Appendix F.3 

ON-ROAD MOBILE SOURCE 

EMISSIONS INVENTORY 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................4

II. MOBILE6.2 INPUT ASSUMPTIONS FOR VISTAS/ASIP..................................................................5

 A. Speed Assumptions.........................................................................................................................5

 B. Vehicle Age Distribution.................................................................................................................5

 C. Vehicle Mix Assumptions...............................................................................................................5

 1. Vehicle Mix.................................................................................................................................5

 2. Temperature, Relative Humidity and Barometric Pressure Assumptions ...................................6

 3. Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program Assumptions ......................................................6

 4. Reid Vapor Pressure Assumptions ..............................................................................................6

 5. Vehicle Miles Traveled Assumptions..........................................................................................6

III. MOBILE6.2 INPUT ASSUMPTIONS FOR MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION BUDGETS ................7

 A. Speed Assumptions.........................................................................................................................7

 B. Reid Vapor Pressure Assumptions..................................................................................................7

 C. Vehicle Miles Traveled Assumptions .............................................................................................7

IV. MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS FOR CONFORMITY .................................................9

 A. Transportation Conformity..............................................................................................................9

 B. Highway Mobile Source VOC Insignificance...............................................................................10

 C. Motor Vehicle Emission Budget ...................................................................................................14

V. MOBILE6.2 DATA USED IN SETTING THE MVEB.......................................................................17

 A. MOBILE Input Files .....................................................................................................................17

 B. MOBILE Output Files...................................................................................................................19

 C. 2009 Metrolina Vehicle Mix .........................................................................................................29
LIST OF TABLES 

Table F3-1: Functional Road Classes in South Carolina .............................................................................5

Table F3-2: Speeds for the York County South Carolina Nonattainment Area 2009 On-Road Mobile 

Emissions Inventory..............................................................................................................................7

Table F3-3: 2009 York County Nonattainment Area Daily VMT...............................................................8

Table F3-4: 2009 On-Road Mobile Source NOx Emissions for the York County South Carolina 

Nonattainment Area............................................................................................................................15

Table F3-5: York County South Carolina Nonattainment Area NOx MVEB for 2009 ............................15

Table F3-6: Comparison of 2009 York County Daily VMT used in the VISTAS (attainment 

demonstration) and the Metrolina (MVEB) models ...........................................................................16

Table F3-7: 2009 Metrolina Vehicle Mix..................................................................................................29

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure F3-1: Metrolina Area 2002 Daily Summertime VOC Emissions...................................................11

Figure F3-2: Metrolina Area 2009 Daily Summertime VOC Emissions...................................................11

Figure F3-3: 8-hour Ozone response to 30% anthropogenic VOC reductions in 2009 .............................13

Figure F3-4: 8-hour Ozone Response to 50% mobile VOC decrease in 2008 ..........................................14

 
4 

ON-ROAD MOBILE SOURCE 

EMISSIONS INVENTORY

I. INTRODUCTION 

 The attainment modeling for the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, North Carolina-South Carolina 

nonattainment area (referred to as the Metrolina area) was performed in conjunction with the regional 

haze modeling being done by the Southeast Regional Planning Organization, Visibility Improvement 

State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) and the fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and 

ozone modeling being done by the Association of Southeastern Integrated Planning (ASIP). VISTAS and 

ASIP are run by the ten Southeast states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia). Since the regional haze and PM2.5 

modeling uses annual simulations and includes an intermediate year that is the attainment year required 

for the Metrolina nonattainment area, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental 

Control (SCDHEC) decided to use this modeling for its attainment demonstration 

 On-road mobile sources are considered those vehicles that travel on the roadways. On-road mobile 

sources emissions comprise near 50 percent of the emissions of NOx for most of South Carolina. 

Emissions from motor vehicles occur throughout the day while the vehicle is in motion, at idle, parked, 

and during refueling. All of these emissions processes need to be estimated in order to properly reflect 

the total emissions from this source category. In its simplest terms, emissions from on-road mobile 

sources are calculated by multiplying an activity level, in this case daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as 

provided by the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) and Metropolitan Planning 

Organization (MPOs), by an emission factor. 

 The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) developed the MOBILE model to estimate 

emission factors based on information on the way vehicles are driven in a particular area. The newest

version of the MOBILE model, MOBILE6.2, was used. In 2004, MOBILE6.2 was incorporated into 

SMOKEv2.1 which was used in the VISTAS/ASIP modeling. Key inputs for MOBILE6.2 include 

information on the age of vehicles on the roads, the average speed of those vehicles, what types of roads 

those vehicles are traveling on, any control technologies in place in an area to reduce emissions for motor 

vehicles (e.g., emissions inspection programs) and ambient temperature. 

 A very important component of the on-road mobile emissions estimation process is interagency 

consultation. The South Carolina transportation partners involved in attainment demonstration State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) and motor vehicle emission budget development included: the USEPA Region 

IV, the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT), the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the South Carolina Department of Health and 

Environmental Control (SCDHEC) and the Rock Hill-Fort Mill Area Transportation Study (RFATS) 

Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The Charlotte Department of Transportation (CDOT) was 

consulted for speeds and VMT data derived from the Metrolina travel demand model (TDM). 

 The documentation for the on-road mobile sources is broken out into two components: 1) how the 

inventory was developed for the ozone modeling used for the attainment demonstration and 2) how the 

motor vehicle emission budget was developed for the York County nonattainment area. 

 
5 

II. MOBILE6.2 INPUT ASSUMPTIONS FOR VISTAS/ASIP 

 The MOBILE6 module of SMOKE was used to develop the 2002 and 2009 on-road mobile source 

emissions estimates for carbon monoxide, ammonia, fine particulate matter, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The MOBILE6 parameters, vehicle fleet descriptions, and VMT 

estimates were combined with gridded, episode-specific temperature data to calculate the gridded, 

temporalized emission estimates. Of note, whereas the on-network emissions estimates are spatially 

allocated based on link location and subsequently summed to the grid cell level, the off-network 

emissions estimates are spatially allocated based on a combination of the FHWA Version 2.0 highway 

networks and population. For the VISTAS/ASIP 36/12 km modeling, no link based data was used. The 

MOBILE6 emissions factors are based on episode-specific temperatures predicted by the meteorological 

model. Further, the MOBILE6 emissions factors model accounts for the following: 

 • Hourly and daily minimum/maximum temperatures, relative humidity and barometric 

 pressure; 

 • Facility speeds; 

 • Locale-specific inspection/maintenance (I/M) control programs, if any; 

 • Adjustments for running losses; 

 • Splitting of evaporative and exhaust emissions into separate source categories; 

 • VMT, fleet turnover, and changes in fuel composition and Reid vapor pressure (RVP). 

