Appendix F.3

ON-ROAD MOBILE SOURCE

EMISSIONS INVENTORYTABLE 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 As sumptions ..........................................**  **............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 Carol ina ................................................**  **.............................5**

**Table F3-2: Speeds for the York County South Carol ina Nonattainment Area 2009 On-Road Mobile**  **Emissions Inventory................................**

**................................................... ...........................................7** 

**Table F3-3: 2009 York County Nonattainment Area Da ily VMT............................................**  **...................8**

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

**Nonattainment Area.................................**

**................................................... ........................................15** 

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

**Table F3-6: Comparison of 2009 York County Daily V MT 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% anthropo genic VOC reductions in 2009 .......................**  **......13**

**Figure F3-4: 8-hour Ozone Response to 50% mobile V OC 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 ar ea) 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 (VIST AS) and the fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and**  **ozone modeling being done by the Association of Sou theastern 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 W est Virginia). Since the regional haze and PM2.5**  **modeling uses annual simulations and includes an in termediate year that is the attainment year require**  **d for the Metrolina nonattainment area, the South Car**  **olina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) decided to use this modeling for i**  **ts attainment demonstration**

**On-road mobile sources are considered those vehicl es that travel on the roadways. On-road mobile**  **sources emissions comprise near 50 percent of the e missions 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 proce**  **sses need to be estimated in order to properly refl ect**  **the total emissions from this source category. In its simplest terms, emissions from on-road mobile**  **sources are calculated by multiplying an activity l evel, in this case daily vehicle miles traveled (VM**  **T) as provided by the South Carolina Department of Transp**  **ortation (SCDOT) and Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPOs), by an emission factor.** 

**The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) dev eloped the MOBILE model to estimate**  **emission factors based on information on the way ve hicles 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 modelin g. Key inputs for MOBILE6.2 include**  **information on the age of vehicles on the roads, th e average speed of those vehicles, what types of ro**  **ads those vehicles are traveling on, any control techno**  **logies 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 e missions estimation process is interagency**  **consultation. The South Carolina transportation pa rtners involved in attainment demonstration State**  **Implementation Plan (SIP) and motor vehicle emissio n budget development included: the USEPA Region**  **IV, the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT), the Federal Highway Administration**  **(FHWA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), t he South Carolina Department of Health and**  **Environmental Control (SCDHEC) and the Rock Hill-Fo rt Mill Area Transportation Study (RFATS)**  **Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The Char lotte 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 i s 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 th e 2002 and 2009 on-road mobile source**  **emissions estimates for carbon monoxide, ammonia, f ine particulate matter, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and**  **volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The MOBILE6 par ameters, vehicle fleet descriptions, and VMT**  **estimates were combined with gridded, episode-speci fic 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 s ummed to the grid cell level, the off-network**  **emissions estimates are spatially allocated based o n 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-spec ific temperatures predicted by the meteorological**  **model. Further, the MOBILE6 emissions factors mode l accounts for the following:** 

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

**pressure; • Facility speeds;**  **• Locale-specific inspection/maintenance (I/M) co ntrol programs, if any;**  **• Adjustments for running losses; • Splitting of evaporative and exhaust emissions**  **into separate source categories; • VMT, fleet turnover, and changes in fuel compos**  **ition 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 di fferent mix of pollutants than the car that is idli**  **ng at a stoplight.** 

B. Vehicle Age Distribution

**Emissions vary with the age of a vehicle. Older v ehicles 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 C arolina does not have state specific data and used**  **default vehicle age distributions built into the MO BILE6 model.** 

C. Vehicle Mix Assumptions

1. Vehicle Mix

**The vehicle mix refers to the percentage of differ ent vehicle types on each of the twelve (12) FHWA**  **road types. These road types are listed below in T able F3-1. It is critical for estimating mobile em**  **issions 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 an d used default vehicle mix data built into the** 

**MOBILE6 model.**

Table F3-1: Functional Road Classes in South Carol ina

**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 Arteria**  **l 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 signi ficantly influenced by temperature and to a**  **lesser extent, humidity. The most desirable approa ch from an accuracy standpoint is to model on-road**  **mobile emissions using gridded, temporalized data f rom the meteorological model. The VISTAS on-road**  **mobile inventories were developed using this approa ch.** 

3. Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program As sumptions

**South Carolina does not have an inspection and mai ntenance program in any of its counties.** 

4. Reid Vapor Pressure Assumptions

**The RVP is a measure of gasoline's volatility. Th e following reflects the RVP settings used in the**  **development of the South Carolina on-road mobile in ventory to support the VISTAS/ASIP regional**  **modeling. An RVP of 9.0 pounds per square inch (ps i) is required during May through September in all** 

