Appendix H.4

Pechan, Development of Growth and Control Inputs for CENRAP

2018 Emissions Draft Technical Support Document (May 2005).

PECHAN

5528-B Hempstead Way 

Springfield, VA 22151 

703-813-6700 telephone 

703-813-6729 facsimile 

3622 Lyckan Parkway 

Suite 2002 

Durham, NC 27707 

919-493-3144 telephone 

919-493-3182 facsimile 

P.O. Box 1345 

El Dorado, CA 95623 

530-295-2995 telephone 

530-295-2999 facsimile 

DEVELOPMENT OF GROWTH 

AND CONTROL INPUTS FOR 

CENRAP 2018 EMISSIONS

DRAFT TECHNICAL SUPPORT 

DOCUMENT

Prepared for: 

Central Regional Air Planning Association 

(CENRAP) 

10005 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite C 

Oklahoma City, OK 73159 

Prepared by: 

E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. 

5528-B Hempstead Way 

Springfield, VA 22151 

May 2005 

Contract No. 04-0628-RPO-018 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 

PECHAN May 2005 

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

CONTENTS 

Page

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

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

CHAPTER II. DEVELOPMENT OF GROWTH AND CONTROL FACTORS FOR THE 

CENRAP STATES ..........................................................................................................................3 

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

AREA SOURCES....................................................................................................3 

 1. Overview......................................................................................................4 

 2. Alternative Forecast.....................................................................................6 

 B. DEVELOPMENT OF CONTROL FACTORS FOR NON-EGU POINT 

SOURCES..............................................................................................................13 

 1. State Controls.............................................................................................14 

 2. Federal Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Standards .17 

 3. Non-EGU Point Source Analysis Results..................................................17 

 C. DEVELOPMENT OF CONTROL FACTORS FOR AREA SOURCES .............21 

 1. State Controls.............................................................................................21 

 2. Federal Controls.........................................................................................27 

 D. DEVELOPMENT OF NONROAD 2018 EMISSION INVENTORY..................29 

 1. Growth .......................................................................................................36 

 2. Controls......................................................................................................40 

 3. Non-NONROAD Model............................................................................48 

 E. DEVELOPMENT OF ONROAD DATA..............................................................53 

 1. VMT Growth .............................................................................................53 

 2. SMOKE MOBILE6 Inputs ........................................................................58 

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

STATES.........................................................................................................................................71 

 A. WRAP....................................................................................................................71 

 B. VISTAS..................................................................................................................71 

 C. MRPO ....................................................................................................................71 

 D. MANE-VU.............................................................................................................72 

 E. CANADA ..............................................................................................................72 

 F. MEXICO................................................................................................................72 

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

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

APPENDIX A. METHODS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF GROWTH AND CONTROL INPUTS 

FOR 2018 EMISSIONS (SCHEDULES 3 AND 9) ................................................................... A-1 
PECHAN May 2005 

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

APPENDIX B. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 

GROWTH AND CONTROL INPUTS FOR 2018 EMISSIONS MODELING (SCHEDULES 3 

AND 9).........................................................................................................................................B-1 

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

TABLES AND FIGURES 

Page

Table II-1 Regions and States Included in Emission Activity Growth Factor Files.................3 

Table II-2 Base Year Inventory Files for Non-CENRAP States ..............................................4 

Table II-3 Additional Source Categories Utilizing Regression Equation Approach................6 

Table II-4 Summary of Non-EGAS Growth Indicators Used For Highest-Emitting SCCs in 

CENRAP Region ...................................................................................................12 

Table II-5 Post-2002 MACT Standards and Expected VOC, NOx, and PM Reductions .......18 

Table II-6 VOC Solvent Rule Summary.................................................................................22 

Table II-7 VOC Solvent Controls As Modeled ......................................................................24 

Table II-8 Residential Wood Combustion Control Factors for CENRAP States ...................28 

Table II-9 Statewide Temperature and RVP Inputs for 2018 NONROAD Model Runs .......30 

Table II-10 CENRAP Stage II Refueling Programs .................................................................31 

Table II-11 CENRAP Reformulated Gasoline Programs .........................................................32 

Table II-12 CENRAP Low RVP Programs ..............................................................................33 

Table II-13 CENRAP Oxygenated Fuel Inputs ........................................................................36 

Table II-14 NONROAD Model Priority Growth Categories and REMI Data for Adjusting 

National NONROAD Growth Rates......................................................................37 

Table II-15 NONROAD Model Category Growth Factors for 2018........................................38 

Table II-16 REMI State and National Growth Factors for 2018 ..............................................39 

Table II-17 Adjusted 2018 Growth Factors for Nonroad Priority Equipment Categories........41 

Table II-18 Horsepower-Related Rule Penetration Values by Category for Large S-I 

Evaporative Standards ...........................................................................................44 

Table II-19 Control Effectiveness Values by SCC for Large S-I Evaporative Standards in 

2018........................................................................................................................45 

Table II-20 2018 VOC Emission Reductions by SCC for Texas Portable Container Rule......49 

Table II-21 2018 Emission Reductions and Control Information for Federal Rail Standards .51 

Table II-22 2018 Emission Reductions and Control Information for Federal Diesel 

Commercial Marine Standards ..............................................................................54 

Table II-23 2002 to 2018 Non-Default VMT Growth Factors Applied in CENRAP States....57 

Figure II-1 Baton Rouge I/M Program and ATP Characteristics...................................... 60 

Figure II-2 Franklin County I/M Program and ATP Characteristics ................................ 60 

Figure II-3 St. Louis Enhanced I/M Program Characteristics........................................... 61 

Figure II-4 Harris, Dallas, and Tarrant Counties I/M Program Characteristics................ 63 

Figure II-5 El Paso County I/M Program Characteristics ................................................. 64 

Figure II-6 Collin and Denton Counties I/M Program Characteristics ............................. 65 
PECHAN May 2005 

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

Figure II-7 9-County Texas, 2003 Start Year, I/M Program Characteristics.................... 66 

Figure II-8 Austin Area I/M Program Characteristics....................................................... 67 
PECHAN May 2005 

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

[This page intentionally left blank.] 
PECHAN May 2005 

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

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

AEO Annual Energy Outlook

AIM architectural and industrial maintenance 

BPA Beaumont/Port Arthur 

CENRAP Central Regional Air Planning Association 

CO carbon monoxide 

CTG control techniques guideline 

DFW Dallas/Ft. Worth 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

EGAS Economic Growth Analysis System 

EGUs electricity generating units 

FIFRA Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act 

HAPs hazardous air pollutants 

HGA Houston/Galveston Area 

IPM Integrated Planning Model 

MERR mobile equipment repair and refinishing 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NH3 ammonia 

NOx oxides of nitrogen 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

O2 oxygen 

OSD ozone season daily 

Pechan E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. 

PM particulate matter 

PM10 particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a 

 nominal 10 micrometers 

PM2.5 particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a 

 nominal 2.5 micrometers 

REMI Regional Economic Models, Inc. 

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis 

RPOs Regional Planning Organizations 

RVP Reid vapor pressure 

SCCs source classification codes 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SOx sulfur oxides 

STI Sonoma Technology, Inc. 

TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

TSD Technical Support Document 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

VMT vehicle miles traveled 

VOC volatile organic compound 
PECHAN May 2005 

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

[This page intentionally left blank.] 
PECHAN May 2005 

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

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 

The purpose of this project was to prepare emission growth and control factors that can be 

applied to the Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP) 2002 base year emission 

inventory to obtain a 2018 emissions inventory for the CENRAP region. The CENRAP region 

includes the States and Tribal areas of Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, 

Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas. In addition to the CENRAP States, additional factors were 

compiled under this project to include the entire CENRAP modeling domain. This includes 

projected emissions data or projection year growth and control factor data from the other 

Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs), Canada, and Mexico. All data products were prepared 

in SMOKE-compatible format. 

These projection year growth and control factor data will be used to support air quality modeling 

and State Implementation Plan (SIP) development and implementation activities for the regional 

haze rule and fine particulate matter (PM) and ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). The data are applicable to all source categories and pollutants included in the 

CENRAP 2002 emission inventory. This includes the following pollutants: sulfur oxides (SOx), 

oxides of nitrogen (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia 

(NH3), and particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 and 2.5 

micrometers (i.e., primary PM10 and PM2.5). 

This Technical Support Document (TSD) explains the data sources that E.H. Pechan & 

Associates, Inc. (Pechan) used and the procedures Pechan followed in developing the necessary 

growth and control data for this project. Appendix A of this document contains the Methods 

Document that was prepared under this project. The purpose of this TSD is not to duplicate the 

information contained in that document, but to supplement it with the actual data obtained under 

this project and to note areas where the methods were modified from those included in the 

Methods Document. Chapter II of this document presents information on the control factors and 

growth factors that Pechan developed for the CENRAP States. The methods are presented 

separately for each of the major source categories. Chapter III of this document presents the data 

sources and methods that Pechan used to compile the data for areas outside of the CENRAP 

States, including other RPOs and Canada and Mexico. Issues of concern are discussed in 

Chapter IV and references are included in Chapter V. Appendix A contains the Methods 

document prepared for this project and Appendix B contains the Quality Assurance Project Plan 

for this work. 

This TSD is accompanied by a set of SMOKE-formatted modeling files, as well as a set of Statelevel Excel spreadsheets. The State spreadsheets are included for area source controls, point 

source controls, VMT growth, area and point source growth factors, and nonroad emissions. 

These spreadsheets summarize data contained in the modeling files, in a more readable format. 

The control files also contain 2002 emissions, in most cases, so that the effects of the controls 

can be estimated, using the 2002 emissions as a base (e.g., without the growth factors applied). 

These spreadsheets can be used by the States to review the inputs to the SMOKE modeling in 

more detail and can be used to help in quality assuring the emissions calculated by the SMOKE 

model. 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 2

[This page intentionally left blank.] 
PECHAN May 2005 

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

CHAPTER II. DEVELOPMENT OF GROWTH AND CONTROL 

FACTORS FOR THE CENRAP STATES 

A. DEVELOPMENT OF GROWTH FACTORS FOR NON-EGU POINT 

AND AREA SOURCES 

This chapter identifies the data sources and methods that Pechan used to develop point and area 

source emission activity growth factors to support 2018 emission projections for CENRAP. 

Table II-1 identifies the Regions and States for which Pechan developed emission activity 

growth factors. It is important to note that this section describes the development of growth 

factors for all point and area sources in the CENRAP base year inventory. For the EGU sector, 

CENRAP will be using emission data projected by the Integrated Planning Model (IPM). These 

IPM projections are not expected to be completed until late in the summer of 2005. Because 

these data were not available at the time Pechan prepared the point source growth factors, the 

growth factors Pechan prepared included growth factors for all EGU source classification codes 

(SCCs) that were included in the base year inventory as described in this section. When the IPM 

model runs are completed, the IPM-based emissions should overwrite EGU emissions projected 

with these growth factors. As such, these EGU growth factors should be considered as 

temporary placeholders. 

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

Region States Region States Region States

Arkansas Connecticut Indiana 

Iowa District of Columbia Illinois 

Kansas Delaware Michigan 

Louisiana Massachusetts Ohio 

Minnesota Maryland 

Missouri Maine 

Nebraska New Hampshire 

Oklahoma New Jersey 

New York 

Pennsylvania 

Rhode Island 

CENRAP 

Texas 

MANE_VU 

Vermont 

Midwest RPO 

Wisconsin 

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

In addition to all point and area source categories, it was necessary to develop growth factors for 

the following nonroad source categories because they are not included in EPA’s NONROAD 

model: railroads, commercial marine vessels, and aircraft. 

To identify the State/County/SCC combinations for which growth factors are required, Pechan 

summarized the CENRAP 2002 base year inventory (Pechan and CEP, 2005) and the base year 

inventories for MANE-VU and Midwest RPO available from CENRAP’s visibility modeling 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 4

website (CENRAP, 2005).1 A zip file containing all of the data files titled “NonCENRAP States 

Inventory SMOKE Input Files” was available at CENRAP’s website (see Table II-2 for list of 

files contained in the zip file). Because some of these files provide information for States 

outside of the geographic area of interest, the State/County/SCC summary did not include all of 

the States reported in these non-CENRAP State files. 

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

File Name Contents

arinv_nei02_032404_MW_MVU_NOnh3.ida.txt Midwest RPO and MANE-VU area sources excluding 

agriculture-related ammonia SCCs and fugitive dust 

emissions

ar_dust_phaseii_22mar04_USnoCENRAP.ida U.S. fugitive dust inventory (excluding road dust)

nr_2002_23mar04_MW_MVU.ida CENRAP, Midwest RPO, and MANE-VU 2002 nonroad 

mobile inventory

rdinv.pvd_US_${season}02_ida.txt U.S. annual 2002 paved road dust inventory

rdinv.unp_US_${season}02_ida.txt U.S. seasonal 2002 unpaved road dust inventory

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

inventory

In addition to the CENRAP web-site files noted above, Pechan was supplied with a separate file 

that listed SCCs used to report agriculture-related ammonia emissions in the non-CENRAP 

States (Omary, 2005). Because this file did not contain any geographic identifiers, Pechan 

developed a comprehensive list of MANE-VU and Midwest RPO State/SCC combinations that 

may exist in each region’s base year inventory.2

The following sections describe the data and methods that were used to prepare emission activity 

growth factors for the State/County/SCC combinations of interest. 

1. Overview 

For most source categories, Pechan developed default emission activity growth factors utilizing 

data and methods that are expected to be incorporated into the final Economic Growth Analysis 

System (EGAS) Version 5.0. CENRAP selected EGAS 5.0-based growth factors over the 

growth factors available from EGAS 4.0 because the EGAS 5.0 growth factors will be based on 

the latest set of economic/demographic projections developed by Regional Economic Models, 

Inc. (REMI) and the latest energy forecasts prepared by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 

(Houyoux, 2004; DOE, 2004). In addition, the crosswalk between SCCs and emission activity 

 

1

Note that projections/growth factors for the following regions were not developed because they were available from other 

studies: Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) and Western Regional Air 

Partnership (WRAP).

2

Except for oil and gas production, Pechan did not have access to offshore-specific projections data. Therefore, Pechan 

assumed that Texas area growth factors could be used to represent growth in all offshore non-oil and gas production SCCs.
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 5

growth indicators and the regression equations relating socioeconomic indicators to emission 

activity levels will both be refined in EGAS 5.0. Furthermore, the REMI economic models in 

EGAS 5.0 allocate national economic activity based on relative production costs at the 53-sector 

level rather than the 14-sector level used in EGAS 4.0. Local relative factor costs may be 

substantially different for a given detailed industry within one of the 14-sectors included in the 

REMI models in EGAS Version 4.0. However, the 14-sector models cannot model this 

distinction, since they are constrained by data specified at this level of detail. More accurate 

regional forecasts result from the more detailed representation of relative cost competitiveness 

that is available from the EGAS 5.0 REMI models. 

Because EGAS represents a default set of growth factors, Pechan investigated alternatives to the 

EGAS default indicators for the highest-emitting point, nonpoint, and nonroad SCCs in the base 

year inventory for the CENRAP States.3

 Based on this review, Pechan identified a number of 

alternatives that were deemed preferable to the EGAS defaults, including: 

• Use of regression equations developed for EGAS 5.0, but not incorporated into the beta 

version (for architectural coating and commercial pesticide application SCCs);4

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

reasonable;5

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

region; 

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

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

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

• Use of United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) projections of planted acreage 

for major crops (for crop tilling SCCs); 

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

• Use of USDA livestock projections (for swine, cattle and calves, and poultry SCCs). 

 

3

Note that this discussion only applies to nonroad SCCs that are not included in the NONROAD model. A separate 

Pechan memorandum addressed refinements to the NONROAD model default growth information.

4

The current EGAS 5.0 design does not support incorporation of some of the emission activity forecasting equations that 

Pechan developed for use in EGAS 5.0.

5

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

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 6

Further details on these emission activity growth surrogates are provided in the following 

section. 

2. Alternative Forecast 

There are a number of problems and shortcomings of the beta version of EGAS 5.0 that was 

available during this project’s period of performance. Although some of these limitations were 

known at the time the beta version was released in November 2004 (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/EGAS5limitations.pdf), a number of additional problems have since 

been identified. Therefore, except as noted below, point and non-point source emission 

projections rely on the methods and data that are expected to be incorporated into the final 

version of EGAS 5.0 rather than the information in the beta version. The following subsections 

summarize differences between the information developed for this effort and the EGAS 5.0 beta 

version. 

a. Use of Regression Equations Not Yet Incorporated into EGAS 

For certain sectors, Pechan utilized regression equations developed for EGAS 5.0, but not 

incorporated into the beta version. For the SCCs displayed in Table II-3, Pechan replaced the 

beta EGAS 5.0 growth factors based on REMI socioeconomic data with growth factors derived 

from the emission estimation approaches developed for EGAS 5.0 that have yet to be 

incorporated. The following sections identify the emission activity forecasting methods that 

were applied to these SCCs.6

Table II-3. Additional Source Categories Utilizing Regression Equation Approach 

SCC SCC Description

2401001000 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Architectural Coatings; Total: All Solvent Types

2461800000 Solvent Utilization; Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Commercial; Pesticide Application: All 

Processes; Total: All Solvent Types

2810030000 Miscellaneous Area Sources; Other Combustion; Structure Fires; Total

i. Architectural Coating 

To estimate growth factors representing the future year to base year change in volume of 

architectural coatings consumed, Pechan developed the following equation by regressing 

national coating shipments over the period 1981-2001 against data for a number of potential 

explanatory variables: 

 

6

Note that there may be other SCCs for which the final version of EGAS 5.0 will incorporate additional regression 

equations. Pechan will update the growth factor files to reflect the latest available information as to the list of SCCs for 

which the final EGAS 5.0 will utilize the approaches identified in this section.

y b b x b LAG y = + 01 2 * * () + (Eq. 1)
PECHAN May 2005 

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

where: 

y = ratio of current year architectural coating shipments to base year 

 shipments 

b0 = -0.017 

 b1 = 0.614 

 b2 = 0.437 

 x = current year housing expenditures 

 LAG(y) = ratio of previous year’s architectural coating shipments to base year 

 shipments. 

This equation is not incorporated into the beta EGAS 5.0 because the program currently does not 

support equations with lagged variables. In addition to the total volume of coatings used, it is 

important to reflect any projected change in the solvent content of these coatings because the 

emission activity for these SCCs is the amount of solvent emitted from these coatings. 

Therefore, Pechan recommended that EPA incorporate factors into EGAS 5.0 that reflect the 

projected future year architectural coating solvent content relative to base year solvent content 

(Pechan, 2004). Although these factors are not incorporated into the beta EGAS 5.0, they are 

expected to be included in the final EGAS 5.0. Therefore, Pechan obtained data representing the 

proportion of forecast year total and 2002 total architectural paints shipments that are solventbased from the Freedonia Group, Inc. (Freedonia, 2002). Based on the available forecast 

information, Pechan applied a factor of 0.729 to the 2018 growth factor developed from the 

output of equation 1 for each State. The Freedonia data were reported for 1992 and each fifth 

year over the period 1996 to 2011. Pechan interpolated between the 2001 and 2006 values to 

obtain a 2002 value and used the 2011 value for 2018 in lieu of any forecast information beyond 

2011. 

ii. Commercial Pesticide Application 

To estimate the amount of commercial pesticides applied, Pechan computed the following 

equation by regressing the national volume of active pesticide ingredients applied over the period 

1980-1999 against data for a number of potential explanatory variables: 

where: 

LOG(y) = ratio of current year log of volume of active pesticide ingredients to 

base year log of volume of ingredients 

b0 = -0.003 

b1 = 0.480 

b2 = 0.334 

x = current year Agricultural Chemicals sector (SIC code 287) 

employment 

LAG(LOG(y)) = ratio of previous year’s log of volume of active pesticide ingredients 

to base year’s log of volume of ingredients. 

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

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 8

This equation is not incorporated into the beta EGAS 5.0 because the program currently does not 

support equations with lagged variables. It is important to reflect any projected change in the 

solvent content of the pesticides. Therefore, Pechan recommended that EPA incorporate factors 

into EGAS 5.0 that reflect the ratio of future year volume of solvents per dollar of Agricultural 

Chemical sector shipments to base year volume of solvents for these shipments (Pechan, 2004). 

Although these factors are not incorporated into the beta EGAS 5.0, they are expected to be 

included in the final EGAS 5.0. Therefore, Pechan obtained data representing the proportion of 

forecast year and 2002 volume of solvents per dollar of Agricultural Chemicals sector shipments 

from the Freedonia Group, Inc. (Freedonia, 2003). Based on the available forecast information, 

Pechan applied a factor of 1.048 to the 2018 growth factor developed from the output of 

equation 2 for each State. Freedonia’s solvent content data were reported for each fifth year over 

the period 1992 to 2012, including 2002. In lieu of any forecast information beyond 2012, 

Pechan used the 2012 value to represent 2018. 

iii. Structure Fires 

EPA acknowledges that the structure fires forecast methodology/data were not properly 

incorporated into the beta version of EGAS 5.0. Therefore, Pechan replaced the beta EGAS 5.0 

structure fire growth factors to follow the two-step approach that Pechan developed for use in 

EGAS 5.0, and, which is expected to be incorporated into the final EGAS 5.0 (Pechan, 2004). 

This approach relies on an equation that relates the number of housing units to housing

expenditures and factors representing the projected change in the number of structure fires per 

10,000 housing units. For this study, Pechan applied a factor of 0.905 to the housing unit 

projections that represents the change in structure fires per 10,000 housing units between 2002 

and 2018. 

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

Because the EGAS 5.0 emission activity projection equations were developed using national 

historical data, it is unclear if the EGAS 5.0 equation growth rates will appear reasonable when 

incorporating State-level values into each equation. Therefore, Pechan reviewed the output for 

each State to identify potentially anomalous growth factors. Pechan selected growth factors of 2 

and 0.2 to represent thresholds in determining suspect values. In cases where State-level values 

were deemed to be questionable, Pechan implemented one of two types of refinements, 

depending on the number of States for which the equation-based approach resulted in suspect 

growth rates. The following summarizes the two types of refinements that were applied. 

The first refinement, which was used when the equation output appeared questionable for many 

States, was to use a combination of national and State REMI data. This approach first projects 

national growth factors up through 2009 by inputting national values of the independent variable 

in the emission activity equation. The 2009-2018 national growth rates were estimated using 

methods that were unique for each source category.7

 Pechan developed State-level growth 

factors by multiplying the national equation-based factors by ratios representing each State’s 

 

7

Post-2009 growth factors were not projected using the equation-based approach because of concerns that the estimated 

national post-2009 growth rates appear to be unsustainable.
PECHAN May 2005 

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

growth relative to National growth for the REMI indicator used in the regression equation. 

Section a below provides further details on this projection approach. 

The second refinement, which was applied to a few specific States when the State-level equation 

output appeared reasonable in most cases, was to use the State-level output of the equation only 

up through either 2007 or 2009. The 2018 growth factors were estimated for these States by 

extrapolating each State’s projected growth over the 2002 to 2007/9 timeframe using an 

exponential curve fitted to the data for this period. Further details on this refinement are 

provided in Section ii below. 

i. National Equation-Based Growth Factors 

For three source categories – Consumer/Commercial Solvents: All Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Related Products; Surface Coating: Miscellaneous 

Manufacturing; and Consumer/Commercial Solvents: All Coatings and Related Products, the use 

of State-level REMI forecasts in the nationally-derived emission activity estimation equations 

results in numerous anomalous growth rates. For these source categories, Pechan first utilized 

national REMI projections in the emission activity equations. Because of the dramatically higher 

growth/decline predicted after 2009, Pechan used the regression equation to directly develop 

national growth factors only through 2009. 

Consumer/Commercial Solvents: All FIFRA Products 

The 2009 national growth factor was held constant through 2018 for this category because the 

emission activity equation first predicted a continuation of the historical decline in activity for 

this category through 2009, then forecasted an increase in activity that was uncharacteristically 

large by 2018. Because of the uncertainty of the predicted post-2009 trend, Pechan held the 

2018 national growth factor constant at 2009 levels. Pechan developed State-level growth 

factors for this category by multiplying the national growth factors by State/National growth 

factor ratios. These ratios were determined using State/National projections for the REMI 

indicator (population) that was included in the emission activity equation. 

Surface Coating: Miscellaneous Manufacturing and Consumer/Commercial Solvents: All 

Coatings 

To estimate national 2018 growth factors for each of these two categories, Pechan reduced each 

national post-2009 annual growth rate, as estimated by each emission estimation equation, by 

one-half. This adjustment factor was used because it resulted in post-2009 growth rates that 

approximated those predicted over the 2002-2009 period. Pechan developed State-level growth 

factors by multiplying the national growth factors by State/National growth factor ratios. These 

ratios were determined using State/National projections for the REMI indicators that were 

included in each regression equation (value added in Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries 

sector and value added in Chemicals and Allied Products sector). 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 10

ii. State Equation-Based Growth Factor Changes 

 

Sulfite Pulping 

The use of State-level REMI forecasts in the nationally-derived Sulfite Pulping emission activity 

equation resulted in uncharacteristically large post-2009 growth rate changes in the District of 

Columbia. For DC, Pechan used the output of the regression equations up through 2009; 2018 

growth factors were developed by extrapolation using an exponential curve fitted to the 2002-

2009 growth factor projections. 

Electronic and Other Electrical Surface Coating 

For Iowa, the use of State-level REMI forecasts in the nationally-derived Electronic and Other 

Electrical emission activity equation resulted in unusually large post-2007 growth rate changes. 

For this State, Pechan utilized the State-level equation output to develop growth factors through 

2007. The 2018 growth factor was developed for Iowa via extrapolation using an exponential 

curve fitted to the projected 2002-2007 Iowa growth factors. 

c. Non-EGAS Data Sources

Because EGAS provides a default set of emission activity growth indicators, Pechan reviewed 

the availability of better projections sources where time and resources permitted. The following 

two sections describe specific areas where EGAS default information was replaced with 

projections from alternative data sources. 

i. Population 

EGAS is geographically defined by State, and so differences in growth within a State are not 

reflected in the EGAS default growth factors. Therefore, to account for differences in population 

projections within a State, Pechan obtained county-level population projections from each State 

in the CENRAP region and replaced the State-level EGAS population projections with these 

county-level population projections (Kansas, 2004; LPDC, 2003; MNPLAN, 2002; MO, 1999; 

ODOC, 2002; SLI, 2004; TXCDS, 2004; UALR, 2003; and UNE, 2002). Appendix Table C-1 

presents the population projections complied for this effort. 

ii. Other Data 

Because of resource constraints, Pechan’s research into potential alternative data sources focused 

on the EGAS growth surrogates that are applied to the highest-emitting point, nonpoint, and 

nonroad SCCs in the base year inventory for the CENRAP States.8

 Tables III-1 through III-5 in 

an earlier Pechan report present the top 10 SCCs responsible for the highest 2002 emissions in 

the CENRAP States for each of the following pollutants: NOx, PM25-PRI, NH3, SO2, and VOC 

(Pechan, 2005). Based on this review, Pechan was able to identify alternative data sources that 

 

8

Note that this discussion only applies to nonroad SCCs that not included in the NONROAD model. Refinements to the 

NONROAD model default growth information are addressed in Section D.1.
PECHAN May 2005 

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

were deemed to provide better emission activity surrogates for many of these SCCs. These 

surrogates are summarized in Table II-4. The following sections describe the rationale for the 

use of these non-EGAS growth surrogates for projecting emissions in the CENRAP States.

Oil and Gas Production Forecasts 

Pechan used DOE’s Annual Energy Outlook 2004 regional forecasts of onshore and offshore oil 

and gasoline production (DOE, 2004). From maps of the regions, the production values were 

allocated to the lower 48 continental States. New Mexico and Texas were the only States to 

belong to multiple onshore production regions. For these States, Pechan calculated the total 

production from all regions associated with each State. For SCC 2310000000, on and offshore 

drilling, the offshore area of the Pacific was added the onshore West Coast region and the 

offshore area of the Gulf was added to the on-shore region the Gulf Coast to develop growth 

factors for the States within the overlapping regions. 

Historical Average Acres Prescribed Burned 

Historical prescribed burning acreage data indicate that 2002 represented a year with 

uncharacteristically high levels of burning activity. Therefore, Pechan computed the average 

acreage burned in each State from data available over the period 1996 through 2003 

(EPA, 2005). The 2018 growth factors were then developed for each State by computing the 

ratio of 2002 acreage to the average acreage over the 1996 to 2003 period. 

Planted Crop Acreage Forecasts 

Pechan obtained 2002 through 2013 national planted acreage projections for major crops from 

the USDA (ERS, 2004). Pechan then developed an estimated national 2018 planted acreage 

value via linear extrapolation of the 2002 through 2013 trend. 

USDA Livestock Projections 

Pechan obtained national livestock projections from USDA’s “February 2004 Agricultural 

Baseline, Projection Tables to 2013" for beef cows, cattle, young chickens and turkeys 

(ERS, 2004). The USDA’s 2002 to 2013 estimates were projected to 2018 using linear 

extrapolation. The USDA data for young chickens and turkey data were combined for use in 

projecting poultry SCC emissions activity. 
PECHAN 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 D

12

Table II-4. Summary of Non-EGAS Growth Indicators Used For Highest-Emitting SCCs in C

Growth Indicator 

SCC SCC Description EGAS5 2294000000 Mobile Sources; Paved Roads; All Paved Roads; Total: Fugitives Population 2296000000 Mobile Sources; Unpaved Roads; All Unpaved Roads; Total: Fugitives Population Extrapola2310000000 Industrial Processes; Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13; All Processes; 

Total: All Processes 

SIC 13 constant $ output AEO reg

2310001000 Industrial Processes; Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13; All Processes; 

On-shore; Total: All Processes 

SIC 13 constant $ output AEO reg

2310002000 Industrial Processes; Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13; All Processes; 

Off-shore; Total: All Processes 

SIC 13 constant $ output AEO reg

2801000003 Miscellaneous Area Sources; Agriculture Production - Crops; 

Agriculture - Crops; Tilling 

Farm sector constant $ value added USDA n

2810015000 Miscellaneous Area Sources; Other Combustion; Prescribed Burning 

for Forest Management; Total 

No growth Historical a

gre

2805020002 Miscellaneous Area Sources; Agriculture Production - Livestock; Cattle 

and Calves Waste Emissions; Beef Cows 

Farm sector constant $ value added USDA na

2805020004 Miscellaneous Area Sources; Agriculture Production - Livestock; Cattle 

and Calves Waste Emissions; Steers, Steer Calves, Bulls, and Bull Calves 

Farm sector constant $ value added USDA n

2805025000 Miscellaneous Area Sources; Agriculture Production - Livestock; 

Swine production composite; Not Elsewhere Classified (see also 28-05-039, -047, -053) 

Farm sector constant $ value added USDA 

2805030000 Miscellaneous Area Sources; Agriculture Production - Livestock; 

Poultry Waste Emissions; Not Elsewhere Classified (see also 28-05-007, -008, -009) 

Farm sector constant $ value added USDA na

chicke

2805047100 Miscellaneous Area Sources; Agriculture Production - Livestock; 

Swine production - deep-pit house operations (unspecified animal age); Confinement 

Farm sector constant $ value added USDA 

30202001 Industrial Processes; Food and Agriculture; Beef Cattle Feedlots; 

Feedlots: General 

Farm sector constant $ value added USDA na
PECHAN May 2005 

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

Onroad Vehicle Miles Traveled Projections 

Pechan used onroad VMT projections to forecast paved road fugitive dust emissions activity. 

The VMT projections are discussed in Section E.1 of this report. 

Extrapolation of Historical Unpaved Road VMT Trend 

Unpaved road VMT for 1990 to 2002 were compiled for each of the CENRAP States, based on 

data used in EPA’s National Emission Inventory. A review of the data indicated a disconnect 

between the 1995 and 1996 values and questionable State-level unpaved road VMT trends. In 

addition, data for Arkansas and Minnesota appeared questionable for multiple years. Therefore, 

Pechan concluded that the most reasonable approach would be to develop a single regional 

growth factor based on post-1995 unpaved road VMT data excluding data for Arkansas and 

Minnesota. First, Pechan summed the VMT estimates for each year across CENRAP States 

(excluding Arkansas, and Minnesota). Next, Pechan identified a best fit linear function from the 

1996 to 2002 regional data and used that function to estimate 2018 unpaved road VMT in the 

CENRAP region. The 2002 to 2018 regional growth factor (0.813) was then applied to all of the 

CENRAP States. 

