## Appendix B

Emissions Inventory Methodology

### B - i



# Emission Estimation Methodology for Cargo Handling Equipment Operating at Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards in California

### B - ii 

## Table of Contents

Contents Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................

................................................... .........B-1

I. INTRODUCTION A. Background......................................

................................................... ....B-3

II. EMISSIONS CALCULATION METHODOLOGY A. Methodology .....................................

................................................... ...B-5 B. Emission Inventory Inputs....................... ................................................B-6 1. Population ...................................... ..............................................B-6 2. Average Horsepower .............................. .....................................B-7 3. Activity........................................ ..................................................B -9 4. Engine Load Factor.............................. ........................................B-9 5. Emission Factors................................ ........................................B-10 6. Emission Factor Deterioration................... .................................B-10 7. Fuel Correction Factors......................... .....................................B-13 8. Add-on Controls and Other Emission Reduction Str ategies.......B-13 C. Emission Projections............................ .................................................B- 14 1. Growth Factors.................................. .........................................B-14 2. Equipment Attrition or Scrappage ................ ..............................B-14 3. New Engine Standards ............................ ..................................B-15

III. EMISSION ESTIMATES............................

................................................... ...B-16 A. Statewide Emission Estimates.................... ..........................................B-16 B. District-specific Emission Estimates ........... ..........................................B-16 C. Cargo Handling Equipment-specific Emission Estim ates......................B-17 D. Benefits of Voluntary Programs and Future Emissi on Projections........B-17

Appendices

Appendix A: Emission Inventory Inputs (Population A llocations, Engine Profiles,

Engine Loads, Useful Life, Deterioration Factors, G rowth Factors, Fuel Correction Factors) Appendix B: 2004 Emission Estimates (tons per day) By Facility Type, By Equipment

Type, By Model Year, and By Horsepower Category Appendix C: Statewide Cargo Handling Equipment Surv ey

### B - iii 

## Table of Contents (continued)

Contents Page

List of Figures and Tables

Table ES-1: Estimated Statewide 2004 Cargo Handling Equipment Emissions.........B-1 Table ES-2: Estimated District Allocations of State wide 2004 Cargo Handling

Equipment Emissions ................................ .............................................B-2 Table I-1: Categories of Cargo Handling Equipment I ncluded in the Emissions Inventory............................... .................................................B- 3 Table II-1: Estimated Statewide Cargo Handling Equi pment Populations.......................................

................................................... ...B-7 Table II-2: 2004 Cargo Handling Equipment Profiles at Ports..................................B-8 Table II-3: 2004 Cargo Handling Equipment Profiles at Intermodal Rail Yards ............................ .................................................B- 9 Table II-4: Engine Load Factors....................

................................................... ......B-10 Table II-5: Estimated Percentages of Existing Cargo Handling Equipment with Onroad, Offroad, or Retrofitted En gines......................B-12 Table II-6: Cargo Handling Equipment Useful Life In puts ......................................B-13 Table III-1: Estimated Statewide 2004 Cargo Handlin g Equipment Emissions (tons per day) .......................... ............................................B-16 Table III-2: Estimated 2004 Cargo Handling Equipmen t Emissions

By District (tons per day)......................... ............................................. B-17 Table III-3 Cargo Handling Equipment Engines Projec ted Year 2010 and 2020 Emission Estimates.......................... ............................................B-19

Figure II-1: Attrition Curve, 12 Year Useful Life..

................................................... ..B-15 Figure III-1: Baseline vs. Voluntary Programs Diesel PM Emissions (tons per year).............. ......................................B-18

### B - 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The California Air Resources Board (ARB) staff deve loped a statewide emission estimation methodology for cargo handling equipment at ports and intermodal rail yards. This effort was undertaken to support the developme nt of a statewide emission control strategy addressing emissions from cargo handling e quipment at ports and intermodal rail yards. The methodology reflects updated popul ation and activity data for cargo handling equipment statewide by equipment type base d on a survey conducted by ARB in early 2004 and recent emission inventories prepa red for the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Emissions estimates were developed for nine equipment types associated with California’s ports and intermodal rail yards i ncluding aerial lifts, cranes, excavators, forklifts, container handling equipment, other gene ral industrial equipment, sweeper/scrubbers, tractor/loader/backhoes, and yar d trucks. A total of 16 ports and 14 intermodal rail yards are included in this estim ation.

The ARB staff estimates that in 2004, cargo handlin g equipment diesel-fueled engines operating at ports and intermodal rail yards in Cal ifornia emitted approximately 0.65 tons per day of diesel PM. In addition, those engines are estimated to have emitted approximately 19 tons per day of oxides of nitrogen (NOx). As shown in Table ES-1, yard trucks, container handling equipme nt (top picks, sides picks, etc.), and cranes are responsible for the majority of the emis sions representing approximately 90 percent of the emissions for all pollutants.

Table ES-1: Estimated Statewide 2004 Cargo Handlin g Equipment Emissions

2004 Pollutant Emissions, Tons Per Day Equipment Types Numbers of Equipment NOx Diesel PM

Cranes 321 1.93 0.07 Excavators 28 0.24 0.01 Forklifts 464 0.54 0.03 Container Handling Equipment 487 3.25 0.11

Other, General Industrial Equipment 40 0.08 <0.01
Sweeper/Scrubbers 28 0.04 <0.01 Tractor/Loader/ Backhoe 93 0.18 0.01 Yard Trucks 2,277 12.78 0.42 Totals 3,738 19.04 0.65

Emissions were also allocated to the districts base d on the location of a port or intermodal rail yard. Only 8 of the 35 air polluti on control (APCD) or air quality management districts (AQMD) (districts) in Californ ia had emissions associated with ports or intermodal rail yards. A summary of the e mission estimates for the 8 districts with the highest estimates of emissions is provided in Table ES-2. As is shown, the

### B - 2

districts with the ports or intermodal rail yards r esponsible for the largest contributions of emissions are in the South Coast AQMD and the Bay A rea AQMD. Those two districts account for approximately 90 percent of the statewi de numbers of cargo handling equipment and 85 percent of the emissions of all po llutants from cargo handling equipment.

Table ES-2: Estimated District Allocations of Stat ewide 2004 Cargo Handling

Equipment Emissions

District NOx Diesel PM Bay Area 3.34 0.11 Mojave 0.08 <0.01 North Coast 0.06 <0.01 San Diego 0.75 0.03 San Joaquin 0.55 0.01 South Coast 13.38 0.45 Ventura 0.66 0.02 Yolo-Solano 0.08 <0.01

Note 1: The following districts had no cargo handling equip ment emissions allocated to them: Amador, Antelope Valley, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, El Dorado, Feathe r River, Glenn, Great Basin Unified, Imperial, Kern , Lake, Lassen, Mariposa, Mendocino, Modoc, Monterey Bay, Unified, Northern Sierra, Northern Sonoma, Placer, Sacramento, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Shasta, Siskiyou, Teham a, and Tuolumne. Note 2: The total emissions may vary slightly from the values shown in Table ES-1 due to rounding.

### B - 3

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Background

In this chapter, ARB staff provides background on t he cargo handling equipment emissions inventory, our purpose and goals in prepa ring an emissions inventory update, and a general overview of the methodology developed to estimate the emissions from cargo handling equipment.

Cargo handling equipment is used for commercial pur poses to move consumer goods through California’s ports and intermodal facilitie s. There are a number of types of cargo handling equipment including container handli ng equipment such as top picks and rubber tire gantry cranes and bulk handling equ ipment which includes tractors, sweepers, fork lifts, and excavators.

A list of the different types of cargo handling equ ipment and a brief description of the work done by that equipment type is found in Table I-1. This equipment is generally operated at a port or intermodal facility, although it can be used at other facilities such as distribution centers. 1



### Table I-1: Categories of Cargo Handling Equipment Included in the

Emissions Inventory

Equipment Type Description

Cranes Cranes include rubber tire gantry cranes and other mobile cranes used to

move containers from vessels to dockside, used to s tack and unstack containers, and used to move containers to and from yard trucks Excavators Used to pick up heavy bulk materials and other dry bulk materials

Forklifts Used to move cargo, truck chassis, or other equipme nt short distances for

placement on or removal from stacks
Container Handling Equipment Includes side picks, top picks, reach stackers. Us ed to stack containers,

move containers from one area of the terminal to an other, or move containers on and off yard trucks Other, General Industrial Equipment Includes a variety of equipment types including aer ial lifts, euclids, rail-car movers, and heavy duty off-highway trucks Sweeper/Scrubbers Used to clean up after bulk goods movement Tractor/Loader/ Backhoe Used to load and unload bulk materials

Yard Truck Used to move containers to and from ships/trains, m ove containers within or

off the terminal, and move containers to and from R TG cranes for placement on or removal from stacks



### Cargo handling equipment can be a significant sourc e of diesel particulate matter (PM) emissions in communities near ports and intermodal rail facilities. To reduce diesel

1 Cargo handling equipment used at other types of fa cilities associated with the movement of goods in California, such as distribution centers, are not i ncluded in this emissions inventory.

### B - 4

particulate matter (PM) emissions in communities ne ar ports and intermodal rail yards, ARB staff are undertaking a rule-making effort to r equire reductions in emissions from cargo handling equipment. To support that rule-mak ing and to assist in understanding the impacts from any proposed rule, it is necessary to develop a detailed emissions inventory for the specific types of equipment used in these facilities.

Our goals in undertaking this emissions inventory u pdate were to:

• Update the inventory to reflect the most current c argo handling equipment fleets;

• Develop a consistent methodology that could be use d statewide to estimate emissions from cargo handling equipment at ports an d intermodal rail yards;

• Establish a structure that would allow allocation of the statewide emissions to individual ports and/or intermodal rail facilities; and

• Accurately reflect adopted regulations and other r egulatory programs in the baseline inventory and in any future year forecasts.

### B - 5

II. EMISSION CALCULATION METHODOLOGY

In this section, we provide a discussion of the met hodology used to develop the cargo handling equipment emission estimation methodology.

Briefly, the approach used to develop the cargo han dling equipment emissions inventory estimates entailed determining the averag e annual emissions per engine for each equipment type and then multiplying that value by the total number of engines in that grouping. The majority of the inputs that wen t into developing the average annual emissions came from individual engine profiles deve loped using the information from a Cargo Handling Equipment Survey conducted by the AR B in 2004 and cargo handling equipment population information provided by the po rts of Los Angeles and Long Beach. These inputs were then processed using a te mplate based on the ARB’s OFFROAD model (ARB, 2000) to estimate annual emissi ons per engine for each equipment type. This data was then expanded to inc lude the estimated statewide population of cargo handling equipment fitting a sp ecific age and horsepower range. To estimate port-specific emissions, the populations o f cargo handling equipment were allocated based on the ARB Survey and the port-spec ific data. Emission estimates were developed for the eight types of equipment des cribed in Table I-1. Estimates for oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and particulate matter (PM ) were made.

Below, we provide a more detailed discussion of the methodology used to estimate the cargo handling equipment emission inventory, includ ing the assumptions and data inputs used.

A. Methodology

The basic equation used for estimating emissions fr om cargo handling equipment is:

E y,t 

### = Σ Pop t, v, x 

### ∗ HP ∗ %Load t 

### ∗ EF v, x 

### ∗ Hrs t



### where

E = pollutant specific emissions (tons per year of NOx and diesel PM) Pop = cargo handling equipment type-specific population HP = engine average rated brake horsepower in a given horsepower range % Load = average engine load EF = emission factor Hrs = average annual use in hours y = inventory year t = equipment type (cranes, yard trucks, etc) v = engine age (based on model year) x = horsepower range of the engine



### Each of these elements, and how they were incorpora ted into the cargo handling equipment emission estimates, are discussed below. The base year for the cargo handling equipment emissions inventory is 2004.

### B - 6

B. Emission Inventory Inputs

1. Population

The cargo handling equipment populations were devel oped using information from the ARB 2004 Cargo Handling Equipment Survey, the 2001 Port of Los Angeles emissions inventory, and the 2002 Port of Long Beach emission s inventory. These sources of information are described below. In addition, the steps taken to develop port-specific and intermodal facility-specific estimates of the n umbers of cargo handling equipment for 2004 are described.