 A. Speed Assumptions 

 Emissions from motor vehicles vary with the manner in which the vehicle is operated. Vehicles 

traveling at 65 miles per hour (mph) emit a very different mix of pollutants than the car that is idling at a 

stoplight. 

 B. Vehicle Age Distribution 

 Emissions vary with the age of a vehicle. Older vehicles have typically been driven more miles and 

have experienced more deterioration in the emission control systems. Also, older vehicles do not meet

newer, more stringent emissions standards. South Carolina does not have state specific data and used 

default vehicle age distributions built into the MOBILE6 model. 

 C. Vehicle Mix Assumptions 

 1. Vehicle Mix 

 The vehicle mix refers to the percentage of different vehicle types on each of the twelve (12) FHWA 

road types. These road types are listed below in Table F3-1. It is critical for estimating mobile emissions 

in an area to use data that accurately reflects the vehicles traveling on each of these different road types. 

South Carolina does not have state specific data and used default vehicle mix data built into the 

MOBILE6 model. 

Table F3-1: Functional Road Classes in South Carolina 

RI Rural Interstate UI Urban Interstate 

RPA Rural Other Principle Arterial UF Urban Freeway & Expressway 

RMA Rural Minor Arterial UPA Urban Other Principal Arterial 

RMjC Rural Major Collector UMiA Urban Minor Arterial 
6 

RMiC Rural Minor Collector UC Urban Collector 

RL Rural Local UL Urban Local 

 

 2. Temperature, Relative Humidity and Barometric Pressure Assumptions 

 MOBILE6.2 emission factors used by SMOKE are significantly influenced by temperature and to a 

lesser extent, humidity. The most desirable approach from an accuracy standpoint is to model on-road 

mobile emissions using gridded, temporalized data from the meteorological model. The VISTAS on-road 

mobile inventories were developed using this approach. 

 3. Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program Assumptions 

 South Carolina does not have an inspection and maintenance program in any of its counties. 

 4. Reid Vapor Pressure Assumptions 

 The RVP is a measure of gasoline's volatility. The following reflects the RVP settings used in the 

development of the South Carolina on-road mobile inventory to support the VISTAS/ASIP regional 

modeling. An RVP of 9.0 pounds per square inch (psi) is required during May through September in all 

South Carolina counties. 

 5. Vehicle Miles Traveled Assumptions 

 In order to calculate emissions from on-road mobile sources, emission factors are developed as 

discussed throughout this document. The emission factors are then multiplied by an activity level, which 

for on-road mobile sources is VMT. 

 For all counties in South Carolina, the 2002 VMT was derived from the 2002 Highway Performance 

Maintenance System (HPMS) data provided by SCDOT. The South Carolina 2009 VMT was grown by 

the VISTAS consultant using growth factors 
7 

III. MOBILE6.2 INPUT ASSUMPTIONS FOR MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION BUDGETS 

 The purpose of transportation conformity is to ensure that Federal transportation actions occurring in 

a nonattainment area do not hinder the area from maintaining the 8-hour ozone standard. This means that 

the level of emissions estimated by the SCDOT or the MPO's for the Transportation Implementation Plan 

and Long Range Transportation Plan must not exceed the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEB) as 

defined in this attainment demonstration SIP. 

 The sections below describe the MOBILE6.2 input assumptions used to calculate the MVEB. The 

MOBILE6.2 input files and output files used in the development of the on-road mobile source emissions 

for the attainment demonstration are compiled in Section V. 

 A. Speed Assumptions 

 The MOBILE6.2 command "AVERAGE SPEED" was used to enter the daily speeds. This 

command replaces the default average speed per roadway classification with a calculated average speed 

for a given roadway scenario. 

 This command requires the average speed on a given roadway scenario. 

 The speeds were generated by the Charlotte Department of Transportation (CDOT) using the 

Metrolina regional travel demand model. The speeds provided are based on a daily average. 

 Table F3-2 below provides a summary of the speeds used for the development of the MVEB. For the 

VISTAS/ASIP modeling, average county-wide speeds were used. For the setting of the MVEB, average 

speeds based on just the nonattainment area were used. The column headings in Table F3-2 represent the 

twelve (12) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) functional road classes used in the modeling (see 

Table F3-1). 

Table F3-2: Speeds for the York County South Carolina Nonattainment Area 2009 On-Road Mobile 

Emissions Inventory 

County RI RPA RMA RMjC RMiC RL UI UF UPA UMiA UC UL

York 61.4 46.8 43.8 39.1 24.3 26.9 60.8 39.0 35.3 35.2 25.6 23.1 

 B. Reid Vapor Pressure Assumptions 

 York County is required to have an RVP of 9.0 psi. This value was used in calculating the MVEB 

for the York nonattainment area. 

 C. Vehicle Miles Traveled Assumptions 

 In order to calculate emissions from on-road mobile sources, emission factors are developed as 

discussed throughout this document. The emission factors are then multiplied by an activity level, which 

for on-road mobile sources is daily VMT. 