Point Source NOx Cap in Texas Ozone Nonattainment Areas 

To account for a point source NOx emissions cap in certain Texas ozone nonattainment area 

counties, Pechan applied a no growth assumption (growth factor of 1.0) to all NOx point sources 

in the following Texas counties: Brazoria, Chambers, Collin, Dallas, Denton, Fort Bend, 

Galveston, Hardin, Harris, Jefferson, Liberty, Montgomery, Orange, Tarrant, and Waller. 

Integrated Planning Model 

Pechan compiled a comprehensive set of growth factors for all base year EGU SCC records 

using EGAS 5.0. The EGAS 5.0 defaults are based on DOE’s Annual Energy Outlook electric 

generation sector energy forecasts (DOE, 2004). For the final CENRAP modeling, it is 

anticipated that some, but not all, base year EGU SCC records will be projected using forecast 

information from IPM runs. 

B. DEVELOPMENT OF CONTROL FACTORS FOR NON-EGU POINT 

SOURCES 

This section describes control factor development for non-EGU point sources. This analysis 

focused on Federal, State, and local rules and regulations that are expected to reduce emissions 

or emission rates for criteria pollutants in the CENRAP States post-2002. After the control 

factor development is described, some examples of resulting emissions are provided as a point of 

reference. 
PECHAN May 2005 

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

1. State Controls 

a. Texas 

For developing control factors (expected emission reductions) for the non-EGU point source 

categories in Texas, it was recommended by Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

(TCEQ) staff that the most recent Houston/Galveston Area (HGA) ozone episode modeling files 

be reviewed. Appropriate data are those listed in Chapter 3: Photochemical Modeling 2007 

Future Base Case Summary of Controls Applied found on the TCEQ website (TCEQ, 2004). 

Separate files are posted according to the geographic area covered, and the applicable control 

programs. The non-EGU portion of this table is summarized below: 

Geographic Area Base Inventory Controls Applied File Name 

Beaumont/Port 

Arthur 

NEGU Ch. 117 controls via 

Emission Factor 

Survey; assuming no 

VOC controls 

control.2007.BPA.NEGU 

Houston/Galveston NEGU 2007 NOx Cap control.HG_07NOxCap_NEGU 

 HRVOC Cap Revised Speciation 

and Cap Cutoff Levels 

control.new_hga_hrvoc_cap.to2n2_negu 

and then apply 

control.new_hga_hrvoc_cap.less20inharris 

Dallas/Ft. Worth NEGU Ch. 117 controls via 

Emission Factor 

Survey; assuming no 

VOC controls 

control.2007.dfw.negu 

East Texas Cement Kiln NOx Permit modifications Already applied permit modifications to 

afs.MidloKilns._v5 via ellis_kilns.TIPI.00-

07 

 Agreed Orders and 

Consent Decree for 

East Texas 

Specific reductions at 

ALCOA and Eastman 

AgreedOrdersControlFactors00to07 

West Texas NEGU None None 

i. Beaumont/Port Arthur (BPA) 

The Beaumont/Port Arthur ozone nonattainment area includes Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange 

counties. TCEQ (2000a) expects that Tier 1 reductions in NOx emissions from these three 

counties will be enough for Beaumont/Port Arthur to attain the 1-hour ozone standard. 

The BPA.NEGU file lists the point sources in the Beaumont-Port Arthur ozone nonattainment 

area that have control factors applied for NOx. Control factors were developed by facility and 

unit by the TCEQ by comparing survey results that established base year NOx emission factors 

with Chapter 117 NOx emission limits (which are by source category). The survey included all 

BPA NOx sources with 25 tons per year or more of NOx. Source-specific NOx control factors 

range from 0.16 to 1.00 for affected sources. 

ii. Houston/Galveston (HGA) 

The Houston/Galveston ozone nonattainment area includes Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, 

Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, and Waller counties. On December 6, 2000, the TCEQ 

adopted a program for the trading of NOx allowances in the HGA nonattainment area. The 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 15

trading of these allowances takes place under an area-wide cap. The program requires 

incremental reductions beginning in 2003 and continuing through 2007, when the full reductions 

of the program are to be achieved. The trading program is expected to provide as much 

flexibility in meeting these limits as possible. 

The most recent HGA SIP revision is based on analysis to date showing that limiting emissions 

of ethylene, propylene, 1,3-butadiene, and butanes in conjunction with an 80 percent reduction in 

NOx is equivalent in terms of air quality benefit to that resulting from a 90 percent point source 

NOx reduction requirement. 

The Control.HG_NOxCap_NEGU files for 2007 and 2010, when applied to estimate a control 

factor for 2018, yield a control factor of 0.45 (a 55 percent reduction). The control factor affects 

all non-EGU point source NOx emissions in this nonattainment area. 

There are also requirements for additional fugitive VOC emission reductions in HoustonGalveston. These include new rules to reduce emissions of highly reactive VOCs from four key 

industrial sources: fugitives, flares, process vents, and cooling towers. The highly reactive VOC 

rules are performance-based, emphasizing monitoring, record keeping, reporting, and 

enforcement, rather than establishing individual unit emission rates. After evaluation of how 

these rules were applied in the Houston SIP analysis, which involved adding highly reactive 

VOCs to the 2000 emission inventory and removing those HRVOC emissions in the future case, 

it was decided to not apply any VOC control factors to the 2002 VOC emissions in the 2018 

emission projections. 

iii. Dallas/Fort Worth 

Appendix F of the Dallas/Fort Worth ozone nonattainment demonstration (TNRCC, 1999a) 

identifies NOx control factors proposed for specific industrial boilers and engines and EGUs in 

that area. These unit-specific reductions will be applied to estimate 2018 NOx emissions. 

30 TAC 117, Subchapter 13 limits NOx emissions from cement kilns in the Dallas/Fort Worth 

area. This rule establishes emission limits on the basis of pounds of NOx per ton of clinker 

produced. These limits are based on the NOx emissions averaged over each 30 consecutive day 

period (later changed to a 365 day period), and vary depending on the type of cement kiln. 

These NOx emission limits by kiln type are as follows: 

1. For each long wet kiln: 

 a. In Bexar, Comal, Hays, and McLennan Counties, 6.0 lbs/ton of clinker 

produced 

 b. In Ellis County, 4.0 lbs/ton 

2. For each long dry kiln, 5.1 lbs/ton 

3. For each preheater kiln, 3.8 lbs/ton 

4. For each preheater-precalciner or precalciner kiln, 2.8 lbs/ton 

These emission limits are expected to achieve a 30 percent reduction in cement kiln NOx

emissions. 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 16

Appendix F of the Dallas/Fort Worth ozone nonattainment demonstration (TNRCC, 1999a) 

identifies eleven cement kilns modeled as part of the proposed Dallas/Fort Worth NOx emission 

reduction strategy. The level of NOx controls required by TNRCC ranged by unit from 6 percent 

to 66 percent. These controls were applied on a unit-by-unit basis. 

The DFW.NEGU file lists the point sources in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area that have control factors 

applied for NOx. Control factors were developed by facility and unit by the TCEQ using the 

same emission factor survey and comparison with NOx emission limit technique that was 

described above for Beaumont-Port Arthur. The survey included all DFW NOx sources that 

reported 2 tons per year or more of NOx. Source-specific control factors range from 0.13 to 1.00 

for affected sources. 

Agreed order control factors from the TCEQ were applied to simulate the effects of such orders 

on two facilities. A control factor of zero is applied to the Eastman plant (482030019), 

simulating the shutdown of this facility. NOx control factors are applied to three boilers at the 

Alcoa (483310001) aluminum production facility. 

Another TCEQ control factor file contains information about the future year criteria pollutant 

emissions for the cement kilns in Ellis County. These emission estimates were used to estimate 

appropriate growth and control factors for the 2018 emission forecasts for this area/source 

category. 

b. Missouri 

The fine grid counties in eastern Missouri are affected by EPA NOx SIP Call requirements. The 

State of Missouri supplied information about unit-specific NOx emission reductions for affected 

facilities. For non-EGUs, this included an 8 ton per ozone season NOx emission limit applied to 

Anheuser Busch-Unit 6, a 9 ton per ozone season limit applied to Trigen-Unit 5, and a 36 ton per 

ozone season limit applied to Trigen-Unit 6. 

c. Kansas 

Rule 28-19-717 requires control of VOC emissions from commercial bakery ovens in Johnson 

and Wyandotte counties. This rule applies to bakery ovens with a potential to emit VOCs equal 

to or greater than 100 tons per year. Each commercial bakery oven subject to this regulation 

shall install and operate VOC emissions control devices for each bakery oven to achieve at least 

an 80 percent total removal efficiency on the combined VOC emissions of all baking ovens, 

calculated as the capture efficiency times the control device efficiency. Each bakery oven 

(Keebler Company) in these two counties with more than 100 tons per year of VOC emissions in 

2002 had an 80 percent VOC control efficiency applied in the 2018 projections. 

d. Louisiana 

Point sources in the Baton Rouge nonattainment area and the nearby region of influence are 

affected by Chapter 22 NOx control provisions. The provisions of this chapter apply to any 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 17

affected facility in the Baton Rouge nonattainment area (the entire parishes of Ascension, East 

Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, and West Baton Rouge) and the Region of Influence 

(affected facilities in the attainment parishes of East Feliciana, Pointe Coupee, St. Helena, and 

West Feliciana). The provisions of this chapter apply during the ozone season (May 1 to 

September 30) of each year. Compliance is expected to occur as expeditiously as possible, but 

no later than May 1, 2005. 

The effects of this NOx regulation were included in the analysis by applying a 34 percent NOx

emission reduction to the 2002 non-EGU point source emissions in the greater Baton Rouge 

area. This control factor application is consistent with what was included in the most recent 

Houston-Galveston area modeling domain assessments by the TCEQ. 

2. Federal Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Standards

Numerous MACT standards have been promulgated pursuant to Section 112 of Title I of the 

Clean Air Act, and are controlling emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from stationary 

sources of air pollution. Many of the MACT standards are expected to produce associated VOC 

reductions, since many HAPs are also VOCs, so the emission projections need to capture the 

expected effects of post-2002 MACT standards. 

Pechan performed the following steps to determine the MACT standards expected to have the 

greatest impact of VOC, NOx, and PM emissions for the forecast year: 

1. Identified the source categories and associated SCCs for each MACT standard having a 

post-2002 compliance date for existing sources. 

2. Eliminated MACT categories that do not achieve significant VOC emission reductions. 

3. VOC emission reduction estimates for the reciprocating internal combustion engine 

MACT category are based on information from EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule technical 

support document (Alpine, 2004). 

4. VOC emission reduction estimates for all other MACT categories are based on 

information found in the preamble to the final rule of each MACT Subpart as published 

in the Federal Register. Table II-5 lists those MACT categories for which VOC, NOx, 

and/or PM emission reduction percentages could be estimated based on emission 

reduction information found in the preamble to each respective final rule. 

3. Non-EGU Point Source Analysis Results 

a. Houston Galveston Area (HGA) 

Pechan’s modeling of the NOx emissions cap in the 8-county HGA applies a 55 percent NOx

emission reduction to the 2002 NOx point source emissions. NOx emissions in the HGA are 

expressed in annual tons. These annual tons and the equivalent ozone season daily (OSD) tons 

are listed below. Then, the right-most column below shows the comparable values from the 

TCEQ analysis for HGA. 
PECHAN 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 D

18

Table II-5. Post-2002 MACT Standards and Expected VOC, NOx, and PM Reducti

MACT Standard - Source Category

Code of Federal 

Regulations 

Subpart

Compliance Date 

(existing sources)

VOC 

(% Reduction)

NOx

(% Reduction)

Total PM 

(% Reduction) Affec

Asphalt 5/1/2006 85 305001XX, 305002XAuto and Light Duty Trucks IIII 4/26/2007 40 40201601 to 4Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching and Battery Stacks

CCCCC 4/14/2006 43 303003

Fabric Printing, Coating & Dyeing

OOOO 5/29/2006 60 40201101 to 402011

Friction Products Manufacturing QQQQQ 10/18/2005 44 30111103; 301111Integrated Iron and Steel FFFFF 5/20/2006 20 20 3030150Large Appliances NNNN 7/23/2005 45 4020140Leather Finishing Operations TTTT 2/27/2005 51 32099997; 32Lime Manufacturing AAAAA 1/5/2007 23 30Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast CCCC 5/21/2004 10 30203404 to 302034Metal Can KKKK 6/10/2005 70 40201702; 402Metal Coil SSSS 6/10/2005 53 40Metal Furniture RRRR 5/23/2006 73 40Misc. Coating Manufacturing HHHHH 12/11/2006 64 40Misc. Metal Parts and Products MMMM 1/2/2007 48 40Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Processes (MON)

FFFF 11/10/2006 66 645200XX; 3011300

30101005 to 301010

68445013; 6844502

68445201; 3011000

64820010; 648210064822010; 648230064823010; 6488000

64882599; 3010500

30801001; 316040068510001; 685100168582001; 6858200

64610301 to 646103564610101 to 646101564615001 to 646150364630001 to 6463008

64632001 to 646320

64682002; 6468250

64130001 to 641300264130201 to 641302264132001 to 6413203

64180001; 6418200

64615001; 64
PECHAN 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 D

19

Table II-5 (continued) 

MACT Standard - Source Category

Code of Federal 

Regulations 

Subpart

Compliance Date 

(existing sources)

VOC 

(% Reduction)

NOx

(% Reduction)

Total PM 

(% Reduction) Affec

Paper and Other Web JJJJ 12/4/2005 80 3070119Pesticide Active Ingredient Production

MMM 12//23/2003 65 30

Petroleum Refineries UUU 4/11/2005 55 Catalytic cracking: 306

Catalytic reforming

306016

Plastic Parts PPPP 4/19/2007 80 40Plywood and Composite Wood Products

DDDD 9/28/2007 54 307007XX; 30700921 

30701057; 307

Polymers and Resins III OOO 1/20/2003 51 Phenolic resins: 301

30

Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE)

ZZZZ 6/15/2007 13 17 20100102; 2010020

20100902; 202001020200204; 202003020201012, 202010120200501; 2020070

20300101; 20

Rubber Tire Manufacturing XXXX 7/11/2005 52 30Secondary Aluminum Production

RRR 3/24/2003 61 3040010

Site Remediation GGGGG 10/8/2006 50 504001XX; 5040020

504100XX; 504101X504102XX; 504103X

504106XX; 504107X

50482002; 50

Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production

GGGG 4/12/2004 25 30

Stationary Combustion Turbines YYYY 3/5/2007 90 20100101, 2010020

20200201, 2020020

203002

Taconite Iron Ore Processing RRRRR 10/30/2006 62 3230237Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production

HHHH 4/11/2005 74 3050120

Wood Building Products QQQQ 5/28/2006 63 4020210NOTE: **Based on organic HAP emission reductions
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 20

 HGA Non-EGU NOx Emissions 

 Annual Tons Daily Tons TCEQ Analysis OSD Tons 

2002 Point Source NOx 113,109 309.9 283 

Post-cap NOx 50,899 139.4 135 

The TCEQ analysis OSD NOx cap summary values above are for non-EGU 2000 NOx and 2007 

modeled NOx (see Table 3.5-16 in their report). The above comparison indicates that the 

CENRAP NOx modeling for HGA will be consistent with prior analyses by TCEQ for this area. 

b. Beaumont-Port Arthur (BPA) 

Pechan’s modeling of the NOx emissions cap in the 3-county BPA area applies NOx control 

efficiencies based on an emission factor survey for the area. These results are summarized 

below. 

 BPA Area Non-EGU NOx Emissions 

 Annual Tons Daily Tons TCEQ Analysis Daily Tons 

2002 Point Source NOx 35,441 97.0 96.6 

Post-cap NOx 28,254 77.4 81.9 

The TCEQ analysis OSD NOx cap summary values above are for non-EGU 2000 NOx OSD and 

2007 modeled NOx with growth and controls. The CENRAP non-EGU NOx emissions in the 

2002 point source file are about the same as the 2000 estimates on an OSD basis. However, the 

expected emission benefit of the non-EGU NOx controls is greater than that modeled by TCEQ 

on both a percentage and an absolute tonnage basis. 

c. Dallas Fort Worth (DFW) 

Pechan’s modeling of the NOx emissions cap in the 4-county DFW area applies NOx control 

efficiencies to certain sources based on an emission factor survey for the area. These results are 

summarized below. 

 DFW Area Non-EGU NOx Emissions 

 Annual Tons Daily Tons TCEQ Analysis Daily Tons 

2002 Point Source NOx 846 2.3 6.9 

Post-cap NOx 647 1.8 13.1 

The TCEQ analysis OSD NOx ton values listed above are for non-EGU 2000 NOx OSD and 

2007 modeled NOx with growth and controls. The 2002 and post-cap NOx tons listed for the 

DFW area only include sources affected by the NOx control program, so these values are much 

lower than the TCEQ emissions, which include all non-EGU point source emissions in the area. 

d. Baton Rouge 

Pechan’s modeling of the NOx emissions cap in the greater Baton Rouge area applies a 34 

percent NOx emissions reduction to the 2002 NOx point source emissions. These results are 

summarized below. 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 21

 Baton Rouge 9-Parish Area Non-EGU NOx Emissions 

 Annual Tons Daily Tons TCEQ Analysis Daily Tons 

2002 Point Source NOx 74,847 205 630.9 

Post-cap NOx 49,399 135 586.2 

The TCEQ analysis daily tons summary values above are for the entire State of Louisiana, and 

are for non-EGU 2000 NOx and 2007 NOx with growth and LDEQ SIP controls. Because the 

TCEQ summaries are for the entire State, the values are necessarily higher than those for the 9-

parish area. Pechan estimates a 70 tpd NOx reduction for the 9-parish NOx control program. 

TCEQ estimates that the Statewide emission benefit of the LDEQ SIP controls is a 45 tpd 

reduction from 2000 levels, or a 61 tpd reduction from what the 2007 NOx emissions would be 

expected to be without the Baton Rouge SIP controls. 

C. DEVELOPMENT OF CONTROL FACTORS FOR AREA SOURCES 

1. State Controls 

Table II-6 summarizes regulations in the CENRAP States for which more stringent State 

requirements relative to Federal rules are in place for the mobile equipment repair and 

refinishing (MERR), architectural and industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings, consumer 

products and solvent cleaning area source VOC emission categories. For categories where more 

stringent rules for these categories are not found in the State regulations, “National Rule” is 

stated to refer to the applicable Federal requirements. The sections below describe how the 

information from these rules were used to develop control efficiencies. Table II-7 summarizes 

the final control efficiencies that were used to model these rules, and the counties and SCCs 

where these rules were applied. 

Stage II, or at-the-pump, refueling control programs are in place in three States in the CENRAP 

region—Louisiana, Missouri, and Texas. Although these programs may have been in place prior 

to 2002, these controls are included here because the phase-in of the onboard vapor recovery 

systems controls changes the overall refueling control efficiency of Stage II programs. 
PECHAN 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 D

22

Table II-6. VOC Solvent Rule Summary 

SCCs 2465000000 2401001000 2415360000, 2415300000, 2415230000, 2415200000 2401005000 State 

Consumer Products AIM Coating Solvent Cleaning Operations 

Mobile Equipment Repair 

and Refinishing 

Arkansas National Rule National Rule National Rule National Rule Iowa National Rule National Rule National Rule National Rule Kansas National Rule National Rule 28-19-714 

The provisions of this regulation apply to cold cleaning, open-top vapor degreasing, and conveyorized degreasing operations located in Johnson and Wyandotte counties, and to the sale of cold cleaner solvents for use within either county. These requirements apply after August 31, 2002. Only cold cleaning solvents with a vapor pressure less than 1.0 mm Hg at 68F shall be used. Only cold cleaning solvents with a vapor pressure less than 5.0 mm Hg at 68F shall be used for each cold cleaning operation that is used for cleaning carburetors. Each cold solvent cleaner shall be equipped with a cover. Open-top vapor degreasers shall be equipped with a cover. Conveyorized degreasers shall have a processing system with an overall VOC 

control efficiency of 65 percent or greater. 

National Rule 

Louisiana National Rule National Rule Title 33, Part III Subchapter C, Section 2125 (Vapor Degreasers)

These requirements were last amended April 2004. Open-top vapor degreasers shall achieve an overall VOC control efficiency of 85 percent or greater. 

National Rule 

Minnesota National Rule National Rule National Rule National Rule Missouri - Statewide (metro and outstate areas) 

National Rule National Rule National Rule National Rule 

Missouri - St. Louis metro area only (city of St. Louis, and St. Louis, St. Charles, Jefferson & Franklin counties) 

National Rule National Rule - 10 CSR 10-5.300 (degreasing operations) 

- 10 CSR 10-5.455 (solvent cleanup operations not subject to 

degreasing operations) - Effective 2001 - Rule covers entire areas of counties specified - Cold cleaners, open-top vapor degreasers and conveyorized cleaner requirements modeled after 1977 CTG - Restrictions on cold cleaning more stringent than CTG in some cases - EPA NESHAP Subpart T requirements override some solvent cleaning requirements - Degreasers meeting certain size/solvent criteria required to 

meet minimum 65% VOC reduction efficiency 

National Rule 
PECHAN 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 D

23

Table II-6 (continued) 

SCCs 2465000000 2401001000 2415360000, 2415300000, 2415230000, 2415200000 2401005000 State 

Consumer Products AIM Coating Solvent Cleaning Operations 

Mobile Equipment Repair 

and Refinishing 

Missouri - Kansas City metro area only (Clay, Jackson, Platte counties) 

National Rule National Rule - 10 CSR 10-2.210 (degreasing operations) 

- 10 CSR 10-2.215 (solvent cleanup operations not subject to 

degreasing operations) - Effective 2001 - Rule covers entire areas of counties specified - Cold cleaners, open-top vapor degreasers and conveyorized cleaner requirements modeled after 1977 CTG 

- Restrictions on cold cleaning more stringent than CTG in some cases 

- EPA NESHAP Subpart T requirements override some solvent cleaning requirements 

- Degreasers meeting certain size/solvent criteria required to meet minimum 65% VOC reduction efficiency 

National Rule 

Nebraska National Rule National Rule National Rule National Rule Oklahoma National Rule National Rule National Rule National Rule Texas Chapter 115.612 

establishes control requirements effective in February 2004 for automotive windshield washer fluid. No person shall sell, supply, offer for sale, distribute, or manufacture for use in Texas any automotive windshield washer fluid containing VOCs in excess of 23.5% by weight. 

Rule 115.420 applies to surface coating processes. 

Degreasing processes in the Beaumont/Port Arthur, Dallas/Ft. Worth, and Houston/Galveston areas and in Gregg, Nueces, Victoria, Bexar, Comal, Guadalupe, Wilson, Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis, and Williamson counties have VOC control requirements via Chapter 115.412 for cold solvent cleaning and open-top vapor or conveyorized degreasers. The cold solvent cleaner requirement is equivalent to a VOC reduction efficiency of 65 percent or greater. The open-top vapor or conveyorized degreaser requirement is equivalent to a VOC reduction efficiency of 85 percent or greater. 

Rule 115.422 control requirements apply in Beaumont/Port Arthur, Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso, and Houston/Galveston. Vehicle refinishing operations shall minimize VOC emissions during equipment cleanup via enclosed containers for washing, rinsing, and draining, keeping wash solvents in an enclosed reservoir, and waste solvents and other cleaning materials in closed containers. Coating application equipment shall have a transfer efficiency of at least 65 percent. 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 24

Table II-7. VOC Solvent Controls As Modeled 

Counties Pollutant 

Control 

Efficiency* 

(%) SCC Description 

KS: Johnson, 

Wyandotte 

VOC 66 2415000000 Solvent Utilization: Degreasing: All Processes/All 

Industries 

TX: Dallas, El Paso, 

Galveston, Hardin, 

Harris, Jefferson, 

Tarrant 

VOC 35 2401005000 Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532 

2415105000 Furniture and Fixtures (SIC 25): Open Top 

Degreasing 

2415110000 Primary Metal Industries (SIC 33): Open Top 

Degreasing 

2415120000 Fabricated Metal Products (SIC 34): Open Top 

Degreasing 

2415125000 Industrial Machinery and Equipment (SIC 35): Open 

Top Degreasing 

2415130000 Electronic and Other Elec. (SIC 36): Open Top 

Degreasing 

2415135000 Transportation Equipment (SIC 37): Open Top 

Degreasing 

2415140000 Instruments and Related Products (SIC 38): Open 

Top Degreasing 

TX: Bastrop, Bexar, 

Caldwell, Comal, 

Gregg, Guadalupe, 

Hays, Nueces, Travis, 

Victoria, Williamson, 

Wilson 

VOC 83 

2415145000 Miscellaneous Manufacturing (SIC 39): Open Top 

Degreasing 

TX: Statewide VOC 17 2460400000 Solvent Utilization: Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commercial: All Automotive 

Aftermarket Products 

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

a. Kansas 

i. Solvent Cleaning Operations 

Kansas Rule 28-19-714 contains a 1.0 mm Hg maximum vapor pressure requirement for solvent 

cleaning operations, effective September 2002. Based on an evaluation of the Ozone Transport 

Commission (OTC) model rule for this source category, a 1.0 mm Hg at 68°F maximum VOC 

vapor pressure requirement leads to an estimated 66 percent reduction in VOC emissions relative 

to the national rule for cold cleaners and vapor degreasers (Pechan, 2001). The Kansas rule also 

includes a higher (5.0 mm Hg at 68°F) maximum vapor pressure requirement for the cleaning of 

carburetors, but this difference may not be significant relative to the OTC rule. Conveyorized 

degreasers are required to achieve an overall VOC control efficiency of 65 percent or greater; 

however, the Kansas rule does not appear to include any additional requirements relative to the 

national rule (other than the maximum vapor pressure requirements). Therefore, a 66 percent 

post-2002 VOC control efficiency was applied in Johnson and Wyandotte Counties, based on 

data from the OTC model rule. 
PECHAN May 2005 

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

b. Missouri 

i. Solvent Cleaning Operations 

Based on Pechan’s review of Missouri’s regulations, solvent cleaning regulations applicable to 

the Kansas City and St. Louis metropolitan areas appear to be more stringent than the national 

rule; however, these rules became effective before 2002. Therefore, no additional solvent 

controls were applied in Missouri. 

ii. Stage II Refueling Controls 

Stage II controls are required in the city of St. Louis and the following St. Louis area counties: 

Franklin County, Jefferson County, St. Charles County, and St. Louis County. This is required 

under 10 CSR 10-5.220 “Control of Petroleum Liquid Storage, Loading and Transfer.” This 

regulation requires that gasoline stations with a minimum monthly throughput of 10,000 gallons 

of gasoline are required to maintain a 95 percent efficiency of total capture and emission 

reduction. These gasoline station owners are required to comply with the Missouri Performance 

Evaluation Test Procedures beginning in 1998. 

c. Louisiana 

i. Solvent Cleaning Operations

Title 33, Part III, Section 2125 specifies additional operational requirements for open top vapor 

degreasers not found in EPA’s 1977 control techniques guideline (CTG). One requirement of 

the Louisiana Code specifies a minimum 85 percent VOC reduction efficiency for open top 

vapor degreasers not found in the CTG. Section 2125 was last amended in April 2004. 

ii. Stage II Refueling Controls 

A Stage II control program is in place in the following parishes in Louisiana: Ascension, East 

Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, Pointe Coupee, and West Baton Rouge. The Stage II 

controls are required to attain a minimum of 95 percent gasoline vapor control efficiency at 

stations with a minimum throughput of 10,000 gallons of gasoline per month. This rule is under 

Title 33, Part III, Section 2132 “Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems for Control of Vehicle 

Refueling Emissions at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities.” Compliance with these regulations was 

first required in 1993. 

d. Texas 

i. Cold Cleaners 

The 1977 CTG for cold solvent cleaners is estimated to achieve VOC emission reductions of 

between 55 and 69 percent relative to 1977 baseline (uncontrolled) levels (Pechan, 2002). Texas 

rule 115.412 is equivalent to VOC emission reductions of at least 65 percent relative to 

uncontrolled levels. There do not appear to be any significant differences between the Texas rule 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 26

and the CTG, and therefore no additional VOC reductions were applied to the 2002 Texas 

inventory for cold cleaners. 

ii. Open-top Vapor or Conveyorized Degreasers 

The national rule for vapor degreasing is estimated to achieve VOC emission reductions of 

between 10 and 15 percent (Pechan, 2002). The Texas rule 115.412 requires VOC emission 

reductions of at least 85 percent from these sources for the following counties: Bastrop, Bexar, 

Caldwell, Comal, Gregg, Guadalupe, Hays, Nueces, Travis, Victoria, Williamson, and Wilson. 

Assuming that the baseline 2002 vapor degreasing emissions include a 10 percent reduction from 

the national rule and that a total control of 85 percent would be applied to comply with the Texas 

rule, the incremental reduction from the Texas rule, relative to the 2002 emissions, would be 83 

percent. This rule became effective in December 2004. 

iii. Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing 

Texas rule 115.422 requires that coating application equipment shall have a transfer efficiency of 

at least 65 percent and requires the use of high volume low pressure (HVLP) spray guns. This 

rule applies in the following counties: Dallas, El Paso, Galveston, Hardin, Harris, Jefferson, and 

Tarrant. Based on an evaluation of the OTC model rule for this source category, the use of “high 

transfer efficiency” HVLP guns is estimated to achieve a 35 percent VOC emission reduction 

relative to the national rule (Pechan, 2001). Spray gun controls are estimated to contribute an 

additional 3 percent VOC emission reduction. However, the Texas rule contains a less stringent 

requirement for the enclosure of spray guns and related parts. Therefore, a 35 percent post-2002 

VOC control efficiency incremental to the national rule was applied in the counties listed above 

to account for this rule. This rule became effective in May 2002. 

iv. Consumer Products 

The national rule limits the VOC content of windshield wiper fluid to 35 percent by weight 

(effective December 1998). The Texas rule 115.612 limits the VOC content to 23.5 percent by 

weight. This represents a 33 percent reduction in the VOC content (and as a result, emissions) 

from the 2002 baseline. A single SCC includes all “auto aftermarket products”. Therefore, an 

assumption must be made as to what fraction of emissions from auto aftermarket products can be 

attributed to auto wiper fluid. An engineering estimate of 50 percent was applied, based on the 

assumption that the other major VOC-emitting auto aftermarket products (waxes, polishes and 

cleaning products) are likely consumed in lesser quantities by volume than windshield wiper 

fluid. Thus, the reduction applied to VOC emissions from the SCC representing auto aftermarket 

products was 17 percent. This rule became effective in February 2004. 

v. Portable Fuel Containers 

Texas has a portable fuel container rule (Statewide). In TCEQ analyses, this has been modeled 

as a reduction in evaporative VOC emissions using lawn and garden equipment SCCs within 

EPA’s NONROAD model. See the Nonroad section of this chapter for information about how 

the rule effects were incorporated in the analysis.
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 27

vi. Stage II Refueling Controls 

Stage II refueling controls are required in the following Texas counties: Brazoria, Chambers, 

Collin, Dallas, Denton, El Paso, Fort Bend, Galveston, Hardin, Harris, Jefferson, Liberty, 

Montgomery, Orange, Tarrant, and Waller. This is regulated by the TCEQ Chapter 115, 

Sections 240 through 249 “Control of Vehicle Refueling Emissions (Stage II) at Motor Vehicle 

Fuel Dispensing Facilities.” This regulation requires that gasoline stations with a minimum 

monthly throughput of 10,000 gallons of gasoline are required to have installed an approved 

Stage II vapor recovery system which is certified to reduce VOC emissions to the atmosphere by 

at least 95 percent. Annual inspections are required and the program began in 1992. 

vii. Gas-fired Water Heaters, Small Boilers, and Process Heaters 

A Statewide rule, adopted as part of the April 2000 Dallas/Forth Worth SIP revision, reduces 

NOx emissions from new natural gas-fired water heaters, small boilers, and process heaters sold 

and installed in Texas beginning in 2002. The rule applies to each new water heater, boiler, or 

process heater with a maximum rated capacity of up to 2.0 million British thermal units per hour. 

This is Rule 117.461. It should be noted that this control on natural gas-fired water heaters may 

be overturned by the SB 473 prohibition on regulating water heater emissions. 

To simulate the effects of this rule in 2018, the following factors were applied Statewide in 

Texas. 

SCC NOx Control Efficiency Rule Penetration Rule Effectiveness 

2103006000 75% 80% 100% 

2104006000 75% 80% 100% 

2. Federal Controls 

a. Residential Wood Combustion 

For this analysis, a 20 year estimated lifetime for woodstoves and fireplace inserts was used 

along with the SCC-specific growth factors, and emission factor ratios by SCC, to account for 

the replacement of retired woodstoves that emit at pre-new source performance standard (NSPS) 

levels, with new catalyst-equipped wood burning equipment. This was done using an equation to 

estimate equipment turnover for a situation with a 4 percent per year retirement rate, and the 

SCC-specific growth factors. Emission factor ratios are pollutant-specific. The growth and 

retirement equation was used to estimate the relationship between base year (2002) emissions 

and 2018 emissions by SCC and pollutant. 