ARB’s Cargo Handling Equipment Survey (December 200 4)

The ARB conducted a survey of cargo handling equipm ent owner/operators to collect information about the different types of cargo hand ling equipment (ARB’s Statewide Cargo Handling Equipment Survey, or ARB Survey). O wners/operators of cargo handling equipment were sent a copy of the ARB’s su rvey in 2004. The survey requested, for the year 2004, information about the numbers of different types of cargo handling equipment at port terminals, annual use, i nformation about the general equipment operating conditions, and engine informat ion (make and model of the engine, horsepower, annual hours of use, any control equipm ent associated with it, etc.). The ARB Survey also requested information on projected estimated growth in equipment and hours of operation in 2010 and 2020.

The survey was sent to more than 120 owner/operator s statewide and the ARB received 69 responses representing approximately 2, 000 pieces of equipment. A copy of the ARB Survey is provided in Appendix C. Becau se the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach had recently conducted a similar survey, the terminal operators at those two ports were only requested to respond to the sur vey questions on anticipated growth and the types of installed controls.

Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach Cargo Ha ndling Equipment Data

To develop port-wide emissions inventories, the Por ts of Los Angeles and Long Beach (the Ports) authorized Starcrest Consulting Group t o collect information about the cargo handling equipment that operate on their respective properties. The Port of Los Angeles collected information for 2001 and the Port of Long Beach collected data for 2002. The information collected by Starcrest was p rovided to the ARB and included information about the equipment type, owner/operato r contact information, enginespecific information (make, model, load factor, etc .), and annual activity.

Estimating 2004 Cargo Handling Equipment Population s

To make the cargo handling equipment emission estim ates compatible with the ARB’s OFFROAD model, the different equipment types at por ts and intermodal rail yards collected through the ARB Survey and the Ports of L os Angeles (POLA) and Long

### B - 7

Beach (POLB) were allocated to the eight equipment categories described previously in Table I-1. Because the cargo handling equipment po pulations for the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach were associated with 2001 an d 2002, respectively, these populations were grown to 2004 estimates using a 3% annual growth factor for both the equipment populations and the equipment activity. T his growth factor is based on the projected growth data collected as a part of the AR B Survey. The populations of cargo handling equipment, by type, were assigned to a por t or intermodal facility based on ARB Survey data. 2



### In addition, adjustments to the cargo handling equi pment populations at several ports were made due to partial, or no, reporting of the c argo handling equipment at a number of ports. Using information gathered by contacting the ports directly or from published information regarding cargo throughputs, the ARB st aff developed estimates of the populations for cargo handling equipment for each p ort where information was not complete.

Based on this approach, we estimate that there are approximately 3,700 pieces of cargo handling equipment statewide.

Table II-1: Estimated Statewide Cargo Handling Equ ipment Populations 3



### Equipment Type Estimated 2004 Population Cranes 321 Excavators 28 Forklifts 464 Container Handling Equipment 487 Other, General Industrial Equipment 40 Sweeper/Scrubbers 28 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 93 Yard Truck 2,277 Total 3,738



### 2. Average Horsepower

Using the ARB’s 2004 Cargo Handling Equipment Surve y and the cargo handling equipment emissions inventory data for the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, average horsepower for various engine horsepower ra nges were estimated by equipment type. Below, the horsepower range of the equipment, the average horsepower, and the average annual hours of operati on for each equipment type at ports (Table II-2) and at intermodal rail yards (Ta ble II-3) are presented below.

2 There were no additional adjustments to cargo hand ling equipment populations associated with intermodal rail yards because 100 percent of the in termodal facilities reported their equipment populations.
3 The population values only include diesel-fueled e ngines. While there are gasoline and alternate fue lpowered cargo handling equipment, this inventory on ly focuses on diesel-fueled equipment.

### B - 8

Table II-2: 2004 Cargo Handling Equipment Profiles at Ports

Equipment Type HP Range Average HP Average Annual Use

(hrs – 2004)

< 50 43 51 - 120 112 121 - 175 150 176 - 250 210 251 - 500 412 501 - 750 657 Cranes

751 - 1000 966 1371

176 - 250 245 Excavators 251 - 500 387 2222

< 50 45 51 - 120 103 121 - 175 154 176 - 250 208 Forklifts

251 - 500 278 1098

51 - 120 111 121 - 175 164 176 - 250 236 251 - 500 310 Container Handling Equipment

751 - 1000 930 2388

<50 50 51 – 120 99 121 – 175 157 176 – 250 225 Other General Equipment

251 - 500 387 693

< 50 48 51 - 120 106 121 - 175 148 Sweeper/Scrubber

176 - 250 180 872

<50 40 51 – 120 88 121 – 175 148 176 – 250 203 251 – 500 356 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe

501 – 750 750 755

51 – 120 85 121 – 175 172 176 – 250 212 251 – 500 434 Yard Trucks

501 - 750 635 2536

### B - 9

Table II-3: 2004 Cargo Handling Equipment Profiles at Intermodal Rail Yards

Equipment Type HP Range Average HP Average Annual Use

(hrs – 2004)

176 – 250 236 Cranes 251 – 500 309 1632

51 – 120 93 121 – 175 153 Forklifts
176 – 250 200 803

121 – 175 160 176 – 250 208 Container Handling Equipment
251 – 500 299 2388

126 – 175 150 176 – 250 250 Other General Equipment
251 - 500 344 1632

Sweeper/Scrubber 176 – 250 200 872 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 51 – 120 70 755
126 – 175 150 Yard Truck 176 – 250 203 1289

Note: If there is not a specific horsepower range listed for a specific type of equipment, then there were no engines in that size range used by that type of equipment.



### 3. Activity

The ARB Survey and the information provided by the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach provided engine-specific annual use values (h ours of operation). It was assumed that all of an engine’s hours of operation occurred within the borders of California. The equipment type-specific annual ave rage use, in hours, can be found in Tables II-2 and II-3 above. The annual use values were used to estimate cumulative engine use. Cumulative engine use is estimated by multiplying the annual use by the age of the engine. The estimate of cumulative engi ne use is the basis for estimating the impacts of engine deterioration on emissions from i ndividual engines. A discussion of how emission factor deterioration rates were develo ped is provided in subsection 6 “Emission Factor Deterioration.”

4. Engine Load Factor

The engine load under normal operating conditions i s another key activity input. Information about the operating load factors for ca rgo handling equipment was taken from the engine load factors specified in the ARB’s OFFROAD model for the specific type of cargo handling equipment or similar equipme nt. Table II-4 below provides the engine load factors, by equipment type, used to est imate emissions.

### B - 10 Table II-4: Engine Load Factors

Equipment Type Engine Load Factor
Cranes 43% Excavators 57% Forklifts 30% Container Handling Equipment 59% Other, General Industrial Equipment 51% Sweeper/Scrubbers 68% Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 55% Yard Trucks 65%



### Staff considered using an alternative load factor f or yard tractors to better represent the engine load yard trucks operate under in their day- to-day activities. However, after additional investigation, ARB staff decided not to revise the engine load factor at this time. This decision is based on a lack of adequate test data to support the use of a revised yard truck engine load factor. There is a study underway by the ARB and the Port of Los Angeles to investigate cargo handling e quipment load factors. As the results of those studies become available, the carg o handling equipment emission inventory will be revised.

5. Emission Factors

In 2004, the cargo handling equipment populations a t California’s ports and intermodal rail yards were comprised of a mix of cargo handlin g equipment units with different engines types (off-road and on-road) and units empl oying voluntary emission control strategies (controlled). In an effort to take this equipment mix into account, the ARB staff developed a composite emission factor based o n the relative percentage off-road, on-road, and retrofitted engines. The emission fac tors for off-road engines are taken from the ARB’s OFFROAD model. Emission factors for on-road engines were taken from the ARB’s on-road engine certification standar ds. The emission factors for retrofitted equipment were developed using OFFROAD emission factors with the control device-specific control efficiencies applied.

6. Emission Factor Deterioration

As an engine ages, the pollutant-specific emission factors slowly increase. This phenomenon is described as “deterioration” and is p rimarily due to the wear on the various parts of an engine with use. Deterioration occurs at different rates for each pollutant. When developing emission estimates, it is essential that deterioration be taken into account and factored in the emissions es timation methodology. The deterioration rates used in the OFFROAD model are e xpressed as the percent increase in emissions over the percent of an engine’s useful life consumed (see Appendix A). The methodology used for cargo handling equipment r elies on the deterioration functions developed for the ARB’s OFFROAD model. H owever, modifications were made to better reflect the operation of cargo handl ing equipment.

### B - 11

The deteriorated emission factors were developed us ing the same methodology found in the ARB’s OFFROAD model.

Deteriorated Emission Factor EF = ZH + DR * Hrs And

Deterioration Rate DR = (ZH * DF) / UL

Where: EF = emission factor , in grams per horsepower-hour (g/hp-hr) ZH = zero-hour emission rate , or when the equipment is new (g/hp-hr) Hrs = cumulative hours , or total number of hours accumulated on the equipment (equipment age x average ann ual activity, from survey data) DR = deterioration rate , or the increase in ZH emissions as the equipment is used (g/hp-hr) DF = deterioration factor (% increase per % useful life consumed) UL= useful life of engine (in hours) (cargo handling equipment sur vey maximum useful life * average annual activity)

Two of the components, zero hour emission factors ( ZH) and useful life values (UL), were revised based on the data gathered by the ARB’ s cargo handling equipment survey and the cargo handling equipment emissions i nventory done by the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. A discussion of these two adjustments is provided below.

Zero Hour Emission Rates

As discussed above, revised zero hour emission fact ors were developed using a weighted average based on the product of the number s of off-road, on-road, and retrofitted engines in the statewide cargo handling equipment population and the emission factors associated with those engines. Th e numbers of off-road, on-road, and controlled engines were based on engine model infor mation collected from the ARB’s survey and the emission inventories at the ports. Table II-5 below provides a summary of the percentage breakdown for the different engin e configurations (on-road, off-road or controlled) estimated for each model year.

### B - 12

Table II-5: Estimated Percentages of Existing Cargo Handling Equipment with Onroad, Offroad, or Controlled Engines

Yard Trucks Cranes Forklift Other, General Equip Model Yr

Onroad Offroad w/controls Offroad

w/controls Offroad

w/controls Offroad w/controls 1980 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1981 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1982 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1983 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1984 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1985 27.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1986 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1987 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1988 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1989 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1990 13.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1991 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1992 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1993 7.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1994 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1995 24.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1996 24.9% 65.0% 13.1% 8.0% 42.9% 1997 24.9% 65.0% 13.1% 8.0% 42.9% 1998 24.9% 65.0% 13.1% 8.0% 42.9% 1999 24.9% 65.0% 13.1% 8.0% 42.9% 2000 24.9% 65.0% 13.1% 8.0% 42.9% 2001 24.9% 65.0% 13.1% 8.0% 42.9% 2002 24.9% 65.0% 13.1% 8.0% 42.9% 2003 24.9% 65.0% 13.1% 8.0% 42.9% 2004 24.9% 65.0% 13.1% 8.0% 42.9%



### Useful Life

The average useful life for each type of cargo hand ling equipment was based on operators responses to the ARB Cargo Handling Equip ment Survey. Table II-6 provides the average useful life by equipment type based upon where the equipment is used, at a port or at a rail yard. Table II-6 also includes the average annual usage (from Tables II-2 and II-3) and the engine load factor (f rom Table II-4).

### B - 13

Table II-6: Cargo Handling Equipment Useful Life I nputs

Average Annual Usage (hrs/yr) Average

Annual Usage (hrs/yr) Engine Load

Factors Average

Useful Life (yrs) Average

Useful Life (yrs) Equipment Type

Port Rail Port/Rail Port Rail Cranes 1371 1632 0.43 24 18 Excavators 2222 NA 0.57 16 NA Forklifts 1098 803 0.30 16 20 Container Handling Equipment 2388 2388 0.59 16 18

Other, General Industrial Equipment 693 1632 0.51 16 16
Sweeper/Scrubbers 872 872 0.68 16 16 Tractors/ Loaders/ Backhoes 755 755 0.55 16 16

Yard Trucks 2536 1289 0.65 12 8



### The percent useful life (%UL) was estimated by divi ding the engine age by the useful life for a specific equipment type. The final dete riorated emission factors are developed using the following equation:

EF = ZH + DR * Hrs

= ZH + ZH * DF * Hrs UL

= ZH + ZH(DF) * Hrs UL

7. Fuel Correction Factors

California implemented diesel fuel regulations in 1 993, which lowered the limits of aromatic compounds and the sulfur content of fuel m arketed in California. The fuel correction factors used in the development of a sta tewide cargo handling equipment emission inventory are contained in the ARB’s OFFRO AD model. The fuel correction factors are dimensionless multipliers applied to th e basic exhaust emission rates. These fuel correction factors account for the diffe rences in the properties of CARB diesel fuels compared to those of commercially disp ensed fuels. Specifics about the fuel correction factors are found in Appendix A.