**South Carolina counties.**

5. Vehicle Miles Traveled Assumptions

**In order to calculate emissions from on-road mobil e sources, emission factors are developed as**  **discussed throughout this document. The emission f actors are then multiplied by an activity level, wh**  **ich**

**for on-road mobile sources is VMT.**

**For all counties in South Carolina, the 2002 VMT w as 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 ens ure that Federal transportation actions occurring i**  **n a nonattainment area do not hinder the area from ma**  **intaining the 8-hour ozone standard. This means th at**  **the level of emissions estimated by the SCDOT or th e 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 as sumptions 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 Se ction 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 road way 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 Departm ent 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 we re used. For the setting of the MVEB, average**  **speeds based on just the nonattainment area were us ed. The column headings in Table F3-2 represent th**  **e twelve (12) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) f**  **unctional road classes used in the modeling (see Table F3-1).** 

Table F3-2: Speeds for the York County South Carol ina 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 mobil e sources, emission factors are developed as**  **discussed throughout this document. The emission f actors are then multiplied by an activity level, wh**  **ich 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 Yo rk County. Table F3-3 lists the VMT used in the** 

**MVEB calculations. 8**  Table F3-3: 2009 York County Nonattainment Area Da ily 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 transportatio n conformity is to ensure that Federal**  **transportation actions occurring in a nonattainment areas does not hinder the area from maintaining th**  **e 8-**

**hour ozone standard. The level of emissions estima ted by the RFATS for the Transportation**  **Implementation Plan and Long Range Transportation P lan must not exceed the MVEB as defined in this** 

**attainment demonstration SIP.**

**On April 15, 2004, the USEPA issued designations a nd classifications based on the severity of the 8-**  **hour ozone NAAQS in each state with an effective da te of June 15, 2004. This included the RFATS**  **MPO boundary for the York County area along with co ntiguous 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. T**  **his 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, 2 005, the RFATS area was required to**  **demonstrate transportation conformity, to ensure th at all projects utilizing federal funds do not have**  **an adverse impact on the area's air quality. Transpor**  **tation Conformity consultation procedures as outlin ed in**  **the South Carolina Transportation Conformity Memora ndum 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 Departme nt of Transportation, the USEPA Region IV,**  **the SC Division Office of Federal Highways, the Fed eral 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 pr ocess, to follow procedures for the determination f**  **or the conformity of transportation plans, programs an**  **d projects in the RFATS Transportation Study Area separately from the area designated as nonattainmen**  **t in North Carolina. The notice confirmed the intention of RFATS and SCDOT, as partners in the de**  **velopment of the Metrolina Regional Travel Demand Model, to use the regional travel forecastin**  **g 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, t**  **o use the RFATS Travel Demand Model for the determina**  **tion of the determination of the air quality conformity of transportation plans, programs and pr**  **ojects. Specifically, the RFATS state that with th e**  **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 requ ired conformity determination.** 

**As referenced in the following documents, the US D epartment of Transportation (USDOT) - FTA**  **and FHWA, after recommendation from the USEPA Regio n IV, issued a finding of conformity for the** 

**RFATS 2030 LRTP and the FY2006-2008 TIP. 10** 

**June 13, 2005 - correspondence from the USEPA Regi on IV to the FHWA Division Administrator of**  **the completed review and recommendation for a findi ng 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 transportati on 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 L RTP and the FY2006-2008 TIP.** 

**February 1, 2007 - FHWA Division Administrator req uested the USEPA Region IV to review and**  **provide comments on the RFATS conformity determinat ion for the 2030 LRTP and FY2007-FY2012**  **TIP. The correspondence also stated that the oppor tunity 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 recommend ation 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 Count y Interagency partners including**  **representatives from York County, the RFATS, the SC DHEC, 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. Futu re conformity determinations must show that the**  **level of emissions estimated by the RFATS for the T IP and LRTP must not exceed the motor vehicle**  **emission budget (MVEB) as defined in this attainmen t 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 mot or vehicle emissions in Section 93.109(k) which** 

**states:**

Notwithstanding the other paragraphs in this sectio n, 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 a ir quality problem for that pollutant/precursor and NAAQS. The SIP would have to demonstrate that it wo uld be unreasonable to expect that such an area would experience enough motor vehicle emissions gro wth in that pollutant/precursor for a NAAQS

violation to occur.