Then, this relationship was used to estimate the control efficiency that would have to be applied 

along with the growth factor to yield the appropriate future year emission value. SCCs for 

controlled woodstoves and fireplace inserts have no control efficiency applied. Their 2018 

emissions will change in proportion to the growth rate. Table II-8 displays the various 

residential woodstove and fireplace area source SCCs that are used in the CENRAP State 

emission inventories and the associated 2018 control factors used in this analysis. 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 28

Table II-8. Residential Wood Combustion Control Factors for CENRAP States 

SCC Description 

Growth 

Factor 

2002 to 

2018 Pollutant CF* 

2018 Ratio of 

Controlled/ 

Uncontrolled 

Emissions 

2018 Control 

Factor 

(Emission 

Reduc. %) 

States: AR, LA, OK, TX 

2104008000 1.034 VOC 0.28 0.664 35.8 

 1.034 CO 0.45 0.751 27.3 

 1.034 NOx 0.71 0.885 14.4 

 

Total Woodstoves and 

Fireplaces 

 

1.034 PM 0.67 0.864 16.4 

2104008002 Fireplace inserts 1.034 VOC 0.28 0.664 35.8 

 1.034 CO 0.45 0.751 27.3 

 1.034 NOx 0.71 0.885 14.4 

 1.034 PM 0.67 0.864 16.4 

2104008010 Woodstoves-general 1.034 VOC 0.28 0.654 34.6 

 1.034 CO 0.45 0.736 26.4 

 1.034 NOx 0.71 0.861 13.9 

 1.034 PM 0.67 0.842 15.8 

2104008001 Fireplaces 1.034 1.034 0 

2104008003 

Fireplace inserts-certifiednon-catalytic 1.034 1.034 0 

2104008004 

Fireplace inserts-certifiedcatalytic 1.034 1.034 0 

2104008030 

Woodstoves-certifiedcatalytic 1.034 1.034 0 

2104008050 

Woodstoves-certifiednon-catalytic 1.034 1.034 0 

States: IA, KS, NE, MO, MN 

2104008000 0.986 VOC 0.28 0.65 34 

 0.986 CO 0.45 0.73 26 

 0.986 NOx 0.71 0.851 13.7 

 

Total Woodstoves and 

Fireplaces 

 

0.986 PM 0.67 0.832 15.6 

2104008002 Fireplace inserts 0.986 VOC 0.28 0.65 34 

 0.986 CO 0.45 0.73 26 

 0.986 NOx 0.71 0.851 13.7 

 0.986 PM 0.67 0.832 15.6 

2104008010 Woodstoves-general 0.986 VOC 0.28 0.654 34.6 

 0.986 CO 0.45 0.736 26.4 

 0.986 NOx 0.71 0.861 13.9 

 0.986 PM 0.67 0.842 15.8 

2104008001 Fireplaces 0.986 0.986 0 

2104008003 

Fireplace inserts-certifiednon-catalytic 0.986 0.986 0 

2104008004 

Fireplace inserts-certifiedcatalytic 0.986 0.986 0 

2104008030 

Woodstoves-certifiedcatalytic 0.986 0.986 0 

2104008050 

Woodstoves-certifiednon-catalytic 0.986 0.986 0 

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

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 29

b. Onboard Vapor Recovery Systems 

The control efficiency from refueling onroad vehicles will be greater in 2018 than in 2002 due to 

vehicle turnover and the Federal requirement for onboard vapor recovery systems in onroad 

vehicles. Percentage reductions in VOC emissions from this control measure in 2018, relative to 

2002, were calculated using a sampling of MOBILE6 runs, including the effect of Stage II 

programs where they are in place. These resulting reduction factors were included in the area 

source sector control files. 

D. DEVELOPMENT OF NONROAD 2018 EMISSION INVENTORY 

Pechan estimated NONROAD model mass emissions for 2018 for all CENRAP States using 

EPA’s NONROAD2004 model (EPA, 2004a). Pechan developed nonroad option files to reflect 

season-specific inputs that applied to an entire State or group of counties. These runs also 

incorporated revised activity, seasonal allocation, and county allocation files developed by 

Sonoma Technology, Inc. (STI) to improve the recreational marine component of the 2002 base 

year NONROAD inventory (STI, 2004). 

Pechan ran NONROAD for four scenarios: 1) typical January weekday (JanWD); 2) typical 

January weekend day (JanWE); 3) typical July weekday (JulWD); and 4) typical July weekend 

day (JulWE). The January runs represented average daily emissions for the time period October 

1 through April 30, and the July runs represented average daily emissions for the time period 

May 1 through September 30. Annual emissions were estimated using these daily results as 

input to the formula below: 

 

(JanWD x 152 days) + (JanWE x 60 days) + (JulWD x 109 days) + (JulWE x 44 days) = 

Annual Average Emissions

In Table II-9, the default Statewide temperatures and Reid vapor pressure (RVP) values used are 

listed for each model scenario. Pechan also accounted for local fuel-related programs that would 

affect NONROAD model engine emissions. A listing of the areas with county-specific fuel 

programs are presented in Tables II-10 through II-13. In addition, the characteristics or input 

values needed to model these programs in NONROAD are presented. Table II-10 provides a list 

of those areas that have year-round Stage II programs in place. Tables II-11 and II-12 show the 

summer season RVP values assumed for areas with reformulated gasoline and low RVP 

programs, as well as year-round oxygenated fuel programs that are part of RFG programs. Table 

II-13 presents the weight percent oxygen (O2) levels used for the 2018 runs. Iowa, Minnesota, 

and El Paso County, Texas are the only areas with official oxygenated fuel programs. For the 

remaining areas, it was established that some blending of ethanol into their fuel is occurring, 

even though no regulatory requirement is in effect (STI, 2004). The 2018 diesel fuel sulfur 

values reflect the requirements of the Clean Air Diesel Rule that all nonroad diesel fuel meet 15 

parts per million sulfur content by the year 2015. Per the requirements of the Tier 2 and gasoline 

sulfur rulemaking, the gasoline sulfur levels were also revised to 30 parts per million. 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 30

Table II-9. Statewide Temperature and RVP Inputs for 2018 NONROAD Model 

Runs 

State 

FIPS State Typical Day 

Minimum 

Temperature, 

oF 

Maximum 

Temperature, 

oF 

Average 

Temperature, 

oF RVP, psi

5 Arkansas July 72 93 82 9

 January 31 50 40 13

19 Iowa July 66 86 76 8.3

 January 12 29 20 13.2

20 Kansas July 68 89 78 8.2

 January 17 37 27 13.2

22 Louisiana July 73 91 82 9

 January 40 60 50 13

27 Minnesota July 63 83 73 8.7

 January 4 22 13 13.4

29 Missouri July 67 90 78 8.4

 January 22 42 32 13.2

31 Nebraska July 66 88 77 8.3

 January 13 33 23 13.2

40 Oklahoma July 71 93 82 9

 January 26 47 36 13

48 Texas July 77 96 86 9

 January 36 55 45 13
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 31

Table II-10. CENRAP Stage II Refueling Programs 

FIPS State Code State Name 

FIPS County 

Code County Name Effectiveness

22 LOUISIANA 5 Ascension Parish 95 

22 LOUISIANA 33 East Baton Rouge Parish 95 

22 LOUISIANA 47 Iberville Parish 95 

22 LOUISIANA 63 Livingston Parish 95 

22 LOUISIANA 77 Pointe Coupee Parish 95 

22 LOUISIANA 121 West Baton Rouge Parish 95 

29 MISSOURI 71 Franklin County 95 

29 MISSOURI 99 Jefferson County 95 

29 MISSOURI 183 St. Charles County 95 

29 MISSOURI 189 St. Louis County 95 

29 MISSOURI 510 St. Louis city 95 

48 TEXAS 39 Brazoria County 95 

48 TEXAS 71 Chambers County 95 

48 TEXAS 85 Collin County 95 

48 TEXAS 113 Dallas County 95 

48 TEXAS 121 Denton County 95 

48 TEXAS 141 El Paso County 95 

48 TEXAS 157 Fort Bend County 95 

48 TEXAS 167 Galveston County 95 

48 TEXAS 199 Hardin County 95 

48 TEXAS 201 Harris County 95 

48 TEXAS 245 Jefferson County 95 

48 TEXAS 291 Liberty County 95 

48 TEXAS 339 Montgomery County 95 

48 TEXAS 361 Orange County 95 

48 TEXAS 439 Tarrant County 95 

48 TEXAS 473 Waller County 95 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 32

Table II-11. CENRAP Reformulated Gasoline Programs 

FIPS State Code State Name FIPS County Code County Name RVP O2, wt % 

29 MISSOURI 71 Franklin County 6.8 2.1 

29 MISSOURI 99 Jefferson County 6.8 2.1 

29 MISSOURI 183 St. Charles County 6.8 2.1 

29 MISSOURI 189 St. Louis County 6.8 2.1 

29 MISSOURI 510 St. Louis city 6.8 2.1 

48 TEXAS 39 Brazoria County 6.7 2.1 

48 TEXAS 71 Chambers County 6.7 2.1 

48 TEXAS 85 Collin County 6.7 2.1 

48 TEXAS 113 Dallas County 6.7 2.1 

48 TEXAS 121 Denton County 6.7 2.1 

48 TEXAS 157 Fort Bend County 6.7 2.1 

48 TEXAS 167 Galveston County 6.7 2.1 

48 TEXAS 201 Harris County 6.7 2.1 

48 TEXAS 291 Liberty County 6.7 2.1 

48 TEXAS 339 Montgomery County 6.7 2.1 

48 TEXAS 439 Tarrant County 6.7 2.1 

48 TEXAS 473 Waller County 6.7 2.1 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 33

Table II-12. CENRAP Low RVP Programs 

FIPS State 

Code 

State 

Name 

FIPS County 

Code County Name RVP 

20 KANSAS 091 JOHNSON 7.0 

20 KANSAS 209 WYANDOTTE 7.0 

22 LOUISIANA 005 ASCENSION PARISH 7.8 

22 LOUISIANA 033 EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH 7.8 

22 LOUISIANA 047 IBERVILLE PARISH 7.8 

22 LOUISIANA 063 LIVINGSTON PARISH 7.8 

22 LOUISIANA 077 POINTE COUPEE PARISH 7.8 

22 LOUISIANA 121 WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH 7.8 

29 MISSOURI 047 CLAY 7.0 

29 MISSOURI 095 JACKSON 7.0 

29 MISSOURI 165 PLATTE 7.0 

48 TEXAS 001 ANDERSON 7.5 

48 TEXAS 005 ANGELINA 7.5 

48 TEXAS 007 ARANSAS 7.5 

48 TEXAS 013 ATASCOSA 7.5 

48 TEXAS 015 AUSTIN 7.5 

48 TEXAS 021 BASTROP 7.5 

48 TEXAS 025 BEE 7.5 

48 TEXAS 027 BELL 7.5 

48 TEXAS 029 BEXAR 7.5 

48 TEXAS 035 BOSQUE 7.5 

48 TEXAS 037 BOWIE 7.5 

48 TEXAS 041 BRAZOS 7.5 

48 TEXAS 051 BURLESON 7.5 

48 TEXAS 055 CALDWELL 7.5 

48 TEXAS 057 CALHOUN 7.5 

48 TEXAS 063 CAMP 7.5 

48 TEXAS 067 CASS 7.5 

48 TEXAS 073 CHEROKEE 7.5 

48 TEXAS 089 COLORADO 7.5 

48 TEXAS 091 COMAL 7.5 

48 TEXAS 097 COOKE 7.5 

48 TEXAS 099 CORYELL 7.5 

48 TEXAS 119 DELTA 7.5 

48 TEXAS 123 DEWITT 7.5 

48 TEXAS 139 ELLIS 7.5 

48 TEXAS 141 EL PASO 7.0 

48 TEXAS 145 FALLS 7.5 

48 TEXAS 147 FANNIN 7.5 

48 TEXAS 149 FAYETTE 7.5 

48 TEXAS 159 FRANKLIN 7.5 

48 TEXAS 161 FREESTONE 7.5 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 34

Table II-12 (continued) 

FIPS State 

Code 

State 

Name 

FIPS County 

Code County Name RVP 

48 TEXAS 175 GOLIAD 7.5 

48 TEXAS 177 GONZALES 7.5 

48 TEXAS 181 GRAYSON 7.5 

48 TEXAS 183 GREGG 7.5 

48 TEXAS 185 GRIMES 7.5 

48 TEXAS 187 GUADALUPE 7.5 

48 TEXAS 199 HARDIN 7.5 

48 TEXAS 203 HARRISON 7.5 

48 TEXAS 209 HAYS 7.5 

48 TEXAS 213 HENDERSON 7.5 

48 TEXAS 217 HILL 7.5 

48 TEXAS 221 HOOD 7.5 

48 TEXAS 223 HOPKINS 7.5 

48 TEXAS 225 HOUSTON 7.5 

48 TEXAS 231 HUNT 7.5 

48 TEXAS 239 JACKSON 7.5 

48 TEXAS 241 JASPER 7.5 

48 TEXAS 245 JEFFERSON 7.5 

48 TEXAS 251 JOHNSON 7.5 

48 TEXAS 255 KARNES 7.5 

48 TEXAS 257 KAUFMAN 7.5 

48 TEXAS 277 LAMAR 7.5 

48 TEXAS 285 LAVACA 7.5 

48 TEXAS 287 LEE 7.5 

48 TEXAS 289 LEON 7.5 

48 TEXAS 293 LIMESTONE 7.5 

48 TEXAS 297 LIVE OAK 7.5 

48 TEXAS 309 MCLENNAN 7.5 

48 TEXAS 313 MADISON 7.5 

48 TEXAS 315 MARION 7.5 

48 TEXAS 321 MATAGORDA 7.5 

48 TEXAS 331 MILAM 7.5 

48 TEXAS 343 MORRIS 7.5 

48 TEXAS 347 NACOGDOCHES 7.5 

48 TEXAS 349 NAVARRO 7.5 

48 TEXAS 351 NEWTON 7.5 

48 TEXAS 355 NUECES 7.5 

48 TEXAS 361 ORANGE 7.5 

48 TEXAS 365 PANOLA 7.5 

48 TEXAS 367 PARKER 7.5 

48 TEXAS 373 POLK 7.5 

48 TEXAS 379 RAINS 7.5 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 35

Table II-12 (continued) 

FIPS State 

Code 

State 

Name 

FIPS County 

Code County Name RVP 

48 TEXAS 387 RED RIVER 7.5 

48 TEXAS 391 REFUGIO 7.5 

48 TEXAS 395 ROBERTSON 7.5 

48 TEXAS 397 ROCKWALL 7.5 

48 TEXAS 401 RUSK 7.5 

48 TEXAS 403 SABINE 7.5 

48 TEXAS 405 SAN AUGUSTINE 7.5 

48 TEXAS 407 SAN JACINTO 7.5 

48 TEXAS 409 SAN PATRICIO 7.5 

48 TEXAS 419 SHELBY 7.5 

48 TEXAS 423 SMITH 7.5 

48 TEXAS 425 SOMERVELL 7.5 

48 TEXAS 449 TITUS 7.5 

48 TEXAS 453 TRAVIS 7.5 

48 TEXAS 455 TRINITY 7.5 

48 TEXAS 457 TYLER 7.5 

48 TEXAS 459 UPSHUR 7.5 

48 TEXAS 467 VAN ZANDT 7.5 

48 TEXAS 469 VICTORIA 7.5 

48 TEXAS 471 WALKER 7.5 

48 TEXAS 477 WASHINGTON 7.5 

48 TEXAS 481 WHARTON 7.5 

48 TEXAS 491 WILLIAMSON 7.5 

48 TEXAS 493 WILSON 7.5 

48 TEXAS 497 WISE 7.5 

48 TEXAS 499 WOOD 7.5 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 36

Table II-13. CENRAP Oxygenated Fuel Inputs 

FIPS State Code State Name Area/County O2, wt % 

05 ARKANSAS Statewide 0.30 

19 IOWA Statewide 1.94 

20 KANSAS Statewide 0.14 

22 LOUISIANA Statewide 0.27 

27 MINNESOTA Statewide 3.32 

29 MISSOURI Statewide 0.32 

31 NEBRASKA Statewide 1.47 

40 OKLAHOMA Statewide 0.0 

48 TEXAS El Paso County 2.7 

1. Growth 

Growth factors in NONROAD2004 are based on national, historical changes in fuel-specific 

equipment populations. Pechan has concerns about using growth rates that vary significantly 

from the model growth rates without fully evaluating the impact the revised growth rates may 

have on other related activity variables such as median life and scrappage rates. Pechan did, 

however, reflect State differences in growth rates by adjusting the NONROAD model growth 

rates for several significant nonroad categories, as identified in CENRAP’s 2002 base year 

NONROAD model inventory (STI, 2004). These adjustments were made using State-level 

growth rates based on surrogate socioeconomic indicators believed to correlate with activity for 

each category. These data are available from the REMI model, and are incorporated into EGAS 

(Houyoux, 2004). The proposed methodology for making these adjustments was first 

documented in a technical memorandum prepared for CENRAP (Pechan, 2005). The 

NONROAD priority categories, along with the socioeconomic indicator used to adjust the 

national growth rate for each category, are listed in Table II-14. Note that employment and value 

added data are available from REMI for the Agricultural Production sector (SIC 01, 02). This is 

expected to be a suitable surrogate for the growth in farm equipment, but growth rates for these 

variables were not calculated separately in REMI for each State, and are reported as the same 

value for all States. As such, Pechan used Output in Agricultural Services (SIC 07) as a 

surrogate indicator for farm equipment growth. 

Table II-15 lists the NONROAD national growth factor value for 2018 (relative to 2002 base 

year) for each of the priority categories. Unlike other nonroad categories, separate growth rates 

are included in NONROAD for some of the specific recreational equipment applications, such as 

ATVs and Off-Highway Motorcycles. Table II-16 lists the 2018 growth factors for each chosen 

REMI surrogate indicator. Values are presented for each CENRAP State, as well as the nation. 

The general equation used to make this adjustment is shown below, along with an example of 

this calculation for gasoline lawn and garden equipment: 

NRDGRST = NRDGRNAT x (REMIGRST/REMIGRNAT)
PECHAN 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 D

37

Table II-14. NONROAD Model Priority Growth Categories and REMI Data for Adjusting Natio

Growth Rates 

SCC SCC Description

NONROAD Model Growth 

Indicator Code REMI Code REM

2270002000 Diesel Construction 21 604 Constructio

SIC 15, 16, 

2270005000 Diesel Farm 31 165 Agricultural 2260004000 2265004000

2-Stroke Gasoline Lawn and Garden 4-Stroke Gasoline Lawn and Garden

52 901 Population 

2282005000 2282010000

2-Stroke Gasoline Recreational Marine 4-Stroke Gasoline Recreational Marine

92 903 Real Dispo

2260001030 2265001030

2-Stroke Gasoline ATVs 4-Stroke Gasoline ATVs

95 96

903 Real Dispo

2260001010 2265001010

2-Stroke Gasoline Off-Highway Motorcycles 4-Stroke Gasoline Off-Highway Motorcycles

97 903 Real Dispo

2260001020 2-Stroke Gasoline Snowmobiles 98 903 Real Dispo2282005015 2-Stroke Gasoline Recreational Marine - Personal Watercraft 99 903 Real Dispo
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 38

Table II-15. NONROAD Model Category Growth Factors for 2018 

Category Indicator Code Growth Factor1

Diesel Construction 21 1.432

Diesel Farm 31 1.389

2 and 4-stroke Gasoline Lawn and Garden 52 1.337

2 and 4-stroke Gasoline Recreational Marine 92 1.146

2-stroke Gasoline ATVs 95 2.756

4-stroke Gasoline ATVs 96 2.105

2 and 4-stroke Gasoline Off-Highway Motorcycles 97 1.925

2-Stroke Gasoline Snowmobiles 98 1.705

2-Stroke Gasoline Recreational Marine - Personal Watercraft 99 1.146

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

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 39

Table II-16. REMI State and National Growth Factors for 2018 

REMI CODE CODEDESC STFIPS Geographic Area Growth Factor1

604 Construction - SIC 15, 16, 17 05 Arkansas 1.035 

604 Construction - SIC 15, 16, 17 19 Iowa 1.049 

604 Construction - SIC 15, 16, 17 20 Kansas 1.016 

604 Construction - SIC 15, 16, 17 22 Louisiana 1.120 

604 Construction - SIC 15, 16, 17 27 Minnesota 1.005 

604 Construction - SIC 15, 16, 17 29 Missouri 1.023 

604 Construction - SIC 15, 16, 17 31 Nebraska 1.011 

604 Construction - SIC 15, 16, 17 40 Oklahoma 1.098 

604 Construction - SIC 15, 16, 17 48 Texas 1.011 

604 Construction - SIC 15, 16, 17 NA National 1.025 

165 Agricultural Services 05 Arkansas 1.117 

165 Agricultural Services 19 Iowa 1.301 

165 Agricultural Services 20 Kansas 1.329 

165 Agricultural Services 22 Louisiana 1.330 

165 Agricultural Services 27 Minnesota 1.334 

165 Agricultural Services 29 Missouri 1.391 

165 Agricultural Services 31 Nebraska 1.281 

165 Agricultural Services 40 Oklahoma 1.358 

165 Agricultural Services 48 Texas 1.400 

165 Agricultural Services NA National 1.376 

901 Population (Thousands) 05 Arkansas 1.173 

901 Population (Thousands) 19 Iowa 1.126 

901 Population (Thousands) 20 Kansas 1.160 

901 Population (Thousands) 22 Louisiana 1.138 

901 Population (Thousands) 27 Minnesota 1.171 

901 Population (Thousands) 29 Missouri 1.150 

901 Population (Thousands) 31 Nebraska 1.144 

901 Population (Thousands) 40 Oklahoma 1.253 

901 Population (Thousands) 48 Texas 1.299 

901 Population (Thousands) NA National 1.218 

903 Real Disposable Personal Income 05 Arkansas 1.561 

903 Real Disposable Personal Income 19 Iowa 1.519 

903 Real Disposable Personal Income 20 Kansas 1.550 

903 Real Disposable Personal Income 22 Louisiana 1.588 

903 Real Disposable Personal Income 27 Minnesota 1.576 

903 Real Disposable Personal Income 29 Missouri 1.540 

903 Real Disposable Personal Income 31 Nebraska 1.530 

903 Real Disposable Personal Income 40 Oklahoma 1.621 

903 Real Disposable Personal Income 48 Texas 1.665 

903 Real Disposable Personal Income NA National 1.596 

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

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 40

where: 

 NRDGRST = Revised NONROAD State-level Growth Rate 

 NRDGRNAT = Base NONROAD National Growth Rate 

 REMIGRST = State REMI Growth Rate 

 REMIGRNAT = National REMI Growth Rate 

The revised growth rate for gasoline lawn and garden equipment in Oklahoma is calculated as 

follows: 

 NRDGRST = 1.337 x (1.253 ÷ 1.218) 

 = 1.374

Table II-17 shows the adjusted 2018 growth factors calculated for all CENRAP States for all 

priority equipment categories, and compares these values to the NONROAD model default 

growth factor values. 

Pechan prepared a revised NATION.GRW file for use in the NONROAD model. Once 2002-

based growth rates were calculated, Pechan normalized these rates to reflect the 2002 year value 

in the NATION.GRW file. Since this year was not reported for most category codes, these 2002 

data were calculated using linear interpolation of values reported for the most recent prior year 

and closest future year. Pechan then incorporated 2018 data for each of the appropriate indicator 

codes for all CENRAP States. State-specific records for historic years prior to 2002 were also 

added (since base year population values for most equipment types are for 1996 or 1998) using 

the same values as the national-level indicators. 

2. Controls 

EPA’s NONROAD2004 model incorporates the effects of most final Federal standards, 

including the Tier 4 diesel engine standards and the exhaust emission standards for large sparkignition (S-I) engines, diesel marine, and land-based recreational engines. The only remaining 

federal standards not modeled by NONROAD2004 include permeation and evaporative emission 

standards for gasoline recreational and large S-I engines, respectively. The evaporative 

standards for recreational equipment only affect permeation emissions, which are not currently 

included in NONROAD2004. These standards do not affect any other evaporative emission 

components in the model (i.e., diurnal or refueling). Therefore, Pechan did not model the 

recreational equipment permeation emission standards. Pechan developed an estimate of the 

emission reductions due to the large S-I standard to apply to the affected SCCs as a postprocessing adjustment, which is discussed below. 

For the large S-I evaporative standards, Pechan obtained overall emission reduction information 

from the Large S-I Regulatory Support Document (EPA, 2002). Using large S-I evaporative 

base and control case future year inventories, emission reductions were estimated for 2018. 

These emission reductions vary by evaporative component, but for this analysis Pechan summed 

the emissions across all components to estimate emission reductions for all evaporative 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 41

Table II-17. Adjusted 2018 Growth Factors for Nonroad Priority Equipment 

Categories 

State 

FIPS State Name 

NONROAD 

Growth Factor1

Adjusted 

Growth Factor1

Percent 

Difference 

2 and 4-stroke Gasoline Lawn and Garden - Indicator Code 52 

5 Arkansas 1.337 1.287 -3.9 

19 Iowa 1.337 1.235 -8.3 

20 Kansas 1.337 1.273 -5 

22 Louisiana 1.337 1.249 -7 

27 Minnesota 1.337 1.284 -4.1 

29 Missouri 1.337 1.261 -6 

31 Nebraska 1.337 1.255 -6.5 

40 Oklahoma 1.337 1.374 2.7 

48 Texas 1.337 1.424 6.1 

Diesel Construction - Indicator Code 21 

5 Arkansas 1.432 1.446 1 

19 Iowa 1.432 1.466 2.3 

20 Kansas 1.432 1.419 -0.9 

22 Louisiana 1.432 1.565 8.5 

27 Minnesota 1.432 1.404 -2 

29 Missouri 1.432 1.429 -0.2 

31 Nebraska 1.432 1.412 -1.4 

40 Oklahoma 1.432 1.534 6.6 

48 Texas 1.432 1.412 -1.4 

Diesel Farm - Indicator Code 31 

5 Arkansas 1.389 1.127 -23.2 

19 Iowa 1.389 1.314 -5.7 

20 Kansas 1.389 1.342 -3.5 

22 Louisiana 1.389 1.343 -3.4 

27 Minnesota 1.389 1.346 -3.2 

29 Missouri 1.389 1.404 1.1 

31 Nebraska 1.389 1.293 -7.4 

40 Oklahoma 1.389 1.37 -1.4 

48 Texas 1.389 1.413 1.7 

2 and 4-stroke Gasoline Recreational Marine - Indicator Code 92 

5 Arkansas 1.146 1.121 -2.2 

19 Iowa 1.146 1.091 -5 

20 Kansas 1.146 1.113 -3 

22 Louisiana 1.146 1.141 -0.4 

27 Minnesota 1.146 1.132 -1.2 

29 Missouri 1.146 1.106 -3.6 

31 Nebraska 1.146 1.099 -4.3 

40 Oklahoma 1.146 1.165 1.6 

48 Texas 1.146 1.196 4.2 

2-stroke Gasoline ATVs - Indicator Code 95 

5 Arkansas 2.756 2.696 -2.2 

19 Iowa 2.756 2.623 -5.1 

20 Kansas 2.756 2.677 -3 

22 Louisiana 2.756 2.742 -0.5 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 42

Table II-17 (continued) 

State 

FIPS State Name 

NONROAD 

Growth Factor1

Adjusted 

Growth Factor1

Percent 

Difference 

27 Minnesota 2.756 2.721 -1.3 

29 Missouri 2.756 2.659 -3.6 

31 Nebraska 2.756 2.642 -4.3 

40 Oklahoma 2.756 2.8 1.6 

48 Texas 2.756 2.875 4.1 

4-stroke Gasoline ATVs - Indicator Code 96 

5 Arkansas 2.105 2.059 -2.2 

19 Iowa 2.105 2.003 -5.1 

20 Kansas 2.105 2.045 -2.9 

22 Louisiana 2.105 2.095 -0.5 

27 Minnesota 2.105 2.078 -1.3 

29 Missouri 2.105 2.031 -3.6 

31 Nebraska 2.105 2.018 -4.3 

40 Oklahoma 2.105 2.139 1.6 

48 Texas 2.105 2.196 4.1 

2 and 4-stroke Gasoline Off-Highway Motorcycles - Indicator Code 97 

5 Arkansas 1.925 1.884 -2.2 

19 Iowa 1.925 1.832 -5.1 

20 Kansas 1.925 1.87 -2.9 

22 Louisiana 1.925 1.916 -0.5 

27 Minnesota 1.925 1.901 -1.3 

29 Missouri 1.925 1.858 -3.6 

31 Nebraska 1.925 1.846 -4.3 

40 Oklahoma 1.925 1.956 1.6 

48 Texas 1.925 2.009 4.2 

2-Stroke Gasoline Snowmobiles - Indicator Code 98 

5 Arkansas 1.705 1.669 -2.2 

19 Iowa 1.705 1.623 -5.1 

20 Kansas 1.705 1.657 -2.9 

22 Louisiana 1.705 1.697 -0.5 

27 Minnesota 1.705 1.684 -1.2 

29 Missouri 1.705 1.646 -3.6 

31 Nebraska 1.705 1.635 -4.3 

40 Oklahoma 1.705 1.733 1.6 

48 Texas 1.705 1.779 4.2 

2-Stroke Gasoline Recreational Marine - Personal Watercraft - Indicator Code 99

5 Arkansas 1.146 1.121 -2.2 

19 Iowa 1.146 1.091 -5 

20 Kansas 1.146 1.113 -3 

22 Louisiana 1.146 1.141 -0.4 

27 Minnesota 1.146 1.132 -1.2 

29 Missouri 1.146 1.106 -3.6 

31 Nebraska 1.146 1.099 -4.3 

40 Oklahoma 1.146 1.165 1.6 

48 Texas 1.146 1.196 4.2 

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

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 43

emissions combined, as well as crankcase emissions. Large S-I evaporative emission reductions 

for 2018 were estimated to be 78.1 percent. 

Pechan calculated two rule penetration adjustments to account for the fraction of the SCC-level 

emissions that are affected by the rule. Since the rule only affects large S-I engines greater than 

25 horsepower, the first adjustment was developed to reflect that fraction of the activity 

associated with these larger engines. This was estimated using 2002 national gasoline 

consumption results by horsepower and equipment category from NONROAD2004. As a 

simplifying assumption, we used the 2002 rule penetration value for 2018 and for all applications 

within a category, though this is likely to vary by year and application. Table II-18 provides a 

summary of the horsepower-related rule penetration values by equipment category. A second 

rule penetration adjustment by SCC was also developed to account for that fraction of the SCClevel emissions associated with evaporative VOC relative to the total VOC emissions (i.e., 

exhaust plus evaporative). Final emission reductions by SCC are presented in Table II-19. 

These emission reductions were applied directly to the SCC-level output from the NONROAD 

model as a post-processing step. 