8. Add-on Controls and Other Emission Reduction St rategies

A number of the state’s deep-water ports have encou raged voluntary implementation of cargo handling equipment emission reduction strateg ies using state funding, such as the Carl Moyer Program, or through port funding mec hanisms. Many operators have taken advantage of these programs by implementing v arious control options including

### B - 14

installation of diesel oxidation catalysts (DOCs), using emulsified fuels alone or in conjunction with a DOC, or installation of diesel p articulate filters.

As a result of these voluntary programs, approximat ely 1,400 cargo handling equipment vehicles, primarily yard trucks, have been retrofit ted with DOCs or replaced with new, cleaner engines in the last three years. As state d previously, the impacts from these voluntary strategies are included in the inventory methodology by adjusting the zerohour emission rates.

C. Emission Projections

Emission projections for the years 2010 and 2020 we re developed. These projections reflect expected growth rates in equipment populati ons and activity; the turnover or attrition of the fleet; and the change in emission factors over time as the new engine standards are implemented. Below, ARB staff descri bes the assumptions used to generate the emission projections for future years.

1. Growth Factors

The growth factors used to estimate cargo handling equipment emissions in future years was based on an analysis done by ARB staff us ing growth estimates provided by terminal owner/operators as a part of the ARB’s 200 4 Cargo Handling Equipment Survey. The terminal owner/operators provide estim ates of the numbers of pieces of equipment, by equipment type, they anticipated havi ng in 2010 and 2020. In addition, the terminal owner/operators were asked to provide estimates of the percent of growth in activity of their equipment in 2010 and 2020.

ARB staff used these estimates to develop statewide growth estimates for both equipment populations and equipment activity using weighted averages of the estimated growth over two time intervals, 2004 – 20 10 and 2010 – 2020. The estimated growth rates in cargo handling equipment population s and activity varied by equipment type. The growth rates, by equipment type, used to develop future year cargo handling equipment emission estimates are presented in Appen dix A.

2. Equipment Attrition or Scrappage

Scrappage is a function that describes the relation ship between equipment age and the proportion of equipment that has been removed from service. This function is expressed in terms of a fraction of the average lif etime of the equipment. The average lifetime varies by the type of cargo handling equip ment. For this cargo handling equipment emission estimation methodology, the scra ppage function in the ARB’s OFFROAD model was used. However, the application o f the scrappage function was tailored to align with our understanding of the use ful life information gathered in the ARB Survey. It was assumed that, at the average usefu l life determined from the ARB Survey, 20 percent of the engines for a given model year would remain.

### B - 15

For example, the average useful life reported in th e ARB Survey for port yard trucks is 12 years. This means that on average, a yard truck is kept 12 years, however there are some yard trucks that are removed from service more quickly and others that remain beyond 12 years. In the scrappage curve developed for the current cargo handling emission estimation methodology, approximately 50 p ercent of the original population remains at 80 percent of the average useful life, i n this case approximately 10 years. Approximately 20 percent of the original population remains at 12 years. The entire population of engines were accounted for in the inv entory, however in the model, the engines were distributed over 12 model years. An e xample of the port yard truck attrition curve is presented in Figure II-1. 4 

### Similar attrition curves were developed for container handling equipment, general cargo handlin g equipment and cranes.

Figure II-1: Attrition Curve, 12-year Useful Life

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Age (years)% of population remaining



### Additional discussion of the role the scrappage fun ction plays in the development of off-road equipment and a tabular representation of the ARB scrappage rate function is presented in the ARB’s OFFROAD model.

3. New Engine Standards

Emission factors for future years were based on the OFFROAD model which incorporates the impacts of new engine standards (T ier 3 and 4) for each year and horsepower range. The emission factors reflect any phase-in of emission standards allowed by the regulations establishing the new eng ine standards.

4 The model developed for cargo handling equipment d id not deteriorate emissions past the average useful life. Rather it assumed any engine past the average useful life would have the same emissions as an engine at the average useful life.

### B - 16

III. EMISSION ESTIMATES

A. Statewide Emission Estimates

The emission inventory for cargo handling equipment includes total emissions for the entire state, subtotals for each of the air basins and subtotals for each county, or a portion of a county, in each air basin. The data i n Table III-1 summarizes the statewide inventory of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and diesel pa rticulate matter (PM) for 2004 by equipment type.

Table III-1: Estimated Statewide 2004 Cargo Handli ng Equipment Emissions

(tons per day)

2004 Pollutant Emissions, Tons Per Day Equipment Types Numbers of Equipment NOx Diesel PM
Cranes 321 1.93 0.07 Excavators 28 0.24 0.01 Forklifts 464 0.54 0.03 Container Handling Equipment 487 3.25 0.11

Other, General Industrial Equipment 40 0.08 <0.01
Sweeper/Scrubbers 28 0.04 <0.01 Tractor/Loader/ Backhoe 93 0.18 0.01

Yard Trucks 2,277 12.78 0.42 Total 3,738 19.04 0.65

As can be determined from the information presented in Table III-1, yard trucks, container handling equipment (top picks, sides pick s, etc.), and cranes are the responsible for approximately 90 percent of the emi ssions for all pollutants.

B. District-specific Emission Estimates

Estimates of emissions from cargo handling equipmen t were made on a port-by-port and intermodal facility-specific basis using the nu mbers of specific equipment types located at each facility. These emissions were the n allocated to the appropriate air pollution control and air quality management distri cts based on the location of the ports and intermodal facilities. A summary of district-s pecific emissions for NOx and PM is provided in Table III-2.

### B - 17

Table III- 2: Estimated 2004 Cargo Handling Equipm ent Emissions

By District (tons per day) 5



### District NOx Diesel PM Bay Area 3.34 0.11 Mojave 0.08 <0.01 North Coast 0.06 <0.01 San Diego 0.75 0.03 San Joaquin 0.55 0.01 South Coast 13.38 0.45 Ventura 0.66 0.02 Yolo-Solano 0.08 <0.01

These emission estimates vary slightly from the sta tewide emission estimates as a result of rounding issues associated with the softw are package used to develop the emission estimates.

C. Cargo Handling Equipment-specific Emission Estim ates

Appendix B contains emission estimates by equipment type for 2004. The estimates are presented by equipment type, by model year, and by horsepower category.

D. Benefits of Voluntary Programs and Future Emissi on Projections

The emission reductions attributable to the volunta ry emission reduction strategies (retrofits) implemented at California’s ports have been incorporated in the baseline emission estimates. The ARB estimates that the ins tallation of aftertreatment control technologies will result in an estimated 13 percent reduction in diesel PM emissions from 2004 through 2020. The ARB staff is unable to project any future emission reductions associated with voluntary emission reduc tion strategies because information about the continued implementation of these program s is uncertain.

Estimates of emission reductions attributable to th ese voluntary programs are based on information provided by the ports of Los Angeles, L ong Beach, and Oakland in addition to information collected as a part of the ARB’s Car go Handling Equipment Survey. Graphic depiction of the impact of the voluntary em ission reduction programs are presented in Figure III-1.

5 The following districts have no cargo handling emi ssions associated with them: Amador, Antelope Valley, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, El Dorado, Feathe r River, Glenn, Great Basin Unified, Imperial, Kern

, Lake, Lassen, Mariposa, Mendocino, Modoc, Monterey Bay, Unified, Northern Sierra, Northern Sonoma, Placer, Sacramento, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Shasta, Siskiyou, Tehama, and Tuolumne.

### B - 18

Figure III-1: Baseline vs. Voluntary Programs – Di esel PM Emissions

(tons per year)

0 50 100 150 200 250 30020042007201020152020



### YearTPY PM Baseline
PM No Voluntary



### Because the majority of the voluntary efforts invol ved the installation of diesel oxidation catalysts, the ARB staff estimates there are minima l reductions in NOx attributable to the voluntary installation of exhaust aftertreatmen t control devices on cargo handling equipment. While a small percentage of cargo handl ing equipment engines are using emulsified fuels, which result in some NOx reductio ns (up to 20 percent), the ARB staff is unable to quantify the benefits at this time.

Table III-3 below presents the cargo handling equip ment emission estimates for the years 2010 and 2020 assuming the growth factors pre sented in Appendix A.

### B - 19

Table III-3: Cargo Handling Equipment Engines Proje cted Year 2010 and 2020

Emission Estimates

2010 Emission, Tons per Day 2020 Emission, Tons per Day Equipment Types Numbers of Equipment NOx Diesel PM Numbers of Equipment NOx Diesel PM 

### Cranes 470 1.83 0.06 602 1.33 0.03 Excavators 29 0.18 0.01 32 0.05 <0.01 Forklifts 530 0.39 0.02 607 0.17 0.01 Container Handling Equipment 738 3.43 0.12 1111 1.70 0.05

Other General Industrial Equipment 60 0.08 <0.01 93 0.04 <0.01

Sweepers/ Scrubbers 43 0.04 <0.01 64 0.02 <0.01

Tractors/ Loaders/ Backhoes 132 0.17 0.01 200 0.08 <0.01

Yard Trucks 2810 10.20 0.31 3790 3.02 0.09

Total 4811 16.34 0.53 6500 6.41 0.18

### B - 20

REFERENCES

(ARB, 2000) Air Resources Board. Staff Report: Public Meeting to Consider Approval of California’s Emissions Inventory for Off-Road La rge Compression-Ignited Engines ( ≥ 25HP) Using the New OFFROAD Emissions Model ; January 2000.

### BA - 1 Emission Inventory Inputs (Population Allocations, Useful Life, Deterioration Factors, Growth Factors, Fuel Correction Factors)

The basic equation used for estimating emissions fr om cargo handling equipment is:

E y 

### = Σ Pop t, v, x 

### ∗ HP ∗ %Load t 

### ∗ EF v, x 

### ∗ Hrs t



### where

E = pollutant emissions (NO x 

### , and PM) Pop = cargo handling equipment type-specific population HP = engine average rated brake horsepower in a given horsepower range % Load = average engine load EF = emission factor Hrs = average annual use y = inventory year t = equipment type (cranes, yard trucks, etc) v = engine age (based on model year) x = horsepower range of the engine

This equation will serve as the basis on which carg o handling emission estimation methodology-specific information will be presented in this Appendix.

1. Equipment Populations

Cargo Handling Equipment Population Allocation Perc entages – by facility

The equipment population percentages for California ’s intermodal rail yards were estimated from the facility-specific populations. The equipment percentages for each facility are presented below in Table BA-1a and BA- 1b. For the purposes of developing emission estimates for cargo handling equipment in future years, ARB staff assumed that these population distributions remain the same from year-to-year.

### BA - 2

Table BA-1a: Equipment Population Allocations, By District, for Ports

District % Statewide BAAQMD 19 San Diego 4.3 San Joaquin Valley Unified 2.4 South Coast 70 Ventura 3.8 Yolo-Solano 0.5

Table BA-1b: Equipment Population Allocations, By District, for

Intermodal Rail Yards

District % Statewide BAAQMD 9.1 Mojave Desert 6.4 San Joaquin Valley Unified 8.7 South Coast 75.8

2. Engine Useful Life

The following equipment-specific average useful lif e information was developed using information from the ARB’s cargo handling equipment survey and the cargo handling equipment emission inventories developed for the po rts of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

### BA - 3

Table BA-2: Equipment Useful Life

Activity (hrs/yr) Activity

(hrs/yr) Total Useful

Life (yrs) Total Useful

Life (yrs) Equipment Type Port Rail Port Rail Cranes 1371.1 1632.3 24 18 Excavators 2222.2 1162.0 16 NA Forklifts 1098.1 802.8 16 20 Container Handling Equipment 2387.7 2388.0 16 18

Other, General Industrial Equipment 692.7 1631.6 16 16

Sweeper/Scrubbers 871.5 872.0 16 16 Tractors/ Loaders/ Backhoes 755.1 755.0 16 16

Yard Trucks 2536.0 1289.4 12 8



### 3. Deterioration Factor Tables

The cargo handling emission inventory methodology r elied on the OFFROAD deterioration factors (percent increase in emission s per percent useful life). These factors are presented in Table BA-3 below.