 The daily VMT for the Metrolina nonattainment area was provided by CDOT. While full-county 

data was used in the attainment demonstration SIP, the VMT used to estimate the MVEB reflects only the

VMT associated with the nonattainment portion of York County. Table F3-3 lists the VMT used in the 

MVEB calculations. 
8 

Table F3-3: 2009 York County Nonattainment Area Daily VMT 

Road Type Daily VMT 

Rural 

Interstate 852,652 

Other Prin. Arterial 77,925 

Minor Arterial 272,179 

Major Collector 242,554 

Minor Collector 27,445 

Local 174,246 

Urban 

Interstate 791,164 

Freeway/Expressway 79,101 

Other Prin. Arterial 990,378 

Minor Arterial 721,849 

Collector 218,491 

Local 363,495 

Total Daily VMT 4,811,481 
9 

IV. MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS FOR CONFORMITY

 A. Transportation Conformity 

 As mentioned earlier, the purpose of transportation conformity is to ensure that Federal 

transportation actions occurring in a nonattainment areas does not hinder the area from maintaining the 8-

hour ozone standard. The level of emissions estimated by the RFATS for the Transportation 

Implementation Plan and Long Range Transportation Plan must not exceed the MVEB as defined in this 

attainment demonstration SIP. 

 On April 15, 2004, the USEPA issued designations and classifications based on the severity of the 8-

hour ozone NAAQS in each state with an effective date of June 15, 2004. This included the RFATS 

MPO boundary for the York County area along with contiguous portions of North Carolina. In making 

the boundary and classification determinations, the USEPA utilized 8-hour ozone monitoring data from 

the 2001-2003 calendar years. Although the monitor in York County during that time was below the 8-

hour ozone standard of 0.085 parts per million (ppm), the USEPA determined that a portion of York 

County contributed to violating monitors in nearby North Carolina. The nonattainment area was 

classified under Subpart 2 of the Clean Air Act as being a "moderate" nonattainment area for ozone. This 

was decided based upon a monitored ozone value of 0.100 ppm in Rowan County, North Carolina. 

 As a minimum requirement, no later than June 15, 2005, the RFATS area was required to 

demonstrate transportation conformity, to ensure that all projects utilizing federal funds do not have an 

adverse impact on the area's air quality. Transportation Conformity consultation procedures as outlined in 

the South Carolina Transportation Conformity Memorandum of Agreement and endorsed by all parties 

enabled the nonattainment area to immediately begin the process. The York County Interagency 

Consultation process was initiated on May 14, 2004 and is ongoing, consisting of representatives from 

York County, the RFATS, the SCDHEC, the SC Department of Transportation, the USEPA Region IV, 

the SC Division Office of Federal Highways, the Federal Transit Authority, the City of Rock Hill, and 

York County. 

 On September 30, 2004, the RFATS sent a memorandum to the FHWA, the USEPA Region IV, 

York County, and the SCDHEC, copying Charlotte DOT as formal notification that RFATS had elected, 

through the York County Interagency Consultation process, to follow procedures for the determination for 

the conformity of transportation plans, programs and projects in the RFATS Transportation Study Area 

separately from the area designated as nonattainment in North Carolina. The notice confirmed the 

intention of RFATS and SCDOT, as partners in the development of the Metrolina Regional Travel 

Demand Model, to use the regional travel forecasting model and that model's output as the tool for 

completing the conformity analysis that applies to the nonattainment area in York County (RFATS MPO) 

in conjunction with the update of the RFATS LRTP. 

 On March 30, 2005, the RFATS and the SCDOT sent a memorandum to the Charlotte DOT as 

formal notification that RFATS has elected through the York County Interagency Consultation process, to 

use the RFATS Travel Demand Model for the determination of the determination of the air quality 

conformity of transportation plans, programs and projects. Specifically, the RFATS state that with the 

assistance from the SC DOT, the RFATS Travel Model would be used to produce the travel outputs for 

the Mobile/Air Quality Model and the federally required conformity determination. 

 As referenced in the following documents, the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) - FTA 

and FHWA, after recommendation from the USEPA Region IV, issued a finding of conformity for the 

RFATS 2030 LRTP and the FY2006-2008 TIP. 
10 

 June 13, 2005 - correspondence from the USEPA Region IV to the FHWA Division Administrator of 

the completed review and recommendation for a finding of conformity 

 June 13, 2005 - notification from the USDOT - FTA and FHWA to the SCDOT of their finding of 

conformity 

 As a result of modifications to RFATS transportation plans, a second conformity determination was 

made in early 2007. The USDOT - FTA and FHWA after recommendation from the USEPA Region IV 

issued a finding of conformity for the RFATS 2030 LRTP and the FY2006-2008 TIP. 

 February 1, 2007 - FHWA Division Administrator requested the USEPA Region IV to review and 

provide comments on the RFATS conformity determination for the 2030 LRTP and FY2007-FY2012 

TIP. The correspondence also stated that the opportunity for public review and comment was provided. 

 February 26, 2007 - correspondence from the USEPA Region IV to the FHWA Division 

Administrator of the completed review and recommendation for a finding of conformity 

 March 5, 2007 - notification from the USDOT - FTA and FHWA to the SCDOT of their finding of 

conformity for the 2030 LRTP and 2006-2012 TIP. 

 During the development of the MVEB, the York County Interagency partners including 

representatives from York County, the RFATS, the SCDHEC, the SC Department of Transportation, the 

USEPA Region IV, the SC Division Office of Federal Highways, the Federal Transit Authority, the City 

of Rock Hill, and York County were consulted. Future conformity determinations must show that the 

level of emissions estimated by the RFATS for the TIP and LRTP must not exceed the motor vehicle 

emission budget (MVEB) as defined in this attainment demonstration. 

 Copies of the correspondence are found in Appendix S - RFATS Transportation Conformity. 

 B. Highway Mobile Source VOC Insignificance 

 The Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the new 8-hour ozone and fine particulate 

matter NAAQS addresses areas with insignificant motor vehicle emissions in Section 93.109(k) which 

states: 

Notwithstanding the other paragraphs in this section, an area is not required to satisfy a regional 

emissions analysis for §93.118 and/or §93.119 for a given pollutant/precursor and NAAQS, if the USEPA 

finds through the adequacy or approval process that a SIP demonstrates that regional motor vehicle 

emissions are an insignificant contributor to the air quality problem for that pollutant/precursor and

NAAQS. The SIP would have to demonstrate that it would be unreasonable to expect that such an area 

would experience enough motor vehicle emissions growth in that pollutant/precursor for a NAAQS 

violation to occur. 

