Emissions Modeling for the Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 

Technical Support Document 

 
ii 

EPA-454/R-11-011 

November 2011 

Emissions Modeling for the Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 

Technical Support Document 

By: 

Alison Eyth 

Rich Mason 

Alexis Zubrow

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air and Radiation 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Air Quality Assessment Division 
iii 

 
iv 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................ v

LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................. vi

ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................................. vii

1 Introduction to the Modeling Platform .................................................................................................. 1

2 2005 Emission Inventories and Their Preparation ............................................................................... 2

2.1 Custom configuration for emissions modeling for MATS ................................................................. 4

2.2 Onroad mobile sources (onroad) ........................................................................................................ 6

2.2.1 MOVES .......................................................................................................................................... 6

2.2.2 Representing counties ..................................................................................................................... 7

2.2.3 SMOKE-MOVES inputs .............................................................................................................. 11

2.2.4 Generating emission factors for SMOKE ..................................................................................... 12

2.2.5 Running SMOKE for onroad mobile ........................................................................................... 13

2.3 Nonroad mobile sources (nonroad, alm_no_c3, seca_c3) ................................................................ 14

2.3.1 Emissions generated with the NONROAD model (nonroad) ...................................................... 14

2.3.2 Locomotives and commercial marine vessels (alm_no_c3, seca_c3) .......................................... 18

2.4 2005 point sources (ptipm and ptnonipm sectors) ............................................................................ 18

2.4.1 Ethanol plants (ptnonipm) ............................................................................................................ 19

2.5 2005 nonpoint sources (afdust, ag, avefire, nonpt) .......................................................................... 20

2.5.1 Portable fuel containers ................................................................................................................ 20

2.5.2 Onroad refueling ........................................................................................................................... 20

2.6 Other sources (biogenics, othpt, othar, and othon) ........................................................................... 21

2.7 Emissions summaries for 2005 base case ......................................................................................... 21

3 VOC Speciation Changes that Represent Fuel Changes .................................................................... 23

4 2017 Reference Case ............................................................................................................................... 27

4.1 Stationary source projections: EGU sector (ptipm) ......................................................................... 33

4.2 Stationary source projections: non-EGU sectors (ptnonipm, nonpt, ag, afdust) ............................. 33

4.2.1 Ethanol plants (ptnonipm) ............................................................................................................ 35

4.2.2 Biodiesel plants (ptnonipm) ......................................................................................................... 35

4.2.3 Portable fuel containers (nonpt) ................................................................................................... 36

4.2.4 Cellulosic fuel production (nonpt) ................................................................................................ 36

4.2.5 Ethanol transport and distribution (nonpt) ................................................................................... 37

4.2.6 Onroad refueling (nonpt) .............................................................................................................. 37

4.2.7 Refinery adjustments (ptnonipm) ................................................................................................. 38

4.2.8 Ethanol transport gasoline and blends (ptnonipm, nonpt) ............................................................ 38

4.2.9 Upstream agricultural adjustments (afdust, ag, nonpt, ptnonipm) ............................................... 38

4.2.10 Livestock emissions growth (ag, afdust) .................................................................................. 39

4.2.11 Residential wood combustion growth (nonpt) ......................................................................... 39

4.2.12 Aircraft growth (ptnonipm) ...................................................................................................... 40

4.2.13 Stationary source control programs, consent decrees & settlements, and plant closures 

(ptnonipm, nonpt) ..................................................................................................................................... 41

4.2.14 Oil and gas projections in TX, OK, and non-California WRAP states (nonpt) ....................... 46

4.3 Onroad mobile source projections (onroad) ..................................................................................... 46

4.3.1 California LEV ............................................................................................................................. 47

4.4 Nonroad mobile source projections (nonroad, alm_no_c3, seca_c3) ............................................... 47

4.4.1 Emissions generated with the NONROAD model (nonroad) ...................................................... 47

4.4.2 Locomotives and Class 1 & 2 commercial marine vessels (alm_no_c3) ..................................... 48
v 

4.4.3 Class 3 commercial marine vessels (seca_c3) .............................................................................. 50

4.5 Canada, Mexico, and offshore sources (othar, othon, and othpt) ..................................................... 51

4.6 Reference case emission summaries ................................................................................................ 51

5 MATS Control Case ............................................................................................................................... 57

6 References ............................................................................................................................................... 61

LIST OF TABLES 

 

Table 1-1. List of cases run in support of the MATS air quality modeling for the RIA 2

Table 2-1. Sectors used in emissions modeling for the final MATS 2005v4.3 platform 3

Table 2-2. Model species produced by SMOKE for CB05 with SOA for the MATS platform 5

Table 2-3. Description of differences in ancillary data (unrelated to SMOKE to MOVES) between the 

MATS 2005 case and the 2005v4.2 platform 6

Table 2-4. Allocation of states to the Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts 8

Table 2-5. Gasoline parameter categories 9

Table 2-6. States adopting California emission standards 10

Table 2-7. Summary of county grouping characteristics for representative counties 11

Table 2-8. Updated 1,3-butadiene to VOC ratio for 2-stroke snowmobiles for NMIM’s gasoline categories15

Table 2-9. Criteria for grouping representative counties for nonroad mobile analysis 16

Table 2-10. NONROAD model temperature (F) categories 17

Table 2-11. NONROAD NMIM runs 17

Table 2-12. Summary of NONROAD modeling components 18

Table 2-13. 2005 ethanol plant emissions 19

Table 2-14. 2005 U.S. emissions (tons/year) by sector 21

Table 2-15. 2005 base year SO2 emissions (tons/year) for states by sector 21

Table 2-16. 2005 base year PM2.5 emissions (tons/year) for states by sector 22

Table 3-1. Summary of VOC speciation profile approaches by sector across cases 25

Table 4-1. Control strategies and growth assumptions for creating the 2017 reference case emissions 

inventories from the 2005 base case 30

Table 4-2. MATS reference case mobile source-related projection methods 34

Table 4-3. 2017 reference case corn ethanol plant emissions 35

Table 4-4. 2017 biodiesel plant emissions 36

Table 4-5. PFC emissions for 2017 36

Table 4-6. 2017 cellulosic plant emissions 37

Table 4-7. VOC losses (Emissions) due to ethanol transport and distribution 37

Table 4-8. Onroad gasoline and diesel refueling emissions 38

Table 4-9. Impact of refinery adjustments on 2017 emissions 38

Table 4-10. Upstream agricultural emission increases due to RFS2 fuels in 2017 38

Table 4-11. Growth factors from year 2005 to 2017 for animal operations 39

Table 4-12. Projection factors for growing year 2005 residential wood combustion sources 40

Table 4-13. Impact of year 2017 projection factor error on residential wood combustion estimates 40

Table 4-14. Factors used to project 2005 base-case aircraft emissions to 2017 41

Table 4-15. Summary of non-EGU emission reductions applied to the 2005 inventory due to unit and plant 

closures 42

Table 4-16. Future-year ISIS-based cement industry annual reductions (tons/yr) for the non-EGU 

(ptnonipm) sector 44

Table 4-17. State-level non-MACT boiler reductions from ICR data gathering 44
vi 

Table 4-18. National impact of RICE controls on non-EGU projections 45

Table 4-19. Impact of fuel sulfur (SO2) controls on 2017 non-EGU projections 45

Table 4-20. Oil and gas NOX and SO2 emissions for 2005 and 2017 including additional reductions due to 

the RICE NESHAP 46

Table 4-21. Factors applied to year 2005 emissions to project locomotives and class 1 and class 2 

commercial marine vessel emissions to 2017 49

Table 4-22. Additional class 1 railroad and C1/C2 CMV emissions from RFS2 fuel volume changes 50

Table 4-23. NOX, SO2, and PM2.5 factors to project class 3 CMV emissions for 2017 51

Table 4-24. Summary of modeled base case SO2 and PM2.5 annual emissions (tons/year) for 48 states by 

sector 52

Table 4-25. Reference case SO2 emissions (tons/year) for states by sector 53

Table 4-26. Reference case PM2.5 emissions (tons/year) for states by sector 54

Table 4-27. Future year baseline EGU CAP emissions (tons/year) by state 55

Table 5-1. Summary of emissions changes for the MATS AQ modeling in the lower 48 states 57

Table 5-2. EGU emissions totals for the Mmdeled MATS control case in the lower 48 states 57

Table 5-3. State-specific changes in annual EGU SO2 for the lower 48 states 58

Table 5-4. State-specific changes in annual EGU PM2.5 for the lower 48 states 60

LIST OF APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A: Ancillary Datasets and Parameters Used for Each MATS Modeling Case 

APPENDIX B: Inventory Data Files Used for Each MATS Modeling Case – SMOKE Input Inventory 

Datasets 

APPENDIX C: Summary of MATS Rule 2017 Base Case Non-EGU Control Programs, Closures and 

Projections 
vii 

ACRONYMS 

AEO Annual Energy Outlook

BEIS Biogenic Emission Inventory System 

bps Buly plant storage 

btp Bulk plant terminal-to-pump 

C3 Category 3 (commercial marine vessels) 

CAP Criteria Air Pollutant 

CMAQ Community Multiscale Air Quality 

CSAPR Cross-State Air Pollution (formerly Transport) Rule 

E0 0% Ethanol gasoline (by volume) 

E10 10% Ethanol gasoline 

E15 15% Ethanol gasoline

EGU Electric Generating Utility 

EISA Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 

EPAct Energy Policy Act of 2005 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FIPS Federal Information Processing Standard 

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant 

HDGHG Heavy Duty Greenhouse Gas 

HONO HNO2, nitrous acid 

IPM Integrated Planning Model 

LDGHG Light Duty Greenhouse Gas 

MOBILE6 Mobile Source Emission Factor Model, version 6 

MOVES Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator 

MY Model Year 

NEEDS National Electric Energy Database System

NEI National Emission Inventory 

NMIM National Mobile Inventory Model

OAQPS EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

ORL One Record per Line (a SMOKE input format) 

MP Multipollutant 

NO Nitric oxide 

NO2 Nitrogen dioxide 

NOX Nitrogen oxides 

PFC Portable Fuel Container 

PEC Elemental carbon component of PM2.5 

PMFINE Leftover “Other”, or “crustal” component of PM2.5 

PNO3 Particulate nitrate component of PM2.5 

PSO4 Particulate sulfate component of PM2.5 

POC Organic carbon component of PM2.5 

rbt Refinery-to-bulk terminal 

RFS2 Revised annual renewable fuel standard (mandate)

SMOKE Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions

SCC Source Category Code

TAF Terminal Area Forecast 

TSD Technical Support Document 

VOC Volatile Organic Compound 

WRAP Western Regional Air Partnership
1

1 Introduction to the Modeling Platform 

This Technical Support Document (TSD) describes the development of the emissions inventories used as 

inputs to the air quality modeling that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) performed to assess 

the impact of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS). This document provides the details of 

emissions modeling done to support the development of the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) for the 

MATS. The emissions processing described herein and the corresponding air quality modeling were used to 

develop benefit-per-ton scaling factors for the benefits calculation as described in the RIA. More 

information on this approach can be found in Appendix 5C of the RIA and in the Air Quality Modeling 

Technical Support Document (TSD). The emissions inventories were using the Sparse Matrix Operator 

Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) modeling system (http://www.smoke-model.org/index.cfm) version 2.7 

processed into the form required by the Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) model. CMAQ 

simulates the numerous physical and chemical processes involved in the formation, transport, and destruction 

of ozone, particulate matter and air toxics. 

As part of the analysis for this rulemaking, the modeling system was used to calculate daily and annual PM2.5

concentrations, 8-hr maximum ozone and visibility impairment. Model predictions of PM2.5 and ozone are 

used in a relative sense to estimate scenario-specific, future-year design values of PM2.5 and ozone. These are 

combined with monitoring data to estimate population-level exposures to changes in ambient concentrations 

for use in estimating health and welfare effects. In this document, we provide an overview of (1) the 

emissions components of the modeling platform, (2) the development of the 2005 base year emissions, (3) 

the development of the future year baseline emissions, and (4) the development of the future year control 

case emissions. 

A modeling platform is the collection of the inputs to an air quality model, including the settings and data 

used for the model, including emissions data, meteorology, initial conditions, and boundary conditions. The 

2005-based air quality modeling platform used for the proposed utility NESHAP RIA includes 2005 base 

year emissions and 2005 meteorology for modeling ozone and PM2.5 with CMAQ. In support of this rule, 

EPA modeled the air quality in the Eastern and the Western United States using two separate model runs, 

each with a horizontal grid resolution of 12 km x 12 km. These 12 km modeling domains were “nested” 

within a modeling domain covering the remainder of the lower 48 states and surrounding areas using a grid 

resolution of 36 x 36 km. The results from the 36-km modeling were used to provide incoming “boundary” 

for the 12km grids. Additional details on the non-emissions portion of the 2005v4.3 modeling platform used 

for the RIA are described in the air quality modeling TSD. 

The 2005-based air quality modeling platform used in support of the RIA is version 4.3 and is referred to as 

the 2005v4.3 platform. It is an update to the 2005-based platform, version 4.1 (i.e., 2005v4.1) used for the 

proposal modeling and for the appropriate and necessary finding. The Technical Support Document 

“Preparation of Emissions Inventories for the Version 4.1, 2005-based Platform” (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/index.html#toxics) provides information on the platform used for the 

proposed version of this rule and for the appropriate and necessary finding. The 2005v4.3 platform builds 

upon the 2005-based platform, version 4.2, which was the version of the platform used for the final CrossState Air Pollution Rule and incorporated changes made in response to public comments on the proposed 

version of that rule. 

Table 1-1 provides a high-level summary of the three emissions cases that were modeled in support of the 

final rule RIA. The form of the fuel used for mobile sources is a key discriminator between the cases. 

Therefore, the mobile source emissions are described with respect to the impacts of the Energy Independence 
2

and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) on mobile source fuels. 

Table 1-1. List of cases run in support of the MATS air quality modeling for the RIA 

Case Name 

Internal EPA 

Abbreviation Description 

2005 base case 2005ct 2005 calendar year case / scenarios that uses an average 

year temporal allocation approach for Electrical 

Generating Units (EGUs), a pre-EISA/EPAct fuel supply 

for mobile sources, and average year fires data. Air 

quality outputs from this case are used to compute 

relative response factors with the 2017 future year 

reference case scenarios. 

2017 reference case 2017ct_ref 2017 future year baseline scenario with EGU emissions 

that represent the implementation of the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and mobile sources representing 

the implementation of the EISA/EPAct fuel supply 

(RFS2 Rule) along with average year fire data. 

2017 control case 2017ct_ref_mats 2017 “control” or remedy case scenario with EGU 

emissions that represent the implementation of both 

CSAPR and MATS, and mobile sources representing 

implementation of the EISA/EPAct fuel supply (RFS2), 

along with average year fire data. 

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

support of air quality modeling for the MATS. In Section 2, we describe the 2005v4.3 platform custom 

configurations, ancillary data and 2005 inventory differences from the v4.2 platform. In Section 3, we 

describe the speciation differences among each of the cases run. In Section 4, we describe the 2017 

Reference (i.e., future year baseline) case as compared to the 2005 base case. Appendix A provides a 

comparison of the ancillary datasets and parameters used for the various MATS emissions cases, and 

Appendix B compares the emissions inventory and other input data files used for each of the MATS cases. 

2 2005 Emission Inventories and Their Preparation 

As mentioned previously, the 2005 emissions modeling approach for MATS used much of the same data and 

approaches as the 2005v4.2 platform. In this section, we identify the differences between the data used for 

the MATS 2005v4.3 platform and that used for the 2005v4.2 platform. Section 2.1 provides ancillary data 

differences that impact multiple sectors. Section 2.2 discusses the new approach used for emissions 

preprocessing and processing for all onroad mobile sources. Section 2.3 discusses the updated nonroad 

mobile components. Sections 2.2 and 2.65 provide differences for the nonpoint and nonpoint (area) 

inventories, respectively. 

The data used in the 2005 emissions case is often the same as those described in the Final Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule TSD (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/index.html#2005), also known as the CAP-BAFM 

2005-based Version 4.2 Platform (i.e., 2005v4.2). However, some different emissions data are used for this 

rulemaking. All of the documentation provided here describes what was done differently and specifically for 

the MATS in contrast to what was done for the 2005v4.2 platform. 

In MATS, we used a 2005 base case approach for the year 2005 emissions scenario. This approach is very 

similar to that CSAPR Final Rule (formerly known as the “Transport Rule”). A base case approach uses 
3

average year fires and EGU temporal profiles from three years of EGU data. We use a base case approach 

because we want to reduce year-specific variability in some components of the inventory. For example, 

large fires vary in location and day of the year each year, and EGU shutdowns and high use on high energy 

demand days also vary by year. By using a base case approach, these two aspects of the inventory are 

maintained into the future year modeling and therefore do not introduce potentially spurious year-specific 

artifacts into the air quality modeling estimates. For MATS, the same biogenic emissions data as the 

2005v4.2 platform was used for the 2005 case, and also for both future-year cases. The only significant data 

changes between the 2005 and the 2017 future-year MATS case are the emission inventories and speciation 

approaches. 

Table 2-1 below lists the platform sectors used for the MATS modeling platform. It also indicates which 

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

(NEI). Subsequent subsections refer to these platform sectors to identify the emissions differences between 

the 2005v4.2 platform and the MATS 2005v4.3-based platform.

Table 2-1. Sectors used in emissions modeling for the final MATS 2005v4.3 platform 

Platform Sector 

2005 NEI 

Sector Description 

Contains HAP 

emissions? 

IPM sector: ptipm Point NEI EGU units at facilities mapped to the IPM model using the 

National Electric Energy Database System (NEEDS) database. 

Yes 

Non-IPM sector: 

ptnonipm

Point+

 All NEI point source units not matched to the ptipm sector, 

including airports. 

Yes 

Average-fire sector: 

avefire 

N/A Average-year wildfire and prescribed fire emissions, county and 

annual resolution. 

Yes 

Agricultural sector: 

ag

Nonpoint Ammonia (NH3) emissions from NEI nonpoint livestock and 

fertilizer application. 

No 

Area fugitive dust 

sector: afdust

Nonpoint PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from fugitive dust sources in the NEI 

nonpoint inventory. 

No 

Remaining nonpoint 

sector: nonpt

Nonpoint+

 All U.S. nonpoint (i.e. inventoried at the county-level) sources not 

otherwise included in other emissions modeling sectors. 

Yes 

Nonroad sector: 

nonroad

Mobile: 

Nonroad 

Monthly nonroad emissions from the NONROAD model version 

NR08b and National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM) software 

version NMIM20090504b and NMIM and Meteorology database 

version NCD20101201Tier3. Nonroad version is equivalent to 

NONROAD2008a used in 2005v4.2 for future year 2017. 

Yes 

C1 & C2 CMV and 

locomotives: 

alm_no_c3 

Mobile: 

Nonroad 

Primarily 2002 NEI non-rail maintenance locomotives, and 

category 1 and category 2 commercial marine vessel (CMV) 

emissions sources, county and annual resolution. Aircraft 

emissions are no longer in this sector and are now included in the 

Non-EGU sector (as point sources); also, category 3 CMV 

emissions are no longer in this sector and are now contained in the 

seca_c3 sector.

Yes 

C3 commercial 

marine: seca_c3 

Mobile: 

nonroad 

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

emissions, developed for the rule called “Control of Emissions 

from New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 

Liters per Cylinder”, usually described as the Emissions Control 

Area (ECA) study (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/oceanvessels.htm). 

Utilized final projections from 2002, developed for the C3 ECA 

Proposal to the International Maritime Organization (EPA-420-F10-041, August 2010). 

Yes 
4

Platform Sector 

2005 NEI 

Sector Description 

Contains HAP 

emissions? 

Onroad Mobile: 

onroad

Mobile: 

onroad+ 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) emission factors 

created to account for hourly-based meteorology dependencies at 

a select number of representative counties. Includes local input 

information such as fuels, temperatures, vehicle fleet, speed 

distributions and controls. Emission factors are combined with 

activity data and gridded temperature via SMOKE to produce 

gridded emissions. These emissions are discussed extensively in 

Section 2.2. 

Yes 

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

the BEIS3.14 model, including emissions in Canada and 

Mexico. Unchanged from the 2005v4 platform, and the 

same data are used for all future year scenarios. 

No 

Other point sources 

not from the NEI: 

othpt

N/A Point sources from Canada’s 2006 inventory and Mexico’s 

Phase III 1999 inventory, annual resolution. Also includes 

annual U.S. offshore oil 2005v2 NEI point source 

emissions. Unchanged from the 2005v4 platform, and the 

same data are used for all future year scenarios.

No 

Other nonpoint and 

nonroad not from 

the NEI: othar

N/A Annual year 2006 Canada (province resolution) and year 

1999 Mexico Phase III (municipio resolution) nonpoint and 

nonroad mobile inventories. Unchanged from the 2005v4 

platform, and the same data is used for all future year 

scenarios. 

No 

Other onroad 

sources not from the 

NEI: othon

N/A Year 2006 Canada (province resolution) and year 1999 

Mexico Phase III (municipio resolution) onroad mobile 

inventories, annual resolution. Unchanged from the 2005v4 

platform, and the same data is used for all future year 

scenarios. 

No 

+ Some data included in modeling sector has been revised beyond what is included in the 2005 NEI v1 or v2. 

2.1 Custom configuration for emissions modeling for MATS 

Unlike the 2005v4.2 platform, the configuration for MATS modeling included additional hazardous air 

pollutants (HAPs) and used slightly revised ancillary speciation data. Both of these differences are described 

in this section. 

Table 2-2 lists the additional HAP pollutants processed for the MATS 2005v4.3 platform, which were not 

included in the 2005v4.2 platform. A “lite” version of the multi-pollutant CMAQ (Version 4.7) was used 

that required emissions only for the species listed in the footnote of Table 2-2. In addition to the model 

species differences, the MATS platform had a few additional custom aspects in the 2005 cases. Table 2-3 

lists the datasets used by the 2005v4.3 platform that are different from the 2005v4.2 platform. 

Another consideration is the speciation across the MATS future-year cases as compared to 2005. Section 3 

provides a detailed account of these differences. The future-year ancillary data were largely the same as 

those in 2005, with no substantial differences for most modeling sectors. The exception to this is onroad 

mobile, which in MATS processing, required several new ancillary input files to support the SMOKE to 

MOVES modules; these are discussed in detail in Section 2.4. All other ancillary data files not required for 

SMOKE to MOVES processing can otherwise be found at the 2005-based platform website 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/index.html#2005). 
5

Table 2-2. Model species produced by SMOKE for CB05 with SOA for the MATS platform 

Inventory Pollutant Model Species Model species description 

CL2 CL2 Atomic gas-phase chlorine 

HCl HCL Hydrogen Chloride (hydrochloric acid) gas 

CO CO Carbon monoxide 

NOX NO Nitrogen oxide 

NO2 Nitrogen dioxide 

HONO Nitrous acid 

SO2 SO2 Sulfur dioxide 

SULF Sulfuric acid vapor 

NH3 NH3 Ammonia 

VOC ACROLEIN* Acrolein from the HAP inventory 

ALD2 Acetaldehyde from VOC speciation 

ALD_PRIMARY* Acetaldehyde from the HAP inventory 

ALDX Propionaldehyde and higher aldehydes 

BENZENE Benzene (not part of CB05) 

BUTADIENE13* 1,3-butadiene from the HAP inventory 

ETH Ethene 

ETHA Ethane 

ETOH Ethanol, from select inventories provided by OTAQ 

FORM Formaldehyde 

FORM_PRIMARY* Formaldehyde from the HAP inventory 

IOLE Internal olefin carbon bond (R-C=C-R) 

ISOP Isoprene 

MEOH Methanol 

OLE Terminal olefin carbon bond (R-C=C) 

PAR Paraffin carbon bond 

TOL Toluene and other monoalkyl aromatics 

XYL Xylene and other polyalkyl aromatics 

Various additional 

VOC species from the 

biogenics model which 

do not map to the 

above model species 

SESQ Sesquiterpenes 

TERP Terpenes 

PM10 PMC Coarse PM > 2.5 microns and  10 microns 

PM2.5 PEC Particulate elemental carbon  2.5 microns 

PNO3 Particulate nitrate  2.5 microns 

POC Particulate organic carbon (carbon only)  2.5 microns 

PSO4 Particulate Sulfate  2.5 microns 

PMFINE Other particulate matter  2.5 microns 

Sea-salt species (non –

anthropogenic 

emissions) 

PCL Particulate chloride 

PNA Particulate sodium 

 - ACROLEIN, ALD2_PRIMARY, BUTADIENE13, ETHANOL and FORM_PRIMARY are the extra 

“CMAQ-lite” HAPs that are not in the v4.2 platform. 

 
6

Table 2-3. Description of differences in ancillary data (unrelated to SMOKE to MOVES) between the 

MATS 2005 case and the 2005v4.2 platform 

Ancillary Data Type Difference between 2005v4.2 platform and MATS platform 

Speciation crossreferences and 

Speciation profiles 

The MATS 2005v4.3 data files are configured to support the multi-pollutant 

(MP) version of CMAQ, whereas the 2005v4.2 platform data file is configured 

to support only the non-MP version. Therefore, the MATS data files include 

profiles for additional VOC HAP species. 

Speciation VOC to TOG 

conversion profiles 

Added MATS-specific VOC to TOG and nonHAP VOC to nonHAP TOG 

assignments 

SCC Descriptions Added onroad diesel SCCs representing start and idle modes (223007X000) 

Inventory tables The MATS data file was updated to support SMOKE to MOVES pollutants and 

modes, the MP “lite” version of CMAQ, and, to accept inventory Ethanol 

(ETOH). The 2005v4.2 platform data file is configured to support only the 

non-MP version. 

2.2 Onroad mobile sources (onroad) 

For each scenario, emissions from cars, trucks and motorcycles were estimated by using the EPA’s Motor 

Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) to create emission factors that were then input to the Sparse Matrix 

Operator Kernel Emissions system (SMOKE). The SMOKE-MOVES Integration Tools combined the county 

and temperature-specific emission factors with the activity data to compute the actual emissions. In brief, 

our approach was to use the met4moves program to identify a set of temperatures that needed emission rates. 

For each scenario, we then ran MOVES repeatedly to produce emission rates by temperature, Source 

Classification Code (SCC), speed bin, and representing county. The moves2smk tool then reformatted the 

MOVES rates and selected the appropriate rates for each county and month. Movesmrg then multiplies the 

emission rates by county VMT or vehicle population, applies speciation profiles to develop inventories for 

pollutants not included in MOVES and temporally and spatially allocates emissions to individual grid cells 

for CMAQ input. 

2.2.1 MOVES 

For MATS, EPA used a version of the MOVES 2010a model that was enhanced for the proposed Tier 3 rule. 

This model included updated information on how fuel parameters impact vehicle emissions and updates on 

our understanding of evaporative emissions. It also included some minor updates to emission rates and some 

changes designed to make the model run more efficiently. All updates are described in detail in a 

memorandum to the docket (U.S. EPA 2012, Memorandum to Docket: Updates to MOVES for the Tier 3 

NPRM). The following sections describe inputs to the MOVES model that were specific to this analysis. 

The gridded meteorological input data for the entire year of 2005 were derived from simulations of the 

Pennsylvania State University / National Center for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Model (MM5), a 

limited-area, nonhydrostatic, terrain-following system that solves for the full set of physical and 

thermodynamic equations which govern atmospheric motions. The Meteorology-Chemistry Interface 

Processor (MCIP) version 3.4 was used as the software for maintaining dynamic consistency between the 

meteorological model and chemistry mechanisms. The hourly gridded meteorological data was postprocessed by met4moves to create maximum temperature ranges, average relative humidity, and a series of 

diurnal temperature profiles. MOVES was run for each temperature bin and diurnal profile. See Sections 

2.2.4.1 and 2.2.4.3 for details. 

Vehicle population data is a required input for MOVES when modeling on a county basis. Using the 

technical guidance provided to states by EPA, the contractor generated appropriate estimates for vehicle 

populations for use in the MOVES databases using the county specific VMT and national average ratios of 
7

vehicle populations versus vehicle VMT from the MOVES application. This method is described in Section 

3.3 of the document, "Technical Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for Emission Inventory Preparation in 

State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity" (EPA-420-B-10-023, April 2010), which is 

available on the EPA web site at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/index.htm

The county inputs used for the rule were derived from the inputs used for the 2005 National Emissions 

Inventory (NEI). This inventory covers the 50 United States (U.S.), Washington DC, Puerto Rico and U.S. 