Table BA-3: Deterioration Rates for Diesel Engines (% increase per % useful life consumed)

Deterioration Factor HP

NOx PM

25-50 0.06 0.31 51-120 0.14 0.44 121-250 0.14 0.44 >250 0.21 0.67

4. Growth Factors

The population and activity annual average growth f actors by facility type shown below in Tables BA-4 and BA-5 were developed from the ARB ’s 2004 Cargo Handling Equipment Survey and the cargo handling equipment e mission inventories developed by the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. These estimates are population weighted values that went into developing the projected emis sions from cargo handling equipment.

### BA - 4

Table BA-4: Cargo Handling Equipment Population Ann ual Average Growth Rates

Ports (percent annual average growth) Intermodal Rail Yards

(percent annual average growth) Equipment Type

2004 - 2010 2010 - 2020 2004 - 2010 2010 - 2020 Container Handling Equipment 7.1 3.9 7.8 8.7

Cranes 5.9 2.6 5.9 2.6 Excavators 0.8 1 NA NA Forklifts 2.2 1.2 2.9 3.8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.3 0.3 0 0 Yard Trucks 3.1 2.1 6.4 7.5

Table BA-5: Cargo Handling Equipment Activity Annua l Average Growth Rates

Ports (percent annual average growth) Intermodal Rail Yards

(percent annual average growth) Equipment Type

2004 - 2010 2010 - 2020 2004 - 2010 2010 - 2020 Container Handling Equipment 9.1 3.9 7.1 8.6

Cranes 7.4 4.9 4.4 2.4 Excavators 0.8 2 NA NA Forklifts 2.7 2.1 2.9 3.8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 0 0 0 Yard Trucks 3.3 2.4 6.1 7.2

5. Fuel Correction Factors

California implemented diesel fuel regulations in 1 993, which lowered the limits of aromatic compounds and the sulfur content of fuel m arketed in California. The fuel correction factors used in the development of a sta tewide cargo handling equipment emission inventory are contained in the ARB’s OFFRO AD model and summarized in Table BA-6 below. The fuel correction factors are dimensionless multipliers applied to the basic exhaust emission rates. These fuel corre ction factors accounts for the differences in the properties of certified fuels co mpared to those of commercially dispensed fuels.

### BA - 5

Table BA-6: Fuel Correction Factors

Area Calendar Years Hp Group Model Years NOx PM Pre-1985 All All 1.000 1.000 SCAQMD and Ventura 1985 – 1993 All All 1.000 0.950 Pre-1994 All All 1.000 1.000 <25 Pre-1995 25 – 50 Pre-1999 51 – 100 Pre-1998 101 – 175 Pre-1997 176+ Pre-1996 0.930 0.750

<25 1995+ 25 – 50 1999 – 2010 51 – 100 1998 – 2010 101 – 175 1997 – 2010 1994 – 2006

176+ 1996 – 2010 0.948 0.822

<25 Pre-1995 25 – 50 Pre-1999 51 – 100 Pre-1998 101 – 175 Pre-1997 176+ Pre-1996 0.930 0.720

<25 1995+ 25 – 50 1999 – 2010 51 – 100 1998 – 2010 101 – 175 1997 – 2010 176+ 1996 – 2010 0.948 0.800 All

2007+

All 2011+ 0.948 0.852

### 2004 Emission Estimates (tons per day) by Facility Type, by Equipment Type, by Model Year, and by Horsepower Category

BB - 1 NOX PM Port/Rail Equipment model yr Hp Total Pop tpd tpd P Crane 2004 50 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Crane 2003 50 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Crane 2002 50 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Crane 2001 50 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Crane 2000 50 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1999 50 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1998 50 0 0.0002 0.0000 P Crane 1997 50 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Crane 1996 50 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1995 50 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1994 50 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1993 50 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Crane 1992 50 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1991 50 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1990 50 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Crane 1989 50 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1988 50 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1987 50 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1986 50 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Crane 1985 50 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1984 50 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1983 50 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1982 50 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Crane 1981 50 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1980 50 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Crane 2004 120 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Crane 2003 120 0 0.0002 0.0000 P Crane 2002 120 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Crane 2001 120 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Crane 2000 120 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1999 120 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1998 120 0 0.0003 0.0000 P Crane 1997 120 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Crane 1996 120 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Crane 1995 120 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1994 120 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1993 120 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Crane 1992 120 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Crane 1991 120 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1990 120 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Crane 1989 120 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Crane 1988 120 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Crane 1987 120 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Crane 1986 120 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Crane 1985 120 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1984 120 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1983 120 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1982 120 0 0.0002 0.0000 P Crane 1981 120 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Crane 1980 120 0 0.0003 0.0000 P Crane 2004 175 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Crane 2003 175 0 0.0002 0.0000 P Crane 2002 175 0 0.0002 0.0000 P Crane 2001 175 0 0.0002 0.0000 P Crane 2000 175 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1999 175 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1998 175 0 0.0004 0.0000 P Crane 1997 175 0 0.0002 0.0000 P Crane 1996 175 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Crane 1995 175 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1994 175 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1993 175 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Crane 1992 175 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Crane 1991 175 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1990 175 0 0.0002 0.0000 P Crane 1989 175 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Crane 1988 175 0 0.0001 0.0000

### 2004 Emission Estimates (tons per day) by Facility Type, by Equipment Type, by Model Year, and by Horsepower Category

BB - 2 P Crane 1987 175 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Crane 1986 175 0 0.0002 0.0000 P Crane 1985 175 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1984 175 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1983 175 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1982 175 0 0.0003 0.0000 P Crane 1981 175 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Crane 1980 175 0 0.0004 0.0000 P Crane 2004 250 3 0.0056 0.0001 P Crane 2003 250 5 0.0092 0.0002 P Crane 2002 250 3 0.0075 0.0002 P Crane 2001 250 3 0.0076 0.0002 P Crane 2000 250 1 0.0014 0.0000 P Crane 1999 250 1 0.0014 0.0000 P Crane 1998 250 8 0.0184 0.0004 P Crane 1997 250 3 0.0064 0.0001 P Crane 1996 250 2 0.0035 0.0001 P Crane 1995 250 1 0.0019 0.0001 P Crane 1994 250 1 0.0019 0.0001 P Crane 1993 250 2 0.0057 0.0003 P Crane 1992 250 1 0.0038 0.0002 P Crane 1991 250 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1990 250 2 0.0077 0.0004 P Crane 1989 250 2 0.0049 0.0002 P Crane 1988 250 2 0.0049 0.0002 P Crane 1987 250 2 0.0067 0.0003 P Crane 1986 250 2 0.0081 0.0004 P Crane 1985 250 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1984 250 0 0.0014 0.0001 P Crane 1983 250 0 0.0014 0.0001 P Crane 1982 250 3 0.0125 0.0007 P Crane 1981 250 1 0.0042 0.0002 P Crane 1980 250 4 0.0182 0.0010 P Crane 2004 500 8 0.0233 0.0005 P Crane 2003 500 12 0.0354 0.0008 P Crane 2002 500 8 0.0243 0.0005 P Crane 2001 500 8 0.0269 0.0006 P Crane 2000 500 1 0.0062 0.0001 P Crane 1999 500 1 0.0063 0.0001 P Crane 1998 500 18 0.0822 0.0018 P Crane 1997 500 6 0.0287 0.0006 P Crane 1996 500 3 0.0158 0.0003 P Crane 1995 500 1 0.0083 0.0004 P Crane 1994 500 1 0.0084 0.0004 P Crane 1993 500 4 0.0253 0.0011 P Crane 1992 500 3 0.0170 0.0008 P Crane 1991 500 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1990 500 6 0.0346 0.0016 P Crane 1989 500 3 0.0218 0.0010 P Crane 1988 500 3 0.0220 0.0010 P Crane 1987 500 3 0.0298 0.0015 P Crane 1986 500 4 0.0360 0.0018 P Crane 1985 500 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1984 500 1 0.0061 0.0003 P Crane 1983 500 1 0.0061 0.0003 P Crane 1982 500 6 0.0557 0.0029 P Crane 1981 500 2 0.0187 0.0010 P Crane 1980 500 9 0.0813 0.0044 P Crane 2004 750 4 0.0178 0.0004 P Crane 2003 750 6 0.0284 0.0006 P Crane 2002 750 4 0.0204 0.0004 P Crane 2001 750 4 0.0259 0.0005 P Crane 2000 750 1 0.0048 0.0001 P Crane 1999 750 1 0.0048 0.0001 P Crane 1998 750 9 0.0629 0.0014 P Crane 1997 750 3 0.0219 0.0005 P Crane 1996 750 2 0.0121 0.0003 P Crane 1995 750 1 0.0064 0.0003 P Crane 1994 750 1 0.0064 0.0003

### 2004 Emission Estimates (tons per day) by Facility Type, by Equipment Type, by Model Year, and by Horsepower Category

BB - 3 P Crane 1993 750 2 0.0194 0.0009 P Crane 1992 750 1 0.0130 0.0006 P Crane 1991 750 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1990 750 3 0.0265 0.0012 P Crane 1989 750 2 0.0167 0.0008 P Crane 1988 750 2 0.0168 0.0008 P Crane 1987 750 2 0.0228 0.0011 P Crane 1986 750 2 0.0275 0.0014 P Crane 1985 750 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1984 750 0 0.0047 0.0002 P Crane 1983 750 0 0.0047 0.0002 P Crane 1982 750 3 0.0426 0.0022 P Crane 1981 750 1 0.0143 0.0008 P Crane 1980 750 4 0.0622 0.0033 P Crane 2004 999 2 0.0170 0.0003 P Crane 2003 999 3 0.0258 0.0005 P Crane 2002 999 2 0.0168 0.0003 P Crane 2001 999 2 0.0170 0.0004 P Crane 2000 999 0 0.0031 0.0001 P Crane 1999 999 0 0.0041 0.0002 P Crane 1998 999 4 0.0537 0.0023 P Crane 1997 999 1 0.0188 0.0008 P Crane 1996 999 1 0.0103 0.0004 P Crane 1995 999 0 0.0042 0.0002 P Crane 1994 999 0 0.0042 0.0002 P Crane 1993 999 1 0.0127 0.0006 P Crane 1992 999 1 0.0085 0.0004 P Crane 1991 999 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1990 999 1 0.0173 0.0008 P Crane 1989 999 1 0.0109 0.0005 P Crane 1988 999 1 0.0110 0.0005 P Crane 1987 999 1 0.0149 0.0007 P Crane 1986 999 1 0.0180 0.0009 P Crane 1985 999 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Crane 1984 999 0 0.0030 0.0002 P Crane 1983 999 0 0.0031 0.0002 P Crane 1982 999 1 0.0278 0.0015 P Crane 1981 999 0 0.0093 0.0005 P Crane 1980 999 2 0.0407 0.0022 P Excavator 2004 250 1 0.0033 0.0001 P Excavator 2003 250 1 0.0025 0.0001 P Excavator 2002 250 1 0.0037 0.0001 P Excavator 2001 250 0 0.0023 0.0001 P Excavator 2000 250 1 0.0039 0.0001 P Excavator 1999 250 0 0.0009 0.0000 P Excavator 1998 250 1 0.0034 0.0001 P Excavator 1997 250 0 0.0015 0.0000 P Excavator 1996 250 0 0.0017 0.0000 P Excavator 1995 250 0 0.0014 0.0001 P Excavator 1994 250 0 0.0030 0.0001 P Excavator 1993 250 0 0.0025 0.0001 P Excavator 1992 250 0 0.0010 0.0000 P Excavator 1991 250 0 0.0005 0.0000 P Excavator 1990 250 0 0.0012 0.0001 P Excavator 1989 250 0 0.0013 0.0001 P Excavator 1988 250 1 0.0048 0.0002 P Excavator 2004 500 3 0.0169 0.0004 P Excavator 2003 500 2 0.0121 0.0003 P Excavator 2002 500 2 0.0148 0.0003 P Excavator 2001 500 1 0.0100 0.0002 P Excavator 2000 500 2 0.0215 0.0005 P Excavator 1999 500 1 0.0051 0.0001 P Excavator 1998 500 2 0.0190 0.0005 P Excavator 1997 500 1 0.0082 0.0002 P Excavator 1996 500 1 0.0093 0.0002 P Excavator 1995 500 1 0.0079 0.0004 P Excavator 1994 500 1 0.0167 0.0008 P Excavator 1993 500 1 0.0138 0.0007 P Excavator 1992 500 0 0.0054 0.0003