 The rule suggests that such a finding would be based on a number of factors, including the 

percentage of motor vehicle emissions in the context of the total SIP inventory, the current state of air 

quality as determined by monitoring data for that NAAQS, the absence of SIP motor vehicle control 

measures, and historical trends and future projections of the growth of motor vehicle emissions. 

 SCDHEC has examined a NCDAQ study designed to determine the sources of VOC emissions and 

their contribution to ozone formation in North Carolina, since the results of the study would apply to the 
11 

part of York County included in the Metrolina nonattainment area. Due to the generally warm and moist 

climate of the Carolinas, vegetation abounds in many forms, and forested lands naturally cover much of

each state. The biogenic sector is the most abundant source of VOC emissions in both Carolinas and 

accounts for approximately 90% of the total VOC emissions across each state. Due to the overwhelming 

abundance of biogenic VOC emissions, NCDAQ determined the vast majority of North Carolina a NOx 

limited environment for the formation of ozone. This holds true for the Metrolina nonattainment area 

counties. Summaries from the VISTAS/ASIP 2002 and 2009 regional modeling effort were used to 

illustrate the abundance of the biogenic VOC emissions. Figures F3-1 and F3-2 provides the percent 

contributions from point, on-road mobile, off-road mobile, area, and biogenic sources to the total VOC

emissions in the Metrolina nonattainment area in 2002 and 2009, respectively. For the two partial 

counties in the Metrolina nonattainment area, Iredell and York Counties, the whole county emissions 

were used since the modeling inventories are for whole counties. 

3%

15%

4%

7%

71%

Point

On-Road Mobile

Off-Road Mobile

Area

Biogenic

2002 VOC Emissions

1132 tons/day

Figure F3-1: Metrolina Area 2002 Daily Summertime VOC Emissions 

2%

9%

3%

7%

79%

Point

On-Road Mobile

Off-Road Mobile

Area

Biogenic

2009 VOC Emissions

1038 tons/day

Figure F3-2: Metrolina Area 2009 Daily Summertime VOC Emissions 

 In the Metrolina nonattainment area, on-road mobile sources contribute only 15 and 9 percent of the 

2002 and 2009 total VOC inventories, respectively. 
12 

 Also noteworthy are the projected decreases in on-road mobile VOC emissions, notwithstanding 

VMT increases. These reductions are due mainly to the retirement of older vehicles and the growing fleet 

of Tier 2 vehicles on the roads in future years. Some additional reductions are attributable to North

Carolina's Inspection and Maintenance program in the Metrolina area. 

 A recent modeling sensitivity test was performed by ASIP that allows an analysis of VOC 

contributions to ozone concentrations in the Southeastern United States. One of the analyses conducted 

by ASIP is a series of emissions sensitivity modeling runs to quantify the contributions of various 

emission sources to ozone and fine particles. The modeling system used in this analysis consisted of 3 

components: 1) the Penn State University/National Center for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Model 

(MM5 version 3.6.1+), 2) the Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions Modeling System (SMOKE 

version 2.1), and 3) the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ version 4.4) model. Model 

configurations, input data, and modeling methods are consistent with those suggested by the USEPA in 

Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses in Attainment Demonstrations for the 8-hour Ozone 

NAAQS. 

 The emissions sensitivities are calculated by taking the difference between two air quality model 

simulations: one with base case emissions and another with reduced emissions inputs. The emissions 

sensitivity discussed here reduces all anthropogenic VOCs in the modeling domain by 30% from 

projected 2009 emission levels. Translating this to the Metrolina nonattainment area emissions, this 30% 

anthropogenic VOC reduction is equivalent to about a 70% reduction of all on-road mobile VOC 

emissions in the Metrolina nonattainment area for 2009. This emissions sensitivity was run for a 39 day 

period (June 1-July 9). In all 39 days of the modeling simulation, the 8-hour ozone maximum 

concentrations were unchanged in the Metrolina nonattainment area - a clear indicator that on-road 

mobile VOC is an insignificant contributor to ozone formation in that area. In fact, there was not an 8-

hour ozone response as high as 1 part per billion (ppb) anywhere in either North or South Carolina during 

the sensitivity simulation. Figure F3-3 provides an example from the 30% anthropogenic VOC reduction 

modeling illustrating the lack of ozone response for North and South Carolina. 
13 

Figure F3-3: 8-hour Ozone response to 30% anthropogenic VOC reductions in 2009 

 Additional mobile source sensitivity simulations have been conducted by the NCDAQ. Although 

York Count was not included in these model runs, it was determined by NCDAQ and DHEC that the 

sensitivity simulations would have the same impact in York County. These modeling runs focused 

specifically on the impact of mobile source VOC emissions on ozone. The sensitivity reduced mobile 

source VOC by 50% in the North Carolina counties in the Metrolina ozone nonattainment area (Cabarrus, 

Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan and Union Counties) in the year 2008. This emissions 

sensitivity was run for a 7 day period (July 13-19). In all 7 days of the modeling simulation, the 8-hour 

ozone maximum concentrations were unchanged in the Metrolina nonattainment area, a clear indicator 

that on-road mobile VOC is an insignificant contributor to ozone formation in that area. Figure F3-4 

provides an example of the lack of an 8-hour ozone response from the 50% mobile VOC reduction 

sensitivity modeling. 
14 

Figure F3-4: 8-hour Ozone Response to 50% mobile VOC decrease in 2008 

 Based on the information discussed above, the NCDAQ and SCDHEC steadfastly believe on-road 

mobile VOCs are insignificant contributors to ozone formation in the Metrolina nonattainment area. 

Emission estimates indicate on-road mobile VOC is a small percentage of the total VOC emissions 

inventory. On-road mobile VOC emissions are projected to decrease into the future notwithstanding 

VMT increases. The area is currently below the NAAQS, and emission sensitivity modeling performed 

by ASIP and the NCDAQ indicates no change in future ozone concentrations when VOC emissions are 

significantly changed. Further, since the NCDAQ considers it unreasonable to expect that the Metrolina 

nonattainment area will experience enough motor vehicle VOC emissions growth for a future ozone 

violation to occur, neither the NCDAQ, nor SCDHEC, will be setting MVEB for VOC for the Metrolina 

nonattainment area. The SCDHEC consulted with its interagency transportation partners prior to reaching 

this conclusion. 