Virgin Islands. The NEI was created by the EPA's Emission Inventory and Analysis Group (EIAG) in 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, in cooperation with the Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

(OTAQ) in Ann Arbor, Michigan. 

OTAQ has developed a consolidated modeling system known as the National Mobile Inventory Model 

(NMIM) for calculation of emissions from onroad highway mobile source and nonroad mobile sources. 

NMIM documentation is available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/nmim/420r05024.pdf. NMIM 

includes a county-level database with the important input parameters specific to each county. The data in the 

NMIM county database (NCD) are used to develop MOBILE6.2 and NONROAD model input files within 

NMIM. The basis for the 2005 default vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is data supplied by the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA), as well as publicly available data from FHWA's Highway Statistics 

series. Details of how the NCD was developed are documented for the NEI "Documentation for the 2005 

Mobile National Emissions Inventory, Version 2 (December 2008)", which can be obtained on EPA web 

site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2005inventory.html

For the onroad portion of the inventory estimates for the rule, including all base and control scenarios, the 

current EPA highway mobile source emission model (MOVES) was used. This required conversion of the 

NCD database parameters to a format consistent with MOVES. A contractor was given the assignment 

(TranSystems, Contract No. EP-D-06-001, WA 4-65) to convert the NCD database to MOVES formatted 

input databases. This was accomplished with the assistance of converters designed for this purpose. These 

converters are available on the EPA web site at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/tools.htm

All of the county specific onroad data available in the NCD was converted to MOVES format for use at the 

county scale consistent with the databases created using the MOVES County Data Manager (CDM), except 

for the information regarding fuel properties. The fuel properties were updated using more recent 

information and methods specifically for this rule and described elsewhere in this document. Any table 

entries in the NCD that contained national average default information from the MOBILE6 model were 

replaced with the more recent national average default information used by MOVES. 

2.2.2 Representing counties 

Although EPA compiles county specific databases for all counties in the nation, many of the states can 

provide little or no county specific information for most counties. Rather than explicitly model every county 

in the nation (there are over 3,000 counties), we have performed detailed modeling for some counties and 

less detailed estimates for the other counties. This has been accomplished in this rule using a concept called 

"representing counties". 

In this approach, we group counties that have similar properties and therefore would have similar emission 

rates. Then, we explicitly model only one county in the group (the "representing" county) to determine the 

rates. These representative rates are then used, in combination with county specific activity and meteorology 

data to generate emissions estimates for all of the counties in the group. This approach dramatically reduces 

the number of modeling runs required to generate inventories and still takes into account differences between 

counties. 
8

As described in Section 2.2.4, in order to generate onroad mobile emissions, MOVES was run in conjunction 

with the EPA SMOKE model to generate "grid" level inventories for use in air quality modeling. SMOKE 

uses emission rates (not inventories) to generate inventory estimates within each grid. Since SMOKE 

handles the differences in the fleet mix, temperatures, speeds and VMT versus location and time, MOVES 

can be run in the "emission rate" mode. As a result, when counties are grouped, they can be grouped 

independently of fleet mix, speeds and temperature. This greatly increases the number of counties that can 

be in each grouping, since temperature is a factor that varies among the counties1. For this analysis, we 

grouped counties with similar fuel, emission standards, altitude, and inspection and maintenance (I/M) 

programs. 

The information used to group the counties was derived from the NMIM inputs used for the 2005 NEI 

onroad and nonroad mobile sectors. For the onroad portion of the inventory estimates for the rule, including 

all base and control scenarios, the current EPA highway mobile source emission model (MOVES) was used. 

This required conversion of the NCD database parameters to a format consistent with MOVES. 

The NCD also does not contain county specific information regarding vehicle populations and there are no 

default values. Vehicle population data is a required input for MOVES when modeling on a county basis. 

Using the technical guidance provided to states by EPA, the contractor generated appropriate estimates for 

vehicle populations for use in the MOVES databases using the county specific VMT and national average 

ratios of vehicle populations versus vehicle VMT from the MOVES application. This method is described in 

Section 3.3 of the document, "Technical Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for Emission Inventory 

Preparation in State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity" (EPA-420-B-10-023, April 

2010), which is available on the EPA web site at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/index.htm

The grouping of counties uses a tree algorithm, which is conceptually simple. In the tree algorithm, all 

counties are assigned to various categories. Then by grouping counties within the same categories, you get 

groups of counties that have the similar parameters. Counties were sorted into their Petroleum 

Administration for Defense Districts (PADDs). PADD 1 is divided into three sub-PADD groupings and 

each sub-group is treated as a separate PADD (1a, 1b and 1c). Each state belongs to a PADD and all 

counties in any state are within the same PADD. Table 2-4 below shows the PADDs and the states within 

each PADD. 

Table 2-4. Allocation of states to the Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts 

PADD State FIPS State Name Abbreviation 

1a 09 CONNECTICUT CT 

1a 23 MAINE ME 

1a 25 MASSACHUSETTS MA 

1a 33 NEW HAMPSHIRE NH 

1a 44 RHODE ISLAND RI 

1a 50 VERMONT VT 

1b 10 DELAWARE DE 

1b 11 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DC 

1b 24 MARYLAND MD 

1b 34 NEW JERSEY NJ 

1b 36 NEW YORK NY 

1b 42 PENNSYLVANIA PA 

 

1

 This differs from the calculation of nonroad inventories where temperature was considered in the choice of representing county. 
9

PADD State FIPS State Name Abbreviation 

1c 12 FLORIDA FL 

1c 13 GEORGIA GA 

1c 37 NORTH CAROLINA NC 

1c 45 SOUTH CAROLINA SC 

1c 51 VIRGINIA VA 

1c 54 WEST VIRGINIA WV 

1c 72 PUERTO RICO PR 

1c 78 VIRGIN ISLANDS VI 

2 17 ILLINOIS IL 

2 18 INDIANA IN 

2 19 IOWA IA 

2 20 KANSAS KS 

2 21 KENTUCKY KY 

2 26 MICHIGAN MI 

2 27 MINNESOTA MN 

2 29 MISSOURI MO 

2 31 NEBRASKA NE 

2 38 NORTH DAKOTA ND 

2 39 OHIO OH 

2 40 OKLAHOMA OK 

2 46 SOUTH DAKOTA SD 

2 47 TENNESSEE TN 

2 55 WISCONSIN WI 

3 01 ALABAMA AL 

3 05 ARKANSAS AR 

3 22 LOUISIANA LA 

3 28 MISSISSIPPI MS 

3 35 NEW MEXICO NM 

3 48 TEXAS TX 

4 08 COLORADO CO 

4 16 IDAHO ID 

4 30 MONTANA MT 

4 49 UTAH UT 

4 56 WYOMING WY 

5 02 ALASKA AK 

5 04 ARIZONA AZ 

5 06 CALIFORNIA CA 

5 15 HAWAII HI 

5 32 NEVADA NV 

5 41 OREGON OR 

5 53 WASHINGTON WA 

The counties in each PADD were sorted into fuel groups using the January fuel properties and the July fuel 

properties. The fuel supply and fuel formulation data were taken from the 2005 fuels developed for the rule. 

The fuel parameters used for grouping and the ranges of values used for the bins are described in Table 2-5. 

Table 2-5. Gasoline parameter categories 
10

Gasoline Parameter Category ID Minimum Value (>=) Maximum Value (<) 

Reid Vapor Pressure (psi) 1 0 7.3 

2 7.3 8.2 

3 8.2 9.2 

4 9.2 100 

Sulfur (ppm) 1 0 50 

2 50 100 

3 100 110 

4 110 1000 

Ethanol (volume percent) 1 0 3 

2 3 8 

3 8 100 

Benzene (volume percent) 1 0 1 

2 1 1.5 

3 1.5 2 

4 2 10 

Some states have adopted California highway vehicle emission standards or plan to adopt them. Since the 

emission rates in these states will be different than in neighboring states, they must be modeled separately. 

Also, because the implementation of California standards varies between these states, each state with 

California standards must be modeled independently from the other states with California standards as well. 

Each state with California standards will be treated separately when choosing representing counties. Table 

2-6 shows the states with California emission standards. 

Table 2-6. States adopting California emission standards 

State ID State Name Abbreviation CA Program Begins 

06 California CA 1994 

25 Massachusetts MA 1995 

36 New York NY 1996 

50 Vermont VT 2000 

23 Maine ME 2001 

09 Connecticut CT 2008 

42 Pennsylvania PA 2008 

44 Rhode Island RI 2008 

41 Oregon OR 2009 

53 Washington WA 2009 

34 New Jersey NJ 2009 

24 Maryland MD 2011 

10 Delaware DE 2014 

35 New Mexico NM 2016 

The counties in each PADD-fuel group were sorted into groups with and without I/M vehicle inspection 

programs. I/M programs were determined using the 2005 calendar year entries in the IMCoverage table of 

the MOVES database. The I/M category is the state in which the county resides. All I/M programs within a 

state were considered as a single program, even though each county may be administered separately and 

have a different program design. 

Altitude was also added as its own category. Altitude is a field in the County table of the 

MOVESDB20101006 database. Counties are either high (H) or low (L) altitude based on the criteria set 
11

forth by EPA certification procedures (4,000 feet above sea level). The result is a set of county groups with 

similar fuel, emission standards, altitude and I/M program. Then the county in with the highest VMT in each 

group is chosen as the representing county. The categories are summarized below in Table 2-7. 

Table 2-7. Summary of county grouping characteristics for representative counties 

County Grouping Characteristic Description 

PADD Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts (PADDs). 

PADD 1 is divided into three sub-PADD groupings and 

each sub-group is treated as a separate PADD (1a, 1b and 

1c). Each state belongs to a PADD and all counties in any 

state are within the same PADD. 

Fuel Parameters Average gasoline fuel properties for January and July 

2005, including RVP, sulfur level, ethanol fraction and 

percent benzene. 

Emission Standards. Some states have adopted California highway vehicle 

emission standards or plan to adopt them. Since 

implementation of the standards varies, each state with 

California standards is treated separately. 

Inspection/Maintenance Programs Counties were grouped within a state according to whether 

or not they had an I/M program. All I/M programs within 

a state were considered as a single program, even though 

each county may be administered separately and have a 

different program design. 

Altitude Counties are either high or low altitude based on the 

criteria set forth by EPA certification procedures (4,000 

feet above sea level). 

Using these criteria, a set of 106 counties were selected to represent the nation. Of these, only 103 were 

needed to model the 48 states included in the air quality analysis inventory. If MOVES runs were performed 

for all U.S. counties and months, there would be 3141 counties (excluding AK and HI) times 12 months = 

37,692 county-months. The MOVES runs for each representative county and fuel month were performed 

independently of one another on different computer processors each accessing a MySQL database specific to 

that run. 

2.2.3 SMOKE-MOVES inputs 

Both MOVES and SMOKE require meteorological data. The program met4moves takes gridded hourly 

meteorological data, the representative counties, and the representative fuel months and produces separate 

meteorological products for MOVES and SMOKE. Met4moves uses the representative counties and fuel 

months to determine the full range of meteorology in that county group. For each representative county and 

fuel month, it determines all the grid cells that fall within the corresponding counties in that county group for 

the number of months that correspond to the fuel month2. The temperature range is then determined by 

looking at the minimum and maximum temperature across all these grid cells for all hours in that time 

period. Relative humidity is calculated by taking an average over these same grid cells. 

 

2

 Spatial surrogates are used in determining which grid cells to pull in calculating the various meteorological statistics. These 

spatial surrogates both map counties to grid cells. The spatial surrogates further limit the grid cells by determining whether some 

of the grid cells should not be included in the calculation of temperature range. For example, if some of the county has no roads or 

population, e.g. high mountains, then there is no reason to include it in the temperature range for onroad emissions. 
12

For rate-per-profile (RPP), SMOKE-MOVES uses the change in temperature over the day, the diurnal 

profile, instead of the temperature at the hour of processing. Met4moves create a series of diurnal profiles 

based on the extent of the temperature range and the size of the temperature bins. For MOVES, these diurnal 

profiles will span the full range of temperatures for that representative county and fuel month. For SMOKE 

processing of RPP, met4moves creates a minimum and maximum temperature range for each county in the 

domain. Note that these temperature ranges are county specific, not based on the representative county or 

county group. Met4moves can be run in daily or monthly mode for producing SMOKE input. In monthly 

mode, the temperature range is determined by looking at the range of temperatures over the whole month for 

that specific county. Therefore, there is one temperature range per county per month. While in daily mode, 

the temperature range is determined by evaluating the range of temperatures in that county for that day. The 

output for the daily mode is one temperature range per county per day. Typically, the SMOKE input 

produced in monthly mode will have larger temperature ranges for each county than when it is run in daily 

mode. For the MATS runs, met4moves was run in daily mode. 

In addition to the lookup tables of emission rates produced by MOVES, SMOKE requires county VMT, 

population, and average speed by road type to calculate the necessary emissions for air quality modeling. 

VMT by county and Source Classification Code (SCC) was developed using MOVES2010a and the National 

County Database. The National County Database (NCD20101201) has our most recent estimates of 2005 

VMT and our best estimates of allocation of VMT from national to the county level. Accordingly, for the 

2005 base year, our estimates of VMT by county and SCC were taken directly from the NCD. 

The average speeds provided to SMOKE for each county were derived from the default national average 

speed distributions found in the default MOVES2010a database AvgSpeedDistribution table. These average 

speeds are the average speeds developed for the previous EPA highway vehicle emission factor model, 

MOBILE6. The same speed data was used for the base and future year cases. 

In MOVES, there is a distribution of average speeds for each hour of the day for each road type. The 

average speeds in these distributions were used to calculate an overall average speed for each hour of the 

day. These hourly average speeds were weighted together using the default national average hourly vehicle 

miles traveled (VMT) distribution found in the MOVES default database HourlyVMTFraction table, to 

calculate an average speed for each road type. This average speed by road type was provided to SMOKE for 

each county. 

2.2.4 Generating emission factors for SMOKE 

After representative counties and fuel months were chosen, the met4moves script was executed to produce 

the set of MOVES RunSpecs and meteorology tables that would ultimately generate a set of SMOKE lookup 

tables encompassing the full range of temperatures for all the counties and months in each group. OTAQ 

also provided VMT, population, and average speed tables for every county. 

The onroad model-ready emissions were produced by running SMOKE-MOVES using 103 representative 

counties and two fuel months. SMOKE-MOVES is a series of scripts and programs that 1) produce 

meteorological data for MOVES (Met4Moves), 2) construct a set of MOVES RunSpecs that produce lookup 

tables by temperature and average speed (runspec_generator), 3) process the MOVES lookup tables into a 

SMOKE-ready format (moves2smkEF), and 4) runs SMOKE.. The way that OTAQ used SMOKE-MOVES 

differs somewhat from the way that SMOKE-MOVES was initially designed to be run. The full sequence of 

events was the following: 

1) OAQPS ran met4moves for a nation-wide 12 km grid. This generated the temperatures needed for the 

emission factor lookup tables and an average humidity for each county and month. The inputs to 
13

met4moves are the hourly gridded temperature and humidity generated by the meteorological model 

used for CMAQ along with the list of representative counties and fuel months. For each 

representative county and fuel-month, met4moves queries all the grid cells in all the represented 

county-months to find the full range of temperatures and profiles needed and averages the relative 

humidity. 

2) OTAQ ran the runSpec_generator Perl script, (runspec_generator_v0.3_04Nov2010.plx). The inputs 

to this process include the representative county list, fuel month list, temperature bin size (=10 

degrees here), and the outputs from met4moves. The runspec_generator script produced MOVES 

run-specifications that control how the MOVES run is configured, along zonemonthhour tables in 

CSV format. Specifications were generated for the three types of MOVES processes: rate-perdistance (RPD), rate-per-profile (RPP), and rate-per-vehicle (RPV). Run specifications were 

generated as needed to simulate the range of conditions reflected in the meteorological inputs. For 

RPD and RPV, a series of run specifications were created for each representative county, one for 

each temperature bin covering the temperature ranges provided by the met4moves output. For RPP, a 

second series of run specifications were created for each representative county, one for each diurnal 

profile provided by the met4moves output. The input data specific to each county were loaded into 

databases called “scaleinputdatabases”, and the zonemonthhour tables were also loaded into 

databases. 

3) OTAQ ran a tool to read the county databases, the zonemonthhour databases, other user-supplied 

databases, and the run specifications. The tool implemented LEV programs into the specifications as 

appropriate and also modified the pollutant-process associations in the run specifications to meet the 

needs of MATS. The tool then packaged the information into a form that could be used by the 

compute server. 

4) OTAQ issued the command to kick off the required MOVES runs for each county and fuel month on 

the compute server. 

5) Once the MOVES runs were complete, OTAQ ran the moves2smkEF postprocessor to reformat the 

MySQL tables into the emission factor tables in CSV format that is readable by the SMOKE 

movesmrg program. The postprocessor also performed additional calculations to support SMOKE 

processing of CMAQ ready model emissions: speciating HONO from NO and NO2, speciating the 

AE5 PM species (PEC, POC, PNO3, PSO4, PMFINE, and PMC for break and tire wear), and 

aggregating the detailed MOVES modes into 5 broader modes (exhaust, evaporative, permeation, 

break wear, and tire wear)3

6) OAQPS downloaded the emission factors from the server and executed SMOKE programs to produce 

gridded, hourly, speciated emissions for CMAQ. See the next section for details. 

2.2.5 Running SMOKE for onroad mobile 

Running SMOKE using emission factors (EF) from MOVES required the development of a new set of 

functionality. The central SMOKE program that performs this new analysis is movesmrg which takes 

activity data, meteorological data, and the EF to produce gridded emissions. SMOKE is run independently 

for each of the three processes: rate-per-distance (RPD), rate-per-vehicle (RPV) and rate-per-profile (RPP). 

 

3

 The moves2smk postprocessor also corrects the extended idle emissions for RPV by merging in data from a separate national 

extended idle run and replaces missing EF from RPD due to missing SCCroadtypes in some reference counties. 
14

The emissions process RPD is for modeling the on-network emissions. This includes the following modes: 

vehicle exhaust, evaporation, permeation, break wear, and tire wear. For RPD, the activity data is monthly 

VMT, monthly speed (SPEED), and hourly speed profiles for weekday versus weekend (SPDPRO)4. The 

SMOKE program temporal takes vehicle and roadtype specific temporal profiles and distributes the monthly 

VMT to day of the week and hour. Movesmrg reads the speed data for that county and SCC and the 

temperature from the gridded hourly data and uses these values to look-up the appropriate EF from the 

representative county’s EF table. It then multiplies this EF by temporalized VMT to calculate the emissions 

for that grid cell and hour. This is repeated for each pollutant and SCC in that grid cell. 

The emission process RPV is for modeling the off-network emissions. This includes the following modes: 

vehicle exhaust, evaporative, and permeation (????). For RPV, the activity data is vehicle population 

(VPOP). Movesmrg reads the temperature from the gridded hourly data and uses the temperature plus SCC 

and the hour of the day to look up the appropriate EF from the representative county’s EF table. It then 

multiplies this EF by the VPOP for that SCC and FIPS to calculate the emissions for that grid cell and hour. 

This repeats for each pollutant and SCC in that grid cell. 

The emission process RPP is for modeling the off-network emissions for parked vehicles. This includes the 

mode vehicle evaporative (fuel vapor venting). For RPP, the activity data is VPOP. Movesmrg reads the 

county based diurnal temperature range from met4moves output for SMOKE. It uses this temperature range 

to determine the most similar idealized diurnal profile from the EF table using the temperature min and max, 

SCC, and hour of the day. It then multiplies this EF by the VPOP for that SCC and FIPS to calculate the 

emissions for that grid cell and hour. This repeats for each pollutant and SCC within the county. For more 

details on processing RPD, RPV, and RPP in SMOKE, see: 

http://www.smoke-model.org/version3.0/html/ch02s08s04.html. 

MOVES was run for a series of representative counties and fuel months. For each representative county and 

fuel month, three EF tables were created: RPD, RPV, and RPP. SMOKE was run so that for each model day 

it would read in a single EF table (based on the appropriate fuel month), process all the counties that are part 

of the county group (i.e. are represented by that representative county), then read the next representative 

county EF table, etc. After all days in the model year were looped over, SMOKE has generated a separate 

set of daily intermediate files for each of the emissions processes (RPD, RPV, and RPP). Post-processing 

scripts were developed to integrate the process specific intermediate files into model-ready intermediate files 

for the onroad sector. These files were on national 12km domain, to support the CMAQ runs they were 

further processed to create an aggregated 36km sector specific model-ready file and 2 12km domains 

(12EUS1 and 12WUS1). 

2.3 Nonroad mobile sources (nonroad, alm_no_c3, seca_c3) 

The nonroad sectors include a wide-range of mobile emission sources ranging from locomotives, marine 

vessels, construction and farming equipment to hand-held lawn tools. As discussed in Section 5, nonroad 

upstream impacts also impact the post-EPAct/EISA/RFS2/reference case (anti-backsliding) reflecting 

increased ethanol production resulting in fuel volume increases for locomotives and C1/C2 CMV emissions. 

2.3.1 Emissions generated with the NONROAD model (nonroad) 

Most nonroad emissions are were estimated using the EPA’s NONROAD model, as run by the EPA’s 

NMIM. NONROAD is EPA’s model for calculating emissions from nonroad equipment, except for aircraft, 

 

4

 If the SPDPRO is available, the hourly speed takes precedence over the average speed in the SPEED inventory. Due to an 

oversight, SPDPRO was not used in the base and future-years modeling. A later sensitivity was run including the SPDPRO input 

for the base year which found that the use of hourly speed slightly increased the emissions for most pollutants (e.g. nationally NOx

showed a 0.8% increase, VOC showed a 1% increase, and PM2.5 showed a 3% increase). 
15

locomotives, and commercial marine vessels. The NONROAD Model and extensive documentation can be 

found at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/nonrdmdl.htm. NMIM is a program that references a national database of 

county-month data, writes county-month input files for NONROAD based on that data, runs NONROAD 

once for every county and month requested by the user, and collects the results in an output database. 

Information and downloads for NMIM can be found at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/nmim.htm. Rather than 

running every county, NMIM is designed to run NONROAD for “representative counties” and to use 

individual county activity to develop national inventories. Inputs for NMIM runs were stored in the NMIM 

County Database (NCD). The NCD version is NCD20101201Tier3. This NCD is based on NCD20101201, 

which is the version of the NCD that includes all updates from the 2008 National Emission Inventory 

process: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2008inventory.html. 

In particular, for this analysis, we made updates to the underlying fuel supply for the post EISA/EPAct 

reference case. The NCD20101201Tier3 contained special versions of countyyearmonth, gasoline, and 

diesel, which were copied into the standard versions of these tables in order to run the model. The fuels in 

NCD2010201Tier3 were developed from the fuels used for onroad vehicles, as described in Section 2.2.1. 

Similarly, a special countymonthhour table that contained 2005 meteorology was copied into the standard 

countymonthhour table. The use of the countymonthhour table for meteorology was selected by the RunSpec 

setting useYearlyWeatherDataSelected="false." We also made a minor change for snowmobiles: the SCC 

toxics table in the NMIM County Database (NCD) was updated to correct 1,3-butadiene exhaust emissions 

for 2-stroke snowmobiles (SCC 2260001020), as shown in Table 2-8 below. This correction addressed an 

issue identified in air quality modeling for the RFS2 rule, where unexpected increases in ambient 

concentrations were observed in rural areas during winter due to snowmobile emissions, available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf. The increases were based on data from only three 

engines, which showed unusually high1,3-butadiene emissions with 10% ethanol (Eth oxygenate). Other 

data suggests that this increase is highly unlikely to be representative of the in-use fleet as a whole; thus 

results were corrected to those in the “NCD20101201Tier3” column. In Table 2-but, Base Gasoline 

represents cases where the fuel type is not Eth, MTBE or RFG. Eth gas is used where the fuel contains 

ethanol which is greater than or equal to 5% by volume or Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (ETBE) is greater than 

or equal to 5% by volume. MTBE gas is used where the fuel contains MTBE which is greater than or equal 

to 12% by volume or Tertiary Amine Methyl Ether (TAME) is greater than or equal to 13% by volume. 

Finally, RFG gas is used where the fuel is RFG and where the fuel contains oxygenate greater than 5% by 

volume and where the fuel contains MTBE which is less than 12% by volume or TAME is less than 13% by 

volume. 

Table 2-8. Updated 1,3-butadiene to VOC ratio for 2-stroke snowmobiles for NMIM’s gasoline categories 

Fuel Type NCD20101201 NCD20101201Tier3 

Base Gasoline 0.0012 0.0012 

Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (Eth) Gas 0.00732 0.0012 

Methyl ertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Gas 0.0012 0.0012 

Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) Gas 0.0012 0.0012 

In addition, a special countymap table was developed to use representing counties in the NMIM runs. The 

algorithm for producing representing counties for NMIM was identical to that used for MOVES except that 

ten degree temperature bins were added to the criteria. The result was 293 representing counties. Finally, 

NMIM does not estimate ethanol emissions, so the inventory for this pollutant was from the chemical 

speciation that is obtained by post-processing using SMOKE 
16

2.3.1.1 Representing counties for NONROAD 

“Representing counties” is a way of saving NMIM run time by grouping together similar counties and 

generating emission factors by running the NONROAD Model for only one of those counties and then using 

those emission factors for all the counties in the group. For this analysis, 293 county groups were developed. 

The counties in each group were in the same state, had similar fuels in both summer and winter, and had 

similar I/M programs. Since there are winter fuels and summer fuels, January was chosen as the fuel-month 

to represent the seven months October through April, and July was chosen to represent the five months MaySeptember. The total number of county-months for which NMIM runs needed to be performed was thus 293 

times 12 months = 3,516 county-months for each scenario-year. If NMIM runs were performed for all U.S. 

counties and months, there would be 3141 counties (excluding AK and HI) times 12 months = 37,692 

county-months. Representing counties were chosen for NONROAD-Model NMIM runs by grouping 

counties based on the characteristics listed in Table 2-9. 

Table 2-9. Criteria for grouping representative counties for nonroad mobile analysis 

Characteristic Grouping Criteria 

Petroleum Administration for Defense 

District (PADD) 

All counties in a group must be in the same PADD. 

Gasoline parameters Fuel bins were created for RVP, sulfur, benzene, and 

ethanol. All counties in each group had all of these fuel 

properties in the same bins for all twelve months. 

Inspection/Maintenance Programs Counties with I/M programs were grouped with other 

counties with I/M programs in the same state. 

Altitude All counties in the group must be in the same altitude 

category (high or low). 

Temperatures All counties in the group must have similar temperatures, as 

detailed below. 

Nonroad inventories are not calculated on a grid basis, as the highway mobile sources were, so when running 

NMIM for nonroad emissions, the representing counties must also account for temperatures. The 

temperatures are taken from the 2005 calendar year values in the CountyYearMonthHour table of the 

NCD20100602 NMIM database. As shown in 
17

Table 2-10, ten degree Fahrenheit (F) bins were created for min and max temperatures for each month. All 

counties in each group had all min and max temperatures for all twelve months in the same bins. The lowest 

interval includes all temperatures below -10 degrees F. The highest interval includes all temperatures above 

100 degrees F. 
18

Table 2-10. NONROAD model temperature (F) categories 

Temperature 

Bin 

Minimum 

Temperature (>=) 

Maximum 

Temperature (<) 

1 -20 -10 

2 -10 0 

3 0 10 

4 10 20 

5 20 30 

6 30 40 

7 40 50 

8 50 60 

9 60 70 

10 70 80 

11 80 90 

12 90 100 

13 100 200 

Once counties were grouped, the representing county was chosen as the one with the highest VMT. The 

same set of 293 county groups and representing counties was used for all years and scenarios. 

2.3.1.2 Fuel inputs for NONROAD runs 

For the nonroad mobile portion of the inventory estimate for the rule, the NMIM county database (NCD) 

developed for the 2005 NEI, with one exception of the county-specific fuel properties, was used to calculate 

nonroad emissions. Fuels were developed for MOVES (onroad mobile) for the MATS Rule (see Section 

2.2) and were converted to NMIM fuels. Practically, this means converting the fuelsupply and 

fuelformulation tables from MOVES into the countyyearmonth, gasoline, and diesel tables in the NCD. 