### 2004 Emission Estimates (tons per day) by Facility Type, by Equipment Type, by Model Year, and by Horsepower Category

BB - 4 P Excavator 1991 500 0 0.0030 0.0001 P Excavator 1990 500 0 0.0064 0.0003 P Excavator 1989 500 1 0.0071 0.0004 P Excavator 1988 500 2 0.0264 0.0014 P Forklift 2004 50 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Forklift 2003 50 1 0.0003 0.0000 P Forklift 2002 50 4 0.0009 0.0001 P Forklift 2001 50 2 0.0005 0.0000 P Forklift 2000 50 2 0.0006 0.0001 P Forklift 1999 50 1 0.0002 0.0000 P Forklift 1998 50 3 0.0008 0.0001 P Forklift 1997 50 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Forklift 1996 50 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Forklift 1995 50 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Forklift 1994 50 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Forklift 1993 50 1 0.0003 0.0000 P Forklift 1992 50 2 0.0005 0.0001 P Forklift 1991 50 2 0.0006 0.0001 P Forklift 1990 50 1 0.0004 0.0000 P Forklift 1989 50 1 0.0002 0.0000 P Forklift 1988 50 14 0.0042 0.0005 P Forklift 2004 120 1 0.0005 0.0000 P Forklift 2003 120 5 0.0032 0.0003 P Forklift 2002 120 15 0.0103 0.0009 P Forklift 2001 120 8 0.0052 0.0005 P Forklift 2000 120 9 0.0066 0.0006 P Forklift 1999 120 4 0.0026 0.0002 P Forklift 1998 120 10 0.0070 0.0007 P Forklift 1997 120 2 0.0017 0.0001 P Forklift 1996 120 1 0.0013 0.0001 P Forklift 1995 120 1 0.0008 0.0001 P Forklift 1994 120 1 0.0013 0.0001 P Forklift 1993 120 4 0.0039 0.0003 P Forklift 1992 120 6 0.0057 0.0004 P Forklift 1991 120 7 0.0066 0.0005 P Forklift 1990 120 5 0.0049 0.0004 P Forklift 1989 120 3 0.0027 0.0002 P Forklift 1988 120 53 0.0503 0.0040 P Forklift 2004 175 1 0.0006 0.0000 P Forklift 2003 175 4 0.0032 0.0001 P Forklift 2002 175 13 0.0136 0.0007 P Forklift 2001 175 7 0.0069 0.0003 P Forklift 2000 175 8 0.0087 0.0004 P Forklift 1999 175 3 0.0035 0.0002 P Forklift 1998 175 9 0.0093 0.0005 P Forklift 1997 175 2 0.0018 0.0001 P Forklift 1996 175 1 0.0016 0.0001 P Forklift 1995 175 1 0.0010 0.0000 P Forklift 1994 175 1 0.0016 0.0001 P Forklift 1993 175 4 0.0048 0.0002 P Forklift 1992 175 5 0.0070 0.0003 P Forklift 1991 175 6 0.0081 0.0004 P Forklift 1990 175 5 0.0060 0.0003 P Forklift 1989 175 3 0.0033 0.0002 P Forklift 1988 175 47 0.0621 0.0029 P Forklift 2004 250 1 0.0008 0.0000 P Forklift 2003 250 5 0.0045 0.0001 P Forklift 2002 250 15 0.0183 0.0004 P Forklift 2001 250 7 0.0093 0.0002 P Forklift 2000 250 9 0.0117 0.0003 P Forklift 1999 250 4 0.0048 0.0001 P Forklift 1998 250 10 0.0126 0.0003 P Forklift 1997 250 2 0.0024 0.0001 P Forklift 1996 250 1 0.0018 0.0000 P Forklift 1995 250 1 0.0016 0.0001 P Forklift 1994 250 1 0.0024 0.0001 P Forklift 1993 250 4 0.0074 0.0004 P Forklift 1992 250 6 0.0108 0.0005 P Forklift 1991 250 7 0.0126 0.0006

### 2004 Emission Estimates (tons per day) by Facility Type, by Equipment Type, by Model Year, and by Horsepower Category

BB - 5 P Forklift 1990 250 5 0.0093 0.0005 P Forklift 1989 250 3 0.0051 0.0003 P Forklift 1988 250 51 0.0969 0.0050 P Forklift 2004 500 0 0.0002 0.0000 P Forklift 2003 500 1 0.0008 0.0000 P Forklift 2002 500 2 0.0027 0.0001 P Forklift 2001 500 1 0.0015 0.0000 P Forklift 2000 500 1 0.0024 0.0001 P Forklift 1999 500 1 0.0010 0.0000 P Forklift 1998 500 1 0.0026 0.0001 P Forklift 1997 500 0 0.0005 0.0000 P Forklift 1996 500 0 0.0004 0.0000 P Forklift 1995 500 0 0.0003 0.0000 P Forklift 1994 500 0 0.0005 0.0000 P Forklift 1993 500 1 0.0015 0.0001 P Forklift 1992 500 1 0.0022 0.0001 P Forklift 1991 500 1 0.0026 0.0001 P Forklift 1990 500 1 0.0019 0.0001 P Forklift 1989 500 0 0.0011 0.0001 P Forklift 1988 500 8 0.0198 0.0010 P Container Handling Equip 2004 120 3 0.0065 0.0004 P Container Handling Equip 2003 120 1 0.0046 0.0004 P Container Handling Equip 2002 120 1 0.0032 0.0003 P Container Handling Equip 2001 120 1 0.0020 0.0002 P Container Handling Equip 2000 120 1 0.0044 0.0004 P Container Handling Equip 1999 120 0 0.0015 0.0001 P Container Handling Equip 1998 120 2 0.0052 0.0005 P Container Handling Equip 1997 120 1 0.0049 0.0004 P Container Handling Equip 1996 120 1 0.0037 0.0003 P Container Handling Equip 1995 120 0 0.0013 0.0001 P Container Handling Equip 1994 120 1 0.0021 0.0002 P Container Handling Equip 1993 120 1 0.0031 0.0002 P Container Handling Equip 1992 120 0 0.0010 0.0001 P Container Handling Equip 1991 120 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Container Handling Equip 1990 120 0 0.0010 0.0001 P Container Handling Equip 1989 120 0 0.0002 0.0000 P Container Handling Equip 1988 120 0 0.0007 0.0001 P Container Handling Equip 2004 175 15 0.0484 0.001 7 P Container Handling Equip 2003 175 9 0.0315 0.0013 P Container Handling Equip 2002 175 6 0.0285 0.0014 P Container Handling Equip 2001 175 4 0.0177 0.0009 P Container Handling Equip 2000 175 8 0.0391 0.0020 P Container Handling Equip 1999 175 3 0.0135 0.0007 P Container Handling Equip 1998 175 10 0.0465 0.002 5 P Container Handling Equip 1997 175 7 0.0343 0.0018 P Container Handling Equip 1996 175 5 0.0308 0.0013 P Container Handling Equip 1995 175 2 0.0108 0.0005 P Container Handling Equip 1994 175 3 0.0177 0.0008 P Container Handling Equip 1993 175 4 0.0261 0.0012 P Container Handling Equip 1992 175 1 0.0083 0.0004 P Container Handling Equip 1991 175 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Container Handling Equip 1990 175 1 0.0084 0.0004 P Container Handling Equip 1989 175 0 0.0014 0.0001 P Container Handling Equip 1988 175 1 0.0059 0.0003 P Container Handling Equip 2004 250 31 0.1359 0.002 8 P Container Handling Equip 2003 250 18 0.0871 0.001 9 P Container Handling Equip 2002 250 12 0.0755 0.001 7 P Container Handling Equip 2001 250 8 0.0470 0.0011 P Container Handling Equip 2000 250 17 0.1042 0.002 4 P Container Handling Equip 1999 250 6 0.0362 0.0009 P Container Handling Equip 1998 250 20 0.1251 0.003 0 P Container Handling Equip 1997 250 14 0.0927 0.002 3 P Container Handling Equip 1996 250 11 0.0705 0.001 6 P Container Handling Equip 1995 250 4 0.0325 0.0015 P Container Handling Equip 1994 250 6 0.0534 0.0025 P Container Handling Equip 1993 250 9 0.0789 0.0038 P Container Handling Equip 1992 250 3 0.0252 0.0012 P Container Handling Equip 1991 250 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Container Handling Equip 1990 250 3 0.0258 0.0013

### 2004 Emission Estimates (tons per day) by Facility Type, by Equipment Type, by Model Year, and by Horsepower Category

BB - 6 P Container Handling Equip 1989 250 0 0.0043 0.0002 P Container Handling Equip 1988 250 2 0.0180 0.0009 P Container Handling Equip 2004 500 38 0.2076 0.004 6 P Container Handling Equip 2003 500 22 0.1220 0.002 8 P Container Handling Equip 2002 500 15 0.0889 0.002 0 P Container Handling Equip 2001 500 9 0.0608 0.0014 P Container Handling Equip 2000 500 21 0.1700 0.003 9 P Container Handling Equip 1999 500 7 0.0590 0.0014 P Container Handling Equip 1998 500 24 0.2041 0.004 9 P Container Handling Equip 1997 500 18 0.1512 0.003 7 P Container Handling Equip 1996 500 14 0.1151 0.002 7 P Container Handling Equip 1995 500 5 0.0529 0.0024 P Container Handling Equip 1994 500 8 0.0870 0.0041 P Container Handling Equip 1993 500 11 0.1287 0.006 2 P Container Handling Equip 1992 500 4 0.0411 0.0020 P Container Handling Equip 1991 500 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Container Handling Equip 1990 500 4 0.0420 0.0021 P Container Handling Equip 1989 500 1 0.0071 0.0004 P Container Handling Equip 1988 500 2 0.0294 0.0015 P Container Handling Equip 2004 999 0 0.0060 0.0001 P Container Handling Equip 2003 999 0 0.0036 0.0001 P Container Handling Equip 2002 999 0 0.0025 0.0001 P Container Handling Equip 2001 999 0 0.0015 0.0000 P Container Handling Equip 2000 999 0 0.0034 0.0001 P Container Handling Equip 1999 999 0 0.0015 0.0001 P Container Handling Equip 1998 999 0 0.0053 0.0002 P Container Handling Equip 1997 999 0 0.0040 0.0002 P Container Handling Equip 1996 999 0 0.0030 0.0001 P Container Handling Equip 1995 999 0 0.0011 0.0000 P Container Handling Equip 1994 999 0 0.0017 0.0001 P Container Handling Equip 1993 999 0 0.0026 0.0001 P Container Handling Equip 1992 999 0 0.0008 0.0000 P Container Handling Equip 1991 999 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Container Handling Equip 1990 999 0 0.0008 0.0000 P Container Handling Equip 1989 999 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Container Handling Equip 1988 999 0 0.0006 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 2004 50 0 0.0001 0 .0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 2003 50 0 0.0001 0 .0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 2002 50 0 0.0001 0 .0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 2001 50 0 0.0000 0 .0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 2000 50 0 0.0001 0 .0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1999 50 0 0.0000 0 .0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1998 50 0 0.0001 0 .0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1997 50 0 0.0000 0 .0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1996 50 0 0.0000 0 .0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1995 50 0 0.0000 0 .0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1994 50 0 0.0000 0 .0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1993 50 0 0.0000 0 .0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1992 50 0 0.0000 0 .0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1991 50 0 0.0000 0 .0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1990 50 0 0.0000 0 .0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1989 50 0 0.0000 0 .0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1988 50 0 0.0001 0 .0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 2004 120 1 0.0006 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 2003 120 1 0.0005 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 2002 120 1 0.0006 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 2001 120 1 0.0004 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 2000 120 1 0.0006 0.0001 P Other General Industrial Equip 1999 120 0 0.0002 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1998 120 1 0.0006 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1997 120 0 0.0003 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1996 120 0 0.0003 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1995 120 0 0.0002 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1994 120 1 0.0005 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1993 120 0 0.0004 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1992 120 0 0.0002 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1991 120 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1990 120 0 0.0002 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1989 120 0 0.0002 0.0000

### 2004 Emission Estimates (tons per day) by Facility Type, by Equipment Type, by Model Year, and by Horsepower Category