It should be noted that an affirmative insignificance finding from the USEPA only relieves the 

transportation partners from a regional emissions analysis for VOC’s for the Metrolina area and does not 

relieve them of the other transportation conformity requirements. If the VOC insignificance findings are 

found adequate and approved by the USEPA, the transportation partners should note the findings for 

future conformity determinations. 

 C. Motor Vehicle Emission Budget 
15 

 The Motor Vehicle Emission Budget (MVEB) will be set for the attainment year 2009. By the time 

the MVEB is found adequate or approved by the USEPA, the next transportation conformity regional 

emissions analysis should be for years 2009 and beyond. Therefore, a MVEB will not be set for the 

baseline year 2002. 

 Although emissions are usually expressed in terms of tons per day, the MVEB will be set in terms of 

kilograms (kg) per day. The reason for the change is because the MOBILE model generates emissions 

factors in grams per mile. In past conformity exercises, there have been some issues with conversion to 

tons per day, as well as concerns with how MVEBs were rounded to the hundredth place. Setting the 

MVEB in kilograms per day will avoid these issues in future conformity determinations. During the 

development of the MVEB, the interagency partners for the York County nonattainment area were 

consulted. 

 Table F3-4 shows the York County nonattainment area on-road mobile NOx emissions expressed in 

tons per day and the corresponding kilograms per day values for 2009. 

Table F3-4: 2009 On-Road Mobile Source NOx Emissions for the York County South 

Carolina Nonattainment Area 

2009 County Tons/day Kg/day 

York (partial) 8.01 7,266 

 Upon the USEPA's affirmative adequacy finding for the York County nonattainment area MVEB, as 

shown in Table F3-5, it will become the applicable MVEB for the nonattainment portion of York County. 

Table F3-5: York County South Carolina Nonattainment Area NOx MVEB for 2009 

County MVEB 

(Kilograms/day) 

York (partial) 7,266

 The supporting data used to develop the MVEB and the attainment demonstration is consistent. The 

data used for the attainment demonstration included all of York County, while the data used for the 

development of the MVEB was for the nonattainment portion of York County only. Table F3-6 shows a 

comparison of daily VMT, including the York County VMT from the VISTAS modeling, the estimated 

VMT assigned to the nonattainment area, and the VMT for the Rock Hill-Fort Mill Area Transportation 

Study (RFATS) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) obtained through the Metrolina model. The 

estimated VMT assigned to the York County nonattainment area is based on a percentage of York 

County's population living in that area. The boundary for the York County nonattainment area is also the 

area known as the RFATS MPO, therefore, the population was verified by the RFATS MPO. While there 

is considerable variation in the VMT for the various road types between the models, the total vehicle 

miles traveled (VMT) from the Metrolina model and the estimated nonattainment area from the VISTAS 

model are relatively close, at 4.81 million and 4.06 million VMT respectively. 
16 

Table F3-6: Comparison of 2009 York County Daily VMT used in the VISTAS (attainment 

demonstration) and the Metrolina (MVEB) models 

Roadway 

Classifications 

VMT for York 

County (VISTAS) 

Estimated VMT for 

Nonattainment Area (VISTAS) 

RFATS VMT 

(Metrolina) 

Rural Interstate 891,084 646,901 852,652

Rural Other Principle 

Arterial 247,127 179,407 77,925

Rural Minor Arterial 1,063,487 772,060 272,179

Rural Major Collector 594,593 431,657 242,554

Rural Minor Collector 103,452 75,103 27,445

Rural Local 298,868 216,970 174,246

Urban Interstate 749,844 544,365 791,164

Urban Freeway & 

Expressway 36,449 26,461 79,101

Urban Other Principal 

Arterial 2,607,735 1,893,140 990,378

Urban Minor Arterial 425,266 308,731 721,849

Urban Collector 279,561 202,953 218,491

Urban Local 86,647 62,904 363,495

Total 5,601,945 4,066,850 4,811,481
17 

V. MOBILE6.2 DATA USED IN SETTING THE MVEB 

 A. MOBILE Input Files 

**********HEADER SECTION********** 

*YORK SIP - INTERAGENCY* 

MOBILE6 INPUT FILE : 

POLLUTANTS : HC NOX 

WITH FIELDNAMES : 

SPREADSHEET : 

RUN DATA : 

**********RUN SECTION #1********** 

MIN/MAX TEMP : 66.0 92.0 

FUEL RVP : 9.0 

NO REFUELING : 

**********SCENARIO SECTION #1********* 

SCENARIO RECORD : YORK COUNTY 2009 - RURAL INTERSTATE 

CALENDAR YEAR : 2009 

EVALUATION MONTH : 7 

AVERAGE SPEED : 61.4 FREEWAY 

 

**********SCENARIO SECTION #2********** 

SCENARIO RECORD : YORK COUNTY 2009 - RURAL PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 

CALENDAR YEAR : 2009 

EVALUATION MONTH : 7 

AVERAGE SPEED : 46.8 ARTERIAL 

 

**********SCENARIO SECTION #3********** 

SCENARIO RECORD : YORK COUNTY 2009 - RURAL MINOR ARTERIAL 

CALENDAR YEAR : 2009 

EVALUATION MONTH : 7 

AVERAGE SPEED : 43.8 ARTERIAL 

**********SCENARIO SECTION #4********* 

SCENARIO RECORD : YORK COUNTY 2009 - RURAL MAJOR COLLECTOR 

CALENDAR YEAR : 2009 

EVALUATION MONTH : 7 

AVERAGE SPEED : 39.1 ARTERIAL 

 

**********SCENARIO SECTION #5********** 

SCENARIO RECORD : YORK COUNTY 2009 - RURAL MINOR COLLECTOR 

CALENDAR YEAR : 2009 

EVALUATION MONTH : 7 

AVERAGE SPEED : 24.3 ARTERIAL 

 

**********SCENARIO SECTION #6********** 

SCENARIO RECORD : YORK COUNTY 2009 - RURAL LOCAL

CALENDAR YEAR : 2009 

EVALUATION MONTH : 7 

AVERAGE SPEED : 26.9 ARTERIAL 
18 

**********SCENARIO SECTION #7********** 

SCENARIO RECORD : YORK COUNTY 2009 - URBAN INTERSTATE 

CALENDAR YEAR : 2009 

EVALUATION MONTH : 7 

AVERAGE SPEED : 60.8 FREEWAY 

 

**********SCENARIO SECTION #8********** 

SCENARIO RECORD : YORK COUNTY 2009 - URBAN FREEWAY-EXPRESSWAY 

CALENDAR YEAR : 2009 

EVALUATION MONTH : 7 

AVERAGE SPEED : 39.0 FREEWAY 

**********SCENARIO SECTION #9********** 

SCENARIO RECORD : YORK COUNTY 2009 - URBAN PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 

CALENDAR YEAR : 2009 

EVALUATION MONTH : 7 

AVERAGE SPEED : 35.3 ARTERIAL 

 

**********SCENARIO SECTION #10********** 

SCENARIO RECORD : YORK COUNTY 2009 - URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL 

CALENDAR YEAR : 2009 

EVALUATION MONTH : 7 

AVERAGE SPEED : 35.2 ARTERIAL 

**********SCENARIO SECTION #11********* 

SCENARIO RECORD : YORK COUNTY 2009 - URBAN COLLECTOR 

CALENDAR YEAR : 2009 

EVALUATION MONTH : 7 

AVERAGE SPEED : 25.6 ARTERIAL 

 

**********SCENARIO SECTION #12********** 

SCENARIO RECORD : YORK COUNTY 2009 - URBAN LOCAL

CALENDAR YEAR : 2009 

EVALUATION MONTH : 7 

AVERAGE SPEED : 23.1 ARTERIAL 

END OF RUN : 
19 

 B. MOBILE Output Files *************************************************************************** * MOBILE6.2.03 (24-Sep-2003) * * Input file: YKMVEB.IN (file 1, run 1). * *************************************************************************** M603 Comment:  User has disabled the calculation of REFUELING emissions.  * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # * YORK COUNTY 2009 - RURAL INTERSTATE 

* File 1, Run 1, Scenario 1. * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #M515 Warning: The combined freeway and ramp average speed entered cannot be greater than 60.7 miles per hour. The average speed will be reset to this value. M582 Warning: The user supplied freeway average speed of 60.7 will be used for all hours of the day. 100% of VMT has been assigned to a fixed co

freeway ramps for all hours of the day and all vehicle types. M 48 Warning: There are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b Calendar Year: 2009 Month: July Altitude: Low Minimum Temperature: 66.0 (F) Maximum Temperature: 92.0 (F) Absolute Humidity: 75. grains/lb 

Nominal Fuel RVP: 9.0 psi 

Weathered RVP: 8.6 psi Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Exhaust I/M Program: No Evap I/M Program: No ATP Program: No Reformulated Gas: No Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 

VMT Distribution: 0.3597 0.3800 0.1306 0.0360 0.0003 0.0019 0.0860 0.0055 1.0000 

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): 
20 

Composite VOC : 0.680 0.711 1.170 0.828 0.720 0.180 0.374 0.276 2.88 0.734 

Composite NOX : 0.649 0.827 1.211 0.925 3.065 0.815 1.263 12.390 1.62 1.893 

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #* YORK COUNTY 2009 - RURAL PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 

* File 1, Run 1, Scenario 2. * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #M583 Warning: The user supplied arterial average speed of 46.8 will be used for all hours of the day. 100% of VMT has been assigned to the arterial/

all hours of the day and all vehicle types. M 48 Warning: There are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b Calendar Year: 2009 Month: July Altitude: Low Minimum Temperature: 66.0 (F) Maximum Temperature: 92.0 (F) Absolute Humidity: 75. grains/lb 

Nominal Fuel RVP: 9.0 psi 

Weathered RVP: 8.6 psi Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Exhaust I/M Program: No Evap I/M Program: No ATP Program: No Reformulated Gas: No Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <6000 

 ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ VMT Distribution: 0.3597 0.3800 0.1306 0.0360 0.0003 0.0019 0.0860 0.0055 1.0000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 0.728 0.753 1.258 0.882 0.781 0.188 0.391 0.297 2.33 0.780 

Composite NOX : 0.612 0.773 1.146 0.868 2.758 0.492 0.762 7.076 1.21 1.380 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

* # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #* YORK COUNTY 2009 - RURAL MINOR ARTERIAL 

* File 1, Run 1, Scenario 3. * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #M583 Warning: 
21 

The user supplied arterial average speed of 43.8 will be used for all hours of the day. 100% of VMT has been assigned to the arterial/

all hours of the day and all vehicle types. M 48 Warning: There are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b Calendar Year: 2009 Month: July Altitude: Low Minimum Temperature: 66.0 (F) Maximum Temperature: 92.0 (F) Absolute Humidity: 75. grains/lb 

Nominal Fuel RVP: 9.0 psi 

Weathered RVP: 8.6 psi Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Exhaust I/M Program: No Evap I/M Program: No ATP Program: No Reformulated Gas: No Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <6000 

 ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 

VMT Distribution: 0.3597 0.3800 0.1306 0.0360 0.0003 0.0019 0.0860 0.0055 1.0000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 0.743 0.764 1.279 0.896 0.808 0.193 0.401 0.311 2.35 0.794 Composite NOX : 0.607 0.766 1.137 0.861 2.699 0.469 0.725 6.737 1.18 1.342 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

* # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #* YORK COUNTY 2009 - RURAL MAJOR COLLECTOR 

* File 1, Run 1, Scenario 4. * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #M583 Warning: The user supplied arterial average speed of 39.1 will be used for all hours of the day. 100% of VMT has been assigned to the arterial/

all hours of the day and all vehicle types. M 48 Warning: There are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b Calendar Year: 2009 Month: July Altitude: Low Minimum Temperature: 66.0 (F) Maximum Temperature: 92.0 (F) 
22 

Absolute Humidity: 75. grains/lb 

Nominal Fuel RVP: 9.0 psi 

Weathered RVP: 8.6 psi Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Exhaust I/M Program: No Evap I/M Program: No ATP Program: No Reformulated Gas: No Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <600

 ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 

VMT Distribution: 0.3597 0.3800 0.1306 0.0360 0.0003 0.0019 0.0860 0.0055 1.0000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 0.768 0.782 1.312 0.918 0.858 0.202 0.422 0.339 2.40 0.819 

Composite NOX : 0.600 0.754 1.125 0.849 2.606 0.446 0.690 6.408 1.16 1.302 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

* # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #* YORK COUNTY 2009 - RURAL MINOR COLLECTOR 

* File 1, Run 1, Scenario 5. * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #M583 Warning: The user supplied arterial average speed of 24.3 will be used for all hours of the day. 100% of VMT has been assigned to the arterial/

all hours of the day and all vehicle types. M 48 Warning: There are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b Calendar Year: 2009 Month: July Altitude: Low Minimum Temperature: 66.0 (F) Maximum Temperature: 92.0 (F) Absolute Humidity: 75. grains/lb 

Nominal Fuel RVP: 9.0 psi 

Weathered RVP: 8.6 psi Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Exhaust I/M Program: No Evap I/M Program: No ATP Program: No Reformulated Gas: No Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <600
23 

 ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ VMT Distribution: 0.3597 0.3800 0.1306 0.0360 0.0003 0.0019 0.0860 0.0055 1.0000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 0.906 0.894 1.511 1.052 1.167 0.260 0.547 0.505 2.78 0.965 

Composite NOX : 0.651 0.796 1.185 0.895 2.317 0.464 0.718 6.665 1.02 1.355  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

* # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #* YORK COUNTY 2009 - RURAL LOCAL * File 1, Run 1, Scenario 6. * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #M583 Warning: The user supplied arterial average speed of 26.9 will be used for all hours of the day. 100% of VMT has been assigned to the arterial/

all hours of the day and all vehicle types. M 48 Warning: There are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b Calendar Year: 2009 Month: July Altitude: Low Minimum Temperature: 66.0 (F) Maximum Temperature: 92.0 (F) Absolute Humidity: 75. grains/lb 

Nominal Fuel RVP: 9.0 psi 

Weathered RVP: 8.6 psi Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Exhaust I/M Program: No Evap I/M Program: No ATP Program: No Reformulated Gas: No Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <6000 

 ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 

VMT Distribution: 0.3597 0.3800 0.1306 0.0360 0.0003 0.0019 0.0860 0.0055 1.0000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 0.872 0.865 1.461 1.017 1.087 0.246 0.516 0.464 2.69 0.928 

Composite NOX : 0.632 0.778 1.160 0.875 2.369 0.451 0.698 6.489 1.06 1.325 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

* # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #* YORK COUNTY 2009 - URBAN INTERSTATE 
24 

* File 1, Run 1, Scenario 7. * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #M515 Warning: The combined freeway and ramp average speed entered cannot be greater than 60.7 miles per hour. The average speed will be reset to M582 Warning: The user supplied freeway average speed of 60.7 will be used for all hours of the day. 100% of VMT has been assigned to a fixed co

freeway ramps for all hours of the day and all vehicle types. M 48 Warning: There are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b Calendar Year: 2009 Month: July Altitude: Low Minimum Temperature: 66.0 (F) Maximum Temperature: 92.0 (F) Absolute Humidity: 75. grains/lb 

Nominal Fuel RVP: 9.0 psi 

Weathered RVP: 8.6 psi Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Exhaust I/M Program: No Evap I/M Program: No ATP Program: No Reformulated Gas: No Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <6000  ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ VMT Distribution: 0.3597 0.3800 0.1306 0.0360 0.0003 0.0019 0.0860 0.0055 1.0000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 0.680 0.711 1.170 0.828 0.720 0.180 0.374 0.276 2.88 0.734 

Composite NOX : 0.649 0.827 1.211 0.925 3.065 0.815 1.263 12.390 1.62 1.893 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

* # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #* YORK COUNTY 2009 - URBAN FREEWAY-EXPRESSWAY 

* File 1, Run 1, Scenario 8. * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #M582 Warning: The user supplied freeway average speed of 39.0 will be used for all hours of the day. 100% of VMT has been assigned to a fixed co

freeway ramps for all hours of the day and all vehicle types. M 48 Warning: There are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b 
25 

Calendar Year: 2009 Month: July Altitude: Low Minimum Temperature: 66.0 (F) Maximum Temperature: 92.0 (F) Absolute Humidity: 75. grains/lb 

Nominal Fuel RVP: 9.0 psi 

Weathered RVP: 8.6 psi Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Exhaust I/M Program: No Evap I/M Program: No ATP Program: No Reformulated Gas: No Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <6000  ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 

VMT Distribution: 0.3597 0.3800 0.1306 0.0360 0.0003 0.0019 0.0860 0.0055 1.0000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 0.774 0.788 1.321 0.924 0.859 0.203 0.422 0.340 2.40 0.825 

Composite NOX : 0.608 0.764 1.140 0.860 2.605 0.446 0.689 7.101 1.16 1.370 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

* # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #* YORK COUNTY 2009 - URBAN PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 

* File 1, Run 1, Scenario 9. * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #M583 Warning: The user supplied arterial average speed of 35.3 will be used for all hours of the day. 100% of VMT has been assigned to the arterial/all hours of the day and all vehicle types. M 48 Warning: There are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b Calendar Year: 2009 Month: July Altitude: Low Minimum Temperature: 66.0 (F) Maximum Temperature: 92.0 (F) Absolute Humidity: 75. grains/lb 

Nominal Fuel RVP: 9.0 psi 

Weathered RVP: 8.6 psi 
26 

Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Exhaust I/M Program: No Evap I/M Program: No ATP Program: No Reformulated Gas: No Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <6000 

 ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ VMT Distribution: 0.3597 0.3800 0.1306 0.0360 0.0003 0.0019 0.0860 0.0055 1.0000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 0.792 0.799 1.343 0.938 0.911 0.213 0.444 0.369 2.47 0.843 

Composite NOX : 0.597 0.748 1.119 0.843 2.531 0.437 0.677 6.287 1.13 1.284  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #* YORK COUNTY 2009 - URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL 

* File 1, Run 1, Scenario 10. * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #M583 Warning: The user supplied arterial average speed of 35.2 will be used for all hours of the day. 100% of VMT has been assigned to the arterial/

all hours of the day and all vehicle types. M 48 Warning: There are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b Calendar Year: 2009 Month: July Altitude: Low Minimum Temperature: 66.0 (F) Maximum Temperature: 92.0 (F) Absolute Humidity: 75. grains/lb 

Nominal Fuel RVP: 9.0 psi 

Weathered RVP: 8.6 psi Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Exhaust I/M Program: No Evap I/M Program: No ATP Program: No Reformulated Gas: No Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <60

 ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 

VMT Distribution: 0.3597 0.3800 0.1306 0.0360 0.0003 0.0019 0.0860 0.0055 1.0000 
27 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 0.792 0.799 1.344 0.938 0.912 0.213 0.445 0.370 2.47 0.843 Composite NOX : 0.597 0.747 1.119 0.842 2.529 0.437 0.676 6.283 1.13 1.284 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # * YORK COUNTY 2009 - URBAN COLLECTOR * File 1, Run 1, Scenario 11. * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # M583 Warning: The user supplied arterial average speed of 25.6 will be used for all hours of the day. 100% of VMT has been assigned to the arterial/

all hours of the day and all vehicle types. M 48 Warning: There are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b Calendar Year: 2009 Month: July Altitude: Low Minimum Temperature: 66.0 (F) Maximum Temperature: 92.0 (F) Absolute Humidity: 75. grains/lb Nominal Fuel RVP: 9.0 psi Weathered RVP: 8.6 psi Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Exhaust I/M Program: No Evap I/M Program: No ATP Program: No Reformulated Gas: No Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <6

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ VMT Distribution: 0.3597 0.3800 0.1306 0.0360 0.0003 0.0019 0.0860 0.0055 1.0000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 0.887 0.878 1.484 1.033 1.125 0.253 0.531 0.484 2.73 0.945 Composite NOX : 0.641 0.786 1.172 0.885 2.342 0.457 0.707 6.567 1.04 1.339 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # * YORK COUNTY 2009 - URBAN LOCAL * File 1, Run 1, Scenario 12. * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
28 

M583 Warning: The user supplied arterial average speed of 23.1 will be used for all hours of the day. 100% of VMT has been assigned to the arterial/

all hours of the day and all vehicle types. M 48 Warning: Tere are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b Calendar Year: 2009 Month: July Altitude: Low Minimum Temperature: 66.0 (F) Maximum Temperature: 92.0 (F) Absolute Humidity: 75. grains/lb 

Nominal Fuel RVP: 9.0 psi 

Weathered RVP: 8.6 psi Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Exhaust I/M Program: No Evap I/M Program: No ATP Program: No Reformulated Gas: No Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh  GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All)  ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ VMT Distribution: 0.3597 0.3800 0.1306 0.0360 0.0003 0.0019 0.0860 0.0055 1.0000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 0.925 0.910 1.540 1.072 1.210 0.267 0.562 0.526 2.82 0.985 Composite NOX : 0.661 0.805 1.198 0.906 2.296 0.472 0.730 6.777 1.01 1.373 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
29 

 C. 2009 Metrolina Vehicle Mix 

Table F3-7: 2009 Metrolina Vehicle Mix 

LDV LDT1 LDT2 LDT3 LDT4 HDV2B HDV3 HDV4 

HDV5 HDV6 HDV7 HDV8a HDV8b HDBS HDBT MC 

Urban Interstate 

0.3418 0.081 0.2696 0.0831 0.0382 0.0581 0.0057 0.0048 

0.0036 0.013 0.0154 0.0167 0.0595 0.003 0.0015 0.005 

Urban Freeway 

0.3718 0.0881 0.2934 0.0904 0.0416 0.035 0.0034 0.0029 

0.0022 0.0078 0.0093 0.0101 0.0358 0.0018 0.0009 0.0055 

Urban Principal Arterial 

0.3919 0.0929 0.3092 0.0953 0.0438 0.0292 0.0029 0.0024 

0.0018 0.0066 0.0027 0.0029 0.0103 0.0016 0.0008 0.0057 

Urban Minor Arterial 

0.3898 0.0924 0.3076 0.0948 0.0436 0.0334 0.0032 0.0027 

0.0021 0.0075 0.0024 0.0026 0.0094 0.0018 0.0009 0.0058 

Urban Collector 

0.3906 0.0925 0.308 0.0949 0.0436 0.0348 0.0034 0.0028 

0.0021 0.0077 0.0019 0.0021 0.0073 0.0017 0.0009 0.0057 

Urban Local 

0.3905 0.0925 0.308 0.0949 0.0437 0.0347 0.0034 0.0028 

0.0021 0.0077 0.0019 0.0021 0.0073 0.0018 0.0009 0.0057 

Rural Interstate 

0.2848 0.0675 0.2247 0.0692 0.0318 0.1019 0.01 0.0084 

0.0063 0.0228 0.027 0.0293 0.1043 0.0052 0.0026 0.0042 

Rural Principal Arterial 

0.3554 0.0843 0.2805 0.0865 0.0397 0.0453 0.0044 0.0037 

0.0028 0.0101 0.0132 0.0144 0.0509 0.0023 0.0012 0.0053 

Rural Minor Arterial 

0.3742 0.0886 0.2951 0.0909 0.0418 0.043 0.0042 0.0036 

0.0026 0.0096 0.0063 0.0069 0.0244 0.0022 0.0011 0.0055 

Rural Major Collector 

0.3784 0.0897 0.2987 0.0921 0.0423 0.0426 0.0042 0.0036 

0.0027 0.0095 0.0046 0.005 0.0178 0.0022 0.001 0.0056 

Rural Minor Collector 

0.376 0.0889 0.2963 0.0913 0.0419 0.0449 0.0043 0.0037 

0.0028 0.0101 0.0052 0.0056 0.0201 0.0023 0.0011 0.0055 

Rural Local 

0.3753 0.0889 0.2962 0.0913 0.042 0.0451 0.0044 0.0037 

0.0029 0.0102 0.0052 0.0057 0.0201 0.0024 0.0011 0.0055