**The rule suggests that such a finding would be bas ed on a number of factors, including the**  **percentage of motor vehicle emissions in the contex t of the total SIP inventory, the current state of**  **air quality as determined by monitoring data for that N**  **AAQS, the absence of SIP motor vehicle control measures, and historical trends and future projecti**  **ons of the growth of motor vehicle emissions.**

**SCDHEC has examined a NCDAQ study designed to dete rmine the sources of VOC emissions and** 

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

**part of York County included in the Metrolina nonat tainment area. Due to the generally warm and moist**  **climate of the Carolinas, vegetation abounds in man y forms, and forested lands naturally cover much of**  **each state. The biogenic sector is the most abunda nt source of VOC emissions in both Carolinas and**  **accounts for approximately 90% of the total VOC emi ssions across each state. Due to the overwhelming**  **abundance of biogenic VOC emissions, NCDAQ determin ed the vast majority of North Carolina a NOx** 

**limited environment for the formation of ozone. Th is 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 emissi ons. 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 20 02 and 2009, respectively. For the two partial**  **counties in the Metrolina nonattainment area, Irede ll and York Counties, the whole county emissions**  **were used since the modeling inventories are for wh ole 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 mobil e 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 fl**  **eet of Tier 2 vehicles on the roads in future years. S**  **ome additional reductions are attributable to North Carolina's Inspection and Maintenance program in th**  **e Metrolina area.**

**A recent modeling sensitivity test was performed b y ASIP that allows an analysis of VOC** 

**contributions to ozone concentrations in the Southe astern United States. One of the analyses conducte**  **d by ASIP is a series of emissions sensitivity modeli**  **ng 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 C enter 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 Q uality (CMAQ version 4.4) model. Model**  **configurations, input data, and modeling methods ar e 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 taki ng the difference between two air quality model** 

**simulations: one with base case emissions and anoth er with reduced emissions inputs. The emissions**  **sensitivity discussed here reduces all anthropogeni c VOCs in the modeling domain by 30% from**  **projected 2009 emission levels. Translating this t o 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 2 009. This emissions sensitivity was run for a 39 d**  **ay period (June 1-July 9). In all 39 days of the mode**  **ling simulation, the 8-hour ozone maximum concentrations were unchanged in the Metrolina nona**  **ttainment 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 dur**  **ing the sensitivity simulation. Figure F3-3 provides a**  **n example from the 30% anthropogenic VOC reduction modeling illustrating the lack of ozone response fo**  **r North and South Carolina. 13** 

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

**Additional mobile source sensitivity simulations h ave 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 emi ssions 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 Un ion 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 contrib**  **utor 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 V OC decrease in 2008

**Based on the information discussed above, the NCDA Q 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 projec ted to decrease into the future notwithstanding**  **VMT increases. The area is currently below the NAA QS, 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 co nsiders it unreasonable to expect that the Metrolin**  **a nonattainment area will experience enough motor veh**  **icle 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 i nteragency transportation partners prior to reachin**  **g this conclusion.** 

**It should be noted that an affirmative insignifican ce finding from the USEPA only relieves the**  **transportation partners from a regional emissions a nalysis for VOC’s for the Metrolina area and does n**  **ot relieve them of the other transportation conformity**  **requirements. If the VOC insignificance findings are**  **found adequate and approved by the USEPA, the trans portation partners should note the findings for**  **future conformity determinations.**

C. Motor Vehicle Emission Budget**15**

**The Motor Vehicle Emission Budget (MVEB) will be s et 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 bey ond. 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 exer cises, there have been some issues with conversion**  **to tons per day, as well as concerns with how MVEBs we**  **re rounded to the hundredth place. Setting the MVEB in kilograms per day will avoid these issues i**  **n future conformity determinations. During the development of the MVEB, the interagency partners f**  **or the York County nonattainment area were**

**consulted.**

**Table F3-4 shows the York County nonattainment are a on-road mobile NOx emissions expressed in**  **tons per day and the corresponding kilograms per da y values for 2009.** 

Table F3-4: 2009 On-Road Mobile Source NOx Emissio ns 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 Nonattainme nt Area NOx MVEB for 2009

**County MVEB**  **(Kilograms/day)**
**York (partial) 7,266** 

**The supporting data used to develop the MVEB and t he 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 p ortion 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 (M PO) obtained through the Metrolina model. The**  **estimated VMT assigned to the York County nonattain ment area is based on a percentage of York**  **County's population living in that area. The bound ary for the York County nonattainment area is also**  **the area known as the RFATS MPO, therefore, the populat**  **ion was verified by the RFATS MPO. While there**