BB - 7 P Other General Industrial Equip 1988 120 1 0.0007 0.0001 P Other General Industrial Equip 2004 175 1 0.0005 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 2003 175 0 0.0004 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 2002 175 1 0.0006 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 2001 175 0 0.0004 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 2000 175 1 0.0006 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1999 175 0 0.0002 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1998 175 0 0.0006 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1997 175 0 0.0002 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1996 175 0 0.0003 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1995 175 0 0.0002 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1994 175 0 0.0004 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1993 175 0 0.0004 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1992 175 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1991 175 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1990 175 0 0.0002 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1989 175 0 0.0002 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1988 175 0 0.0007 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 2004 250 1 0.0011 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 2003 250 1 0.0009 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 2002 250 1 0.0013 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 2001 250 1 0.0008 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 2000 250 1 0.0013 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1999 250 0 0.0003 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1998 250 1 0.0012 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1997 250 0 0.0005 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1996 250 0 0.0006 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1995 250 0 0.0005 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1994 250 1 0.0010 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1993 250 0 0.0009 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1992 250 0 0.0003 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1991 250 0 0.0002 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1990 250 0 0.0004 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1989 250 0 0.0004 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1988 250 1 0.0016 0.0001 P Other General Industrial Equip 2004 500 1 0.0020 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 2003 500 1 0.0014 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 2002 500 1 0.0018 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 2001 500 1 0.0012 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 2000 500 1 0.0026 0.0001 P Other General Industrial Equip 1999 500 0 0.0006 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1998 500 1 0.0023 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1997 500 0 0.0010 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1996 500 0 0.0011 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1995 500 0 0.0009 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1994 500 0.56 0.00 20 0.0001 P Other General Industrial Equip 1993 500 0 0.0016 0.0001 P Other General Industrial Equip 1992 500 0 0.0006 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1991 500 0 0.0004 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1990 500 0 0.0008 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1989 500 0 0.0008 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1988 500 1 0.0031 0.0002 P Other General Industrial Equip 2004 750 0 0.0009 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 2003 750 0 0.0006 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 2002 750 0 0.0008 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 2001 750 0 0.0006 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 2000 750 0 0.0011 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1999 750 0 0.0003 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1998 750 0 0.0010 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1997 750 0 0.0004 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1996 750 0 0.0005 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1995 750 0 0.0004 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1994 750 0 0.0009 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1993 750 0 0.0007 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1992 750 0 0.0003 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1991 750 0 0.0002 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1990 750 0 0.0003 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1989 750 0 0.0004 0.0000 P Other General Industrial Equip 1988 750 0 0.0013 0.0001

### 2004 Emission Estimates (tons per day) by Facility Type, by Equipment Type, by Model Year, and by Horsepower Category

BB - 8 P Sweeper/Scrubber 2004 50 1 0.0003 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 2003 50 0 0.0002 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 2002 50 1 0.0002 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 2001 50 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 2000 50 1 0.0002 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1999 50 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1998 50 0 0.0003 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1997 50 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1996 50 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1995 50 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1994 50 0 0.0002 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1993 50 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1992 50 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1991 50 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1990 50 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1989 50 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1988 50 0 0.0003 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 2004 120 1 0.0013 0.0001 P Sweeper/Scrubber 2003 120 1 0.0012 0.0001 P Sweeper/Scrubber 2002 120 1 0.0013 0.0001 P Sweeper/Scrubber 2001 120 1 0.0008 0.0001 P Sweeper/Scrubber 2000 120 1 0.0014 0.0001 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1999 120 0 0.0003 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1998 120 1 0.0012 0.0001 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1997 120 0 0.0007 0.0001 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1996 120 0 0.0007 0.0001 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1995 120 0 0.0005 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1994 120 1 0.0010 0.0001 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1993 120 0 0.0008 0.0001 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1992 120 0 0.0003 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1991 120 0 0.0002 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1990 120 0 0.0004 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1989 120 0 0.0004 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1988 120 1 0.0016 0.0001 P Sweeper/Scrubber 2004 175 1 0.0010 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 2003 175 1 0.0008 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 2002 175 1 0.0012 0.0001 P Sweeper/Scrubber 2001 175 0 0.0008 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 2000 175 1 0.0013 0.0001 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1999 175 0 0.0003 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1998 175 1 0.0011 0.0001 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1997 175 0 0.0005 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1996 175 0 0.0006 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1995 175 0 0.0004 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1994 175 0 0.0009 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1993 175 0 0.0007 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1992 175 0 0.0003 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1991 175 0 0.0002 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1990 175 0 0.0003 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1989 175 0 0.0004 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1988 175 1 0.0014 0.0001 P Sweeper/Scrubber 2004 250 1 0.0009 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 2003 250 0 0.0007 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 2002 250 1 0.0010 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 2001 250 0 0.0006 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 2000 250 1 0.0011 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1999 250 0 0.0003 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1998 250 0 0.0010 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1997 250 0 0.0004 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1996 250 0 0.0005 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1995 250 0 0.0004 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1994 250 0 0.0008 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1993 250 0 0.0007 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1992 250 0 0.0003 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1991 250 0 0.0002 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1990 250 0 0.0003 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1989 250 0 0.0004 0.0000 P Sweeper/Scrubber 1988 250 0 0.0013 0.0001 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2004 50 0 0.0000 0.0000

### 2004 Emission Estimates (tons per day) by Facility Type, by Equipment Type, by Model Year, and by Horsepower Category

BB - 9 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2003 50 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2002 50 1 0.0002 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2001 50 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2000 50 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1999 50 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1998 50 4 0.0013 0.0001 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1997 50 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1996 50 0 0.0002 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1995 50 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1994 50 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1993 50 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1992 50 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1991 50 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1990 50 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1989 50 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1988 50 1 0.0004 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2004 120 0 0.0002 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2003 120 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2002 120 2 0.0015 0.0001 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2001 120 1 0.0005 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2000 120 0 0.0003 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1999 120 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1998 120 11 0.0084 0.000 8 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1997 120 0 0.0003 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1996 120 1 0.0013 0.0001 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1995 120 1 0.0010 0.0001 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1994 120 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1993 120 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1992 120 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1991 120 0 0.0003 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1990 120 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1989 120 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1988 120 3 0.0035 0.0003 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2004 175 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2003 175 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2002 175 1 0.0013 0.0001 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2001 175 0 0.0004 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2000 175 0 0.0002 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1999 175 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1998 175 6 0.0071 0.0004 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1997 175 0 0.0002 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1996 175 1 0.0010 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1995 175 1 0.0008 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1994 175 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1993 175 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1992 175 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1991 175 0 0.0003 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1990 175 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1989 175 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1988 175 2 0.0028 0.0001 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2004 250 0 0.0003 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2003 250 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2002 250 1 0.0023 0.0001 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2001 250 0 0.0008 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2000 250 0 0.0004 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1999 250 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1998 250 8 0.0129 0.0003 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1997 250 0 0.0004 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1996 250 1 0.0016 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1995 250 1 0.0016 0.0001 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1994 250 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1993 250 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1992 250 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1991 250 0 0.0006 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1990 250 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1989 250 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1988 250 2 0.0058 0.0003 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2004 500 1 0.0010 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2003 500 0 0.0000 0.0000

### 2004 Emission Estimates (tons per day) by Facility Type, by Equipment Type, by Model Year, and by Horsepower Category

BB - 10 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2002 500 3 0.0067 0.0001 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2001 500 1 0.0025 0.0001 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2000 500 1 0.0016 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1999 500 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1998 500 18 0.0519 0.001 3 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1997 500 1 0.0016 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1996 500 2 0.0065 0.0002 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1995 500 2 0.0065 0.0003 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1994 500 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1993 500 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1992 500 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1991 500 1 0.0023 0.0001 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1990 500 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1989 500 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1988 500 6 0.0234 0.0012 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2004 750 0 0.0002 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2003 750 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2002 750 0 0.0013 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2001 750 0 0.0006 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2000 750 0 0.0003 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1999 750 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1998 750 2 0.0095 0.0002 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1997 750 0 0.0003 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1996 750 0 0.0012 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1995 750 0 0.0012 0.0001 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1994 750 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1993 750 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1992 750 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1991 750 0 0.0004 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1990 750 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1989 750 0 0.0000 0.0000 P Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1988 750 0 0.0043 0.0002 P Yard Tractor 2004 120 0 0.0004 0.0000 P Yard Tractor 2003 120 0 0.0004 0.0000 P Yard Tractor 2002 120 0 0.0004 0.0000 P Yard Tractor 2001 120 0 0.0003 0.0000 P Yard Tractor 2000 120 0 0.0005 0.0000 P Yard Tractor 1999 120 0 0.0001 0.0000 P Yard Tractor 1998 120 0 0.0002 0.0000 P Yard Tractor 1997 120 0 0.0002 0.0000 P Yard Tractor 1996 120 0 0.0002 0.0000 P Yard Tractor 1995 120 0 0.0002 0.0000 P Yard Tractor 1994 120 0 0.0005 0.0000 P Yard Tractor 1993 120 0 0.0003 0.0000 P Yard Tractor 1992 120 0 0.0005 0.0000 P Yard Tractor 2004 175 153 0.5160 0.0144 P Yard Tractor 2003 175 101 0.4318 0.0117 P Yard Tractor 2002 175 118 0.6316 0.0211 P Yard Tractor 2001 175 71 0.3840 0.0131 P Yard Tractor 2000 175 134 0.7319 0.0256 P Yard Tractor 1999 175 25 0.1359 0.0048 P Yard Tractor 1998 175 45 0.2520 0.0092 P Yard Tractor 1997 175 33 0.1852 0.0069 P Yard Tractor 1996 175 46 0.2988 0.0091 P Yard Tractor 1995 175 36 0.2310 0.0094 P Yard Tractor 1994 175 86 0.6260 0.0287 P Yard Tractor 1993 175 56 0.3990 0.0187 P Yard Tractor 1992 175 94 0.6949 0.0329 P Yard Tractor 2004 250 152 0.6144 0.0116 P Yard Tractor 2003 250 100 0.5110 0.0084 P Yard Tractor 2002 250 117 0.7217 0.0123 P Yard Tractor 2001 250 71 0.4412 0.0077 P Yard Tractor 2000 250 133 0.8453 0.0153 P Yard Tractor 1999 250 24 0.1578 0.0029 P Yard Tractor 1998 250 45 0.2940 0.0056 P Yard Tractor 1997 250 33 0.2172 0.0043 P Yard Tractor 1996 250 46 0.3065 0.0057 P Yard Tractor 1995 250 35 0.2958 0.0130 P Yard Tractor 1994 250 85 0.8054 0.0401

### 2004 Emission Estimates (tons per day) by Facility Type, by Equipment Type, by Model Year, and by Horsepower Category

BB - 11 P Yard Tractor 1993 250 56 0.5156 0.0263 P Yard Tractor 1992 250 93 0.9018 0.0467

### 2004 Emission Estimates (tons per day) by Facility Type, by Equipment Type, by Model Year, and by Horsepower Category

BB - 12 R Crane 2004 250 0 0.0011 0.0000
R Crane 2003 250 0 0.0010 0.0000
R Crane 2002 250 0 0.0015 0.0000
R Crane 2001 250 0 0.0015 0.0000
R Crane 2000 250 0 0.0015 0.0000
R Crane 1999 250 0 0.0008 0.0000
R Crane 1998 250 0 0.0010 0.0000
R Crane 1997 250 0 0.0013 0.0000
R Crane 1996 250 0 0.0013 0.0000
R Crane 1995 250 0 0.0017 0.0001
R Crane 1994 250 0 0.0000 0.0000
R Crane 1993 250 0 0.0000 0.0000
R Crane 1992 250 0 0.0003 0.0000
R Crane 1991 250 0 0.0010 0.0000
R Crane 1990 250 0 0.0007 0.0000
R Crane 1989 250 0 0.0011 0.0000
R Crane 1988 250 0 0.0014 0.0001
R Crane 1987 250 0 0.0014 0.0001
R Crane 1986 250 0 0.0029 0.0002
R Crane 2004 500 6 0.0152 0.0003
R Crane 2003 500 5 0.0123 0.0003
R Crane 2002 500 6 0.0157 0.0003
R Crane 2001 500 6 0.0174 0.0004
R Crane 2000 500 6 0.0221 0.0005
R Crane 1999 500 3 0.0111 0.0002
R Crane 1998 500 4 0.0150 0.0003
R Crane 1997 500 5 0.0189 0.0004
R Crane 1996 500 5 0.0187 0.0004
R Crane 1995 500 5 0.0246 0.0011
R Crane 1994 500 0 0.0000 0.0000
R Crane 1993 500 0 0.0000 0.0000
R Crane 1992 500 1 0.0050 0.0002
R Crane 1991 500 3 0.0153 0.0007
R Crane 1990 500 2 0.0103 0.0005
R Crane 1989 500 3 0.0155 0.0007
R Crane 1988 500 4 0.0208 0.0010
R Crane 1987 500 3 0.0212 0.0011
R Crane 1986 500 5 0.0426 0.0021
R Forklift 2004 120 0 0.0000 0.0000
R Forklift 2003 120 0 0.0000 0.0000
R Forklift 2002 120 0 0.0000 0.0000
R Forklift 2001 120 0 0.0000 0.0000
R Forklift 2000 120 0 0.0001 0.0000
R Forklift 1999 120 1 0.0002 0.0000
R Forklift 1998 120 0 0.0000 0.0000
R Forklift 1997 120 0 0.0001 0.0000
R Forklift 1996 120 0 0.0001 0.0000
R Forklift 1995 120 0 0.0001 0.0000
R Forklift 1994 120 0 0.0001 0.0000
R Forklift 1993 120 0 0.0001 0.0000
R Forklift 1992 120 0 0.0001 0.0000
R Forklift 1991 120 0 0.0000 0.0000
R Forklift 1990 120 0 0.0000 0.0000
R Forklift 1989 120 0 0.0001 0.0000
R Forklift 1988 120 0 0.0000 0.0000
R Forklift 1987 120 0 0.0000 0.0000