The following equation shows an example of how overall adjusted emission reductions were 

estimated for 4-stroke industrial forklifts in 2018: 

ERADJ = RPhp x RPevap x ER
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 44

Table II-18. Horsepower-Related Rule Penetration Values by Category for Large 

S-I Evaporative Standards

Fuel Type Classification Rule Penetration

Gasoline Agricultural Equipment 0.40

Gasoline Airport Equipment 0.74

Gasoline Commercial Equipment 0.05

Gasoline Construction and Mining Equipment 0.14

Gasoline Industrial Equipment 0.59

Gasoline Commercial Lawn and Garden Equipment 0.07

Gasoline Railroad Equipment 0.04

Gasoline Recreational Equipment1 0.43

CNG All Classifications 1.0

LPG All Classifications 1.0

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

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 45

Table II-19. Control Effectiveness Values by SCC for Large S-I Evaporative 

Standards in 2018 

SCC Percent Control Effectiveness 

2260001060 11.2 

2260002006 0.3 

2260002009 0.6 

2260002021 0.6 

2260002027 0.3 

2260002039 0.1 

2260002054 0.3 

2260003030 3.8 

2260003040 2.7 

2260004016 0.9 

2260004021 1 

2260004026 1.1 

2260004031 0.4 

2260004036 0.2 

2260004071 0.2 

2260005035 3.7 

2260005050 1.6 

2260006005 0.4 

2260006010 0.3 

2260006015 0.2 

2265001060 7.3 

2265002003 1.4 

2265002006 1.5 

2265002009 1.1 

2265002015 1.2 

2265002021 1.7 

2265002024 1.1 

2265002027 1 

2265002030 1.2 

2265002033 2 

2265002039 1 

2265002042 2.8 

2265002045 4.1 

2265002054 1.3 

2265002057 5.7 

2265002060 6.5 

2265002066 1 

2265002072 2.7 

2265002078 2.9 

2265002081 5 

2265003010 14.5 

2265003020 24.4 

2265003030 9 

2265003040 5 

2265003050 13.1 

2265003060 5 

2265003070 25.8 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 46

Table II-19 (continued) 

SCC Percent Control Effectiveness 

2265004011 1.5 

2265004016 1.9 

2265004026 2.6 

2265004031 1.8 

2265004036 1.8 

2265004041 0.9 

2265004046 1.2 

2265004051 1.9 

2265004056 0.8 

2265004066 0.9 

2265004071 0.6 

2265004076 1.9 

2265005010 3.4 

2265005015 8.3 

2265005020 18.4 

2265005025 20.4 

2265005030 4.7 

2265005035 9.5 

2265005040 7.2 

2265005045 18.3 

2265005050 3.6 

2265005055 11.6 

2265005060 14.5 

2265006005 1 

2265006010 0.8 

2265006015 0.6 

2265006025 0.7 

2265006030 0.8 

2265008005 11.5 

2265010010 3 

2267001060 17.5 

2267002003 6.6 

2267002021 12.6 

2267002024 6.1 

2267002030 6.3 

2267002033 17 

2267002045 10.9 

2267002054 10.4 

2267002057 7.7 

2267002060 1 

2267002072 11.7 

2267002081 13.1 

2267003010 13.7 

2267003020 0.8 

2267003030 0.1 

2267003050 9.6 

2267005050 8 

2267005055 17.6 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 47

Table II-19 (continued) 

SCC Percent Control Effectiveness 

2267006005 17.2 

2267006010 13.8 

2267006015 4.7 

2267006025 4.3 

2267006030 11.5 

2268002081 12.9 

2268003020 0.9 

2268003030 0.3 

2268003060 2.7 

2268006005 17.6 

2268006010 15.3 

2268006015 5.8 

2285004015 0.6 

2285006015 9.8 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 48

where: 

ERADJ = adjusted emission reduction accounting for rule penetration 

RPhp = rule penetration for affected horsepower fraction 

RPevap = rule penetration for evaporative fraction of total VOC emissions 

ER = evaporative emission reduction for affected engines 

 ERADJ = 0.590 x 0.529 x 0.781

 = 0.244 

 = 24.4 percent

a. State Controls 

In addition to Federal controls, Pechan accounted for regulations in Texas that control nonroad 

refueling spillage emissions from use of portable fuel containers. Similar to the large S-I 

evaporative standard modeling discussed above, Pechan calculated two rule penetration 

adjustments accounting for the appropriate fraction of the SCC-level emissions affected by the 

rule. The first adjustment was developed to reflect that fraction of the SCC emissions associated 

with equipment fueled with a portable fuel container. Nonroad equipment refueled by a portable 

container are generally smaller horsepower engines than those refueled at service stations. A 

second rule penetration adjustment by SCC was also developed to account for that fraction of the 

SCC-level emissions associated with evaporative spillage VOC relative to the total VOC 

emissions (i.e., exhaust plus evaporative). These adjustments were both estimated using 2002 

national evaporative VOC emissions data by horsepower, equipment category, and evaporative 

component, from NONROAD2004. Control efficiency was assumed to be 100 percent, and full 

equipment turnover of gas cans should be achieved by 2018. 

The final emission reductions by SCC are presented in Table II-20. These emission reductions 

were applied directly to the appropriate SCCs as a post-processing step for all counties in Texas. 

3. Non-NONROAD Model 

Pechan compiled control information for commercial marine vessels and locomotives. Standards 

affecting these categories are Federal standards that affect all areas of the nation. No additional 

local controls were modeled in the CENRAP region for these categories. 

In 2003, EPA proposed aircraft engine NOx emission standards that will bring U.S. aircraft 

standards into alignment with standards developed by the International Civil Aviation 

Organization. EPA did not prepare emission reduction estimates for these standards because any 

such reductions would be modest (e.g., 94 percent of aircraft engines are currently meeting or 

exceeding these standards). Therefore, Pechan did not account for emission reductions from 

these standards for this analysis. 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 49

Table II-20. 2018 VOC Emission Reductions by SCC for Texas Portable Container 

Rule 

SCC Percent VOC Reduction 

2260001010 0.8% 

2260001030 2.7% 

2260003030 6.6% 

2260003040 4.2% 

2260004015 14.3% 

2260004016 15.7% 

2260004020 39.1% 

2260004021 17.7% 

2260004025 19.9% 

2260004026 19.7% 

2260004030 5.5% 

2260004031 5.4% 

2260004035 3.2% 

2260004071 2.1% 

2260006005 6.1% 

2260006010 5.4% 

2260006015 4.0% 

2260007005 9.1% 

2265001010 5.5% 

2265001030 7.0% 

2265001060 0.1% 

2265003010 0.3% 

2265003030 2.3% 

2265003040 4.3% 

2265003050 0.0% 

2265004010 23.5% 

2265004011 25.7% 

2265004015 29.9% 

2265004016 33.0% 

2265004025 39.4% 

2265004026 46.7% 

2265004030 13.0% 

2265004031 28.7% 

2265004035 15.6% 

2265004040 6.3% 

2265004041 9.1% 

2265004046 8.8% 

2265004051 31.8% 

2265004055 7.0% 

2265004056 8.7% 

2265004066 3.1% 

2265004071 4.2% 

2265004075 3.8% 

2265004076 3.8% 

2265006005 4.6% 

2265006010 9.7% 

2265006015 6.4% 

2265006025 10.2% 

2265006030 9.6% 

2265007010 52.4% 
PECHAN May 2005 

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

a. Locomotives 

Emission reduction impacts of the Federal locomotive engine standards are available in an EPA 

Regulatory Support Document (EPA, 1998). This document contains emission reduction 

information specific to Class I Operations, Class II/III Operations, Passenger Trains (Amtrak and 

Commuter Lines), and Switch (Yard) Locomotives. Year-specific percentage reduction 

estimates for select pollutants are available for each locomotive sector for each year over the 

1999-2040 period. These emission reductions reflect the control technology efficiencies, as well 

as the expected rule penetration for the years of interest. Rule effectiveness was assumed to be 

100 percent. 

In addition, overall SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 emission reductions associated with decreases in the 

diesel fuel sulfur content were also included. These were estimated from future base case and 

control case locomotive emission inventories prepared for EPA’s regulatory impact analysis 

(RIA) for the Clean Air Diesel Rule (EPA, 2004). In the case of PM, since exhaust PM 

standards already apply to locomotives, a combined emission reduction was calculated for each 

future year that accounted for both the exhaust standards and reductions in PM sulfate due to the 

fuel sulfur limits. Table II-21 presents the 2018 emission reductions that apply to locomotive 

SCC emissions. 

b. Commercial Marine Vessels 

EPA has promulgated two sets of commercial marine vessel regulations: a regulation setting 

Category 1 and 2 marine diesel engine standards and a regulation setting Category 3 marine 

diesel engine standards. Category 1 marine diesel engines are defined as engines of greater than 

37 kilowatts but with a per-cylinder displacement of 5 liters/cylinder or less. Category 2 marine 

diesel engines cover engines of 5 to 30 liters/cylinder, and Category 3 marine diesel engines 

include the remaining, very large, engines. For this analysis, overall emission reductions were 

estimated for each projection year of interest using information from the regulatory support 

documents prepared for these rulemakings (EPA, 1999; EPA, 2003). In addition to the EPA 

standards, beginning in 2000, marine diesel engines greater than or equal to 130 kilowatts are 

subject to an international NOx emissions treaty (MARPOL) developed by the International 

Maritime Organization. The emission reductions reflect both the MARPOL and EPA standards. 

Because the reductions vary by category of vessel, assumptions were made concerning the 

characterization of engines associated with diesel commercial marine vessel SCCs included in 

the base year inventory. For SCC 2280002100 (Marine Vessels, Commercial Diesel Port 

emissions), Category 2 engines were assumed. For SCC 2280002200 (Marine Vessels, 

Commercial Diesel Underway emissions), Category 3 engines were assumed. 
PECHAN 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 D

51

Table II-21. 2018 Emission Reductions and Control Information for Federal Rail Stan

SCC SCC Description Pollutant 

2018 Emission 

Reduction, % 

2018 Control 

Efficiency 

E

2285000000 Railroad Equipment All Fuels Total NOX 47.7 62 2285002000 Railroad Equipment Diesel Total NOX 47.7 62 2285002006 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives: 

Class I Operations 

NOX 52 62 

2285002007 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives: 

Class II / III Operations 

NOX 13 62 

2285002008 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives: 

Passenger Trains (Amtrak) 

NOX 51 62 

2285002009 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives: 

Commuter Lines 

NOX 51 62 

2285002010 Railroad Equipment Diesel Yard Locomotives NOX 31 58 2285000000 Railroad Equipment All Fuels Total PM10-PRI 42.31 2285002000 Railroad Equipment Diesel Total PM10-PRI 42.31 2285002006 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives: 

Class I Operations 

PM10-PRI 44.8 

2285002007 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives: 

Class II / III Operations 

PM10-PRI 22.25 22.3 

2285002008 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives: 

Passenger Trains (Amtrak) 

PM10-PRI 43.24 

2285002009 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives: 

Commuter Lines 

PM10-PRI 43.24 

2285002010 Railroad Equipment Diesel Yard Locomotives PM10-PRI 30.8 2285000000 Railroad Equipment All Fuels Total PM25-PRI 42.31 2285002000 Railroad Equipment Diesel Total PM25-PRI 42.31 2285002006 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives: 

Class I Operations 

PM25-PRI 44.8 

2285002007 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives: 

Class II / III Operations 

PM25-PRI 22.25 22.3 

2285002008 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives: 

Passenger Trains (Amtrak) 

PM25-PRI 43.24 

2285002009 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives: 

Commuter Lines 

PM25-PRI 43.24 

2285002010 Railroad Equipment Diesel Yard Locomotives PM25-PRI 30.8 
PECHAN 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 D

52

Table II-21 (continued) 

SCC SCC Description Pollutant 

2018 Emission 

Reduction, % 

2018 Control 

Efficiency 

E

2285000000 Railroad Equipment All Fuels Total SO2 97.58 97.6 2285002000 Railroad Equipment Diesel Total SO2 97.58 97.6 2285002006 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives: 

Class I Operations 

SO2 97.58 97.6 

2285002007 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives: 

Class II / III Operations 

SO2 97.58 97.6 

2285002008 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives: 

Passenger Trains (Amtrak) 

SO2 97.58 97.6 

2285002009 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives: 

Commuter Lines 

SO2 97.58 97.6 

2285002010 Railroad Equipment Diesel Yard Locomotives SO2 97.58 97.6 2285000000 Railroad Equipment All Fuels Total VOC 23.6 47 2285002000 Railroad Equipment Diesel Total VOC 23.6 47 2285002006 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives: 

Class I Operations 

VOC 27 47 

2285002008 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives: 

Passenger Trains (Amtrak) 

VOC 26 47 

2285002009 Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives: 

Commuter Lines 

VOC 26 47 

2285002010 Railroad Equipment Diesel Yard Locomotives VOC 10 50 

NOTE: 1Values for CE, RE, and RP for PM10 and PM25 were not estimated since these values account for PM reductions due to both exhaust and fuel sulfur 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 53

Similar to locomotives, overall SO2, PM10 and PM2.5 emission reductions associated with 

decreases in the diesel fuel sulfur content were also included based on information in EPA’s RIA 

for the Clean Air Diesel Rule (EPA, 2004b). See Table II-22 for the 2018 emission reductions 

that apply to commercial marine vessel SCC emissions. 

E. DEVELOPMENT OF ONROAD DATA 

For the onroad projections in the CENRAP air quality modeling, Pechan provided a set of VMT 

growth factors in SMOKE format, along with SMOKE-formatted MOBILE6 input files. The 

MOBILE6 input files incorporate any Federal, State, or local control program information. 

Thus, control factors or emission reduction percentages are not explicitly provided for this 

sector, but rather are incorporated in the MOBILE6 modeling. The development of the VMT 

growth factors and the MOBILE6 input files are discussed below. Once VMT growth factors 

were calculated for all of the CENRAP States, the growth factors were multiplied by the 

CENRAP base year 2002 VMT data to calculate 2018 VMT. The projected 2018 VMT by 

county and SCC (vehicle type and roadway type) were then provided in a SMOKE-formatted 

file, along with the corresponding average vehicle speed for that county/SCC combination. 

These speed inputs are the same as those used in the 2002 CENRAP base case—no updates were 

made to the modeled speeds. 

1. VMT Growth 

a. Default VMT Growth Methodology 

As indicated in the Methods Document, Pechan’s proposed default VMT growth methodology 

was to use EGAS VMT growth factors when more specific data were not supplied by the State or 

local agencies. However, when attempting to prepare the EGAS VMT growth factors using the 

beta version of EGAS 5, Pechan encountered a bug in the EGAS code that prevented data from 

being output for the onroad mobile SCCs. As an alternative (but similar) methodology, Pechan 

developed a set of 2002 to 2018 VMT growth factors using the same methodology used by EPA 

in their CAIR rule analysis that had originally been developed for EPA’s draft Section 812 

second prospective analysis (Mullen and Neumann, 2004). 

The VMT projections account for vehicle class-specific growth factors and population growth 

factors. The data used for the vehicle class-specific growth factors are vehicle category-specific 

2002 VMT and VMT projections to 2018, both at the national level, for the following three 

vehicle classes: 1) Light-duty vehicles (under 8,500 lbs); 2) Commercial light trucks (between 

8,500 and 10,000 lbs); and 3) Freight trucks (greater than 10,000 lbs). These national VMT 

projections were obtained from the 2005 Annual Energy Outlook (DOE, 2005). 

The national 2002 VMT and the 2018 VMT projections were allocated to the MOBILE6 vehicle 

categories using the default MOBILE6 VMT fractions by vehicle type in 2002 and 2018. 

Overall vehicle-specific growth factors were then calculated by multiplying the ratio of the 2018 

to 2002 VMT at the MOBILE6 vehicle type level. 
PECHAN 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 D

54

Table II-22. 2018 Emission Reductions and Control Information for Federal Diesel Commercial 

SCC SCC Description Pollutant

2018 Emission 

Reduction, % 

2018 

Control 

Efficiency 

2

Eff

2280002100 Marine Vessels, Commercial Diesel Port emissions PM25-PRI 12.14 12.1 2280002100 Marine Vessels, Commercial Diesel Port emissions PM10-PRI 12.14 12.1 2280002100 Marine Vessels, Commercial Diesel Port emissions SO2 97.58 97.6 2280002100 Marine Vessels, Commercial Diesel Port emissions NOX 20.46 43.7 2280002200 Marine Vessels, Commercial Diesel Underway emissions PM25-PRI 12.14 12.1 2280002200 Marine Vessels, Commercial Diesel Underway emissions PM10-PRI 12.14 12.1 2280002200 Marine Vessels, Commercial Diesel Underway emissions SO2 97.58 97.6 2280002200 Marine Vessels, Commercial Diesel Underway emissions NOX 14.88 43.2 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 55

Different levels of population growth throughout the CENRAP States were accounted for by 

calculating the ratio of county level population growth to national population growth. The 

population estimates used in these calculations were the EGAS population projections derived 

from Census population estimates and the REMI demographic/migration module which forecasts 

regional population change (REMI, 1997). 

These resulting growth factors were then multiplied by the CENRAP 2002 VMT data at the 

county/roadway type/vehicle type level of detail to obtain projected 2018 VMT data. This is 

illustrated in the following equation: 

VMT18C,V,R = VMT02,C,V,R * (VMTEIA18,V / VMTEIA02,V) * 

[(POP18,C/POP02,C)/(POP18,US/POP02,US)]

where: 

 VMT18C,V,R = 2018 projected VMT for county C, vehicle type V, road type R 

 (million miles) 

VMT02C,V,R = 2002 CENRAP VMT for county C, vehicle type V, road type R 

 (million miles) 

VMTEIA20, V = 2020 EIA-based VMT projection for vehicle type V (billion miles) 

VMTEIA99,V = 1999 EIA-based VMT for vehicle type V (billion miles) 

POP20,C = 2020 EGAS 4.0 population of county C

POP99,C = 1999 EGAS 4.0 population of county C

POP20,US = 2020 EGAS 4.0 population of US

POP99,US = 1999 EGAS 4.0 population of US

It should be noted that this equation does not specifically account for varying growth rates by 

functional roadway class. Our research in 2003 did not reveal a consistent national basis on 

which to make roadway-class-specific projections. 

b. State or Local VMT Growth Methodology 

Several State and local agencies within the CENRAP States provided data to be used in 

projecting VMT growth for that State or local area. Early in this project, Pechan asked the 

CENRAP emission inventory contacts for information on appropriate contacts from their State 

Departments of Transportation and from the major metropolitan planning organizations in their 

State. Pechan then inquired of these contacts whether they had developed their own VMT 

growth projections, and if so, the VMT growth data and will request any available 

documentation on the development of these growth factors and the growth factors themselves so 

that these growth factors would be applied correctly in the CENRAP projections. Responses to 

this request were provided by Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraksa, and Oklahoma. 

However, the VMT projection data provided by Arkansas and Missouri were for 2003 only, and 

the VMT projection data provided by Nebraska were to 2009 only. Neither of these projections 

were considered sufficient for use in projecting VMT to 2018, so these data were discarded. 

Within the resources available, Pechan also attempted to locate publicly available projected 

VMT data for major cities within the CENRAP States that were not included in the State-
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 56

provided VMT projection data and was able to obtain projected VMT information for several 

cities in Texas. The non-default VMT projection data used are described below. 

i. Iowa 

The Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) provided projected VMT data 

for four counties in the Des Moines area: Dallas, Madison, Polk, and Warren. For each of these 

counties, daily link-level VMT data were provided for the years 2000, 2005, 2010, 2020, and 

2030. For each of these years, Pechan summed the total VMT for each county and then 

performed a linear interpolation between the 2000 and 2005 county-level VMT totals to estimate 

county-level 2002 VMT. Similarly, Pechan linearly interpolated the county-level VMT totals 

from 2010 and 2020 to obtain an estimate of the 2018 county-level VMT totals. Finally, for each 

of these four counties, Pechan divided the interpolated 2018 county-level VMT by the 

interpolated 2002 county-level VMT to calculate a 2002 to 2018 VMT growth factor. These 

county-level VMT growth factors were then applied to all road types and vehicle types within 

the corresponding county. These growth factors are as follows: 2.09 for Dallas County, 1.64 for 

Madison County, 1.48 for Polk County, and 1.64 for Warren County. Default VMT growth 

factors were used in all other Iowa counties. 

ii. Minnesota 

The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) provided a series of historical annual 

VMT data from 1983 to 2003. From these data, Pechan conducted a set of regression analyses 

with the Minnesota historical VMT as the dependent variable, and historical Minnesota values 

(from REMI model incorporated into EGAS 5) for the following potential independent 

variables: year, driving age population, gasoline and oil expenditures, real disposable per capita 

income, and total output. Although population came in a close second, the variable with the best 

statistical fit was year. Pechan solved the resulting equation with values for year of 2002 and 

2018 and computed the ratio of the 2018 equation value to the 2002 equation value. This 

resulted in 2002 to 2018 VMT growth factor of 1.37 that was applied Statewide to all road types 

and vehicle types. 

iii. Oklahoma 

The Oklahoma DEQ provided a spreadsheet containing State total VMT from 1983 through 

2020. The VMT from 1983 through 2003 were daily Highway Performance Modeling System 

(HPMS) actual VMT totals. The 2004 through 2020 daily VMT totals were estimated by 

Oklahoma DEQ using linear regression based on the actual VMT data. From these data, Pechan 

estimated a 2002 to 2018 State-level VMT growth factor by dividing the projected 2018 daily 

VMT value by the 2002 Oklahoma HPMS daily VMT value. This resulted in a growth factor of 

1.2754 and was applied Statewide to all road types and vehicle types. 

iv. Texas 

Pechan estimated VMT growth factors for the counties in the Austin and Dallas areas, based on 

publicly available data. 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 57

Pechan obtained VMT for the Austin area from August 2003 TCEQ-sponsored on-road mobile 

source emission inventories for the Austin/San Marcos Metropolitan Statistical Area. The 

following counties were included in these inventories: Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis, and 

Caldwell. For each of these counties, daily September VMT were provided for 1995, 1999, 

2002, 2005, 2007, and 2012, with separate values for Monday through Thursday, Friday, 

Saturday, and Sunday. Pechan summed the VMT by county in each year to obtain total VMT for 

a week in September. Using the 2007 and 2012 weekly September VMT data, Pechan 

performed a linear extrapolation to estimate 2018 weekly September VMT. County-level VMT 

growth factors from 2002 to 2018 were then calculated by dividing the 2018 weekly September 

VMT by the 2002 weekly September VMT. 

Pechan obtained VMT projection data for the Dallas area from the 2004 update to the 

Metropolitan Transportation Plan, prepared by the North Central Texas Council of Governments. 

This document included 1999 and 2025 VMT data for five individual counties (Dallas, Tarrant, 

Denton, Collin, and Rockwall) plus two additional area groups including two counties each (Ellis 

and Kaufman in one group and Johnson and Parker in another group). Pechan used linear 

interpolation to estimate 2002 and 2018 VMT data for each of these counties or county groups 

and then calculated the 2002 to 2018 VMT growth factors by dividing the estimated 2018 VMT 

by the estimated 2002 VMT. 

Table II-23 summarizes the non-default VMT growth factors applied in the CENRAP States. All 

of these non-default growth factors were applied to all road types and vehicle types in that 

county. 

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

States 

State County 2002 to 2018 VMT Growth Factor 

Iowa Dallas 2.09 

 Madison 1.64 

 Polk 1.48 

 Warren 1.64 

Minnesota All 1.37 

Oklahoma All 1.28 

Texas Bastrop 1.62 

 Caldwell 1.43 

 Collin 1.85 

 Dallas 1.32 

 Denton 1.99 

 Ellis 1.79 

 Hays 1.44 

 Johnson 1.75 

 Kaufman 1.79 

 Parker 1.75 

 Rockwall 1.70 

 Tarrant 1.47 

 Travis 1.75 

 Williamson 2.18 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 58

2. SMOKE MOBILE6 Inputs 

Each SMOKE-formatted MOBILE6 input file represents a single representative MOBILE6 

scenario for a specific county or group of counties. For each county or group of counties 

modeled, two SMOKE-formatted MOBILE6 files were prepared: one representing July 

conditions and one representing January conditions. Within SMOKE, the July input files will be 

used to model the ozone season months (i.e., May through September) and the January input files 

will be used to represent all other months. For counties with no State or local control programs 

and no locally-provided inputs, these MOBILE6 inputs primarily contain the calendar year being 

modeled (2018) and fuel input parameters for the season being modeled. Temperature data are 

also provided, but these are overridden in SMOKE by temperatures specific to the month being 

modeled. A simple SMOKE-formatted MOBILE6 input file for a county with no local inputs is 

shown below: 

SCENARIO RECORD : ARKANSAS COUNTY, AR - WINTER 

CALENDAR YEAR : 2018 

EVALUATION MONTH : 1 

ALTITUDE : 1 

MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE: 50.0 70.0 

FUEL RVP : 13.0 

FUEL PROGRAM : 1 

DIESEL SULFUR : 15.0 

OXYGENATED FUELS : 0.500 0.001 0.006 0.001 1 

PARTICULATE EF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDR1.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDR1.CSV PMDDR2.CSV 

Note that no speed information is included in this input file. The speed information is provided 

in the projected VMT files at the county/roadway type level of detail. In all cases, CALENDAR 

YEAR was set to 2018, ALTITUDE was set to “1” (i.e., low altitude), MIN/MAX 

TEMPERATURE was set as shown above (as dummy temperature values), DIESEL SULFUR 

was set to 15.0 (i.e., 15 ppm sulfur in the diesel fuel), and the PARTICULATE EF command was 

set using the files listed in the example above. The EVALUATION MONTH command was set 

to “1” for the January input files and to “2” for the July input files. The remaining commands 

listed in the example above (FUEL RVP, FUEL PROGRAM, ands OXYGENATED FUELS), as 

well as any additional commands needed, were set according to the specifics of the county or 

counties being modeled. 

Note that the diesel sulfur input of 15 ppm sulfur in the diesel fuel represents the expected 

national diesel sulfur content in 2018. This reflects the requirements of the Federal heavy-duty 

vehicle/low sulfur diesel rulemaking. Other Federal control programs are included in the 

MOBILE6 defaults, with no additional inputs needed. This includes the emission standards 

associated with the heavy-duty vehicle rulemaking, the Tier 2 emission standards for light-duty 

vehicles and trucks, as well as all prior emission standards. 

Optional local inputs that were included in the MOBILE6 files that are not related to control 

programs are the registration distributions and diesel sales fractions. The registration 

distributions (a distribution of registered vehicles by age for 16 vehicle types) used in the 

CENRAP 2002 base year modeling were used without change in the 2018 modeling. All 

CENRAP States except Arkansas has included registration distributions in the 2002 modeling. 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 59

The diesel sales fractions (the fraction of vehicles sales by model year that are diesel-fueled for 

14 weight categories of vehicles) from 2002 were projected forward to 2018. To do this, the 

vehicles sales fractions listed for the 2002 model year were carried forward to all model years 

from 2003 to 2018. The diesel sales fractions values from the 1994 through 2002 model years, 

as listed in the 2002 diesel sales fractions files, were not changed. The diesel sales fractions 

from model years 1978 were removed from the files, as these model years are not needed in the 

2018 calendar year modeling. Diesel sales fractions were provided in the 2002 CENRAP base 

year modeling for all CENRAP States except Arkansas and Texas. 

A set of January and July SMOKE MOBILE6 input files were created for each group of counties 

with a unique combination of local inputs, fuels, and control programs. Thus, since Arkansas 

had supplied no local inputs, and there are no county-specific control programs in the State, a 

single set of MOBILE6 input files is used to model the entire State of Arkansas. In most of the 

other States, a single set of input files models a single county since most States provided countyspecific registration distributions or diesel sales fraction data. 

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

a. Inspection and Maintenance and Anti-tampering Programs 

Onroad vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs and/or anti-tampering programs 

(ATPs) are required in specific counties in Louisiana, Missouri, and Texas. Changes to these 

programs have occurred or will occur such that the versions needed for the 2002 modeling were 

updated to best reflect the programs expected to be in place in 2018. 

i. Louisiana 

 The Louisiana I/M program applies to the 5-parish Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment area 

(Ascension Parish, East Baton Rouge Parish, Iberville Parish, Livingston Parish, and West Baton 

Rouge Parish). The specifics of this program, in MOBILE6 format, are shown in Figure II-1. 

ii. Missouri 

 Missouri includes a basic I/M program in Franklin County, per State regulation 11 CSR 50-

2.400 “Emission Test Procedures” and an enhanced I/M program in the remainder of the St. 

Louis area (St. Louis City, Jefferson County, St. Charles County, and St. Louis County), per 

State regulation 10 CSR10-5.380 “Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection.” The specifics of the 

Franklin County program, in MOBILE6 format, are shown in Figure II-2. The St. Louis 

enhanced program is shown in Figure II-3. 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 60

Figure II-1. Baton Rouge I/M Program and ATP Characteristics 

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 1 2 

I/M PROGRAM : 1 2002 2050 1 TRC OBD I/M 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 1 1996 2050 

I/M VEHICLES : 1 22222 21111111 1 

I/M STRINGENCY : 1 20.0 

I/M EFFECTIVENESS : 0.75 0.75 0.75

I/M COMPLIANCE : 1 96 

I/M WAIVER RATES : 1 0.0 0.0 

I/M PROGRAM : 2 2000 2001 1 TRC GC 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 2 1980 2001 

I/M VEHICLES : 2 22222 21111111 1 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 2 96.0 

I/M PROGRAM : 3 2002 2006 1 TRC GC 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 3 1980 2006 

I/M VEHICLES : 3 11111 21111111 1 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 3 96.0 

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

I/M MODEL YEARS : 4 1996 2050 

I/M VEHICLES : 4 22222 21111111 1 

I/M STRINGENCY : 4 20.0

I/M COMPLIANCE : 4 96.0 

I/M PROGRAM : 5 2007 2050 1 TRC EVAP OBD & GC 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 5 2007 2050 

I/M VEHICLES : 5 11111 21111111 1 

I/M STRINGENCY : 5 20.0 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 5 96.0 

ANTI-TAMP PROG : 

00 80 50 22222 21111111 1 11 072. 22212222 

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

I/M PROGRAM : 1 2000 2050 2 T/O IDLE 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 1 1971 2050 

I/M VEHICLES : 1 22222 11111111 1 

I/M STRINGENCY : 1 15.2 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 1 96.0 

I/M WAIVER RATES : 1 10.9 9.9 

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 1 2 

I/M PROGRAM : 2 2000 2050 2 T/O GC 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 2 1981 2050 

I/M VEHICLES : 2 22222 11111111 1 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 2 96.0 

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 2 2 

ANTI-TAMP PROG : 

00 71 50 22222 11111111 1 12 096. 12212122 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 61

Figure II-3. St. Louis Enhanced I/M Program Characteristics 

I/M PROGRAM : 1 2003 2050 2 T/O OBD I/M 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 1 1996 2050 

I/M VEHICLES : 1 22222 11111111 1 

I/M STRINGENCY : 1 20.0 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 1 96.0 

I/M WAIVER RATES : 1 3.0 3.0 

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 1 2 

I/M PROGRAM : 2 1990 2002 2 T/O IDLE 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 2 1971 1980 

I/M VEHICLES : 2 22222 11111111 1 

I/M STRINGENCY : 2 18.0 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 2 96.0 

I/M WAIVER RATES : 2 25.3 25.3 

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 2 2 

I/M PROGRAM : 3 1990 2002 2 T/O IM240 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 3 1981 2050 

I/M VEHICLES : 3 22222 11111111 1 

I/M STRINGENCY : 3 18.0 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 3 96.0 

I/M WAIVER RATES : 3 25.3 25.3 

I/M CUTPOINTS : 3 MO_IM240.cut 

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 3 2 

I/M PROGRAM : 4 2003 2050 2 T/O OBD & GC 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 4 1996 2050 

I/M VEHICLES : 4 22222 11111111 1 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 4 96.0 

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 4 2 

I/M PROGRAM : 5 2000 2002 2 T/O GC 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 5 1981 2050 

I/M VEHICLES : 5 22222 11111111 1 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 5 96.0 

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 5 2 
PECHAN May 2005 

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

iii. Texas 

The Texas I/M program and ATP differ by the start date of the program in various county 

groups. In addition, the El Paso program is different from that in the other parts of the State. 