In 2005, onroad and nonroad gasoline formulations are assumed to be identical. 

While MOVES allows for multiple gasoline fuels, each with a market share, for a single county-month. The 

market shares always sum to one. The NCD allows only one fuel per county month, but, for each of the four 

oxygenates (ETOH, MTBE, TAME, and ETBE), the NCD has columns for both volume percent and market 

share. The sum of these market shares is less than or equal to one. If less than one, the remainder of the 

market is non-oxygenated (conventional) gasoline. When there are multiple MOVES gasoline fuels for a 

single county-month, non-oxygenate MOVES fuel properties are multiplied by market share and summed to 

produce the fuel property in the gasoline table. Individual non-ethanol oxygenates and California ethanol 

occur in only one fuel per county-month in MOVES, so the volume and market share are transferred to the 

appropriate columns for that oxygenate in NMIM. In states other than California, for multiple ethanol 

volumes with volume percents less than 10, the product of market share and volume percent is averaged and 

then divided by 10, resulting in a market share of E10. 

2.3.1.3 NMIM runs 

Table 2-11 shows the NMIM runs that were performed to generate the NONROAD Model county-month 

results for both national inventories and air quality modeling inventories. 

Table 2-11. NONROAD NMIM runs 

MOVES fuels were used for future year cases and converted to NMIM format. However, for 2017, EPA 

Case Year Run Name 

Base 2005 Tier3Base2005Nr 

Reference 2017 Tier3Ref2017e10Nr 
19

assumed that nonroad equipment would use only E10. The details of the fuels conversion from MOVES to 

NMIM was discussed above. Table 2-12 describes the components in the NONROAD/NMIM system 

common to all MATS modeling scenarios. 

Table 2-12. Summary of NONROAD modeling components 

Model Version Description 

NONROAD NR08b This is identical to the official NONROAD2008, 

(available at 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/nonrdmdl.htm#model) 

except it was modified to allow modeling of 

emissions on E15 fuels. The existing fuel effects 

algorithm was retained. 

NMIM Code NMIM20090504b This is the same as the official NMIM2008a 

software, (available at 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/nmim.htm) except the 

NONROAD model was updated to NRO8b. 

NMIM Database NCD20101201Tier3 This is based on NCD20101201, which was 

developed for the 2008 NEI. It was adapted to 

model the desired scenarios. 

Meteorology NCD20101201Tier3 Historical data for calendar year 2005 from the 

National Climatic Data Center. County temperatures 

were determined by weighting nearby temperature 

stations by their distance from the population-based 

centroid of each county. 

2.3.2 Locomotives and commercial marine vessels (alm_no_c3, seca_c3) 

The year 2005 emissions from these sources used for this rule are the same as they were for the Final 

Rulemaking: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and HeavyDuty Engines and Vehicles signed on August 9, 2011 and available at 

http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/regulations.htm#1-2, and the Final Cross-State Air Pollution (CSAPR) 

Rule: ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2005v4_2/transportrulefinal_eitsd_28jun2011.pdf. The procedures 

for calculating emissions from locomotives and C1/C2 commercial marine were developed for the 

Locomotive Marine Rule (2008) and are detailed in the RIA “Final Rule: Control of Emissions of Air 

Pollution from Locomotives and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines Less Than 30 Liters per Cylinder”, 

published May 6, 2008 and republished June 30, 2008, and available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/oms/locomotives.htm#2008final. The procedures used for calculating C3 commercial 

marine emissions are those developed in the recent C3 “Final Rule: Control of Emissions from New Marine 

Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder”, published April 30, 2010 and available 

at: http://www.epa.gov/oms/oceanvessels.htm#car-ems. 

2.4 2005 point sources (ptipm and ptnonipm sectors) 

Point sources are sources of emissions for which specific geographic coordinates (e.g., latitude/longitude) are 

specified, as in the case of an individual facility. A facility may have multiple emission points, which may 

be characterized as units such as boilers, reactors, spray booths, kilns, etc. A unit may have multiple 

processes (e.g., a boiler that sometimes burns residual oil and sometimes burns natural gas). Note that this 

section describes only NEI point sources within the contiguous United States. The offshore oil platform 

(othpt sector) and category 3 CMV emissions (seca_c3 sector) are also point source formatted inventories but 

are unchanged for MATS modeling. Discussion of the seca_c3 and othpt sector emissions can be found in 

the Final CSAPR TSD referenced in Section 2.3.2. 
20

After removing offshore oil platforms (othpt sector), we created two platform sectors from the remaining 

2005v2 NEI point sources for input into SMOKE: the EGU sector – also called the Integrated Planning 

Model (IPM) sector (i.e., ptipm) and the non-EGU sector – also called the non-IPM sector (i.e., ptnonipm). 

This split facilitates the use of different SMOKE temporal processing and future-year projection techniques 

for each of these sectors. The inventory pollutants processed through SMOKE for both ptipm and ptnonipm 

sectors were: CO, NOX, VOC, SO2, NH3, PM10, and PM2.5 and the following HAPs: HCl (pollutant code = 

7647010), and CL2 (code = 7782505). We did not utilize BAFM from these sectors as we chose to speciate 

VOC without any use (i.e., integration) of VOC HAP pollutants from the inventory (integration is discussed 

in detail in Section 3). 

The ptnonipm emissions were provided to SMOKE as annual emissions. The ptipm emissions for the base 

case were input to SMOKE as daily emissions. The ptipm emissions are unchanged from those in the 

2005v4.2 (basis for the Final CSAPR and Heavy Duty Greenhouse Gas (HDGHG) FRM) emission modeling 

platform. However, for the ptnonipm sector for all MATS scenarios, including year 2005 emissions, we 

included additional known ethanol plants that were not previously included in 2005v4.2. We also removed 

all onroad refueling emissions as these were replaced with MOVES-based onroad refueling emissions 

(discussed in Section 2.5.2). 

2.4.1 Ethanol plants (ptnonipm) 

We replaced all ethanol plants that OTAQ had supplied from the RFS2 rule –see Section 2.1.2 in the CSAPR 

Final TSD- with those recently compiled for the 2005 case for MATS. These plants represent a “Low 

Ethanol” scenario needed to produce only 4 billion gallons of ethanol, essentially a scenario without a future 

year RFS2 mandate (or MATS). All ethanol plants were assigned or corrected (after quality assurance 

analyses) coordinates based on analysis using searches of company web sites and Google Earth verification 

for many sites. Emissions were calculated based on plant design capacity and emission factors based on fuel 

type (e.g., coal, natural gas). Finally, because benzene, acetaldehyde and formaldehyde (BAF) emissions 

were directly computed for these sources, unlike the rest of the ptnonipm sector, we treated these ethanol 

plants as VOC integrate sources. A summary of the ethanol plant emissions used in the 2005 scenario is 

provided in Table 2-13. 

Table 2-13. 2005 ethanol plant emissions 

Pollutant Emissions 

1,3-Butadiene 0.0003

Acrolein 10.5

Formaldehyde 13.3

Benzene 5.7

Acetaldehyde 314.4

CO 7,023

NOX 8,204

PM10 10,107

PM2.5 3,691

SO2 9,001

VOC 10,754
21

2.5 2005 nonpoint sources (afdust, ag, avefire, nonpt) 

The year 2005 area-source fugitive dust (afdust), agricultural animal and fertilizer NH3 (ag), and average 

(typical)-year fires (avefire) emissions are the same as those used in the CSAPR Final (2005v4.2) emission 

modeling platform. Nonpoint sources that were not subdivided into the afdust, ag, or avefire sectors were 

assigned to the “nonpt” sector, and most of these sources are also unchanged for MATS modeling. The 2005 

nonpoint sources that change are limited to portable fuel containers (PFCs) and onroad refueling. 

2.5.1 Portable fuel containers 

Year 2005 PFC emissions are unchanged from the CSAPR Final inventory except for the addition of ethanol. 

Ethanol emissions were not provided for 2005, but were supplied for future year scenarios. Therefore, we 

scaled year 2017 reference case ethanol emissions by the ratio of 2005 to 2017 base total VOC emissions to 

compute year 2005 ethanol emissions: 

Ethanol_2005 = Ethanol_2017reference * (VOC_2005 / VOC_2017reference) 

2.5.2 Onroad refueling 

As mentioned in Section 2.2, NEI-based onroad refueling emissions were replaced with estimates from the 

revised version of EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES2010a) at the county level for all 

twelve months. This section describes how the emission inventories for refueling from on-road vehicles in 

calendar years 2005 and 2017 for MATS reference and control cases were generated for air quality 

modeling. The refueling inventory includes emissions from spillage loss and displacement vapor loss. For 

this analysis, the refueling emissions were estimated using the revised version of EPA’s Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Simulator (MOVES2010a) at the county level for all twelve months. 

In an effort to reduce MOVES runtime, the “representing counties” approach was used instead of running 

every single county in the lower 48 states. As described in Section 2.2 for onroad counties, we selected 

representing counties by grouping counties based on Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts 

(PADD), fuel parameters, usage of California emission standards, Inspection/Maintenance programs, and 

altitude. One additional parameter included in developing the representing counties for refueling was 

temperature. 

Temperature bins with increments of ten degrees F were created for the minimum and maximum 

temperatures for each month using the temperatures from the 2005 calendar year values in the 

CountyYearMonthHour table of the NMIM County Database (NCD) NCD20100602 NMIM database. All 

counties in each group had min and max temperatures for all twelve months in the same temperature bins. 

Once counties were grouped, the representing county was chosen as the one with the highest VMT, resulting 

in total of 238 counties. The same set of county groups and representing counties was used for all years and 

scenarios. 

MOVES was run in inventory mode for only the representing counties using the county-specific on-road 

data, such as vehicle miles travelled, fleet age distribution, speed distribution, and meteorology, available 

from the NCD. The customized fuel inputs, discussed in Section 2.2.2.1, were used for each of the 

representing counties. 

The resulting refueling emission inventories for 238 representing counties in U.S. short tons were converted 

to emission factors by dividing the inventory by the corresponding activity in each representing county. 

Then, the calculated emission factors from the representing counties were applied to the represented counties 

and multiplied by the county-specific activity to generate the inventories for all counties. 
22

2.6 Other sources (biogenics, othpt, othar, and othon) 

All emissions from Canada, Mexico, and Offshore Drilling platforms (othpt, othar, and othon), and all nonanthropogenic inventories (biogenics and ocean chlorine) are unchanged from the 2005v4.2 (used for the 

Final CSAPR and HDGHG FRM) emissions modeling platform. The same emissions are used for all MATS 

scenarios and years. 

2.7 Emissions summaries for 2005 base case 

Once developed, the emissions inventories were processed to provide the hourly, gridded emissions for the 

model-species needed by CMAQ. Table 2-14 provides summaries of the 2005 U.S. emissions inventories 

modeled for this rule by sector. Table 2-15 and Table 2-16 provide state-level summaries of SO2, and PM2.5

by sector. Note that the nonroad columns include emissions from traditional nonroad sources that are found 

“on-land”, along with commercial marine sources. The nonpoint columns include area fugitive dust, 

agriculture, and other nonpoint emissions. 

Table 2-14. 2005 U.S. emissions (tons/year) by sector 

Emissions Sector NOX SO2 PM2.5 PM10 NH3 CO VOC 

Agriculture 3,251,990 

Area fugitive Dust 1,030,391 8,858,992 

Average fires 189,428 49,094 684,035 796,229 36,777 8,554,551 1,958,992 

Commercial marine 

Category 3 (US) 130,164 97,485 10,673 11,628 11,862 4,570 

EGU 3,729,161 10,380,883 496,877 602,236 21,995 603,788 41,089 

Locomotive/ marine 1,922,723 153,068 56,666 59,342 773 270,007 67,690 

Non-EGU Point 2,213,471 2,030,759 433,346 647,873 158,342 3,201,418 1,279,308 

Nonpoint 1,696,902 1,216,362 1,079,906 1,349,639 133,962 7,410,946 7,560,061 

Nonroad 2,031,527 196,277 201,406 210,767 1,971 20,742,873 2,806,422 

Onroad 8,235,002 168,480 301,073 369,911 144,409 41,117,658 3,267,931 

US TOTAL 20,148,378 14,292,410 4,294,373 12,906,616 3,750,218 81,913,104 16,986,064 

Table 2-15. 2005 base year SO2 emissions (tons/year) for states by sector 

State EGU NonEGU Nonpoint Nonroad Onroad Fires Total 

Alabama 460,123 66,373 52,325 5,622 3,554 983 588,980 

Arizona 52,733 23,966 2,571 6,151 3,622 2,888 91,931 

Arkansas 66,384 13,039 27,260 5,678 1,918 728 115,008 

California 601 33,097 77,672 40,222 4,526 6,735 162,852 

Colorado 64,174 1,550 6,810 4,897 2,948 1,719 82,098 

Connecticut 10,356 1,831 18,455 2,557 1,337 4 34,540 

Delaware 32,378 34,859 1,030 2,657 486 6 71,416 

District of Columbia 1,082 686 1,559 414 205 0 3,947 

Florida 417,321 57,429 70,490 31,190 12,388 7,018 595,836 

Georgia 616,063 52,827 56,829 9,224 6,939 2,010 743,893 

Idaho 0 17,151 2,915 2,304 902 3,845 27,117 

Illinois 330,382 131,357 5,395 19,305 6,881 20 493,339 

Indiana 878,979 86,337 59,775 9,437 4,641 24 1,039,194 

Iowa 130,264 41,010 19,832 8,838 2,036 25 202,004 

Kansas 136,520 12,926 36,381 8,035 1,978 103 195,943 

Kentucky 502,731 25,808 34,229 6,943 3,240 364 573,315 

Louisiana 109,875 165,705 2,378 25,451 2,902 892 307,202 

Maine 3,887 18,512 9,969 1,625 963 150 35,106 

Maryland 283,205 34,988 40,864 9,353 3,016 32 371,458 
23

State EGU NonEGU Nonpoint Nonroad Onroad Fires Total 

Massachusetts 84,234 19,620 25,261 6,524 2,669 93 138,402 

Michigan 349,877 76,510 42,066 14,626 8,253 91 491,423 

Minnesota 101,678 24,603 14,747 10,409 2,934 631 155,002 

Mississippi 75,047 29,892 6,796 5,930 2,590 1,051 121,306 

Missouri 284,384 78,308 44,573 10,464 4,901 186 422,816 

Montana 19,715 11,056 2,600 3,813 874 1,422 39,480 

Nebraska 74,955 7,910 7,659 9,199 1,510 105 101,337 

Nevada 53,363 2,253 12,477 2,880 656 1,346 72,975 

New Hampshire 51,445 3,155 7,408 789 746 38 63,580 

New Jersey 57,044 7,639 10,726 13,321 3,038 61 91,830 

New Mexico 30,628 7,831 3,193 3,541 1,801 3,450 50,445 

New York 180,847 58,426 125,158 15,666 6,258 113 386,468 

North Carolina 512,231 59,433 22,020 8,766 6,287 696 609,433 

North Dakota 137,371 9,582 6,455 5,986 533 66 159,994 

Ohio 1,116,095 115,155 19,810 15,425 7,336 22 1,273,843 

Oklahoma 110,081 40,482 8,556 5,015 3,039 469 167,642 

Oregon 12,304 9,825 9,845 5,697 1,790 4,896 44,357 

Pennsylvania 1,002,203 83,375 68,349 11,999 6,266 32 1,172,224 

Rhode Island 176 2,743 3,365 816 254 1 7,354 

South Carolina 218,781 31,495 13,489 7,719 3,589 646 275,719 

South Dakota 12,215 1,702 10,347 3,412 623 498 28,797 

Tennessee 266,148 65,693 32,714 6,288 5,538 277 376,659 

Texas 534,949 223,625 115,192 34,944 16,592 1,178 926,480 

Tribal 3 1,511 0 0 0 0 1,515 

Utah 34,813 9,132 3,577 2,439 1,890 1,934 53,784 

Vermont 9 902 5,385 385 342 49 7,073 

Virginia 220,287 69,401 32,923 10,095 4,600 399 337,705 

Washington 3,409 24,211 7,254 18,810 3,343 407 57,433 

West Virginia 469,456 46,710 14,589 2,133 1,378 215 534,481 

Wisconsin 180,200 66,807 6,369 7,163 3,647 70 264,256 

Wyoming 89,874 22,321 6,721 2,674 721 1,106 123,417 

Total 10,380,883 2,030,759 1,216,362 446,831 168,480 49,094 14,292,410 

Table 2-16. 2005 base year PM2.5 emissions (tons/year) for states by sector 

State EGU NonEGU Nonpoint Nonroad Onroad Fires Total 

Alabama 23,366 19,498 35,555 4,142 5,775 13,938 102,273 

Arizona 7,418 3,940 21,402 4,486 6,920 37,151 81,316 

Arkansas 1,688 10,820 34,744 3,803 3,102 10,315 64,472 

California 347 21,517 94,200 22,815 26,501 97,302 262,682 

Colorado 4,342 7,116 25,340 3,960 4,377 24,054 69,189 

Connecticut 562 224 11,460 1,740 2,544 56 16,586 

Delaware 2,169 1,810 1,590 818 922 87 7,397 

District of Columbia 17 172 589 277 367 0 1,421 

Florida 24,217 25,193 52,955 15,035 16,241 99,484 233,125 

Georgia 28,057 12,666 63,133 6,504 12,449 24,082 146,892 

Idaho 0 2,072 41,492 2,140 1,402 52,808 99,914 

Illinois 16,585 15,155 74,045 12,880 12,574 277 131,516 

Indiana 34,439 14,124 74,443 6,515 7,585 344 137,450 

Iowa 8,898 6,439 54,312 6,969 3,468 349 80,436 

Kansas 5,549 7,387 138,437 5,719 3,109 1,468 161,669 
24

State EGU NonEGU Nonpoint Nonroad Onroad Fires Total 

Kentucky 19,830 10,453 31,245 4,762 5,566 5,155 77,010 

Louisiana 5,599 32,201 28,164 9,440 4,288 12,647 92,339 

Maine 52 3,783 15,037 1,363 1,759 2,127 24,120 

Maryland 15,417 6,768 23,323 3,410 5,504 531 54,952 

Massachusetts 3,110 2,245 31,116 3,293 5,913 1,324 47,001 

Michigan 11,022 12,926 47,722 8,561 13,006 1,283 94,520 

Minnesota 3,262 10,538 73,990 8,541 6,842 8,943 112,116 

Mississippi 2,029 10,602 34,217 4,133 4,195 14,897 70,074 

Missouri 6,471 6,966 76,419 7,230 7,665 2,636 107,388 

Montana 2,398 2,729 30,096 2,654 1,347 17,311 56,536 

Nebraska 1,246 2,340 45,661 5,848 2,620 1,483 59,198 

Nevada 3,341 4,095 9,920 2,212 1,290 19,018 39,876 

New Hampshire 2,586 568 13,316 907 1,512 534 19,423 

New Jersey 4,625 2,588 13,623 5,042 5,963 865 32,707 

New Mexico 5,583 1,460 50,698 1,959 2,861 48,662 111,224 

New York 9,648 4,994 48,540 8,607 11,139 1,601 84,529 

North Carolina 16,967 12,665 49,551 6,272 8,939 9,870 104,264 

North Dakota 6,397 598 41,504 4,552 976 934 54,962 

Ohio 53,572 12,847 52,348 9,847 11,785 316 140,715 

Oklahoma 1,411 6,246 90,047 3,765 4,559 6,644 112,672 

Oregon 412 8,852 58,145 3,741 3,375 65,350 139,874 

Pennsylvania 55,547 16,263 44,607 7,565 11,058 454 135,494 

Rhode Island 10 256 1,289 394 577 14 2,540 

South Carolina 14,455 4,779 26,598 3,491 5,061 9,163 63,548 

South Dakota 390 2,982 33,678 2,910 1,056 7,062 48,079 

Tennessee 12,856 21,912 32,563 5,072 8,514 3,934 84,851 

Texas 21,464 37,563 194,036 21,361 29,859 21,578 325,861 

Tribal 0 1,569 0 0 0 0 1,569 

Utah 5,055 3,595 14,761 1,627 2,703 27,412 55,153 

Vermont 37 337 6,943 479 605 696 9,098 

Virginia 12,357 11,455 38,140 5,968 6,661 5,659 80,241 

Washington 2,396 4,618 45,599 6,697 6,721 4,487 70,519 

West Virginia 26,377 5,154 14,778 1,702 1,930 3,050 52,991 

Wisconsin 5,233 7,967 37,277 6,083 6,783 994 64,337 

Wyoming 8,068 10,298 31,645 1,455 1,103 15,686 68,254 

Total 496,877 433,346 2,110,298 268,745 301,073 684,035 4,294,373 

3 VOC Speciation Changes that Represent Fuel Changes 

A significant detail that is different in each of the MATS modeling cases than in the 2005v4.2 emissions 

modeling is the VOC speciation profiles used to split total VOC emissions into the VOC model species 

needed for CMAQ. In this section, we summarize the various speciation profile information used in 

configuring the various cases. 

A major change between the 2005v4.2 platform and the MATS base and future modeling is the integration of 

ethanol for key sectors and specific inventories. In the previous platform, the inventories for specific sources 

had benzene, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde and/or methanol (BAFM). These emissions would be integrated, 

namely their emissions would come from the inventory not from speciating VOC. To prevent double 

counting, BAFM would be removed from VOC, leaving the remainder (NONHAPVOC) to be speciated to 

other components (i.e. non-BAFM species). See section 3.1.2.1 of the 2005v4 platform for more details 
25

ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2005v4/2005_emissions_tsd_07jul2010.pdf. In the MATS modeling, if 

ethanol was present in the inventories, it would also be integrated. To differentiate when a source was 

integrating BAFM versus EBAFM (ethanol in addition to BAFM), the speciation profiles is referred to as an 

“E-profile”, for example pre-Tier 2 vehicles E10 gasoline exhaust speciation profile 8751 versus 8751E. For 

the onroad sector, ethanol is integrated for all emissions from gasoline vehicles. For the nonpt sector, 

ethanol is integrated for refueling and portable fuel containers (PFCs). In the future-year case, the nonpt 

sector includes a cellulosic corn ethanol and biodiesel inventory (SCC 30125010) in which ethanol is 

integrated. For fuel distribution operations associated with the bulk-plant-to-pump (btp) distribution, ethanol 

is speciated from VOC because the nonpoint inventories do not include ethanol specifically. 

The onroad sector has some additional changes to VOC speciation. Instead of speciating VOC, SMOKEMOVES uses TOG instead of VOC. Therefore, SMOKE does not need to convert VOC to TOG before 

creating NONHAPTOG and performing additional speciation. A second change in VOC speciation is the 

differentiation of a new mode. In previous platforms, onroad mobile emissions were divided into exhaust 

and evaporative modes. For the MATS base and future years, gasoline vehicle’s evaporative mode is further 

divided into permeation specific emissions and evaporative. Similar to evaporative and exhaust profiles, 

these profiles change between the base and future year cases. Additional updates include headspace vapor 

speciation utilizes a combination of the E10 headspace vapor profile and E0 headspace vapor profile as 

opposed to using solely E0 for 20055

, and a new Heavy Duty Diesel vehicle exhaust mode profile for pre2007 model year (MY) vehicles that replaces an older 2004-vintage medium-duty diesel profile. See Table 

3-1 for more details. 

The VOC speciation approach is customized to account for the impact of fuel changes in the future year case. 

These changes affect the onroad sector, the nonroad sector, and parts of the nonpt and ptnonipm sectors. 

These fuel changes and vehicle changes are implemented by using different VOC profiles and combination 

of profiles between the base and future cases. The speciation changes from fuels in the nonpt sector are for 

refueling, portable fuel containers (PFCs), and fuel distribution operations associated with the bulk-plant-topump (btp) distribution. The speciation changes from fuels in the ptnonipm sector include btp distribution 

operations inventoried as point sources6

. Refinery to bulk terminal (rbt) fuel distribution speciation does not 

change across the modeling cases because this is considered upstream from the introduction of ethanol into 

the fuel7. Mapping of fuel distribution SCCs to btp and rbt emissions categories can be found in Appendix A 

of the revised annual Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) Emissions Inventory for Air Quality Modeling 

Technical Support Document (EPA Report No. 420-R-10-005, January 2010, 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r10005.pdf). 

Table 3-1 summarizes the different profiles utilized for the fuel-related sources in each of the sectors for 

2005 and the future year cases. A comparison of the 2005v4.2 platform with the MATS 2005 case is also 

included. Appendix A lists ancillary input data set names used for MATS emissions. 

 

5

 This was an oversight in the 2005v4.2 platform corrected for this modeling effort. 6

 VOC speciation is customized by using different speciation profiles in the base versus future year cases. For some sources 

related to the mobile sector and fuel distribution, a combination of profiles are specified by county, month and mode (e.g. exhaust, 

evaporative, permeation). SMOKE calculates a resultant profile by calculating the fraction of each profile by month, county, and 

mode. The GSPRO_COMBO ancillary file controls this feature in SMOKE. The GSPRO_COMBO file represents the county 

specific mixture of fuels, for example the mixture of E10 and E0. For the nonpt sector, a further complication in developing the 

GSPRO_COMBO is differentiating the sources that integrate ethanol (i.e. use E-profiles) and those that do not integrate ethanol. 

By using the mode for refueling (RFL__VOC) and PFC (EVP__VOC), these ethanol integrated sectors can be differentiated from 

btp (VOC). 

7

 We also identified bulk plant storage (bps) as an upstream source that is pre-addition of ethanol and uses the same speciation

profile as rbt. 
26

Table 3-1. Summary of VOC speciation profile approaches by sector across cases 

Category 2005v4.2 2005 MATS 2017 MATOnroad Gasoline Exhaust COMBO COMBO COM

8750 Pre-Tier 2 E0 exhaust 8750E Pre-Tier 2 E0 exhaust 8751E Pre-Tier 2 E8751 Pre-Tier 2 E10 exhaust 8751E Pre-Tier 2 E10 exhaust 8757E Tier 2 E10 

8758E Tier 2 E15 

Evaporative COMBO COMBO (All evap except permeation) COMBO (All evap 

8753 E0 Evap 8753E E0 Evap 8754E E10 Evap 8754 E10 Evap 8754E E10 Evap 8872E E15 Evap 

COMBO (Permeation evap) COMBO (Per

8766E E0 evap perm 8769E E10 evap p8769E E10 evap perm 8770E E15 evap p

Refueling 8762 E0 Headspace composite COMBO COM

8869E E0 Headspace 8870E E10 Headsp8870E E10 Headspace 8871E E15 Headsp

Onroad Diesel Exhaust 4674 2004 MDD exhaust 8774 Pre-2007 MY HDD 

exhaust 

877T3 Pre & Post 

exhaust 

Weighted 8774 

Evaporative 4547 Diesel Headspace 4547 Diesel Headspace 4547 Diesel HeadRefuel 4547 Diesel Headspace 4547 Diesel Headspace 4547 Diesel HeadNonroad Gasoline Exhaust COMBO COMBO 8751 Pre-Tier 2 E

8750 Pre-Tier 2 E0 exhaust 8750 Pre-Tier 2 E0 exhaust 8751 Pre-Tier 2 E10 exhaust 8751 Pre-Tier 2 E10 exhaust 

Evaporative COMBO COMBO 8754 E10 Evap 

8753 E0 evap 8753 E0 evap 8754 E10 evap 8754 E10 evap 

Refueling 8762 E0 Headspace composite COMBO 8870 E10 Headsp

8869 E0 Headspace 8870 E10 Headspace 
27

Category 2005v4.2 2005 MATS 2017 MATNonroad Diesel Exhaust 4674 2004 MDD exhaust 8774 Pre-2007 MY HDD 

exhaust 

8774 Pre-2007 M

Evaporative 4547 Diesel Headspace 4547 Diesel Headspace 4547 Diesel HeadRefueling 4547 Diesel Headspace 4547 Diesel Headspace 4547 Diesel HeadPFC 8762 E0 Headspace composite COMBO 8870E E10 Headsp

8869E E0 Headspace 8870E E10 Headspace 

Aircraft 5565 Aircraft Exhaust 5565* Aircraft Exhaust 5565* Aircraft Ex

* Updated version in SPECIATE 4.3 * Updated version in S

Locomotives 4674 2004 MDD exhaust 8774 Pre-2007 MY HDD 

exhaust 

8774 Pre-2007 M

Marine 2480 Ship Channel Downwind 2480 Ship Channel Downwind 2480 Ship ChannBTP 8762 E0 Headspace composite COMBO COM

8869 E0 Headspace 8870 E10 Headsp8870 E10 Headspace 8871 E15 Headsp

RBT/BPS 8762 E0 Headspace composite 8869 E0 Headspace 8869 E0 HeadspaEthanol Plants 1188 fermentation process 8776 Ethanol Fuel Prod 8776 Ethanol Fue

8776E Ethanol Fue

a corn ethanol and biob cellulosic ethanol & 
28

4 2017 Reference Case 

The 2017 reference case represents the future, including the implementation of emissions impacts of the fuel 

volumes mandated by the 2005 EPAct and 2007 EISA and finalized in the RFS2 program. The reference 

case includes MSAT2 and LDGHG but does not include HDGHG impacts. The 2017 reference case 

assumes 21.6 billion gallons of renewable fuels (24 billion ethanol-equivalent gallons due to volume 

increases of ethanol), with 17.8 billion gallons of E10 and E15, 1.5 billion gallons of biodiesel, 0.2 billion 

gallons of renewable diesel, and 2.2 billion gallons of cellulosic diesel. The fuel changes required upstream 

emissions estimates and adjustments in addition to the downstream changes to onroad and nonroad mobile 

source emissions. For nonroad mobile sources, onroad mobile including refueling sources, OTAQ-generated 

emissions were provided to reflect the reference case fuels. 