### 2004 Emission Estimates (tons per day) by Facility Type, by Equipment Type, by Model Year, and by Horsepower Category

BB - 13 R Forklift 1986 120 0 0.0000 0.0000
R Forklift 1985 120 0 0.0000 0.0000
R Forklift 1984 120 0 0.0001 0.0000
R Forklift 2004 175 0 0.0002 0.0000
R Forklift 2003 175 0 0.0003 0.0000
R Forklift 2002 175 0 0.0000 0.0000
R Forklift 2001 175 0 0.0004 0.0000
R Forklift 2000 175 1 0.0007 0.0000
R Forklift 1999 175 3 0.0022 0.0001
R Forklift 1998 175 0 0.0000 0.0000
R Forklift 1997 175 1 0.0007 0.0000
R Forklift 1996 175 0 0.0004 0.0000
R Forklift 1995 175 0 0.0004 0.0000
R Forklift 1994 175 1 0.0009 0.0000
R Forklift 1993 175 1 0.0009 0.0000
R Forklift 1992 175 0 0.0004 0.0000
R Forklift 1991 175 0 0.0000 0.0000
R Forklift 1990 175 0 0.0000 0.0000
R Forklift 1989 175 1 0.0009 0.0000
R Forklift 1988 175 0 0.0000 0.0000
R Forklift 1987 175 0 0.0000 0.0000
R Forklift 1986 175 0 0.0000 0.0000
R Forklift 1985 175 0 0.0000 0.0000
R Forklift 1984 175 0 0.0006 0.0000
R Forklift 2004 250 0 0.0003 0.0000
R Forklift 2003 250 0 0.0003 0.0000
R Forklift 2002 250 0 0.0000 0.0000
R Forklift 2001 250 0 0.0004 0.0000
R Forklift 2000 250 1 0.0008 0.0000
R Forklift 1999 250 3 0.0024 0.0001
R Forklift 1998 250 0 0.0000 0.0000
R Forklift 1997 250 1 0.0008 0.0000
R Forklift 1996 250 0 0.0004 0.0000
R Forklift 1995 250 0 0.0005 0.0000
R Forklift 1994 250 1 0.0011 0.0001
R Forklift 1993 250 1 0.0011 0.0001
R Forklift 1992 250 0 0.0006 0.0000
R Forklift 1991 250 0 0.0000 0.0000
R Forklift 1990 250 0 0.0000 0.0000
R Forklift 1989 250 1 0.0011 0.0001
R Forklift 1988 250 0 0.0000 0.0000
R Forklift 1987 250 0 0.0000 0.0000
R Forklift 1986 250 0 0.0000 0.0000
R Forklift 1985 250 0 0.0000 0.0000
R Forklift 1984 250 0 0.0008 0.0000 R Container Handling Equip 2004 175 0 0.0002 0.0000 R Container Handling Equip 2003 175 0 0.0000 0.0000 R Container Handling Equip 2002 175 0 0.0007 0.0000 R Container Handling Equip 2001 175 0 0.0004 0.0000 R Container Handling Equip 2000 175 0 0.0007 0.0000 R Container Handling Equip 1999 175 0 0.0000 0.0000 R Container Handling Equip 1998 175 0 0.0004 0.0000 R Container Handling Equip 1997 175 0 0.0004 0.0000 R Container Handling Equip 1996 175 0 0.0004 0.0000 R Container Handling Equip 1995 175 0 0.0000 0.0000 R Container Handling Equip 1994 175 0 0.0022 0.0001 R Container Handling Equip 1993 175 0 0.0004 0.0000

### 2004 Emission Estimates (tons per day) by Facility Type, by Equipment Type, by Model Year, and by Horsepower Category

BB - 14 R Container Handling Equip 1992 175 0 0.0004 0.0000 R Container Handling Equip 1991 175 0 0.0000 0.0000 R Container Handling Equip 1990 175 0 0.0013 0.0001 R Container Handling Equip 1989 175 0 0.0018 0.0001 R Container Handling Equip 1988 175 0 0.0005 0.0000 R Container Handling Equip 1987 175 0 0.0006 0.0000 R Container Handling Equip 1986 175 0 0.0006 0.0000 R Container Handling Equip 2004 250 1 0.0021 0.0000 R Container Handling Equip 2003 250 0 0.0000 0.0000 R Container Handling Equip 2002 250 1 0.0058 0.0001 R Container Handling Equip 2001 250 1 0.0029 0.0001 R Container Handling Equip 2000 250 1 0.0059 0.0001 R Container Handling Equip 1999 250 0 0.0000 0.0000 R Container Handling Equip 1998 250 1 0.0030 0.0001 R Container Handling Equip 1997 250 1 0.0031 0.0001 R Container Handling Equip 1996 250 1 0.0031 0.0001 R Container Handling Equip 1995 250 0 0.0000 0.0000 R Container Handling Equip 1994 250 3 0.0204 0.0010 R Container Handling Equip 1993 250 1 0.0041 0.0002 R Container Handling Equip 1992 250 1 0.0042 0.0002 R Container Handling Equip 1991 250 0 0.0000 0.0000 R Container Handling Equip 1990 250 2 0.0128 0.0006 R Container Handling Equip 1989 250 2 0.0173 0.0009 R Container Handling Equip 1988 250 1 0.0044 0.0002 R Container Handling Equip 1987 250 1 0.0060 0.0003 R Container Handling Equip 1986 250 1 0.0059 0.0003 R Container Handling Equip 2004 500 0 0.0020 0.0000 R Container Handling Equip 2003 500 0 0.0000 0.0000 R Container Handling Equip 2002 500 1 0.0043 0.0001 R Container Handling Equip 2001 500 0 0.0024 0.0001 R Container Handling Equip 2000 500 1 0.0061 0.0001 R Container Handling Equip 1999 500 0 0.0000 0.0000 R Container Handling Equip 1998 500 0 0.0031 0.0001 R Container Handling Equip 1997 500 0 0.0032 0.0001 R Container Handling Equip 1996 500 0 0.0031 0.0001 R Container Handling Equip 1995 500 0 0.0000 0.0000 R Container Handling Equip 1994 500 2 0.0210 0.0010 R Container Handling Equip 1993 500 0 0.0042 0.0002 R Container Handling Equip 1992 500 0 0.0043 0.0002 R Container Handling Equip 1991 500 0 0.0000 0.0000 R Container Handling Equip 1990 500 1 0.0132 0.0007 R Container Handling Equip 1989 500 2 0.0178 0.0009 R Container Handling Equip 1988 500 0 0.0045 0.0002 R Container Handling Equip 1987 500 0 0.0061 0.0003 R Container Handling Equip 1986 500 0 0.0061 0.0003 R Other General Industrial Equip 2004 175 0 0.0002 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 2003 175 0 0.0002 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 2002 175 0 0.0001 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 2001 175 0 0.0001 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 2000 175 0 0.0001 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 1999 175 0 0.0000 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 1998 175 0 0.0001 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 1997 175 0 0.0000 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 1996 175 0 0.0000 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 1995 175 0 0.0000 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 1994 175 0 0.0000 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 1993 175 0 0.0000 0.0000

### 2004 Emission Estimates (tons per day) by Facility Type, by Equipment Type, by Model Year, and by Horsepower Category

BB - 15 R Other General Industrial Equip 1992 175 0 0.0000 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 1991 175 0 0.0000 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 1990 175 0 0.0000 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 1989 175 0 0.0000 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 1988 175 0 0.0001 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 2004 250 0 0.0007 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 2003 250 0 0.0005 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 2002 250 0 0.0004 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 2001 250 0 0.0002 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 2000 250 0 0.0002 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 1999 250 0 0.0001 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 1998 250 0 0.0004 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 1997 250 0 0.0001 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 1996 250 0 0.0001 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 1995 250 0 0.0001 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 1994 250 0 0.0001 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 1993 250 0 0.0000 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 1992 250 0 0.0001 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 1991 250 0 0.0000 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 1990 250 0 0.0001 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 1989 250 0 0.0001 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 1988 250 0 0.0003 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 2004 500 1 0.0024 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 2003 500 0 0.0015 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 2002 500 0 0.0009 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 2001 500 0 0.0007 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 2000 500 0 0.0008 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 1999 500 0 0.0005 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 1998 500 0 0.0015 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 1997 500 0 0.0004 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 1996 500 0 0.0002 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 1995 500 0 0.0003 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 1994 500 0 0.0003 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 1993 500 0 0.0001 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 1992 500 0 0.0002 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 1991 500 0 0.0001 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 1990 500 0 0.0004 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 1989 500 0 0.0004 0.0000 R Other General Industrial Equip 1988 500 0 0.0010 0.0001 R Sweeper/Scrubber 2004 250 0 0.0004 0.0000 R Sweeper/Scrubber 2003 250 0 0.0003 0.0000 R Sweeper/Scrubber 2002 250 0 0.0002 0.0000 R Sweeper/Scrubber 2001 250 0 0.0001 0.0000 R Sweeper/Scrubber 2000 250 0 0.0001 0.0000 R Sweeper/Scrubber 1999 250 0 0.0001 0.0000 R Sweeper/Scrubber 1998 250 0 0.0003 0.0000 R Sweeper/Scrubber 1997 250 0 0.0001 0.0000 R Sweeper/Scrubber 1996 250 0 0.0000 0.0000 R Sweeper/Scrubber 1995 250 0 0.0001 0.0000 R Sweeper/Scrubber 1994 250 0 0.0001 0.0000 R Sweeper/Scrubber 1993 250 0 0.0000 0.0000 R Sweeper/Scrubber 1992 250 0 0.0000 0.0000 R Sweeper/Scrubber 1991 250 0 0.0000 0.0000 R Sweeper/Scrubber 1990 250 0 0.0001 0.0000 R Sweeper/Scrubber 1989 250 0 0.0001 0.0000 R Sweeper/Scrubber 1988 250 0 0.0002 0.0000
R Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2004 120 0 0.0001 0.000 0

### 2004 Emission Estimates (tons per day) by Facility Type, by Equipment Type, by Model Year, and by Horsepower Category

BB - 16 R Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2003 120 0 0.0001 0.000 0
R Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2002 120 0 0.0001 0.000 0
R Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2001 120 0 0.0000 0.000 0
R Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2000 120 0 0.0000 0.000 0
R Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1999 120 0 0.0000 0.000 0
R Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1998 120 0 0.0001 0.000 0
R Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1997 120 0 0.0000 0.000 0
R Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1996 120 0 0.0000 0.000 0
R Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1995 120 0 0.0000 0.000 0
R Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1994 120 0 0.0000 0.000 0
R Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1993 120 0 0.0000 0.000 0
R Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1992 120 0 0.0000 0.000 0
R Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1991 120 0 0.0000 0.000 0
R Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1990 120 0 0.0000 0.000 0
R Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1989 120 0 0.0000 0.000 0
R Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1988 120 0 0.0000 0.000 0
R Yard Tractor 2004 175 70 0.1071 0.0030
R Yard Tractor 2003 175 42 0.0791 0.0021
R Yard Tractor 2002 175 22 0.0518 0.0017
R Yard Tractor 2001 175 13 0.0302 0.0010
R Yard Tractor 2000 175 10 0.0241 0.0008
R Yard Tractor 1999 175 3 0.0081 0.0003
R Yard Tractor 1998 175 27 0.0674 0.0024
R Yard Tractor 1997 175 2 0.0050 0.0002
R Yard Tractor 1996 175 2 0.0054 0.0002
R Yard Tractor 2004 250 36 0.0715 0.0014
R Yard Tractor 2003 250 21 0.0525 0.0009
R Yard Tractor 2002 250 11 0.0332 0.0006
R Yard Tractor 2001 250 6 0.0195 0.0003
R Yard Tractor 2000 250 5 0.0156 0.0003
R Yard Tractor 1999 250 2 0.0053 0.0001
R Yard Tractor 1998 250 14 0.0441 0.0008
R Yard Tractor 1997 250 1 0.0033 0.0001
R Yard Tractor 1996 250 1 0.0031 0.0001

### California Air Resources Board Survey: Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Intermodal Facil ities

BC - 1 

## Survey Instructions

Before you begin filling out the Mobile Cargo Handl ing Equipment Survey (Survey) form, please read the instructions carefully. A sample S urvey has been included in this packet for your assistance.