The Texas I/M program is defined in State regulation section 114.50 “Vehicle Emissions 

Inspection Requirements. The specifics of the Texas program, in MOBILE6 format, are shown 

in Figure II-4 for Harris, Dallas, and Tarrant Counties. The El Paso program is shown in Figure 

II-5. I/M inspections began in Collin and Denton Counties in 2002. This program is shown in 

Figure II-6. Testing began in 2003 for Brazoria, Ellis, Fort Bend, Galveston, Johnson, Kaufman, 

Montgomery, Parker, and Rockwall Counties. This program is shown in Figure II-7. Finally, 

testing is scheduled to begin in 2005 for the Austin area counties of Travis and Williamson. The 

characteristics of this program are shown in Figure II-8. 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 63

Figure II-4. Harris, Dallas, and Tarrant Counties I/M Program Characteristics 

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 1 2 

I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 1 25 

I/M PROGRAM : 1 1996 2001 1 TRC 2500/IDLE 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 1 1978 2050 

I/M VEHICLES : 1 22222 22222222 2 

I/M STRINGENCY : 1 20 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 1 96 

I/M WAIVER RATES : 1 3.0 3.0 

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 2 2 

I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 2 25 

I/M PROGRAM : 2 2002 2050 1 TRC OBD I/M 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 2 1996 2050 

I/M VEHICLES : 2 22222 11111111 1 

I/M STRINGENCY : 2 20 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 2 96 

I/M WAIVER RATES : 2 3.0 3.0 

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 3 2 

I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 3 25 

I/M PROGRAM : 3 2002 2050 1 TRC ASM 2525/5015 FINAL 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 3 1978 1995 

I/M VEHICLES : 3 22222 22222222 2 

I/M STRINGENCY : 3 20 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 3 96 

I/M WAIVER RATES : 3 3.0 3.0 

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 4 2 

I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 4 25 

I/M PROGRAM : 4 2002 2050 1 TRC ASM 2525/5015 FINAL 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 4 1996 2050 

I/M VEHICLES : 4 11111 22222222 2 

I/M STRINGENCY : 3 20 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 4 96 

I/M WAIVER RATES : 4 3.0 3.0 

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 5 2 

I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 5 25 

I/M PROGRAM : 5 2002 2050 1 TRC EVAP OBD & GC 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 5 1996 2050 

I/M VEHICLES : 5 22222 11111111 1 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 4 96 

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 6 2 

I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 625 

I/M PROGRAM : 6 2002 2050 1 TRC GC 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 6 1978 1995 

I/M VEHICLES : 6 22222 22222222 2 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 6 96 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 64

Figure II-4 (continued) 

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 7 2 

I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 7 25 

I/M PROGRAM : 7 2002 2050 1 TRC GC 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 7 1996 2050 

I/M VEHICLES : 7 11111 22222222 2 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 7 96 

ANTI-TAMP PROG : 

84 78 16 22222 22222222 2 11 096. 22112222 

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

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 1 2 

I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 1 25 

I/M PROGRAM : 1 1996 2050 1 TRC 2500/IDLE 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 1 1978 2050 

I/M VEHICLES : 1 22222 22222222 2 

I/M STRINGENCY : 1 20 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 1 96 

I/M WAIVER RATES : 1 3.0 3.0 

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 2 2 

I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 2 25 

I/M PROGRAM : 2 1996 2050 1 TRC GC 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 2 1978 2050 

I/M VEHICLES : 2 22222 22222222 2 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 2 96 

ANTI-TAMP PROG : 

86 78 16 22222 22222222 2 11 096. 22112222 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 65

Figure II-6. Collin and Denton Counties I/M Program Characteristics 

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 1 2 

I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 1 25 

I/M PROGRAM : 1 2002 2050 1 TRC OBD I/M 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 1 1996 2050 

I/M VEHICLES : 1 22222 11111111 1 

I/M STRINGENCY : 1 20 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 1 96 

I/M WAIVER RATES : 1 3.0 3.0 

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 2 2 

I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 2 25 

I/M PROGRAM : 2 2002 2050 1 TRC ASM 2525/5015 FINAL 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 2 1978 1995 

I/M VEHICLES : 2 22222 22222222 2 

I/M STRINGENCY : 2 20 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 2 96 

I/M WAIVER RATES : 2 3.0 3.0 

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 3 2 

I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 3 25 

I/M PROGRAM : 3 2002 2050 1 TRC ASM 2525/5015 FINAL 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 3 1996 2050 

I/M VEHICLES : 3 11111 22222222 2 

I/M STRINGENCY : 3 20 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 3 96 

I/M WAIVER RATES : 3 3.0 3.0 

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 4 2 

I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 4 25 

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

I/M MODEL YEARS : 4 1996 2050 

I/M VEHICLES : 4 22222 11111111 1 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 4 96 

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 5 2 

I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 5 25 

I/M PROGRAM : 5 2002 2050 1 TRC GC 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 5 1978 1995 

I/M VEHICLES : 5 22222 22222222 2 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 5 96 

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 5 2 

I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 5 25 

I/M PROGRAM : 5 2002 2050 1 TRC GC 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 5 1996 2050 

I/M VEHICLES : 5 11111 22222222 2 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 5 96 

ANTI-TAMP PROG : 

84 78 16 22222 22222222 2 11 096. 22112222 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 66

Figure II-7. 9-County Texas, 2003 Start Year, I/M Program Characteristics 

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 1 2 

I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 1 25 

I/M PROGRAM : 1 2003 2050 1 TRC OBD I/M 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 1 1996 2050 

I/M VEHICLES : 1 22222 11111111 1 

I/M STRINGENCY : 1 20 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 1 96 

I/M WAIVER RATES : 1 3.0 3.0 

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 2 2 

I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 2 25 

I/M PROGRAM : 2 2003 2050 1 TRC ASM 2525/5015 FINAL 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 2 1978 1995 

I/M VEHICLES : 2 22222 22222222 2 

I/M STRINGENCY : 2 20 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 2 96 

I/M WAIVER RATES : 2 3.0 3.0 

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 3 2 

I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 3 25 

I/M PROGRAM : 3 2003 2050 1 TRC ASM 2525/5015 FINAL 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 3 1996 2050 

I/M VEHICLES : 3 11111 22222222 2 

I/M STRINGENCY : 3 20 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 3 96 

I/M WAIVER RATES : 3 3.0 3.0 

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 4 2 

I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 4 25 

I/M PROGRAM : 4 2003 2050 1 TRC EVAP OBD & GC 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 4 1996 2050 

I/M VEHICLES : 4 22222 11111111 1 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 4 96 

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 5 2 

I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 5 25 

I/M PROGRAM : 5 2003 2050 1 TRC GC 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 5 1978 1995 

I/M VEHICLES : 5 22222 22222222 2 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 5 96 

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 6 2 

I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 6 25 

I/M PROGRAM : 6 2003 2050 1 TRC GC 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 6 1996 2050 

I/M VEHICLES : 6 11111 22222222 2 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 6 96 

ANTI-TAMP PROG : 

84 78 16 22222 22222222 2 11 096. 22112222 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 67

Figure II-8. Austin Area I/M Program Characteristics 

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 1 2 

I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 1 25 

I/M PROGRAM : 1 2005 2050 1 TRC OBD I/M 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 1 1996 2050 

I/M VEHICLES : 1 22222 11111111 1 

I/M STRINGENCY : 1 20 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 1 96 

I/M WAIVER RATES : 1 3.0 3.0 

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 2 2 

I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 2 25 

I/M PROGRAM : 2 2005 2050 1 TRC 2500/IDLE 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 2 1978 1995 

I/M VEHICLES : 2 22222 22222222 2 

I/M STRINGENCY : 2 20 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 2 96 

I/M WAIVER RATES : 2 3.0 3.0 

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 3 2 

I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 3 25 

I/M PROGRAM : 3 2005 2050 1 TRC 2500/IDLE 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 3 1996 2050 

I/M VEHICLES : 3 11111 22222222 2 

I/M STRINGENCY : 3 20 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 3 96 

I/M WAIVER RATES : 3 3.0 3.0 

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 4 2 

I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 4 25 

I/M PROGRAM : 4 2005 2050 1 TRC EVAP OBD & GC 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 4 1996 2050 

I/M VEHICLES : 4 22222 11111111 1 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 4 96 

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 5 2 

I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 5 25 

I/M PROGRAM : 5 2005 2050 1 TRC GC 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 5 1978 1995 

I/M VEHICLES : 5 22222 22222222 2 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 5 96 

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 6 2 

I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 6 25 

I/M PROGRAM : 6 2005 2050 1 TRC GC 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 6 1996 2050 

I/M VEHICLES : 6 11111 22222222 2 

I/M COMPLIANCE : 6 96 

ANTI-TAMP PROG : 

84 78 16 22222 22222222 2 11 096. 22112222 
PECHAN May 2005 

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

b. Gasoline Programs 

The control programs modeled in the SMOKE MOBILE6 input files included the effects of 

several gasoline programs. Reformulated gasoline was modeled in the St. Louis, Missouri; 

Houston, Texas; and Dallas, Texas ozone nonattainment areas. The specific counties modeled 

with Federal reformulated gasoline are the same as those modeled with this program in the 

NONROAD model runs, as shown in Table II-11. No changes were expected in oxygenated fuel 

programs or inputs. Therefore, the MOBILE6 oxygenated fuel input parameters did not change 

from the 2002 base year modeling. 

State-run low RVP gasoline control programs are in place in three of the CENRAP States: 

Kansas, Missouri, and Texas. These low RVP programs are not statewide, but are in specific 

counties. The Kansas and Missouri programs are in 1-hour ozone maintenance areas. The Texas 

program covers a broader area of the State. In addition to these State low RVP programs, the 

six-parish Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment area is subject to a 7.8 psi RVP maximum during 

the ozone season months, as regulated by the Federal RVP program for southern ozone 

nonattainment areas. Descriptions of the individual State low RVP programs are given below. 

Note that these RVP limits were applied to the nonroad gasoline engines covered in the 

NONROAD model, as well as onroad vehicles, for the counties and months discussed below, 

and this information was summarized in Table II-12. 

i. Kansas 

The Kansas low RVP program is specified under Section 28-19-719 “Fuel Volatility” of the 

Kansas Air Quality Regulations and applies in Johnson and Wyandotte Counties. These two 

counties are part of the Kansas City ozone maintenance area. This regulation specifies that 

gasoline dispensed for use in motor vehicles in Johnson and Wyandotte Counties not exceed an 

RVP of 7.0 pounds per square inch (psi). Gasoline containing between 9 and 10 percent ethanol 

by volume is limited to an RVP of 8.0 psi. These regulations are in effect from June 1 through 

September 15 of each year, starting in 2001. To account for the time needed for individual 

gasoline stations to comply with these limits, the low RVP program is modeled from May 

through September in the MOBILE6 SMOKE input files. 

ii. Missouri 

The Missouri low RVP program is specified under Section 10-2.330 “Control of Gasoline Reid 

Vapor Pressure” of the Missouri Code of State Regulations for the Air Conservation 

Commission and applies in Clay, Platte, and Jackson Counties. These counties are part of the 

Kansas City ozone maintenance area. This regulation specifies that gasoline dispensed for use in 

motor vehicles in Clay, Platte, and Jackson Counties not exceed an RVP of 7.0 psi. Gasoline 

containing between 9 and 10 percent ethanol by volume is limited to an RVP of 8.0 psi. These 

regulations are in effect from June 1 through September 15 of each year, starting in 2001. To 

account for the time needed for individual gasoline stations to comply with these limits, the low 

RVP program is modeled from May through September in the MOBILE6 SMOKE input files. 
PECHAN May 2005 

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

iii. Texas 

The Texas low RVP program is specified under Section 114.301 through 114.309 “Low 

Emission Fuels, Division 1: Gasoline Volatility” of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation 

Commission regulations and applies in a 95-county area of eastern Texas. This area excludes the 

eastern Texas counties in the Dallas and Houston area that are included in the Federal 

reformulated gasoline program. This regulation specifies that gasoline dispensed for use in the 

95 affected counties not exceed an RVP of 7.8 psi. These regulations are in effect at gasoline 

dispensing facilities from June 1 through October 1 of each year, beginning in 2001. To account 

for the time needed for individual gasoline stations to comply with these limits, the low RVP 

program is modeled from May through September in the MOBILE6 SMOKE input files. 

A separate low RVP program is in place in El Paso County. Under this program, gasoline 

dispensed in El Paso County is limited to an RVP of 7.0 psi from June 1 through September 16. 

This program began in 1996. To account for the time needed for individual gasoline stations to 

comply with these limits, the low RVP program is modeled from May through September in the 

MOBILE6 SMOKE input files. 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 70

[This page intentionally left blank.] 
PECHAN May 2005 

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

CHAPTER III. DEVELOPMENT OF DATA FOR AREAS 

OUTSIDE OF THE CENRAP STATES 

A. WRAP 

The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) includes all of the States west of the CENRAP 

region. WRAP’s current schedule for preparing new emission projections for its States did not 

include any new information by March 2005, so the previous WRAP 2018 emission forecasts 

will be used as the basis for CENRAP’s projection year emissions modeling. The existing 

WRAP 2018 emission forecasts are made from a 1996 base year. The CENRAP emission 

modelers already have access to these WRAP emission inventory projection files, so Pechan did 

not expend any further effort in preparing or modifying the WRAP emission projection data. 

B. VISTAS 

The Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) includes the 

States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, 

Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. VISTAS had recently completed 2018 emission 

projections for its States in March 2005. VISTAS agreed that CENRAP may use the 2018 

SMOKE-ready emission modeling files that VISTAS developed for its States once all QA has 

been completed on these files. Because the CENRAP emission modelers are the same as those 

performing the emission modeling for VISTAS, Pechan did not expend any further effort in 

preparing or modifying the VISTAS emission inventory. 

For the EGU sector, CENRAP determined that it would be best to use a consistent IPM data set 

for all of the non-WRAP States. Therefore, for the EGU sector, the VISTAS EGU data will be 

replaced by the EGU data from the summer 2005 IPM projections. 

C. MRPO 

The Midwest Regional Planning Organization (MRPO) includes the States of Illinois, Indiana, 

Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Pechan developed growth factors for the point and area source 

emissions for the MRPO States as discussed in section II.A of this document. Pechan obtained 

the mobile source inputs for the MRPO States from 2018 modeling prepared by VISTAS, with 

the permission of both VISTAS and MRPO. These are the inputs that were used in VISTAS 

2018 modeling for these States, with inputs provided by MRPO States. Pechan prepared point 

and area source control factors, based on projection year modeling we had prepared earlier for 

MRPO. The emission inventory file for 2018 for the NONROAD model categories was based 

on interpolating the 2015 and 2020 nonroad emission inventories prepared by EPA in support of 

the Clean Air Interstate Rule in 2004 (EPA, 2004c). Emissions from the MRPO States for the 

EGU sector will be obtained by CENRAP from the summer 2005 IPM runs. 
PECHAN May 2005 

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

D. MANE-VU 

The Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) MRPO includes the States of 

Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New 

York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont, and the District of Columbia. For the MANEVU States, Pechan used the point and area source growth factors developed for the MRPO States 

as discussed in section II.A of this document. Pechan obtained the mobile source inputs for the 

MANE-VU States from the 2018 modeling prepared by VISTAS, as discussed above for MRPO. 

These are the inputs that were used in VISTAS 2018 modeling for the MANE-VU States. 

Pechan prepared point and area source control factors, based on projection year modeling we had 

prepared earlier for MRPO that include the MANE-VU States. The emission inventory file for 

2018 for the NONROAD model categories was based on interpolating the 2015 and 2020 

nonroad emission inventories prepared by EPA in support of the Clean Air Interstate Rule in 

2004 (EPA, 2004c). Emissions from the MRPO States for the EGU sector will be obtained by 

CENRAP from the summer 2005 IPM runs. 

E. CANADA 

Available emission data sets for Canada are currently limited to historical emission years--1995 

and 2000. EPA and LADCO/MRPO are using these inventories to estimate current and future 

year emissions for these provinces. It is our understanding that LADCO is using/planning to use 

1995 point source emission estimates and 2000 onroad/off-road/area source emission estimates 

to estimate Canadian emissions for their modeling domain. (The 2000 point source emissions 

data are not being used because of confidentiality limitations.) The 2000 Canadian emission data 

sets for the three nonproprietary sectors (non-point/area, nonroad mobile, and onroad mobile) are 

available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/canada.html#data. This file contains information 

in both dBaseIV and SMOKE IDA format. 

While we know that Environment Canada compiles emission projections on a regular basis to 

support the development of Federal and provincial emission control strategies, it is not expected 

that Environment Canada would be able to provide growth and control factors on a timely basis 

for this CENRAP project. Pechan recommended that CENRAP use the base year 1995 and 2000 

Canadian emissions data without adjustments for all future year model simulations. The 

CENRAP emission modelers already have access to these Canadian emission inventory files, so 

Pechan did not expend any further effort in preparing or modifying the Canadian emission 

inventory. 

F. MEXICO 

The emissions inventory base year for Mexico is for 1999, from the BRAVO study. Inventories 

for the years 2002 and 2012 were also estimated in order to understand how growth and existing 

control strategies may impact future emissions. Currently, the 1999 emission inventory is 

available, but the emission databases for the other years are not. Moreover, the point source 

database will most likely be proprietary, and could require signing a non-disclosure agreement 

for access. Pechan has recommended, and CENRAP has agreed, that the 1999 Mexican 

emission database be used as is for the CENRAP 2018 modeling, due to the uncertainty inherent 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 73

in applying growth and control factors to this inventory. The CENRAP emission modelers 

already have access to these Mexican emission inventory files, so Pechan did not expend any 

further effort in preparing or modifying the 1999 Mexican emission inventory. 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 74

[This page intentionally left blank.] 
PECHAN May 2005 

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

CHAPTER IV. ISSUES OF CONCERN 

Due to the timing of the growth and control factor development under this project, some 

adjustments may need to be made in the future to the factors developed under this project. As 

the CENRAP 2002 emission inventory continues to be revised, as well as the base year 

inventories for the other RPOs, issues may arise related to matching the growth and control 

factors to a revised base year inventory. In cases where SCCs are changed, added to, or deleted 

from the base year inventory, the growth and control factors may no longer match correctly to 

the base year inventory. In these cases, the projection year inventories will be incorrect. 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 76

[This page intentionally left blank.] 
PECHAN May 2005 

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

CHAPTER V. REFERENCES 

Alpine, 2004: Alpine Geophysics, “Technical Memorandum: Control Packet Development and 

Data Sources, Burnsville, NC, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, 

(www.epa.gov/interstateairquality), July 14, 2004. 

CENRAP, 2005: CENRAP Visibility Modeling, Interim 2002 Emissions QA (scen02a_36), 

“NonCENRAP States Inventory SMOKE Input Files,” Riverside, CA; weblink: 

http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/cenrap/scen02a_36.shtml. last updated February 15, 2005. 

DOE, 2004: U.S. Department of Energy, Annual Energy Outlook 2004, with Projections 

through 2025, DOE/EIA-0383(2004), Energy Information Administration, Office of 

Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, Washington, DC, January 2004. 

DOE, 2005: Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 

2005 With Projections to 2025, DOE/EIA-0383(2005), February 2005. 

EPA, 1998: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Locomotive Emission Standards, 

Regulatory Support Document,” Office of Mobile Sources, Ann Arbor, MI, April 1998. 

EPA, 1999: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control 

of Emissions from Marine Diesel Engines,” EPA420-R-99-026, Office of Mobile Sources, 

Ann Arbor, MI, November 1999. 

EPA, 2002: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Final Regulatory Support Document: 

Control of Emissions from Unregulated Nonroad Engines,” EPA420-R-02-022, Office of 

Mobile Sources, Ann Arbor, MI, September 2002. 

EPA, 2003: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Final Regulatory Support Document: 

Control of Emissions from New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 

Liters per Cylinder,” EPA420-R-03-004, Office of Mobile Sources, Ann Arbor, MI, 

January 2003. 

EPA, 2004a: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Draft NONROAD2004, [Computer 

software], Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Ann Arbor, MI, available May 21, 

2004 at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/nonroadmdl.htm 

EPA, 2004b: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Final Regulatory Analysis: Control of 

Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines,” EPA420-R-04-007, Office of Mobile Sources, 

Ann Arbor, MI, May 2004. 

EPA, 2004c: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Clean Air Interstate Rule Emissions 

Inventory Technical Support Document,” available from 

http://www.epa.gov/CAIR/pdfs/finaltech01.pdf, March 4, 2005. 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 78

EPA, 2005: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, data compiled in support of 2002 and 

previous versions of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI), 2002 NEI documentation 

available from http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2002inventory.html, web page last 

updated March 4, 2005. 

ERS, 2004: Economic Research Service, “February 2004, USDA Agricultural Baseline, 

Projection Tables to 2013,” WAOB-2004-1, TAB06.WK1, TAB21-27.WK1, Washington, 

D.C., February 2004. 

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

September 2002. 

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

2003. 

Houyoux, 2004: Houyoux, M., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, REMI ver 5.5 

baseline.zip [Electronic File], Emission Factor and Inventory Group, Emissions, 

Monitoring, and Analysis Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Research Triangle Park, NC, March 2, 2004. 

Kansas, 2004: State of Kansas, Division of the Budget, "Kansas Population Projections," Topeka, 

Kansas, accessed December, 2004 from 

http://da.state.ks.us/budget/files/FY2006/Kansas_Population_Projections_through_2027.xls. 

LPDC, 2003: Louisiana Population Data Center, "LA Population Projections to 2020," Baton 

Rouge, Louisiana, available for download from http://www.lapop.lsu.edu/products.html, 

web page last updated October, 2003. 

MNPLAN, 2002: Minnesota Planning (Agency), Minnesota State Demographic Center, 

"Minnesota Population Projections: 2000-2030," St. Paul, Minnesota, available from 

http://server.admin.state.mn.us/resource.html?Id=3124#viewer, October, 2002. 

MO, 1999: State of Missouri, Office of Administration, "Projections of the Population by Age 

and Sex: 1990 to 2025," Jefferson City, MO, available from 

http://www.oa.mo.gov/bp/tables02.htm, May 1999. 

Mullen and Neumann, 2004: “Documentation of 2003 VMT Projection Methodology, EPA 

Contract No. 68-W-02-048, WA B-41,” technical memorandum from Maureen Mullen, 

E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. and Jim Neumann, Industrial Economics, Incorporated to 

Jim DeMocker, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAR/OPAR, March 4, 2004. 

ODOC, 2002: Oklahoma Department of Commerce, "Population Projections for the State, 

Metropolitan Areas, and Counties: 2000-2030," Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, available from 

http://www.okcommerce.gov/index.php?option=com_docman&task=view_category&Item

id=99&subcat=45&catid=64&limitstart=0&limit=20, November, 2002. 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 79

Omary, 2005: Mohammed Omary, University of California Riverside, “scc_nh_expanded1.txt,” 

[Electronic file], transmitted to Lee Warden, Oklahoma Department of Environmental 

Quality, February 23, 2005. 

Pechan, 2001. E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., “Control Measure Development Support – 

Analysis of Ozone Transport Commission Model Rules,” Final Report prepared for Ozone 

Transport Commission, March 31, 2001. 

Pechan, 2002. E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., “Evaluation of U.S. Measures to Reduce 

Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds from the Solvent Sector,” Final Report 

prepared for Environment Canada, May 31, 2002. 

Pechan, 2004. E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., “EGAS 5.0 Regression Analyses, Final 

Technical Memorandum,” available from 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/models/EGAS_regression_memo.pdf, August 6, 2004.

Pechan, 2005a. E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., “Background Information on Versions 4.0 and 

5.0 of the Economic Growth Analysis System (EGAS), Technical Memorandum,” 

prepared for Central Regional Air Planning Association, January 3, 2005. 

Pechan, 2005b: E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., “NONROAD Model Growth Rates for 

CENRAP,” Draft Technical Memorandum prepared by Pechan for Central Regional Air 

Planning Association, February 1, 2005. 

Pechan and CEP, 2005: E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. and Carolina Environmental Program, 

“Consolidation of Emissions Inventories (Schedule 9; Work Item 3) Draft,” prepared for 

Central Regional Air Planning Association, January 4, 2005. 

REMI, 1997: Regional Economic Models, Inc., “Model Documentation for the REMI EDFS-14 

Forecasing Simulation Model,” REMI Reference Set, Volume 1, March 1997. 

STI, 2004: Sonoma Technology, Inc., “Emission Inventory Development for Mobile Sources 

and Agricultural Dust Sources for the Central States, Draft Final Report,” Prepared by 

STI for Central States Air Resource Agencies and Central Regional Air Planning 

Association, September 22, 2004. 

SLI, 2004: State Library of Iowa, State Data Center of Iowa (projections prepared by Woods 

and Poole Economics, Inc.), "Projections of Total Population for U.S., Iowa, and its 

Counties: 2005-2030," accessed December, 2004 from 

http://www.silo.lib.ia.us/specializedservices/datacenter/datatables/CountyAll/co2004populationprojections20002030.xls. 

TCEQ, 2004: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, “Revisions to the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Control of Ozone Pollution – 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document 80

Houston/Galveston/Brazoria Ozone Nonattainment Area,” Chapter 3, Part 1, Austin, Texas, 

Adopted December 1, 2004 (http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/sips/june2004hgb. 

TXSDC, 2004: Texas State Data Center and Office of the State Demographer, Institute for 

Demographic and Socioeconomic Research,"2004 Population Projections- Texas Counties 

(use of migration scenario 0.5 projections)," College of Business, University of Texas at 

San Antonio, available from http://txsdc.utsa.edu/tpepp/2004projections/, June 2004. 

UALR, 2003: University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Institute for Economic Advancement, 

"Arkansas 2003-2027 County and State Population Projections," Little Rock, Arkansas, 

available from http://www.aiea.ualr.edu/research/demographic/population/proj2027.xls, 

July 8, 2003. 

UNE, 2002: University of Nebraska, Bureau of Business Research, “Nebraska County 

Population Projection,” Lincoln, Nebraska, http://info.neded.org/stathand/bsect12.htm, 

web page last updated June, 2002. 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document

PECHAN

5528-B Hempstead Way 

Springfield, VA 22151 

703-813-6700 telephone 

703-813-6729 facsimile 

3622 Lyckan Parkway 

Suite 2002 

Durham, NC 27707 

919-493-3144 telephone 

919-493-3182 facsimile 

P.O. Box 1345 

El Dorado, CA 95623 

530-295-2995 telephone 

530-295-2999 facsimile 

APPENDIX A 

METHODS FOR DEVELOPMENT 

OF GROWTH AND CONTROL 

INPUTS FOR 2018 EMISSIONS

(SCHEDULES 3 AND 9)

DRAFT

Prepared for: 

Central Regional Air Planning Association 

(CENRAP) 

10005 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite C 

Oklahoma City, OK 73159 

Prepared by: 

E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. 

5528-B Hempstead Way 

Springfield, VA 22151 

January 20, 2005 

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

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

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

CONTENTS 

Page

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

CHAPTER II. METHODS FOR THE CENRAP REGION...................................................... A-3 

 A. CONTROL FACTOR DEVELOPMENT METHODS AND DATA 

 SOURCES........................................................................................................... A-3 

 1. Non-EGU Point Sources......................................................................... A-3 

 2. Area Sources ........................................................................................... A-4 

 3. EGU Point Sources ................................................................................. A-4 

 4. Nonroad Sources..................................................................................... A-5 

 5. Onroad Sources....................................................................................... A-6 

 B. GROWTH FACTOR DEVELOPMENT METHODS AND DATA 

 SOURCES........................................................................................................... A-6 

 1. Non-EGU Point Sources and Area Sources (EGAS).............................. A-6 

 2. EGU Point Sources ................................................................................. A-7 

 3. Nonroad Sources..................................................................................... A-9 

 4. VMT for Onroad Sources ....................................................................... A-9 

CHAPTER III. METHODS FOR AREAS OUTSIDE OF THE CENRAP REGION ............ A-11 

 A. CANADIAN EMISSION ESTIMATES .......................................................... A-11 

 B. MEXICAN EMISSION ESTIMATES............................................................. A-11 

 C. WRAP EMISSION ESTIMATES .................................................................... A-12 

 D. VISTAS EMISSION ESTIMATES.................................................................. A-12 

 E. MRPO PROJECTIONS.................................................................................... A-12 

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

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

[This page intentionally left blank.] 
PECHAN May 2005 

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

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 

The purpose of this project is to prepare emission growth and control factors that can be applied 

to the Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP) 2002 base year emission inventory 

to obtain a 2018 emissions inventory for the CENRAP region. The CENRAP region includes the 

States and Tribal areas of Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, 

Oklahoma, and Texas. In addition to the CENRAP States, additional factors will be compiled 

under this project to include the entire CENRAP modeling domain. This will include projected 

emissions data or projection year growth and control factor data from the other Regional 

Planning Organizations (RPOs), Canada, and Mexico. All data products will be prepared in 

SMOKE-compatible format. 

These projection year growth and control factor data will be used to support air quality modeling 

and State Implementation Plan (SIP) development and implementation activities for the regional 

haze rule and fine particulate matter (PM) and ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). The data will be applicable to all source categories and pollutants included in the 

CENRAP 2002 emission inventory. This includes the following pollutants: sulfur oxides (SOx), 

oxides of nitrogen (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia 

(NH3), and particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 and 2.5 

micrometers (i.e., primary PM10 and PM2.5). 

This Methods Document explains the data sources that E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. (Pechan) 

plans to use and the procedures Pechan will follow in developing the necessary growth and 

control data for this project. Chapter II of this document presents Pechan’s planned methods for 

developing control factors and growth factors for the CENRAP States. The methods are 

presented separately for each of the major source categories. Chapter III of this document 

presents the data sources and methods that Pechan will use for developing the data for areas 

outside of the CENRAP States, including other RPOs and Canada and Mexico. References are 

included in Chapter IV. 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document A-2

[This page intentionally left blank.] 
PECHAN May 2005 

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

CHAPTER II. METHODS FOR THE CENRAP REGION 

A. CONTROL FACTOR DEVELOPMENT METHODS AND DATA 

SOURCES 

1. Non-EGU Point Sources 

a. Federal Controls 

For non-electricity generating unit (EGU) point sources, the analysis of Federal controls will 

focus on maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards. Numerous MACT 

emission standards have been promulgated since 1990, and are designed to control emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from stationary sources. Many of the MACT standards are 

expected to produce associated VOC emission reductions, so the 2018 control factors need to 

capture the expected effects of post-2002 MACT standards. 

Pechan prepared criteria pollutant-specific emission control factors for various projection years 

(including 2018) for the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) during late 2004. 

The procedure for developing the MACT standard-associated control factors included identifying 

source categories and associated Source Classification Codes (SCCs) for each MACT standard 

having a post-2002 compliance date for existing sources. The control factors for most MACT 

categories are based on information found in the preamble to the final rule of each MACT 

subpart as published in the Federal Register. Pechan plans to circulate this table of control 

factors to the CENRAP States for review before using this table to develop non-EGU point 

source control factors for the CENRAP States. 

b. State/Local Controls 

CENRAP States will be surveyed to gather information on control programs for the 2018 

inventory. The general approach is to use State contacts and information for 1-hour ozone and 

PM10 SIPs to determine where post-2002 emission reductions are expected. Two States where 

we expect there to be post-2002 non-EGU point source emission reductions include Texas and 

Missouri. For Texas, it is expected that control factors will be based on the control factor file 

developed by Pechan during 2001 for the prior Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) 

emission forecast to 2018, with updates to a 2002 base year and to reflect recent SIP updates 

(Houston-Galveston area). Another possible way to approach this is to obtain the most recent 

Texas control factor file from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and 

incorporate it into the CENRAP State control factor database. Key issues in determining 

whether using any new Texas CEQ control factor files in this analysis is advisable include 

whether this file is for a 2002 base year inventory, and how the reductions in highly reactive 

VOCs that are required in the Houston-Galveston area SIP are treated in 2002 and any forecast 

years. 

The portion of eastern Missouri that is within the fine grid is affected by the NOx SIP Call, so 

controls would be expected to be added in those counties to reduce point source NOx emissions 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document A-4

between 2002 and 2018. It appears to us that the associated Missouri rule affects NOx emissions 

from EGUs but not some of the non-EGU source categories like industrial boilers/turbines, 

stationary internal combustion engines, and cement kilns that are regulated in other NOx SIP Call 

affected States. Rules that potentially affect the non-EGU source categories appear to be under 

development. Pechan plans to inquire with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources to 

determine whether control factors for these non-EGU categories should be included in the 2018 

control factor file. The number of affected sources appears to be small enough that sourcespecific control factors can be developed. 

We can also survey the other CENRAP States (besides Texas and Missouri) to determine 

whether these are State/local regulations that would be expected to provide post-2002 emissions 

reductions. If there are, pollutant-specific control factors will be developed for those geographic 

areas by SCC. 

2. Area Sources 

For the CENRAP States, Pechan will contact each State to obtain information for any on-thebooks controls affecting non-EGU point and area sources from 2002 to 2018. Pechan will also 

compile information for national controls affecting these sources from EPA regulatory support 

documents. Based on the analyses performed by Pechan for other RPOs, the Federal controls for 

which area source control factors are expected to be developed is limited to residential wood 

combustion. For this analysis, a 20-year estimated lifetime for woodstoves and fireplace inserts 

will be used along with the SCC-specific growth factors, and emission factor ratios by SCC, to 

account for the replacement of retired woodstoves that emit at pre-new source performance 

standard levels, with new wood burning equipment, that would be catalyst-equipped. Emission 

factor ratios will be pollutant-specific. 

Federal rules affecting VOC solvent emissions such as those from consumer products and 

architectural and industrial maintenance coatings are expected to be incorporated in the 2002 

emission databases, so no post-2002 emission rate reductions are expected for these categories. 

3. EGU Point Sources 

Data sources to be used for developing EGU control factors include CENRAP’s 2002 nine State 

point source National Emissions Inventory (NEI) input format (NIF) data files (prepared by 

Pechan and Carolina Environmental Program and delivered on December 10, 2004), the 

Workgroup-selected growth factors, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 

2020 Integrated Planning Model (IPM) Base and Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Control postprocessed scenario data files (developed by Pechan for EPA from IPM parsed output files). 