**is considerable variation in the VMT for the variou s 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 4.0 6 million VMT respectively.** **16**

Table F3-6: Comparison of 2009 York County Daily V MT 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 INTER STATE** 

**CALENDAR YEAR : 2009**

**EVALUATION MONTH : 7**

**AVERAGE SPEED : 61.4 FREEWAY**

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

**SCENARIO RECORD : YORK COUNTY 2009 - RURAL PRINC IPAL ARTERIAL** 

**CALENDAR YEAR : 2009**

**EVALUATION MONTH : 7**

**AVERAGE SPEED : 46.8 ARTERIAL**

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

**SCENARIO RECORD : YORK COUNTY 2009 - RURAL MINO R 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 INTER STATE** 

**CALENDAR YEAR : 2009**

**EVALUATION MONTH : 7**

**AVERAGE SPEED : 60.8 FREEWAY**

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

**SCENARIO RECORD : YORK COUNTY 2009 - URBAN FREEW AY-EXPRESSWAY** 

**CALENDAR YEAR : 2009**

**EVALUATION MONTH : 7**

**AVERAGE SPEED : 39.0 FREEWAY**

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

**SCENARIO RECORD : YORK COUNTY 2009 - URBAN PRINC IPAL 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 COLLE CTOR** 

**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 emi** **ssions.***** # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #** *** 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 wil l be used for all hours of the day. 100% of VMT has** **been assigned to a fixed combination of freeways a nd** **freeway ramps for all hours of the day and all vehi cle 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 >6000 (All)** **------ ------ ------ ------ ------** **------ ------ ------ ------ ------** **VMT Distribution: 0.3597 0.3800 0.1306 0.0360 0.0003 0.001** **9 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 0.37** **4 0.276 2.88 0.734 Composite NOX : 0.649 0.827 1.211** **0.925 3.065 0.815 1.26 3 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 wi ll be used for all hours of the day. 100% of VMT h** **as been assigned to the arterial/collector roadway type 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 L DGT 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 : 0.728 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 wi** **ll be used for all hours of the day. 100% of VMT h as been assigned to the arterial/collector roadway** **type 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 L** **DGT 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 0.086** **0 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 wi ll be used for all hours of the day. 100% of VMT ha** **s been assigned to the arterial/collector roadway t ype 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)** **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: <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 : 0.768 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 wi ll be used for all hours of the day. 100% of VMT h** **as been assigned to the arterial/collector roadway type 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 >6000 (All) 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 wi ll be used for all hours of the day. 100% of VMT h** **as been assigned to the arterial/collector roadway type 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 >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 : 0.872 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 a** **verage speed will be reset to this value. M582 Warning:** **The user supplied freeway average speed of 60.7 wil l be used for all hours of the day. 100% of VMT ha** **s been assigned to a fixed combination of freeways and** **freeway ramps for all hours of the day and all vehi cle 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 A ll 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 : 0.680 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 wil l be used for all hours of the day. 100% of VMT ha** **s been assigned to a fixed combination of freeways and** **freeway ramps for all hours of the day and all vehi cle 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 >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 : 0.774 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 wi ll be used for all hours of the day. 100% of VMT h** **as been assigned to the arterial/collector roadway type 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 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 >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 : 0.792 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 wi ll be used for all hours of the day. 100% of VMT h** **as been assigned to the arterial/collector roadway type 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 >6000 (All) ------ ---** **--- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ---** **--- ------ 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 wi ll be used for all hours of the day. 100% of VMT h** **as been assigned to the arterial/collector roadway type 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 >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 : 0.887 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 wi** **ll be used for all hours of the day. 100% of VMT h as been assigned to the arterial/collector roadway** **type for 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 LD** **GT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV M C 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 0.0 048** 

**0.0036 0.013 0.0154 0.0167 0.0595 0.003 0.0015 0.00 5**  **Urban Freeway**

**0.3718 0.0881 0.2934 0.0904 0.0416 0.035 0.0034 0.0 029** 

**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 0.0 028** 

**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 0.0 028** 

**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 0.00 84** 

**0.0063 0.0228 0.027 0.0293 0.1043 0.0052 0.0026 0.0 042**  **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 0.0 036** 

**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 0.00 56** 

**Rural Minor Collector**

**0.376 0.0889 0.2963 0.0913 0.0419 0.0449 0.0043 0.0 037** 

**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 0.0 037** 

**0.0029 0.0102 0.0052 0.0057 0.0201 0.0024 0.0011 0. 0055**