THE SURVEY FORM

Explanations for each Survey data field are provide d below. If you have more than one terminal, please complete a separate Survey for eac h terminal. Please complete all pages of the Survey to the best of your knowledge. If you do not have exact numbers or data for specific fields, please provide your be st estimation. If you need additional forms for any of the sections, you may either photo copy each page needed or download blank survey pages from the following web site addr ess: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroad/cargo/document s/survey.htm

. Please return the completed Surveys by January 31, 2005 , to the following:

California Air Resources Board Attn: Lisa Williams Stationary Source Division P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812-2815 CONFIDENTIAL MATERIALS ENCLOSED (if that’s the case)

In an effort to simplify and streamline the data ga thering process, we have made the Survey forms available electronically. If you pref er to submit the Survey forms electronically, please see the Electronic Submittal Form in Part II for the information about how to obtain a diskette (or download the Sur vey from the Internet). To access the Survey on our website, please go to: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroad/cargo/document s/survey.htm

.
If you have any questions, please contact Lisa Will iams at (916) 327-1498 or via e-mail at lwilliam@arb.ca.gov

. Survey Data Fields

Section I: Terminal Information

Terminal/Facility Name: Please enter the terminal or facility that owns or operates the cargo handling equipment.

Port/Rail Yard: Port or rail yard where the termin al operates.

Address, City, Zip: Mailing address, city, and zip code for the terminal/facility.

### California Air Resources Board Survey: Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Intermodal Facil ities

BC - 2 Contact Name, Phone, E-mail: Please enter the name and title of the person to be contacted by ARB if we have questions about the inf ormation provided.

Small Business: If your terminal/facility is a Cal ifornia Small Business as defined by California Gov. Code Sec. 11342.610, please check t he "Yes" box.

Confidential: Please indicate as to whether or not you would like ARB to treat your information as confidential information. If you de signate information as confidential, you also need to fill out the confidential information submittal form and return that to ARB with your Survey.

Section II: Forecasted Growth

This section is intended to provide us with your be st estimates on forecasted growth. This information will be used to help provide us wi th a general estimate of emissions and trends.

Avg # New Replacement Equipment Purchased Annually: Please enter the average number of new pieces of equipment purchased to repl ace previously existing equipment over a 12-month period for each equipment type.

Expected Average Useful Life in # Years: Please en ter the average # of years each equipment type is expected to last.

Forecasted Growth for 2010 Expected % Increase in # of Equipment: Please indi cate the percentage of increase in the number of each equipment type that you expect t o see by 2010.

Expected % Increase in # of Hours: Please indicate the expected percentage of increase by 2010 in the number of hours each equipm ent type will be operated.

Forecasted Growth for 2020 Expected % Increase in # of Equipment: Please indi cate the percentage of increase in the number of each equipment type that you expect t o see between now and 2020.

Expected % Increase in # of Hours: Please indicate the expected percentage of increase between now and 2020 in the number of hour s each equipment type will be operated.

Comments: Please provide any additional comments y ou may have.

Section III: In-Use Equipment and Engine Informati on

Equipment Type: Please enter the type of equipment (i.e., forklift, yard truck, RTG crane, etc.).

### California Air Resources Board Survey: Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Intermodal Facil ities

BC - 3 # of Equipment: If you have multiple equipment wit h identical information (same make, model, engines, fuel, horsepower, rebuild/repower i nfo, and average hours), please enter the number of equipment here. If any of the equipment information differs (i.e., one was repowered but one was not), please enter ea ch one individually on its own line.

Equipment Make and Model Year: The manufacturer an d model year of the equipment (not the engine).

Engine Make, Model, and Model Year: Please enter t he manufacturer, model number, and model year for the engine (not the equipment).

Fuel Type: Please enter one of the following fuel type codes for the equipment:

Rated HP: The rated horsepower of the engine.

Repowered?: Please indicate if the engine were rep owered, and if so, what year(s) the repower occurred. Repowered means that the engine was replaced (into the existing equipment).

Rebuilt?: Please indicate if the engine were rebui lt, and if so, what year(s).

Avg. Annual Hours: The average number of hours the equipment operates each 12- month year.

Section IV: Emission Controls

Please only complete this section for the equipment that have emission controls installed.

# from Section III: Please enter the corresponding # from Section III column 1.

Control Equipment: Please check the appropriate bo x(es) for the emission control(s) installed (DOC for diesel oxidation catalyst, DPF f or diesel particulate filter, SCR for selective catalytic reduction, or Other). If Other is checked, please indicate the emission control system.

Year Installed: The year the emission control equi pment was installed on the engine.

Installed cost: The cost of the equipment includin g installation.

Avg. Annual Maintenance Cost: The average cost of maintenance over each 12-month period. • A = EPA Off-Road Diesel • B = CARB Diesel #2 • C = Ultra-low Sulfur (15 ppm) Diesel • D = Ethanol-blended Diesel (i.e., O 2 

### Diesel)

• E = Emulsified Diesel (i.e., PuriNOx) • F = Biodiesel 20% (B20) • G = Biodiesel 100% (B100) • H = Natural Gas (CNG, LNG) • I = Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)

• J = Electricity

### California Air Resources Board Survey: Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Intermodal Facil ities

BC - 4 Purchased with new equipment or engine?: Please in dicate if the emission controls came with a new piece of equipment or with a new en gine.

Grants Received: Please indicate if either a port grant or Carl Moyer Program funding was provided for the emission controls.

Notes or Comments: Please provide any additional i nformation you feel might be valuable (i.e., your experience with the emission c ontrol equipment failures or successes).

Section V: Confidentiality Statement

Please complete this section if you have indicated in Section I that the information you have provided on this Survey is confidential.California Air Resources Board Survey: Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Intermodal FacilitiesBC - 5Section I: Terminal/Facility InformationTerminal/Facility Name:Port/Rail Yard:PageofAddress:City:Zip:Contact Name: Small Business*:YesNoContact Phone:Contact E-Mail:*Small business as defined by California Gov. Code11342.610Confidential?YesNoIf "Yes", please complete ConfidentialityStatement (Section V)Section II: Forecasted GrowthEquipment TypeYardTrucksRTGCranesCranes(not RTG)TopPicksSidePicksReachStackersRubberTiredLoadersForkliftsSkidSteerLoadersExcavators DozersOther(Explain)Avg # NewReplacementEquipmentPurchased AnnuallyExpected UsefulLife in # YearsForecasted Growth for 2010Expected %Increase in # ofEquipmentExpected %Increase in # ofHoursForecasted Growth for 2020Expected %Increase in # ofEquipmentExpected %Increase in # ofHoursComments:California Air Resources Board Survey: Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Intermodal FacilitiesBC - 6Terminal/Facility Name:Port/Rail Yard:PageofSection III: In-Use Equipment and Engine Information#EquipmentType# ofEquipmentEquipmentMakeEquipmentModelYearEngineMakeEngineModelEngineModelYearFuelType*RatedHPRepowered? Rebuilt?Avg.AnnualHours1NoYesYears:NoYesYears:2NoYesYears:NoYesYears:3NoYesYears:NoYesYears:4NoYesYears:NoYesYears:5NoYesYears:NoYesYears:6NoYesYears:NoYesYears:* Fuel Type Codes:Please photocopy this page if additional room is needed.• A = EPA Off-Road Diesel• B = CARB Diesel #2• C = Ultra-low Sulfur (15 ppm) Diesel• D = Ethanol-blended Diesel (i.e., O2Diesel)•E =Emulsified Diesel (i.e., PuriNOx)• F = Biodiesel 20% (B20)• G = Biodiesel 100% (B100)• H = Natural Gas (CNG, LNG)• I = Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)•J =ElectricityCalifornia Air Resources Board Survey: Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Intermodal FacilitiesBC - 7Terminal/Facility Name:Port/Rail Yard:PageofSection IV: Emission Controls# fromSection IIIControl Equipment*YearInstalledInstalledCostAvg. AnnualMaintenance CostPurchased with newequipment or engine?Grants ReceivedNotes orCommentsDOCDPFSCROther_____________NoYesPort GrantCarl MoyerDOCDPFSCROther_____________NoYesPort GrantCarl MoyerDOCDPFSCROther_____________NoYesPort GrantCarl MoyerDOCDPFSCROther_____________NoYesPort GrantCarl MoyerDOCDPFSCROther_____________NoYesPort GrantCarl MoyerDOCDPFSCROther_____________NoYesPort GrantCarl MoyerDOCDPFSCROther_____________NoYesPort GrantCarl MoyerDOCDPFSCROther_____________NoYesPort GrantCarl MoyerDOCDPFSCROther_____________NoYesPort GrantCarl MoyerDOCDPFSCROther_____________NoYesPort GrantCarl MoyerDOCDPFSCROther_____________NoYesPort GrantCarl MoyerDOCDPFSCROther_____________NoYesPort GrantCarl MoyerPlease photocopy this page if additional room is needed.

### California Air Resources Board Survey: Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Intermodal Facil ities

BC - 8 Section V: Confidentiality Statement

If you wish to designate any information contained in your survey data as CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION , please provide the information requested below an d return it with your completed Survey form.



### In accordance with Title 17, California Code of Reg ulations (CCR), Sections 91000 to 91022, and the California Public Records Act (Gover nment Code Section 6250 et seq.), the information that a company provides to the Air Resources Board (ARB) may be released (1) to the public upon request, except tra de secrets which are not emissions data or other information which is exempt from disc losure or the disclosure of which is prohibited by law, and 2) to the Federal Environmen tal Protection Agency, which protects trade secrets as provided in Section 114(c ) of the Clean Air Act and amendments thereto (42 USC 7401 et seq.) and in fed eral regulation, and 3) to other public agencies provided that those agencies preser ve the protections afforded information which is identified as a trade secret, or otherwise exempt from disclosure by law (Section 39660(e)).

Trade secrets, as defined in Government Code 6254.7 , are not public records and therefore will not be released to the public. However, the Califo rnia Public Records Act states that air pollution emission data are always public records, even if the data comes within the definition of trade secrets. Even so, the information used to ca lculate air pollution data is not "emission data," and will not be released to the public if it is a trade secret.

If any company believes that any of the information it may provide is a trade secret or otherwise exempt from disclosure under any provision of law, it must identify the confidential information as such at the time of submission to th e ARB and must provide the name, address, and telephone number of the individual to be consulted . If the ARB receives a request for disclosure or seeks to disclose the dat a claimed to be confidential, the ARB may ask the company to provide documentation of its claim o f trade secret or exemption at a later date. Data identified as confidential will not be disclos ed unless the ARB determines, in accordance with the above referenced regulations, that the dat a do not qualify for a legal exemption from disclosure. The regulations establish substantial safeguards before any such disclosure.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - In accordance with the provisions of Title 17, Cali fornia Code of Regulations, Sections 91000 to 91022, and the California Public Records Act (Gover nment Code Sections 6250 et seq.)
Company Name: declares that all the information submitted in resp onse to the California Air Resources Board’s information request on the Survey is confidential “ trade secret” information, and request that it be protected as such from public disclosure. All i nquiries pertaining to the confidentiality of this information should be directed to the following per son:

Printed Name: Title: Signature: Date: Mailing Address: City/State: Zip/Country: Telephone: E-Mail Address: