# A TTACHMENT 

# AUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

QUICKLOOK CRITERIA PARAMETERS

Mar. 7, 2011 Report Request ID: 843755 Report Code: AMP450

Selection Criteria Page 1 User ID: GYE

State County City

Site Parameter POC AQCR UAR CBSA CSA EPA Region Method Duration Begin Date End Date
39
39
39 023

057
113 0005

0005
0032 GEOGRAPHIC SELECTIONS

PROTOCOL SELECTIONS
Parameter Classification Parameter Method Duration

QUICK LOOK 88101

SELECTED OPTIONS

EVENTS PROCESSING MERGE PDF FILES WORKFILE DELIMITER Option Type Option Value
EXCLUDE REGIONALLY CONCURRED EVENTS

YES

, SORT ORDER

1
2
3
4
5
6
7 Order Column

PARAMETER_CODE STATE_CODE COUNTY_CODE SITE_ID
POC
DATES EDT_ID

GLOBAL DATES

2008 Start Date End Date
2010 Tribal

APPLICABLE STANDARDS
Standard Description
PM25 24-hour 2006 PM25 Annual 2006Mar. 7, 2011

Note: The * indicates that the mean does not satisfy summary criteria. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR QUALITY SYSTEM QUICK LOOK REPORT (AMP450)

Page 1 of 4 EXCEPTIONAL DATA TYPES

EDT DESCRIPTION

0

1

2

5 NO EVENTS

EVENTS EXCLUDED

EVENTS INCLUDED

EVENTS WITH CONCURRENCE EXCLUDEDMar. 7, 2011

Note: The * indicates that the mean does not satisfy summary criteria. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR QUALITY SYSTEM QUICK LOOK REPORT (AMP450)

Page 2 of 4 PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101) Ohio Micrograms/cubic meter (LC) (105)

SITE ID P

O C PQAO CITY COUNTY ADDRESS YEAR METH #OBS 4TH
MAX CERT EDT

39-023-0005

39-023-0005

39-023-0005

39-057-0005

39-057-0005

39-057-0005

39-113-0032

39-113-0032

39-113-0032

39-113-0032

39-113-0032

39-113-0032 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2 0287

0287

0287

0287

0287

0287

0287

0287

0287

0287

0287

0287 Springfield

Springfield

Springfield

Yellow Springs
Yellow Springs
Yellow Springs Dayton

Dayton

Dayton

Dayton

Dayton

Dayton Clark

Clark

Clark

Greene

Greene

Greene

Montgomery

Montgomery

Montgomery

Montgomery

Montgomery

Montgomery 350 N. FOUNTAIN AVE. 350 N. FOUNTAIN AVE. 350 N. FOUNTAIN AVE. 100 DAYTON ST. 100 DAYTON ST. 100 DAYTON ST. 215 EAST THIRD ST. 215 EAST THIRD ST. 215 EAST THIRD ST. 215 EAST THIRD ST. 215 EAST THIRD ST. 215 EAST THIRD ST. 2008

2009

2010

2008

2009

2010

2008

2009

2010

2008

2009

2010 000

142

142

000

142

142

120

000

145

120

000

145 38.5

37.0

31.3

33.3

32.6

31.2

44.5

32.7

41.9

44.2

29.7

29.4 Y

Y 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 24-HOUR 98TH PERCENTILE VALUE

29.1

26.3

29.5

26.8

25.2

27.6

30.5

26.8

30.4

44.2

25.1

29.4 117

121

122

119

121

104

349

174

119

30

59

57 1ST

MAX 2ND

MAX 3RD

MAX

35.2

32.7

29.9

26.9

28.2

27.9

35.1

29.8

32.7

30.7

25.1

29.4 29.1

26.3

29.5

26.8

25.2

27.6

33.6

27.3

30.4

25.2

22.4

27.6 28.5

24.1

29.4

25.3

23.0

27.2

31.4

26.8

30.2

24.4

21.8

26.1 12.73

12.41

13.13

11.63

11.51

13.17*

13.21

12.43

13.97

14.71*

12.02

13.27 WTD
ARITH
MEANMar. 7, 2011

Note: The * indicates that the mean does not satisfy summary criteria. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR QUALITY SYSTEM QUICK LOOK REPORT (AMP450)

Page 3 of 4 88101 88101 88101 88101 000

120 142 145 MULTIPLE METHODS

Andersen RAAS2.5-300 PM2.5 SEQ w/WINS BGI Models PQ200-VSCC or PQ200A-VSCC R & P Model 2025 PM-2.5 Sequential Air Sampler MULTIPLE METHODS GRAVIMETRIC Gravimetric Gravimetric PARAMETER METHOD

CODE COLLECTION METHOD ANALYSIS METHOD METHODS USED IN THIS REPORTMar. 7, 2011

Note: The * indicates that the mean does not satisfy summary criteria. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR QUALITY SYSTEM QUICK LOOK REPORT (AMP450)

Page 4 of 4 PQAOS USED IN THIS REPORT

PQAO AGENCY DESCRIPTION
0287 Dayton Regional Air Pollution Control AgencyEnvironmental protection Agency John R. Kasich, Governor Mary Taylor, Lt. Governor Scott J. Nally, Director
CERTIFIED MAIL

March 10, 2011
Cheryl L. Newton, Director Air and Radiation Division U.S.EPA, Region V 77 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604

RE: 2010 SLAMS PM,.5 and Ozone Data Certification

Dear Ms. Newton:

Please find enclosed our SLAMS Report (AMP-450, AMP-450NC and AMP255) for calendar year 2010 as required in 40 CFR, Part 58, Section 58.15. The ambient concentration and the quality assurance data have been completely submitted to the AQS database.

The remaining criteria pollutant data will be certified within the month of April.

I certify that the Ozone and PM,., data in the report are accurate to the best of our knowledge taking into consideration the quality

assurance findings and only to the extent of the activities performed by Ohio EPA.

There were no incidents of air pollution that reached or exceeded levels as specified by Section 51.151 which could cause significant harm to the health of persons.
Sincerely,

Robert Hodanbosi Chief, Division of Air Pollution Control

Enclosure

50 West Town Street,**Su~e** 700 PO. Box 1049 Columbus,OH 43216-1049 61416443020 61416443184 (fax) www.epa.ohio.gov

# A TTACHMENT 

# B1 

## OHIO 2005 Base Year PM2.5 SIP Inventory

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Lazarus Government Center 50 West Town Street, Suite 700 Columbus Ohio 43215

Prepared by Ohio EPA

Division of Air Pollution Control Emissions Inventory Unit February 20082 

## Table of Contents

Section Page

Introduc tion ................................................................................................. 3

1.0 Point Sources ............................................................................................. 4

2.0 Area S ources .............................................................................................. 8

3.0 Non Road Sources........................................................................15

4.0 On Road Sources.......

.................. .................. ................ ................ .............17

5.0 MAR Sources..............................................................................43

Table 2-1 Categories included in the 2005 area source Inventory.............................8 2-2 Emission Factors used for Wood Bu rners included in area sources............11 3-1 NMIM NCD Tables for Specific Years and States ........................................... 16 4-1 Federal Functional Class Categories............................................................ 23 4-2 DVMT Summary by County

.................................................................. . 24 4-3 Speed by Federal Functional Class ............................................................. 28 4-4 Link Group Codes & Associated BPR Curves

.......................................... 29 4-5 Mobile6 Inputs.................................................................................31 4-6 LADCO Data Output............................................. .............39 4-7 County Summary Table of MPOs by County......................................... .40 5-1 Number of operations and LTOs for 2005.............................................. 45 5-2 EDMS Aircraft Emissions ..................................................................50 5-3 Fleet Emission Fa ctor Categories ........................................................51 5-4 Pollutant by County (Sample) ............................................................. 54

. Figure

1............................... ......... Speed Comparison Graphs.....................................273 

## 2005 Base Year PM2.5 SIP Inventory for Ohio

Introduction

The State of Ohio has a nu mber of counties with air quality data showing nonattainment for the following PM 2 . 5 standard:

• Annual Standard = 15.0 ug/m3 The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAA A) requires all states to revise and submit State Implementation Plans (SIP) for areas which are classified as non-atta inment of the 1997 Fine Particle (PM 2 . 5 ) National Ambient Air Quality St andards (NAAQS). The Federal Register ( Vol. 72, No. 79/ Wednesday, April 25, 2007) provides the emissions inventory rules and regulations for the PM 2 . 5 Clean Air Fine Particle implementation rule. An electronic version of the document can be found at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPAAIR/2007/April/Day-25/a6347.pdf. As part of the designation of non-attainment areas for PM 2 . 5 standards, a new attainment demonstration SIP will be necessary. A key el ement in the overall SIP planning process is the need for an updated emissions inventory. This document presents the 2005 Base Year Pa rticulate SIP Emissions Inv entory for Ohio as required by the CAAA. It includes emissions for poi nt, area, on-road mobi le and non-road mobile for the State of Ohio.
This technical report document s the procedures and the me thodologies that were used in the development of daily emissions for all counties in Ohio. This report describes the following:

1. Identification of st ationary and mobile sources included in the inventory; 2. Sources of data, and data collecti on methods used in the development of the inventory; 3. Methods and procedures used to estimate emissions; and 4. Assumptions considered in t he development of the emissions inventories. The intent of this report is to descri be how the inventory was prepared, and what information was considered in the inventory development. This document is comprised of 5 sections , one section for each inventory type. The biogenic inventory is not being discussed in this document because Ohio EPA did not participate in the generation of this inventory. Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) ran EPA’s BEIS model in the Em ission Modeling System (EMS) to generate Summer Weekday emissions for VOC and NOx.4 

### SECTION 1

POINT SOURCES Emissions and source specific data for point sources are collected for the 2005 baseyear SIP inventory by the Ohio Envir onmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA.) The primary source of data for point sources is facility reported STARShip files. STARShip is a software package developed by Ohio EPA, Division of Ai r Pollution Control (DAPC), to assist the regulated community in prepar ing and submitting a variety of electronic permit applications and reports to the DAPC . These data are reported by the Title V facilities annually as part of the emission s fee/inventory process conducted by Ohio EPA and include emissions, process rates, oper ating schedules, emissions control data and other relevant information. The STARShip files are electr onically transferred to the DAPC and stored into the Division’s Oracle database, STARS. The f iles are reviewed by the local air agencies and Ohio EPA district and central office staff. After review, the data are imported into Excel and linked with an Access® database to further process the information into the federally approved National Em ission Inventory (NEI) database format in version 3.0. The files are quality assured ag ain using the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S.EPA) QA/QC so ftware for format and content. The data is finally submitted to LADCO for emissions processi ng through the Emissions Modeling System. The State provided inv entory for Electric Generating Un its (EGU) is replaced with the Federal EGU inventory. T he EGU inventory is compiled by U.S. EPA’s Acid Rain Program. It is based on facility report ed emissions as meas ured by continuous emissions monitors. In conclusion, the final point source inventory is a hybrid of the federal EGU inventory and the state provided non-EGU units.
A major distinction typically made in emissi ons inventories is t hat between point and area sources. In this invent ory, point sources are sources for which individual records are maintained for that source. Such records are maintained for all Ohio Title V facilities (706 facilities statewide). The area source inventory accounts for facilities from nonTitle V facilities and calculates emissions information using surrogate emissions factors based on energy usage, population, employment records, or other reliable data. A more detailed discussion of t he area source inventory is pr ovided in Section 2. The point source inventory descr ibed herein is considered to be the most current and accurate source of emissions data available for 2005.

1.1 Point Source Process Emissions Ohio EPA defines point source process emissions as those which occur at an identifiable Title V stationary stack or vent. Point source emissions not emitted from discrete stacks or vents are termed fugitive emissions and are discussed in Section 1.2.5 1.1.1 Source Identificati on and Data Collection The sources to be included in the 2005 base year inventory are identified using the Title V STARS database. Facility production and emissions data are included in this database. This information is fac ility-reported actual 2005 emissions.

1.1.2 Non-reactive VOC Emissions Adjustments This section is primarily appl icable for VOC pollutants. S ources are required to identify emissions of photochemically non-reactive Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC.) Based upon this information, those emissions have been specifically excl uded from the 2005 base line inventory in accordance with U.S. EPA’s “Recommended Policy on the Control of Volatile Organic Co mpounds.” A complete list of the compounds that U.S. EPA has identified as being photochemically non -reactive, and therefore not included in the inventory, are listed below:

• Methane

• Ethane

• Methylene chloride

• Methyl chloroform

• Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11)

• Dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12)

• Chlorodifluoromethane (CFC-22)

• Trifluoromethane (HFC-23)

• Chlorofluoromethance (HCFC-31)

• Difluoromethane (HFC-32)

• Decafluoropentane (HFC-43-10mee)

• Ethylfluoride (HFC-161)

• Trichlorotrifluoroethane (CFC-113)

• Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (CFC-114)

• Chloropentafluoroethane (CFC-115)

• 2,2-Dichloro-1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HCFC-123)

• 1,1,2-Trifluoroethane (HCFC-123a)

• 2-Chloro-1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HCFC-124)

• Pentafluoroethane (HFC-125)

• 1,1,2,2,-Tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134)

• 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134a)

• 1,1-Dichloro-1-fluoroethane (HCFC-141b)

• 1-Chloro-1,1,-difluoroethane (HCFC-142b)

• 1,1,1-Trifluoroethane (HFC-143a)

• Fluoroethane (HCFC-151a)

• 1,1-Difluoroethane (HFC-152a)

• Pentafluoropropane (HFC-225ca)

• Pentafluoropropane (HFC-225cb)

• Hexafluoropropane (HFC-236ea)

• Hexafluoropropane (HFC-236fa)

• Pentafluoropropane (HFC-245ca)

• Pentafluoropropane (HFC-245ea)

• Pentafluoropropane (HFC-245eb)6 • Pentafluoropropane (HFC-245fa)

• Pentafluorobutane (HFC-365mfc)

• Parachlorobenzotrifluoride (PCBTF)

• Methoxybutane

• Nonaflourobutane

• Heptafluoropropane ((CF 3 ) 2 CFCF 2 OCH 3 )

• Heptafluoropropane ((CF 3 )CFCF 2 OC 2 H 5 )

• Perchloroethylene

• Cyclic, branched or linear completely methylated siloxanes

• Methyl acetate

• Volatile methyl siloxanes

• Acetone

1.1.3 Emissions Esti mation Methodologies Since source reported actual annual emi ssions are used in the 2005 base year inventory, no estimation methods are necessary . The reports are provided to LADCO in National Emissions Inventory Input Format (NIF) 3.0 format. LADCO imported and processed the NIF files in EMS and applied temporal and spat ial profiles to the annual emissions to calculate weekday emissions rate s. The final point source inventory is split into two separate reports, the Electric Generating Units (EGU) which is the U.S. EPA inventory for electric generating units a nd the non-EGU which is the state inventory minus the EGU units.

1.2 Point Source Fugitive Emissions Another type of emissions data which is r equired to be filed from point sources is fugitive emissions. Before 1990, fugitive emissions were categorized as area sources due to the lack of detailed information availa ble for fugitive sources. However, since these emissions are now el ectronically reported in t he State’s ORACLE database, STARS, these emissions can be classified as point sources.

1.3 References Getting Started: Emissions In ventory Methods for PM2.5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September, 1999. Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implem entation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Qaulity Standards (N AAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations , Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards Research, Triangle Park, NC. November 2005. Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, Fourth Ed ition and Supplements, AP-42

. U.S. Environmental Protecti on Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1985.7 Preparing 2002 Regional PM2.5 Emissions QAQPS PM Inventory Conference Inventory Conference San Diego, 2003.

Documentation for the 2002 El ectric Generating Unit Nati onal Emissions Inventory (NEI) . Eastern research group, Inc., 1600 Peri meter Park Drive, Morrisville, NC 27560 and E.H. Pechan and Associates, Inc., 5528–B Hempstead Way8 

### SECTION 2

AREA SOURCES

Area sources are sources which are typically small, indivi dual, numerous, and have not been inventoried as specific point, mobile, or biogenic sources. For inventory purposes, they are grouped with other like sources into categories that allow emissions to be calculated collectively usi ng one methodology. Since area sources are traditionally defined at the county level, most methods are designed to estimate area source emissions at the county level.

Ohio EPA has either used published Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP) 6 methodologies or selected other methodologies which are shared by other states. The decision of which methodology to use was lar gely based on Ohio’s data availability. Data which was not available on a county-lev el is estimated by assigning a percentage of the state’s total activity to each county based on the state’s popul ation or employment information. If Ohio county specific activity data is available throu gh Ohio EPA or other State Agencies, that data is us ed rather than allocating acti vity by percentage. Table 2-1 lists the sources which emit PM 2.5 , NO x and SO 2 along with the respective EFs used to calculate each pollutant.

Table 2-1 Categories in the 2005 PM 2 . 5 SIP Area Source inventory

Area Source NO x PM 2.5 SO 2 Section Commercial Natural Gas Combustion 94 lb/MMSCF 7.6 lb/MMSCF 0.6 lb/MMSCF 2.1 Industrial Distillate Oil Combustion 20 lb/E3gal fuel 0.25 lb/E3gal fuel 42.6 lb/E3gal fuel 2.2 Industrial Residual Oil Combustion 55 lb/E3gal fuel 4.67 lb/E3gal fuel 157 lb/E3gal fuel 2.2 Industrial Natural Gas Combustion 94 lb/MMSCF 7.6 lb/MMSCF 0.6 lb/MMSCF 2.2 Residential Coal Combustion 9.1 Lb/Ton Coal 3.8 Lb/Ton Coal 31 Lb/Ton Coal 2.3 Residential Distillate Oil Combustion 18 lb/E3gal fuel 0.83 lb/E3gal fuel 42.6 lb/E3gal fuel 2.3 Residential Natural Gas Combustion 94 lb/MMSCF 7.6 lb/MMSCF 0.6 lb/MMSCF 2.3 Residential LPG Combustion 13 lb/E3gal fuel 0.17 lb/E3gal fuel 0.1 lb/E3gal fuel 2.3

Human Cremation 1.01E+01 lb/Ton cremated 0.0637 lb/Ton cremated NA 2.4

Structure Fires 1.4 Lb/Ton burned 10.8 Lb/Ton burned NA 2.5 Outdoor Wood Boilers 2.8 Lb/Ton 2.76E+1 Lb/Ton 4 E-1 Lb/Ton 2.69 Residential Wood Combustion

Non-Certified
Non-Catalytic
Catalytic 2.80E+00 lb/Ton

2.80E+00 lb/Ton

2.00E+00 lb/Ton 3.06E+01 lb/Ton

1.96E+01 lb/Ton

2.04E+01 lb/Ton 4.00E-01 lb/Ton

4.00E-01 lb/Ton

4.00E-01 lb/Ton 2.3

2.1 Commercial Natural Gas Combustion (SCC 2103006000)

The 2005 total state-level commercial sector energy consumption is obtained from the Energy Information Administration (EIA)’s State Energy Data System (SEDS), and apportioned per county based on population 4 . Emissions factors are given in table 2-1. The area source emissions are calculated ba sed on an adjusted value by subtracting the emissions due to point sources.

2.2 Industrial Fuel Combustion

Industrial Distillate Oil Combustion (SCC 2102004000) Ohio’s fuel consumption is apportioned per county based on the county’s population 4

. The area source NO X emissions are calculated and adjusted by subtracting the emissions due to point source s. A heating value of 140 MMBTU/1000 Gal is used and 84,408 thousand gallons are consumed in 2005. [MMBTU stand for Million British Thermal Units]. Emissions fact ors are given in table 2-1.

SO 2 emissions were calculated us ing EF 42.6 Lb/1000 Gal. PM 10 and PM 2.5 emissions are calculated using 1Lb/1000 Ga l and 0.25 Lb/1000 Gal respecti vely. All Factors are obtained from AP-42 19
Industrial Residual Oil Combustion (SCC 2102005000) Ohio’s fuel consumption is apportioned per county based on the county’s population 4

. The area source NO X emissions are calculated and adjusted by subtracting the emissions due to point sour ces. 54,652 thousand gallons 14 are consumed in 2005 and a heating value of 140 MMBTU/1000 Gal is used. The SO 2 emissions are calculated using EF 157 Lb/1000 Gal. PM 10 and PM 2.5 emissions are calculated using 7.17 Lb/1000 Gal and 4.67 Lb/1000 Gal respectively. All factors are obtained from AP-42 19

Industrial Natural Gas Combustion (S CC 2102006000) Ohio’s fuel consumption is apportioned per county based on the county’s population 4

. The area source NO X emissions are calculated and adjusted by subtracting the emissions due to point sources. 293,857 MMCF 14 are consumed in 2005. The SO 210 emissions are calculated usi ng EF 0.6 Lb/MMBTU. The PM 10 and PM 2.5 emissions are calculated using 7.6 Lb/MMBTU. All factors were obtained from AP-42 19

2.3 Residential Fuel Combustion Residential Coal Combustion (SCC 2104001000) Ohio’s household consumption of coal is apportioned per county based on county population 4 . NO X emissions are calculated using EF of 9.1 of coal. The SO 2 emissions are calculated using EF 31Lb/1000 Gal. The PM 10 and PM 2.5 emissions are calculated using 6.2Lb/Ton and 3.8 Lb/Ton respectively . All factors were obtained from AP-42 19

Residential Distillate Oil Combustion (SCC 2104004000) Ohio’s household consumption of distillate oil is apportioned per county based on county population 4 . NO X emissions are calculated us ing EF of 18 lb/1000 gallons distillate fuel respectively. A heating value of 140 MMBTU/1000 Gal is used. The SO 2 emissions are calculated using EF 42.6 Lb/1000 Gal. The PM 10 and PM 2.5 emissions are calculated using 1.08Lb/1000 Gal and 0.83 Lb/1000 Gal respec tively. All factors are obtained from AP-42 19
Residential Liquid Petroleu m Gas Combustion (LPG) (SCC 2104007000) Ohio’s household consumption of LPG is apportioned per county based on county population 4 . NO X emissions are calculated using EF of 13 lb/1000 gallons LPG. The SO 2 emissions are calculated usi ng EF 0.1 Lb/1000 Gal. The PM 10 and PM 2.5 emissions are calculated using 0.17Lb/1000 Gal. All factors are obtained from AP-42 19
Residential Natural Gas Combustion (SCC 2104006010) Ohio’s household consumption of LPG is apportioned per county based on county population 4 . NO X emissions are calculated using EF of 94 lb/MMSCF. MMSCF stands for Million Standard Cubic Feet. This source also emits SO 2 emissions which are calculated using EF 0.6 Lb/MMBTU. The PM 10 and PM 2.5 emissions are calculated using 7.6Lb/MMBTU. All fact ors are obtained from AP-42 19

Residential Wood Combustion NO X emissions from this area source are ca lculated for seven types of residential heating units that utilize wood for fuel. They are listed below with the appropriate SCC:
Fireplaces without inserts 2104008001 Fireplaces with inserts cataly tic (non-U.S. EPA cert) 2104008002 Fireplaces with inserts non -catalytic 2104008003 Fireplaces with inserts catalytic (U.S. EPA cert) 2104008004 Wood stoves – Conventional 2104008010 Woodstoves – Catalytic 2104008030 Wood stoves – Non catalytic 210400805011 The number of Ohio homes with fireplaces ar e adjusted for those t hat burn wood. The following assumptions are applie d to those adjusted homes: 92 percent of wood combust ed in non-certified units 5.7 percent of wood combusted in non-catalytic units 2.3 percent of wood combusted in catalytic units
A state consumption value is applied which is apportioned to each county based on its population 4 . Table 2-2 shows the EF used for each of the seven types of indoor wood burners which make-up this category:

Table 2-2 Emission Factors Used for Wood Burners

SCC 2104008002 210400 8003 2104008004 SCC 2104008010 210400 8050 2104008030 SCC 2104008001 RAPIDS Code Non-Certified N on-Catalytic Catalytic Units SO 2 4.00E-01 4.00E-01 4.00E-01 Lb/ton NO X 2.80E+00 2.80E+00 2.00E+00 Lb/ton PM 2.5 3.06E+01 1.96E+01 2.04E+01 Lb/ton
To avoid double counting of wood consumption for fuel, this category is adjusted by subtracting the wood consumption from OWB to allow this category to account only for indoor wood burning emissions.

Residential Wood combustion also emits SO 2 which is calculated using EF 0.4 Lb/Ton EF. The PM 2.5 emissions are calculated using EF as shown in table 2-2. All factors are obtained from AP-42 19

2.4 Human Cremation (SCC 2810060200)

Not all Ohio counties possess a crematory so only those counties with crematories are used to calculate the number of cremations and their resulting NOx emissions. The 2005 cremation data is obtained fr om the Ohio Department of Health, Vital Statistics 17

. It is estimated that 3% of deaths occur outsi de the State of Ohio with no available data to account for their disposition at the time this area source is being calculated. Therefore, those deaths are not accounted for in this category. The methodology does not offer an EF for NOx for this category nor is NOx required to be calculated for this area source. Ohio f eels that it is a combustion source and NOx needs to be included in the inventory al ong with the other com bustion sources. Through its Permits-to-Install for human crem ation, Ohio has se lected a NOx EF of 10.13lb/ton cremated to calculate emi ssions from this area source.12 This source also emits PM, PM 10 , and PM 2.5 emissions which are calculated using EF 0.1 Lb/Ton, 0.071Lb/Ton and, 0.0637 Lb/Ton respec tively. All factors are obtained from AP-42 19

2.5 Structur e Fires (SCC 2810030000) The Structure Fires category includes resid ential and commercial fires resulting from unintentional actions. Intentional fires, fo rest and wildfires, agricultural, and vehicle burning are not included in this area source

. The State Fire Marshall Office, Fire Prevention Bureau 15 provided data on the number of st ructure fires per county in 2005.
This area source is consider ed a combustion source for NO X emissions which are calculated using EF 1.4 lb/ton burned. The residential and commercial structures fires for each county are tabul ated and a fuel load ing of 1.15 Ton/fire is applied. This source also emits PM, PM 10 , and PM 2.5 emissions which are calculat ed using EF 10.8 Lb/Ton. This factor was obtained from AP-42 19

2.6 Outdoor W ood Boilers (SCC 2104008070) Outdoor Wood Boilers (OWB), are also known as outdoor water stoves and outdoor wood furnaces, are used as outdoor residenti al heaters. These boilers have wood burning fireboxes surrounded by a water reserv oir vented by a chimney stack. The combustion of the wood in t he firebox heats the water in the surrounding reservoir and the heated water is pumped to the residence. OWB units can also supply residential hot water. The water capacit y ranges from 60 gallons to 764 gallons. The operational design creates long periods where the fire smolders and creosote is formed 13

. When the water circulating through the furn ace reaches an upper set point, the air supply to the fire is cut-off, cooling the fire so the water will not overheat. The furnace operates in this "idle" mode until the water te mperature hits a lower set point and the air supply is re-established. The OWB may be in idle mode far longer than in operating mode. This type of operating causes very poor combustion and heavy foul smoke. Most of the smoke emitted is fi ne condensed organic material t hat does not burn under cool, oxygen starved conditions. In addition, many owners burn green wood full of moisture which also causes poor combustion 12

. The smoke created from these outdoor wood burning units can contain severa l pollutants that are harmful to breathe, including fine particle pollution such as PM 2.5 11 in addition to NOx (research assisted by Deborah Lucas, DAPC intern, 2007) This new area source category has many unknowns and variables associated with it and Ohio does not possess accurate OWB uni t sales data available to calculate emissions on the county level. Therefore, several assu mptions are made in agreement with the Great Lake States in order to formulate a homogeneous inventory for the region.13 The assumptions are as follows:

• 100% of wood combusted in non-certified units.

• OWB units to be 90% in rural counties and 10% in urban counties

• 11.68 cords of wood consumption per unit per year (includes heating efficiency of 30-40%)

• 5 months heating season = 3650 hours (24/7)

• PM 2.5 emissions factor (g/kg wood) =13.82 (Average of indoor and outdoor) or 27.64 lb/ton of wood The agreed upon methodology requi res that total number of OWB sold in Ohio be apportioned to each county based on rural or urban designation while observing the 9:1 ratio in area sales. The guesstimated factor s (see above) are applied to calculate the emissions from this outdoor wood burner. Total emissions obtained from this category are subtracted from the Residential Wood Co mbustion category to allow for accurate emissions from the indoor wood burning units.

2.7 References 1. Documentation For the 2002 Non-Point S ource National Emission Inventory For CAPS and HAPS . U.S. Environmental Protecti on Agency. Emissions Factor and inventory Group. E.H Pe chan and Associates, Inc. January 2004.

2. United States Census Bureau. Population Division. http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/c ounties/tables/CO-EST 2002/CO-EST2002-01- 39.php (Accessed 2003) 3. United States Census Bureau. County Business Patterns. http://censtats.census.gov/cbpnaic/cbpnaic.shtml (Accessed 2003) 4. Ohio Department of Development, Office of Strategic Research. Population Projects by Age and Sex: 2005-2030. http://www.odod.ohio.gov /research/files/p200.htm (Accessed August 2006) 5. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999 Base Year Non-point Source National Emission Inventory for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Research Triangle Park, NC. September 28, 2001.

6 . Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). STAPPA-ALAP CO-EPA Emission Inventory Improvement Progr am (EIIP). Volume III - Area Sources Preferred and Alternative Methods. November 1996.

7. Documentation for the Dr aft 1999 National Emissions In ventory (Version 3.0) for Criteria Air Pollutants and Amm onia. Area Sources. E. H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. March 3, 200314 8. U.S. Environmental Pr otection Agency, STAPPA-ALAPC O-EPA Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP), Volume III - Area Sources Preferred and Alternative Methods, Chapter 8. September 1997. 9. Spreadsheet formulation provided by “Buzz” David Asse lmeier, Air Quality Planning Section, Inventory Group, Springfield, Illinois. 10. Environmental Protection Agen cy (EPA). STAPPA-ALAPCO-EPA Emission Inventory Improvement Progr am (EIIP). Volume III - Area Sources Preferred and Alternative Methods. May 1997. 11. (Environmental Chemistr y.com) viewed on Feb 8th, 2007. [http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi /environmental/200602out doorwoodfurnaces.ht ml ] 12. (Washington State, Department of Ecology) viewed on Feb 8th, 2007 [http://www.ecy.wa.gov/progr ams/air/AOP_Permits/Boiler /Outdoor_Boilers_home.html] 13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agen cy. Reducing Pollution from Outdoor WoodFired Hydronic Heaters. Fact Sheet http://www.epa.gov/owhh/ pdfs/fact_sheet_1_29_07.pdf (Accessed 1/2007)

14. Industrial Sector E nergy Price and Expenditure Estimates, 1970-2001, Ohio. Energy Information Administration. U. S. Department of Energy. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/st ates/sep_prices/ind/pr_ind_oh.html http://www.eia.doe.gov/em eu/aer/pdf/pages/sec1_27.pdf (Accessed 2003)

15. State Fire Marshal Office. Fire Prevention Bureau, Columbus, Ohio. http://www.com.state.oh. us/odoc/sfm/firecont.htm (Accessed 2003)

16. Documentation for the Draft 1999 National Emissions In ventory (Version 3.0) For Criteria Air Pollutants and Amm onia. Area Sources. E. H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. March 3, 2003 17. Ohio Department of Health, Vital Statistics 18. Environmental Protection Agency. STAPPA-ALAPCO-EPA Em ission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP). Volume X – Emissions Projections. December 1999. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiip/techreport/volume10/x01.pdf (Accessed 2/2007) 19. Environmental Protection Agency. AP-42. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/15 

### SECTION 3

NON-ROAD SOURCES The non-road inventory is gener ated regionally by running U. S. EPA’s Nati onal Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM) model. The Wi sconsin Department of Natural Resources undertook the responsibility of customizing the NMIM input files and submitting the output file in NIF format to LADCO and U.S. EPA. LADCO process ed the NMIM files in their emissions model and generat ed daily emissions rates. Grant Heatherington from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Reso urces provided the following descriptions...
The National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM) developed by USEPA was used to estimate emissions for all other non-road m obile categories. NMIM consolidates nonroad mobile emissions and on-road emissions modeling into a singl e modeling system. Only the non-road emissions modeling portion of NMIM was used in the development of this emission’s inventory. NMIM uses the USEPA’s NONROAD model to calculate nonroad mobile emissions. The basic NONROAD algorithm for calculating emissions uses base year equipment populati ons, average load factors, available engine powers, activity hours and emission factors. Before NMIM was run, modifications and additions were made to the NM IM input data.

a. Added emission factors for diesel ta mpers/rammers provided by E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. Diesel tampers/rammers are a type of construction equipment.

b. Revised PM 2.5 ratios in SCC table to correctly calculate PM 2 . 5 diesel emissions. This error was introduc ed with NMIM2005 and didn’t exist in NMIM2004.

c. Revised gasoline parameter s using updates provi ded by the states and E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. Ga soline parameters include Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP), oxygenate c ontent and sulfur content.

The NMIM NEI NIF files are on the LADCO ftp site at: ftp://ftp.airtoxics.org/in v2005/nonroad/NMIM /Base_L_ph2/2005/



### Revised NMIM2005 Input Data

Emission Factor Data
All States: Pechan revised the brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) emission factor data to include diesel tampers/rammers (2270002006). The revised NMIM file is saved as revBSFC.EMF.16 Population Data
For 26000.pop, replaced default file supplied with NMIM2005 with 26000_rev_NMIM05.pop that contains revised construction data missing from 26000.pop external file provided with NMIM2005. This Michigan construction data should have been added with the other LADCO states modified construction data but was overlooked.
SCC Data
The default SCC table of NCD20060201 is replaced by a version that contains corrections to the PM25fac field that earlier NCDs contained (i.e. changed from 0.92 to 0.97 for diesel non-road equipment) in NONROAD2004.
Fuel Data

LADCO States: Pechan revised four tables (countyyear, countyyearmonth, datasource and gasoline) in the National County Database (NCD) used by NMIM to incorporate new fuel data. AIR revised gasoline characteristics per instructions from the states. Also, gasoline characteristic revisions for 2005 provided by states were incorporated. Additional revisions were incorporated into 2002 data for non-road Stage 2 controls. Depending on the year being modeled, different versions of the revised tables are used. Also, the countynrfile, countyyear and datasource tables were revised to reference the new activity, allocation, growth, population and seasonality files described above. NCD tables with names ending in “def” are default versions of the table. See table below for the appropriate versions of the tables for the selected years. Non-LADCO States: The countynrfile, countyyear and datasource tables were revised to reference the new activity, allocation and seasonality files described above. See table below for the appropriate versions of the tables for the selected years.
Table 3-1 NMIM National County Database Tables for Specific Years and States

States Years 1999 (WI only) 2002, 05, 07, 08, 09, 12 and 18 LADCO states countynrfile_NMIM05_rev, countyyear_NMIM05_rev, countyyearmonth_NMIM05_w _05_12_18_rev, datasource_NMIM05_rev, gasoline_NMIM05_def SCC_NCD20060201_rev (used when NCD20060201 is used) countynrfile_NMIM05_rev, countyyear_NMIM05_rev , countyyearmonth_NMIM05_w_05_12_18_rev, datasource_NMIM05_rev, gasoline_NMIM05_w_05_12_18_rev SCC_NCD20060201_rev (used when NCD20060201 is used)17 

### SECTION 4

ON-ROAD SOURCES A mobile source of air pollution is a self-p ropelled or portable emi tter of air pollutants, and mobile source emissions are those genera ted by the engines or motors that power such sources. Most mobile sources, exce pt jet or turboprop ai rcraft, are powered by internal combustion (IC) piston engines, and nearly all use liquid fuels. Gaseous fuels, such as compressed natur al gas (CNG) or li quefied petroleum gas (LPG), had only a very small fraction of the motor fuel market in Ohio in 2005. Solid fuels have not been used by mobile sources in significant amounts since railroads retired their coal-powered steam locomotives in the 1950s. 4.1 Categories of Mobile Sources For inventory and planning pur poses, mobile sources ar e divided into two major categories. 1. On-highway mobile sources (usually referred to as on-road ), e.g., motor vehicles such as cars, vans, trucks, buses and motorcycles used for transportation of goods and pa ssengers on roads and streets 2. Off-highway (usually referred to as non-road ) mobile sources including:

• Modes of powered transportation that do not use roads, such as aircraft, trains, ships and boats, and motor vehicles used off-road.

• Self-propelled or portable motoriz ed machines or equipment not used for transportation, ranging from constructi on equipment and farm tractors to lawnmowers and hand-held power weed choppers.

Mobile Sources: All on-road mobile source s are self-propelled.

Non-road Mobile Sources: Some non-road mobile source s (e.g., farm tractors), are self-propelled, but many non-road sources ar e not. A gasoline-powe red chain saw is a familiar example of a non-self-pr opelled non-road mobile source. Stationary Sources: Not all movable or portable emi ssion sources are mobile sources, however. A small truck-portable cement or hot-mix asphalt plant, for example, may be set up near a construction or road-building site . Such plants are classified as stationary sources, not mobile sources for two reasons: (1) they may operate for weeks or months at a single location, and (2) the trucks that move the plants do not supply power for them.18 NOTE: Not all Internal Combustion engines (IC) or turbine engines are mobile sources. Fixed IC engines, such as those that pow er pipeline compressors or standby generators in electricity plants and elsewhere, are al so classified as stationary sources. 4.1.1 Categories and Componen ts of Mobile Source Emissions
There are three categories of mobile source emissions:

• Exhaust or tailpipe emissions , which result from the combustion of fuel in the source’s engine

• Evaporative emissions , which result from evaporation of fuel from the engine or its fuel system

• Refueling emissions

Exhaust Emissions: Are the result of fuel combustion and occu r only when the engine is running. Evaporative emissions: Are Volatile Organic Compou nd (VOC) based only and are continuously emitted from an engine’s fuel syst em, whether the engine is running or not. Gasoline is a very volatile fuel, so total VOC emissions from gasoline powered vehicles have a large evaporative component. Diesel and je t fuels are of very low volatility, so evaporative emissions from diesel and turbi ne engines are a much smaller part of their total VOC emissions. Evaporative emission s for CNG or LPG powered vehicles are negligible because their fuel tanks and systems are of necessity, sealed. Evaporative and exhaust VOC emissions can be calculated separately for most mobile source categories. Evaporative emissions do not include VOC emissions that occur during refueling. Refueling Emissions: These emissions are the third category of mobile source emissions. Refueling emissi ons are entirely VOC. Alth ough they result from the evaporation of fuel, they ar e distinct from, and not dire ctly related to, evaporative emissions as defined above. Refueling emissions have two subcomponents:

• Displacement emissions . These occur when new fuel is transferred into a partly filled tank--be it a service station stor age tank, a portable fuel container (gas can), or a vehicle or engine’s fuel tank; displacing the air in the tank and forcing that vapor-rich air out the inlet pipe or other vent. There are two stages of displacement emissions:

o “ Stage I ” emissions occur when the underground storage tanks at a service station are being refilled;19 o “ Stage II ” emissions occur when a motor vehicle (or gas can) is being refueled.

NOTE: These emissions are covered in , “Area Sources,” section 3.6.

• Spill emissions . These occur when drops of fuel drip or splash on the ground during or after refueling and evaporate away. 4.2 Ohio On-Road Mobile Source Inventory
The inventory of on-road mobile source emissions was developed in conjunction with the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), Lake Michigan Air Director’s Consortium (LADCO), Unit ed States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the Ohio EPA (OEPA). Estimates of the amounts of NOx and VO C are reported by county in tons per day. Emissions are repor ted for a typical ozone season weekday in the summer of 2005.
4.2.1 Emission Inventories Developed with MOBILE6 Model

MOBILE6 Overview: MOBILE6 is a computer program that es timates hydrocarbon (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NO x ), exhaust particulate matter (which consists of several components), tire wear particula te matter, brake wear particu late matter, sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), ammonia (NH 3 ), six hazardous air pollutant (HAP), and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emission factors for gasoline-f ueled and diesel highway moto r vehicles, and for certain specialized vehicles such as natural-gas-fuel ed or electric vehicles that may replace them. The program uses the calculation procedures presented in technical reports posted on EPA's MOBILE6 Web page http ://www.epa.gov/otaq/models.htm. MOBILE6 emission factor estimates depend on various conditions, such as ambient temperatures, travel speeds, operating modes, fuel volatility, and mileage accrual rates. Many of the variables affe cting vehicle emissions can be specified by the user. MOBILE6 will estimate emission factors fo r any calendar year between 1952 and 2050, inclusive. Vehicles from the 25 most re cent model years are considered to be in operation in each calendar year.