Because 2018 IPM data from two RPOs are unavailable, 2020 data will be used as a surrogate 

(with CENRAP’s agreement). This should pose no significant problem since no known pollutant 

regulations are in effect in 2020 and not 2018. The 2020 Base and Control (CAIR) postprocessed IPM scenario data files include annual emission values for seven pollutants – sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), NOx, CO, VOC, NH3, primary PM10, and primary PM2.5 – as well as annual heat 

input; only SO2, NOx, and heat input are provided in the initial IPM files; the other emissions, 

along with throughput, were developed during the post-processing phase. Because EPA required 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document A-5

that Pechan use an older emission factor file from 2003, and new NH3 emissions factors for 

EGUs were developed in Spring 2004, the post-processed files delivered to EPA included 

ammonia emissions developed using the old emission factors; as agreed to in a January 10th

conference call, Pechan will recalculate these emissions using the new NH3 emissions factors. 

For EGUs in the CENRAP States and in the 2020 IPM Base Case and CAIR post-processed data 

files, Pechan will provide growth and control factors in SMOKE format. The control factors will 

be provided in SMOKE CONTROL (Table 8.66 in the SMOKE v2.1 User’s Manual) formatted 

files. 

Each EGU record in both the 2020 Base and Control Cases will be ORISPL-BLRID matched 

into the EGU extract of the CENRAP NIF files (if at all possible) to obtain the FIPS State and 

county, plant ID, and point ID (where a point is generally equivalent to a boiler) as needed. 

Since the IPM scenarios only have one SCC per boiler, the emissions for all SCCs at a given 

point in CENRAP will be assigned to the SCC with the largest emissions. 

The control factor (cf) for each 2020 Base and Control Case EGU unit will be calculated as 

follows for each of the seven pollutant emissions: 

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

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

the largest emissions). 

The IPM units that operate in 2020 but either are not in the 2002 CENRAP data (i.e., generic or 

committed/planned units) or could not be matched, will not be included in the SMOKE 

CONTROL formatted files because no control factors can be calculated. Yet, they have 

emissions that need to be accounted for. Based on a conversation with EPA’s Marc Houyoux, a 

principal developer of SMOKE, it would be best for Pechan to provide the projected emissions 

for those units in either an Excel file or a SMOKE IDA (Table 8.45 in the SMOKE v2.1 User’s 

Manual) point source formatted file. 

4. Nonroad Sources 

Pechan will contact CENRAP States to determine whether each State has specific nonroad 

equipment regulations beyond the Federal engine standards that are expected to be in place by 

2018. In cases where State regulations do exist, Pechan will determine the affected SCCs and 

pollutants, and will compile or develop estimates of the percent emission reduction of the rule in 

2018. To date, Pechan has determined that the States of Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, 

and Oklahoma do not have additional air requirements for nonroad sources. 

Pechan has compiled estimates of control effectiveness for 2018 for Federal regulations affecting 

diesel locomotives and commercial marine engines. This information is available from the 

relevant Regulatory Support Documents prepared by EPA (EPA, 1998; EPA, 1999; EPA, 2003). 

These regulations include engine exhaust standards, as well as diesel fuel sulfur limits that will 

reduce SO2 and PM emissions. For their 2003 aircraft engine NOx emission standards, EPA did 

not prepare emission reduction estimates because any such reductions were believed to be 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document A-6

modest (e.g., 94 percent of aircraft engines are currently meeting or exceeding these standards). 

Therefore, Pechan does not propose to account for aircraft emission reductions from these 

standards for this analysis. 

In running the NONROAD2004 model, all Federal engine standards are accounted for, with the 

exception of evaporative emission standards for large spark-ignition and land-based recreational 

gasoline equipment. The evaporative standards for recreational equipment only affect 

permeation emissions, which are not currently included in NONROAD2004. As such, baseline 

emissions and reductions will not be modeled. The large spark ignition standards affect a subset 

of evaporative emissions for engines of a specified horsepower (EPA, 2002). Under contract to 

LADCO, Pechan has developed estimates of SCC-specific emission reductions for this standard, 

which can be applied to the NONROAD model output as a post-processing step. 

5. Onroad Sources 

For the onroad sources, control measures are defined in terms of inputs to the SMOKE 

MOBILE6 files rather than a control factors file. These input files will incorporate all 

promulgated Federal control programs, including the heavy-duty diesel (2007) engine standard 

and low sulfur diesel fuel as well as the Tier 2 emission standards and low sulfur gasoline 

program. Federal control programs are generally modeled through the MOBILE6 defaults, with 

no specific user input commands necessary. Reformulated gasoline will be modeled in the 

following nonattainment areas: St. Louis (4 Missouri counties plus St. Louis City), Dallas-Fort 

Worth (4 counties), and Houston-Galveston (8 counties). 

Pechan will contact each of the CENRAP State contacts to determine whether any changes in 

fuel programs or inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs, from those modeled in the 

CENRAP 2002 emission inventory, are expected to take place by 2018. Pechan will also 

determine from these contacts whether any other area-specific control programs are planned. If 

any programs are planned that cannot be modeled with MOBILE6 (e.g., transportation control 

measures), Pechan either will develop control factors that can be applied by the emission 

modelers to the resulting onroad emissions or will adjust the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) 

growth factors to account for the control measure, depending upon which approach is appropriate 

for the specific measure. 

B. GROWTH FACTOR DEVELOPMENT METHODS AND DATA 

SOURCES 

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

Pechan will develop emission activity growth data for the CENRAP States using a combination 

of approaches/data sources. For the most part, Pechan will rely on growth factors that are 

produced by EPA’s Economic Growth Analysis System (EGAS). Under Task 5, Pechan 

prepared a Technical Memorandum comparing EGAS Versions 4.0 and 5.0 (Pechan, 2005). 

In preparing the Task 5 memorandum, Pechan reviewed the indicators selected as default 

emission activity growth surrogates in EGAS 4.0 and 5.0 for the highest-emitting point and 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document A-7

nonpoint SCCs in the CENRAP base year inventory. Pechan then reviewed alternative data 

sources for the availability of better growth surrogates. Based on this review, Pechan identified 

alternative growth indicator recommendations for a number of important CENRAP source 

categories (e.g., use of Annual Energy Outlook projections for oil and gas production SCCs). In 

addition, Pechan identified alternatives to the State-level population projections from EGAS (i.e., 

county-level population projections prepared by government agencies/universities in each 

CENRAP State). 

Chapter III of the Task 5 memorandum details Pechan's recommendations for the methods and 

data sources to use in developing stationary point and nonpoint (area) source growth factors for 

the CENRAP States. Pechan will prepare emission activity growth data for the stationary source 

emission sources in the CENRAP States that reflects CENRAP feedback on the recommended 

methods and data sources that are outlined in this chapter. 

2. EGU Point Sources 

a. Data Sources/Quality Assurance Issues 

Data sources to be used to calculate EGU growth factors include EPA’s 2020 IPM Base postprocessed scenario data file (developed by Pechan for EPA from IPM parsed output files), EPA’s 

2002 EGU inventory, and EGAS 5 EGU 2020 growth factors. Reasons for these choices are 

explained below. 

Pechan will compare the CENRAP nine State-SCC level (2002 to 2020) EGAS 5 growth factors 

with growth factors calculated as throughput (fuel consumption) ratios derived from EPA’s 2020 

Base Case Scenario and the 2002 EGU inventory developed for EPA (and based on the 

Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) Form EIA-767 and EPA’s 

Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD)’s Emission Tracking System/ Continuous Emissions 

Monitoring (ETS/CEM) reported data). 

For the IPM-based growth factor development, Pechan originally planned to use the EGUs 

extracted from the CENRAP data files for the 2002 throughput, but found that several States did 

not report throughput. We tried to fill in missing values by back calculating throughput using 

CENRAP reported CO emissions (which would be uncontrolled, unlike SO2 and NOx; and larger 

in magnitude than VOC) and its emissions factor (or the SCC-based EPA-approved uncontrolled 

emission factor for CO if no emission factor was included in the CENRAP files). However, 

from a check of some CENRAP records with both throughput and CO reported, it was found that 

the back-calculated throughput was frequently different from the reported throughput (i.e., had a 

greater than ten percent difference). 

An additional issue with using the CENRAP data files is that we first broadly defined EGUs as 

those records with a positive ORISPL or SIC=4911, 4932, or 4939, and SCCs beginning with 

101 or 201. However, we found several plants “missing” from the CENRAP EGU data that 

were in either the EIA-767 or ETS/CEM data files; these plants may be in the CENRAP data 

files, but not in our EGU extract. Also, some sets of records with ORISPLs and SCCs beginning 

with 101 or 201 did not have any boiler IDs included in the data files and/or some had some 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document A-8

boiler IDs identified and some not (and some seemingly duplicated). Additionally, we found 

some discrepant ORISPLs. 

Pechan also compared total SO2, NOx, and CO emissions for each of the nine CENRAP States 

from the 2002 Inventory and the all inclusive CENRAP EGU extract. In most cases, the 2002 

EGU inventory emission totals were greater. All three pollutant emissions are within a 10 

percent difference for three States (Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska); NOx is within a 10 percent 

difference for five more States (Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Texas); and SO2 is 

within an 11 percent difference for three more States (Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Texas); 

Arkansas’ emissions for all three pollutants were not close, perhaps because some plant data in 

the CENRAP files were missing, some emissions may be reversed, etc. 

Pechan had not anticipated nor allotted hours for performing quality assurance (QA) on the 

CENRAP data, but found it necessary to do so to some extent to determine whether the data 

could be used for throughput. To avoid further expenditure of hours, we determined that it 

would be best to use the 2002 EPA EGU Inventory for the 2002 throughput data, rather than the 

CENRAP data files. Please note that we are not stating that all nine of the CENRAP States have 

all or any of the issues addressed above, but that enough of them did that we were not able to 

either use the reported throughput or calculated throughput at the State-SCC level with a high 

degree of confidence. 

b. Growth Factor Calculation 

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

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

aggregate), 

where: 

the 2020 IPM Base Case throughput is derived from the given heat input and a default 

fuel heat content; and 

the 2002 EGU inventory throughput is reported data if the boiler is included in the EIA767, and is derived from the given heat input and a default fuel heat content if it is not in 

the EIA-767 but is in the ETS/CEM data file. 

Pechan will provide an Excel data file which will include the nine State-SCC level records and 

their EGAS 5 and IPM-based growth factors for 2020 as well as a Technical Memorandum that 

includes a recommendation and rationale for the proposed growth factor methodology. 

A summary report of the changes in 2018 IPM inputs requested by the Visibility Improvement – 

State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) and the Midwest Regional Planning 

Organization (MRPO) was provided to Pechan, along with a response to a follow-up question. If 

VISTAS and MRPO approve the release of this information, with CENRAP’s agreement, it will 

be included in the final report and will serve as the part of the deliverable Technical 

Memorandum that presents a summary of the changes made to IPM inputs by the other RPOs. 
PECHAN May 2005 

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

The growth factors (whose methodology will be determined by the CENRAP Workgroup) from 

Task 6 will be provided in SMOKE PROJECTION format (Table 8.70 in the SMOKE v2.1 

User’s Manual). 

3. Nonroad Sources 

For the aircraft, commercial marine vessel and locomotive categories, Pechan will develop 

emission activity growth data for the CENRAP States using EGAS. Pechan’s recommendations 

for developing growth factors for these categories were outlined in a Task 5 Technical 

Memorandum, and the final methods will reflect any additional feedback from CENRAP. 

Also as part of Task 5, Pechan will prepare a separate Technical Memorandum to describe the 

proposed adjustments to the NONROAD model national growth rates to reflect State data for 

significant categories. The data to regionalize the NONROAD model growth factors will be 

obtained from REMI, as incorporated into EGAS (Houyoux, 2004). 

4. VMT for Onroad Sources 

To estimate growth in onroad VMT, Pechan will first ask CENRAP for appropriate contacts 

from their State Departments of Transportation and from the major metropolitan planning 

organizations (MPOs) in their State. Pechan will then inquire of these contacts whether they 

have developed their own growth projections, and if so, will request any available documentation 

on the development of these growth factors and the growth factors themselves. The 

documentation will be important in understanding the geographic area covered by the growth 

factors, the base and projection years of the growth factors, and the sources of data driving the 

projections. The documentation should also provide information on the level of detail at which 

the growth factors were developed (e.g., do the factors vary by interstates vs. arterials, by rural 

area vs. urban area, by vehicle type, etc.). Any growth factor data will need to be provided 

electronically in database (Access, DBF, or MySQL), spreadsheet (Excel), or text file format for 

processing under this project. When VMT growth factors are provided for a different base and 

projection year, Pechan will consult with the agency supplying the data to determine the best 

method for converting the growth factors to a 2002 to 2018 projection. For areas with no local 

VMT growth factor information available, or those for which growth factors cannot be 

appropriately calculated within the time and resources available under this contract, Pechan will 

use EGAS VMT growth factors. 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document A-10

[This page intentionally left blank.] 
PECHAN May 2005 

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

CHAPTER III. METHODS FOR AREAS OUTSIDE OF THE 

CENRAP REGION 

A. CANADIAN EMISSION ESTIMATES 

Pechan expects to provide emission estimates for Canada to CENRAP using data and methods 

that are consistent with those being used by LADCO/MRPO and EPA to estimate current and 

future year emissions for these provinces. These data sets are currently limited to historical 

emission years (1995 and 2000). It is our understanding that LADCO is using/planning to use 

1995 point source emission estimates and 2000 onroad/off-road/area source emission estimates 

to estimate Canadian emissions for their modeling domain. (The 2000 point source emissions 

data is not being used because of confidentiality limitations.) The 2000 Canadian emission data 

sets for the three sectors (non-point/area, nonroad mobile, and onroad mobile) are available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/canada.html#data. This file contains information in both 

dBaseIV and SMOKE IDA format. 

While we know that Environment Canada compiles emission projections on a regular basis to 

support the development of Federal and provincial emission control strategies, it is not clear 

whether Environment Canada would be able to provide growth and control factors on a timely 

basis for this CENRAP project. Pechan will contact Marc Deslauriers of Environment Canada 

on this issue. In short, though, Pechan expects that its recommendation will be that CENRAP 

use the base year Canadian emissions data without adjustments for all future year model 

simulations. If we want to pursue the course of developing our own growth and control factors 

to apply to Canadian base year emissions to estimate 2018 emissions, some information on the 

forecasting methods that Environment Canada uses is available from a draft NARSTO report. 

However, the description in the NARSTO report is less detailed than is needed to develop source 

category-specific growth and control factors. This alternative is probably best pursued by our 

contacting Marc Deslauriers to determine that organization’s willingness/ability to provide us 

with either the data or the methods that they have developed to prepare emission forecasts to a 

year close to 2018. 

B. MEXICAN EMISSION ESTIMATES 

The baseline emissions inventory base year for Mexico is for 1999. Inventories for the years 

2002 and 2012 were also estimated in order to understand how growth and existing control 

strategies may impact future emissions. Currently, the 1999 emission inventory is available, but 

the emission databases for the other years are not. Moreover, the point source database will most 

likely be proprietary, and could require signing a non-disclosure agreement for access. 

Therefore, the three alternatives for estimating 2018 emissions for Mexico for this CENRAP 

project appear to be: 

 1. Use the available 1999 emission databases as is. 

2. Pursue obtaining the 2012 Mexican emissions database via Leonora Rojas to see 

if it might be available on a timely basis. 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document A-12

3. Develop growth and control factors to apply to the 1999 emissions data to better 

estimate 2018 emissions. We have a summary description of how Mexico 

performs its own projections to use as a guide for doing this. In general, growth 

factors are applied to all sectors, but control factors are only applied for onroad 

vehicles. 

C. WRAP EMISSION ESTIMATES 

WRAP’s current schedule for preparing any new emission projections for its States will not 

provide any new information by March 2005, so Pechan expects to use the previous WRAP 2018 

emission forecasts as the basis for what it provides to CENRAP. The existing WRAP 2018 

emission forecasts are made from a 1996 base year. One potential update to the previous nonEGU point and area source forecasts is adapting the previous projections (which were prepared 

by Pechan) to incorporate updated growth factors, and to use the 2002 emissions data set as the 

new base year. However, these updates may be difficult to accomplish within the project 

constraints. 

D. VISTAS EMISSION ESTIMATES 

Pechan has contacted the VISTAS Technical Coordinator, Pat Brewer, to determine the 

availability of emission projection data for this project. VISTAS has recently completed 2018 

emission projections for its States. These projection data are now being reviewed by the States. 

VISTAS will need to get permission from the States in order to release the data to CENRAP. It 

is expected that this would occur during February. SMOKE-ready modeling files for VISTAS 

are expected to be completed in January. Pechan will have further conversations with VISTAS 

to determine whether the mass emissions files or SMOKE files are more appropriate for 

CENRAP’s purposes. It may be preferable to obtain the annual mass emission files, as the 

SMOKE modeling files were set up to model specific episodes that may not be consistent with 

the modeling that CENRAP will do. If CENRAP determines that it is preferable to use the 

emissions, Pechan will format the emissions in SMOKE/IDA format. 

E. MRPO PROJECTIONS 

For these five States, Pechan has developed 2018 (and other year) growth and control factors for 

LADCO for all man-made emission sectors, except on-road vehicles. Therefore, we expect that 

these same growth and control factors will be delivered to CENRAP. Because LADCO is 

performing the emissions processing of these files, Pechan plans to check with Mark Janssen to 

determine whether LADCO made any revisions to these files during its processing steps. If so, 

the revised files will be obtained from LADCO. We will also check with LADCO about the 

status and availability of their on-road vehicle emission files. 
PECHAN May 2005 

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

CHAPTER IV. REFERENCES 

EPA, 1998: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Locomotive Emission Standards, 

Regulatory Support Document,” Office of Mobile Sources, Ann Arbor, MI, April 1998. 

EPA, 1999: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control 

of Emissions from Marine Diesel Engines,” EPA420-R-99-026, Office of Mobile Sources, Ann 

Arbor, MI, November 1999. 

EPA, 2002: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Final Regulatory Support Document: 

Control of Emissions from Unregulated Nonroad Engines,” EPA420-R-02-022, Office of Mobile 

Sources, Ann Arbor, MI, September 2002. 

EPA, 2003: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Final Regulatory Support Document: 

Control of Emissions from New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per 

Cylinder,” EPA420-R-03-004, Office of Mobile Sources, Ann Arbor, MI, January 2003. 

Houyoux, 2004: Houyoux, M., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, REMI ver 5.5 

baseline.zip [Electronic File], Emission Factor and Inventory Group, Emissions, Monitoring, and 

Analysis Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. 

March 2, 2004. 

NARSTO, 2005: “Improving Emission Inventories for Effective Air Quality Management 

Across North America: A NARSTO Assessment,” January 2005. 

Pechan, 2005: E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. “Background Information on Versions 4.0 and 

5.0 of The Economic Growth Analysis System (EGAS), Technical Memorandum,” prepared for 

Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP), January 3, 2005. 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document A-14

[This page intentionally left blank.] 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document

APPENDIX B 

QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN FOR 

DEVELOPMENT OF GROWTH AND CONTROL INPUTS FOR 

2018 EMISSIONS MODELING 

(SCHEDULES 3 AND 9) 

DRAFT 

Prepared by 

E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. 

5528 Hempstead Way 

Springfield, VA 22151 

January 6, 2005 

for the

Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP) 

10005 S. Pennsylvania, Suite C 

Oklahoma City, OK 73159 

 

______________________________________________ Date ___________________ 

Ms. Kathy Pendleton, CENRAP Project Manager 

______________________________________________ Date ___________________ 

Ms. Lisa Brenneman, CENRAP Project Manager 

______________________________________________ Date ___________________ 

Ms. Annette Sharp, CENRAP Quality Assurance Officer 
PECHAN May 2005 

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

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

CONTENTS

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

II. QA PLAN FOR CONSOLIDATION OF EMISSIONS INVENTORIES ......................B-1 

 A. Project Management ............................................................................................B-1 

 1. Distribution List.......................................................................................B-1 

 2. Project / Task Organization .....................................................................B-2 

 3. Problem Definition / Background............................................................B-2 

 4. Project / Task Description........................................................................B-3 

 5. Data Quality Objectives...........................................................................B-3 

 6. Documents and Records ..........................................................................B-4 

 B. Data Generation and Acquisition.........................................................................B-4 

 C. Assessment and Oversight ...................................................................................B-8 

 D. Data Review and Validation ................................................................................B-9 
PECHAN May 2005 

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

[This page intentionally left blank.] 
PECHAN May 2005 

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

INTRODUCTION 

The purpose of this project is to prepare emission growth and control factors that can be 

applied to the Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP) 2002 base year emission 

inventory to obtain a 2018 emission inventory for the CENRAP region. The CENRAP region 

includes the States and Tribal areas of Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, 

Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas. In addition to the CENRAP States, additional factors will be 

compiled under this project to include the entire CENRAP modeling domain. This will include 

projected emissions data or projection year growth and control factor data from the other 

Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs), Canada, and Mexico. All data products will be 

prepared in SMOKE-compatible format. 

 These projection year growth and control factor data will be used to support air quality 

modeling and State Implementation Plan (SIP) development and implementation activities 

for the regional haze rule and fine PM and ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). The data will be applicable to all source categories and pollutants included in 

the CENRAP 2002 emission inventory. This includes the following pollutants: sulfur 

oxides (SOx), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon 

monoxide (CO), ammonia (NH3), and particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or 

equal to a nominal 10 and 2.5 micrometers (i.e., primary PM10 and PM2.5). 

 This Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) specifies how data quality objectives of 

accuracy, completeness, and representativeness will be met in compiling the growth and control 

factor data to be used as inputs to 2018 projection year regional emissions modeling for the 

CENRAP region for air quality modeling purposes. 

 A series of checklists will be prepared to implement the quality assurance (QA) steps. 

The QA checklists will include information on the specific QA item, the date that the QA check 

was performed, and the person who performed the QA check. 

II. QA PLAN FOR CONSOLIDATION OF EMISSIONS 

INVENTORIES 

 A. Project Management 

 Specific project management elements are discussed below. 

 1. Distribution List 

 Ms. Kathy Pendleton, CENRAP Project Manager 

 Ms. Lisa Brenneman, CENRAP Project Manager 

 Ms. Annette Sharp, CENRAP Technical Director and Quality Assurance Officer 

 Mr. James H. Wilson, E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. (Pechan) Corporate QA/QC 

Coordinator 

 Ms. Maureen Mullen, Pechan Project Manager 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document B-2

 Mr. Steve Roe, Pechan QA Reviewer 

 2. Project / Task Organization 

 Ms. Kathy Pendleton of CENRAP will be the primary technical contact and Project 

Manager. She will be assisted by Ms. Lisa Brenneman. Ms. Annette Sharp, will be the 

Technical Director and Quality Assurance Manager (QAM). Ms. Sharp will be involved in all 

quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) activities. 

 Pechan’s QA/QC policy requires that all work be documented, defensible, of known and 

acceptable quality, and consistent with all contract requirements. This policy is implemented 

through an integrated three-tiered approach that includes corporate, department, and program 

elements. At the corporate level, Pechan management provides oversight of the QA/QC program 

and approves and enforces the overall program. To assist in implementing these functions, 

Pechan maintains a corporate QA/QC unit that monitors the program, prepares guidelines, and 

conducts independent program audits. 

 The Pechan Corporate QA/QC Program is implemented through the Corporate QA/QC 

Plan and corporate guidelines. The Corporate Plan is an internal document that states the 

corporate policy and the requirements for department and project plans. The plan is 

supplemented by guidelines that are used to develop or update department plans and standard 

operating procedures (SOPs). Department management ensures the technical and fiscal quality 

of work through management oversight of projects assigned to the department and work 

performed by department staff; establishes and enforces department plans; approves project 

plans, budgets and schedules; and ensures a thorough technical and department management 

review of work. 

 The Pechan Corporate QA/QC Coordinator, Mr. James H. Wilson, is responsible for 

QA/QC functions throughout the firm, and has the necessary authority and independence to 

identify, report, and correct any existing quality problems. The Pechan QA reviewer for this 

project will be Mr. Steve Roe. Mr. Roe will conduct QA review on each of the SMOKE files 

developed under this project, on the data and methods used to develop growth and control factors 

in the SMOKE files, and on the final documentation. 

 Pechan’s Project Manager, Ms. Maureen Mullen, will direct all work to be completed for 

this project. Ms. Mullen will ensure that all support staff are familiar with and understand the 

data quality objectives, and the procedures to be followed for meeting the objectives, as well as 

the requirements of the QA plan (e.g., completion of QA/QC forms). 

 3. Problem Definition / Background 

 SIPs for regional haze mitigation must contain emission inventories. Related emission 

inventories are needed for air quality modeling of regional haze. Inventories prepared for the 

SIP submittal and for use in modeling are prepared in different formats, but both should be 

derived from the same or comparable input data. Furthermore, regional modeling will 

encompass States outside the CENRAP region, so inventory methods should be coordinated with 
PECHAN May 2005 

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

other regions to the extent possible. The eastern RPOs (including CENRAP) have selected 2002 

as the baseline year for regional haze modeling. Also, in order to demonstrate progress in 

improving visibility, it will be necessary to forecast emissions for future years. This project will 

result in a set of growth and control factors that can be used in SMOKE emissions modeling to 

project the CENRAP 2002 base year emission inventory to 2018. 

 4. Project / Task Description 

 The description of this project by task can be found in Pechan’s response (dated 

November 18, 2004) to the Request for Quotes (RFQ) for “Schedules 3 and 9 - Development of 

Growth and Control Inputs for 2018 Emissions Modeling” and the “Award of Work and Notice 

to Proceed” that CENRAP issued to Pechan (Contract Number 04-0628-RPO-018) on December 

1, 2004. 

 5. Data Quality Objectives 

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

• Accuracy – Pechan’s QA Reviewer will ensure that 100 percent of the 

procedures/calculations that a Pechan staff member develops and applies to 

develop growth or control factors will be checked for accuracy and completeness. 

The procedures/calculations will first be tested on a data sample and the results 

will be reviewed to ensure that the procedures/calculations are applied as intended 

and that the results make sense. Adjustments to the procedures/calculations will 

be made if the results indicate flaws in the initial procedures/calculations. The 

procedures/calculations will be applied to the entire data set after the 

procedures/calculations have been tested for accuracy. Sample calculations will 

be documented covering all procedures. 

• Completeness – As part of the quality control (QC) process, review by Pechan, as 

well as State/local/Tribal (S/L/T) agencies, may indicate missing growth or 

control factors for certain sources and/or pollutants for a particular county or 

jurisdiction. Pechan will compare the growth and control factor files to the 

CENRAP 2002 base year emission inventory to identify source category/county 

combinations that may be missing growth factors and source 

category/county/pollutant combinations that should be controlled but that have no 

control factors in the control factor database. 

• Representativeness –Representative growth and control factors will be compiled 

that can be used by CENRAP to develop a representative 2018 emission 

inventory. The QA checks on data content discussed in section D of this QAP 

will be used to identify missing data or data that exceed typical ranges for review 

with CENRAP and the S/L/T agencies. These factors will be corrected or revised 

as approved by CENRAP. 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document B-4

• Comparability – The CENRAP 2018 growth and control factors will be compared 

to those used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its Clean 

Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) modeling as well as those used by other RPOs for 

similar projection year emission inventories. Significant differences between 

these growth and control factor data will be evaluated and any necessary 

corrections to the data will be made. 

 6. Documents and Records 

 Pechan maintains a records management system to ensure that completed work meets 

EPA documentation requirements. Pechan also maintains a record-keeping plan to identify and 

file information. The company assigns unique control numbers to all documents and records 

prepared for and delivered to all clients. These numbers link the materials to the correct contract 

and work assignment and are used to store the materials in hard copy and electronically in 

chronological order. The records management coordinator at each Pechan office location assigns 

the control numbers and maintains these files. Pechan’s Contracts Administrator also stores hard 

copy or electronic versions of all documents and records submitted as contract deliverables as 

part of the company’s contract files. 

 The Pechan Project Manager will be responsible for the following document and records 

management activities: 

• Determining all deliverables under a project, including work plans, progress 

reports, and all technical products; 

• Determining the time lines for various stages of the document (that is, outline, 

draft, and final); 

• Determining the appropriate review cycle (internal versus external review); 

• Determining the appropriate reviewers; and 

• Ensuring that all documents and records are incorporated into Pechan’s filing 

system and are distributed to the appropriate recipients. 

 B. Data Generation and Acquisition 

 The following explains how data will be acquired or generated for each task of the 

project: 

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

 This QAPP is being prepared under this task. The following discussion explains the data 

sources that will be acquired and data that will be generated during preparation of the draft and 

final deliverables for Tasks 2 through 10. Section D of this QAPP explains the data review and 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document B-5

validation procedures that will be applied during preparation of the draft and final deliverables 

for Tasks 2 through 10. 

 Pechan has also prepared a draft work plan for the project. The work plan includes the 

tasks, budgets, and schedules specified in Pechan’s response (dated November 18, 2004) to the 

RFQ for “Schedules 3 and 9 - Development of Growth and Control Inputs for 2018 Emissions 

Modeling” and the “Award of Work and Notice to Proceed” that CENRAP issued to Pechan 

(Contract Number 04-0628-RPO-018) on December 1, 2004. 

 Task 2. Develop a Methods Document 

 In the Methods Document, Pechan will explain the data sources to be used and the 

procedures to be followed for developing the necessary growth and control data for this project. 

Through this task, Pechan will determine the appropriate contacts and data sources to be used to 

obtain and develop the growth and control data for the CENRAP States, control data sources for 

Federal control measures, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) projection data and sources. Pechan 

will also determine the available sources for obtaining projection year inventory data for other 

RPOs, Canada, and Mexico. The methods document will also explain the procedures to be 

followed when data are not available for a specific source category or geographic area. 

 Task 3. Identify State Controls 

Pechan will query the CENRAP State contacts on State control programs expected to be 

in place in 2018. In addition, Pechan will use information from 1-hour ozone and PM10 SIPs to 

determine where post-2002 emission reductions are expected. For Texas, Pechan will base the 

control factors on the control factor file developed by Pechan during 2001 for the prior Western 

Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) emission forecast to 2018, and update this information to a 

2002 base year and to reflect recent SIP updates (Houston-Galveston area). Pechan will account 

for NOx emission changes for Missouri counties affected by the NOx SIP Call. This may include 

using future year NOx allowances by unit to estimate unit-specific control factors. Where 

necessary, Pechan will convert the emission reductions to the control efficiency, rule 

effectiveness, and rule penetration rates needed for the SMOKE modeling. All rule citations will 

be fully documented. 

 For the onroad sources, Pechan will start with the 2002 SMOKE-formatted MOBILE6 

files developed for the 2002 CENRAP emission inventory. Pechan will query the State contacts 

provided by CENRAP for expected changes in emission control programs, such as inspection 

and maintenance programs, and fuel properties or programs between 2002 and 2018. Local data 

on fleet information, such as vehicle age distributions, will be kept the same as in 2002. Federal 

control programs, such as the Tier 2 emission standards, will be accounted for by using the 

MOBILE6 defaults for such programs. 

 Task 4. Identify Federal Controls 

Pechan will compile information on Federal control measures that will be in place in 

2018. Pechan’s initial source of information will be the work conducted by Pechan to develop 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document B-6

2018 emission inventory control factors for the Midwest RPO (MRPO). Pechan will review 

documentation from other RPOs (e.g., VISTAS) and the analysis performed by EPA for the 

CAIR (this had a 2001 base year), as well as any new information on Federal rules. Pechan will 

focus its primary efforts for this task on maximum achievable control technology (MACT) 

standards with post-2002 effects. Where necessary, Pechan will convert the emission reductions 

from the identified Federal control measures to the control efficiency, rule effectiveness, and rule 

penetration rates needed for the SMOKE modeling. All rule citations will be fully documented. 

 Task 5. Compare and Provide a Written Summary of Differences Between the 

Economic Growth Analysis System (EGAS) 4 and EGAS 5 Models 

 Pechan will use EPA’s EGAS 4 and EGAS 5 data and models to compile 2002 to 2018 

State- Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) growth factors for the CENRAP States. These 

data are available in internal Pechan databases which house the Regional Economic Models, Inc. 

(REMI) data used in EGAS 4 and EGAS 5. Within each State, the comparisons will be 

developed at the 3-digit SIC code level with a crosswalk between REMI sectors and SCCs. 

 For the NONROAD model source categories, Pechan will compile data to develop 

regional growth factors to reflect relative growth rates in the CENRAP States. These will be 

used to regionalize the default growth factors in NONROAD that use national historic trends by 

fuel type to project equipment populations and emissions nationwide. 

 Task 6. Isolate and Examine Emission Growth Factors for CENRAP Electricity 

Generating Units (EGUs) using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) and the 

EGAS 5 Model 

Pechan will obtain the EGU EGAS growth factors from the Task 5 output. Pechan has obtained 

the IPM 2018 Base Case and IPM 2018 CAIR Case outputs from VISTAS/MRPO. Pechan has 

also obtained generalized information about the changes made by VISTAS/MRPO to the IPM 

inputs for this data set. However, MRPO has requested that Pechan not use any of these data 

until they have been reviewed and approved by the MRPO/VISTAS States. If approval of these 

files does not come in the timeframe needed for completion of this task, Pechan will use the Base 

Case and CAIR Case outputs from IPM prepared for EPA during August through November 

2004. Pechan has these data in-house for projection years of 2010, 2015, and 2020. Pechan 

developed the final CENRAP 2002 base year emissions inventory for CENRAP that will be used 

in this task. Pechan will generate State-SCC growth factors for the EGU sector in the CENRAP 

States from the heat input or throughput data in the 2002 CENRAP emissions inventory and the 

IPM outputs. 

 Task 7. Develop Onroad Growth Factors and Nonroad Emissions Inventory for the 

Future Case CENRAP Emissions Inventory

 To prepare the 2018 NONROAD2004 model inputs, Pechan will first acquire from 

CENRAP the activity inputs that were used to develop the 2002 base year nonroad emissions 

inventory. Pechan will adjust the growth rates and fuel program inputs with data obtained or 

generated under Task 5. These data will then be input to EPA’s NONROAD2004 model to 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document B-7

generate a 2018 nonroad emission inventory for the CENRAP States, for all nonroad categories 

except locomotives, aircraft, and commercial marine vessels. Growth and control factors for 

these three nonroad categories will be developed under Tasks 3, 4, and 5 with other area sources. 

 To develop VMT growth rates, Pechan will first develop a list of contacts in the 

following priority order: (1) major Metropolitan Planning Organizations, (2) State Departments 

of Transportation, and (3) State air agencies. Pechan will then contact these agencies to obtain 

available data for projecting VMT from 2002 to 2018. If the data from these agencies are for a 

different base or projection year, Pechan will inquire as to whether the average annual growth 

rate over the period projected by that agency can be applied to the period from 2002 to 2018. If 

it cannot, Pechan will not use that data source (in these instances, data from the next contact 

based on the above priority will be used). For QA and tracking purposes, Pechan will log the 

contact information, data file names and date, geographic coverage of data, level of detail of data 

(e.g., by vehicle type or road type), and base and projection years of data. Pechan will provide 

this information to the CENRAP QAM before proceeding to incorporate VMT projection data. 

For counties or States with no VMT projection data available, Pechan will use EGAS VMT 

growth factors as the defaults. 

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

 This task will involve gathering and consolidating projection year emissions data or 

growth and control data for areas outside the CENRAP region. The sources of data include 

emissions inventories compiled by the other RPOs, the EPA, and the most currently available 

Mexican and Canadian emissions inventories. 

 Pechan will generate a list of organizations (e.g., EPA, RPOs, Environment Canada) and 

contact information for each organization that potentially has data that can be used to develop a 

2018 emissions inventory for CENRAP air quality applications. This list will then be provided 

to the Workgroup for any feedback. 

 Once the data acquisition contact list has been finalized, Pechan will contact each 

organization to identify the projection year emissions data or growth and control data available, 

determine the quality and format of each available data set, and help facilitate the best mode of 

data transfer of the desired data sets for use in this task. 

 Modeling inventory databases or growth and control files acquired during this task will 

be summarized in tabular form so that CENRAP will know the date acquired, the sources used to 

assemble the data, the contractor(s) and/or organizations that assembled the data, possible 

deficiencies of the data, time period of the data (e.g., base year and projection year), and other 

necessary information needed to enable CENRAP to best understand the databases that are 

available. 

 Task 9. Prepare Future Case Growth and Control Summary 

Pechan will develop the EGU growth factors at the point level of detail based on either 

IPM or EGAS model outputs, as determined by the Workgroups in Task 6. This will involve 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document B-8

matching the EGU identifiers from the CENRAP 2002 emission inventory to the IPM data. IPM 

uses unique plant codes (ORISPL) and boiler IDs while the CENRAP inventory uses Federal 

Information Processing Standard State and county identifiers, plant IDs, and point IDs. From the 

matched data set, Pechan will develop EGU-specific control factors for all relevant pollutants, 

based on 2018 IPM emissions data and the 2002 CENRAP EGU data. 

 For all source sectors covered by this contract, Pechan will develop Excel summary 

workbooks for each CENRAP State and Tribal area at the SCC level for all relevant source 

categories and pollutants. The data used in these summaries will be obtained from data 

generated in Tasks 3 through 7. 

 Task 10. Prepare a Technical Support Document (TSD) 

 The Task 2 Methods Document will be used as the starting point for the TSD. 

Information from the technical memoranda developed under Tasks 5, 6, and 8 and the State and 

Federal control measure lists from Tasks 3 and 4 will also be included in the TSD. The TSD will 

document the methods and data sources used in preparing the SMOKE-ready growth and control 

factors, the nonroad emissions inventory, and the MOBILE6 SMOKE inputs. The Excel 

workbooks summarizing the growth and control factors for the CENRAP States will be either 

included in or referenced in the TSD. 

 C. Assessment and Oversight 

 Pechan uses assessments to evaluate and improve the quality of environmental data 

operations. The assessments are an independent process of evaluating the project to ensure that 

specified requirements of the project are being fulfilled. Pechan will perform periodic audits of 

data quality and will coordinate with CENRAP’s QAM to allow for ongoing oversight of project 

quality. For this project, QA Summary Reports will be prepared in Excel spreadsheets under 

Task 9, along with the growth and control factor summaries, to document any QA issues in the 

growth and control factors. The reports will be sent to each S/L/T agency to review. Each 

agency will be asked to provide corrections for the QA issues in the spreadsheets, or provide 

Pechan and CENRAP with directions in supplemental files or by e-mail. Each agency will then 

return the QA Summary Reports to Pechan. Pechan will then use directions provided in the 

reports to revise the appropriate growth and control factor files, and will update the reports to log 

directions that S/L/T agencies provide via e-mail and data provided in supplemental files. A 

Pechan staff member will then note the date on which revisions are made to the growth and 

control factor files as specified in the QA reports. Mr. Steve Roe will manage the audit function, 

which will involve comparing the directions provided in the QA reports to the revised growth 

and control factor files to ensure that the directions are interpreted correctly, and the files are 

revised correctly. The auditor will then note in the QA report when corrections have been 

completed. If corrections are not implemented correctly, the auditor will note this in the QA 

Summary Report file and will provide follow-up to ensure that the Pechan staff member corrects 

the issue. Thus, each QA Summary Report file will be used as a chain-of-custody form to 

document QA issues, S/L/T agency approval for resolution of the issues, and corrections to 

growth and control factor files. 
PECHAN May 2005 

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

 D. Data Review and Validation 

 Task 1. Develop a QAPP and Work Plan 

 Pechan will prepare a draft QAPP and work plan that will undergo review by Pechan 

internally, and then be submitted to the CENRAP’s Workgroups for review and comment. 

Pechan will revise the QAPP and work plan to address comments provided by the Workgroups. 

The final QAPP and work plan will be submitted to CENRAP for final approval and signature. 

The draft and final QAPP and work plan will be submitted in Microsoft Word format. 

 Task 2. Develop a Methods Document 

 Pechan will prepare a draft Methods Document that will undergo review by Pechan 

internally, and then will be submitted to the CENRAP’s Workgroups for review and comment. 

Pechan will revise the Methods Document to address comments provided by CENRAP. The 

final Methods Document will be submitted to CENRAP for final approval. The draft and final 

Methods Document will be submitted in Microsoft Word format. 

 Task 3. Identify State Controls 

Pechan will conduct a QA review of the SMOKE control factor files. Range checks will 

be performed on all values including control efficiency, rule effectiveness, and rule penetration 

to make sure that all values are valid and reasonable. Comparisons of the control efficiencies 

will be made with the 2002 CENRAP emissions inventory files to ensure that controls included 

in the 2002 emission inventory are not double-counted for the projection year. Any pointspecific control information will be matched to the 2002 CENRAP emissions inventory to ensure 

that the correct point identifiers have been used. A QA summary will be developed listing 

State/SCC combinations in the 2002 CENRAP base year emissions inventory with no control 

efficiency listed in the State controls file to ensure that all source categories that should have 

controls applied contain the necessary information in the SMOKE control factor file. Pechan 

will ensure that the format of the control factor databases are correct based on the SMOKE2.1 

User’s Guide documentation. 

 Pechan has developed programs to review MOBILE6 input files. These programs will be 

modified to perform QA on the SMOKE-formatted MOBILE6 input files to insure that all 

appropriate control measure commands and input data are included in the appropriate MOBILE6 

input files. 

Each database in text or database format, as well as each set of MOBILE6 input files, 

developed during this task will be assigned a version control ID, so that any future modifications 

of these data sets can be tracked. The version control ID will contain the date that the file was 

revised, as well as a version number, if more than one revision occurred on the same date (e.g. 

mobilexxx 2-15-05v2). 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document B-10

 Task 4. Identify Federal Controls 

Pechan will conduct a QA review of the SMOKE control factor files for the Federal 

controls as listed above for the State controls. Range checks will be performed on all values 

including control efficiency, rule effectiveness, and rule penetration to make sure that all values 

are valid and reasonable. Comparisons of the control efficiencies will be made with the 2002 

CENRAP emission inventory files to ensure that controls included in the 2002 emission 

inventory are not double-counted for the projection year. In addition, checks will be made to 

verify that source categories with both State and Federal control measures have been given the 

appropriate controls and that sources are not inappropriately over-controlled. Any point-specific 

control information will be matched to the 2002 CENRAP emission inventory to ensure that the 

correct point identifiers have been used. A QA summary will be developed listing State/SCC 

combinations in the 2002 CENRAP base year emission inventory with no control efficiency 

listed in either the State controls file or the Federal controls file to ensure that all source 

categories that should have controls applied contain the necessary information in the SMOKE 

control factor file. Pechan will ensure that the format of the control factor databases are correct 

based on documentation in the SMOKE2.1 User’s Guide. Each database developed during this 

task will be assigned a version control ID as described under Task 4, so that any future 

modifications of these data sets can be tracked. 

 Task 5. Compare and Provide a Written Summary of Differences Between the 

Economic Growth Analysis System (EGAS) 4 and EGAS 5 Models 

Pechan will conduct a QA review of the SMOKE growth factor files prepared under this 

task. This will include range checks on all growth factors. Any growth factors above or below 

the expected range of growth factors will be reviewed for reasonableness. Significant variations 

in growth factors for the same source categories across States will also be reviewed for 

reasonableness. The growth factor data will be cross-checked with the CENRAP 2002 emissions 

inventory to ensure that all State/SCC combinations present in the 2002 inventory have 

corresponding growth factors (with the exception of onroad and NONROAD model source 

categories which will be handled in Task 7). Pechan will ensure that the format of the growth 

factor databases are correct based on the SMOKE2.1 User’s Guide. Each database developed 

during this task will be assigned a version control ID as described under Task 4, so that any 

future modifications of these data sets can be tracked. 

 Task 6. Isolate and Examine Emission Growth Factors for CENRAP Electricity 

Generating Units (EGUs) using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) and the 

EGAS 5 Model 

The EGAS EGU growth factors to be used in this task will have undergone QA review 

under Task 5. In developing the IPM EGU growth factors, Pechan will review State/SCC 

combinations that are present either in the base year or projection year data, but not both. These 

cases, and Pechan’s proposed approach for dealing with these cases for the development of 

growth factors, will be documented in the Technical Memorandum to be prepared under this task 

for CENRAP’s review. In addition, cases with insufficient data in the CENRAP base year 

inventory to calculate growth factors will be documented for CENRAP review. The remaining 
PECHAN May 2005 

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

IPM EGU growth factors by State/SCC will be carefully reviewed. Growth factors that are 

outside of the expected range of factors will be reviewed for reasonableness and accuracy. If all 

calculations have been performed correctly, but the data seem unreasonable, these factors will be 

documented for CENRAP to review and provide corrections or comments on. 

 Task 7. Develop Onroad Growth Factors and Nonroad Emissions Inventory for the 

Future Case CENRAP Emissions Inventory 

 Pechan will use EPA’s NIF Format and Content Check QA tool to perform initial QA on 

the NONROAD2004 NIF output file. Any errors flagged by this tool will be reviewed and 

corrected as necessary. After the nonroad inventory data are converted into SMOKE format, QA 

checks will be performed to ensure that the SMOKE-formatted emissions are the same as the 

emissions in the NIF files. Cross-checks will be performed to ensure that all State/SCC 

combinations included in the 2002 emission inventory for the source categories included in the 

NONROAD2004 model are also included in the SMOKE emission files. 

Pechan will QA the VMT growth factors prepared in SMOKE format. Range checks will 

be performed on all VMT growth factors to make sure that all values are valid and reasonable. 

Any growth factors above or below the expected range of growth factors will be reviewed for 

reasonableness. Significant variations in growth factors for the same source categories across 

States will also be reviewed for reasonableness. The growth factor data will be cross-checked 

with the CENRAP 2002 onroad VMT data to ensure that all onroad State/SCC combinations 

present in the 2002 inventory have corresponding VMT growth factors. Pechan will ensure that 

the format of the VMT growth factor databases are correct based on the SMOKE2.1 User’s 

Guide. 

Each database developed during this task will be assigned a version control ID as 

described under Task 4, so that any future modifications of these data sets can be tracked. 

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

Each projection year emission inventory or set of growth and control factors for the areas 

outside the CENRAP region will be assigned a version control ID as described under Task 4 and 

tracked accordingly. Pechan will ensure the data acquired are formatted correctly for use in 

SMOKE modeling based on the SMOKE2.1 User’s Guide and will document any deficiencies 

for each inventory database. Pechan will prepare draft summaries for each database indicating 

the source of the data, base and projection years of the original data, and any data conversions 

needed from the original base and projection years to the CENRAP base and projection years of 

2002 and 2018 for review by CENRAP. Final revisions to the data will be made based on the 

feedback received. 

 Task 9. Prepare Future Case Growth and Control Summary 

 Growth and control factors developed in tasks 3 through 7, as well as the EGU control 

factors to be developed under this task, will be summarized in Excel spreadsheets by State or 

Tribal area and SCC. These reports will provide the States and Tribal agencies with an 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document B-12

opportunity to review the growth and control data developed under this project and to provide 

corrections or comments where the data do not correspond with the agencies’ expectations. As 

discussed in Section C, above, Pechan will also provide QA Summary Reports that show 

concerns that Pechan or the States might have with some of the growth or control factors that 

should be given additional review by the agency. These QA Summary Reports will be used to 

track revisions that need to be made to the draft SMOKE growth and control factor files. 

Once the State and Tribal agencies have documented the need for any revisions to the 

growth and control factors, Pechan will prepare final growth and control factor files in SMOKE 

format. These files will undergo the same QA checks described in the tasks above, along with 

the final QA audit ensuring that the requested revisions to the growth and control factors have 

been appropriately implemented in the final SMOKE-formatted files. Each database revised or 

developed during this task will be assigned a version control ID as described under Task 4, so 

that any future modifications of these data sets can be tracked. 

 Task 10. Prepare a TSD 

 The TSD will undergo QA review to ensure that all methods and data sources are 

accurately documented and data are reported correctly. Pechan will revise the TSD to 

incorporate comments provided by the CENRAP Workgroups. 
PECHAN May 2005 

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

APPENDIX C 

CENRAP STATE POPULATION PROJECTIONS 

Table C-1. CENRAP State Population Projections 

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF

ARKANSAS 

05001 Arkansas 20,355 17,110 0.841 

05003 Ashley 23,875 22,294 0.934 

05005 Baxter 38,672 42,580 1.101 

05007 Benton 165,500 257,479 1.556 

05009 Boone 34,713 39,145 1.128 

05011 Bradley 12,531 12,357 0.986 

05013 Calhoun 5,681 5,430 0.956 

05015 Carroll 26,166 32,181 1.23 

05017 Chicot 13,623 10,529 0.773 

05019 Clark 23,535 23,535 1 

05021 Clay 17,127 14,968 0.874 

05023 Cleburne 24,570 28,788 1.172 

05025 Cleveland 8,541 8,541 1 

05027 Columbia 25,343 25,343 1 

05029 Conway 20,411 20,411 1 

05031 Craighead 84,074 97,527 1.16 

05033 Crawford 54,973 67,511 1.228 

05035 Crittenden 51,291 51,291 1 

05037 Cross 19,343 17,697 0.915 

05039 Dallas 8,785 5,322 0.606 

05041 Desha 14,805 10,730 0.725 

05043 Drew 18,639 18,639 1 

05045 Faulkner 89,590 110,979 1.239 

05047 Franklin 17,868 18,213 1.019 

05049 Fulton 11,527 10,893 0.945 

05051 Garland 90,059 104,079 1.156 

05053 Grant 16,848 19,377 1.15 

05055 Greene 38,038 41,968 1.103 

05057 Hempstead 23,492 23,492 1 

05059 Hot Spring 30,558 31,999 1.047 

05061 Howard 14,251 14,251 1 

05063 Independence 34,431 37,350 1.085 

05065 Izard 13,192 12,567 0.953 

05067 Jackson 17,802 15,475 0.869 

05069 Jefferson 83,374 78,668 0.944 

05071 Johnson 23,148 26,711 1.154 

05073 Lafayette 8,382 6,755 0.806 

05075 Lawrence 17,587 17,597 1.001 

05077 Lee 12,217 9,790 0.801 

05079 Lincoln 14,247 14,247 1 

05081 Little River 13,474 13,472 1 

05083 Logan 22,394 23,965 1.07 

05085 Lonoke 55,302 73,873 1.336 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-2

Table C-1 (continued) 

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF

05087 Madison 14,345 15,785 1.1 

05089 Marion 16,259 16,202 0.996 

05091 Miller 41,133 43,426 1.056 

05093 Mississippi 50,380 44,719 0.888 

05095 Monroe 9,689 5,310 0.548 

05097 Montgomery 9,243 9,699 1.049 

05099 Nevada 9,742 8,052 0.827 

05101 Newton 8,506 8,506 1 

05103 Ouachita 27,868 22,234 0.798 

05105 Perry 10,436 12,221 1.171 

05107 Phillips 25,001 14,105 0.564 

05109 Pike 11,137 10,278 0.923 

05111 Poinsett 25,401 24,555 0.967 

05113 Polk 20,200 20,785 1.029 

05115 Pope 55,223 66,020 1.196 

05117 Prairie 9,440 8,499 0.9 

05119 Pulaski 364,381 379,945 1.043 

05121 Randolph 18,102 17,701 0.978 

05123 St. Francis 28,773 26,036 0.905 

05125 Saline 86,290 107,280 1.243 

05127 Scott 11,004 11,787 1.071 

05129 Searcy 8,039 5,953 0.741 

05131 Sebastian 117,220 136,374 1.163 

05133 Sevier 15,811 16,804 1.063 

05135 Sharp 17,270 18,451 1.068 

05137 Stone 11,518 12,558 1.09 

05139 Union 45,279 43,122 0.952 

05141 Van Buren 16,314 16,865 1.034 

05143 Washington 166,511 219,999 1.321 

05145 White 69,354 83,925 1.21 

05147 Woodruff 8,466 6,644 0.785 

05149 Yell 21,410 24,162 1.129 

IOWA 

19001 Adair 8 8 0.962 

19003 Adams 4 4 0.919 

19005 Allamakee 15 15 1.046 

19007 Appanoose 14 13 0.969 

19009 Audubon 7 6 0.943 

19011 Benton 26 30 1.153 

19013 Black Hawk 128 131 1.022 

19015 Boone 26 27 1.013 

19017 Bremer 23 24 1.021 

19019 Buchanan 21 21 1.005 

19021 Buena Vista 20 21 1.031 

19023 Butler 15 15 0.975 

19025 Calhoun 11 10 0.927 

19027 Carroll 21 21 0.983 

19029 Cass 14 14 0.958 
PECHAN May 2005 

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

Table C-1 (continued) 

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF

19031 Cedar 18 19 1.048 

19033 Cerro Gordo 46 45 0.977 

19035 Cherokee 13 12 0.962 

19037 Chickasaw 13 13 0.972 

19039 Clarke 9 10 1.085 

19041 Clay 17 17 0.981 

19043 Clayton 18 18 0.978 

19045 Clinton 50 49 0.979 

19047 Crawford 17 17 0.981 

19049 Dallas 43 56 1.291 

19051 Davis 9 9 1.029 

19053 Decatur 9 9 1.007 

19055 Delaware 18 19 1.053 

19057 Des Moines 42 41 0.968 

19059 Dickinson 17 18 1.097 

19061 Dubuque 90 95 1.055 

19063 Emmet 11 10 0.937 

19065 Fayette 22 22 0.992 

19067 Floyd 17 16 0.966 

19069 Franklin 11 10 0.963 

19071 Fremont 8 7 0.944 

19073 Greene 10 10 0.987 

19075 Grundy 12 13 1.016 

19077 Guthrie 11 12 1.05 

19079 Hamilton 16 16 0.99 

19081 Hancock 12 12 0.978 

19083 Hardin 19 18 0.955 

19085 Harrison 16 16 1.038 

19087 Henry 20 22 1.061 

19089 Howard 10 10 0.975 

19091 Humboldt 10 10 0.95 

19093 Ida 8 8 0.987 

19095 Iowa 16 17 1.058 

19097 Jackson 20 21 1.041 

19099 Jasper 37 39 1.047 

19101 Jefferson 16 16 1.011 

19103 Johnson 115 143 1.248 

19105 Jones 20 21 1.011 

19107 Keokuk 11 11 0.958 

19109 Kossuth 17 16 0.922 

19111 Lee 37 36 0.959 

19113 Linn 196 229 1.17 

19115 Louisa 12 13 1.066 

19117 Lucas 9 10 1.045 

19119 Lyon 12 11 0.966 

19121 Madison 14 16 1.112 

19123 Mahaska 22 23 1.012 

19125 Marion 33 35 1.086 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-4

Table C-1 (continued) 

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF

19127 Marshall 39 40 1.022 

19129 Mills 15 16 1.115 

19131 Mitchell 11 10 0.95 

19133 Monona 10 10 0.98 

19135 Monroe 8 8 0.959 

19137 Montgomery 12 11 0.961 

19139 Muscatine 42 45 1.062 

19141 O'Brien 15 15 0.989 

19143 Osceola 7 6 0.931 

19145 Page 17 17 0.992 

19147 Palo Alto 10 9 0.929 

19149 Plymouth 25 26 1.038 

19151 Pocahontas 8 8 0.899 

19153 Polk 384 443 1.154 

19155 Pottawattamie 88 92 1.04 

19157 Poweshiek 19 19 1.016 

19159 Ringgold 5 5 0.942 

19161 Sac 11 10 0.916 

19163 Scott 160 172 1.078 

19165 Shelby 13 12 0.962 

19167 Sioux 32 34 1.073 

19169 Story 81 89 1.105 

19171 Tama 18 18 1.023 

19173 Taylor 7 7 0.942 

19175 Union 12 12 0.974 

19177 Van Buren 8 8 1.031 

19179 Wapello 36 36 1.006 

19181 Warren 42 49 1.183 

19183 Washington 21 23 1.087 

19185 Wayne 7 6 0.946 

19187 Webster 40 38 0.961 

19189 Winnebago 12 11 0.971 

19191 Winneshiek 21 22 1.024 

19193 Woodbury 104 108 1.038 

19195 Worth 8 8 0.969 

19197 Wright 14 13 0.946 

KANSAS 

20001 Allen 14,229 13,001 0.914 

20003 Anderson 8,142 8,071 0.991 

20005 Atchison 16,679 15,072 0.904 

20007 Barber 5,084 4,563 0.898 

20009 Barton 27,736 24,532 0.884 

20011 Bourbon 15,167 15,043 0.992 

20013 Brown 10,499 11,492 1.095 

20015 Butler 60,536 82,104 1.356 

20017 Chase 2,929 2,751 0.939 

20019 Chautauqua 4,210 3,994 0.949 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-5

Table C-1 (continued) 

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF

20021 Cherokee 21,947 20,693 0.943 

20023 Cheyenne 3,122 3,084 0.988 

20025 Clark 2,382 2,480 1.041 

20027 Clay 8,702 7,681 0.883 

20029 Cloud 9,931 8,625 0.868 

20031 Coffey 8,899 8,832 0.992 

20033 Comanche 1,984 1,711 0.862 

20035 Cowley 36,416 34,277 0.941 

20037 Crawford 38,041 38,870 1.022 

20039 Decatur 3,406 2,952 0.867 

20041 Dickinson 19,139 21,077 1.101 

20043 Doniphan 8,211 7,982 0.972 

20045 Douglas 102,290 112,566 1.1 

20047 Edwards 3,339 2,406 0.721 

20049 Elk 3,137 3,041 0.969 

20051 Ellis 27,266 26,864 0.985 

20053 Ellsworth 6,417 5,784 0.901 

20055 Finney 39,720 42,589 1.072 

20057 Ford 32,652 33,945 1.04 

20059 Franklin 25,314 24,041 0.95 

20061 Geary 26,403 25,905 0.981 

20063 Gove 2,991 2,807 0.938 

20065 Graham 2,845 2,479 0.871 

20067 Grant 7,892 7,078 0.897 

20069 Gray 6,044 7,510 1.243 

20071 Greeley 1,472 1,338 0.909 

20073 Greenwood 7,651 7,681 1.004 

20075 Hamilton 2,656 2,423 0.912 

20077 Harper 6,274 5,471 0.872 

20079 Harvey 33,423 35,899 1.074 

20081 Haskell 4,292 4,624 1.077 

20083 Hodgeman 2,148 2,467 1.149 

20085 Jackson 12,738 20,837 1.636 

20087 Jefferson 18,659 17,896 0.959 

20089 Jewell 3,495 3,125 0.894 

20091 Johnson 476,642 604,251 1.268 

20093 Kearny 4,543 4,367 0.961 

20095 Kingman 8,424 8,187 0.972 

20097 Kiowa 3,106 3,146 1.013 

20099 Labette 22,273 21,940 0.985 

20101 Lane 2,000 1,907 0.954 

20103 Leavenworth 70,805 78,196 1.104 

20105 Lincoln 3,542 3,458 0.976 

20107 Linn 9,672 9,204 0.952 

20109 Logan 2,997 2,918 0.974 

20111 Lyon 35,893 34,835 0.971 

20113 McPherson 29,404 29,217 0.994 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-6

Table C-1 (continued) 

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF

20115 Marion 13,244 12,953 0.978 

20117 Marshall 10,580 11,483 1.085 

20119 Meade 4,619 4,423 0.958 

20121 Miami 28,910 35,458 1.226 

20123 Mitchell 6,691 6,096 0.911 

20125 Montgomery 35,296 31,308 0.887 

20127 Morris 6,082 6,213 1.022 

20129 Morton 3,359 3,151 0.938 

20131 Nemaha 10,459 10,064 0.962 

20133 Neosho 16,634 15,009 0.902 

20135 Ness 3,316 3,011 0.908 

20137 Norton 5,877 5,860 0.997 

20139 Osage 16,924 21,237 1.255 

20141 Osborne 4,237 3,731 0.881 

20143 Ottawa 6,287 6,183 0.983 

20145 Pawnee 6,944 6,715 0.967 

20147 Phillips 5,869 6,096 1.039 

20149 Pottawatomie 18,485 19,005 1.028 

20151 Pratt 9,540 8,741 0.916 

20153 Rawlins 2,887 2,885 0.999 

20155 Reno 63,771 55,264 0.867 

20157 Republic 5,468 4,928 0.901 

20159 Rice 10,500 10,053 0.957 

20161 Riley 61,463 62,795 1.022 

20163 Rooks 5,489 5,602 1.021 

20165 Rush 3,492 3,252 0.931 

20167 Russell 7,053 6,436 0.913 

20169 Saline 53,897 54,778 1.016 

20171 Scott 4,921 4,772 0.97 

20173 Sedgwick 461,943 508,467 1.101 

20175 Seward 23,065 22,499 0.975 

20177 Shawnee 170,703 170,471 0.999 

20179 Sheridan 2,641 2,405 0.911 

20181 Sherman 6,396 7,428 1.161 

20183 Smith 4,363 3,942 0.904 

20185 Stafford 4,662 4,474 0.96 

20187 Stanton 2,409 2,396 0.995 

20189 Stevens 5,331 5,062 0.95 

20191 Sumner 25,526 24,678 0.967 

20193 Thomas 8,090 8,008 0.99 

20195 Trego 3,141 2,940 0.936 

20197 Wabaunsee 6,713 7,171 1.068 

20199 Wallace 1,691 1,583 0.936 

20201 Washington 6,268 5,917 0.944 

20203 Wichita 2,502 2,743 1.096 

20205 Wilson 10,141 10,612 1.046 

20207 Woodson 3,668 3,261 0.889 

20209 Wyandotte 158,366 153,806 0.971 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-7

Table C-1 (continued) 

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF

LOUISIANA 

22001 Acadia 59,246 64,410 1.087 

22003 Allen 26,248 31,234 1.19 

22005 Ascension 71,326 83,180 1.166 

22007 Assumption 22,740 24,412 1.074 

22009 Avoyelles 40,928 45,028 1.1 

22011 Beauregard 33,124 36,678 1.107 

22013 Bienville 16,368 18,256 1.115 

22015 Bossier 93,962 103,806 1.105 

22017 Caddo 247,834 268,132 1.082 

22019 Calcasieu 180,196 197,882 1.098 

22021 Caldwell 11,058 12,550 1.135 

22023 Cameron 8,506 8,580 1.009 

22025 Catahoula 11,572 12,702 1.098 

22027 Claiborne 17,600 19,458 1.106 

22029 Concordia 20,996 22,658 1.079 

22031 De Soto 24,966 26,984 1.081 

22033 East Baton Rouge 419,394 471,404 1.124 

22035 East Carroll 9,340 10,110 1.082 

22037 East Feliciana 22,278 25,978 1.166 

22039 Evangeline 34,952 38,332 1.097 

22041 Franklin 22,580 24,498 1.085 

22043 Grant 18,108 19,564 1.08 

22045 Iberia 74,270 82,838 1.115 

22047 Iberville 31,382 34,130 1.088 

22049 Jackson 15,740 17,088 1.086 

22051 Jefferson 468,032 505,370 1.08 

22053 Jefferson Davis 32,264 35,156 1.09 

22055 Lafayette 191,976 219,210 1.142 

22057 Lafourche 88,170 94,076 1.067 

22059 La Salle 13,978 15,048 1.077 

22061 Lincoln 45,514 51,604 1.134 

22063 Livingston 86,918 100,042 1.151 

22065 Madison 12,642 13,980 1.106 

22067 Morehouse 32,456 35,486 1.093 

22069 Natchitoches 38,372 42,554 1.109 

22071 Orleans 478,430 517,570 1.082 

22073 Ouachita 152,474 168,980 1.108 

22075 Plaquemines 25,464 26,914 1.057 

22077 Pointe Coupee 23,848 26,562 1.114 

22079 Rapides 121,182 124,696 1.029 

22081 Red River 9,354 10,186 1.089 

22083 Richland 20,694 22,542 1.089 

22085 Sabine 24,762 27,930 1.128 

22087 St. Bernard 67,156 70,540 1.05 

22089 St. Charles 50,146 57,400 1.145 

22091 St. Helena 9,978 10,912 1.094 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-8

Table C-1 (continued) 

