE Input Inventory Datasets

In any of the following dataset names where the pla ceholder <mon> has been provided, this is intended to

mean 12 separate files with the <mon> placeholder r eplaced with either jan, feb, mar, apr, may, jun, j ul, aug,

sep, oct, nov, or dec, each associated with a parti cular month of the year.

Several inventories are the same in the 2005 base c ase and all future year cases. These inventories a re listed

in the “All Cases” in Table B-1. In addition, only the EGU sector (ptipm) emissions are different bet ween

the 2014 base case and 2014 control case.

# B2Table 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

# B3Case 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

# B4Case 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 application of OECA Consent Decree s 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 yea r. 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