The 2017 reference case uses many of the same growth and control assumptions as those for the Final CrossState Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), because other than onroad mobile, nonroad mobile, onroad refueling, 

PFC, and ethanol plant sources, both MATS and CSAPR use the same 2005v4.2-based emissions 

inventories. There are some differences between the 2012 and 2014 base case projections in CSAPR and the 

2017 reference case for MATS: 

1) 2017 includes some additional controls that were promulgated after 2014, (e.g., post-2014 consent 

decrees and fuel sulfur rules in a couple of states). 

2) Growth factors for several sources are year-specific; so while the methodology is the same as 

CSAPR, the future year emissions estimates differ (e.g., oil and gas in a couple states, residential 

wood combustion). 

3) Onroad refueling uses year and scenario-specific (i.e., reference) MOVES emissions for all MATS 

modeling, rather than NEI emissions. 

4) There is a new dataset of ethanol plants that replace a limited set of NEI ethanol plants in 2005v4.2-

based CSAPR 2012 and 2014 projections. These MATS reference case emissions are the same for 

the 2005 and 2017 base case. 

5) Minor errors identified after CSAPR modeling was complete were fixed (e.g, we include agricultural 

dust projections for the couple of states that provided point source farms). 

The remainder of Section 4 is very similar to Section 4 in the CSAPR emissions modeling TSD, available 

from ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2005v4_2/transportrulefinal_eitsd_28jun2011.pdf, but with the updates 

described above. 

The future case projection methodologies vary by sector. For EGU emissions (ptipm sector), the emissions 

reflect state rules and federal consent decrees through December 1, 2010. For onroad mobile sources, all 

national measures for which data were available at the time of modeling have been included. The future case 

scenarios reflect projected economic changes and fuel usage for EGU and mobile sectors. For nonEGU 

point (ptnonipm sector) and nonpoint stationary sources (nonpt, ag, and afdust sectors), local control 

programs that might have been necessary for areas to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS annual standard, 2006 

PM NAAQS (24-hour) standard, and the 1997 ozone NAAQS are generally not included in the future basecase projections for most states. One exception are some NOX and VOC reductions associated with the New 

York, Virginia, and Connecticut State Implementation Plans (SIP), which were added as part of the 

comments received from the CSAPR and a larger effort to start including more local control information on 

stationary non-EGU sources; this is described further in Section 4.2. The following bullets summarize the 
29

projection methods used for sources in the various sectors, while additional details and data sources are given 

in Table 4-1. 

 IPM sector (ptipm): Unit-specific estimates from IPM, version 4.10. 

 Non-IPM sector (ptnonipm): Projection factors and percent reductions reflect CSAPR (Transport 

Rule) comments and emission reductions due to control programs, plant closures, consent decrees 

and settlements, and 1997 and 2001 ozone State Implementation Plans in NY, CT, and VA. We also 

used projection approaches for point-source livestock, and aircraft that are consistent with projections 

used for the sectors that contain the bulk of these emissions. Terminal area forecast (TAF) data 

aggregated to the national level were used for aircraft to account for projected changes in 

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

discussed in Section 3. 

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

 Agricultural sector (ag): Projection factors for livestock estimates based on expected changes in 

animal population from 2005 Department of Agriculture data; no growth or control for NH3

emissions from fertilizer application. 

 Area fugitive dust sector (afdust): Projection factors for dust categories related to livestock estimates 

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

sector. 

 Remaining Nonpoint sector (nonpt): Projection factors that implement CSAPR Proposal comments 

and reflect emission reductions due to control programs. Residential wood combustion projections 

based on growth in lower-emitting stoves and a reduction in higher emitting stoves. PFC projection 

factors reflecting impact of the final Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT2) rule and include ethanol 

emissions. Gasoline stage II onroad refueling emissions obtained directly from MOVES. Oil and gas 

projection estimates are provided for the non-California Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) 

states as well as Oklahoma and Texas. Year-specific speciation was applied to some portions of this 

sector and was discussed in Section 3. 

 Nonroad mobile sector (nonroad): Same version of the NONROAD2008a, including same set of 293 

county groups and representing counties as the 2005 base case. Future-year equipment population 

estimates and control programs (final locomotive-marine and small spark ignition) to 2017 are 

included. The only differences between the MATS future case runs are the fuels used, specifically, 

the ratio of E10 and E15 fuels. Year-specific speciation was applied to some portions of this sector 

and is discussed in Section 3. 

 Locomotive, and non-Class 3 commercial marine sector (alm_no_c3): Projection factors for Class 1 

and Class 2 commercial marine and locomotives which reflect CSAPR Proposal comments and 

activity growth and final locomotive-marine controls. 

 Class 3 commercial marine vessel sector (seca_c3): Base-year 2005 emissions grown and controlled 

to 2017, incorporating CSAPR Proposal comments and controls based on Emissions Control Area 

(ECA) and International Marine Organization (IMO) global NOX and SO2 controls. 

 Onroad mobile sector uses a version MOVES developed for the Tier 3 Proposal that incorporates new 

car and light truck greenhouse gas emissions standards (LDGHG) affecting model years 2012 and 

later (published May 7, 2010). These emissions also include RFS2 fuels. VOC speciation uses 

different future-year values to take into account both the increase in ethanol use, and the existence of 

Tier 2 vehicles that use a different speciation profile. This sector includes all non-refueling onroad 

mobile emissions (exhaust, evaporative, brake wear and tire wear modes). SMOKE-MOVES was 

used in a similar configuration as the 2005 base case to apportion MOVES emissions factors into 

hourly gridded temperature-adjusted emissions. 
30

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

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

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

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

 Biogenic: 2005 emissions used for all future-year scenarios. 
31

Table 4-1 summarizes the control strategies and growth assumptions by source type that were used to create 

the 2017 reference-case emissions from the 2005v4.2 base-case inventories. These future year base case 

projections and controls are also included in the MATS reference and control cases. All Mexico, Canada, 

and offshore oil emissions are unchanged in all future cases from those in the 2005 base case. 

Lists of the control, closures, projection packets (datasets) used to create the MATS 2017 future case 

inventories from the 2005 MATS base case are provided in Appendix C. 

 

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

source sector for which a distinct set of data were used or developed for the purpose of projections for the 

MATS Rule. This organization allows consolidation of the discussion of the emissions categories that are 

contained in multiple sectors, because the data and approaches used across the sectors are consistent and do 

not need to be repeated. Sector names associated with the emissions categories are provided in parentheses. 
32

Table 4-1. Control strategies and growth assumptions for creating the 2017 reference case emissions 

inventories from the 2005 base case 

Control Strategies and/or growth assumptions 

(grouped by affected pollutants or standard and approach used to 

apply to the inventory) 

Pollutants 

affected 

Approach/ 

Reference 

Non-EGU Point (ptnonipm sector) projection approaches

MACT rules, national, VOC: national applied by SCC, MACT

Boat Manufacturing 

Wood Building Products Surface Coating 

Generic MACT II: Spandex Production, Ethylene manufacture 

Large Appliances 

Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP (MON): Alkyd Resins, Chelating Agents, Explosives, 

 Phthalate Plasticizers, Polyester Resins, Polymerized Vinylidene Chloride 

Reinforced Plastics 

Asphalt Processing & Roofing 

Iron & Steel Foundries 

Metal: Can, Coil 

Metal Furniture 

Miscellaneous Metal Parts & Products 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 

Paper and Other Web 

Plastic Parts 

Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

Carbon Black Production 

Cyanide Chemical Manufacturing 

Friction Products Manufacturing 

Leather Finishing Operations 

Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing 

Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) 

Refractory Products Manufacturing 

Sites Remediation 

VOC EPA, 2007a

Consent decrees on companies (based on information from the Office of Enforcement 

and Compliance Assurance – OECA) apportioned to plants owned/operated by the 

companies 

VOC, CO, NOx, 

PM, SO2 1 

DOJ Settlements: plant SCC controls for: 

Alcoa, TX 

Premcor (formerly Motiva), DE 

All 2 

Refinery Consent Decrees: plant/SCC controls NOx, PM, SO2 3 

Hazardous Waste Combustion PM 4 

Municipal Waste Combustor Reductions –plant level PM 5 

Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerator Regulations NOX, PM, SO2 EPA, 2005 

Large Municipal Waste Combustors – growth applied to specific plants All (including Hg) 5 

MACT rules, plant-level, VOC: Auto Plants VOC 6 

MACT rules, plant-level, PM & SO2: Lime Manufacturing PM, SO2 7 

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

Livestock Emissions Growth from year 2002 to year 2017 (some farms in the point 

inventory) 

NH3, PM 9 

NESHAP: Portland Cement (09/09/10) – plant level based on Industrial Sector 

Integrated Solutions (ISIS) policy emissions in 2013. The ISIS results are from the 

ISIS-Cement model runs for the NESHAP and NSPS analysis of July 28, 2010 and 

include closures. 

Hg, NOX, SO2, 

PM, HCl 10; EPA, 

2010 

New York ozone SIP controls VOC, NOX, 

 HAP VOC 11 

Additional plant and unit closures provided by state, regional, and the EPA agencies and 

additional consent decrees. Includes updates from CSAPR comments. 

All 12 

Emission reductions resulting from controls put on specific boiler units (not due to 

MACT) after 2005, identified through analysis of the control data gathered from the 

Information Collection Request (ICR) from the Industrial/Commercial/Institutional 

NOX, SO2, HCl Section 

4.2.13.2 
33

Boiler NESHAP. 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) NESHAP NOX, CO, PM, 

SO2

13 

Ethanol plants that account for increased ethanol production due to RFS2 mandate All 14 

State fuel sulfur content rules for fuel oil –effective only in Maine, New Jersey, and New 

York

SO2 15 

Nonpoint (nonpt sector) projection approaches

Municipal Waste Landfills: projection factor of 0.25 applied All EPA, 2007a 

Livestock Emissions Growth from year 2002 to 2017 NH3, PM 9 

New York, Connecticut, and Virginia ozone SIP controls VOC 11, 16 

RICE NESHAP NOX, CO, VOC, 

PM, SO2

13 

State fuel sulfur content rules for fuel oil –effective only in Maine, New Jersey, and New 

York

SO2 15 

Residential Wood Combustion Growth and Change-outs from year 2005 to 2017 All 17 

Gasoline and diesel fuel Stage II refueling via MOVES2010a month-specific inventories 

for 2017 with assumed RFS2 and LDGHG fuels 

VOC, Benzene, 

Ethanol 18 

Portable Fuel Container Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule 2 (MSAT2) inventory growth 

and control from year 2005 to 2017 

VOC 19 

Use Phase II WRAP 2018 Oil and Gas VOC, SO2, NOX, 

CO 

Section 

4.2.14 

Use 2008 Oklahoma and Texas Oil and Gas, and apply year 2017 projections for TX, and 

RICE NESHAP controls to Oklahoma emissions. 

VOC, SO2, NOX, 

CO, PM 

Section 

4.2.14 

APPROACHES/REFERENCES- Non-EGU Stationary Sources: 

1. Appendix B in the MATS Proposal TSD: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/toxics/proposed_toxics_rule_appendices.pdf

2. For Alcoa consent decree, used http:// cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/cases/index.cfm; for Motiva: used information sent by 

State of Delaware 

3. Used data provided by the EPA, OAQPS, Sector Policies and Programs Division (SPPD). 

4. Obtained from Anne Pope, the US EPA - Hazardous Waste Incinerators criteria and hazardous air pollutant controls 

carried over from 2002 Platform, v3.1. 

5. Used data provided by the EPA, OAQPS SPPD expert. 

6. Percent reductions and plants to receive reductions based on recommendations by rule lead engineer, and are consistent 

with the reference: EPA, 2007a 

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

shown in the Federal Register Notice for the rule. SO2 percent reduction are computed by 6,147/30,783 = 20% and 

PM10 and PM2.5 reductions are computed by 3,786/13,588 = 28% 

8. Same approach as used in the 2006 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which estimated reductions of “PM emissions by 

10,538 tpy, a reduction of about 62%.” Used same list of plants as were identified based on tonnage and SCC from 

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

9. Except for dairy cows and turkeys (no growth), based on animal population growth estimates from the US Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Agriculture Policy and Research Institute. See Section 4.2.10. 

10. Data files for the cement sector provided by Elineth Torres, the EPA-SPPD, from the analysis done for the Cement 

NESHAP: The ISIS documentation and analysis for the cement NESHAP/NSPS is in the docket of that rulemakingdocket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-005. The Cement NESHAP is in the Federal Register: September 9, 2010 (Volume 75, 

Number 174, Page 54969-55066 

11. New York NOX and VOC reductions obtained from Appendix J in NY Department of Environmental Conservation 

Implementation Plan for Ozone (February 2008): http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/air_pdf/NYMASIP7final.pdf. 

12. Appendix D of Cross-State Air Pollution Rule: 

ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2005v4_2/transportrulefinal_eitsd_appendices_28jun2011.pdf

13. Appendix F in the Proposed (Mercury and Air) Toxics Rule TSD: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/toxics/proposed_toxics_rule_appendices.pdf

14. The 2008 data used came from Illinois’ submittal of 2008 emissions to the NEI. 
34

15. Based on available, enforceable state sulfur rules as of November, 2010: 

http://www.ilta.org/LegislativeandRegulatory/MVNRLM/NEUSASulfur%20Rules_09.2010.pdf , 

http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_124th/billpdfs/SP062701.pdf , 

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rkassel/governor_paterson_signs_new_la.html , 

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/new-york-mandates-cleaner-heating-oil/

16. VOC reductions in Connecticut and Virginia obtained from CSAPR comments. 

17. Growth and Decline in woodstove types based on industry trade group data, See Section 4.2.11. 

18. MOVES (2010a) results for onroad refueling including activity growth from VMT, Stage II control programs at gasoline 

stations, and phase in of newer vehicles with onboard Stage II vehicle controls. 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/index.htm

19. VOC, benzene, and ethanol emissions for 2017 based on MSAT2 rule and ethanol fuel assumptions (EPA, 2007b) 

Onroad mobile and nonroad mobile controls 

(list includes all key mobile control strategies but is not exhaustive)

National Onroad Rules: 

Tier 2 Rule: Signature date February, 2000 

2007 Onroad Heavy-Duty Rule: February, 2009 

Final Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule (MSAT2): February, 2007 

Renewable Fuel Standard: March, 2010 

Light Duty Greenhouse Gas Rule: May, 2010 

all 1 

Local Onroad Programs: 

National Low Emission Vehicle Program (NLEV): March, 1998 

Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) LEV Program: January,1995 

VOC 2 

National Nonroad Controls: 

Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Final Rule – Tier 4: June, 2004 

Control of Emissions from Nonroad Large-Spark Ignition Engines and Recreational 

Engines (Marine and Land Based): “Pentathalon Rule”: November, 2002 

Clean Bus USA Program: October, 2007 

Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Locomotives and Marine Compression-Ignition 

Engines Less than 30 Liters per Cylinder: October, 2008 

all 3,4,5 

Aircraft (emissions are in the nonEGU point inventory): 

Itinerant (ITN) operations at airports to 2017 all 6 

Locomotives: 

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

Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Final Rule – Tier 4: June 2004 

Locomotive Emissions Final Rulemaking, December 17, 1997 

Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Locomotives and Marine: May 2008

all EPA, 2009; 

3; 4; 5 

Commercial Marine: 

Category 3 marine diesel engines Clean Air Act and International Maritime Organization 

standards (April, 30, 2010) –also includes CSAPR comments.

EIA fuel consumption projections for diesel-fueled vessels 

Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Final Rule – Tier 4 

Emissions Standards for Commercial Marine Diesel Engines, December 29, 1999 

Tier 1 Marine Diesel Engines, February 28, 2003 

all 7, 3; EPA, 

2009 

APPROACHES/REFERENCES – Mobile Sources 

1. http://epa.gov/otaq/hwy.htm

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

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

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

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

6. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) System, January 2010: 

http://www.apo.data.faa.gov/main/taf.asp

7. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/oceanvessels.htm
35

4.1 Stationary source projections: EGU sector (ptipm) 

The future-year data for the ptipm sector used in the air quality modeling were created using version 4.10 

(v4.10) of the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) (http://www.epa.gov/airmarkt/progsregs/epaipm/index.html). The IPM is a multiregional, dynamic, deterministic linear programming model of the U.S. 

electric power sector. Version 4.10 reflects federal and state rules and binding, enforceable consent decrees 

through December of 2010. The 2017 IPM emissions reflect the CSAPR as finalized in July 2011. The 

future year baseline emissions do not reflect the final Mercury and Air Toxics (MATS) rule, but the control 

case emissions do reflect the rule. Neither case reflects the Boiler MACT regulatory assumptions. 

IPM v4.10 Final incorporates information on existing controls collected through the Information Collection 

Request (ICR), and information from comments received on the IPM-related Notice of Data Availability 

(NODA) published on September 1, 2010. IPM v4.10 also included the addition of over 20 GW of existing 

Activated Carbon Injection (ACI) reported to the EPA via the ICR. Units with SO2 or NOX advanced 

controls (e.g., scrubber, SCR) that were not required to run for compliance with Title IV, New Source 

Review (NSR), state settlements, or state-specific rules were modeled by IPM to either operate those controls 

or not based on economic efficiency parameters. 

Updates to IPM 4.10 (with respect to the version released in the IPM NODA version) include adjustments to 

assumptions regarding the performance of acid gas control technologies, new costs imposed on fuelswitching (e.g., bituminous to sub-bituminous), correction of lignite availability to some plants, 

incorporation of additional planned retirements, a more inclusive implementation of the scrubber upgrade 

option, and the availability of a scrubber retrofit to waste-coal fired fluidized bed combustion units without 

an existing scrubber. Further details on the future-year EGU emissions inventory used for this rule can be 

found in the incremental documentation of the IPM v.4.10 platform, available at 

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/BaseCasev410.html. 

Directly emitted PM emissions (i.e., PM2.5 and PM10) from the EGU sector are computed via a post 

processing routine which applies emission factors to the IPM-estimated fuel throughput based on fuel, 

configuration and controls to compute the filterable and condensable components of PM. This methodology 

is documented in the IPM CSAPR TSD. 

4.2 Stationary source projections: non-EGU sectors (ptnonipm, nonpt, ag, 

afdust) 

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

certain categories within the ptnonipm, nonpt, ag and afdust platform sectors. This subsection provides 

details on the data and projection methods used for these sectors. The MATS future year scenarios also 

required obtaining and preprocessing numerous other inputs that we received directly from OTAQ. 

In estimating future-year emissions, we assumed that emissions growth does not track with economic growth 

for many stationary non-IPM sources. This “no-growth” assumption is based on an examination of historical 

emissions and economic data. More details on the rationale for this approach can be found in Appendix D of 

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

The starting point for projecting the 2005 MATS emissions was to use similar emission projection 

methodologies as used for the 2005v4.2 platform for the Final CSAPR, which incorporated responses to 

public comments on the modeling inventories. The 2012 and 2014 projection factors developed for the 

CSAPR (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/index.html#final) were updated to reflect year 2017. 
36

Year-specific projection factors for years 2017 were created. Growth factors (and control factors) are 

provided in the following sections where feasible. However, some sectors used growth or control factors 

that varied geographically and their contents could not be provided in the following sections (e.g., gasoline 

distribution varies by state and pollutant and has hundreds of records). 

Table 4-2 lists the stationary non-EGU inputs and projection factors that were applied to account for the year 

2017 RFS2 mandate impacts on emissions to the reference case. These inputs are discussed in more detail in 

Section 4.2.1 through Section 4.2.9. All other stationary non-EGU projections, controls and plant closure 

information not related to the RFS2 impacts are discussed in Section 4.2.10 through Section 4.2.13. All 

stationary non-EGU emissions in the 2017 reference case are unchanged in the 2017 control case (see 

Section 5); therefore, we will simply note that these emissions are “year 2017” rather than the more 

cumbersome “year 2017 reference case”. 

Table 4-2. MATS reference case mobile source-related projection methods 

Input Type Sector(s) Description 

Corn ethanol plants SMOKE ORL file that 

replaces 2005 base case 

ORL file 

ptnonipm Based on RFS2 analysis and production 

volumes. Point source format. 

Biodiesel plants SMOKE ORL file ptnonipm Accounts for facilities with current production 

capacities, to support RFS2 biodiesel 

production. Point source format. 

Cellulosic fuel 

production 

SMOKE ORL file nonpt Accounts for cellulosic ethanol and cellulosic 

diesel to support RFS2 cellulosic production. 

County-level (nonpoint) format. 

Ethanol transport 

and distribution 

SMOKE ORL file nonpt Accounts for ethanol vapor losses and 

spillage at any point in the transport and 

distribution chain. County-level (nonpoint) 

format. 

Portable Fuel 

Containers (PFCs) 

SMOKE ORL nonpt NONROAD-model based emissions from 

PFCs, including vapor displacement, tank 

permeation, and diurnal evaporation. Countylevel (nonpoint) format. 

Onroad refueling SMOKE ORL file nonpt MOVES-based gasoline and diesel fuel 

spillage and displacement vapor losses. 

County-level (nonpoint) format, monthly 

resolution. 

Refinery 

adjustments 

Projection factors ptnonipm Not in base cases, accounts for changes in 

various refinery processes due to 

incorporation of RFS2 fuels. 

Ethanol transport 

gasoline & ethanol 

blends 

Projection factors nonpt, 

ptnonipm 

Not in base cases, accounts for RFS impacts 

on emissions from bulk plant storage, refinery 

to bulk terminal, and bulk terminal to pump. 

Upstream 

agricultural 

adjustments 

Projection factors afdust, ag, 

nonpt, 

ptnonipm 

Not in base cases, accounts for changes in ag 

burning/dust, fertilizer application/production, 

livestock dust/waste and pesticide 

application/production. 
37

4.2.1 Ethanol plants (ptnonipm) 

As discussed in Section 2.4.1, we replaced all corn ethanol plants that OTAQ had supplied from the RFS2 

rule –see Section 2.1.2 in the CSAPR Final TSD- with those recently compiled for 2005 and a year 2017 

without the RFS2 mandate (not separately modeled for this rule). Additional ethanol plants cited for 

development in support of increased ethanol production for RFS2 are the cause for the increased number of 

facilities and emissions in the reference case. Table 4-3 provides the summaries for the corn ethanol plants 

in the 2017 reference case. 

Table 4-3. 2017 reference case corn ethanol plant emissions

Pollutant Tons

1,3-Butadiene 0.0011

Acrolein 41.7

Formaldehyde 45.2

Benzene 20.3

Acetaldehyde 643.2

CO 14,847

NOX 20,035

PM10 21,639

PM2.5 6,825

SO2 11,299

VOC 35,459

4.2.2 Biodiesel plants (ptnonipm) 

OTAQ developed an inventory of existing biodiesel plants for 2017 that were sited at existing plant locations 

in support of producing biodiesel fuels for the RFS2 mandate. The RFS2 calls for 1.45 billion gallons per 

year (Bgal) of biodiesel fuel production by year 2017. Only plants with current production capacities were 

assumed to be operating in 2017. Total plant capacity at these existing facilities is limited to just over 1 

Bgal. There was no attempt to site future year plants to account for the need to match biodiesel production 

needed for RFS2. Therefore, OTAQ applied a scalar adjustment (of 1.41) to each individual biodiesel plant 

to match the 2017 production target of 1.45 Bgal. Once facility-level production capacities were scaled, 

emission factors were applied based on an assumed natural gas combustion process. Inventories were 

modeled as point sources with Google Earth and web searching validating facility coordinates and correcting 

state-county FIPS. 
38

Table 4-4 provides the 2017 biodiesel plant emissions estimates. 
39

Table 4-4. 2017 biodiesel plant emissions 

Pollutant Tons

Acrolein 3.09E-04

Formaldehyde 2.23E-03

Benzene 4.71E-05

Acetaldehyde 3.59E-04

CO 726

NOX 1,171

PM10 99

PM2.5 99

SO2 9

VOC 64

4.2.3 Portable fuel containers (nonpt) 

OTAQ provided year 2017 PFC emissions that include estimated Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) and oxygenate 

impacts on VOC emissions, and more importantly, large increases in ethanol emissions from RFS2. These 

emission estimates also include refueling from the NONROAD model for gas can vapor displacement, 

changes in tank permeation and diurnal emissions from evaporation. Because these PFC inventories contain 

ethanol, we developed a VOC E-profile that integrated ethanol, see Section 3 for more details. Emissions for 

2017 are provided in Table 4-5. 

Table 4-5. PFC emissions for 2017 

Pollutant Tons

VOC 123,186

Benzene 1,368

Ethanol 11,565

4.2.4 Cellulosic fuel production (nonpt) 

OTAQ developed county-level inventories for cellulosic diesel and cellulosic ethanol production for 2017 to 

satisfy RFS2 production. The methodology for building cellulosic plant emissions inventories is fairly 

similar conceptually to that for building the biodiesel plant inventories. First, we assume that cellulosic 

diesel and cellulosic ethanol are produced in the same counties where current production capacity exists, 

based on RFS2 FRM inventories. Total county production capacities was over 16 Bgal; therefore, OTAQ 

applied a scalar adjustment (of 0.246) to each counties production capacity to match the 2017 production 

target of 3.93 Bgal (2.2 Bgal diesel and 1.69Bgal ethanol). Once county-level cellulosic production 

capacities were scaled down to match the 2017 target, emission factors were applied based on an assumed 

natural gas combustion process. 
40

Table 4-6 provides the year 2017 cellulosic plant emissions estimates. 
41

Table 4-6. 2017 cellulosic plant emissions 

Pollutant Tons

Acrolein 21

Formaldehyde 58

Benzene 27

Acetaldehyde 786

CO 42,839

Ethanol 1,875

NH3 0.5

NOX 64,062

PM10 7,533

PM2.5 3,796

SO2 4,973

VOC 5,336

We had no refined information on potential VOC speciation differences between cellulosic diesel and 

cellulosic ethanol sources. Therefore, we summed up cellulosic diesel and cellulosic ethanol sources and 

used the same SCC (30125010: Industrial Chemical Manufacturing, Ethanol by Fermentation production) for 

VOC speciation as was used for corn ethanol plants. However, these cellulosic inventories contain ethanol; 

therefore we developed a VOC E-profile that integrated ethanol, see Section 3 for more details. 

4.2.5 Ethanol transport and distribution (nonpt) 

OTAQ developed county-level inventories for ethanol transport and distribution for 2017 to account for 

losses for the processes such as truck, rail and waterways loading/unloading and intermodal transfers such as 

highway-to-rail, highways-to-waterways, and all other possible combinations of transfers. Emission rates 

were applied based on June 2008 AP-42 factors and ethanol versus gasoline vapor mass equations. These 

emissions are entirely evaporative and therefore limited to VOC and are summarized in Table 4-7. The 

leading descriptions are “Industrial Processes; Food and Agriculture; Ethanol Production” for each SCC. 

Table 4-7. VOC losses (Emissions) due to ethanol transport and distribution 

SCC Description Tons 

30205031 Denatured Ethanol Storage Working Loss 27,763 

30205052 Ethanol Loadout to Truck 19,069 

30205053 Ethanol Loadout to Railcar 9,610 

4.2.6 Onroad refueling (nonpt) 

As discussed in Section 2.5.2, the refueling inventory includes gasoline and diesel fuel emissions from 

spillage loss and displacement vapor loss. For this analysis, the refueling emissions were estimated using the 

revised version of EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES2010a) at the county level for all 

twelve months. The same set of representative counties and temperatures were used for all MATS scenarios. 

VMT, fleet age distribution and speed distribution were developed for 2017. Because these refueling 

inventories contain ethanol, we developed a VOC E-profile that integrated ethanol, see Section 3 for more 

details. A summary of the 2017 onroad mobile refueling emissions is provided in 
42

Table 4-8. 
43

Table 4-8. Onroad gasoline and diesel refueling emissions 

Fuel Type Pollutant Tons

Gasoline VOC 63,759

Diesel VOC 12,962

Gasoline Benzene 161

Gasoline Ethanol 8,735

4.2.7 Refinery adjustments (ptnonipm) 

Refinery emissions were adjusted for changes in fuels due to the RFS2 mandate. These adjustments were 

provided by OTAQ and impact processes such as process heaters, catalytic cracking units, blowdown 

systems, wastewater treatment, condensers, cooling towers, flares and fugitive emissions. The impact of the 

RFS2-based reductions is shown in Table 4-9. 

Table 4-9. Impact of refinery adjustments on 2017 emissions 

Pollutant Reductions (tons)

CO 12,674

NOX 20,183

PM10 4,367

PM2.5 2,525

SO2 13,846

VOC 3,693

4.2.8 Ethanol transport gasoline and blends (ptnonipm, nonpt) 

Emissions changes in the transport of changing fuels from the RFS2 mandate impact several processes 

including bulk plant storage (BPS), refinery to bulk terminal (RBT) and bulk terminal to pump (BTP). These 

impacts, provided by OTAQ, result in approximately 15,000 tons of VOC reductions in 2017 for these 

processes. 

4.2.9 Upstream agricultural adjustments (afdust, ag, nonpt, ptnonipm) 

Changes in domestic biofuel volumes, resulting from the RFS2 fuels mandate, impact upstream agriculturalrelated source categories in several emissions modeling sectors. These source categories include fertilizer 

application, pesticide application and livestock waste (NH3 only), agricultural tilling, unloading and livestock 

dust (PM only) and fertilizer production mixing and blending, pesticide production and agricultural burning 

(all pollutants). As seen in Table 4-10, the cumulative impact of these source-specific changes is a net 

increase in emissions for upstream agricultural sources. 

Table 4-10. Upstream agricultural emission increases due to RFS2 fuels in 2017 

Pollutant Increases (tons) 

CO 302

NH3 45,272

NOX 363

PM10 42,934

PM2.5 6,500

SO2 69

VOC 16
44

4.2.10 Livestock emissions growth (ag, afdust) 

Growth in ammonia (NH3) and dust (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions from livestock in the ag, afdust and 

ptnonipm sectors was based on projections of growth in animal population. Table 4-11Table 4-11 provides 

the growth factors from the 2005 base-case emissions to all MATS year 2017 scenarios for animal categories 

applied to the ag, afdust, and ptnonipm sectors for livestock-related SCCs. 

Except for dairy cows and turkey production, the animal projection factors are derived from national-level 

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

Agriculture Policy and Research Institute (FAPRI). For dairy cows and turkeys, we assumed that there 

would be no growth in emissions. This assumption was based on an analysis of historical trends in the 

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

number of animals has declined. Thus, we do not believe that production forecasts provide representative 

estimates of the future number of cows and turkeys; therefore, we did not use these forecasts for estimating 

future-year emissions from these animals. In particular, the dairy cow population is projected to decrease in 

the future as it has for the past few decades; however, milk production will be increasing over the same 

period. Note that the ammonia emissions from dairies are not directly related to animal population but also 

nitrogen excretion. With the cow numbers going down and the production going up we suspect the excretion 

value will be changing, but we assumed no change because we did not have a quantitative estimate. 

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

from 2002 rather than from 2005. 

Appendix E in the 2002v3 platform documentation provides the animal population data and regression 

curves used to derive the growth factors: 

http://www.epa.gov/scram001/reports/Emissions%20TSD%20Vol2_Appendices_01-15-08.pdf. Appendix F 

in the same document provides the cross references of livestock sources in the ag, afdust and ptnonipm 

sectors to the animal categories in Table 4-11Table 4-11. 

Table 4-11. Growth factors from year 2005 to 2017 for animal operations 

Animal Category Projection Factor 

Dairy Cow 1.0000 

Beef 1.0206 

Pork 1.0893 

Broilers 1.3442 

Turkeys 1.0000 

Layers 1.2406 

Poultry Average 1.2674 

Overall Average 1.0935 

4.2.11 Residential wood combustion growth (nonpt) 

We projected residential wood combustion (RWC) emissions based on the expected increase in the number 

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

cleaner woodstoves replace older, higher-polluting wood stoves, there will be an overall reduction of the 

emissions from these sources. The approach cited here was developed as part of a modeling exercise to 

estimate the expected benefits of the woodstoves change-out program (http://www.epa.gov/burnwise). 

Details of this approach can be found in Section 2.3.3 of the PM NAAQS Regulatory Impact Analysis (EPA, 

2006). 

The specific assumptions we made were: 
45

 Fireplaces, source category code (SCC)=2104008001: increase 1%/year 

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

 New woodstoves, SCC=2104008003, 2104008004, 2104008030, 2104008050, 2104008052 or 

2104008053: increase 2%/year 

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

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

Platform missions for PM2.5. These fractions are based on the fraction of emissions from these processes in 

the states that did not have the “general woodstoves and fireplaces” SCC in the 2002v3 NEI. This approach 

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

We discovered an interpolation error in the year 2017 projection factors for RWC after air quality modeling. 

Table 4-12 presents the projection factors used to project the 2005 base case (2002 emissions) for RWC, 

including these 2017 errors. Table 4-13shows the national impact (tons) of the 2017 projection factor error. 

Table 4-12. Projection factors for growing year 2005 residential wood combustion sources 

SCC SCC Description 

Erroneous 

2017 Factor 

Correct 

2017 Factor

2104008000 Total: Woodstoves and Fireplaces 0.45 0.84 

2104008001 Fireplaces: General 0.65 1.15 2104008070 Outdoor Wood Burning Equipment 

2104008002 Fireplaces: Insert; non-EPA certified 

2104008010 Woodstoves: General 0.36 0.70 

2104008051 Non-catalytic Woodstoves: Non-EPA certified 

2104008003 Fireplaces: Insert; EPA certified; non-catalytic 

0.74 1.30 

2104008004 Fireplaces: Insert; EPA certified; catalytic 

2104008030 Catalytic Woodstoves: General 

2104008050 Non-catalytic Woodstoves: EPA certified 

2104008052 Non-catalytic Woodstoves: Low Emitting 

2104008053 Non-catalytic Woodstoves: Pellet Fired 

Table 4-13. Impact of year 2017 projection factor error on residential wood combustion estimates 

Pollutant 

2005 

Emissions 

Erroneous 2017 

Emissions 

Erroneous 2017 

Reductions 

Correct 2017 

Emissions 

Correct 2017 

Reductions 

NOX 38,292 18,023 20,270 33,545 4,747

PM2.5 381,362 174,769 206,593 326,706 54,656

SO2 5,302 2,529 2,773 4,697 605

VOC 569,950 242,126 327,824 450,990 118,959

4.2.12 Aircraft growth (ptnonipm) 

These 2005 point-source emissions are projected to future years by applying activity growth using data on 

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

aircraft leaves the airport vicinity and lands at another airport, or aircraft landings whereby the aircraft has 

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

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

http://www.apo.data.faa.gov/main/taf.asp (publication date January 2010). This information is available for 

approximately 3,300 individual airports, for all years up to 2030. We aggregated and applied this 

information at the national level by summing the airport-specific (U.S. airports only) ITN operations to 
46

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

general, air taxi and military. We computed growth factors for each operation type by dividing future-year 

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

The methods that the FAA used for developing the ITN data in the TAF are documented in: 

http://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/2009-

2025/media/2009%20Forecast%20Doc.pdf

Table 4-14 provides the national growth factors for aircraft; all factors are applied to year 2005 emissions. 

For example, year 2017 commercial aircraft emissions are 12.88% higher than year 2005 emissions. The 

same aircraft factors were used for each of the year-specific scenarios: low-ethanol, reference and control. 

Table 4-14. Factors used to project 2005 base-case aircraft emissions to 2017 

SCC SCC Description Projection Factor

2275001000 Military aircraft 1.0229

2275020000 Commercial aircraft 1.1288

2275050000 General aviation 0.8918

2275060000 Air taxi 0.8620

27501015 Internal Combustion Engines;Fixed Wing Aircraft L & 

TO Exhaust;Military;Jet Engine: JP-5 1.0229

27502001 Internal Combustion Engines;Fixed Wing Aircraft L & 

TO Exhaust;Commercial;Piston Engine: Aviation Gas 1.1288

27502011 Internal Combustion Engines;Fixed Wing Aircraft L & 

TO Exhaust;Commercial;Jet Engine: Jet A 1.1288

27505001 Internal Combustion Engines;Fixed Wing Aircraft L & 

TO Exhaust;Civil;Piston Engine: Aviation Gas 0.8918

27505011 Internal Combustion Engines;Fixed Wing Aircraft L & 

TO Exhaust;Civil;Jet Engine: Jet A 0.8918

27601014 Internal Combustion Engines;Rotary Wing Aircraft L & 

TO Exhaust;Military;Jet Engine: JP-4 1.0229

27601015 Internal Combustion Engines;Rotary Wing Aircraft L & 

TO Exhaust;Military;Jet Engine: JP-5 1.0229

We did not apply growth factors to any point sources with SCC 27602011 (Internal Combustion Engines; 

Rotary Wing Aircraft L & TO Exhaust; Commercial; Jet Engine: Jet A) because the facility names 

associated with these point sources appeared to represent industrial facilities rather than airports. This SCC 

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

None of our aircraft emission projections account for any control programs. We considered the NOX

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

Environmental Protection (CAEP) in February 2004, which is expected to reduce NOX by approximately 2% 

in 2015 and 3% in 2020. However, this rule, signed July 2011 (see http://www.epa.gov/otaq/aviation.htm), 

was not adopted as an EPA (or U.S.) rule prior to MATS modeling; therefore, the effects of this rule were 

not included in the future-year emissions projections. 

4.2.13 Stationary source control programs, consent decrees & settlements, and 

plant closures (ptnonipm, nonpt) 

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

nonpt sectors to reflect the impact of stationary-source control programs including consent decrees, 

settlements, and plant closures. Some of the controls described in this section were obtained from comments 

on the CSAPR proposal. Detailed summaries of the impacts of the control programs are provided in 
47

Appendix D of the CSAPR TSD: 

ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2005v4_2/transportrulefinal_eitsd_appendices_28jun2011.pdf. 

Controls from the NOX SIP call were assumed to have been implemented by 2005 and captured in the 2005 

base case (2005v2 point inventory). This assumption was confirmed by review of the 2005 NEI that showed 

reductions from Large Boiler/Turbines and Large Internal Combustion Engines in the Northeast states 

covered by the NOX SIP call. The future-year base controls consist of the following: 

 We did not include MACT rules where compliance dates were prior to 2005, because we assumed 

these were already reflected in the 2005 inventory. The EPA OAQPS Sector Policies and Programs 

Division (SPPD) provided all controls information related to the MACT rules, and this information is 

as consistent as possible with the preamble emissions reduction percentages for these rules. 

 Various emissions reductions from the CSAPR comments, including but not limited to: fuel 

switching at units, shutdowns, future-year emission limits, ozone SIP VOC controls for some sources 

in Virginia and Connecticut, and state and local control programs. 

 Evolutionary information gathering of plant closures (i.e., emissions were zeroed out for future years) 

were also included where information indicated that the plant was actually closed after the 2005 base 

year and prior to CSAPR and MATS modeling that began in the spring of 2011. We also applied unit 

and plant closures received from the CSAPR comments. However, plants projected to close in the 

future (post-2010) were not removed in the future years because these projections can be inaccurate 

due to economic improvements. We also applied cement kiln (unit) and cement plant closures 

discussed later in Section 4.2.6.1. More detailed information on the overall state-level impacts of all 

control programs and projection datasets, including units and plants closed in the 2017 reference case 

ptnonipm inventories are provided in Appendix D of the Final CSAPR TSD: 

ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2005v4_2/transportrulefinal_eitsd_appendices_28jun2011.pdf. The 

magnitude of all unit and plant closures on the non-EGU point (ptnonipm) sector 2005 base-case 

emissions is shown in Table 4-15 below. These same reductions are seen in all MATS future year 

scenarios. 

Table 4-15. Summary of non-EGU emission reductions applied to the 2005 inventory due to unit and plant 

closures

CO NH3 NOX PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC 

Reductions 125,162 636 109,237 21,143 12,600 190,734 26,750

 In addition to plant closures, we included the effects of the Department of Justice Settlements and 

Consent Decrees on the non-EGU (ptnonipm) sector emissions. We also included estimated impacts 

of HAP standards per Section 112, 129 of the Clean Air Act on the non-EGU (ptnonipm) and 

nonpoint (nonpt) sector emissions, based on expected CAP co-benefits to sources in these sectors. 

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

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

well as most national VOC MACT controls. Additional OECA consent decree information is 

provided in Appendix B of the Proposed Toxics Rule TSD: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/toxics/proposed_toxics_rule_appendices.pdf. The detailed data 

used are available at the website listed in Section 1. 

 Refinery consent decrees controls at the facility and SCC level (collected through internal 

coordination on refineries by the EPA). 

 Fuel sulfur fuel limits were enforceable for Maine, New Jersey and New York. 
48

 Criteria air pollutant (cap) reductions a cobenefit to RICE NESHAP controls, including SO2 RICE 

cobenefit controls. 

 We applied New York State Implementation Plan available controls for the 1997 8-hour Ozone 

standard for non-EGU point and nonpoint NOX and VOC sources based on NY State Department of 

Environmental Conservation February 2008 guidance. These reductions are found in Appendix J in: 

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/air_pdf/NYMASIP7final.pdf. See Section 3.2.6 in the CSAPR TSD: 

ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2005v4_2/transportrulefinal_eitsd_28jun2011.pdf. 

Most of the control programs were applied as replacement controls, which means that any existing percent 

reductions (“baseline control efficiency”) reported in the NEI were removed prior to the addition of the 

percent reductions due to these control programs. Exceptions to replacement controls are “additional” 

controls, which ensure that the controlled emissions match desired reductions regardless of the baseline 

control efficiencies in the NEI. We used the “additional controls” approach for many permit limits, 

settlements and consent decrees where specific plant and multiple-plant-level reductions/targets were desired 

and at municipal waste landfills where VOC was reduced 75% via a MACT control using projection factors 

of 0.25. 

4.2.13.1 Reductions from the Portland Cement NESHAP (ptnonipm) 

As indicated in Table 4-1, the Industrial Sectors Integrated Solutions (ISIS) model (EPA, 2010) was used to 

project the cement industry component of the ptnonipm emissions modeling sector to 2013. There were no 

future year estimates for 2017, so 2013 estimates were used for all future year MATS modeling scenarios. 

This approach provided reductions of criteria and hazardous air pollutants, including mercury. The ISIS 

cement emissions were developed in support for the Portland Cement NESHAPs and the NSPS for the 

Portland cement manufacturing industry. 

The ISIS model produced a Portland Cement NESHAP policy case of multi-pollutant emissions for 

individual cement kilns (emission inventory units) that were relevant for years 2013 through 2017. These 

ISIS-based emissions included information on new cement kilns, facility and unit-level closures, and updated 

policy case emissions at existing cement kilns. The units that opened or closed before 2010 were included in 

the projections as were the ISIS-based policy case predictions of emissions reductions and activity growth. 

The ISIS model results for the future show a continuation of the recent trend in the cement sector of the 

replacement of lower capacity, inefficient wet and long dry kilns with bigger and more efficient preheater 

and precalciner kilns. Multiple regulatory requirements such as the NESHAP and NSPS currently apply to 

the cement industry to reduce CAP and HAP emissions. Additionally, state and local regulatory 

requirements might apply to individual cement facilities depending on their locations relative to ozone and 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas. The ISIS model provides the emission reduction strategy that balances: 1) 

optimal (least cost) industry operation, 2) cost-effective controls to meet the demand for cement, and 3) 

emission reduction requirements over the time period of interest. 
49

Table 4-16 
50

Table shows the magnitude of the ISIS-based cement industry reductions in the future-year emissions that 

represent 2013 (and 2017 for MATS), and the impact that these reductions have on total stationary non-EGU 

point source (ptnonipm) emissions. 
51

Table 4-16. Future-year ISIS-based cement industry annual reductions (tons/yr) 

for the non-EGU (ptnonipm) sector

Pollutant 

Cement Industry 

emissions in 2005 

(tons) 

Reductions in 

2017 

(tons) 

Percent 

Reduction 

% 

NOX 193,000 56,740 2.4% 

PM2.5 14,400 7,840 1.8% 

SO2 128,400 106,000 5.0% 

VOC 6,900 5,570 0.4% 

HCl 2,900 2,220 4.5% 

4.2.13.2 Boiler reductions not associated with the MACT rule (ptnonipm) 

The Boiler MACT ICR collected data on existing controls. We used an early version of a data base 

developed for that rulemaking entitled “survey_database_2008_results2.mdb” (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058-

0788) which is posted under the Technical Information for the Boiler MACT major source rule 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/boiler/boilerpg.html). We extracted all non-EGU stationary (ptnonipm) 

controls that were installed after 2005, determined a percent reduction, and verified with source owners that 

these controls were actively in use. In many situations we learned that the controls were on site but were not 

in use. A summary of the plant-unit specific reductions that were verified to be actively in use are 

summarized in Table 4-17. All reductions are promulgated by the present day, and therefore these 

reductions are the same for all MATS future year scenarios. 

Table 4-17. State-level non-MACT boiler reductions from ICR data gathering 

State Pollutant 

Pre-controlled 

Emissions 

(tons) 

Controlled 

Emissions 

(tons) 

Reductions in 

2017 (tons) 

Percent 

Reduction 

% 

Michigan NOX 907 544 363 40 

North Carolina SO2 652 65 587 90 

Virginia SO2 3379 338 3041 90 

Washington SO2 639 383 256 40 

North Carolina HCl 31 3 28 90 

4.2.13.3 RICE NESHAP (ptnonipm and nonpt) 

There are three rulemakings for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE). These rules reduce HAPs from existing and new RICE 

sources. In order to meet the standards, existing sources with certain types of engines will need to install 

controls. In addition to reducing HAPs, these controls also reduce CAPs, specifically, CO, NOX, VOC, PM, 

and SO2. In 2014 and beyond, compliance dates have passed for all three rules; thus all three rules are 

included in the 2017 reference case emissions projection. 

The rules can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rice/ricepg.html and are listed below: 

 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engines; Final Rule (69 FR 33473) published 06/15/04 

 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engines; Final Rule (FR 9648 ) published 03/03/10 

 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engines; Final Rule (75 FR 51570) published 08/20/2010 
52

The difference among these three rules is that they focus on different types of engines, different facility types 

(major for HAPs, versus area for HAPs) and different engine sizes based on horsepower (HP). In addition, 

they have different compliance dates. We project CAPs from the 2005 NEI RICE sources, based on the 

requirements of the rule for existing sources only because the inventory includes only existing sources and 

the current projection approach does not estimate emissions from new sources. 

A complete discussion on the methodology to estimate RICE controls is provided in Appendix F in the 

Proposed MATS Rule TSD: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/toxics/proposed_toxics_rule_appendices.pdf. Impacts of the RICE 

controls on stationary non-EGU emissions (nonpt and ptnonipm sectors), excluding WRAP, Texas, and 

Oklahoma oil and gas emissions (see Section 4.2.7) are provided in Table 4-18. These reductions are 

promulgated before year 2017, and therefore these reductions are the same for all MATS future year 

scenarios. 

Table 4-18. National impact of RICE controls on non-EGU projections 

CO NOX PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC 

Reductions 116,434 111,749 1,595 1,368 21,957 14,669 

4.2.13.4 Fuel sulfur rules (ptnonipm and nonpt) 

Fuel sulfur rules that were signed (enforceable) at the time of the emissions processing are limited to Maine, 

New Jersey and New York. Several other states have fuel sulfur rules that were in development but not 

finalized prior to the final CSAPR and proposed MATS emissions processing: 

http://www.ilta.org/LegislativeandRegulatory/MVNRLM/NEUSASulfur%20Rules_09.2010.pdf. 

The fuel sulfur content for all home heating oil SCCs in 2005 is assumed to by 3000 part per million (ppm). 

Effective July 1, 2012, New York requires all heating oil sold in New York to contain no more than 15ppm 

of sulfur, thus reducing SO2 emissions by 99.5% for post-2012 projections. These New York sulfur content 

reductions are further discussed here: 

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rkassel/governor_paterson_signs_new_la.html. 

The New Jersey year 2017 standard of 15ppm (assuming 500ppm baseline for Kerosene) sulfur content 

yields a 96.25% SO2 emissions reduction for kerosene (fuel #1). The New Jersey sulfur content reductions 

are discussed here: http://njtoday.net/2010/09/01/nj-adopts-rule-limiting-sulfur-content-in-fuel-oil/. 

For MATS year 2017 projections, the Maine fuel sulfur rule, effective in year 2016, reduces sulfur to50 ppm 

from 3,000 ppm in 2005, resulting in a 98.3% reduction for the 2017 scenario. The impact of these fuel 

sulfur content reductions on SO2 is shown in Table 4-19. These year-specific reductions are the same for all 

MATS scenarios: low-ethanol, reference and control. 

Table 4-19. Impact of fuel sulfur (SO2) controls on 2017 non-EGU projections

State Reductions (tons) 

Maine 8,323 

New Jersey 998 

New York 54,431 

Total 63,751 
53

4.2.14 Oil and gas projections in TX, OK, and non-California WRAP states 

(nonpt) 

For the 2005v4.2 platform, we incorporated updated 2005 oil and gas emissions from Texas and Oklahoma. 

For Texas oil and gas production, we used year 2017 estimates from the Texas Commission of 

Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and used them as described in: 

http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/implementation/air/am/contracts/reports/ei/5820783985FY0901-

20090715-ergi-Drilling_Rig_EI.pdf. 

We also received 2008 data for Oklahoma that we used as the best available data to represent 2017. We 

utilized the latest available future year, year 2018, Phase II WRAP oil and gas emissions data for the nonCalifornia Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) states to represent 2017. RICE NESHAP reductions, 

discussed earlier in this section, which are effective by year 2014, were applied to the year 2008 Oklahoma 

oil and gas inventory but not applied to the 2017 TCEQ oil and gas estimates or 2018 WRAP Phase II oil and 

gas inventory. 

For Oklahoma, we applied CO, NOX, SO2 and VOC emissions reductions from the RICE NESHAP, which 

we assumed has some applicability to this industry (see Appendix F in the Proposed Toxics Rule TSD: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/toxics/proposed_toxics_rule_appendices.pdf). All these year-specific oil 

and gas projection estimates are the same for all MATS scenarios: low-ethanol, reference and control. Table 

4-20 shows the 2005 and 2017 NOX and SO2 emissions including RICE reductions for Oklahoma. 

Table 4-20. Oil and gas NOX and SO2 emissions for 2005 and 2017 including additional reductions due to 

the RICE NESHAP 

NOX PM2.5 SO2 VOC 

2005 2017 2005 2017 2005 2017 2005 2017

Alaska 836 453 62 1 68 12

Arizona 13 15 37 49

Colorado 32,188 33,517 350 11 35,500 43,639

Montana 10,617 13,880 640 6 9,187 14,110

Nevada 71 63 1 0 105 163

New Mexico 61,674 74,648 369 12 215,636 267,846

North Dakota 6,040 20,869 688 4 8,988 17,968

Oklahoma 39,668 42,402 1,918 2,231 1,014 2 155,908 163,598

Oregon 61 44 19 14

South Dakota 566 557 43 0 370 562

Texas 42,854 34,772 2,945 1,085 5,977 36 4,337 2,800

Utah 6,896 6,297 149 1 43,403 81,890

Wyoming 36,172 34,142 541 3 166,939 304,748

Total 237,656 261,659 4,862 3,316 9,834 76 640,498 897,400

4.3 Onroad mobile source projections (onroad) 

The same version of MOVES and SMOKE-MOVES Integration Tool was used to create all MATS onroad 

emission scenarios. Section 2.2 describes these components in support of year 2005 processing. This 

section will only address the differences related to creating and processing year 2017 reference case 

emissions. Speciation changes for all scenarios are discussed in Section 3. 

Inputs for temperatures (Section 2.2.1), the representative counties and fuel months (Section 2.2.2), the 

overall parallel processing procedures (Section 2.2.3), speed data (Section 2.2.4), and SMOKE-MOVES 
54

configurations (Section 2.2.4) were previously discussed and were the same for all MATS scenarios. 

However, year-specific MOVES inputs were obtained for fuels and California LEV standards, and SMOKE 

inputs of VMT and vehicle populations were year-specific and are described below. 

For the 2017 VMT inventory, MOVES2010a was run with default inputs to generate total national VMT by 

SCC. But, because MOVES uses a static (1999) default allocation of VMT to county, MOVES was not used 

for these allocations. Instead, the 2017 county VMT was created by interpolating between the NCD VMT 

values for 2015 and those for 2020 and computing the NCD fraction for each county, then multiplying these 

fractions by the MOVES VMT. The VMT was also adjusted to account for increased onroad transportation 

of ethanol fuels and the resulting increase in travel by large tanker trucks. 

Vehicle populations by county and SCC were developed similarly to the VMT, using MOVES to generate 

national totals for each year and using the NCD to allocate to county. However, the NCD does not include 

population estimates, so we used MOVES to generate the 2005 national population and we assumed that, for 

each calendar year (2005 and 2017) and for each SCC, the allocation of national vehicle population to 

county was proportional to the allocation of VMT (summed across road types). 

The MOVES 2017 emissions used for MATS reflect onroad mobile control programs including the LightDuty Vehicle Tier 2 Rule and the Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT2) final rule. 

4.3.1 California LEV 

The list of States which have implemented programs to require the sale of vehicles in their state certified for 

sale in California began with the information stored in the modeling inputs used for the 2008 National 

Emission Inventory (NEI) stored in the National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM) County database. This 

information was reviewed and updated by states during the process of developing the national inventory for 

calendar year 2008. This information was supplemented with information from a "Dear Manufacturer" 

letter, "Sales of California-certified 2008-2010 Model Year Vehicles (Cross-Border Sales Policy)" (October 

29,2007) produced by the Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division of the US Environmental 

Protection Agency which describes the areas that have recently implemented a California standards program. 

This information was used to generate emission rate table inputs for the MOVES model for each of these 

areas using the guidance provided in the document, "Instructions for Using LEV and NLEV Inputs for 

MOVES" (EPA-420-B-10-003, January 2010) provided to States with the MOVES model. For calendar year 

2017, areas that had implemented California standards would still have these programs in place in calendar 

year 2017. More information on the states that have implemented California LEV standards can be found at: 

http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/#cal. 

4.4 Nonroad mobile source projections (nonroad, alm_no_c3, seca_c3) 

The components of the nonroad mobile sectors are discussed in Section 2.3. Nonroad mobile emissions 

reductions for MATS include year-specific regulations affecting locomotives, various nonroad engines 

including diesel engines and various marine engine types, fuel sulfur content, and evaporative emissions. 

This section discusses the changes due to the NONROAD/NMIM system (nonroad sector) and additional 

C1/C2 CMV and locomotive emissions from volume increases resulting from incorporation of larger 

amounts in renewable fuels in the 2017 reference case. 

4.4.1 Emissions generated with the NONROAD model (nonroad) 

As discussed in Section 2.3.1, most nonroad emissions are were estimated using the EPA’s NONROAD 

model, as run by the EPA’s consolidated modeling system known as the National Mobile Inventory Model 

(NMIM). NONROAD is EPA’s model for calculating emissions from nonroad equipment, except for 

aircraft, locomotives, and commercial marine vessels. Like the onroad emissions, the NONROAD/NMIM 
55

system provides nonroad emissions for VOC by three emission modes: exhaust, evaporative and refueling. 

Unlike the onroad sector, nonroad refueling emissions for nonroad sources are not included in the nonpoint 

(nonpt) sector and so are retained in this sector. 

The same temperatures and representative counties were used for all NONROAD model-generated MATS 

scenarios. For 2017, E10 and E15 are available in every county, but nonroad equipment is assumed to burn 

only E10. To generate the NMIM fuels, the E10 fuel was copied from MOVES to NMIM, and the E10 

oxygenate was assigned a market share of 1. Highway diesel fuel sulfur levels are copied directly from 

MOVES to NMIM. Nonroad diesel fuel sulfur levels are retained from NMIM. 

Section 2.3.1.3 provides a cross-walk of the nonroad mobile NMIM emission scenarios used in MATS; as 

previously discussed, the only difference between these scenarios are the increases in activity (based on 

NONROAD model default growth estimates of future-year equipment population) and changes in fuels and 

engines that reflect implementation of national regulations and local control programs that impact each year 

differently due to engine turnover. For year 2017, EPA assumed that nonroad equipment would use only 

E10. Although the NONROAD Model estimates changes in VOC production from E15, NMIM calculates 

toxics as if the fuel were E10. Emission estimates for ethanol come from speciation of VOC in the SMOKE 

model. These ethanol adjustments for nonroad engines running on E15 came from the EPAct Phase 1 data. 

We have not included voluntary programs in our projections such as programs encouraging either no 

refueling or evening refueling on Ozone Action Days and diesel retrofit programs. The national regulations 

incorporated in all MATS future year scenarios are those promulgated prior to December 2009, and 

beginning about 1990. Recent rules include: 

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

published June 29, 2004, and, 

 Control of Emissions from Nonroad Large Spark-Ignition Engines, and Recreational Engines (Marine 

and Land-Based), November 8, 2002 (“Pentathalon Rule”). 

 OTAQ’s Locomotive Marine Rule, March 2008: 

(http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/420f08004.htm) 

 OTAQ’s Small Engine Spark Ignition (“Bond”) Rule, November 2008: 

(http://www.epa.gov/otaq/equip-ld.htm) 

All future year nonroad emissions used NMIM data that are based on AEO2009 fuels and the same NMIM 

county database NCD20101201Tier3. We converted emissions from monthly totals to monthly average-day 

values based the on number of days in each month. Only criteria and select HAPs (benzene, acetaldehyde, 

butadiene, acrolein, and formaldehyde) were retained when creating SMOKE one record per line (ORL) 

files. 

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

Aircraft emissions reside in the nonEGU point inventory (ptnonipm), and the projection factors used to create year 2017 

create year 2017 estimates, are discussed in Section 4.2. The remaining 2005 NEI emissions for locomotives and Class 1 

and Class 1 and Class 2 commercial marine vessel (C1/C2 CMV) use year-specific projection estimates. Base future year 

Base future year locomotive and C1/C2 CMV emissions were calculated using projection factors that were computed based 

computed based on national, annual summaries of emissions in 2002 and 2017. Some additional emissions were then 

were then factored in due to changes in fuels. These national summaries were used to create national by-pollutant, by-SCC 

pollutant, by-SCC projection factors; these factors include final locomotive-marine controls and are provided in Table 

in Table 4-21. Modest additive Class I railroad and C1/C2 CMV emissions that account for RFS2 volume increases in 
56

the MATS reference scenario were then added into the reference case due to the volume differences in corn, cellulosic and 

imported ethanol and cellulosic diesel fuels. These additional emissions are summarized in 

 
57

Table 4-22. 

Table 4-21. Factors applied to year 2005 emissions to project locomotives and class 1 and class 2 

commercial marine vessel emissions to 2017 

SCC SCC Description Pollutant

Projection 

Factor

2280002X00 Marine Vessels, Commercial;Diesel;Underway & port emissions CO 0.938

2280002X00 Marine Vessels, Commercial;Diesel;Underway & port emissions NH3 1.144

2280002X00 Marine Vessels, Commercial;Diesel;Underway & port emissions NOX 0.700

2280002X00 Marine Vessels, Commercial;Diesel;Underway & port emissions PM10 0.642

2280002X00 Marine Vessels, Commercial;Diesel;Underway & port emissions PM2.5 0.653

2280002X00 Marine Vessels, Commercial;Diesel;Underway & port emissions SO2 0.087

2280002X00 Marine Vessels, Commercial;Diesel;Underway & port emissions VOC 0.786

2285002006 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Class I Operations CO 1.334

2285002006 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Class I Operations NH3 1.325

2285002006 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Class I Operations NOX 0.627

2285002006 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Class I Operations PM10 0.578

2285002006 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Class I Operations PM2.5 0.586

2285002006 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Class I Operations SO2 0.005

2285002006 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Class I Operations VOC 0.589

2285002007 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Class II / III Operations CO 0.328

2285002007 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Class II / III Operations NH3 1.325

2285002007 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Class II / III Operations NOX 0.352

2285002007 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Class II / III Operations PM10 0.286

2285002007 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Class II / III Operations PM2.5 0.288

2285002007 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Class II / III Operations SO2 0.001

2285002007 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Class II / III Operations VOC 0.315

2285002008 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Passenger Trains (Amtrak) CO 1.071

2285002008 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Passenger Trains (Amtrak) NH3 1.325

2285002008 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Passenger Trains (Amtrak) NOX 0.496

2285002008 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Passenger Trains (Amtrak) PM10 0.461

2285002008 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Passenger Trains (Amtrak) PM2.5 0.463

2285002008 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Passenger Trains (Amtrak) SO2 0.005

2285002008 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Passenger Trains (Amtrak) VOC 0.475

2285002009 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Commuter Lines CO 1.057

2285002009 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Commuter Lines NH3 1.325

2285002009 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Commuter Lines NOX 0.489

2285002009 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Commuter Lines PM10 0.455

2285002009 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Commuter Lines PM2.5 0.455

2285002009 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Commuter Lines SO2 0.005

2285002009 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Line Haul Locomotives: Commuter Lines VOC 0.469

2285002010 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Yard Locomotives CO 1.341

2285002010 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Yard Locomotives NH3 1.325

2285002010 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Yard Locomotives NOX 1.128

2285002010 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Yard Locomotives PM10 0.914

2285002010 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Yard Locomotives PM2.5 0.934

2285002010 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Yard Locomotives SO2 0.006

2285002010 Railroad Equipment;Diesel;Yard Locomotives VOC 1.509

 
58

Table 4-22. Additional class 1 railroad and C1/C2 CMV emissions from RFS2 fuel volume changes 

Pollutant 

2017 Class 1 

Rail (tons) 

2017 C1/C2 

CMV (tons)

1,3-Butadiene 0.83 0.01

Acrolein 0.80 0.08

Formaldehyde 11.12 3.21

Benzene 0.66 0.44

Acetaldehyde 4.83 1.59

CO 1,250 197

NH3 3.93 0.62

NOX 5,731 890

PM10 141 29

PM2.5 136 27

SO2 2.96 3.96

VOC 257 21

The future-year locomotive emissions account for increased fuel consumption based on Energy Information 

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

emissions standards from the Final Locomotive-Marine rule (EPA, 2009). This rule lowered diesel sulfur 

content and tightened emission standards for existing and new locomotives and marine diesel emissions to 

lower future-year PM, SO2, and NOX, and is documented at: 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/420f08004.htm. Voluntary retrofits under the National Clean Diesel 

Campaign (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel/index.htm) are not included in our projections. 

We applied HAP factors for VOC HAPs by using the VOC projection factors to obtain 1,3-butadiene, 

acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, and formaldehyde. 

Class 1 and 2 CMV gasoline emissions (SCC = 2280004000) were not changed for future-year processing. 

C1/C2 diesel emissions (SCC = 2280002100 and 2280002200) were projected based on the Final 

Locomotive Marine rule national-level factors provided in Table 4-21. Similar to locomotives, VOC HAPs 

were projected based on the VOC factor. 

Delaware provided updated future-year NOX, SO2, and PM emission estimates for C1/C2 CMV as part of the 

Transport Rule comments. These updated emissions were applied to the 2017 inventory and override the 

C1/C2 projection factors in Table 4-21. 

4.4.3 Class 3 commercial marine vessels (seca_c3) 

The seca_c3 sector emissions data were provided by OTAQ in an ASCII raster format used since the SO2

Emissions Control Area-International Marine Organization (ECA-IMO) project began in 2005. The (S)ECA 

Category 3 (C3) commercial marine vessel 2002 base-case emissions were projected to year 2005 for the 

2005 base case and to 2017, which includes ECA-IMO controls. An overview of the ECA-IMO project and 

future-year goals for reduction of NOX, SO2, and PM C3 emissions can be found at: 

http://www.epa.gov/oms/regs/nonroad/marine/ci/420f09015.htm

The resulting coordinated strategy, including emission standards under the Clean Air Act for new marine 

diesel engines with per-cylinder displacement at or above 30 liters, and the establishment of Emission 

Control Areas is at: http://www.epa.gov/oms/oceanvessels.htm
59

These projection factors vary depending on geographic region and pollutant; where VOC HAPs are assigned 

the same growth rates as VOC. The projection factors used to create the 2017 seca_c3 sector emissions are 

provided in Table 4-23. Note that these factors are relative to 2002. Factors relative to 2005 can be 

computed from the 2002-2005 factors. 

The geographic regions are described in the ECA Proposal technical support document: 

http://www.epa.gov/oms/regs/nonroad/marine/ci/420r09007-chap2.pdf. These regions extend up to 200 

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

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

the upper Florida Keys just southwest of Miami. 

The factors to compute HAP emission are based on emissions ratios discussed in the 2005v4 documentation 

(ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2005v4/2005_emissions_tsd_07jul2010.pdf). As with the 2005 base case, 

this sector uses CAP-HAP VOC integration. 

Table 4-23. NOX, SO2, and PM2.5 factors to project class 3 CMV emissions for 2017 

Region NOX SO2 PM2.5 VOC 

Alaska East 1.409 0.062 0.203 1.631

Alaska West 1.469 1.571 1.571 1.571

East Coast 1.435 0.070 0.264 1.955

Gulf Coast 1.120 0.055 0.207 1.529

Hawaii East 1.539 0.078 0.268 2.036

Hawaii West 1.725 2.037 2.035 2.037

North Pacific 1.240 0.064 0.222 1.644

South Pacific 1.573 0.084 0.293 2.114

Great Lakes 1.106 0.046 0.171 1.302

Outside ECA 1.585 1.891 1.891 1.891

4.5 Canada, Mexico, and offshore sources (othar, othon, and othpt) 

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

same as those used in the 2005 base case for all MATS scenarios. Therefore, the Mexico emissions are 

based on year 1999, offshore oil is based on year 2005, and Canada is based on year 2006. For both Mexico 

and Canada, their responsible agencies did not provide future-year emissions that were consistent with the 

base year emissions. 

4.6 Reference case emission summaries 
60

Table 4-24 shows a summary of the 2005 and modeled reference case emissions for the lower 48 states. 
61

Table 4-25 and Table 4-26 provide summaries of SO2 and PM2.5 in the 2017 baseline for each sector by state. 

Table 4-27shows the future year baseline EGU emissions by state for all criteria air pollutants. 
62

Table 4-24. Summary of modeled base case SO2 and PM2.5 annual emissions (tons/year) for 48 states by 

sector 

Source Sector SO2 Emissions 2005 2017

EGU Point 10,380,883 3,281,364

Non-EGU Point 2,030,759 1,534,991

Nonpoint 1,216,362 1,125,985

Nonroad 446,831 15,759

On-road 168,480 29,288

Average Fire 49,094 49,094

Total SO2, All Sources 14,292,410 6,036,480

Source SectorPM2.5 Emissions 2005 2017

EGU Point 496,877 276,430

Non-EGU Point 433,346 411,437

Nonpoint 2,110,298 1,912,757

Nonroad 268,745 150,221

On-road 301,073 129,416

Average Fire 684,035 684,035

 Total PM2.5, All Sources 4,294,373 3,564,296

 
63

Table 4-25. Reference case SO2 emissions (tons/year) for states by sector 

State EGU NonEGU Nonpoint Nonroad Onroad Fires Total 

Alabama 186,084 63,053 52,341 146 569 983 303,177 

Arizona 36,996 24,191 2,467 59 724 2,888 67,324 

Arkansas 92,804 12,160 26,801 123 314 728 132,929 

California 5,346 21,046 67,846 3,311 2,087 6,735 106,370 

Colorado 74,255 1,415 6,210 50 532 1,719 84,181 

Connecticut 3,581 1,833 18,149 100 311 4 23,978 

Delaware 2,835 4,770 1,018 500 91 6 9,220 

District of Columbia 5 686 1,505 3 38 0 2,237 

Florida 117,702 49,082 70,073 1,255 2,111 7,018 247,241 

Georgia 96,712 44,248 55,946 192 1,158 2,010 200,266 

Idaho 182 17,133 2,894 23 162 3,845 24,240 

Illinois 118,217 81,683 5,650 295 1,107 20 206,971 

Indiana 200,969 73,930 59,771 150 760 24 335,604 

Iowa 85,178 22,865 19,929 86 324 25 128,407 

Kansas 45,740 10,288 36,140 57 294 103 92,622 

Kentucky 116,927 23,530 33,852 215 463 364 175,350 

Louisiana 142,447 129,730 2,669 1,449 447 892 277,634 

Maine 2,564 14,285 2,007 72 149 150 19,226 

Maryland 29,786 33,562 40,642 494 593 32 105,110 

Massachusetts 15,133 17,077 24,907 266 565 93 58,041 

Michigan 163,168 48,697 42,185 448 995 91 255,584 

Minnesota 52,380 24,742 14,635 220 558 631 93,164 

Mississippi 34,865 24,284 6,635 208 396 1,051 67,440 

Missouri 178,143 33,757 44,680 191 722 186 257,679 

Montana 24,018 7,212 1,875 25 106 1,422 34,657 

Nebraska 70,910 6,885 7,899 58 202 105 86,058 

Nevada 14,140 2,132 12,028 27 200 1,346 29,873 

New Hampshire 6,719 2,471 7,284 21 137 38 16,671 

New Jersey 9,042 6,700 9,528 686 757 61 26,774 

New Mexico 10,211 7,813 2,719 26 262 3,450 24,480 

New York 14,653 45,222 71,060 659 1,466 113 133,173 

North Carolina 71,113 58,517 21,713 197 890 696 153,125 

North Dakota 105,344 9,915 5,559 36 71 66 120,991 

Ohio 180,935 93,600 19,777 373 1,093 22 295,799 

Oklahoma 141,433 27,873 7,731 49 501 469 178,056 

Oregon 13,211 9,790 9,508 218 361 4,896 37,985 

Pennsylvania 126,316 64,697 67,650 427 1,060 32 260,183 

Rhode Island 0 2,745 3,338 33 85 1 6,202 

South Carolina 103,694 28,536 13,310 294 500 646 146,980 

South Dakota 29,711 1,655 10,301 23 86 498 42,273 

Tennessee 33,080 59,145 32,624 154 757 277 126,037 

Texas 249,748 129,667 108,633 1,146 2,483 1,178 492,855 

Tribal 0 676 0 0 0 0 676 

Utah 34,912 6,599 3,365 27 291 1,934 47,128 

Vermont 264 902 5,283 8 129 49 6,634 

Virginia 51,004 50,387 32,439 275 849 399 135,353 

Washington 5,569 19,780 6,885 881 633 407 34,156 

West Virginia 84,344 32,458 14,322 64 178 215 131,582 

Wisconsin 50,777 61,080 6,260 122 633 70 118,941 
64

State EGU NonEGU Nonpoint Nonroad Onroad Fires Total 

Wyoming 48,198 20,491 5,944 18 87 1,106 75,844 

Total 3,281,364 1,534,991 1,125,985 15,759 29,288 49,094 6,036,480 

Table 4-26. Reference case PM2.5 emissions (tons/year) for states by sector 

State EGU NonEGU Nonpoint Nonroad Onroad Fires Total 

Alabama 13,154 17,052 33,235 2,403 2,217 13,938 81,999 

Arizona 3,889 3,809 20,214 2,674 2,762 37,151 70,498 

Arkansas 2,838 10,527 33,486 2,042 1,242 10,315 60,450 

California 475 20,693 73,607 14,875 13,492 97,302 220,443 

Colorado 3,845 7,037 19,868 2,350 2,387 24,054 59,540 

Connecticut 400 222 6,838 1,038 1,414 56 9,968 

Delaware 434 772 1,207 383 375 87 3,259 

District of Columbia 1 172 536 139 154 0 1,002 

Florida 12,723 24,620 50,472 8,100 7,652 99,484 203,050 

Georgia 13,445 12,105 59,412 3,803 4,863 24,082 117,711 

Idaho 36 2,076 40,288 1,186 714 52,808 97,108 

Illinois 8,587 13,471 70,775 6,885 4,926 277 104,922 

Indiana 22,354 13,570 72,501 3,491 3,380 344 115,640 

Iowa 4,298 7,000 51,684 3,348 1,519 349 68,198 

Kansas 3,199 6,895 136,633 2,872 1,268 1,468 152,335 

Kentucky 12,078 10,353 26,811 2,717 2,059 5,155 59,173 

Louisiana 3,093 30,865 27,082 5,107 1,673 12,647 80,467 

Maine 355 3,543 8,213 881 750 2,127 15,869 

Maryland 3,969 6,382 18,960 1,975 2,492 531 34,310 

Massachusetts 1,465 2,123 23,729 1,914 2,590 1,324 33,145 

Michigan 8,102 11,688 43,055 4,696 4,949 1,283 73,773 

Minnesota 2,598 9,867 68,121 4,483 2,882 8,943 96,893 

Mississippi 2,201 10,492 31,474 2,337 1,525 14,897 62,926 

Missouri 7,061 6,384 69,722 3,954 3,059 2,636 92,816 

Montana 3,870 2,562 28,479 1,332 492 17,311 54,048 

Nebraska 2,358 2,834 44,904 2,967 919 1,483 55,465 

Nevada 2,505 4,032 9,351 1,319 857 19,018 37,083 

New Hampshire 1,130 464 8,981 576 663 534 12,348 

New Jersey 2,452 2,520 8,559 2,929 3,244 865 20,569 

New Mexico 3,153 1,442 49,789 1,148 1,103 48,662 105,298 

New York 2,331 4,859 44,334 5,032 6,723 1,601 64,879 

North Carolina 9,983 12,656 43,398 3,583 3,521 9,870 83,011 

North Dakota 5,870 795 40,802 2,126 383 934 50,910 

Ohio 18,920 12,353 47,811 5,302 5,013 316 89,715 

Oklahoma 3,530 5,695 88,862 2,029 2,006 6,644 108,767 

Oregon 381 8,869 39,503 2,148 1,627 65,350 117,877 

Pennsylvania 16,727 14,874 38,523 4,582 4,854 454 80,014 

Rhode Island 4 256 1,070 222 383 14 1,949 

South Carolina 9,997 4,527 23,430 1,932 1,929 9,163 50,978 

South Dakota 737 2,399 32,697 1,339 416 7,062 44,650 

Tennessee 5,053 21,553 28,449 2,939 3,057 3,934 64,985 

Texas 21,677 34,648 187,604 11,901 9,289 21,578 286,698 

Tribal 1 1,568 0 0 0 0 1,569 

Utah 4,524 3,530 13,978 963 1,318 27,412 51,724 
65

State EGU NonEGU Nonpoint Nonroad Onroad Fires Total 

Vermont 67 336 4,930 307 653 696 6,989 

Virginia 4,529 10,165 32,254 3,507 3,446 5,659 59,561 

Washington 1,444 4,421 35,706 3,328 2,874 4,487 52,259 

West Virginia 13,602 4,281 12,951 1,048 762 3,050 35,695 

Wisconsin 5,323 7,853 27,656 3,161 3,148 994 48,135 

Wyoming 5,662 10,225 30,812 850 392 15,686 63,626 

Total 276,430 411,437 1,912,757 150,221 129,416 684,035 3,564,296 

Table 4-27. Future year baseline EGU CAP emissions (tons/year) by state 

State CO NOX VOC SO2 NH3 PM10 PM2.5

Alabama 27,024 64,064 1,524 186,084 1,472 16,686 13,154 

Arizona 16,797 36,971 825 36,996 1,163 5,038 3,889 

Arkansas 9,925 36,297 658 92,804 560 3,507 2,838 

California 45,388 20,910 1,031 5,346 2,519 580 475 

Colorado 9,006 50,879 636 74,255 398 4,605 3,845 

Connecticut 9,180 2,738 139 3,581 313 431 400 

Delaware 4,256 2,452 132 2,835 119 580 434 

District of Columbia 67 11 2 5 3 1 1 

Florida 72,915 83,174 2,253 117,702 3,997 19,098 12,723 

Georgia 16,537 43,778 1,293 96,712 903 18,668 13,445 

Idaho 1,532 613 41 182 57 38 36 

Illinois 51,862 56,128 3,091 118,217 1,437 9,926 8,587 

Indiana 30,587 106,881 2,295 200,969 1,317 33,816 22,354 

Iowa 8,316 42,698 791 85,178 452 5,735 4,298 

Kansas 5,066 25,163 683 45,740 305 3,996 3,199 

Kentucky 37,287 71,259 1,604 116,927 928 16,279 12,078 

Louisiana 32,626 33,509 852 142,447 1,427 3,677 3,093 

Maine 12,789 6,121 306 2,564 269 366 355 

Maryland 13,446 17,933 533 29,786 301 5,322 3,969 

Massachusetts 7,128 7,991 279 15,133 395 1,915 1,465 

Michigan 25,856 66,846 1,497 163,168 874 11,056 8,102 

Minnesota 9,365 36,867 746 52,380 460 3,034 2,598 

Mississippi 9,704 27,319 440 34,865 469 3,113 2,201 

Missouri 16,499 52,464 1,714 178,143 740 9,093 7,061 

Montana 5,266 20,946 338 24,018 198 6,117 3,870 

Nebraska 4,691 28,898 542 70,910 292 2,948 2,358 

Nevada 9,677 15,627 438 14,140 953 3,095 2,505 

New Hampshire 5,667 4,908 206 6,719 207 1,234 1,130 

New Jersey 25,831 11,178 823 9,042 747 2,948 2,452 

New Mexico 9,079 65,189 574 10,211 570 3,833 3,153 

New York 19,731 21,172 731 14,653 1,076 3,248 2,331 

North Carolina 17,367 44,141 1,076 71,113 654 13,368 9,983 

North Dakota 7,437 53,778 867 105,344 383 6,757 5,870 

Ohio 33,481 93,150 2,005 180,935 1,317 25,688 18,920 

Oklahoma 26,165 47,454 957 141,433 1,073 4,457 3,530 

Oregon 5,905 10,828 203 13,211 381 446 381 

Pennsylvania 38,767 123,501 2,023 126,316 1,522 22,117 16,727 

Rhode Island 1,748 456 44 0 136 7 4 

South Carolina 10,305 37,516 726 103,694 515 14,469 9,997 
66

State CO NOX VOC SO2 NH3 PM10 PM2.5

South Dakota 742 14,293 129 29,711 48 764 737 

Tennessee 10,693 16,982 862 33,080 406 6,313 5,053 

Texas 78,317 145,182 4,975 249,748 5,304 31,404 21,677 

Tribal 601 73 15 0 47 2 1 

Utah 5,632 67,476 526 34,912 279 5,843 4,524 

Vermont 1,868 458 52 264 25 69 67 

Virginia 30,205 39,408 821 51,004 1,115 5,404 4,529 

Washington 7,183 14,284 326 5,569 346 1,706 1,444 

West Virginia 15,496 54,247 1,320 84,344 658 18,415 13,602 

Wisconsin 19,247 35,179 1,137 50,777 649 6,503 5,323 

Wyoming 9,087 71,380 970 48,198 481 7,385 5,662 

TOTAL 873,344 1,930,769 46,050 3,281,364 40,259 371,101 276,430 

* Emission estimates apply to all fossil Electric Generating Units, including those with capacity < 25MW 
67

5 MATS Control Case 

For the future year control case (i.e., policy case) air quality modeling, the emissions for all sectors were 

unchanged from the base case modeling except for those from EGUs. The IPM model was used to prepare 

the future year policy case for EGU emissions. The air quality modeling for MATS relied on EGU emission 

projections from an interim IPM platform based on the Cross-state Air Pollution Rule version 

4.10_FTransport, and was subsequently updated during the rulemaking process. The updates made include: 

updated assumptions regarding the removal of HCl by alkaline fly ash in subbituminous and lignite coals; an 

update to the fuel-based mercury emission factor for petroleum coke, which was corrected based on reexamination of the 1999 ICR data; updated capital cost for new nuclear capacity and nuclear life extension 

costs; corrected variable operating and maintenance cost (VOM) for ACI retrofits; adjusted coal rank 

availability for some units, consistent with EIA From 923 (2008); updated state rules in Washington and 

Colorado; and numerous unit-level revisions based on comments received through the notice and comment 

process. Additional details on the version of IPM used to develop the control case are available in Chapter 3. 

The changes in EGU SO2, and PM2.5 emissions as a result of the policy case for the lower 48 states are 

summarized in Table 5-1. Table 5-2 shows the CAP emissions for the modeled MATS control case by State. 

State-specific difference summaries of EGU SO2 and PM2.5 for the sum of the lower 48 states are shown in 

Table 5-3 and Table 5-4 respectively. 

Table 5-1. Summary of emissions changes for the MATS AQ modeling in the lower 48 states 

Future Year EGU Emissions SO2 PM2.5

Base Case EGU Emissions (tons) 3,281,364 276,430

Control Case EGU Emissions (tons) 1,866,247 223,320

Reductions to Base Case in Control case (tons) 1,415,117 53,110

Percentage Reduction of Base EGU Emissions 43% 19%

Total Man-made Emissions* 

Total Base Case Emissions (tons) 6,036,480 3,564,296

Total Control Case Emissions (tons) 4,621,363 3,511,186

Percentage Reduction of All Man-made 

Emissions

23% 1%

* In this table, man-made emissions includes average fires.

Table 5-2. EGU emissions totals for the Modeled MATS control case in the lower 48 states 

State CO NOX VOC SO2 NH3 PM10 PM2.5

Alabama 20,873 61,863 1,313 68,517 1,235 9,734 7,844 

Arizona 13,238 34,804 749 23,459 921 4,264 3,494 

Arkansas 9,036 35,788 642 35,112 490 1,696 1,593 

California 56,360 27,159 1,307 5,041 2,548 1,057 942 

Colorado 8,219 44,409 582 19,564 358 3,492 2,859 

Connecticut 8,017 2,800 136 1,400 313 439 412 

Delaware 1,312 2,527 67 4,160 93 3,056 1,455 

District of Columbia 

Florida 66,378 61,676 2,055 64,791 3,482 16,434 11,377 

Georgia 14,217 41,006 1,197 78,197 790 11,165 9,742 

Idaho 1,523 609 41 182 56 38 36 

Illinois 24,365 50,655 2,353 103,867 1,050 7,309 6,588 

Indiana 17,061 102,045 1,872 156,781 1,110 29,683 20,388 
68

State CO NOX VOC SO2 NH3 PM10 PM2.5

Iowa 7,340 41,247 747 48,030 410 3,318 2,947 

Kansas 4,683 22,136 623 22,767 282 2,504 2,263 

Kentucky 25,911 70,126 1,476 125,430 882 12,544 10,635 

Louisiana 28,171 31,655 767 30,509 1,261 2,003 1,899 

Maine 10,992 5,683 302 1,372 267 342 331 

Maryland 4,283 16,554 400 18,091 211 3,851 3,143 

Massachusetts 5,408 7,211 226 5,033 344 1,702 1,267 

Michigan 18,792 60,982 1,215 82,834 718 8,261 6,893 

Minnesota 8,699 34,942 709 33,214 430 3,332 2,936 

Mississippi 8,782 20,749 410 15,975 397 1,949 1,720 

Missouri 12,249 52,755 1,605 95,965 686 5,216 4,809 

Montana 2,223 19,758 264 6,399 133 2,637 1,727 

Nebraska 4,493 28,180 533 34,631 277 2,152 1,828 

Nevada 7,178 14,382 336 6,372 725 2,626 2,073 

New Hampshire 6,781 4,862 232 2,102 232 1,336 1,264 

New Jersey 8,350 7,699 315 6,404 546 2,020 1,583 

New Mexico 7,987 64,922 545 9,984 554 2,961 2,750 

New York 18,725 20,863 699 28,174 1,086 3,123 2,350 

North Carolina 15,195 35,309 1,033 59,551 602 8,885 7,988 

North Dakota 7,266 53,267 858 23,889 371 5,940 5,051 

Ohio 29,956 85,565 1,852 139,208 1,229 19,599 15,823 

Oklahoma 26,687 44,725 892 44,602 970 2,293 2,056 

Oregon 6,002 9,671 198 3,565 379 241 233 

Pennsylvania 24,865 104,906 1,645 93,606 1,349 17,330 14,080 

Rhode Island 1,721 443 43 0 134 7 4 

South Carolina 9,826 37,849 725 40,901 459 9,627 6,963 

South Dakota 641 14,290 117 2,483 41 260 245 

Tennessee 5,551 16,931 723 42,666 334 6,721 5,272 

Texas 71,475 138,086 4,444 105,958 4,774 25,359 17,601 

Tribal 266 32 7 0 21 1 1 

Utah 4,003 65,286 474 17,007 241 4,755 3,896 

Vermont 1,868 458 52 264 25 69 67 

Virginia 26,778 37,255 707 33,704 748 5,306 4,506 

Washington 6,334 3,834 179 854 254 183 176 

West Virginia 13,923 47,836 1,263 66,857 632 14,321 11,572 

Wisconsin 16,124 32,865 1,012 28,322 578 4,725 3,969 

Wyoming 7,516 71,135 932 28,456 467 5,946 4,671 

TOTAL 707,640 1,789,790 40,875 1,866,247 35,493 281,811 223,320 

Table 5-3. State-specific changes in annual EGU SO2 for the lower 48 states 

State 

Future year 

baseline SO2

(tons) 

Future Year 

Policy Case 

SO2 (tons) 

EGU SO2

reduction 

(tons) 

EGU SO2

reduction (%) 

Alabama 186,084 68,517 117,568 63% 

Arizona 36,996 23,459 13,537 37% 

Arkansas 92,804 35,112 57,692 62% 

California 5,346 5,041 305 6% 

Colorado 74,255 19,564 54,690 74% 

Connecticut 3,581 1,400 2,181 61% 

Delaware 2,835 4,160 -1,324 -47% 
69

District of Columbia 5 0 5 100% 

Florida 117,702 64,791 52,911 45% 

Georgia 96,712 78,197 18,515 19% 

Idaho 182 182 0 0% 

Illinois 118,217 103,867 14,350 12% 

Indiana 200,969 156,781 44,189 22% 

Iowa 85,178 48,030 37,148 44% 

Kansas 45,740 22,767 22,973 50% 

Kentucky 116,927 125,430 -8,503 -7% 

Louisiana 142,447 30,509 111,938 79% 

Maine 2,564 1,372 1,191 46% 

Maryland 29,786 18,091 11,695 39% 

Massachusetts 15,133 5,033 10,100 67% 

Michigan 163,168 82,834 80,334 49% 

Minnesota 52,380 33,214 19,165 37% 

Mississippi 34,865 15,975 18,890 54% 

Missouri 178,143 95,965 82,177 46% 

Montana 24,018 6,399 17,618 73% 

Nebraska 70,910 34,631 36,279 51% 

Nevada 14,140 6,372 7,768 55% 

New Hampshire 6,719 2,102 4,618 69% 

New Jersey 9,042 6,404 2,638 29% 

New Mexico 10,211 9,984 228 2% 

New York 14,653 28,174 -13,521 -92% 

North Carolina 71,113 59,551 11,562 16% 

North Dakota 105,344 23,889 81,455 77% 

Ohio 180,935 139,208 41,727 23% 

Oklahoma 141,433 44,602 96,831 68% 

Oregon 13,211 3,565 9,646 73% 

Pennsylvania 126,316 93,606 32,710 26% 

Rhode Island 0 0 0 N/A 

South Carolina 103,694 40,901 62,793 61% 

South Dakota 29,711 2,483 27,228 92% 

Tennessee 33,080 42,666 -9,586 -29% 

Texas 249,748 105,958 143,790 58% 

Tribal 0 0 0 N/A 

Utah 34,912 17,007 17,905 51% 

Vermont 264 264 0 0% 

Virginia 51,004 33,704 17,300 34% 

Washington 5,569 854 4,716 85% 

West Virginia 84,344 66,857 17,488 21% 

Wisconsin 50,777 28,322 22,454 44% 

Wyoming 48,198 28,456 19,742 41% 

TOTAL 3,281,364 1,866,247 1,415,117 
70

Table 5-4. State-specific changes in annual EGU PM2.5 for the lower 48 states 

State 

Future year 

baseline 

PM2.5 (tons) 

Future Year 

Policy Case 

PM2.5 (tons) 

EGU PM2.5

reduction 

(tons) 

EGU PM2.5

reduction (%) 

Alabama 13,154 7,844 5,310 40% 

Arizona 3,889 3,494 395 10% 

Arkansas 2,838 1,593 1,246 44% 

California 475 942 -467 -98% 

Colorado 3,845 2,859 985 26% 

Connecticut 400 412 -12 -3% 

Delaware 434 1,455 -1,021 -235% 

District of Columbia 1 0 1 100% 

Florida 12,723 11,377 1,346 11% 

Georgia 13,445 9,742 3,703 28% 

Idaho 36 36 0 0% 

Illinois 8,587 6,588 2,000 23% 

Indiana 22,354 20,388 1,966 9% 

Iowa 4,298 2,947 1,351 31% 

Kansas 3,199 2,263 936 29% 

Kentucky 12,078 10,635 1,443 12% 

Louisiana 3,093 1,899 1,193 39% 

Maine 355 331 24 7% 

Maryland 3,969 3,143 826 21% 

Massachusetts 1,465 1,267 198 14% 

Michigan 8,102 6,893 1,210 15% 

Minnesota 2,598 2,936 -339 -13% 

Mississippi 2,201 1,720 481 22% 

Missouri 7,061 4,809 2,252 32% 

Montana 3,870 1,727 2,143 55% 

Nebraska 2,358 1,828 530 22% 

Nevada 2,505 2,073 432 17% 

New Hampshire 1,130 1,264 -134 -12% 

New Jersey 2,452 1,583 868 35% 

New Mexico 3,153 2,750 403 13% 

New York 2,331 2,350 -19 -1% 

North Carolina 9,983 7,988 1,995 20% 

North Dakota 5,870 5,051 819 14% 

Ohio 18,920 15,823 3,097 16% 

Oklahoma 3,530 2,056 1,474 42% 

Oregon 381 233 148 39% 

Pennsylvania 16,727 14,080 2,646 16% 

Rhode Island 4 4 0 2% 

South Carolina 9,997 6,963 3,033 30% 

South Dakota 737 245 492 67% 

Tennessee 5,053 5,272 -219 -4% 

Texas 21,677 17,601 4,077 19% 

Tribal 1 1 1 56% 

Utah 4,524 3,896 627 14% 
71

State 

Future year 

baseline 

PM2.5 (tons) 

Future Year 

Policy Case 

PM2.5 (tons) 

EGU PM2.5

reduction 

(tons) 

EGU PM2.5

reduction (%) 

Vermont 67 67 0 0% 

Virginia 4,529 4,506 24 1% 

Washington 1,444 176 1,268 88% 

West Virginia 13,602 11,572 2,031 15% 

Wisconsin 5,323 3,969 1,354 25% 

Wyoming 5,662 4,671 991 17% 

TOTAL 276,430 223,320 53,110 

6 References 

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

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, March 2005. 

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

EPA, 2006. Regulatory Impact Analyses, 2006 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particle 

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

October, 2006. Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0017, # EPAHQ-OAR-2006-0834. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html. 

EPA, 2007a. Guidance for Estimating VOC and NOx Emission Changes from MACT Rules, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy 

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

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

001_emission_changes_mact_rules.pdf. 

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

Planning and Standards, Emissions Analysis and Monitoring Division, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711, EPA 454/R-07-002, February 2007. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/toxics/454r07002.pdf

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

and Marine Compression Ignition Engines Less than 30 Liters Per Cylinder. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division, 

Ann Arbor, MI 48105, EPA420-R-08-001a, May 2009. Available at: 

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

EPA, 2010. Technical Support Document: The Industrial Sectors Integrated Solutions (ISIS) Model and the 

Analysis for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants and New Source 

Performance Standards for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Sectors Policies and Program Division and Air Pollution Prevention and Control 

Division, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, August 2010. 
72

APPENDIX A 

Ancillary Datasets and Parameters Used for Each MATS Modeling Case 

The ancillary data files used for the MATS cases are shown in Table A-1. The Input name column gives a brief desigEnvironment Variable column gives the name of the environment variable that is used by SMOKE to specify the inpuspecifies the modeling sector for the dataset. The remaining columns show the data set name and version used in the reference case. To match the Datasets and Versions listed in this table to actual data files, combine the Dataset name and the version 

pattern: <Dataset Name>_<Date>_<Version number>.txt, where <Date> is the last date of change for that version an

for the combination of Dataset Name and Version number. Table A-2 shows the parameters used for the MATS modeling cases. The columns are the same as in Table A-1 excep

shown. Many of the parameters apply to all programs, or all programs for the specified processing sector. The value

not shown, but they are the same as those used for the 2017 reference case. 

Table A-1. List of ancillary data sets associated with the MATS modeling cases. 

Input Name 

Environment Variable Program Sector 2005 Base Case 2017 Re

Area-to-point data ARTOPNT smkinven artopnt_2002detroit [v0] artopnt_2BEIS3 emission factors B3FAC Tmpbeis3 beis beis3_efac_v3.14 [v0] beis3_efBiogenic gridding surrogate for reports 12EUS1 BGPRO Smkmerge beis 

bgpro_12EUS1 (/garnet/oaqps) [v0] bgpro_12

Biogenic gridding surrogate for reports 36US1 BGPRO Smkmerge beis bgpro_36US1 (/garnet/oaqps) [v0] bgpro_3Biogenic land use, file A, 12EUS1 BELD3_A Normbeis3 beis 

LANDA_EUS12_279X240 (/garnet/oaqps) [v0] 

LANDA(/garnet/

Biogenic land use, file A, 36US1 BELD3_A Normbeis3 beis 

LANDA_US36_148X112 (/garnet/oaqps) [v0] 

LANDA(/garnet/

Biogenic land use, file B, 12EUS1 BELD3_B Normbeis3 beis 

LANDB_EUS12_279X240 (/garnet/oaqps) [v0] 

LANDB(/garnet/

Biogenic land use, file B, 36US1 BELD3_B Normbeis3 beis 

LANDB_US36_148X112 (/garnet/oaqps) [v0] 

LANDB(/garnet/

Biogenic land use, totals, 12EUS1 BELD3_TOT Normbeis3 beis 

LAND_TOTALS_EUS12_279X240 (/garnet/oaqps) [v0] 

LAND_T(/garnet/

Biogenic land use, totals, 36US1 BELD3_TOT Normbeis3 beis 

LAND_TOTALS_US36_148X112 (/garnet/oaqps) [v0] 

LAND_T(/garnet/
73

Bioseasons file 12EUS1 BIOSEASON Tmpbeis3 beis 

bioseason.cmaq.2005b_12km (/garnet/oaqps) [v0] 

bioseaso(/garnet/

Bioseasons file 36US1 mcip v3.4 beta4 b BIOSEASON Tmpbeis3 beis 

bioseason.cmaq.2005b_36km (/garnet/oaqps) [v0] 

bioseaso(/garnet/

CEM annually summed data CEMSUM smkinven ptipm 

cemsum_ptipm_2005 (/orchid/share) [v0] 

cemsum_[v0] 

Combination profiles 

GSPRO_COMBO Spcmat gspro_combo_2005 [v6] gspro_co

Combination profiles - nonpt 

GSPRO_COMBO Spcmat nonpt 

gspro_combo_tier3_2005_base_nonpt_v2 [v2] 

gspro_co[v1] 

Combination profiles - nonroad 

GSPRO_COMBO Spcmat nonroad gspro_combo_tier3_2005_base_nonroad_v2 [v

Combination profiles – onroad 

GSPRO_COMBO Spcmat onroad 

gspro_combo_tier3_2005_base_onroad_v2 [v0] 

gspro_cd [v2] 

Combination profiles - ptnonipm (same as nonpt) 

GSPRO_COMBO Spcmat ptnonipm 

gspro_combo_tier3_2005_base_nonpt_v2 [v2] 

gspro_cpt_v2 [v

Country, State, County Information COSTCY smkinven costcy_for_2002 [v5] costcy_Elevation Configuration File for Point Sources 

PELVCONFIG Laypoint pelvconfig_inline_allpts [v1] pelvcon

Elevation Configuration File for seca_c3 sector 

PELVCONFIG Laypoint seca_c3 pelvconfig_seca_c3 [v1] pelvcon

Grid Description List GRIDDESC Grdmat griddesc_lambertonly [v39] griddesGridding surrogates CAN-MEX 12km SRGPRO Grdmat othon 

Canada_12km_revised (/garnet/oaqps) [v0] 

Canada(/garnet

Gridding surrogates CAN-MEX 12km SRGPRO Grdmat othar 

Canada_12km_revised (/garnet/oaqps) [v0] 

Canada(/garnet

Gridding surrogates CAN-MEX 36km SRGPRO Grdmat othar 

Canada_36km_revised (/garnet/oaqps) [v0] 

Canada(/garnet

Gridding surrogates CAN-MEX 36km SRGPRO Grdmat othon 

Canada_36km_revised (/garnet/oaqps) [v0] 

Canada(/garnet

Gridding surrogates USA 12km SRGPRO Grdmat 

USA-CAN-MEX_12km (/garnet/oaqps) [v0] 

USA-C(/garnet

Gridding surrogates USA 36km SRGPRO Grdmat 

USA-CAN-MEX_36km (/garnet/oaqps) [v0] 

USA-C(/garnet

GSCNV - pollutant to pollutant conversions GSCNV Spcmat gscnv_cb05_soa [v2] gscnv_cGSPRO speciated MOVES PM 

GSPROTMP_L Spcmat gspro_speciated_pm [v3] gspro_s

GSREF speciated PM 

GSREFTMP_L Spcmat gsref_speciated_pm [v2] gsref_sp

Holidays table HOLIDAYS Temporal holidays [v0] holiday
74

Inventory Table - HAPCAP EBAFM integration CMAQ-lite v4.7 N1e HDGHG INVTABLE smkinven onroad invtable_hapcap_cb05soa [v13] invtableInventory Table - HAPCAP EBAFM integration CMAQ-lite v4.7 N1e HDGHG INVTABLE smkinven nonpt invtable_hapcap_cb05soa [v13] invtableInventory Table - HAPCAP integration CMAQ-lite v4.7 N1e HDGHG INVTABLE smkinven invtable_hapcap_cb05soa [v12] invtableInventory Table -no-BAFM CMAQ-lite v4.7 N1e HDGHG INVTABLE smkinven avefire 

invtable_hapcap_cb05_no_bafm [v3] 

invtable[v3] 

Inventory Table -no-BAFM CMAQ-lite v4.7 N1e HDGHG INVTABLE smkinven ptipm 

invtable_hapcap_cb05_no_bafm [v3] 

invtable[v3] 

List of sectors for mrggrid SECTORLIST Mrggrid sectorlist_2005ct_05b [v3] sectorliList of sectors for mrggrid SECTORLIST Mrggrid sectorlist_2005ct_05b [v2] sectorliList of sectors for mrggrid SECTORLIST Mrggrid sectorlist_2005ct_05b [v1] sectorliMACT Description MACTDESC Smkreport mactdesc_2002v3 [v1] mactdesMeteorology temperature profiles METMOVES movesmrg onroad 

SMOKE_DAILY_12MERGEUS1_2005 [v0] 

SMOKE2005 [v

Mobile codes file default MCODES smkinven mcodes [v1] mcodes MOVES county cross-reference MCXREF movesmrg onroad MCXREF_tier3 [v0] MCXREMOVES Emission Factor Table list MRCLIST movesmrg onroad 

mrclist_RPV_05jul2011_2005ct_05b [v0] 

mrclist__05b [v

MOVES Emission Factor Table list MRCLIST movesmrg onroad 

mrclist_RPD_20may2011_2005ct_05b [v0] 

mrclist_f_05b [v

MOVES Emission Factor Table list MRCLIST movesmrg onroad 

mrclist_RPP_20may2011_2005ct_05b [v0] 

mrclist__05b [v

MOVES Emission Factor Tables EFTABLES movesmrg onroad 

EFtables_20110520_Tier3Base2005 [v0] 

EFtable[v0] 

MOVES Emission Factor Tables EFTABLES movesmrg onroad 

EFtables_20110705_Tier3Base2005_RPVfix [v0] 

EFtableRPVfix 

MOVES processes and pollutants MEPROC movesmrg onroad meproc_RPP_mplite [v0] meprocMOVES processes and pollutants MEPROC movesmrg onroad meproc_RPV_mplite [v1] meprocMOVES processes and pollutants MEPROC movesmrg onroad meproc_RPD_mplite [v2] meprocMOVES reference county fuel month MFMREF movesmrg onroad MFMREF_tier3 [v0] MFMRNAICS descriptions NAICSDESC Smkreport naicsdesc [v0] naicsdeNHAPEXCLUDE alm_no_c3 

NHAPEXCLUDE smkinven alm_no_c3 nhapexclude_alm_no_c3_pf4 [v1] nhapexc

NHAPEXCLUDE avefire 

NHAPEXCLUDE smkinven avefire nhapexclude_everything [v0] nhapexc

NHAPEXCLUDE nonpt 

NHAPEXCLUDE smkinven nonpt 

nhapexclude_nonpt_pf4_addpesticides [v3] 

nhapexces [v3] 
75

NHAPEXCLUDE NONROAD 

NHAPEXCLUDE smkinven nonroad nhapexclude_nonroad_pf4 [v0] nhapexc

NHAPEXCLUDE ptnonipm 

NHAPEXCLUDE smkinven ptnonipm 

nhapexclude_ptnonipm_include_30125010 [v0] 

nhapexc125010 

NHAPEXCLUDE seca_c3 

NHAPEXCLUDE smkinven seca_c3 nhapexclude_nothing [v0] nhapexc

nonpoint & nonroad surrogate xref AGREF Grdmat amgref_us_can_mex_revised [v11] amgref_onroad surrogate xref default MGREF Grdmat amgref_us_can_mex_revised [v11] amgref_ORIS Description ORISDESC smkinven orisdesc [v0] orisdesc SCC descriptions SCCDESC smkinven sccdesc_pf31 [v12] sccdescSIC descriptions SICDESC Smkreport sic_desc [v0] sic_desc Smkmerge representative dates files 

MRGDATE_FILES Run script 

merge_dates_2005 (/garnet/oaqps) [v0] 

merge_[v0] 

Speciation profiles additional for SMOKEMOVES GSPROTMP_ O Spcmat onroad gspro_new_for_smoke-moves [v0] gspro_nSpeciation profiles Canada PM 

GSPROTMP_J Spcmat othpt 

gspro_pm25_canada_2006_point [v0] 

gspro_p[v0] 

Speciation profiles for biogenics 

GSPROTMP_K Spcmat beis gspro_biogenics [v1] gspro_b

Speciation profiles for HG 

GSPROTMP_H Spcmat gspro_hg [v2] gspro_h

Speciation profiles for INTEGRATE HAPS 

GSPROTMP_F Spcmat 

gspro_integratehaps_cb05_tx_pf4 [v1] 

gspro_i[v1] 

Speciation profiles for NONHAPTOG 

GSPROTMP_E Spcmat gspro_nonhaptog_cb05 [v3] gspro_n

Speciation profiles for NONHAPTOG w/ETOH integration 

GSPROTMP_E Spcmat onroad 

gspro_nonhaptog_cb05_eprofiles [v0] 

gspro_n[v0] 

Speciation profiles for NONHAPTOG w/ETOH integration 

GSPROTMP_E Spcmat nonpt 

gspro_nonhaptog_cb05_eprofiles [v0] 

gspro_n[v0] 

Speciation profiles for NOX 

GSPROTMP_G Spcmat gspro_nox_hono_pf4 [v0] gspro_n

Speciation profiles for PM2.5 

GSPROTMP_C Spcmat gspro_pm25 [v2] gspro_p

Speciation profiles for SO2-SULF 

GSPROTMP_B Spcmat gspro_sulf [v1] gspro_s

Speciation profiles for TOG 

GSPROTMP_D Spcmat gspro_tog_cb05_soa [v3] gspro_t

Speciation profiles Other VOC HAP 

GSPROTMP_M Spcmat 

gspro_other_hapvoc_no_benz-benz [v0] 

gspro_o[v0] 

Speciation profiles speciated VOC 

GSPROTMP_I Spcmat gspro_speciated_voc [v0] gspro_s
76

Speciation profiles static 

GSPROTMP_A Spcmat gspro_static_cmaq [v12] gspro_s

Speciation xref CAP static 

GSREFTMP_A Spcmat gsref_static_cap_pf4 [v1] gsref_st

Speciation xref for Canada PM 

GSREFTMP_N Spcmat othpt 

gsref_pm25_canada_2006_point [v3] 

gsref_p[v3] 

Speciation xref for Integrate-HAPs static GSREFTMP_J Spcmat 

gsref_static_integratehap_emv4 [v2] gsref_st

Speciation xref for NONHAPVOC, not year-specific 

GSREFTMP_H Spcmat nonpt 

gsref_n[v3] 

Speciation xref for NONHAPVOC, not year-specific 

GSREFTMP_H Spcmat 

gsref_nonhapvoc_general_hdghg [v2] 

gsref_n[v2] 

Speciation xref for NONHAPVOC, yearspecific GSREFTMP_I Spcmat gsref_nonhapvoc_2005_hdghg [v2] gsref_n

[v1] 

Speciation xref for NONHAPVOC, yearspecific GSREFTMP_I Spcmat nonpt gsref_n

[v2] 

Speciation xref for PM2.5 diesel SCCs but do not produce diesel 

GSREFTMP_D Spcmat gsref_no_dieselpm [v3] gsref_n

Speciation xref for PM2.5 non-diesel SCCs 

GSREFTMP_E Spcmat gsref_pm25_pf4_nondiesel [v14] gsref_p

Speciation xref for SMOKE-MOVES not TOG 

GSREFTMP_P Spcmat onroad 

gsref_new_for_smokemoves_otherthantog [v0] gsref_n

moves_

Speciation xref for SMOKE-MOVES TOG 

GSREFTMP_O Spcmat onroad 

gsref_new_for_smoke-moves_tog [v1] 

gsref_2[v1] 

Speciation xref for SO2-SULF 

GSREFTMP_B Spcmat gsref_sulf [v0] gsref_su

Speciation xref for speciated VOC 

GSREFTMP_M Spcmat onroad gsref_speciated_voc [v2] gsref_sp

Speciation xref for speciated VOC 

GSREFTMP_M Spcmat othpt gsref_speciated_voc [v2] gsref_sp

Speciation xref for VOC, not year-specific 

GSREFTMP_F Spcmat gsref_voc_general_hdghg [v3] gsref_v

Speciation xref for VOC, year-specific 

GSREFTMP_G Spcmat gsref_voc_2005_hdghg [v4] gsref_v

Speciation xref HG 

GSREFTMP_K Spcmat gsref_hg [v8] gsref_h

Speciation xref static NOX -- HONO for mobile sources 

GSREFTMP_C Spcmat gsref_static_nox_hono_pf4 [v6] gsref_st

Stack replacement PSTK smkinven pstk [v0] pstk [v0surrogate descriptions (works for all grids) SRGDESC Grdmat othon srgdesc_36km_revised [v1] srgdescsurrogate descriptions (works for all grids) SRGDESC Grdmat srgdesc_12km [v2] srgdescsurrogate descriptions (works for all grids) SRGDESC Grdmat othar srgdesc_36km_revised [v1] srgdesc
77

Temporal profiles, all nonpoint and nonroad ATPRO Temporal amptpro_2005_us_can_revised [v2] amptproTemporal profiles, all point PTPRO Temporal amptpro_2005_us_can_revised [v2] amptproTemporal profiles, onroad default MTPRO Temporal amptpro_2005_us_can_revised [v2] amptproTemporal xref, all nonpoint and nonroad ATREF Temporal amptref_v3_3_revised [v12] amptrefTemporal xref, onroad mobile default MTREF Temporal amptref_v3_3_revised [v12] amptrefTemporal xref, othpt PTREF Temporal othpt ptref_othpt [v4] ptref_otTemporal xref, point default PTREF Temporal amptref_v3_3_revised [v12] amptrefTemporal xref, ptipm only PTREF Temporal Ptipm ptref_ptipm_us [v0] ptref_pt

Table A-2. Parameters used in the MATS cases 

Parameter Name Environment Variable Sector 2005 Base Case 201All months across all sectors ALL_MONTHS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 BEIS3 version BEIS3_VERSION beis 3.14 Biogenics land area surrogate 

AREA_SURROGATE_NUM beis 340 

Biogenics speciation profile code BIOG_SPRO beis B10C5 B10Check for duplicate sources RAW_DUP_CHECK ptfire N N Check for duplicate sources RAW_DUP_CHECK ptnonipm N N Check for duplicate sources RAW_DUP_CHECK ptipm N N Check for duplicate sources RAW_DUP_CHECK Y Y Check for duplicate sources RAW_DUP_CHECK alm_no_c3 N Check for duplicate sources RAW_DUP_CHECK nonpt N Check for duplicate sources RAW_DUP_CHECK othon N N Check for duplicate sources RAW_DUP_CHECK othpt N N Check for duplicate sources RAW_DUP_CHECK othar N N Check stack parameters for missing CHECK_STACKS_YN ptfire N N Convective rainfall variable for Pleim-Xiu RC_VAR beis RC RC Count of underscores for Daily data prefix NAMEBREAK_DAILY ptipm 9 Custom merge output 

SMKMERGE_CUSTOM_OUTPUT Y Y 

Custom merge output - MOVES 

MOVESMRG_CUSTOM_OUTPUT onroad Y Y 

Default surrogate code SMK_DEFAULT_SRGID 100 
78

Default surrogate code SMK_DEFAULT_SRGID afdust 340 Don't need spinup for most sectors SPINUP_DURATION ptipm Don't need spinup for most sectors SPINUP_DURATION nonpt 0 Don't need spinup for most sectors SPINUP_DURATION ptipm Don't need spinup for most sectors SPINUP_DURATION ptnonipm 0 Don't need spinup for most sectors SPINUP_DURATION nonroad 0 Don't need spinup for most sectors SPINUP_DURATION othpt 0 Don't need spinup for most sectors SPINUP_DURATION seca_c3 Don't need spinup for most sectors SPINUP_DURATION seca_c3 Don't speciate zero emission SCCs NO_SPC_ZERO_EMIS ptnonipm Y Y Don't speciate zero emission SCCs NO_SPC_ZERO_EMIS nonpt Y Y Don't use day-specific emission DAY_SPECIFIC_YN ptipm N N Don't use pollutant conversion 

POLLUTANT_CONVERSION onroad N N 

EGU daily type EGU_TYPE model_performance moEMF queue options EMF_QUEUE_OPTIONS #NAME? Emission rate model SMK_EF_MODEL onroad MOVES MOFill annual values FILL_ANNUAL nonroad Y Y Fill annual values FILL_ANNUAL N N Fill annual values FILL_ANNUAL nonpt Y Y Fire-specific plume rise calculations FIRE_PLUME_YN ptfire Y Y Formula for Smkinven SMKINVEN_FORMULA PMC=PM10-PM2_5 PMFormula for Smkinven SMKINVEN_FORMULA ag Formula for Smkinven SMKINVEN_FORMULA nonroad 