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF

22093 St. James 21,418 23,470 1.096 

22095 St. John the Baptist 44,126 49,278 1.117 

22097 St. Landry 85,284 94,860 1.112 

22099 St. Martin 48,066 53,584 1.115 

22101 St. Mary 56,430 59,374 1.052 

22103 St. Tammany 198,430 242,360 1.221 

22105 Tangipahoa 98,780 113,228 1.146 

22107 Tensas 6,784 7,332 1.081 

22109 Terrebonne 104,530 114,252 1.093 

22111 Union 22,490 25,262 1.123 

22113 Vermilion 51,776 55,980 1.081 

22115 Vernon 51,726 50,504 0.976 

22117 Washington 42,826 45,868 1.071 

22119 Webster 42,862 46,920 1.095 

22121 West Baton Rouge 21,034 23,428 1.114 

22123 West Carroll 11,920 12,612 1.058 

22125 West Feliciana 13,792 15,426 1.118 

22127 Winn 18,032 20,514 1.138 

MINNESOTA 

27001 Aitkin 15,937 21,444 1.346 

27003 Anoka 308,230 372,816 1.21 

27005 Becker 30,520 34,878 1.143 

27007 Beltrami 40,790 48,980 1.201 

27009 Benton 35,228 41,944 1.191 

27011 Big Stone 5,752 5,484 0.953 

27013 Blue Earth 56,601 59,804 1.057 

27015 Brown 26,939 28,232 1.048 

27017 Carlton 32,291 37,004 1.146 

27019 Carver 74,807 108,532 1.451 

27021 Cass 28,450 38,826 1.365 

27023 Chippewa 13,041 13,250 1.016 

27025 Chisago 43,321 59,310 1.369 

27027 Clay 51,629 52,780 1.022 

27029 Clearwater 8,494 9,130 1.075 

27031 Cook 5,385 7,134 1.325 

27033 Cottonwood 12,092 12,026 0.995 

27035 Crow Wing 57,491 77,012 1.34 

27037 Dakota 370,438 461,880 1.247 

27039 Dodge 18,155 21,778 1.2 

27041 Douglas 33,629 40,776 1.213 

27043 Faribault 16,037 15,834 0.987 

27045 Fillmore 21,241 22,692 1.068 

27047 Freeborn 32,806 34,524 1.052 

27049 Goodhue 44,692 49,786 1.114 

27051 Grant 6,293 6,620 1.052 

27053 Hennepin 1,133,884 1,249,232 1.102 

27055 Houston 19,923 21,808 1.095 
PECHAN May 2005 

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

Table C-1 (continued) 

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF

27057 Hubbard 19,090 24,854 1.302 

27059 Isanti 32,264 38,986 1.208 

27061 Itasca 44,703 50,370 1.127 

27063 Jackson 11,213 11,300 1.008 

27065 Kanabec 15,786 19,388 1.228 

27067 Kandiyohi 41,706 45,540 1.092 

27069 Kittson 5,231 5,154 0.985 

27071 Koochiching 14,177 13,244 0.934 

27073 Lac qui Parle 7,924 7,324 0.924 

27075 Lake 11,199 12,450 1.112 

27077 Lake of the Woods 4,589 5,100 1.111 

27079 Le Sueur 25,820 28,608 1.108 

27081 Lincoln 6,385 6,392 1.001 

27083 Lyon 25,503 26,226 1.028 

27085 McLeod 35,447 39,344 1.11 

27087 Mahnomen 5,222 5,472 1.048 

27089 Marshall 10,001 9,258 0.926 

27091 Martin 21,617 21,104 0.976 

27093 Meeker 22,994 26,098 1.135 

27095 Mille Lacs 23,102 29,500 1.277 

27097 Morrison 32,067 35,198 1.098 

27099 Mower 38,834 41,278 1.063 

27101 Murray 9,051 8,638 0.954 

27103 Nicollet 30,199 32,966 1.092 

27105 Nobles 20,887 21,702 1.039 

27107 Norman 7,377 7,140 0.968 

27109 Olmsted 127,654 153,218 1.2 

27111 Otter Tail 58,307 69,350 1.189 

27113 Pennington 13,670 14,260 1.043 

27115 Pine 27,302 33,588 1.23 

27117 Pipestone 9,789 9,290 0.949 

27119 Polk 31,177 31,122 0.998 

27121 Pope 11,282 12,000 1.064 

27123 Ramsey 516,633 552,076 1.069 

27125 Red Lake 4,295 4,396 1.023 

27127 Redwood 16,733 16,946 1.013 

27129 Renville 17,104 17,220 1.007 

27131 Rice 58,271 70,890 1.217 

27133 Rock 9,689 9,826 1.014 

27135 Roseau 16,543 18,200 1.1 

27137 St. Louis 201,457 211,366 1.049 

27139 Scott 96,259 147,138 1.529 

27141 Sherburne 69,006 101,934 1.477 

27143 Sibley 15,566 17,390 1.117 

27145 Stearns 136,352 160,364 1.176 

27147 Steele 34,256 38,210 1.115 

27149 Stevens 10,060 10,112 1.005 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-10

Table C-1 (continued) 

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF

27151 Swift 11,994 12,784 1.066 

27153 Todd 24,620 26,798 1.088 

27155 Traverse 4,052 3,744 0.924 

27157 Wabasha 21,938 24,614 1.122 

27159 Wadena 13,872 15,082 1.087 

27161 Waseca 19,716 21,184 1.074 

27163 Washington 211,906 286,342 1.351 

27165 Watonwan 11,906 12,250 1.029 

27167 Wilkin 7,083 6,986 0.986 

27169 Winona 50,491 54,190 1.073 

27171 Wright 94,096 123,258 1.31 

27173 Yellow Medicine 11,000 10,826 0.984 

MISSOURI 

29001 Adair 23,945 22,652 0.946 

29003 Andrew 15,808 17,000 1.075 

29005 Atchison 6,733 5,873 0.872 

29007 Audrain 24,287 24,807 1.021 

29009 Barry 36,132 46,461 1.286 

29011 Barton 12,300 13,717 1.115 

29013 Bates 16,176 17,637 1.09 

29015 Benton 17,773 21,214 1.194 

29017 Bollinger 12,027 13,823 1.149 

29019 Boone 137,011 168,775 1.232 

29021 Buchanan 82,652 80,828 0.978 

29023 Butler 41,397 43,463 1.05 

29025 Caldwell 8,817 9,554 1.084 

29027 Callaway 39,168 45,700 1.167 

29029 Camden 36,567 45,152 1.235 

29031 Cape Girardeau 68,404 75,037 1.097 

29033 Carroll 9,858 8,889 0.902 

29035 Carter 6,753 8,226 1.218 

29037 Cass 86,299 112,085 1.299 

29039 Cedar 13,700 15,350 1.12 

29041 Chariton 8,477 7,884 0.93 

29043 Christian 56,199 86,229 1.534 

29045 Clark 7,480 7,549 1.009 

29047 Clay 183,989 216,063 1.174 

29049 Clinton 19,590 23,030 1.176 

29051 Cole 70,819 76,706 1.083 

29053 Cooper 16,849 18,354 1.089 

29055 Crawford 23,944 29,357 1.226 

29057 Dade 8,365 9,348 1.117 

29059 Dallas 16,983 22,566 1.329 

29061 Daviess 7,940 8,189 1.031 

29063 DeKalb 13,482 14,488 1.075 

29065 Dent 14,332 14,662 1.023 

29067 Douglas 12,541 13,246 1.056 
PECHAN May 2005 

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

Table C-1 (continued) 

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF

29069 Dunklin 32,627 31,891 0.977 

29071 Franklin 96,978 116,194 1.198 

29073 Gasconade 15,267 17,259 1.13 

29075 Gentry 6,884 7,200 1.046 

29077 Greene 237,440 260,399 1.097 

29079 Grundy 10,141 9,592 0.946 

29081 Harrison 8,181 7,931 0.969 

29083 Henry 21,840 23,383 1.071 

29085 Hickory 9,360 10,807 1.155 

29087 Holt 5,398 4,903 0.908 

29089 Howard 9,725 9,906 1.019 

29091 Howell 38,114 45,840 1.203 

29093 Iron 11,154 11,721 1.051 

29095 Jackson 653,141 668,410 1.023 

29097 Jasper 103,291 118,819 1.15 

29099 Jefferson 205,743 247,773 1.204 

29101 Johnson 50,194 59,158 1.179 

29103 Knox 4,271 4,074 0.954 

29105 Laclede 32,042 38,311 1.196 

29107 Lafayette 33,443 36,866 1.102 

29109 Lawrence 34,399 40,134 1.167 

29111 Lewis 10,023 9,700 0.968 

29113 Lincoln 38,970 53,491 1.373 

29115 Linn 14,060 14,681 1.044 

29117 Livingston 14,385 14,000 0.973 

29119 McDonald 21,109 26,954 1.277 

29121 Macon 15,088 14,876 0.986 

29123 Madison 11,734 12,819 1.092 

29125 Maries 8,496 9,169 1.079 

29127 Marion 28,015 28,953 1.033 

29129 Mercer 4,325 4,859 1.123 

29131 Miller 23,815 28,155 1.182 

29133 Mississippi 12,979 11,247 0.867 

29135 Moniteau 14,560 16,349 1.123 

29137 Monroe 8,847 8,904 1.006 

29139 Montgomery 12,067 13,007 1.078 

29141 Morgan 19,328 23,273 1.204 

29143 New Madrid 20,428 19,695 0.964 

29145 Newton 50,569 58,237 1.152 

29147 Nodaway 20,521 18,673 0.91 

29149 Oregon 10,506 11,236 1.069 

29151 Osage 12,751 13,503 1.059 

29153 Ozark 10,322 11,596 1.123 

29155 Pemiscot 21,471 21,369 0.995 

29157 Perry 18,005 19,443 1.08 

29159 Pettis 38,000 40,961 1.078 

29161 Phelps 39,610 42,920 1.084 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-12

Table C-1 (continued) 

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF

29163 Pike 16,780 16,719 0.996 

29165 Platte 75,949 95,760 1.261 

29167 Polk 27,597 34,199 1.239 

29169 Pulaski 41,942 37,494 0.894 

29171 Putnam 4,934 4,625 0.937 

29173 Ralls 9,112 9,811 1.077 

29175 Randolph 23,863 23,397 0.98 

29177 Ray 23,519 26,189 1.114 

29179 Reynolds 6,722 6,536 0.972 

29181 Ripley 14,997 18,480 1.232 

29183 St. Charles 295,337 399,603 1.353 

29185 St. Clair 9,375 10,254 1.094 

29186 Ste. Genevieve 17,581 19,427 1.105 

29187 St. Francois 57,936 66,648 1.15 

29189 St. Louis 1,000,468 972,728 0.972 

29195 Saline 22,426 21,654 0.966 

29197 Schuyler 4,517 4,845 1.073 

29199 Scotland 4,795 4,756 0.992 

29201 Scott 40,920 42,065 1.028 

29203 Shannon 8,500 9,450 1.112 

29205 Shelby 6,747 6,682 0.99 

29207 Stoddard 29,132 28,107 0.965 

29209 Stone 31,887 44,919 1.409 

29211 Sullivan 6,770 7,288 1.077 

29213 Taney 39,389 53,373 1.355 

29215 Texas 24,647 26,637 1.081 

29217 Vernon 19,555 20,427 1.045 

29219 Warren 26,349 35,226 1.337 

29221 Washington 23,758 27,109 1.141 

29223 Wayne 13,715 15,786 1.151 

29225 Webster 31,186 40,596 1.302 

29227 Worth 2,277 2,102 0.923 

29229 Wright 21,191 26,671 1.259 

29510 St. Louis City 308,084 203,291 0.66 

NEBRASKA 

31001 Adams 31,573 35,093 1.111 

31003 Antelope 7,325 6,432 0.878 

31005 Arthur 438 390 0.891 

31007 Banner 810 743 0.918 

31009 Blaine 561 410 0.731 

31011 Boone 6,135 5,419 0.883 

31013 Box Butte 11,998 10,816 0.901 

31015 Boyd 2,352 1,760 0.748 

31017 Brown 3,475 3,135 0.902 

31019 Buffalo 43,358 52,767 1.217 

31021 Burt 7,786 7,703 0.989 

31023 Butler 8,807 9,355 1.062 
PECHAN May 2005 

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

Table C-1 (continued) 

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF

31025 Cass 24,932 30,776 1.234 

31027 Cedar 9,453 8,445 0.893 

31029 Chase 3,996 3,496 0.875 

31031 Cherry 6,086 5,570 0.915 

31033 Cheyenne 9,915 10,650 1.074 

31035 Clay 7,015 6,887 0.982 

31037 Colfax 10,650 12,812 1.203 

31039 Cuming 10,186 10,564 1.037 

31041 Custer 11,637 10,555 0.907 

31043 Dakota 21,004 28,123 1.339 

31045 Dawes 9,103 9,356 1.028 

31047 Dawson 25,038 31,659 1.264 

31049 Deuel 2,069 1,900 0.918 

31051 Dixon 6,354 6,581 1.036 

31053 Dodge 36,719 42,744 1.164 

31055 Douglas 475,053 575,897 1.212 

31057 Dundy 2,236 1,815 0.812 

31059 Fillmore 6,547 6,018 0.919 

31061 Franklin 3,513 3,113 0.886 

31063 Frontier 3,098 3,105 1.002 

31065 Furnas 5,275 4,970 0.942 

31067 Gage 23,078 24,509 1.062 

31069 Garden 2,259 2,034 0.9 

31071 Garfield 1,848 1,487 0.804 

31073 Gosper 2,143 2,160 1.008 

31075 Grant 732 625 0.854 

31077 Greeley 2,639 2,097 0.795 

31079 Hall 54,710 66,217 1.21 

31081 Hamilton 9,510 10,598 1.114 

31083 Harlan 3,755 3,627 0.966 

31085 Hayes 1,032 767 0.743 

31087 Hitchcock 3,002 2,232 0.743 

31089 Holt 11,289 9,473 0.839 

31091 Hooker 769 740 0.962 

31093 Howard 6,640 7,321 1.102 

31095 Jefferson 8,233 7,519 0.913 

31097 Johnson 4,484 4,561 1.017 

31099 Kearney 6,933 7,415 1.07 

31101 Keith 8,947 9,453 1.056 

31103 Keya Paha 960 778 0.811 

31105 Kimball 4,078 4,021 0.986 

31107 Knox 9,293 8,699 0.936 

31109 Lancaster 259,022 339,780 1.312 

31111 Lincoln 35,207 40,975 1.164 

31113 Logan 754 619 0.821 

31115 Loup 703 651 0.926 

31117 McPherson 526 499 0.948 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-14

Table C-1 (continued) 

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF

31119 Madison 35,797 41,896 1.17 

31121 Merrick 8,221 8,511 1.035 

31123 Morrill 5,464 5,720 1.047 

31125 Nance 3,984 3,608 0.906 

31127 Nemaha 7,518 7,029 0.935 

31129 Nuckolls 4,923 3,939 0.8 

31131 Otoe 15,678 18,653 1.19 

31133 Pawnee 3,036 2,760 0.909 

31135 Perkins 3,163 2,934 0.928 

31137 Phelps 9,734 9,705 0.997 

31139 Pierce 7,868 7,975 1.014 

31141 Platte 32,052 36,498 1.139 

31143 Polk 5,621 5,569 0.991 

31145 Red Willow 11,389 11,002 0.966 

31147 Richardson 9,450 8,973 0.95 

31149 Rock 1,700 1,292 0.76 

31151 Saline 14,109 16,745 1.187 

31153 Sarpy 127,219 167,476 1.316 

31155 Saunders 20,130 23,249 1.155 

31157 Scotts Bluff 37,472 43,116 1.151 

31159 Seward 16,635 18,095 1.088 

31161 Sheridan 6,104 5,437 0.891 

31163 Sherman 3,233 2,620 0.81 

31165 Sioux 1,455 1,247 0.857 

31167 Stanton 6,481 6,728 1.038 

31169 Thayer 5,928 5,042 0.85 

31171 Thomas 704 527 0.749 

31173 Thurston 7,271 8,147 1.12 

31175 Valley 4,545 3,835 0.844 

31177 Washington 19,312 24,628 1.275 

31179 Wayne 9,973 11,028 1.106 

31181 Webster 4,007 3,726 0.93 

31183 Wheeler 861 703 0.817 

31185 York 14,660 15,532 1.06 

OKLAHOMA 

40001 Adair 21,743 27,960 1.286 

40003 Alfalfa 6,063 5,900 0.973 

40005 Atoka 14,167 17,040 1.203 

40007 Beaver 5,834 5,960 1.022 

40009 Beckham 20,039 22,800 1.138 

40011 Blaine 12,066 13,500 1.119 

40013 Bryan 37,360 44,060 1.179 

40015 Caddo 30,210 31,820 1.053 

40017 Canadian 89,538 104,960 1.172 

40019 Carter 45,893 49,600 1.081 

40021 Cherokee 44,073 56,420 1.28 

40023 Choctaw 15,365 15,920 1.036 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-15

Table C-1 (continued) 

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF

40025 Cimarron 3,169 3,360 1.06 

40027 Cleveland 212,930 245,480 1.153 

40029 Coal 6,139 7,400 1.205 

40031 Comanche 116,758 130,360 1.117 

40033 Cotton 6,568 6,660 1.014 

40035 Craig 15,250 17,940 1.176 

40037 Creek 68,220 76,040 1.115 

40039 Custer 26,445 28,800 1.089 

40041 Delaware 38,326 48,620 1.269 

40043 Dewey 4,686 4,500 0.96 

40045 Ellis 4,005 3,740 0.934 

40047 Garfield 58,048 60,640 1.045 

40049 Garvin 27,246 28,080 1.031 

40051 Grady 46,110 51,620 1.12 

40053 Grant 5,126 5,160 1.007 

40055 Greer 5,997 5,900 0.984 

40057 Harmon 3,250 3,300 1.015 

40059 Harper 3,537 3,400 0.961 

40061 Haskell 12,115 14,940 1.233 

40063 Hughes 14,412 17,100 1.186 

40065 Jackson 28,743 31,540 1.097 

40067 Jefferson 6,731 6,660 0.989 

40069 Johnston 10,708 12,720 1.188 

40071 Kay 48,248 50,480 1.046 

40073 Kingfisher 14,156 16,740 1.183 

40075 Kiowa 10,136 9,900 0.977 

40077 Latimer 10,735 11,380 1.06 

40079 Le Flore 48,505 54,700 1.128 

40081 Lincoln 32,568 37,200 1.142 

40083 Logan 34,874 42,540 1.22 

40085 Love 9,139 11,940 1.307 

40087 McClain 28,764 37,320 1.297 

40089 McCurtain 34,601 36,880 1.066 

40091 McIntosh 19,874 23,780 1.197 

40093 Major 7,527 7,500 0.996 

40095 Marshall 13,910 20,040 1.441 

40097 Mayes 39,061 45,460 1.164 

40099 Murray 12,854 14,760 1.148 

40101 Muskogee 69,671 72,820 1.045 

40103 Noble 11,527 12,480 1.083 

40105 Nowata 10,821 13,340 1.233 

40107 Okfuskee 11,808 12,120 1.026 

40109 Oklahoma 668,989 728,840 1.089 

40111 Okmulgee 40,091 44,560 1.111 

40113 Osage 45,022 50,260 1.116 

40115 Ottawa 33,516 36,820 1.099 

40117 Pawnee 16,887 19,800 1.172 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-16

Table C-1 (continued) 

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF

40119 Payne 70,194 82,360 1.173 

40121 Pittsburg 44,172 46,960 1.063 

40123 Pontotoc 35,326 37,420 1.059 

40125 Pottawatomie 66,393 73,880 1.113 

40127 Pushmataha 11,920 14,380 1.206 

40129 Roger Mills 3,422 3,400 0.994 

40131 Rogers 72,465 88,040 1.215 

40133 Seminole 24,896 25,840 1.038 

40135 Sequoyah 39,863 47,280 1.186 

40137 Stephens 43,069 43,280 1.005 

40139 Texas 21,344 31,420 1.472 

40141 Tillman 9,252 9,360 1.012 

40143 Tulsa 570,659 625,040 1.095 

40145 Wagoner 59,285 71,220 1.201 

40147 Washington 49,118 50,600 1.03 

40149 Washita 11,585 12,220 1.055 

40151 Woods 9,093 9,200 1.012 

40153 Woodward 18,612 19,840 1.066 

TEXAS 

48001 Anderson 55,825 62,092 1.112 

48003 Andrews 13,238 15,107 1.141 

48005 Angelina 81,575 94,579 1.159 

48007 Aransas 22,934 26,209 1.143 

48009 Archer 9,024 10,468 1.16 

48011 Armstrong 2,158 2,290 1.061 

48013 Atascosa 40,167 53,775 1.339 

48015 Austin 24,077 28,473 1.183 

48017 Bailey 6,735 8,082 1.2 

48019 Bandera 18,390 25,243 1.373 

48021 Bastrop 61,069 94,372 1.545 

48023 Baylor 4,055 3,877 0.956 

48025 Bee 32,849 36,562 1.113 

48027 Bell 246,823 314,037 1.272 

48029 Bexar 1,427,012 1,671,927 1.172 

48031 Blanco 8,718 11,557 1.326 

48033 Borden 733 781 1.065 

48035 Bosque 17,437 20,107 1.153 

48037 Bowie 89,580 91,580 1.022 

48039 Brazoria 250,581 326,663 1.304 

48041 Brazos 156,104 186,034 1.192 

48043 Brewster 8,926 10,029 1.124 

48045 Briscoe 1,804 1,932 1.071 

48047 Brooks 8,144 9,519 1.169 

48049 Brown 38,032 41,331 1.087 

48051 Burleson 16,885 20,825 1.233 

48053 Burnet 35,695 50,786 1.423 

48055 Caldwell 33,656 48,066 1.428 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-17

Table C-1 (continued) 

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF

48057 Calhoun 21,104 24,148 1.144 

48059 Callahan 13,015 14,012 1.077 

48061 Cameron 350,379 483,238 1.379 

48063 Camp 11,822 14,014 1.185 

48065 Carson 6,549 6,818 1.041 

48067 Cass 30,445 30,639 1.006 

48069 Castro 8,485 10,065 1.186 

48071 Chambers 27,049 36,395 1.346 

48073 Cherokee 47,518 55,687 1.172 

48075 Childress 7,756 8,283 1.068 

48077 Clay 11,083 11,653 1.051 

48079 Cochran 3,801 4,447 1.17 

48081 Coke 3,842 3,837 0.999 

48083 Coleman 9,219 9,345 1.014 

48085 Collin 526,153 822,200 1.563 

48087 Collingsworth 3,184 3,160 0.992 

48089 Colorado 20,586 22,907 1.113 

48091 Comal 81,730 116,670 1.428 

48093 Comanche 14,078 14,909 1.059 

48095 Concho 4,005 4,113 1.027 

48097 Cooke 36,899 42,123 1.142 

48099 Coryell 77,652 101,132 1.302 

48101 Cottle 1,892 1,928 1.019 

48103 Crane 4,076 4,674 1.147 

48105 Crockett 4,171 4,720 1.132 

48107 Crosby 7,195 8,188 1.138 

48109 Culberson 3,050 3,524 1.155 

48111 Dallam 6,367 7,305 1.147 

48113 Dallas 2,284,143 2,865,380 1.254 

48115 Dawson 15,188 16,641 1.096 

48117 Deaf Smith 19,054 22,958 1.205 

48119 Delta 5,331 5,362 1.006 

48121 Denton 465,947 753,768 1.618 

48123 DeWitt 20,169 21,436 1.063 

48125 Dickens 2,749 2,689 0.978 

48127 Dimmit 10,495 12,165 1.159 

48129 Donley 3,826 3,776 0.987 

48131 Duval 13,353 14,883 1.115 

48133 Eastland 18,293 18,668 1.02 

48135 Ector 123,150 142,079 1.154 

48137 Edwards 2,185 2,331 1.067 

48139 Ellis 115,879 159,805 1.379 

48141 El Paso 703,516 904,018 1.285 

48143 Erath 34,293 41,401 1.207 

48145 Falls 18,747 20,606 1.099 

48147 Fannin 31,641 35,727 1.129 

48149 Fayette 22,019 25,273 1.148 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-18

Table C-1 (continued) 

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF

48151 Fisher 4,308 4,070 0.945 

48153 Floyd 7,874 8,875 1.127 

48155 Foard 1,618 1,618 1 

48157 Fort Bend 373,357 540,789 1.448 

48159 Franklin 9,552 10,277 1.076 

48161 Freestone 18,062 20,161 1.116 

48163 Frio 16,725 20,219 1.209 

48165 Gaines 14,799 17,918 1.211 

48167 Galveston 253,900 283,666 1.117 

48169 Garza 4,942 5,472 1.107 

48171 Gillespie 21,030 23,313 1.109 

48173 Glasscock 1,425 1,654 1.161 

48175 Goliad 7,036 7,739 1.1 

48177 Gonzales 18,950 21,801 1.15 

48179 Gray 22,624 22,406 0.99 

48181 Grayson 111,888 123,924 1.108 

48183 Gregg 112,696 125,782 1.116 

48185 Grimes 24,203 30,486 1.26 

48187 Guadalupe 92,465 123,890 1.34 

48189 Hale 37,285 42,886 1.15 

48191 Hall 3,799 3,951 1.04 

48193 Hamilton 8,252 8,873 1.075 

48195 Hansford 5,440 6,269 1.152 

48197 Hardeman 4,720 4,746 1.006 

48199 Hardin 48,944 55,591 1.136 

48201 Harris 3,503,977 4,416,624 1.26 

48203 Harrison 63,224 73,646 1.165 

48205 Hartley 5,629 6,275 1.115 

48207 Haskell 6,056 6,000 0.991 

48209 Hays 106,152 174,701 1.646 

48211 Hemphill 3,384 3,668 1.084 

48213 Henderson 75,340 94,009 1.248 

48215 Hidalgo 603,081 911,390 1.511 

48217 Hill 33,057 40,340 1.22 

48219 Hockley 23,092 25,645 1.111 

48221 Hood 42,466 55,163 1.299 

48223 Hopkins 32,358 36,114 1.116 

48225 Houston 23,266 24,481 1.052 

48227 Howard 33,901 36,108 1.065 

48229 Hudspeth 3,417 3,945 1.155 

48231 Hunt 80,012 105,234 1.315 

48233 Hutchinson 23,974 25,212 1.052 

48235 Irion 1,783 1,810 1.015 

48237 Jack 8,840 9,508 1.076 

48239 Jackson 14,622 16,558 1.132 

48241 Jasper 36,303 42,026 1.158 

48243 Jeff Davis 2,229 2,312 1.037 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-19

Table C-1 (continued) 

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF

48245 Jefferson 254,598 273,841 1.076 

48247 Jim Hogg 5,377 6,197 1.153 

48249 Jim Wells 40,067 45,874 1.145 

48251 Johnson 131,417 175,962 1.339 

48253 Jones 20,871 22,002 1.054 

48255 Karnes 15,785 18,764 1.189 

48257 Kaufman 74,604 107,395 1.44 

48259 Kendall 24,885 35,870 1.441 

48261 Kenedy 424 499 1.177 

48263 Kent 848 823 0.971 

48265 Kerr 44,086 48,298 1.096 

48267 Kimble 4,487 4,585 1.022 

48269 King 359 401 1.117 

48271 Kinney 3,403 3,513 1.032 

48273 Kleberg 33,117 41,183 1.244 

48275 Knox 4,238 4,340 1.024 

48277 Lamar 48,834 51,485 1.054 

48279 Lamb 14,911 16,850 1.13 

48281 Lampasas 18,234 22,529 1.236 

48283 La Salle 6,050 7,479 1.236 

48285 Lavaca 19,194 19,632 1.023 

48287 Lee 16,086 20,471 1.273 

48289 Leon 15,593 17,889 1.147 

48291 Liberty 72,445 93,467 1.29 

48293 Limestone 22,368 25,486 1.139 

48295 Lipscomb 3,065 3,215 1.049 

48297 Live Oak 12,488 13,788 1.104 

48299 Llano 16,945 16,260 0.96 

48301 Loving 67 63 0.94 

48303 Lubbock 249,130 278,019 1.116 

48305 Lynn 6,648 7,364 1.108 

48307 McCulloch 8,244 8,680 1.053 

48309 McLennan 216,167 247,741 1.146 

48311 McMullen 852 877 1.029 

48313 Madison 13,176 15,081 1.145 

48315 Marion 11,091 12,025 1.084 

48317 Martin 4,847 5,700 1.176 

48319 Mason 3,725 3,609 0.969 

48321 Matagorda 38,580 44,184 1.145 

48323 Maverick 49,212 65,897 1.339 

48325 Medina 40,817 54,778 1.342 

48327 Menard 2,363 2,442 1.033 

48329 Midland 117,378 132,227 1.127 

48331 Milam 24,569 27,688 1.127 

48333 Mills 5,170 5,589 1.081 

48335 Mitchell 9,723 9,930 1.021 

48337 Montague 19,275 20,913 1.085 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-20

Table C-1 (continued) 

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF

48339 Montgomery 309,930 461,971 1.491 

48341 Moore 20,762 26,367 1.27 

48343 Morris 13,099 13,530 1.033 

48345 Motley 1,425 1,367 0.959 

48347 Nacogdoches 59,776 67,457 1.128 

48349 Navarro 46,048 55,397 1.203 

48351 Newton 15,325 17,183 1.121 

48353 Nolan 15,989 17,389 1.088 

48355 Nueces 321,277 384,672 1.197 

48357 Ochiltree 9,198 10,968 1.192 

48359 Oldham 2,214 2,423 1.094 

48361 Orange 85,840 91,950 1.071 

48363 Palo Pinto 27,446 31,612 1.152 

48365 Panola 22,978 24,587 1.07 

48367 Parker 91,640 119,974 1.309 

48369 Parmer 10,208 12,008 1.176 

48371 Pecos 17,083 19,202 1.124 

48373 Polk 42,165 51,096 1.212 

48375 Potter 116,392 142,151 1.221 

48377 Presidio 7,584 9,955 1.313 

48379 Rains 9,402 11,529 1.226 

48381 Randall 106,619 125,769 1.18 

48383 Reagan 3,405 4,101 1.204 

48385 Real 3,051 3,040 0.996 

48387 Red River 14,351 14,641 1.02 

48389 Reeves 13,369 14,786 1.106 

48391 Refugio 7,943 8,652 1.089 

48393 Roberts 897 998 1.113 

48395 Robertson 16,287 19,279 1.184 

48397 Rockwall 45,533 67,942 1.492 

48399 Runnels 11,577 12,475 1.078 

48401 Rusk 47,780 51,956 1.087 

48403 Sabine 10,523 10,716 1.018 

48405 San Augustine 9,069 9,770 1.077 

48407 San Jacinto 22,977 29,104 1.267 

48409 San Patricio 69,800 93,570 1.341 

48411 San Saba 6,222 6,843 1.1 

48413 Schleicher 2,970 3,342 1.125 

48415 Scurry 16,476 17,562 1.066 

48417 Shackelford 3,337 3,574 1.071 

48419 Shelby 25,639 29,603 1.155 

48421 Sherman 3,237 3,594 1.11 

48423 Smith 177,083 201,037 1.135 

48425 Somervell 6,979 8,490 1.217 

48427 Starr 56,216 79,415 1.413 

48429 Stephens 9,731 10,457 1.075 

48431 Sterling 1,402 1,543 1.101 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-21

Table C-1 (continued) 

FIPS Code County 2002 2018 2018GF

48433 Stonewall 1,694 1,695 1.001 

48435 Sutton 4,181 4,814 1.151 

48437 Swisher 8,496 9,523 1.121 

48439 Tarrant 1,489,319 1,847,868 1.241 

48441 Taylor 128,262 141,533 1.103 

48443 Terrell 1,081 1,095 1.013 

48445 Terry 12,997 14,910 1.147 

48447 Throckmorton 1,860 1,866 1.003 

48449 Titus 28,786 34,989 1.215 

48451 Tom Green 105,294 116,825 1.11 

48453 Travis 845,053 1,080,424 1.279 

48455 Trinity 13,942 15,034 1.078 

48457 Tyler 21,250 24,626 1.159 

48459 Upshur 35,908 41,645 1.16 

48461 Upton 3,461 3,902 1.127 

48463 Uvalde 26,616 32,217 1.21 

48465 Val Verde 46,318 57,703 1.246 

48467 Van Zandt 49,269 59,968 1.217 

48469 Victoria 86,205 102,198 1.186 

48471 Walker 63,272 72,115 1.14 

48473 Waller 34,583 49,277 1.425 

48475 Ward 11,060 12,051 1.09 

48477 Washington 30,752 35,292 1.148 

48479 Webb 206,306 325,594 1.578 

48481 Wharton 41,738 46,881 1.123 

48483 Wheeler 5,231 4,997 0.955 

48485 Wichita 133,000 143,299 1.077 

48487 Wilbarger 14,793 16,126 1.09 

48489 Willacy 20,651 25,372 1.229 

48491 Williamson 267,736 434,237 1.622 

48493 Wilson 33,943 48,616 1.432 

48495 Winkler 7,273 7,999 1.1 

48497 Wise 50,769 68,763 1.354 

48499 Wood 37,500 43,929 1.171 

48501 Yoakum 7,488 8,997 1.202 

48503 Young 17,982 18,841 1.048 

48505 Zapata 12,587 16,344 1.298 

48507 Zavala 11,887 14,101 1.186 
PECHAN May 2005 

Pechan Report No. 05.05.003/9500.002 Draft Technical Support Document C-22

[This page intentionally left blank.]