4.2.2 MOBILE6 Defaults: MOBILE6 includes default values for a wide range of conditions that affect emissions. These defaults are designed to represent “ national average” input data values. Users who desire a more precise estimate of local emissions can substitute information that more specifically reflects local conditions. Use of local input data will be particularly common when the local emission inventor y is to be constructed from separate20 estimates of roadways, geographic areas, or ti mes of day, in which fleet or traffic conditions vary considerably. A list of MOBILE6 input parameters is provi ded below. Most of these inputs are optional because the model will supply default values unless alternate data are provided.
4.2.3 MOBILE6 Input Parameters

• Calendar year

• Month (January, July)

• Hourly Temperature

• Altitude (high, low)

• Weekend/weekday

• Fuel characteristics (Reid va por pressure, sulfur content, oxygenate content, etc.)

• Humidity and solar load

• Registration (age) distribution by vehicle class

• Annual mileage accumulation by vehicle class

• Diesel sales fractions by vehicle class and model year

• Average speed distribution by hour and roadway

• Distribution of vehicle miles traveled by roadway type

• Engine starts per day by vehi cle class and distribution by hour

• Engine start soak time distribution by hour

• Trip end distribution by hour

• Average trip length distribution

• Hot soak duration

• Distribution of vehicle miles traveled by vehicle class

• Full, partial, and multiple diurnal distribution by hour

• Inspection and maintenance ( I/M) program description

• Anti-tampering inspection program description

• Stage II refueling emissions inspection program description

• Natural gas vehicle fractions

• HC species output

• Particle size cutoff

• Emissions factors for PM and HAP

• Output format specific ations and selections
4.2.4 MOBILE6 References
The following publications prov ide much of the guidance fo r the preparation of the onhighway inventory. EPA-450/4-81-026d (Revised), now EPA/450-R-92-009, Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation , Volume IV: Mobile Sources , December 1992. Hereafter, “Procedures Vol. IV”. The 1992 vers ion is still the definitive document on21 inventories. If a previous edition is referr ed to, the fact will be not ed as, for example, “the 1989 Procedures Vol. IV” or “Volume IV, 1989 edition”.
EPA420-R-03-010, User’s Guide to MOBILE6.1 and MOBILE6.2: Mobile Source Emission Factor Model , August 2003. This is the User’s Guide for the official MOBILE6.2.03 on-highway mobile source em ission factor model and will usually be referred to as the M6.2 (or simply M6) User’s Guide (UG). The M6 model in its various versions was developed and publis hed by Assessment & Modeling Division (AMD) of the National Vehicle & Fuels Em issions Laboratory (NVFEL) in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The NVFEL is part of USE PA Office of Transportation & Air Quality (OTAQ), formerly the Office of Mobile Sources (OMS).

Technical Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for Emission Inventory Preparation , August 2004. Hereafter, the M6 “Technical Guidance [Document]” or “TGD”. The TGD is the pr imary source of guidance on M6 inputs and an invaluable adjunct to the M6 User’s Guide. USEPA document “Frequently Asked Questions on MOBILE6” , 16 January 2002. Hereafter, [M6] “FAQ”. This document was published along with the M6 TGD. USEPA memo, “Policy Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for SIP Development and Transportation Conformity” , dated 18 January 2002, from John Seitz, Director of OAQPS, and Mar go Oge, Director of OTAQ, to Regional Air Division Directors.

4.3 Ohio’s Alternate Data for MOBILE6 Alternative data is state-specif ic data that is used in the M obile6 runs. Using local data is preferred to using the default data in Mobi le6. Efforts are made to collect as much local data as possible.

4.3.1 Vehicle Registra tion Distribution by Age

Overview: The vehicle age distribution determines the fr action of vehicles operating within each emissions control requirement standard and the deterioration of the emission control technology. Emission rates vary widely between new and older vehicles. Thus, even small changes in fleet age, particularly for older vehicles , may result in large changes in emission totals.22 The MOBILE6 model requires esti mates of a distribution of r egistered vehicles by age and vehicle category for current and future years. MOBILE6 default values were developed using national level vehicle registration data by age and class for July 1, 1996. EPA developed a methodology to convert t he July 1, 1996 registration profile into a general registration distribut ion by age and by vehicle ca tegory for some 6 composite (gasoline and diesel) vehicle types plus motorcycles. To project future changes, EPA evaluated general sales growth and vehicle scrappage trends for the total light-duty vehicle in-use fleet and the total heavy-dut y vehicle in-use fleet, and made minor adjustments, where possible, to reflect some of the differences between vehicle categories. Description: The MOBILE6 model requires estima tes of a distribution of registered vehicles by age and vehicle category for curr ent and future years. OEPA chose to use local vehicle registration data provided by the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) which was sent to the Lake Michigan Air Dir ectors Consortium (LADCO) to develop these inputs. LADCO then contracted with a subcontractor to breakout the age distribution data from the Vehicle Identification Num bers (VIN).

Note: It was learned during the course of this inventory that there were some discrepancies in the age distribution data. But it was too large of a project to reevaluate the data prior to this invent ory. This will be corrected in the next inventory (2008). Method Applicability: This approach is most applic able in areas where there are significant differences in the local vehicle fleet age distribution rela tive to the national average.
Data Sources and Procedures: This approach involves using local vehicle registration data. This is typically available at the county level, but may also be applied using statewide data from the stat e motor vehicle registration office. The fleet age should be representative of the vehicle fleet over the small urban or rural area under question.
Advantages:

• Uses locally specific registration data, which is likely more representative of the local area than t he national default.

• Requires minimal additional resources, par ticularly if data is readily available at the county or local level fr om the State departm ent of motor vehicle registration.

• Recommended by EPA and generally is encouraged as a preferred approach over the national default approach.23 4.3.2 Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (DVMT)

Overview: In coordination with Ohio Metropolitan Pl anning Organizations (MPOs), the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) provi ded Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (DVMT) data and travel demand model (TDM) data. TDM data will be covered in another section. Because TDM results are used by t he state and MPOs to fo recast traffic for a variety of reasons, undergo rigorous calibrati on and validation checks, and are sensitive to roadway capacity/travel time improvement s, the TDMs are considered the best tool for emissions forecasting. Therefore, the DVMT data discussed in this section is not used directly for all areas of Ohio. In countie s where it is not used directly it is used for making rough emissions estimates where model s do not exist or where time prohibits the use of TDMs. DVMT is a simple mechan ism to measure how much traffic is flowing along a roadway during an average 24 hour peri od. This simple formula multiplies Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) by the length of the roadway. For example; if a roadway is 2 miles in length and the AADT is 4000 vehicles per day the DVMT would be computed by multiplying 2* 4,000 =8,000 or 8,000 DVMT. County-By-County DVMT is computed usin g the State of Ohio, Department of Transportation’s Roadway Information F iles and the annual Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) Summary Reports . DVMT’s are computed for all of the Federal Functional Class (FC) categories within each of Ohio’s 88 counties. The AADT and Roadway length information prov ides a very accurate estimate of statewide total DVMT for The State Highway S ystem (Interstate, US and State Routes). County total DVMT are consistent and cons idered a good source of county level DVMT for countywide emissions estimates. For roadways that are not part of the State Highway System, various representative count s were used, such as: railroad crossing counts, HPMS Sample Section Counts, etc. All traffic count data that was not collected during the current year has had statewide growth factors applied to account for systematic growth. Given the previously mentioned methodologies, the DVMT data is more accurate on roads functionally classified as collector or above.

Table 4-1 Federal Func tional Class Categories:

01 - Rural Interstate 02 - Rural Principal Arterial 06 - Rural Minor Arterial 07 - Rural Major Collector 08 - Rural Minor Collector 09 - Rural Local 11 - Urban Interstate 12 - Urban Freeway & Expressway 14 - Urban Principal Arterial 16 - Urban Minor Arterial 17 - Urban Collector 19 - Urban Local24 Table 4-2 DVMT County Summary:

For PDF web based tables of 2005 DVMT by county see: http://www.dot.state.oh.us /techservsite/availpro/Road_%20Infor/KDVMT/vmt2005.pdf
Disclaimer by ODOT:

The above PDF web based tables contain the State of Ohio's adjusted county DVMT's and road mileage for the years 1990 - 2005. Please be aware that the numbers are estimates only. The factoring process used annual, estimated, and statewide ADT (Average Daily Traffic) growth factors, deriv ed from the output of a limited number of traffic counting stations around the state. Although the growth factors are available by functional class, they are more reliable for major roads such as interstates or expressways, which are relatively well-sampl ed, than for local roads or collectors. The numbers also do no allow for periodic, large- scale functional reclassification actions25 which reassign selected roads or road segm ents from one functional class to another. The Ohio Department of Transportation t herefore does not warr ant the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of these estimates for your research. We also do not assume responsibility for any incorrectness that may occur.

4.3.3 VMT From Travel Demand Models (TDM)

Overview: Travel demand forecast modeling is perform ed by the Ohio Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and ODOT for a multit ude of purposes including the preparation of regional emissions estimate s. The ODOT Office of Te chnical Services’ Modeling & Forecasting Section recommends that Ohio ’s TDMs and ODOT’s conformity analysis methods be used to establish the roadway mob ile source portion of Ohio’s SIP budget to assure consistent methods are used for transportation conformity analysis and budgets. Therefore, ODOT provided both MPO regional TDM runs and statewide TDM runs with associated data to OEPA and LADC O. The ODOT provided model run data for years 2002, 2005, 2009, 2012, and 2018.
Data provided included loaded networks in both CSV format and GIS shape files, trip end summaries, zone boundary GIS shape files, intra-zonal trip VMT estimates, and VMT summaries for each of the loaded networ ks. Additional post processing data was provided including but not lim ited to metadata describing the loaded networks, Hourly distribution by functional cla ss, speed profiles, day of week / weekend / monthly car and truck traffic profiles, 2009 & 2018 VMT RPO data sets, state wide VMT growth rates for local traffic, and a 2005 VMT summary comparison spreadsheet. It should be noted that among other things, the loaded TDM Netw orks contain distance and daily volumes from which VMT is computed.
Network volumes are post processed to esti mate VMT by hour of day. The hourly volumes and capacity, posted speed limi t, and type of roadway for each roadway segment are then used to estimate aver age hourly speeds needed for MOBILE6 based emissions estimates. Modelin g by segment by hour of day in this way makes emissions estimates more sensitive to the effects of roadway improvements. This allows transportation planners to evaluate the relati ve emissions affect of improvements to individual roadways as well as packages of improvements and the entire set of planned roadway improvement projec ts air quality impacts of construction programs.26 4.3.4 Speed Di stribution Profiles

Overview: ODOT provided speed distribution profiles to LADCO. A couple of different sets of speed distribution profiles were provided to OEPA and LADCO for their use, a table of space mean speeds by functional class for use with DVMTs and link group speed curves for post processing travel demand model traffic forecasts. Both sets of speed profiles are based on the same speed study c onducted by ODOT. The speed study is documented in “Statewide Travel Time Study, May 2001 by Greg Giaimo, Ohio Department of Transportation ”. When OEPA asked for s peeds for use with MOBILE6 for development of CERR, ODOT provided a set of speeds based on that statewide travel time study. Those speeds are doc umented in a technical memorandum titled “Estimation of Average Speed by Functional Class for MOBILE6 Runs ” dated 5/27/2004. Readers should refer to those docum ents for the details. Here the contents of the technical memo, Estimated Average Speed by Functional Class, are summarized.

Space Mean Speeds by Functional Class for U se with County Level DVMT, HPMS:

The memo states that the s peeds which the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) had been using prior to that date, 2004, fo r air quality analysis estimates based on County DVMT summaries, were developed by a former ODOT employee for addressing the one (1) hour standards conformity ru les established due to 1990 emissions exceedances. No documentation was found in ODOT’s files on the origin of these average speed values or how they were esti mated. In addition, EPA has requirements for using latest planning assumptions for ai r quality conformity analyses. Therefore, ODOT believed that it was in the state’s best interest to use the mo st recent available data to provide a new set of estimated av erage speeds consistent with those used for urban area travel demand models which were under development at that time. The memo contains comparisons of 2002 speed dat a obtained from traf fic count equipment, automatic traffic recorders (ATRs) which co llect data continuously throughout the year. It also contains comparisons of the new speeds with those used to address the one hour standard Gebhart’s. The graphs shown in figure 1, taken from the memo, illustrate the comparisons. The first graph compares time mean speeds from the ATRs with space mean speeds from ODOTs travel time study done in 2001and with the speeds used for addressing the one hour standard.27 Figure 1 - Speed Comparison Graphs

Speeds Comparison

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

FC01 FC 0

6 F C0 8 F C1 1 FC1 4 FC1 7

Functional ClassSpeed Average Speed
1990 Analysis Speeds 2001 Speed Study



### Speeds Comparison

0 20 40 60 80 100

FC 0

1 FC 06 F C08 F C11 FC14 FC 1

7

R

AMPS

Functional ClassSpeed Average Speed
Min. Avg Speed
Max. Avg. Speed
Gebhardt's Speeds
Spd Study Est Speeds Spd Study Greg Est

The following caution statem ent was taken from the Estimation of Average Speed by Functional Class memo.

CAUTION 

### : It should be noted that speeds on facilities falling in any one of the federal functional classifications vary greatly bet ween roadways, between hour of the day, and day of the week. So these provide only very rough estimates of speed and should be used with caution. In addition, it is expec ted that these average statewide speeds are higher than the average speeds in t he non-attainment areas because the non-28 attainment counties tend to be more popul ated and more congested. The document “Highway Vehicle Speed Es timation Procedures For Use in Emission Inventories”, September 1991 by Earl Ruiter of Cambridge Systematics Inc. is referenced by EPA’s documented procedures for emission inventor y preparation. This document suggests post processing travel demand model traffic assignment results to estimate average speeds.
Final space mean speeds that ODOT provi ded are summarized in the Table 1 below: Table 4-3 Speed by Federal Functional Class Functional Class 1990 Analysis 2001 Speed Study Speeds Speeds FC01 57.3 64.0 FC02 45.3 53.0 FC06 39.9 53.0 FC07 35.1 43.1 FC08 30.5 43.1 FC09 28.0 43.1 FC11 46.3 61.6 FC12 43.3 61.6 FC14 18.9 29.3 FC16 19.6 29.3 FC17 19.6 29.2 FC19 19.6 23.8

It was decided by mutual agreement among individuals within the ODOT Office of Technical Services that these new s pace mean speed based average speed estimates were reproducible and defensib le since they are well docu mented and should therefore be the speeds used with HPMS** VMT if any year 2002 emissions budget work is done using only the county level VMT summaries discussed in section 5.3.2 Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (DVMT).

** Note that HPMS VMT is a statewide VMT estimate and the county level DVMT summaries are consistent with the HPMS VMT so the county level DVMT summaries are loosely referred to as HPMS VMTs even though in fact they are not. 4.3.5 Link Group Speed Curves: The ODOT Modeling & Forecasting Section recommends that Ohio’s travel demand forecasting models and ODOT’s conformity anal ysis methods be used to establish the roadway mobile source portion of Ohio’s SIP budget for reasons already mentioned in 5.3.2 and to assure consistent methods are used for transportation conformity demonstration analyses and budget s. Therefore, ODOT pr ovided travel demand model runs and the speed curves by link group that ODOT uses for the speed estimates within29 the post processing of travel demand model runs for estimating regional emissions. Table 2 shows these link group curves.

Table 4-4 Link Group Cod es & Associated BPR Curves

Link Group Facility Type Free Flow Speed Areatype a b
1 Freeway 75 Any 0.39 6.3 2 Freeway 70 Any 0.32 7.0 3 Freeway 65 Any 0.25 9.0 4 Freeway 60 Any 0.18 8.5 5 Freeway 55 Any 0.10 10.0 6 Multi-Lane 60 Rural 0.09 6.0 7 Multi-Lane 55 Rural 0.08 6.0 8 Multi-Lane 50 Rural 0.07 6.0 9 Multi-Lane 45 Rural 0.07 6.0 10 2 Lane Any Rural 0.34 4.0 10 Urban Street 50 Suburban 0.34 4.0

11 Urban Street 50 Urban 0.74 5.0

12 Urban Street 50 CBD 1.16 6.0

13 Urban Street 40 Suburban 0.38 5.0

14 Urban Street 40 Urban 0.70 5.0

15 Urban Street 40 CBD 1.00 5.0

16 Urban Street 35 Suburban 0.96 5.0

17 Urban Street 35 Urban 1.00 5.0

18 Urban Street 35 CBD 1.40 5.0

19 Urban Street 30 Suburban 1.11 5.0

20 Urban Street 30 Urban 1.20 5.0

21 Urban Street 30 CBD 1.50 5.0

Note: a and b are the BPR curv e parameters for the equation

T = T 0 {1 + a * (V/C)^b]30 More complete details about emissions mode ling process employed by ODOT may be found in ODOT documentations. The docum ent titled “Congestion Management & Air Quality Analysis (CMAQ) Program Docu mentation” dated December 2005 may be obtained from the ODOT web site at www.dot.state.oh.us/urban/data/cmaq.doc (Microsoft Word document)

4.4 Mobile6 Inputs: The following table contains the inputs s upplied to LADCO to process our mobile inventory. 4.4.1 Ohio’s 2005 MOBILE6 Inputs The following tables are the result of a joint meeting between Ohio EPA, ODOT, and MPOs from around the state. At that meeting Mobile6 inputs were discussed and efforts were made to verify the sources of data inputs for Moble6. Dialogue has continued between the parties.

For historical reference:

>>> Dave Moore <Dave.Moore1@dot.s tate.oh.us> 4/10/2006 2:13 PM >>>
All, An air quality coordination meeting has been scheduled for April 27, 2006 at 10:00 AM at ODOT Central Office conference room GA. The primary purpose of this meeting is to discuss development of 2002 mobile source inventories for use in developi ng the Ohio 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP Attainment Demonstrations. See meeting agen da below. OEPA is working to ward a June 15, 2006 schedule for submitting the 2002 invent ories to US EPA. A key component of the meeting will be to review a nd confirm the MOBILE6.2 i nput parameters, by Ohio a/q area, for use in developing the 2002 mobile inve ntories. See draft templa te below. The Ohio MPO travel demand models will be used to generate t he 2002 VMT inputs to MOBILE. Thanks, DM DM31 IMPORTANT NOTICE: The following tables are not to be used for inventory purposes as the data is subject to change. For the cu rrent input table, contact Ohio EPA, Division of Air Pollution Control.

Table 4-5 Mobile Inputs


### Cleveland-Akron 2005 Ozone M6.2 Inputs Includes the following counties: Ashtabula, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage, Summit

State Programs Input
Stage II Refueling 93/3/86/86
Anti-tampering Programs 96/78/50/22222/21111111/1/12/098./12111112
I/M Programs Yes Exclude Ashtabula County - No I/M program Program 1 2004 2050 2 T/O OBD I/M Model Years 1 1996 2050 Vehicles 1 22222 21111111 1 Stringency 1 30.0 Compliance 1 98.0 Waiver Rates 1 1.0 1.0 Cutpoints Exemption Age 1 25 Grace Period 1 4 NO TTC Credits Effectiveness DESC file
Program 2 2004 2050 2 T/O EVAP OBD & GC Model Years 2 1996 2050 Vehicles 2 22222 11111111 1 Stringency Compliance 2 98.0 Waiver Rates 2 1.0 1.0 Cutpoints Exemption Age 2 25 Grace Period 2 4 NO TTC Credits Effectiveness DESC file
Program 3 2001 2003 2 T/O ASM 2525 PHASE-IN32 Model Years 3 1996 2003 Vehicles 3 22222 21111111 1 Stringency 3 30.0 Compliance 3 98.0 Waiver Rates 3 3.0 1.0 Cutpoints Exemption Age 3 25 Grace Period 3 2 NO TTC Credits Effectiveness DESC file
Program 4 2001 2050 2 T/O ASM 2525 PHASE-IN Model Years 4 1975 1995 Vehicles 4 22222 21111111 1 Stringency 4 30.0 Compliance 4 98.0 Waiver Rates 4 3.0 1.0 Cutpoints Exemption Age 4 25 Grace Period 4 4 NO TTC Credits Effectiveness DESC file
Program 5 1998 2000 2 T/O LOADED/IDLE Model Years 5 1975 2000 Vehicles 5 22222 21111111 1 Stringency 5 30.0 Compliance 5 98.0 Waiver Rates 5 3.0 1.0 Cutpoints Exemption Age 5 25 Grace Period 5 2 NO TTC Credits Effectiveness DESC file
Program 6 1996 1997 2 T/O IM240 Model Years 6 1975 1997 Vehicles 6 22222 21111111 1 Stringency 6 30.0 Compliance 6 98.0 Waiver Rates 6 3.0 1.0 Cutpoints 6 CUTPOINT.D Exemption Age 6 25 Grace Period 6 2 NO TTC Credits Effectiveness DESC file33 Program 7 1996 2050 2 T/O GC Model Years 7 1975 1995 Vehicles 7 22222 21111111 1 Stringency Compliance 7 98.0 Waiver Rates 7 3.0 1.0 Cutpoints Exemption Age 7 25 Grace Period 7 2 NO TTC Credits Effectiveness DESC file

Fuel Commands

Fuel Program 1
Oxygenated Fuels 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.036 2

Fuel RVP 9
Alternative Emission Regulati ons and Control Measures

Rebuild Effects 0.1

External Conditions Commands

Calendar Year 2005

Evaluation Month 7
Min/Max Temperature National Climatic Data Center

Vehicle Fleet Characteristic Commands

Registration Distribution Variable34 

### Cincinnati-Dayton-Springfield 2005 Ozone M6.2 Inputs Includes the following counties: Ohio : Butler, Clark, Clermont, Clinton, Greene, Hamilton, Miami, Montgomery, Warren Indiana : Lawrenceburg Twp., Dearborn County Kentucky : Boone, Campbell and Kenton counties
State Programs Input Note: Indiana and Kentucky inputs may not coincide with Ohio inputs
Stage II Refueling 93/3/86/86
Anti-tampering Programs 96/78/05/22222/21111111/1/12/098./12111112
I/M Programs Yes Excludes Clinton Co. and Miami Co., OH, Dearborn County, IN - No I/M program Note: I/M inputs for Kentucky counties are not included Program 1 2004 2050 2 T/O OBD I/M Model Years 1 1996 2050 Vehicles 1 22222 21111111 1 Stringency 1 30.0 Compliance 1 98.0 Waiver Rates 1 1.0 1.0 Cutpoints Exemption Age 1 25 Grace Period 1 2 NO TTC Credits Effectiveness DESC file
Program 2 2004 2050 2 T/O EVAP OBD & GC Model Years 2 1996 2050 Vehicles 2 22222 11111111 1 Stringency Compliance 2 98.0 Waiver Rates 2 1.0 1.0 Cutpoints Exemption Age 2 25 Grace Period 2 2 NO TTC Credits Effectiveness DESC file
Program 3 2001 2003 2 T/O ASM 2525 PHASE-IN Model Years 3 1996 2003 Vehicles 3 22222 21111111 1 Stringency 3 30.0 Compliance 3 98.035 Waiver Rates 3 3.0 1.0 Cutpoints Exemption Age 3 25 Grace Period 3 2 NO TTC Credits Effectiveness DESC file
Program 4 2001 2050 2 T/O ASM 2525 PHASE-IN Model Years 4 1975 1995 Vehicles 4 22222 21111111 1 Stringency 4 30.0 Compliance 4 98.0 Waiver Rates 4 3.0 1.0 Cutpoints Exemption Age 4 25 Grace Period 4 4 NO TTC Credits Effectiveness DESC file
Program 5 1998 2000 2 T/O LOADED/IDLE Model Years 5 1975 2000 Vehicles 5 22222 21111111 1 Stringency 5 30.0 Compliance 5 98.0 Waiver Rates 5 3.0 1.0 Cutpoints Exemption Age 5 25 Grace Period 5 2 NO TTC Credits Effectiveness DESC file
Program 6 1996 1997 2 T/O IM240 Model Years 6 1975 1997 Vehicles 6 22222 21111111 1 Stringency 6 30.0 Compliance 6 98.0 Waiver Rates 6 3.0 1.0 Cutpoints 6 CUTPOINT.D Exemption Age 6 25 Grace Period 6 2 NO TTC Credits Effectiveness DESC file
Program 7 1996 2050 2 T/O GC Model Years 7 1975 1995 Vehicles 7 22222 21111111 136 Stringency Compliance 7 98.0 Waiver Rates 7 3.0 1.0 Cutpoints Exemption Age 7 25 Grace Period 7 2 NO TTC Credits Effectiveness DESC file

Fuel Commands

Fuel Program 1
Oxygenated Fuels 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.036 2

Fuel RVP 9
Alternative Emission Regulati ons and Control Measures

Rebuild Effects 0.1

External Conditions Commands

Calendar Year 2005

Evaluation Month 7
Min/Max Temperature National Climatic Data Center

Vehicle Fleet Characteristic Commands

Registration Distribution Variable37 

### Other Areas ( excluding NOACA/AMATS 

### and OKI/MVRPC 

### ) Ozone M6.2 Inputs Includes the following counties: Ohio : Belmont, Columbiana, Delaware, Fairfield, Franklin, Jefferson, Knox, Licking, Lucas,Madison, Mahoning, Pickaway, Trumball, Wood

Fuel Commands Input

Fuel Program 1
Oxygenated Fuels 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.036 2

Fuel RVP 9
Alternative Emission Regulati ons and Control Measures

Rebuild Effects 0.1 (0.30 for 2018)

External Conditions Commands

Calendar Year All

Evaluation Month 7
Min/Max Temperature National Climatic Data Center

Vehicle Fleet Characteristic Commands

Registration Distribution Variable

4.5 Ohio’s Mobile Emission Data Processed by LADCO (Lake Michigan Air Director’s Consortium):
2005 TDM and Mobile6 input data were provided to LADCO for processing. The data was processed by LADCO with T3 to prepare it as an input into the ConCEPT model. T3 and ConCEPT are described as follows.38 4.5.1 T3--Development of Link-Level Mobile Source Emission Inventories: Highly resolved emission inventories for on- road mobile sources are needed for air quality modeling to develop the necessary technical support for new State Implementation Plans (SIPs) fo r regional haze, fine particles , and ozone. Emissions for on-road motor vehicles are estimated using vehi cle miles traveled, tr ip starts and ends, speed, and other activity data developed by State Agencies and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) using transportati on demand models (TDMs), and emission factors from EPA's MOBILE6 model. To s upport this modeling in the upper Midwest, ENVIRON, working with LADCO, State DOTs, and local MPOs, has developed a software tool (the TDM Transformation Tool, or "T3") that takes TDM output from approximately twenty transportation networ ks using a variety of models, applies appropriate data transformations , and outputs link- and county-le vel activity data in a uniform format for input to the CONCEPT emissions processing model (a new emissions processing model also developed wit h funding from LADCO). In a parallel effort, analyses of extensive automatic tra ffic recorder (ATR) dat a collected by State DOTs were conducted to develop temporal profiles (hour of day , day of week, and month of year) of vehicle counts and vehicl e mix by roadway type for developing the detailed on-road emissi on inventories. T3 provides a conduit from the projections of traffic demand model ers regarding vehicle types, road networks, and vehicle activity to the activity data required by emissions modelers. The primary goals of T3 are to provide an easy mechanism for incorporating TDM model outputs in as "raw" a format as possible, while simult aneously providing a great degree of flexibility in representing t he TDM projections in terms acceptable to most air quality models. These goal s have been achieved through the use of a dimensional transformation approach, w here the dimensions of the various transformations are user-defined - hence the name of the tool.
By Stella Shepard, Alison K. Pollack, John Haasbeek, ENVIRON International Corporation, 101 Rowland Way, Su ite 220, Novato, CA. 94945 & Mark Janssen, Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO ), 2250 E. Devon Avenue # 250, Des Plaines, IL 60018, janssen@ladco.org

4.5.2 ConCEPT--Consolidated Community Emissions Processing Tool an OpenSource Tool for the Emi ssions Modeling Community: The new CONCEPT (CONsolidated Communi ty Emissions Processing Tool) Emissions Processor is now available for use by the emissions modeling community. Developed as joint project between Alpine Geophysics, LLC and ENVIRON Corporation, with Midwest RPO and joint RPO funding, the CONCEPT model combines the best attributes of current emissions modeling syste ms into an open source model highlighting the following features:
• Open Source. Writt en primarily in PostgreSQL, th e software required for running39 CONCEPT is in the public dom ain. The model itself is GNU Public License (GPL) compliant and users are encouraged to make additions and enhancements to the modeling system.
• Transparent. The database structur e of the model makes the system easy to understand, and the modeling codes themselv es are extremely well documented to encourage user participation in the customizing the system for specific modeling requirements.
• Quality Control. The CONCEPT model structure an d implementation allows for multiple levels of QA analysis during every step of the emissions calculation process. Using the database structures, an emissions modeler can easily trace a process or facility and review the calculat ion procedures and assumptions for any emissions value. The CONCEPT model includes modules for the major emissions source categories: area source, point source, on-ro ad motor vehicles, non-road motor vehicles and biogenic emissions, as well as a num ber of supporting modules, including spatial allocation factor development, speciation pr ofile development, growth and control for point and area sources, and CEM point sour ce emissions handling. The emissions modeling community has alr eady begun development of addi tional CONCEPT support modules including CEM preproce ssing software, graphical QA tools, and an interface to the traffic demand models for on-road mo tor vehicle emissions estimation. By Cyndi Loomis, James G. Wilkinson, Alpine Geophysics, LLC, & John Haasbeek, Alison Pollack, ENVIRON Corporation. & Mark Janssen, Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO), 2250 E. Devon Av enue # 250, Des Plaines, IL 60018, janssen@ladco.org

4.5.3 LADCO Ohio Data Outputs for 2005:
The following LADCO outputs and documents can be found at: www.ladco.org/tech/e mis/net05/index.html

Table 4-6 LADCO Data Output

Sta te Network T3 Descripti on DOC M6 Inpu ts VM T vs HP MS Exc el Average Day VMT (this should match conformi ty inventory ) Co unt y Em issi
on s Re por t All Pollut ants After Speci ation Dropped VMT M6 Run Summ ary Pollut ant T otals (Short ) Raw Summ ary (pol,ve h, etype) Hourly Tempo ral Summ ary Hourly Veh Mix Summ ary Hourly Speed Summ ary (with volum e/ capaci ty)

OH AKRON AKRON OH OH AKRON 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 140 OH CANTON CANTON OH OH CANTON 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 OH CINCI CINCI OH OH CINCI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 OH CLEVE CLEVE OH OH CLEVE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

OH COLUMB US COLUMB US OH OH COLUMB US 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

OH SPRING FLD SPRING FLD OH OH SPRING FLD 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

OH TOLEDO TOLEDO OH OH TOLEDO 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

OH YNGSTO WN YNGSTO WN OH OH YNGSTO WN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

OH STATEW D STATEW D OH OH STATEW D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Additional Documents on LADCO Web Page:
“Comparison to EPA's Default Model NMIM”

“How we Build the 2005 Vmt/Networks” “Spreadsheet/Graphics on Vehicle Mix”
“Background on the T3 Tool “

4.6 MPO Contact Table Table 4-7 County Summary Ta ble of MPOs by County FIPS County Model Network MPO Contact Person 39001 Adams Statewide

39003 Allen Statewide Lima Allen County Regional Planning Commission Tom Mazur

39005 Ashland Statewide 39007 Ashtabula Statewide 39009 Athens Statewide 39011 Auglaize Statewide

39013 Belmont Statewide Bel-O-Mar Regional Council and Interstate Planning Commission Rakesh Sharma

39015 Brown Statewide

39017 Butler Cincinnat/Dayton Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments Andy Reser

39019 Carroll Statewide 39021 Champaign Statewide

39023 Clark Springfield Coordinating Committee of the Clark County-Springfield Eric Ottoson41 Transportation Study

39025 Clermont Cincinnat/Dayton Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments Andy Reser

39027 Clinton Statewide 39029 Columbiana Statewide 39031 Coshocton Statewide 39033 Crawford Statewide

39035 Cuyahoga Cleveland Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency Bill Davis

39037 Darke Statewide 39039 Defiance Statewide

39041 Delaware Columbus Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission Nick Gill

39043 Erie Statewide 39045 Fairfield Statewide 39047 Fayette Statewide

39049 Franklin Columbus Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission Nick Gill

39051 Fulton Statewide 39053 Gallia Statewide

39055 Geauga Cleveland Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency Bill Davis

39057 Greene Cincinnat/Dayton Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission Ana Ramirez
39059 Guernsey Statewide

39061 Hamilton Cincinnat/Dayton Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments Andy Reser

39063 Hancock Statewide 39065 Hardin Statewide 39067 Harrison Statewide 39069 Henry Statewide 39071 Highland Statewide 39073 Hocking Statewide 39075 Holmes Statewide 39077 Huron Statewide 39079 Jackson Statewide

39081 Jefferson Statewide Brooke-Hancock-Jefferson Transportation Study Policy Committee Mike Proprocki

39083 Knox Statewide

39085 Lake Cleveland Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency Bill Davis

39087 Lawrence Statewide KYOVA Interstate Planning Commission

39089 Licking Columbus Licking County Area Transportation Study Matthew Hill
39091 Logan Statewide 39093 Lorain Cleveland Northeast Ohio Areawide Bill Davis42 Coordinating Agency

39095 Lucas Toledo Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments Sujatha Mohanakrishnan

39097 Madison Statewide

39099 Mahoning Youngstown Eastgate Regional Council of Governments R.P. Samulka

39101 Marion Statewide

39103 Medina Cleveland Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency Bill Davis
39105 Meigs Statewide 39107 Mercer Statewide

39109 Miami Cincinnat/Dayton Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission Ana Ramirez

39111 Monroe Statewide

39113 Montgomery Cincinnat/Dayton Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission Ana Ramirez
39115 Morgan Statewide 39117 Morrow Statewide 39119 Muskingum Statewide 39121 Noble Statewide 39123 Ottawa Statewide 39125 Paulding Statewide 39127 Perry Statewide 39129 Pickaway Statewide 39131 Pike Statewide

39133 Portage Akron Akron Metropolitan Area Transportation Study Jason Segedy

39135 Preble Statewide 39137 Putnam Statewide

39139 Richland Statewide Richland County Regional Planning Commission John Adams

39141 Ross Statewide 39143 Sandusky Statewide 39145 Scioto Statewide 39147 Seneca Statewide 39149 Shelby Statewide

39151 Stark Canton Stark County Regional Planning Commission Dan Slicker

39153 Summit Akron Akron Metropolitan Area Transportation Study Jason Segedy

39155 Trumbull Youngstown (partial county model

coverage) Eastgate Regional Council of Governments R.P. Samulka

39157 Tuscarawas Statewide 39159 Union Statewide 39161 Van Wert Statewide 39163 Vinton Statewide

39165 Warren Cincinnat/Dayton Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments Andy Reser, OKI

+43 + Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission Ana Ramirez, MVRPC

39167 Washington Statewide Wood-Washington-Wirt Interstate Planning Commission 39169 Wayne Statewide 39171 Williams Statewide

39173 Wood Toledo Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments Sujatha Mohanakrishnan
39175 Wyandot Statewide NOTE: Complete MPO information can be found at, www.dot.state.oh.us/urban/mpomap.htm and at www.dot.state.oh.us/urban/mpolist.htm#Cleveland

.



### SECTION 5
MARINE, AIRCRAFT and RAIL (MAR) SOURCES

MAR sources are non-road sour ces which are significant enoug h in terms of emissions to be considered separately from the rest of the non-road sources. The MAR inventory consists of commercial marines, aircraft and locomotive sources. The marine and locomotive inventory is generated by Environ 1 under contract with LADCO and the aircraft inventory is generated by Ohio EPA.

5.1 Marine Vessel Sources The approach to commercial marine emi ssion estimates needed to be flexible because the activity data was available in many fo rmats. Emission esti mates were determined either by multiplying engine power, load factor, hours per ye ar of operation, or on the basis of the number of gall ons of fuel consumed.

Emissions were determined for ten subclasses of vessel types: Deep draft vessels (DDV) at port, DDV mid-late, push boats (rivers /lakes), tugs, ferries, other special (excursion) vessels, support vessels, dredges, commercial fishing, and military vessels (Coast Guard). These were linked to various Ohio lakes and rivers. Because of the large variety of methodologie s employed, inventory tables for the ten subcategories are detailed in the comp lete inventory prepared and published by ENVIRON Internati onal Corporation: LADCO 2005 COMMERCIAL MARINE EMISSIONS , by Christian E. Li ndhjem, March, 2007. Emission totals produced by ENVIRON were provided to LADCO to submit to EPA for Ohio’s State Implementation Plan (SIP).44 5.2 Rail Sources
The primary activity unit used to determine em issions is gallons of fuel consumed. Emission rates were derived from EPA doc uments provided as support documentation for the 1997 locomotive emission standards (EPA, 1997). Gallons of fuel consumed were based on rail activity. Rail activity was broken down into four Source Category Codes (SCC). Class I, linehaul rail: Large interstate railroad companies like Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern. Class I,II, III, switching rail: Yard operations. Class II, III line haul: Regional and local railroads. And Passenger rail: AMTRAK. Class I, line-haul represents 84.3% of fuel used and the larges t emission’s category. The complete emission’s inventory was prepared and published by ENVIRON International Corporation: LADCO 2005 LOCOMOTIVE EMISSIONS , by Christian E. Lindhjem, February, 2007. Emission totals produced by ENVIRON were provided to LADCO to submit to EPA for Ohio’s State Implementation Plan (SIP).

EPA. 1997: "Locomotive Emission Standards." Regulatory Support Document, United States Environmental Protection Agency, O ffice of Mobile Sources, April. And EPA 1997, Emission Factors for Locomotives," Environmental Protecti on Agency, EPA420-F-97-051, December.

5.3 Aircraft Sources

INTRODUCTION: The aircraft emission’s inventory is derived by taking the number of Landings and Take Offs (LTOs) per year and multiplying by an emission fact or. In the Ohio inventory when specific aircraft models and engine type emission factors are known they were used. For the rest of the inventory the emission factors came from USEPA’s fleet average emissions data. Those results are t hen compiled as tons per year per pollutant by county. The following de scribes the components, met hodology, and concludes with a description of an Access based aircraft emission calculator.

COMPONENTS:
I. Ohio Airports: A list of both towered and non-towered airpor ts in Ohio is obtained from the Ohio Department of Transportation. See: www.dot.state.oh.us/aviation/ In conversation with ODOT two individuals stated that the 16 4 airports listed covered over 90% of the airports in Ohio. See Table 1.45 II. Number of Operations/LTOs by Airport/County: The ODOT list contained the number of operations a year per airport. An operation is either a landing or a take-off. A Landing and Take Off (LTO) is required for FAA EDMS calculations. LTOs were deriv ed simply by dividing the number of operations by two. These were totaled by county.

Table 5-1 Number of operations and LTOs for 2005

County Airport Name ID Total Operations LTOs/Year
Adams Alexander Salamon AMT 5210 2605 Allen Allen County AOH 32500 16250 Ashland Ashland County 3G4 49240 24620 Ashtabula Ashtabula County HZY 16886 8443
Ashtabula Germack 7D9 840 420 Athens Ohio University UNI 51600 25800 Auglaize Neil Armstrong AXV 29456 14728
Belmont Barnesville-Bradfield 6G5 10150 5075
Belmont Alderman 2P7 6150 3075 Brown Brown County GEO 5157 2578.5 Butler Butler County Regional HAO 61687 30843.5 Butler Hook Field Municipal MWO 40050 20025 Butler Miami University OXD 16708 8354 Carroll Carroll County -Tolson TSO 34950 17475
Carroll Parsons 5D6 2674 1337 Champaign Grimes Field I74 23480 11740 Champaign Weller 38I 300 150 Clark Springfield-Beckley Municipal SGH 64033 32016.5
Clark Mad River I54 15350 7675 Clermont Clermont County I69 35741 17870.5 Clinton Airborne Airpark ILN 52000 26000
Clinton Clinton Field I66 29360 14680
Clinton Hollister Field 2B6 161 80.5 Columbiana Columbiana County Ø2G 31146 15573
Columbiana Koons 8G8 2546 1273 Coshocton Richard Downing I4Ø 19550 9775 Coshocton Tri-City 8ØG 8085 4042.5 Crawford Port Bucyrus 17G 24871 12435.5 Crawford Galion Municipal GQQ 5216 2608 Cuyahoga Burke Lakefront BKL 97100 48550 Cuyahoga Cleveland-Hopkins International CLE 234356 117178 Cuyahoga Cuyahoga County CGF 79774 39887 Darke Darke County VES 9238 4619
Defiance Defiance Memorial DFI 9130 4565 Delaware Delaware Municipal DLZ 39300 19650
Delaware Packer 5E9 3181 1590.5
Erie Hinde 88D 1350 675 Erie Kelleys Island 89D 25495 12747.5 Erie Griffing-Sandusky SKY 112100 5605046 Erie Wakeman I64 17324 8662
Fairfield Miller's Farm 7B4 360 180 Fairfield Fairfield County LHQ 43066 21533 Fayette Fayette County I23 29405 14702.5
Franklin Ohio Stat e University OSU 134459 67229.5
Franklin Port Columbus International CMH 218438 109219
Franklin Rickenbacker International LCK 96200 48100
Franklin Bolton Field TZR 69149 34574.5 Franklin Columbus Southwest Ø4I 11833 5916.5 Franklin Darby Dan 6I6 11260 5630 Fulton Fulton County USE 21123 10561.5 Gallia Gallia-Meigs Regional GAS 12200 6100 Geauga Gates 7D8 4200 2100 Geauga Geauga County 7G8 5350 2675 Greene Greene County - Lewis A. Jackson I19 37400 18700
Greene Bloom 14I 100 50 Guernsey Cambridge Municipal CDI 6040 3020
Hamilton Lunken LUK 129430 64715
Hamilton Blue Ash ISZ 35000 17500
Hamilton Cincinnati West I67 30197 15098.5
Hancock Bluffton 5G7 71980 35990 Hancock Findlay FDY 19800 9900
Hancock Priebe 7D5 3850 1925 Hardin Ada ØD7 331 165.5 Hardin Hardin County I95 6562 3281 Hardin Elliott's Landing O74 1560 780 Harrison Harrison County 8G6 11900 5950 Henry Henry County 7W5 15637 7818.5 Highland Highland County HOC 18325 9162.5 Holmes Holmes County 1ØG 21400 10700 Huron Huron County 5A1 10100 5050
Huron Willard 8G1 2715 1357.5
Jackson James A. Rhodes I43 6053 3026.5 Jefferson Jefferson County Airpark 2G2 15969 7984.5
Jefferson Eddie Dew Memorial 1G8 3540 1770 Knox Knox County 4I3 20150 10075 Knox Wynkoop 6G4 4691 2345.5 Lake Concord Airpark 2G1 4510 2255 Lake Willoughby Lost Nation Municipal LNN 45085 22542.5 Lawrence Lawrence County Airpark HTW 41910 20955 Licking Newark-Heath VTA 12457 6228.5 Logan Bellefontaine Regional EDJ 8325 4162.5
Lorain Columbia 4G8 5150 2575 Lorain Elyria 1G1 14300 7150 Lorain Lagrange 92D 1155 577.5 Lorain Lorain County Regional LPR 62000 31000
Lorain Reader-Botsford Airfield 67D 18700 9350 Lucas Toledo Express TOL 94600 4730047 Madison Madison County UYF 41410 20705 Mahoning Salem Airpark 38D 16920 8460 Mahoning Tri-City 3G6 10555 5277.5 Mahoning Elser Metro 4G4 49232 24616 Mahoning Lansdowne Ø4G 750 375 Marion Marion Municipal MNN 42650 21325
Medina Medina Municipal 1G5 79685 39842.5 Medina Wadsworth Municipal 3G3 41025 20512.5 Medina Weltzien Skypark 15G 79130 39565 Mercer Lakefield CQA 16212 8106
Miami Hartzell Field I17 10200 5100 Miami Troy Skypark 37I 4264 2132
Miami Waco Field 1WF 0 0 Monroe Monroe County 4G5 3324 1662 Montgomery Brookville Air-Park I62 29359 14679.5 Montgomery James M. Cox Dayton Intl DAY 134524 67262 Montgomery Dayton Wright Brothers MGY 89045 44522.5 Montgomery Moraine Airpark I73 12938 6469 Montgomery Dahio Trotwood I44 1853 926.5 Montgomery Phillipsburg 3I7 68000 34000 Morgan Morgan County I71 5725 2862.5 Morrow Morrow County 4I9 19108 9554 Muskingum Zanesville Municipal ZZV 33312 16656 Muskingum Parr 42I 16150 8075 Noble Noble County - Mike Brienza Field I1Ø 5950 2975
Ottawa Middle Bass-East Point 3W9 1300 650
Ottawa Middle Bass Island 3T7 6500 3250
Ottawa North Bass Island 3X5 1000 500
Ottawa Carl R. Keller Field PCW 20890 10445 Ottawa Put-In-Bay 3W2 15140 7570 Paulding Paulding 2H8 2100 1050 Perry Crooksville I84 400 200 Perry Perry County I86 4550 2275 Pickaway Pickaway County CYO 35450 17725 Pickaway Clarks Dream Strip Ø3I 2770 1385 Pike Pike County EOP 2012 1006 Portage Freedom Air Field 7D6 1623 811.5 Portage Farview 86D 3353 1676.5 Portage Mills 7E3 1050 525 Portage Portage County 29G 9621 4810.5
Putnam Ruhe's R47 13250 6625 Putnam Putnam County OWX 11910 5955 Putnam Ohio Dusting Co. 6C2 2995 1497.5 Richland Mansfield Lahm Regional MFD 57518 28759 Richland Shelby Community 12G 2012 1006 Ross Ross County RZT 50150 25075 Sandusky Fremont 14G 37450 18725 Sandusky Sandusky County Regional S24 6148 307448 Scioto Greater Portsmouth Regional PMH 45830 22915
Seneca Bandit Field 5D9 140 70 Seneca Fostoria Metropolitan FZI 7900 3950
Seneca Weiker 82D 320 160 Seneca Seneca County 16G 60165 30082.5 Shelby Sidney Municipal I12 20500 10250
Stark Barber 2D1 13750 6875 Stark Miller Airport 4G3 8000 4000 Stark Beach City 2D7 6112 3056
Summit Akron Fulton International AKR 26000 13000 Summit Akron-Canton Regional CAK 120441 60220.5 Summit Mayfield 1D4 450 225 Summit Kent State University 1G3 72500 36250
Trumbull Braceville 41N 425 212.5
Trumbull Warren 62D 14738 7369 Trumbull Youngstown-W arren Regional YNG 98298 49149 Tuscarawas Harry Clever Field PHD 54880 27440 Union Union County MRT 31886 15943 Van Wert Van Wert County VNW 20516 10258 Vinton Vinton County 22I 5225 2612.5 Warren Warren County I68 24951 12475.5 Warren Red Stewart Airfield 4ØI 16800 8400 Wayne Wayne County BJJ 96520 48260 Williams Williams County ØG6 10010 5005 Wood Wood County 1GØ 27405 13702.5
Wood Bordner 3D8 2200 1100 Wood Deshler Municipal 6D7 2000 1000
Wood Metcalf TDZ 90700 45350 Wyandot Wyandot County 56D 7410 3705

III. Aircraft Models and Number of LTO/yr: Specific aircraft models by airport (generally t he larger airports) is obtained from “Table 7” provided by the United States Departm ent of Transportation, Office of Airline Information. This provided the number of LTO’s for each aircraft model per year per airport.

Table 2. Sample from “Table 7.” This is the all community total of aircraft models for the Akron/Canton area. “All Service” departure s were used as the number of LTOs per year for that model. Listed in the original table are airc raft model by airport and number of services/LTOs.49 **TOTAL DEPARTURES PERFORMD**
**Aircraft Scheduled Non-Sched All Model Service Service Service** 

A-318 1 1 A319 384 384 BOEING 717-200 3850 3850 BOEING 727-100 1 1 BOEING 727-200 5 5 BOEING 737-100/200 74 74 BOEING 737-200C 3 3 6 BOEING 737-300 2 2 BOEING 737-700/LR 212 212 BOEING 737-800 5 5 BOEING 757-200 4 4 BOEING 767-300/ER 4 4 CANADAIR RJ-100/ER 542 3 545 CANADAIR RJ-700 2881 2881 CONVAIR CV-580 3 3 DASSAULT FALCON 7 7 DHC8-100 DASH 8 2 2 DOUGLAS DC-9-15F 13 13 DOUGLAS DC-9-30 6 6 EMBRAER-145 144 144 RJ-200ER/RJ-440 5519 5519 SAAB-FAIRCHD 340/B 1804 1804 ALL TYPES 15342 130 15472

IV. Emission Factors: Where there was specific aircraft model data the emission factors were derived using the FAA’s Emission Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS). EDMS is a combined emissions and dispersion model for assessing ai r quality at civilian airports and military air bases. The model was developed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in cooperation with the Unit ed States Air Force (USAF). The model is used to produce an inventory of emissions generated by source s on and around the airport or air base, and to calculate pollutant concentrations in these environments.50 Table 5-2 EDMS Aircraft Emissions Emissions provided by Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. (The few aircraft in Ohio not included in the table had emissions derived by EDMS 5.0 in-house.)

EDMS Aircraft Emissions/LTO by Aircraft Type EDMS 4.5 Emissions Inventory Report of 2005 Aircraft Inventory Emissions Factors

Year 2005 Lbs Emitted Per LTO Aircraft Type CO NOx HC VOC SO2 PM2.5 PM10 A- 318 19.8 18.7 4.0 4.4 1.5 0.0 0.0 A-300-600/R/CF/RCF 27.1 56.4 2.0 2.2 4.0 0.2 0.2 A-300B/C/F-100/200 30.2 52.5 3.5 3.7 3.3 0.2 0.2 A-310-200C/F 32.6 52.5 7.3 7.9 3.3 0.2 0.2 A-319 19.8 18.7 4.0 4.4 1.5 0.0 0.0 A320-100/200 13.7 19.8 1.3 1.3 1.8 0.2 0.2 A-321 16.8 36.8 3.1 3.3 2.2 0.0 0.0 A-330-200 29.8 61.5 0.4 0.4 4.4 0.2 0.2 AVROLINER RJ85 24.7 9.5 2.9 3.3 1.3 0.2 0.2 BAE-146-300 24.7 9.0 3.1 3.3 1.3 0.2 0.2 BEECH 1900 A/B/C 11.0 1.1 3.3 3.5 0.2 0.0 0.0BEECH KINGAIR C90 1.8 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 717-200 11.7 23.4 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 727-100 21.4 23.1 4.6 5.1 2.9 0.4 0.4 727-100C/QC 44.5 19.8 4.6 5.1 2.4 1.1 1.1 727-200 19.6 27.3 2.9 3.1 3.3 1.1 1.1 737-100/200 14.1 16.1 2.2 2.4 2.0 0.7 0.7 737-200C 13.9 17.4 6.8 7.5 2.0 0.9 0.9 737-300 28.7 15.9 1.8 2.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 737-400 26.5 18.5 1.5 1.5 1.8 0.0 0.0 737-500 24.7 21.2 1.3 1.3 2.0 0.0 0.0 737-700/LR 17.6 20.1 2.0 2.0 1.8 0.4 0.4 737-800 15.7 27.1 1.5 1.8 2.0 0.7 0.7 737-900 15.7 27.1 1.5 1.8 2.0 0.7 0.7 747-100 252.6 108.5 106.7 116.8 7.1 0.4 0.4 747-200/300 60.6 104.7 7.1 7.7 6.8 0.7 0.7 747-400 67.0 105.6 5.7 6.4 7.3 0.7 0.7 757-200 24.7 35.7 2.0 2.2 2.6 0.4 0.4 757-300 27.1 33.1 0.4 0.4 3.1 0.2 0.2 767-200/ER 32.6 52.5 7.3 7.9 3.3 0.2 0.2 767-300/ER 32.0 62.2 2.6 2.9 4.0 0.4 0.4
777 32.8 85.1 5.1 5.7 4.4 0.4 0.4CANADAIR RJ100/ER 16.3 4.9 1.5 1.8 0.7 0.0 0.0 CANADAIR RJ-700 12.6 9.3 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 CESSNA 208 1.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CONVAIR CV-580 36.2 0.9 8.8 9.5 0.7 0.0 0.0 DASSAULT FALCON 13.7 2.6 2.4 2.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 DHC8-100 DASH 8 5.1 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 DORNIER 328 JET 1.3 6.6 11.9 12.6 0.7 0.0 0.0 DOUGLAS DC-10-10 102.5 76.7 38.6 42.1 4.2 0.0 0.0 DOUGLAS DC-10-30 45.4 78.7 5.3 5.7 5.1 0.4 0.451 DOUGLAS DC-10-40 131.8 81.8 30.2 33.1 6.0 0.7 0.7 DOUGLAS DC-8-63 263.5 25.6 219.1 239.9 4.2 5.1 5.1 DOUGLAS DC-8-71 53.6 34.6 3.1 3.3 3.7 0.0 0.0 DOUGLAS DC-8-73 53.6 34.6 3.1 3.3 3.7 0.0 0.0 DOUGLAS DC-9-10 14.1 14.6 3.7 4.0 1.8 0.2 0.2 DOUGLAS DC-9-15F 14.1 14.6 3.7 4.0 1.8 0.2 0.2 DOUGLAS DC-9-30 14.1 14.6 3.7 4.0 1.8 0.2 0.2 DOUGLAS DC-9-40 39.7 16.5 10.8 11.9 2.0 1.3 1.3 DOUGLAS DC-9-50 12.6 20.1 1.8 1.8 2.2 0.9 0.9 EMBRAER-135 12.8 5.5 1.1 1.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 EMBRAER-140 13.7 6.0 1.3 1.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 EMBRAER-145 6.4 6.8 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 EMBRAER-170 9.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 F28-4000/6000 76.7 10.4 77.2 84.4 1.5 0.0 0.0 JETSTREAM 41 4.6 2.0 0.4 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 L-101101/100/200 33.3 112.0 6.2 6.8 5.7 1.3 1.3 LEAR-25 75.2 0.7 7.9 8.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 LOCKHEED L100-30 48.7 9.9 19.6 21.4 1.8 0.0 0.0 MD-11 47.8 93.3 4.0 4.4 6.0 0.7 0.7 MD-80, 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 16.3 20.3 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.2 0.2 MD-90 12.1 23.8 0.2 0.2 2.0 0.2 0.2 RJ-200ER/RJ-440 16.3 4.9 1.5 1.8 0.7 0.0 0.0 SAAB-FAIRCHD 340/B 4.2 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.2 0.0 0.0
NOTE: Where specific aircraft model data was not available fleet emissions were used. EPA default fleet average emissi on factors were taken from “Documentation for Aircraft, Commercial Marine Vessel, ,Locomotive, and Other Non-road Components of the National Emissions Inventory. 2005, s ee Appendix A, Aircraft Emission Estimation Methodology.” Specific model LTOs were subtracted from county LTO totals to eliminate double counting those LTOs.

Table 5-3 Fleet Emissi on Factor Categories

Fleet emission factors were br oken down into three categories. Itinerant General, Local General, and Military.

Table 5-3a Fleet Average Emission Factor s for Itinerant General Aircraft.
(Taken from : Table A-5) Pollutant Emission Factors (lbs/LTO) HC 1.234 NOx 0.158 CO 28.13 SOx 0.015 PM10 0.60333

Note: Air taxi HC emissions * VOC/HC ( 0.9914) conversion factor = air taxi VOC estimate52 Table 5-3b Fleet Average Emission Factor s for Local General Aircraft.
(Taken From: Table A-11) Pollutant Emission Factors (lbs/LTO) HC 0.394 NOx 0.065 CO 12.014 SOx 0.01 PM10 0.2367

Note: GA HC emissions * VOC/HC( 0.9708) conversion factor = GA VOC estimate

Table 5-3c Fleet Average Emission Fa ctors for Military Aircraft.
(Taken from: Table A-17) Pollutant Emission Factors (lbs/LTO HC 1.234 NOx 0.158 CO 28.13 SOx 0.015 PM10 0.60333

Note: Military HC emissions * VOC/HC( 1.1046) conversion factor = Military VOC estimate

METHODOLOGY

Introduction The following information was considered in the development of emission estimates:

1. Commercial scheduled and non-scheduled ai rcraft air carrier activity and commercial air freight activity by aircraft model types,

2. General aviation and air taxi annual loca l and itinerant operations for year 2005,
3. Military annual local and iti nerant operations for year 2005. Due to the need to have aircraft operations in formation expressed as landing/take off (LTO) cycles, the following assumptions were made:

1. For commercial aircraft and commercial ai r freight activity, t he number of annual aircraft annual LTO cycles was assu med to be equal to the number of53 departures. The daily LTO cycle frequency was then obtained by dividing the yearly LTO cycles by 365.

2. For general aircraft annual local and iti nerant airport operations, each respective operations total was divided by 2 to obt ain the corresponding year local and itinerant LTO cycles. The expected daily local and itinerant LTO cycles then were obtained by dividing these annual totals by 365. 3. For military annual local and itinerant operat ions, each respective operations total was divided by 2 to obtain the correspondi ng year local and itinerant LTO cycles. The expected military daily local and iti nerant LTO cycles then were obtained by dividing these annual totals by 365. Airport LTO cycles were further categoriz ed into commercial aircraft by plane and engine type, general aviation itinerant aircraft of unknown aircraft type, general aviation local aircraft of unknown aircraft type, and military aircraft. This was necessary in order to utilize the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Av iation Administration EDMS Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System . Commercial and air freight aircraft emission factors per LTO cycle were det ermined using EDMS for each commercial aircraft type models where possible were used at each towered airport. Default commercial aircraft engine type, and Enviro nmental Protection Agency (EPA) default time in mode values for takeoff, approach, and landing roll times were used in the EDMS model simulations. For those aircraft types that could not be determined using the EDMS emissions model, aircraft emission factors based upon EPA alter native fleet average procedures were then used to estimate their emissions. These included general aviation and air taxi itinerant aircraft of unknown aircraft type, general aviation local aircraft of unknown aircraft type, and military aircraft. Conversion from total hydrocarbons to volatile organic compounds was performed and based upon the EPA guidance

.

APPROACH

1. A list of more than 90% of the airports was obtained fr om the Ohio Department of Transportation. These were classed by airport, county, aircraft flight classification, and the total number of op erations per year. 2. The number of oper ations (a landing or a take off) were then divided by two giving the number of LTOs per year per airport. These airports were combined by county for the total number of LTOs per year, per county. 3. In dialog with ODOT it was determined that the following Ohio flight groups of aircraft be combined to match the three categorie s used by the USEPA in calculating emissions.54 Itinerant (General, air carrier, commuter, ai r taxi, general aviation itinerant)

Local (General aviation local) Military (Military)

4. LTOs for specific models of aircraft per airport were ta ken from the FAA Table 7. See Table 2 above. These were then combined to gi ve the number of LTOs per aircraft model per county. Specific model LTOs were subtracted from county totals to avoid double counting those LTOs.

5. Emission factors were det ermined from the FAA’s EDMS pr ogram for specific aircraft model and engine type. See IV. Emission factors above. The aircraft emission table provided by Michigan has the emission factors for most of the aircraft fl own in Ohio. . Where specific aircraft model data was not available USEPA average fleet emissions were used. 6. Emission factors times LTOs by count y yielded tons per y ear per county.

Table 5-4 Pollutant by County (Sample)

County POLLUTANT ACTIVITY(LTOS/YEAR) ACTIVITY(LTOS/DAY) EMISSIONS(TON/YEAR) ADAMS CO 2605 7.136986 24.552325 ADAMS HC 2605 7.136986 0.977285 ADAMS NOX 2605 7.136986 0.136045 ADAMS PM10-PRI 2605 7.136986 0.513114825 ADAMS PM25-PRI 2605 7.136986 0 ADAMS SOX 2605 7.136986 0.0157875 ADAMS VOC 2605 7.136986 0.96314234 ALLEN CO 16250 44.52055 147.945065 ALLEN HC 16250 44.52055 5.841097 ALLEN NOX 16250 44.52055 0.827189 ALLEN PM10-PRI 16250 44.52055 3.081191265 ALLEN PM25-PRI 16250 44.52055 0 ALLEN SOX 16250 44.52055 0.0984575 ALLEN VOC 16250 44.52055 5.769568254 ASHLAND CO 24620 67.45205 173.67794 ASHLAND HC 24620 67.45205 6.19414 ASHLAND NOX 24620 67.45205 0.94895 ASHLAND PM10-PRI 24620 67.45205 3.532515 ASHLAND PM25-PRI 24620 67.45205 0 ASHLAND SOX 24620 67.45205 0.1311 ASHLAND VOC 24620 67.45205 6.07175247 ASHTABULA CO 8863 24.28219 78.115087 ASHTABULA HC 8863 24.28219 3.042551 ASHTABULA NOX 8863 24.28219 0.43159355 ASHTABULA PM10-PRI 8863 24.28219 1.623493455 ASHTABULA PM25-PRI 8863 24.28219 0 ASHTABULA SOX 8863 24.28219 0.0520325 ASHTABULA VOC 8863 24.28219 2.99420213 ATHENS CO 25800 70.68493 196.874985 ATHENS HC 25800 70.68493 7.267183 ATHENS NOX 25800 70.68493 1.081521 ATHENS PM10-PRI 25800 70.68493 4.037266335 ATHENS PM25-PRI 25800 70.68493 0 ATHENS SOX 25800 70.68493 0.1420925 ATHENS VOC 25800 70.68493 7.128180006

7. Emissions were then summed by pollut ants in each county by SCC aircraft category type so data could be provided to LADCO in the EPA prescribed NEI – NIF format.

DATA ERROR The first aircraft emission inventory submitt ed to LADCO in April, 2007 contained an error. The inventory submitted in May, 2007 has the error corrected. The error was the result of a carry-over func tion in Access that picked up the number of operations as instead of LTOs....which made the in ventory exactly twice as lar ge as what it really was.

ACCESS CALCULATOR

Introduction: Our database programmer set up Access applic ation to calculate Ohio’s aircraft emission inventory, and export those results to Excel. His utility allows for easy modification of the aircraft data to match futu re data scenarios. Ou tput to Excel also allows for additional data manipulation and importation.56 Interface:

Through this interface the following sets of data can be edited/updated: Airport activity, emission factors, specific airport emissi ons, state/county FIPS, detailed aircraft information, airport informati on, and aircraft SCCs. Once the final emissions have been calculated and summed, then the data can be expo rt via the export function on the Main Menu

.

# A TTACHMENT 

# C

### Technical Memorandum MVRPC/Clark County-Springf ield TCC SIP Inventory Mobile Emissions Estimate (PM 2.5)

May 2011

By MVRPC and Ohio Department of Transportation In Coordination with Clark County-Sprin gfield TCC and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

### Table of Contents

1. Overview 2. Urban Travel Demand Modeling 3. Emission Factor Generation 4. Post Processing 5. Multiple MPO Cooordination Issues

Appendix A Interagency Consulta tion Documentation
Appendix B B.1 Post Processing Default Distributions B.2 PM 2.5 Emission Summaries

### 1. Overview

This memorandum is intended to document the air quality analyses and underlying assumptions performed by the Ohio Department of Trans portation (ODOT), Divisi on of Transportation System Development-Modeling and Forecasti ng Section and the Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission (MVRPC) for the Annua l PM2.5 on-road mobile source emission inventories for the Dayton-Springfield Region (D /S Region) State Implementation Plan (SIP) in coordination with the Ohio Envir onmental Protection Agency (OEPA).
The D/S Region is comprised of the counties of Clark, Greene, Miami, and Montogomery in west-central Ohio. Three counties (Clar k, Greene, and Montgomery) are designated nonattainment for the Annual PM2.5 Standard. Clark County Springfield Transportation Coordinating Committee (CCS-TCC) serves as the Metropolitan Planni ng Organization (MPO) for Clark County while MVRPC serves as the MP O for the remainder counties: Greene, Miami, and Montgomery.
The ODOT Modeling and Forecasting section performed the MOVES runs to generate travel demand model based emission factor s as well as the complete air quality analyses for Clark County. Using ODOT generated emission factors, MVRPC completed the air quality analyses for Greene and Montgomery Counties.
Latest Planning Assumptions
The annual PM2.5 inventory runs meet the la test planning assumption requirement. As discussed in Section 2 of this report, the mode ling process used to develop each MPO emissions is calibrated using the latest population and la nd use data available a nd is validated using corresponding traffic count data. Currently, the travel demand m odels are validated to year 2000 (CCS-TCC) or year 2005 (MVRPC ) depending on available data.
U.S. EPA’s most recent emissions software, M OVES, is used for all mobile source emission analyses with MOVES inputs being established at various interagency consultation meetings between November 2010 and January 2011 (See Appendix A ). It was also established at these meetings that annual emission estimates would be based on a single-seas on approach. Since travel demand models produce average daily co nditions, the daily emissions estimates are multiplied by 365 days to produce annual emissions estimates expressed in tons per year.
Finally, the regional emissions analysis includes emissions for Direct PM2.5 (exhaust, brake, and tire wear), Nitrogen Oxides (NOX), and Sulf ur Oxides. Volatile Organic Compounds, and Ammonia are presumed insi gnificant at this point.On Road Mobile Emission Summary
Tables 1 to 4 present a summary of emissions by county as well as the entire D/S Region for the required precursor NOX as well as Direct PM 2.5 for the requested scenarios: 2005 base, 2008 attainment, 2015 interim, and 2022 maintenance. The remainder of the document focuses on the assumptions behind the analyses.
Table 1 – Dayton/Springield Region On-Road Mobile Emissions 2005 Base COUNTY NOX (tons/year) SO2 (tons/year) PM 2.5 (tons/year) Clark 5,636.5 83.7 165.4 Greene 5,330.0 81.7 166.5 Montgomery 17,089.7 258.3 539.2 TOTAL 28,056.3 423.7 871.1

Table 2 – Dayton/Springield Region On-Road Mobile Emissions 2008 Attainment COUNTY NOX (tons/year) SO2 (tons/year) PM 2.5 (tons/year) Clark 4,598.4 26.1 138.0 Greene 4,334.2 25.6 140.3 Montgomery 13,721.1 79.8 446.4 TOTAL 22,653.7 131.5 724.7

Table 3 – Dayton/Springield Region On-Road Mobile Emissions 2015 Interim COUNTY NOX (tons/year) SO2 (tons/year) PM 2.5 (tons/year) Clark 2,393.9 11.5 68.7 Greene 2,112.1 10.7 67.9 Montgomery 6,681.5 32.8 215.1 TOTAL 11,187.4 55.0 351.7

Table 4 – Dayton/Springield Region On-Road Mobile Emissions 2022 Maintenance COUNTY NOX (tons/year) SO2 (tons/year) PM 2.5 (tons/year) Clark 1,166.5 11.1 42.7 Greene 1,043.8 10.8 45.2 Montgomery 3,242.5 32.2 139.3 TOTAL 5,452.7 54.1 227.2

### 2. Urban Travel Demand Models

CCS-TCC and MVRPC maintain regional travel de mand forecasting models for use in the urban transportation planning process. The models em ploy the traditional four step modeling process to project existing and future traffic volumes a nd travel patterns on the regional transportation network. The four step process consists of tr ip generation, trip distribution, modal split, and route assignment. Output from the urban models is link-by- link directional 24-hour traffic volumes.
During 2000-2002 MVRPC, in cooperation with the Ohio Kentucky Indiana Regional Council of Governments, updated its travel demand model. The new model includes the combined regions under the jurisdictions of OKI and MVRPC. In 2005, the combined model was updated again to incorporate the results of a household interview survey in the MVRPC Region, change the model interface to Cube Voyager, and improve model f unctionality. The changes primarily affected trip generation distribution functions in the MVRPC Region. In 2007 in preparation for the 2008 Transportation Plan Update the model was vali dated using circa 2005 traffic counts. The 2005 Cube Voyager model with the latest planning assumptions (networks and socio-economic data) is used to calculate 2005-2022 emissions in the MVRPC Region. MVRPC inventory emission analyses directory structure can be seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1 – MVRPC Emission Anal yses Runs Directory StructureSimilarly, the Springfield Region also has a new travel demand model that combined with the latest planning assumptions was used to genera te emissions in Clark County. The new travel demand model now covers all of Clark County and was validated in December 2005, more information is available at http://www.dot.state.oh.us /urban/data/to_docs/Spri ngfield_model_userguide.doc . Figure 2 shows the directory structure or model run locatio n. Due to the number of files and complexity, travel demand model run details have not b een included in this technical memo.

Figure 2 – CCS-TCC Travel Demand Model Run Directory Structure

Networks

Both CCS-TCC and MVRPC’s modele d networks accurately reflect projects in their respective TIPs and 2030 Long Range Transportation Plans. Project lists can be found online as listed below:

CCS-TCC http://www.clarktcc.com/LRP/2030%20T ransportation%20Plan%202008%20Ch4.pdf

MVRPC http://docs.mvrpc.org/ lrtp/2008/CMProjects.pdfLanduse and Socio-economic Data

Both CCS-TCC and MVRPC’s socio-economic model variables reflect the current and expected future regional land uses.

MVRPC’s socio-economic variables were de veloped for the May 2004 2030 LRTP Update based on 2000 Census variables and 2030 county- level Ohio Department of Development population projections. In 2007, in preparation for the 2008 Plan Update, MVRPC reviewed the 2000 socio-economic data and estimated a new 2 005 baseline using previous estimates with minor adjustments at the individual TAZ level ( http://www.mvrpc.org/transportation/longrange ).
On the population side, the Ohio Department of Development (ODOD) has not revised the Long Term Population Projections for the Region and MVRPC is required to use them for long range transportation planning purposes. Similarly the results of the US Census 2005 American Community Survey shows trends consistent with the projections with the one notable exception being that the Greene County population estimate was higher than previously forecasted (2.3%) and that persons per household (PPHH) ha d experienced a significant decrease (-5.9%). ODOD has a policy to revise long term projections if ther e is a five percent difference in estimates versus projections over a five year period, Greene County does not meet the threshold, however ODOD agreed to provide a s hort-term (2010) forecast revision to better correspond with Census estimates. MVRPC then used the revised forecast and together with the lower PPHH estimates, revised both the short an d long term household forecast for the County since households are the primary input to the tr avel demand model. On the employment side, adjustments were made primarily to account for manufacturing job loses between 2000 and 2005, recognizing that the local economy is moving away from a manufacturing base.
Independent variables are available for 4 analysis years (2000, 2005, 2010, and 2030) and the travel demand model has the ability of interpolating data for a ny year between available data sets. A summary of MVRPC’s socio-economic data is available in Table 5. As can be seen from the Table, population and households are expect ed to decline over the planning period with employment making modest gains through 2010 and then remaining fairly constant until 2030. Both population and employment are expected to dec line in the older urban areas of the region as the trend to develop in the suburban fringes and rural areas continues.Table 5 – MVRPC Socio-Economic Variables

Variable Area Type CBD Urban Suburban Rural Total # of TAZs 65 209 413 130 817 Acres 880 30,675 297,967 495,879 825,401 2005 Population 805,816 2005 Households 1,838 88,631 209,117 26,351 325,937 2005 Employment 27,942 95,363 304,111 14,574 441,990 2010 ODOD Population - - - - 800,480 2010 Households 1,857 87,132 210,457 26,955 326,401 2010 Employment 28,985 95,345 311,958 15,128 451,416 2030 ODOD Population - - - - 799,920 2030 Households 1,930 81,139 212,887 28,411 324,367 2030 Employment 29,153 89,035 317,122 15,530 450,840 2005 Persons per Household 1.30 2.33 2.41 2.66 2.40 2005 Workers per Household 0.61 1.11 1.27 1.41 1.22 2005 Autos per Household 0.63 1.42 1.82 2.26 1.74 Note: Includes Greene, Miami, and Montgomery Counties.

CCS-TCC's socio-economic variables were de veloped for the 2030 LRTP based on the 2000 Census variables, 2000 employment from QC EW, and 2030 population projections from the Ohio Department of Development. Projections were updated for the 2008 Plan update including: school enrollment, hotels, educational and recrea tional employment, and area type. Independent variables (land use/socio-economic data) as provided by CCS-TCC are available for every analysis year. These variables are used by ODOT to generate new trip ta bles for the analysis years: 2002, 2010, 2018, 2020, and 2030.
Table 6 shows a summary of CCS-TCC’s socio-ec onomic data. This summary shows a slight decline in population, while households a nd employment show a moderate gain.Table 6 – CCS-TCC Socio-Economic Variables

VMT Trends
Figure 3 shows Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) tr ends for each of the analysis years 2005- 2022 for the MVRPC (Greene and Montgomery Coun ties) and CCS-TCC (Clark County) Areas. These values represent un-factored travel demand model output.

Figure 3 – Dayton/Springfie ld Region VMT Trends Area Type (2000) CBD Urban Suburban Rural Total # of TAZs 9 67 104 123 303 2000 Population 2,893 23,046 64,021 54,912 144,872 2000 Households 1,143 8,587 25,840 21,127 56,697 2000 Employment 4,204 15,511 27,104 18,037 64,856 Area Type (2030) CBD Urban Suburban Rural Total # of TAZs 9 69 105 120 303 2030 Population 2,844 22,091 63,771 55,285 143,991 2030 Households 1,174 9,866 28,717 22,722 62,479 2030 Employment 3,931 18,685 27,472 17,716 67,804

### 3. Emission Factor Generation

Base and Attainment Years
Using MOVES, emission factor files were gene rated for base year-2005 and attainment year2008 to represent the programs being impl emented in the D/S Region. Programs and corresponding MOVES parameters were develope d in consultation with OEPA. Only the 2005 emission factors include an Inspection/Mainte nance (I/M) Program since the program was terminated at the end of 2005.

Future Years
Emission factors were also generated for two fu ture year scenarios: 2015 and 2022. Future year scenarios assume no I/M since the program wa s terminated in 2005. All other assumptions remain the same as those used to generate 2005 em ission factors and are furt her illustrated in this section using year 2005 as an example.

Technical Details
Table 7 summarizes the settings used in th e MOVES run specification file and the MOVES County-Data Manager. Further de tails in specific i nputs that are not using default values are provided below.

Table 7 – MOVES Inputs RunSpec Parameter Settings MOVES Version 2010/08/26 Scale Custom Domain MOVES Modeling Technique Emission Factor Method Rates per Distance Rates per Vehicle Time Span Time Aggregation: Hour 1 Month representing average annual temperatures All hours of day selected 16 speed bins Weekdays only Geographic Bounds Clark, Gree ne, and Montgomery Counties Vehicles/Equipment All source types, gasoline and diesel Road Type All road types including off-network Pollutants and Processes NO x , All PM 2.5 categories, SO 2 , Total Energy Consumption Strategies None General Output Units = grams, joules and miles Output Emissions Time = hour, Location = custom area, on-road emission rates by road type and source use type. Advance Performance NoneCounty Data Manager Sources Source Type Population Combinatio n of local and default data Local data (2010) ODOT from motor vehicle registration Default data used for source types 41, 51, 54, 61, and 62 Future year growth rate based on MPO model Household growth rate. Vehicle Type VMT Combination of local and default data HPMSVTypeYear VMT = daily VMT from travel demand model monthVMTFraction = default dayVMTFraction=default hourVMTFraction=local I/M Program I/M program informati on applied for 2005 where applicable Fuel Formulation Default Fuel Supply Default Future runs will be modified for reformulated gas, RVP, etc. for summer analyses Metereology Data Local data obtained fr om NOAA National Climatic Data Center. Data will consist of monthly high and low temperatures and daily relative humidity for 2002. Ramp Fraction Using the base year tr avel demand model for VHT fractions. Future fractions will be assumed constant Road Type Distribution Use ODOT count y summary VMT categorized by federal functional classes Age Distribution Combination of local and default data. Local data (2010) ODOT from motor vehicle registration Default data used for source types 41, 51, 54, 61, and 62 The same age distribution will be used for all analysis years Average Speed Distribution Default Alternative Fuel Type DefaultTemperature and Relative Humidity
Temperatures used for the single season approach are representative of 12 months in 2002 based on NOAA data from the National Climate Data Cent er webiste. Data for Wright Patterson AFB was used because it was the most complete comp ared to other airports in the non-attainment area. To get the correct fomat for MOVES, the data was entered into a spreadsheet provided by EPA which was designed to convert Mobile6 da ta to MOVES. An average annual hourly temperature and relative humidity distri bution profile can be seen in Table 8.
Table 8 – Temperature and Relative Humidity Data

Hour Average Temperature Average Relative Humidity 1 47.9467 78 2 46.8033 79 3 45.905 80 4 45.2517 79 5 44.7617 81 6 44.19 82 7 43.7 82 8 44.1083 77 9 46.5583 71 10 50.4783 66 11 54.48 62 12 57.91 58 13 60.9317 57 14 62.565 56 15 63.1367 55 16 63.3 55 17 62.8917 57 18 61.7483 58 19 59.7883 62 20 57.2567 66 21 54.725 69 22 52.52 72 23 50.9683 75 24 49.4167 76

Ramp Fraction
Ramp fractions were derived using the base ye ar travel demand model VHT fractions. Ramp fractions can be seen in Table 9. Base year fractions were assumed to apply to future years.
Table 9 – Ramp Fractions roadTypeID roadDesc rampFraction 2 Rural Restricted Access 0.04 4 Urban Restricted Access 0.11Source Type Population
Source type population is based on a combination of local and MOVES default data. Local data was provided by ODOT based on 2010 motor vehicle registration. Default data is used for source types 41, 51, 54, 61, and 62. Future year gr owth rate is based on MPO model household growth rate which is 0% in MVRPC. In Clark County cars are an inde pendent variable to the travel demand model. The base year (2000) and the LP year (2030) are us ed to interpolate the number of cars for the needed analysis years in Clark County. Table 10 shows source type population for the analyzed counties in 2005.
Table 10 – Source Type Population for year 2005 sourceTypeID sourceTypeName Clark Greene Montgomery 11 MotorCycle 8,341 9,014 25,096 21 Passenger Car 96, 932 105,808 395,925 31 Passenger Truck 44,885 53,557 172,425 32 Light Commercial Truck 1,129 1,235 4,614 41 Intercity Bus 71 52 178 42 Transit Bus 17 14 66 43 School Bus 256 356 1,187 51 Refuse truck 44 36 138 52 Single Unit Short-haul Truck 68 46 119 53 Single Unit Long-haul Truck 133 124 169 54 Motor Home 214 172 665 61 Comb Short-haul Truck 877 478 1,789 62 Comb Long-haul Truck 1,009 550 2,058

I/M Program
I/M program information was applied to 2005 i nput files based on an ASM 2525, biennial I/M program, for gasoline-powered passe nger cars and trucks and light commercial trucks, assuming a 98 percent compliance rate. The I/M program wa s turned “off” for analyses years after 2005.

Vehicle Age Distribution
Vehicle age distribution inform ation was derived using Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicle registration data for year 2010. The data was gi ven to OEPA who supplied a VIN decoder that allowed ODOT to create correctly formatted MOVE S inputs. MOVES default data is used for source types 41, 51, 54, 61, and 62. The registrati on data for all three counties in the nonattainment area were combined to create a regional ve hicle age dist ribution file, see Table 11. The same age distribution will be used for all analysis yearsTable 11 – Vehicle Age Distribution yearid sourcetypeid ageid ageFraction sourcetyp eid ageid ageFraction sourcetypeid ageid ageFraction

2005 11 0 0.0018 21 17 0.0364 32 3 0.0708 2005 11 1 0.0214 21 18 0.0330 32 4 0.0678 2005 11 2 0.0551 21 19 0.0256 32 5 0.0341 2005 11 3 0.0702 21 20 0.0211 32 6 0.0268 2005 11 4 0.0831 21 21 0.0174 32 7 0.0330 2005 11 5 0.0782 21 22 0.0133 32 8 0.0332 2005 11 6 0.0617 21 23 0.0098 32 9 0.0367 2005 11 7 0.0775 21 24 0.0087 32 10 0.0497 2005 11 8 0.0569 21 25 0.0067 32 11 0.0525 2005 11 9 0.0506 21 26 0.0051 32 12 0.0406 2005 11 10 0.0429 21 27 0.0026 32 13 0.0411 2005 11 11 0.0328 21 28 0.0016 32 14 0.0348 2005 11 12 0.0241 21 29 0.0015 32 15 0.0745 2005 11 13 0.0205 21 30 0.0444 32 16 0.0526 2005 11 14 0.0215 31 0 0.0062 32 17 0.0408 2005 11 15 0.0164 31 1 0.0255 32 18 0.0354 2005 11 16 0.0136 31 2 0.0463 32 19 0.0267 2005 11 17 0.0124 31 3 0.0558 32 20 0.0215 2005 11 18 0.0089 31 4 0.0650 32 21 0.0245 2005 11 19 0.0082 31 5 0.0782 32 22 0.0156 2005 11 20 0.0079 31 6 0.0722 32 23 0.0135 2005 11 21 0.0086 31 7 0.0708 32 24 0.0102 2005 11 22 0.0091 31 8 0.0674 32 25 0.0107 2005 11 23 0.0125 31 9 0.0545 32 26 0.0066 2005 11 24 0.0186 31 10 0.0579 32 27 0.0039 2005 11 25 0.0172 31 11 0.0569 32 28 0.0014 2005 11 26 0.0147 31 12 0.0507 32 29 0.0007 2005 11 27 0.0169 31 13 0.0452 32 30 0.0094 2005 11 28 0.0249 31 14 0.0407 41 0 0.0000 2005 11 29 0.0168 31 15 0.0424 41 1 0.0282 2005 11 30 0.0950 31 16 0.0350 41 2 0.0466 2005 21 0 0.0063 31 17 0.0298 41 3 0.0791 2005 21 1 0.0237 31 18 0.0215 41 4 0.0819 2005 21 2 0.0347 31 19 0.0166 41 5 0.0819 2005 21 3 0.0428 31 20 0.0123 41 6 0.0636 2005 21 4 0.0439 31 21 0.0114 41 7 0.0734 2005 21 5 0.0478 31 22 0.0096 41 8 0.0381 2005 21 6 0.0504 31 23 0.0072 41 9 0.0678 2005 21 7 0.0527 31 24 0.0057 41 10 0.0664 2005 21 8 0.0548 31 25 0.0038 41 11 0.0438yearid sourcetypeid ageid ageFraction sourcetyp eid ageid ageFraction sourcetypeid ageid ageFraction 2005 21 9 0.0523 31 26 0.0026 41 12 0.0297 2005 21 10 0.0571 31 27 0.0016 41 13 0.0226 2005 21 11 0.0570 31 28 0.0006 41 14 0.0212 2005 21 12 0.0519 31 29 0.0004 41 15 0.0480 2005 21 13 0.0518 31 30 0.0062 41 16 0.0367 2005 21 14 0.0489 32 0 0.0063 41 17 0.0155 2005 21 15 0.0535 32 1 0.0418 41 18 0.0071 2005 21 16 0.0432 32 2 0.0828 41 19 0.0353 2005 41 20 0.0226 43 6 0.0595 51 23 0.0086 2005 41 21 0.0056 43 7 0.0584 51 24 0.0086 2005 41 22 0.0056 43 8 0.0623 51 25 0.0000 2005 41 23 0.0071 43 9 0.0639 51 26 0.0086 2005 41 24 0.0085 43 10 0.0611 51 27 0.0043 2005 41 25 0.0155 43 11 0.0823 51 28 0.0000 2005 41 26 0.0127 43 12 0.0656 51 29 0.0000 2005 41 27 0.0014 43 13 0.0506 51 30 0.0385 2005 41 28 0.0056 43 14 0.0183 52 0 0.0043 2005 41 29 0.0042 43 15 0.0222 52 1 0.0343 2005 41 30 0.0243 43 16 0.0183 52 2 0.0343 2005 42 0 0.0103 43 17 0.0167 52 3 0.1159 2005 42 1 0.0000 43 18 0.0178 52 4 0.0730 2005 42 2 0.0515 43 19 0.0178 52 5 0.0472 2005 42 3 0.0412 43 20 0.0167 52 6 0.0472 2005 42 4 0.0309 43 21 0.0156 52 7 0.0815 2005 42 5 0.0928 43 22 0.0117 52 8 0.1373 2005 42 6 0.0309 43 23 0.0133 52 9 0.0429 2005 42 7 0.0412 43 24 0.0117 52 10 0.0386 2005 42 8 0.0412 43 25 0.0078 52 11 0.0472 2005 42 9 0.1237 43 26 0.0044 52 12 0.0386 2005 42 10 0.0412 43 27 0.0061 52 13 0.0343 2005 42 11 0.0412 43 28 0.0006 52 14 0.0129 2005 42 12 0.0515 43 29 0.0028 52 15 0.0258 2005 42 13 0.0515 43 30 0.0093 52 16 0.0258 2005 42 14 0.0515 51 0 0.0043 52 17 0.0172 2005 42 15 0.0412 51 1 0.0343 52 18 0.0258 2005 42 16 0.0412 51 2 0.0343 52 19 0.0258 2005 42 17 0.0103 51 3 0.1159 52 20 0.0129 2005 42 18 0.0412 51 4 0.0730 52 21 0.0043 2005 42 19 0.0515 51 5 0.0472 52 22 0.0043 2005 42 20 0.0206 51 6 0.0472 52 23 0.0086 2005 42 21 0.0000 51 7 0.0815 52 24 0.0086yearid sourcetypeid ageid ageFraction sourcetyp eid ageid ageFraction sourcetypeid ageid ageFraction 2005 42 22 0.0309 51 8 0.1373 52 25 0.0000 2005 42 23 0.0103 51 9 0.0429 52 26 0.0086 2005 42 24 0.0106 51 10 0.0386 52 27 0.0043 2005 42 25 0.0103 51 11 0.0472 52 28 0.0000 2005 42 26 0.0103 51 12 0.0386 52 29 0.0000 2005 42 27 0.0000 51 13 0.0343 52 30 0.0385 2005 42 28 0.0103 51 14 0.0129 53 0 0.0043 2005 42 29 0.0000 51 15 0.0258 53 1 0.0343 2005 42 30 0.0107 51 16 0.0258 53 2 0.0343 2005 43 0 0.0534 51 17 0.0172 53 3 0.1159 2005 43 1 0.0361 51 18 0.0258 53 4 0.0730 2005 43 2 0.0400 51 19 0.0258 53 5 0.0472 2005 43 3 0.0539 51 20 0.0129 53 6 0.0472 2005 43 4 0.0523 51 21 0.0043 53 7 0.0815 2005 43 5 0.0495 51 22 0.0043 53 8 0.1373 2005 53 10 0.0386 54 26 0.0226 62 11 0.0716 2005 53 11 0.0472 54 27 0.0151 62 12 0.0508 2005 53 12 0.0386 54 28 0.0108 62 13 0.0339 2005 53 13 0.0343 54 29 0.0064 62 14 0.0329 2005 53 14 0.0129 54 30 0.1363 62 15 0.0277 2005 53 15 0.0258 61 0 0.0015 62 16 0.0195 2005 53 16 0.0258 61 1 0.0124 62 17 0.0102 2005 53 17 0.0172 61 2 0.0270 62 18 0.0080 2005 53 18 0.0258 61 3 0.0335 62 19 0.0052 2005 53 19 0.0258 61 4 0.0436 62 20 0.0058 2005 53 20 0.0129 61 5 0.0460 62 21 0.0056 2005 53 21 0.0043 61 6 0.0550 62 22 0.0026 2005 53 22 0.0043 61 7 0.0601 62 23 0.0009 2005 53 23 0.0086 61 8 0.0536 62 24 0.0017 2005 53 24 0.0086 61 9 0.0496 62 25 0.0017 2005 53 25 0.0000 61 10 0.0533 62 26 0.0013 2005 53 26 0.0086 61 11 0.0527 62 27 0.0002 2005 53 27 0.0043 61 12 0.0453 62 28 0.0004 2005 53 28 0.0000 61 13 0.0489 62 29 0.0002 2005 53 29 0.0000 61 14 0.0407 62 30 0.0013 2005 53 30 0.0385 61 15 0.0439 2005 54 0 0.0048 61 16 0.0443 2005 54 1 0.0148 61 17 0.0315 2005 54 2 0.0268 61 18 0.0307 2005 54 3 0.0365 61 19 0.0282 2005 54 4 0.0423 61 20 0.0237yearid sourcetypeid ageid ageFraction sourcetyp eid ageid ageFraction sourcetypeid ageid ageFraction 2005 54 5 0.0482 61 21 0.0273 2005 54 6 0.0504 61 22 0.0278 2005 54 7 0.0431 61 23 0.0179 2005 54 8 0.0413 61 24 0.0183 2005 54 9 0.0418 61 25 0.0130 2005 54 10 0.0499 61 26 0.0096 2005 54 11 0.0487 61 27 0.0056 2005 54 12 0.0454 61 28 0.0046 2005 54 13 0.0336 61 29 0.0034 2005 54 14 0.0355 61 30 0.0470 2005 54 15 0.0381 62 0 0.0045 2005 54 16 0.0292 62 1 0.0448 2005 54 17 0.0235 62 2 0.0074 2005 54 18 0.0171 62 3 0.1062 2005 54 19 0.0148 62 4 0.1088 2005 54 20 0.0169 62 5 0.1557 2005 54 21 0.0209 62 6 0.0692 2005 54 22 0.0234 62 7 0.0424 2005 54 23 0.0230 62 8 0.0478 2005 54 24 0.0200 62 9 0.0504 2005 54 25 0.0188 62 10 0.0813Road Type Distribution
Road type distribution is based on the 2008 ODOT, county summary, HPMS VMT data categorized by federal functional class for the three county non-at tainment area. Road type distribution can be seen in Table 12.
Table 12 – Road Type Distribution sourceTypeID roadTypeID roadTypeVMTFractio n sourceTypeID roadTypeID roadTypeVMTFraction 11 1 0 43 4 0.29 11 2 0.06 43 5 0.52 11 3 0.13 51 1 0 11 4 0.29 51 2 0.06 11 5 0.52 51 3 0.13 21 1 0 51 4 0.29 21 2 0.06 51 5 0.52 21 3 0.13 52 1 0 21 4 0.29 52 2 0.06 21 5 0.52 52 3 0.13 31 1 0 52 4 0.29 31 2 0.06 52 5 0.52 31 3 0.13 53 1 0 31 4 0.29 53 2 0.06 31 5 0.52 53 3 0.13 32 1 0 53 4 0.29 32 2 0.06 53 5 0.52 32 3 0.13 54 1 0 32 4 0.29 54 2 0.06 32 5 0.52 54 3 0.13 41 1 0 54 4 0.29 41 2 0.06 54 5 0.52 41 3 0.13 61 1 0 41 4 0.29 61 2 0.06 41 5 0.52 61 3 0.13 42 1 0 61 4 0.29 42 2 0.06 61 5 0.52 42 3 0.13 62 1 0 42 4 0.29 62 2 0.06 42 5 0.52 62 3 0.13 43 1 0 62 4 0.29 43 2 0.06 62 5 0.52 43 3 0.13Vehicle Type VMT and VMT Fractions
The first component of the VMT inputs is the Ye arly HPMS VMT, but the travel demand model was used instead of ODOT’s HMPS data since it was felt that the model would better predict future year VMT. ODOT’s CMS post-processor was run for each year to generate congestion reports, which includes total daily VMT. The ve hicle type percentages of the total VMT were based on ODOT’s weigh-in-motion (WIM) data. Since there are not enough WIM stations for lower class facilties in the non- attainment area, a statewide average of all ODOT WIM data collectors was used. Daily VMT was then conve rted to yearly. Yearly HPMS VMT for 2005 can be seen in Table 13. The same method was to generate all other analysis years
Table 13 – Yearly HPMS VMT for 2005 HPMSVtypeID yearID HPMSBaseYearVMT baseYearOffNetVMT 10 2005 30590102 0 20 2005 5455503318 0 30 2005 1683283544 0 40 2005 17205399 0 50 2005 127192033 0 60 2005 301977250 0

Monthly and daily VMT fractions used MOVES de fault data. The hourly VMT fractions were derived from ODOT WIM data. Hourly VMT frac tions vary for each of the five MOVES road types but do not change for each of the 16 MOVES source types. A representative sample of the hour VMT fraction input file can be seen in Table 14, the entire file is too large to include in this document.
Table 14 – Hourly VMT Fractions sourceTypeID roadTypeID dayID hourID hourVMTFraction 11 1 2 1 0.0089 11 1 2 2 0.00564 11 1 2 3 0.00424 11 1 2 4 0.00427 11 1 2 5 0.00695 11 1 2 6 0.01798 11 1 2 7 0.03806 11 1 2 8 0.057 11 1 2 9 0.05773 11 1 2 10 0.05538 11 1 2 11 0.05554 11 1 2 12 0.05558 11 1 2 13 0.05584 11 1 2 14 0.06051sourceTypeID roadTypeID dayID hourID hourVMTFraction 11 1 2 15 0.06765 11 1 2 16 0.07755 11 1 2 17 0.08428 11 1 2 18 0.0797 11 1 2 19 0.06012 11 1 2 20 0.04522 11 1 2 21 0.03646 11 1 2 22 0.02912 11 1 2 23 0.02142 11 1 2 24 0.01486

11 2 2 1 0.0089 11 2 2 2 0.00564 11 2 2 3 0.00424 11 2 2 4 0.00427 11 2 2 5 0.00695 11 2 2 6 0.01798 11 2 2 7 0.03806 11 2 2 8 0.057 11 2 2 9 0.05773 11 2 2 10 0.05538 11 2 2 11 0.05554 11 2 2 12 0.05558 11 2 2 13 0.05584 11 2 2 14 0.06051 11 2 2 15 0.06765 11 2 2 16 0.07755 11 2 2 17 0.08428 11 2 2 18 0.0797 11 2 2 19 0.06012 11 2 2 20 0.04522 11 2 2 21 0.03646 11 2 2 22 0.02912 11 2 2 23 0.02142 11 2 2 24 0.01486

11 3 2 1 0.00655 11 3 2 2 0.0037 11 3 2 3 0.00304 11 3 2 4 0.00363sourceTypeID roadTypeID dayID hourID hourVMTFraction 11 3 2 5 0.00792 11 3 2 6 0.02343 11 3 2 7 0.04899 11 3 2 8 0.06319 11 3 2 9 0.05402 11 3 2 10 0.05121 11 3 2 11 0.0528 11 3 2 12 0.05608 11 3 2 13 0.05814 11 3 2 14 0.05875 11 3 2 15 0.06676 11 3 2 16 0.07812 11 3 2 17 0.08469 11 3 2 18 0.08152 11 3 2 19 0.05852 11 3 2 20 0.04343 11 3 2 21 0.03606 11 3 2 22 0.02829 11 3 2 23 0.01883 11 3 2 24 0.01233

11 4 2 1 0.00752 11 4 2 2 0.0044 11 4 2 3 0.00354 11 4 2 4 0.00374 11 4 2 5 0.00705 11 4 2 6 0.02123 11 4 2 7 0.054 11 4 2 8 0.0768 11 4 2 9 0.06545 11 4 2 10 0.05114 11 4 2 11 0.04692 11 4 2 12 0.04916 11 4 2 13 0.05112 11 4 2 14 0.0534 11 4 2 15 0.06105 11 4 2 16 0.07421 11 4 2 17 0.08321 11 4 2 18 0.08385 11 4 2 19 0.06062sourceTypeID roadTypeID dayID hourID hourVMTFraction 11 4 2 20 0.04229 11 4 2 21 0.03442 11 4 2 22 0.0292 11 4 2 23 0.02137 11 4 2 24 0.01431

11 5 2 1 0.00678 11 5 2 2 0.00378 11 5 2 3 0.00295 11 5 2 4 0.0029 11 5 2 5 0.00498 11 5 2 6 0.01422 11 5 2 7 0.03449 11 5 2 8 0.05728 11 5 2 9 0.05435 11 5 2 10 0.04991 11 5 2 11 0.05261 11 5 2 12 0.06098 11 5 2 13 0.06457 11 5 2 14 0.06387 11 5 2 15 0.06812 11 5 2 16 0.07672 11 5 2 17 0.08274 11 5 2 18 0.08284 11 5 2 19 0.06344 11 5 2 20 0.04866 11 5 2 21 0.0407 11 5 2 22 0.03083 11 5 2 23 0.01966 11 5 2 24 0.01262Output Emission Factors

Table 15 shows the first record in a MOVES sample output (rate per distance) emission file for year 2005. For any given month, day of week, hour of the day, pollutant, and process; the rate per distance varies by road type, and speed bin. Rates per distan ce emissions are applied to link and intrazonal VMT.
Table 15 – Sample Emission File (Rate per Distance) for year 2005 Heading: MOVESScenarioID MOVESRunID yearID monthID dayID hourID Record: OhioCustomDomain 5 2005 4 5 1 Heading: linkID pollutantID processID sourceTypeID SCC fuelTypeID Record: 990570201 3 1 0 0 Heading: modelYearID roadTypeID avgSpeedBinID temperature relHumidity ratePerDistance Record: 0 2 1 47.9467 78 19.2283

Table 16 shows the first record in a MOVES sample output (rate pe r vehicle) emission file for year 2005. The rate per vehicle varies for any co mbinations of month, da y of week, hour of the day, pollutant, and process. Rates per vehicle em issions are applied to the vehicle souce type population.
Table 16 – Sample Emission File (Rate per Vehicle) for year 2005

Heading: MOVESScenarioID MOVESRunID yearID monthID dayID Record: OhioCustomDomain 5 2005 4 5 Heading: hourID zoneID pollutantID processID sourceTypeID Record: 1 990570 3 2 0 Heading: SCC fuelTypeID modelYearID temperature ratePerVehicle Record: 0 0 47.9467 0.0678071

### 4. Post Processing

Total emissions were computed with the aid of several custom programs by ODOT. The process uses data on daily and directiona l traffic distributions as well as more up to date volume/delay functions from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). This process, described below and illustrated in Figure 4, also uses rewritten code able to handle the newer model network formats and MOVES generated em ission factors.
The first step in the the process involves runn ing postcms.exe to calculate hourly link volumes based on the percentage of the daily volume (travel demand model output) determined by a link’s facility and area type. Link speeds from the travel dema nd model are not used in the analysis. The speeds are estimated as a post-pr ocess to the model based on HCM methods using a link’s volume-to-capacity ratio and link group code. The daily to hourly volume conversion percentages and speed tables can be seen in Appendix B.1.
The second step (mmoves.exe) uses a combin ation of the MOVES emission factors and the hourly link volumes that are out put of the postcms.exe progra m. The hourly volumes are multiplied by the MOVES emission factor fo r the corresponding hour of day, speed bin, and roadtype to calculate emissions for every network link for each hour. The final link on road vehicle emissions for the area is the su m of all individual link-hour emissions.
The third step, (vehcalm.exe), calculates vehicle-based emissions for each source type for each hour of the day. The vehicle source type is base d on a combination of local and default data. The final vehicle emissions for each county are th e sum of all individual hourly emissions for all vehicle types.
Intrazonal trips do not get loaded onto the networ k, so the fourth step in the process requires a separate method to account for those trips that us e local roads to travel within a zone. The intracalm.exe program uses intrazonal trips to es timate VMT using the area in square miles and intrazonal trips of each zone . The zone is assumed circular and th e radius of the circle is used as the average trip length for these intrazonal trips. Intrazonal emissions are then calculated by combining MOVES generated emissions with estim ated intrazonal VMT. The emission rates are the same as those used to calculated link based emissions.
The final step is to summarize link, vehicle, a nd intrazonal emissions for each county, pollutant, and analyzed year, and to multiply annual aver age daily emissions by 365 to produce an annual estimate. Daily summary emissions for each pollu tant, county, and scenario year in the Dayton Springfield Region can be found in Appendix B.2.Figure 4 – Emission Calculation Process



### 5. Multiple MPO Coordination Issues

CCS-TCC, MVRPC, ODOT, and OEPA have a long hi story of working together in air quality issues, the Memorandum of Understanding, listed be low, documents these working relationships. The document is in the process of be ing signed by all parties involved.

• Memorandum of Understanding among the MV RPC, the CCS-TCC, the OKI Regional Council of Governments, the OEPA, the ODOT, the US EPA-Region 5, the FHWA-Ohio Division, and the FTA-Region 5.

### Appendix A
Interagency Consultation Documentation11/8/10 Call Interagency Consultation Annual PM2.5 Redesignations Planning Dayton-Springfield Area

Minutes Participants: Nino Brunello - ODOT Ana Ramirez - MVRPC Lamar Daniel – Clark County Patricia Morris – USEPA Region 5 Carolina Prado – Ohio EPA

Call objective:

- Annual PM2.5 redesignation plann ing for the Dayton-Springfield

nonattainment area. - Model mobile emissions for PM2.5, NOx and SO2. - Years to be model: 2005 (base nonattainme nt year), 2008 (attainment year),

2015 (interim budget year), and 2 022 (maintenance budget year). - Agree upon responsibilities and timing for the generation of on-road (mobile)

emissions as part of the annual PM2. 5 redesignation requirements for the Dayton-Springfield area.

Agreements: - ODOT will develop the Emission Model database and submit it to MVRPC. - MVRPC will develop the Travel M odel database and combine it with the Emission Model to run MOVES. - ODOT will develop Dayton-Springfiel d assumptions document similar to those used in the Columbus area a ssumptions protocol. MVRPC will assist as needed. - MVRPC will provide final protocol write up on the procedures, steps and assumptions used to run MOVES and obtain mobile emissions. - OEPA will review data and justify, if appropriate, insignificance of SO2.

Timeline:
November 17, 2010 – ODOT will submit assu mptions protocol draft to OEPA for distribution for comments. November 23, 2010 – All IAC group comm ents on protocol assumptions should be sent back to ODOT.December 7, 2010 – ODOT will distribut e final protocol assumptions. Mid December 2010 – ODOT will hav e Emission Model completed. Mid January 2010 – MVRPC will have mobile emissions runs completed and write-up. Will be pr ovided to OEPA.

OEPA will provide notice to all persons on this list when draft redesignation request out for comment.

*Margin of safety to be added to 2015 and 2022 mobile budgets will be discussed in next call.Next Call Dayton

‐ Springfield redesignation Carolina Prado [Carolina.Prado@epa.state.oh.us] Sent: Wed 11/10/2010 4:35 PM To: ldaniel@clarkcountyohio.gov ; Leigh.Oesterling@dot.gov ; Nino.Brunello@dot.state.oh.us ; Patricia Morris; Jennifer Hunter; aramirez@nvroc.org

IAC group,

Based on your responses to my previous email, our next PM2.5 redesignation call for the Dayton

‐ Springfield area will on December 14, 2010 at 10:00am EST Please call 614 387

‐ 7405
Thanks, Carolina

Carolina M. Prado State Implementation Plan (SIP) Development Ohio EPA, Division of Air Pollution Control 614

‐ 644

‐ 2310 Carolina.Prado@epa.state.oh.usFine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5

), Annual Standard
Several parameters have been identified for us e in the preparation of this analysis. The parameters listed below will be applied in the base MOVES setup:

• Pollutants to be monitored: SO 2 , NO x , and PM 2.5
• Model years: 2005, 2008 (leap year), 2015, and 2022 (reflecting the most recent correspondence from EPA)

• MOVES modeling technique: Emission Factor method

o Rates per Distance

o Rates per Vehicle

o (Rates per Profile are used only for VOCs)

• Scale: Custom domain

• Time Span:

o Time aggregation: Hour

o 1 month representing average annual temperatures

o All hours of day selected

o 16 speed bins

o Weekdays only

• Geographic Bounds: Custom Domain – all counties in the MORPC area

• Vehicles/Equipment: All sour ce types, gasoline and diesel

• Road Type: All road types including off-network

• Pollutants and Processes: NO x , All PM 2.5 categories, SO 2 , Total Energy Consumption

• Strategies: none

• General Output: Units = grams, joules and miles

• Output Emissions: Time = hour, Location = custom area, on-road emission rates by road type and source use type.

• Advanced Performance: none
The following assumptions will be applied wi thin the County Data Manager portion of the MOVES software package. Each paramete r is identified, along with the source data that will be applied (if applicable).

• Source Type Population: Combination of local and default data. Local data (2010) ODOT from motor vehicl e registration data. Defau lt data used for source types 41, 61, and 62. Future year grow th rate based on MPO model variable Household growth rate

• Vehicle Type VMT: Combination of lo cal and default data. HPMSVTypeYear VMT = daily VMT from travel demand m odel with EPA’s daily to annual VMT converter applied. monthVMTFraction = default. dayVMTFraction=default. hourVMTFraction=local.

• I/M Programs: I/M program inform ation will be applied for 2005 where applicable.• Fuel Formulation: Modify diesel su lfur fraction to match previous MOBILE inputs. Future runs will also be modifi ed for reformulated gas, RVP, etc. for summer analyses.

• Fuel Supply: Using MOVES default data.

• Meteorology Data: Local data obtaine d from NOAA National Climatic Data Center. Data will consist of monthly high and low temperatures and daily relative humidity.

• Ramp Fraction: Using the base year travel demand model for VHT fractions. Future fractions will be assumed constant.

• Road Type Distribution: Use ODOT (and some WVDOT) county summary VMT categorized by federal functional classes

• Age Distribution: Combination of local and default data. Local data (2010) ODOT from motor vehicle re gistration data (also some WVDO data). Default data used for source types 41, 51, 54, 61, and 62. The same age distribution will be used for all analysis years.

• Average Speed Distribution: Using MOVES default data. Data source does not matter because it is ignored wh en calculating emission rates.

• Alternative Fuel Vehicle Type s: Default file will be modified to reflect any CNG buses.‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐ From: Carolina Prado [mailto:Carolina.Prado@epa.state.oh.us] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 2:44 PM To: ldaniel@clarkcountyohio.gov; Leigh.Oesterling@dot.gov; Dave Moore; Nino.Brunello@dot.state.oh.us; Patricia Morris; Ramirez, Ana; Andy Roth Cc: Jennifer Hunter Subject: NEXT CALL: Dayton

‐ Springfield redesignation

Thanks for your participation in today's call.

We will have a follow

‐ up call on January 18, 2011 (Tuesday) at 10:00 AM EST. The call in number is 614

‐ 387

‐ 7405, no access code required.
Thanks, Carolina

Carolina M. Prado State Implementation Plan (SIP) Development Ohio EPA, Division of Air Pollution Control 614

‐ 644

‐ 2310 Carolina.Prado@epa.state.oh.us

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Unless otherwise provided by law, this communication and any response to it constitutes a public record.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐ From: Carolina Prado [mailto:Carolina.Prado@epa.state.oh.us] Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 12:23 PM To: ldaniel@clarkcountyohio.gov; leigh.oesterling@dot.gov; Dave Moore; Nino.Brunello@dot.state.oh.us; Patricia Morris; Jennifer Hunter; smapel@lcounty.com; cparasa@morpc.org; ngill@morpc.org; Ramirez, Ana; Andy Roth Subject: Follow up call PM2.5 redesigantion ‐ Columbus and Dayton areas

Based on our 1/18 conference call we are in target to get all the mobile information by the end of January!! We will like to setup a follow up call on February 8th* at 1:00PM only if
we do not get the agreed information. MORPC and MVRPC are in charge of sending the final mobile numbers.
*During our last call we agreed on having a follow up call on Feb 7, unfortunately we had to move it one day due to the lack of enough phone lines.

Please call 614

‐ 644

‐ 4743)
Thanks,

Carolina M. Prado State Implementation Plan (SIP) Development Ohio EPA, Division of Air Pollution Control 614

‐ 644

‐ 2310 Carolina.Prado@epa.state.oh.us

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Unless otherwise provided by law, this communication and any response to it constitutes a public record.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

### Appendix B

### Appendix B.1 Post Processing Default DistributionsHOUR 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23PCTADTURB FWY 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.9 2.2 5.2 7.3 6.4 5.2 4.9 5.1 5.3 5.5 6.1 7.2 8.0 7.9 5.8 4.2 3.4 2.9 2.2 1.5URB ART 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.6 1.5 3.5 5.7 5.5 5.1 5.3 6.2 6.5 6.4 6.8 7.6 8.2 8.1 6.2 4.8 4.0 3.0 1.9 1.3RUR FWY 1.4 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.3 2.2 3.7 5.2 5.4 5.4 5.6 5.6 5.7 6.0 6.5 7.1 7.5 7.0 5.6 4.5 3.8 3.2 2.5 2.0RUR ART 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.5 1.0 2.4 4.8 6.2 5.5 5.3 5.5 5.8 6.0 6.0 6.7 7.6 8.1 7.7 5.6 4.2 3.5 2.8 1.9 1.3PCTADT TRKURB FWY 2.1 1.9 1.8 2.0 2.4 3.0 3.9 4.6 5.3 6.0 6.3 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.3 5.8 5.2 4.6 4.1 3.7 3.4 3.1 2.8 2.4URB ART 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.6 2.3 3.9 5.9 6.9 6.7 7.1 7.6 7.4 7.2 7.4 7.2 6.0 5.0 3.7 2.8 2.3 1.9 1.5 1.3RUR FWY 2.6 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.6 3.1 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.1 5.6 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.6 5.3 4.9 4.6 4.3 4.0 3.8 3.5 3.1RUR ART 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.6 2.2 3.0 4.2 5.3 6.1 6.7 7.0 7.1 7.0 6.9 6.8 6.3 5.5 4.6 3.8 3.1 2.6 2.3 2.1 1.7PCTDIRURB FWY 38 40 40 46 56 64 70 70 68 62 58 52 52 52 50 46 38 38 46 52 46 42 42 40URB ART 44 46 44 48 54 62 66 68 64 56 54 52 50 50 50 46 40 38 46 52 48 46 46 46RUR FWY 44 46 48 54 60 68 68 64 58 54 52 50 50 52 52 48 42 40 44 48 48 44 46 44RUR ART 40 42 44 48 58 66 72 68 60 56 54 50 50 50 50 46 40 38 46 50 46 44 44 44LOS E VC 0 0.625 1.25 1.875 2.5 3.125 3.75 4.375 5 5.625 6.25 6.875 7.5 8.125 8.75 9.375 10 10.625 11.25 11.875 12.5 13.125 13.75 14.375SPEEDVCcurve1 75 75 75 75 75 75 74.9 74.8 74.6 74.2 73.5 72.3 70.5 67.8 64.2 59.5 54 47.7 41.2 34.9 28.9 23.7 19.2 15.5curve2 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 69.9 69.8 69.6 69.2 68.4 67.1 65.1 62.2 58.2 53 47 40.5 33.9 27.7 22.2 17.6 13.8curve3 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 64.9 64.8 64.4 63.8 62.6 60.5 57 52 45.4 37.8 29.9 22.7 16.7 12.1 8.6curve4 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 59.9 59.8 59.6 59.1 58.2 56.7 54.3 50.8 46.1 40.3 33.8 27.3 21.3 16.2 12.2curve5 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 54.9 54.7 54.3 53.6 52.3 50 46.5 41.5 35.3 28.5 21.9 16.1 11.5curve6 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 59.9 59.8 59.7 59.4 59.1 58.5 57.7 56.5 55 53.1 50.7 47.9 44.7 41.1 37.3 33.4curve7 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 54.9 54.9 54.7 54.5 54.2 53.8 53.1 52.2 50.9 49.3 47.3 44.9 42.1 39 35.7 32.2curve8 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 49.9 49.9 49.8 49.6 49.4 49 48.5 47.7 46.7 45.4 43.8 41.8 39.5 36.8 33.9 30.9curve9 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 44.9 44.8 44.7 44.4 44.1 43.6 43 42.1 40.9 39.4 37.6 35.5 33.1 30.5 27.8curve10 50 50 50 50 49.9 49.8 49.7 49.4 49 48.4 47.5 46.5 45.1 43.5 41.7 39.6 37.3 34.9 32.4 29.8 27.3 24.9 22.6 20.4curve11 50 50 50 50 50 49.9 49.7 49.4 48.9 48 46.7 44.9 42.5 39.6 36.2 32.6 28.7 25 21.4 18.2 15.3 12.9 10.8 9curve12 50 50 50 50 50 49.9 49.8 49.6 49.1 48.2 46.8 44.5 41.4 37.5 32.9 28 23.1 18.7 14.9 11.8 9.2 7.2 5.7 4.5curve13 40 40 40 40 40 40 39.9 39.8 39.5 39.2 38.6 37.8 36.7 35.3 33.5 31.4 29 26.4 23.7 21.1 18.5 16.1 13.9 12curve14 40 40 40 40 40 39.9 39.8 39.6 39.1 38.5 37.5 36.1 34.3 32.1 29.4 26.5 23.5 20.5 17.7 15.1 12.8 10.7 9 7.6curve15 40 40 40 40 40 39.9 39.7 39.4 38.8 37.9 36.5 34.7 32.3 29.5 26.4 23.2 20 17 14.3 11.9 9.9 8.2 6.8 5.6curve16 35 35 35 35 35 34.9 34.8 34.5 34 33.2 32.1 30.5 28.5 26.1 23.5 20.6 17.9 15.2 12.8 10.7 8.9 7.4 6.1 5.1curve17 35 35 35 35 35 34.9 34.7 34.4 33.9 33.1 32 30.3 28.3 25.8 23.1 20.3 17.5 14.9 12.5 10.4 8.6 7.2 5.9 4.9curve18 35 35 35 35 35 34.9 34.6 34.2 33.5 32.4 30.9 28.8 26.3 23.4 20.4 17.4 14.6 12.1 9.9 8.1 6.6 5.4 4.4 3.6curve19 30 30 30 30 30 29.9 29.8 29.5 29 28.2 27.1 25.6 23.7 21.5 19.1 16.6 14.2 12 10 8.3 6.8 5.6 4.6 3.8curve20 30 30 30 30 30 29.9 29.7 29.4 28.9 28.1 26.9 25.3 23.4 21.1 18.6 16.1 13.6 11.4 9.5 7.8 6.4 5.3 4.3 3.6curve21 30 30 30 30 30 29.9 29.7 29.3 28.7 27.7 26.2 24.4 22.1 19.6 17 14.4 12 9.9 8.1 6.6 5.4 4.4 3.6 2.9VC RATIO TO LOS CONVERSION (VALUE SHOWN IS LOWER LIMIT FOR THAT LOS)(URBAN ROADS USE SPEED BREAKS BELOW FOR LOS DETERMINATION)(ALL USE THE BASE VC'S TO DETERMINE EXCEEDANCE)BASE RUR2 FWYA 0.00 0.00 0.00B 0.30 0.00 0.25C 0.50 0.10 0.40D 0.70 0.30 0.60E 0.90 0.50 0.80F 1.00 1.00 1.00F+ 1.10 1.10 1.10F++ 1.30 1.30 1.30SPEED VC RATIO BREAKS FOR URBAN STREETS (HIGHEST SPEED FOR GIVEN LOS & FF SPEED)FFS B C D E F>47 42. 34. 27. 21. 16.>37 35. 28. 22. 17. 13.>32 30. 24. 18. 14. 10.<33 25. 19. 13. 9. 7.LEVEL OF SERVICE THRESHOLD BY AREANUM LOS DEFINITION1 F CINCINNATI,CLEVELAND,COLUMBUS CENTRAL MPO COUNTIES (CUY,FRA,HAM)2 E OTHER TMA MPOS (AKRON,CANTON,DAYTON,TOLEDO,YOUNGSTOWN + NON-CENTRAL COUNTIES FROM 1)3 E OTHER MPOS & PARTS OF AREAS 1 & 2 OUTSIDE URBANIZED AREA4 E RURAL NON MPO COUNTIESPEAK SPREADING MODEL INFO (SET MAX ITERATIONS TO 0 TO DISABLE PEAK SPREADING)MAX VC RATIO FWY: 1.30MAX VC RATIO ART: 1.30MAX ITERATIONS : 1000TRUCK PCE: 2.00AQ SEASON FACTOR: 1.00MODEL CLASS PARAMETERS (MAX 4 CLASSES, HOURS 0-23 W/ NO OVERLAP IN CLASS, ALLOCATE ENTIRE CLASS AS TRUCK(1) OR NOT(0))CLS TRK 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0CLS BEG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0CLS END 23 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0CLS NUM 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0

### Appendix B.2 PM2.5 EmissionSummaries

### Clark County Daily Summary

2005 (I/M) CLARK NOX (tons/day) SO2 (tons/day) PM 2.5 (tons/day) Link Emissions 12.4755 0.2178 0.3852 Vehicle Emissions 2.9276 0.0106 0.0664 Intrazonal Emissions 0.0395 0.0008 0.0016 TOTAL 15.4426 0.2292 0.4532
2008 (No I/M) CLARK NOX (tons/day) SO2 (tons/day) PM 2.5 (tons/day) Link Emissions 9.8517 0.0665 0.3218 Vehicle Emissions 2.7148 0.0047 0.0549 Intrazonal Emissions 0.0318 0.0002 0.0014 TOTAL 12.5983 0.0714 0.3781
2015 (No I/M) CLARK NOX (tons/day) SO2 (tons/day) PM 2.5 (tons/day) Link Emissions 4.7404 0.0292 0.1548 Vehicle Emissions 1.8045 0.0021 0.0328 Intrazonal Emissions 0.0136 0.0001 0.0007 TOTAL 6.5585 0.0314 0.1883
2022 (No I/M) CLARK NOX (tons/day) SO2 (tons/day) PM 2.5 (tons/day) Link Emissions 2.1912 0.0283 0.0920 Vehicle Emissions 0.9991 0.0019 0.0247 Intrazonal Emissions 0.0056 0.0001 0.0004 TOTAL 3.1959 0.0303 0.1171

### Greene County Daily Summary

2005 (I/M) GREENE NOX (tons/day) SO2 (tons/day) PM 2.5 (tons/day) Link Emissions 11.9481 0.2128 0.3943 Vehicle Emissions 2.5719 0.0093 0.0584 Intrazonal Emissions 0.0828 0.0017 0.0034 TOTAL 14.6028 0.2238 0.4561
2008 (No I/M) GREENE NOX (tons/day) SO2 (tons/day) PM 2.5 (tons/day) Link Emissions 9.4451 0.0656 0.3335 Vehicle Emissions 2.3617 0.0041 0.0478 Intrazonal Emissions 0.0678 0.0005 0.0031 TOTAL 11.8746 0.0702 0.3844
2015 (No I/M) GREENE NOX (tons/day) SO2 (tons/day) PM 2.5 (tons/day) Link Emissions 4.2240 0.0273 0.1565 Vehicle Emissions 1.5331 0.0018 0.0280 Intrazonal Emissions 0.0295 0.0002 0.0015 TOTAL 5.7866 0.0293 0.1860
2022 (No I/M) GREENE NOX (tons/day) SO2 (tons/day) PM 2.5 (tons/day) Link Emissions 1.8865 0.0258 0.0928 Vehicle Emissions 0.8259 0.0016 0.0206 Intrazonal Emissions 0.1472 0.0023 0.0105 TOTAL 2.8596 0.0297 0.1239

### Montgomery County Daily Summary

2005 (I/M) MONTGOMERY NOX (tons/day) SO2 (tons/day) PM 2.5 (tons/day) Link Emissions 37.6093 0.6721 1.2654 Vehicle Emissions 9.0690 0.0327 0.2059 Intrazonal Emissions 0.1428 0.0029 0.0059 TOTAL 46.8211 0.7077 1.4772
2008 (No I/M) MONTGOMERY NOX (tons/day) SO2 (tons/day) PM 2.5 (tons/day) Link Emissions 29.1532 0.2033 1.0495 Vehicle Emissions 8.3286 0.0144 0.1686 Intrazonal Emissions 0.1102 0.0009 0.0050 TOTAL 37.5920 0.2186 1.2231
2015 (No I/M) MONTGOMERY NOX (tons/day) SO2 (tons/day) PM 2.5 (tons/day) Link Emissions 12.8521 0.0833 0.4880 Vehicle Emissions 5.4072 0.0063 0.0989 Intrazonal Emissions 0.0461 0.0003 0.0023 TOTAL 18.3054 0.0899 0.5892
2022 (No I/M) MONTGOMERY NOX (tons/day) SO2 (tons/day) PM 2.5 (tons/day) Link Emissions 5.6270 0.0773 0.2844 Vehicle Emissions 2.9139 0.0056 0.0728 Intrazonal Emissions 0.3426 0.0054 0.0244 TOTAL 8.8835 0.0883 0.3816

# A TTACHMENT 

# D

# Regional Quality Analyses for Ozone, PM 2

. 5 

# and Regional Haze:

Technical Support Document Supplement

September 12, 2008 States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin

The document can be found at: .b.!!P://www.epa.ohio.g.QYLportals/27/SIP/AQ,Pendix%20 

# 0- 2 TSD SUJ2.plement without CAIR modeling FINAL.lli!f