EXH__PMC=EXH__PM10-EXH__PM2_5 

EXEX

Formula for Smkinven SMKINVEN_FORMULA onroad Include market penetration MRG_MARKETPEN_YN N N I/O API Sphere type IOAPI_ISPH 19 Laypoint uses Elevpoint to set sources for plume rise calc SMK_SPECELEV_YN Y Y Match full SCCs FULLSCC_ONLY Y Y Maximum errors printed SMK_MAXERROR 10000 Maximum warnings printed SMK_MAXWARNING 10 
79

MCIP name abbreviation MCIPNAME MCIP_v3.4beta4 MCMerge by day MRG_BYDAY ptnonipm P P Merge by day MRG_BYDAY seca_c3 P P Merge by day MRG_BYDAY othpt P P Merge type M_TYPE Mwdss mwMerge type M_TYPE ptipm All all Merge type M_TYPE ptnonipm Mwdss mwMerge type M_TYPE ptfire All all Merge type M_TYPE avefire Aveday aveMerge type M_TYPE ag Aveday aveMerge type M_TYPE afdust Week weeMerge type M_TYPE onroad All all Merge type M_TYPE nonptfire Aveday aveMerge type M_TYPE othpt Mwdss mwMerge type M_TYPE othon Week weeMerge type M_TYPE seca_c3 Aveday aveMerge type M_TYPE beis All all Model output format OUTPUT_FORMAT $EMF_AQM $EMNonhap Type NONHAP_TYPE nonpt VOC VONonhap Type NONHAP_TYPE ptnonipm VOC VONonhap Type NONHAP_TYPE avefire VOC VONonhap Type NONHAP_TYPE nonroad VOC VONonhap Type NONHAP_TYPE onroad TOG TONonhap Type NONHAP_TYPE alm_no_c3 VOC VONonhap Type NONHAP_TYPE seca_c3 VOC VONumber of emissions layers SMK_EMLAYS 10 Ocean Chlorine filename extension EXT mrggrid .ncf .ncf Output county biogenic totals BIO_COUNTY_SUMS beis Y Y Output county/SCC totals MRG_REPSRC_YN onroad Y Y Output county totals MRG_REPCNY_YN N N Output county totals MRG_REPCNY_YN Y Output county totals MRG_REPCNY_YN onroad Y Y 
80

Output SCC totals MRG_REPSCC_YN onroad Y Y Output state biogenic totals BIO_STATE_SUMS beis Y Y Output state totals MRG_REPSTA_YN Y Y Output state totals MRG_REPSTA_YN N Output state totals MRG_REPSTA_YN onroad N N Output time zone OUTZONE 0 Platform name PLATFORM v4.3 v4.Pleim-Xiu land surface used? PX_VERSION beis Y Y Plume-in-grid method SMK_PING_METHOD 0 Pressure variable name PRES_VAR beis PRSFC PRPTDAY file name case DAILY_CASE ptipm 2005ck 200Radiation/cloud variable name RAD_VAR beis RGRND RGRenormalize temporal profiles RENORM_TPROF Y Y Report default profiles used REPORT_DEFAULTS Y Y Run holidays RUN_HOLIDAYS ag N N Run holidays RUN_HOLIDAYS avefire N N Run holidays RUN_HOLIDAYS Y Y Run holidays RUN_HOLIDAYS seca_c3 N N Run holidays RUN_HOLIDAYS alm_no_c3 N N Run holidays RUN_HOLIDAYS othon N N Run holidays RUN_HOLIDAYS othpt N N Run holidays RUN_HOLIDAYS othar N N Run holidays RUN_HOLIDAYS nonptfire N N Run holidays RUN_HOLIDAYS afdust Y Y Run in inline mode INLINE_MODE Both botRun in inline mode SECA_C3 INLINE_MODE seca_c3 Only onlRun script for Smkmerge annual totals RUN_PYTHON_ANNUAL Y Y Smkmerge reports units MRG_TOTOUT_UNIT tons/dy SMOKE-MOVES processing mode MOVES_TYPE onroad RPD RPSMOKE-MOVES processing mode MOVES_TYPE onroad RPP RPSMOKE-MOVES processing mode MOVES_TYPE onroad RPV RPSoil moisture variable for Pleim-Xiu SOIM1_VAR beis SOIM1 SO
81

Soil temperature variable for Pleim-Xiu SOILT_VAR beis SOIT1 SOSoil type variable for Pleim-Xiu ISLTYP_VAR beis SLTYP SLTSort inventory EVs by letter SORT_LIST_EVS othpt Y Y Sort inventory EVs by letter SORT_LIST_EVS avefire Y Y Sort inventory EVs by letter SORT_LIST_EVS ptipm Y Y Speciation type name SPC $EMF_SPC $EMSpinup Duration SPINUP_DURATION 10 Spinup Duration SPINUP_DURATION 3 Temperature variable name TMPR_VAR beis TEMP2 TETemperature variable name - MOVES TVARNAME onroad TEMP2 TETemporal type L_TYPE Mwdss mwTemporal type L_TYPE ptipm All all Temporal type L_TYPE ptfire All all Temporal type L_TYPE avefire Aveday aveTemporal type L_TYPE ag Aveday aveTemporal type L_TYPE afdust Week weeTemporal type L_TYPE onroad All all Temporal type L_TYPE nonptfire Aveday aveTemporal type L_TYPE othon Week weeTemporal type L_TYPE seca_c3 Aveday aveTemporal type L_TYPE beis All all Use area-to-point SMK_ARTOPNT_YN alm_no_c3 Y Y Use area-to-point SMK_ARTOPNT_YN nonpt Y Y Use area-to-point SMK_ARTOPNT_YN nonroad Y Y Use average day emissions SMK_AVEDAY_YN N N Use day-specific emission DAY_SPECIFIC_YN ptipm Y Y Use day-specific emission DAY_SPECIFIC_YN ptfire Y Y Use hourly plume rise data HOURLY_FIRE_YN ptfire Y Y Use NHAPEXCLUDE file SMK_PROCESS_HAPS alm_no_c3 PARTIAL PAUse NHAPEXCLUDE file SMK_PROCESS_HAPS seca_c3 ALL ALUse NHAPEXCLUDE file SMK_PROCESS_HAPS onroad ALL ALUse NHAPEXCLUDE file SMK_PROCESS_HAPS nonroad PARTIAL PA
82

Use NHAPEXCLUDE file SMK_PROCESS_HAPS avefire NONE NOUse NHAPEXCLUDE file SMK_PROCESS_HAPS ptnonipm PARTIAL PAUse NHAPEXCLUDE file SMK_PROCESS_HAPS nonpt PARTIAL PAUse pollutant conversion 

POLLUTANT_CONVERSION Y Y 

Western hemisphere? WEST_HSPHERE Y Y Write zero emissions WRITE_ANN_ZERO ptfire Y Y Write zero emissions WRITE_ANN_ZERO ptipm Y Y Zip merged model-ready files GZIP_OUTPUTS mrggrid Y Y Base Year 2005 Downstream Model CMAQ v4.7 N5c CMEnd Date & Time 12/31/2005 23:59 Future Year 0 Last Modified Date 13:57.7 Meteorological Year 2005 Model SMOKE SMModeling Region National Nat# of emission layers 14 # of met layers 14 Speciation cmaq_cb05_tx cmStart Date 1/1/2005 0:00 Version 2.7 
83

APPENDIX B 

Inventory Data Files Used for Each MATS Modeling Case – SMOKE Input Inventory Dat

The emissions inventory data files used for the MATS cases are shown in Table B-1. The Input name column gives a 

inventory. The Sector column specifies the modeling sector for the inventory. The remaining columns show the data 

used in the 2005 base case and 2017 reference cases. The datasets used for the 2017 control case are identical to the 2

except for the following replacements: 

 Inventory ptipm CAP used PTINV_EPA410FINAL_BC_226_summer_2015_01SEP2011_ORL [v0], 

 Inventory ptipm daily data (CEM sources) used ptday_ptipm_cem_2017ct_ref_mats_05b [v0], and  Inventory ptipm daily data (nonCEM sources) used ptday_ptipm_noncem_2017ct_ref_mats_05b [v0]. 

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

pattern: <Dataset Name>_<Date>_<Version number>.txt, where <Date> is the last date of change for that version an

for the combination of Dataset Name and Version number. 

Table B-1. List of inventory data sets associated with the MATS modeling cases. 

Input name Sector 2005 Base Case 2017 Reference CasInventory afdust CAP afdust afdust_2002ad_xportfrac [v0] afdust_2017ct_ref [vInventory ag CAP Ag ag_cap2002nei [v0] ag_cap2017ct_ref [vInventory alm_no_c3 CAP alm_no_c3 lm_no_c3_cap2002v3 [v1] lm_no_c3_cap2017cInventory alm_no_c3 HAP alm_no_c3 lm_no_c3_hap2002v4 [v0] lm_no_c3_hap2017cInventory avefire CAP avefire avefire_2002ce [v0] avefire_2002ce [v0] Inventory avefire HAP avefire avefire_2002_hap [v0] avefire_2002_hap [vInventory C1/C2 additional CAP/HAP alm_no_c3 c1c2_additional_201Inventory fire list ptfire ptfire_2005ag_tox [v0] ptfire_2005ag_tox [vInventory nonpt CAP and HAP (PFC only) nonpt pfc_2002_caphap_wETOH [v1] pfc_2017_ref_caphaInventory nonpt CAP/HAP Cellulosic Biodiesel plants for Tier3 nonpt 

cellulosic_ETOH_Bjul2011 [v0] 

Inventory nonpt CAP/HAP Ethanol Transport for Tier3 nonpt 

Ethanol_transport_v2011 [v0] 

Inventory nonpt CAP (no PFC, no refueling) nonpt nonpt_pf4_cap_nopfc [v6] nonpt_pf4_cap_nopfInventory nonpt CAP: TX and OK Oil and Gas nonpt 

nonpt_cap_2005_TCEQ_Oklahoma_OilGas [v0] 

nonpt_cap_2017ct_ls [v0] 
84

Inventory nonpt CAP: WRAP Oil and Gas nonpt nonpt_cap_2005_WRAP_OilGas [v0] nonpt_cap_2018PhaInventory nonpt HAP (no PFC, no refueling) nonpt 

nonpt_pf4_hap_nopfc_nobafmpesticidesplus [v4] 

nonpt_pf4_hap_nopft_ref [v0] 

Inventory nonpt Refueling from MOVES, April nonpt 

rfl_moves_wETOH_2005ct_apr_18may2011 [v0] rfl_moves_wETOH_

Inventory nonpt Refueling from MOVES, August nonpt 

rfl_moves_wETOH_2005ct_aug_18may2011 [v0] 

rfl_moves_wETOH_[v0] 

Inventory nonpt Refueling from MOVES, December nonpt 

rfl_moves_wETOH_2005ct_dec_18may2011 [v0] 

rfl_moves_wETOH_[v0] 

Inventory nonpt Refueling from MOVES, February nonpt 

rfl_moves_wETOH_2005ct_feb_18may2011 [v0] rfl_moves_wETOH_

Inventory nonpt Refueling from MOVES, January nonpt 

rfl_moves_wETOH_2005ct_jan_18may2011 [v0] rfl_moves_wETOH_

Inventory nonpt Refueling from MOVES, July nonpt 

rfl_moves_wETOH_2005ct_jul_18may2011 [v0] rfl_moves_wETOH_

Inventory nonpt Refueling from MOVES, June nonpt 

rfl_moves_wETOH_2005ct_jun_18may2011 [v0] rfl_moves_wETOH_

Inventory nonpt Refueling from MOVES, March nonpt 

rfl_moves_wETOH_2005ct_mar_18may2011 [v0] 

rfl_moves_wETOH_[v0] 

Inventory nonpt Refueling from MOVES, May nonpt 

rfl_moves_wETOH_2005ct_may_18may2011 [v0] 

rfl_moves_wETOH_[v0] 

Inventory nonpt Refueling from MOVES, November nonpt 

rfl_moves_wETOH_2005ct_nov_18may2011 [v0] 

rfl_moves_wETOH_[v0] 

Inventory nonpt Refueling from MOVES, October nonpt 

rfl_moves_wETOH_2005ct_oct_18may2011 [v0] rfl_moves_wETOH_

Inventory nonpt Refueling from MOVES, September nonpt 

rfl_moves_wETOH_2005ct_sep_18may2011 [v0] 

rfl_moves_wETOH_[v0] 

Inventory nonroad cap+CMAQ-lite HAPs US, incl Calif April nonroad 

nonroad_cmaq_lite_2005ct_apr_19may2011 [v0] nonroad_cmaq_lite_

Inventory nonroad cap+CMAQ-lite HAPs US, incl Calif August nonroad 

nonroad_cmaq_lite_2005ct_aug_19may2011 [v0] nonroad_cmaq_lite_

Inventory nonroad cap+CMAQ-lite HAPs US, incl Calif December nonroad 

nonroad_cmaq_lite_2005ct_dec_19may2011 [v0] nonroad_cmaq_lite_

Inventory nonroad cap+CMAQ-lite HAPs US, incl Calif February nonroad 

nonroad_cmaq_lite_2005ct_feb_19may2011 [v0] nonroad_cmaq_lite_

Inventory nonroad cap+CMAQ-lite HAPs US, incl Calif January nonroad 

nonroad_cmaq_lite_2005ct_jan_19may2011 [v0] nonroad_cmaq_lite_

Inventory nonroad cap+CMAQ-lite HAPs US, incl Calif July nonroad 

nonroad_cmaq_lite_2005ct_jul_19may2011 [v0] nonroad_cmaq_lite_

Inventory nonroad cap+CMAQ-lite HAPs US, incl Calif June nonroad 

nonroad_cmaq_lite_2005ct_jun_19may2011 [v0] nonroad_cmaq_lite_

Inventory nonroad cap+CMAQ-lite HAPs US, incl Calif March nonroad 

nonroad_cmaq_lite_2005ct_mar_19may2011 [v0] 

nonroad_cmaq_lite_[v0] 
85

Inventory nonroad cap+CMAQ-lite HAPs US, incl Calif May nonroad 

nonroad_cmaq_lite_2005ct_may_19may2011 [v0] 

nonroad_cmaq_lite_[v0] 

Inventory nonroad cap+CMAQ-lite HAPs US, incl Calif November nonroad 

nonroad_cmaq_lite_2005ct_nov_19may2011 [v0] nonroad_cmaq_lite_

Inventory nonroad cap+CMAQ-lite HAPs US, incl Calif October nonroad 

nonroad_cmaq_lite_2005ct_oct_19may2011 [v0] nonroad_cmaq_lite_

Inventory nonroad cap+CMAQ-lite HAPs US, incl Calif September nonroad 

nonroad_cmaq_lite_2005ct_sep_19may2011 [v0] nonroad_cmaq_lite_

Inventory onroad RPD onroad VMT_tier3_2005 [v0] VMT_tier3_2017_reInventory onroad RPD onroad VMT_tier3_2005 [v0] VMT_tier3_2017_reInventory onroad RPD onroad VMT_tier3_2005 [v0] VMT_tier3_2017_reInventory onroad RPD onroad SPEED_tier3 [v0] SPEED_tier3 [v0] Inventory onroad RPD onroad VMT_tier3_2005 [v0] VMT_tier3_2017_reInventory onroad RPP onroad VPOP_tier3_2005 [v0] VPOP_tier3_2017 [vInventory onroad RPV onroad VPOP_tier3_2005 [v0] VPOP_tier3_2017 [vInventory othar nonpoint CAP Mexico border states othar nonpt mexico border1999 [v0] nonpt mexico borderInventory othar nonpoint CAP Mexico interior states othar nonpt mexico interior1999 [v0] nonpt mexico interioInventory othar nonroad CAP Mexico border states othar nonroad mexico border1999 [v0] nonroad mexico bordInventory othar nonroad CAP Mexico interior states othar nonroad mexico interior1999 [v0] nonroad mexico inteInventory othon CAP Mexico border states othon onroad mexico border1999 [v0] onroad mexico bordeInventory othon CAP Mexico interior states othon onroad mexico interior1999 [v0] onroad mexico interiInventory othon CAP onroad Canada othon canada_onroad_cap_2006 [v0] canada_onroad_cap_Inventory othpt CAP Mexico border states othpt mexico_border99 [v1] mexico_border99 [vInventory othpt CAP Mexico interior states othpt mexico_interior99 [v0] mexico_interior99 [vInventory othpt CAP offshore othpt 

ptnonipm_offshore_oil_cap2005v2_20nov2008 [v0] ptnonipm_offshore_

Inventory ptipm CAP ptipm ptipm_2005cs_cap_27dec2010.txt [v1] Inventory ptipm CAP ptipm 

PTINV_EPA410FINMAY2011_ORL [v0

Inventory ptipm CAP ptipm Inventory ptipm daily data (CEM sources) ptipm 

ptday_ptipm_caphap_cem_2005cs_05b (/garnet/oaqps) [v0] ptday_ptipm_caphap

Inventory ptipm daily data (nonCEM sources) ptipm 

ptday_ptipm_caphap_noncem_2005cs_05b (/garnet/oaqps) [v0] ptday_ptipm_caphap
86

Inventory ptipm HAP ptipm ptipm_2005cs_hap_27dec2010.txt [v0] Inventory ptnonipm CAP ptnonipm 

ptnonipm_xportfrac_cap2005v2_2005cs_orl [v7] ptnonipm_xportfrac_

Inventory ptnonipm CAPHAP biodiesel plant additions forTier3 ptnonipm 

biodiesel_plants_20[v0] 

Inventory ptnonipm CAPHAP ethanol plant additions forTier3 ptnonipm 

ethanol_plants_2005ct_2017ct_lowE_caphap [v0] ethanol_plants_2017

Inventory ptnonipm cement capHg ptnonipm 

ptnonipm_capHG_c0 [v0] 

Inventory ptnonipm HAP ptnonipm ptnonipm_hap2005v2_2005cs_orl [v6] ptnonipm_hap2017cInventory rail additional CAP/HAP for Tier3 ref/ctl alm_no_c3 rail_additional_2017Inventory seca_c3 BAF HAPs Canada seca_c3 

eca_imo_CANADA_SCC_fix_vochaps_2005_09DEC2010 [v0] eca_imo_CANADA

Inventory seca_c3 BAF HAPs US includes EEZ and offshore FIPS seca_c3 

eca_imo_fixFIPS_US_andSCC_fix_vochaps_2005_09DEC2010 [v0] 

eca_imo_fixFIPS_U[v0] 

Inventory seca_c3 CAP Canada seca_c3 

eca_imo_CANADA_SCC_fix_caps_2005_09DEC2010 [v0] eca_imo_CANADA

Inventory seca_c3 CAP US + EEZ + Offshore non-Canada seca_c3 

eca_imo_fixFIPS_US_wDE_andSCC_fix_caps_2005_09DEC2010 [v0] 

eca_imo_fixFIPS_U17 [v0] 

ORL Nonpoint Inventory - Afdust Canada 2006 othar canada_afdust_xportfrac_cap_2006 [v0] canada_afdust_xportORL Nonpoint Inventory - Ag Canada 2006 othar canada_ag_cap_2006 [v0] canada_ag_cap_200ORL Nonpoint Inventory - Aircraft Canada 2006 othar canada_aircraft_cap_2006 [v0] canada_aircraft_cap_ORL Nonpoint Inventory - Commercial Marine Canada 2006 othar canada_marine_cap_2006 [v0] canada_marine_cap_ORL Nonpoint Inventory - Nonroad Canada 2006 othar canada_offroad_cap_2006 [v0] canada_offroad_capORL Nonpoint Inventory - Oarea Canada 2006 othar canada_oarea_cap_2006 [v3] canada_oarea_cap_2ORL Nonpoint Inventory - Rail Canada 2006 othar canada_rail_cap_2006 [v0] canada_rail_cap_200ORL Point Inventory - Point 2006 othpt canada_point_2006_orl [v2] canada_point_2006_ORL Point Inventory - Point CB5 2006 othpt canada_point_cb5_2006_orl [v0] canada_point_cb5_2ORL Point Inventory - Upstream Oil & Gas 2006 othpt canada_point_uog_2006_orl [v0] canada_point_uog_2
 Appendix C 

Summary of MATS Rule 2017 Base Case Non-EGU Control Programs, Closures and Proje

Lists of control, closure and projection packet datasets used to create MATS year 2017 base case inventories from the 

provided in Tables C-1 and C-2. 

Table C-1. Datasets used to create MATS 2017 reference case inventories for non-EGU point so

Name Type Dataset Version Description CLOSURES LotusNotes, ABCG, plus Timin 2016cr 

Plant Closure 

CLOSURES_LotusNotes_Linda_Timin_2016cr_23AUG2010 1 

Plant and unit cloreview. 

CLOSURES TR1 comments and consent decrees 2014cs 

Plant Closure CLOSURES_TR1_2014cs_01FEB2011 0 

Plant and unit cloa result of Transp

CLOSURES cement ISIS 2013 policy 

Plant Closure 

CLOSURES_cementISIS_2016cr_17AUG2010 1 

Cement plant and ISIS 2013 policy 

closures: 2005 to 2012ck 

Plant Closure 

CLOSURES_2005ck_to_2012ck_CoST_format 0 

Plant and unit clo

CONTROL ADDITIONAL OECA 2005cr to 2016cr Control 

CONTROLS_additional_NEIpf4_OECA_2005cr_2016cr_29JUL2010 1 

Controls that imp

CONTROL REPLACE DOJ 2005cr to 2016cr Control 

CONTROLS_replacement_NEIpf4_DOJ_2005cr_2016cr_02AUG2010.txt 0 

Controls resulting settlement. 

CONTROL REPLACE HWI 2005cr to 2016cr Control 

CONTROLS_replacement_NEIpf4_HWI_2005cr_2016cr_02AUG2010.txt 1 

Hazardous Waste and Haps carried 

CONTROL REPLACE IndustrialBoiler nonMACT 2005cr to 2016cr Control 

CONTROLS_replacement_IndBoilers_nonMACT_by2008_20AUG2010 0 

Industrial boiler cof the MACT but ICR database dat

CONTROL REPLACE LMWC 2005cr to 2016cr Control 

CONTROLS_replacement_NEIpf4_LMWC_2005cr_2016cr_02AUG2010.txt 0 

Controls for large over from 2002v3

CONTROL REPLACE MACT 2005cr to 2016cr Control 

CONTROLS_replacement_NEIpf4_MACT_2005cr_2016cr_02AUG2010.txt 0 

MACT controls cupdated as approp

CONTROL REPLACE NY SIP 2005cr to 2016cr Control 

CONTROLS_replacement_NYSIP_O3_SCC_2016cr_26AUG2010 0 

Controls that refland VOC from th

CONTROL REPLACE Refineries 2005cr to 2016cr Control 

CONTROLS_replacement_NEIpf4_refineries

_2005cr_2016cr_02AUG2010.txt 1 

Controls for refinrefinery staff. 

CONTROL RICE 2016cr_05b Control 

CONTROLS_replacement_RICE_2016cr_21SEP2010 1 

Controls for 2014 separate RICE NE

CONTROL RICE SO2 2014cs_05b Control 

CONTROLS_replacement_RICE_SO2_2014cs_05JAN2011 1 

SO2 reductions fr

requirement for C

CONTROL SULF rules: ME, NY, NJ 2017 ONLY Control 

CONTROLS_SULF_rules_2017only_03FEB2011 0 

SO2 reductions du

fuel oil. 
CONTROL St Gobain and LaFarge 2017 Control 

CONTROLS_rep_Lafarge_StGobain_2017cs_25JAN2011.txt 0 

Controls for NOX

from Saint Gobai

CONTROL TR1 Final CONTROL packet: 2017 Control CONTROLS_TR1_2017 0 

Controls for TCErelated cement co

CONTROL TR1 Final consent decrees 20XX Control 

CONTROLS_additional_TR1final_consent_decrees_2005cs_to_20XXcs.csv 0 

Controls related tduring the Transp

CONTROL cement ISIS 2013 policy Control 

CONTROLS_replacement_cementISIS_2016cr_17AUG2010 0 

Controls for cemepolicy case 

PROJECTION 2005 to 2017 ag emissions 

Projection PROJECTION_2005_2017_ag 0 

Projection factors population stats. 

PROJECTION LMWC 2005cr to 2016cr 

Projection 

PROJECTION_2005cr_2016cr_LMWC_29JUL2010 0 

Projection factors Waste Combusto

PROJECTION TR1 comments 2005cs to 20XXcs -ptnonipm 

Projection 

PROJECTION_2005cs_20XX_TR1_ptnonipm_01FEB2011 0 

Projection factors comments. 

PROJECTION aircraft 2005 to 2017 JAN2010 FAATAF 

Projection 

PROJECTION aircraft 2005 to 2017 JAN2010 FAATAF 0 

Projection factors FAA Terminal A

PROJECTION cement ISIS 2013 policy 

Projection 

PROJECTION_cementISIS_2016cr_17AUG2010 0 

Projection factors policy case for ce

PROJECTION RWC and landfills 2005 to 2017 BAD 

Projection 

PROJECTION_2005_2017_RWC_landfills_BAD 0 Projection factors 

PROJECTION Tier3 Proposal 2017 low-E to 2017 REF transport BPS BTP RBT 

Projection 

PROJECTION_2017ct_REF_Tier3prop_transport_scalars_28jul2011 0 

Projection factors blends from bulk terminal and bulk 

PROJECTION Tier3 Proposal 2017 low-E to 2017 REF-CTL ag 

Projection 

PROJECTION_2017ct_REF_Tier3prop_ag_scalars_26jul2011 0 

Projection factors biofuel volumes o

PROJECTION Tier3 Proposal 2017 low-E to 2017 REF-CTL refineries 

Projection 

PROJECTION_2017ct_REF_Tier3prop_refinery_scalars_26jul2011 0 

Projection factors changes from ren

Table C-2. Datasets used to create MATS 2017 reference case inventories for nonpoint sourc

Control Program Name Type Dataset Version Description CONTROL REPLACE NY SIP 2005cr to 2016cr Control 

CONTROLS_replacement_NYSIP_O3_SCC_2016cr_26AUG2010 0 

Controls that reflect enforceable coNew York ozone SIP. 

CONTROL RICE 2016cr_05b Control 

CONTROLS_replacement_RICE_2016cr_21SEP2010 1 

Controls for 2014 and 2016 that repNESHAPs 

CONTROL RICE SO2 2014cs_05b Control 

CONTROLS_replacement_RICE_SO2_2014cs_05JAN2011 1 

SO2 reductions from the Ultra-low 

engines 

CONTROL SULF rules: ME, NY, NJ 2017 ONLY Control 

CONTROLS_SULF_rules_2017only_03FEB2011 0 

SO2 reductions due to state sulfur c

CONTROL TR1 Final CONTROL packet: 2017 Control CONTROLS_TR1_2017 0 Controls for TCEQ oil and gas and PROJECTION 2005 to 2017ag sector Projection PROJECTION_2005_2017_ag 0 Projection factors for agriculture ba
PROJECTION RWC and 

landfills 2005 to 2017 BAD Projection 

PROJECTION_2005_2017_RWC_landfills_BAD 0 Projection factors for residential wo

PROJECTION aircraft 2005 to 2017 JAN2010 FAATAF Projection 

PROJECTION aircraft 2005 to 2017 JAN2010 FAATAF 0 

Projection factors for aircraft deriveForecast System. 

PROJECTION Tier3 Proposal 2017 low-E to 2017 REF transport BPS BTP RBT Projection 

PROJECTION_2017ct_REF_Tier3prop_transport_scalars_28jul2011 0 

Projection factors for transport of replant to storage, refinery to bulk ter

PROJECTION Tier3 Proposal 2017 low-E to 2017 REF-CTL ag Projection 

PROJECTION_2017ct_REF_Tier3prop_ag_scalars_26jul2011 0 

Projection factors accounting for chupstream agricultural sources 

PROJECTION Tier3 Proposal 2017 low-E to 2017 REF-CTL refineries Projection 

PROJECTION_2017ct_REF_Tier3prop_refinery_scalars_26jul2011 0 

Projection factors accounting for rerenewable fuels