# Attachment A

Pre

- Hearing Draft

I/M SIP

Maintenance Demonstration

### This page intentionally left blank.i

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 23 , 2013 

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PURPOSE

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 1

2.0 BACKGROUND

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 3

3.0 EMISSIONS INVENTORIES AND MAINTENANCE DEMONSTRATION

................................ .... 6

3.1 Study Areas

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 6

3.2 Theory of Approach

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 7

3.3 Summary of Emissions

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 10

3.4 Conclusion

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 12

4.0 ON

- ROAD EMISSIONS ESTIMATION APPROACH

................................ ................................ ..... 13

5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE MEASURES

................................ ................................ ............................. 16

6.0 DISCUSSION OF MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS MODELING

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

6.1 Introduction and Scope

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

6.2 MOVES Model Input

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

6.2.1 On

- r oad Vehicle Speed Data

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

6.2.2 Vehicle Age Distribution

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 25

6.2.3 Vehicle Mix Data

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 26

6.2.4 Disaggregating State Specific Vehicle Mix Information for MOVES

................................ .......... 28

6.2.5 Vehicles/Equipment: On

- Road Vehicle Equipment

................................ ................................ ...... 28

6.2.6 Road Type

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 28

6.2.7 Pollutants and Processes

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 29

6.2.8 Temperature and Relative Humidity Data

................................ ................................ ..................... 29

6.2.9 Source Type Population

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 31

6.2.10 Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program Parameters

................................ ......................... 34

6.2.11 Reid Vapor Pressure Specifications

................................ ................................ ............................ 34

6.2.12 Diesel Sulfur Content

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 35

6.2.13 Fuel (Formulation and Supply)

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 35

6.2.14 VMT Data

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 36

6.3 ESTIMATED EMISSION FROM ON

- ROAD MOBILE SOURCES

................................ ............. 43

7.0 MOVES Input Data

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 51

7.1 VEHICLE MIX DATA

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 51

7.2 METEOROLOGICAL DATA

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 55ii

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 23 , 2013 

### This page intentionally left blank.1

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 23 , 2013 

### 1.0 PURPOSE

The F ederal Clean Air Act ( F CAA)

, as amended

, established National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) for carbon monoxide, lead, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter and

sulfur dioxide. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is required to review, and

revise as necessary, the NAA QS for each of these air pollutants every five years. Areas that

violate a NAAQS are designated nonattainment by the USEPA. In North Carolina, areas have

been designated nonattainment for carbon monoxide, ozone and particulate matter. Areas

designated a s moderate nonattainment or higher for carbon monoxide or ozone are required to

implement a vehicle inspection and maintenance program (i.e., an emissions inspection program)

in accordance with the CAA, Sections 187(a)(4) and 182(b)(4), respectively. The requirements

of an inspection and maintenance program were established in the Code of Federal Regulation

(CFR) under Title 40 CFR Part 51.

The s tate of North Carolina implemented a Motor Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance (I/M)

program to attain and maintain compliance with the ozone and carbon monoxide NAAQS. The

implementation of this program continues to be an integral part of North Carolina’s air quality

planning strategy.

On August 1, 2012, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted House Bill 585 (Session Law

2012

- 199) which exempts certain 1996 or newer vehicles from requiring an emissions

inspection. The law is interpreted as exempting vehicles of the three newest mode l years with

less than 70,000 miles on the odometer from an emissions inspection.

Prior to the law being enacted, only the newest model year (1st year) vehicles were exempted

from the state I/M program. The revised exemptions become effective on the lat t e r of either

January 1, 2014 or the first day of a month that is 30 days after the North Carolina Department of

Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) certifies that the USEPA has approved the

amendment to the S tate I mplementation P lan (SIP) incorporating the statutory changes.

The new exemption will increase emissions of nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, and

carbon monoxide in counties where the I/M program is in place. Consequently, a SIP revision is

required to be submitted to the USEPA de monstrating that the SIP complies with the

requirements of Section 110(l) of the FCAA as amended. Section 110(l) states:

“Each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under this chapter shall

be adopted by such State after reasonable notic e and public hearing. The [USEPA]

Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with

any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as

defined in section 171 of this title), or any other applicable requirement of this act.”2

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 23 , 2013 

### This means that North Carolina would have to demonstrate that any emissions increase would

not hinder an y area where the I/M program is implemented from attaining and/or maintaining all

of the NAAQS. Additional ly, it requires the state to compensate or achieve equivalent emissions

reductions to offset increased emissions due to changes in the vehicle emissions program.

Failure to have a revised SIP approved by USEPA before eliminating or modifying an I/M

progra m could result in the state being sued for non

- compliance with the Clean Air Act.

The purpose of this SIP revision is to document the changes in emissions resulting from the I/M

program change, to demonstrate the state’s approach for compensating for the se emissions

increases, and to demonstrate that these changes will not interfere with the attainment or

maintenance of NAAQS. In a separate action, North Carolina is amending state rules (15A

NCAC 023 .1000) that contain provisions related to the I/M prog ram.3

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 23 , 2013 

### 2.0 BACKGROUND

The North Carolina I/M program started in 1982 with Mecklenburg County being required to

implement the program to address violations of the carbon monoxide (CO) NAAQS. In 1984,

Wake County was added to the program to address CO NAAQS violations. With the passage of

the 1990 CAA Amendments, seven other counties (Cabarrus, Durham, Forsyth, Gaston,

Guilford, Orange, and Union) were added to the I/M program to address violations of the 1

- hour

ozone and/or CO NAAQS. Under the 1 997 8

- hour ozone standard, the Ch arlotte/Gastonia/Rock

Hill area (referred to as Met r olina) was designated moderate nonattainment, which required the

following three counties to be included in the program: Iredell, Lincoln, and Rowan. Later on,

Sen ate Bill 953 (Session Law 1999

- 328) was enacted requiring an additional 36 counties to have

the vehicle emission program in order to improve air quality statewide. These counties were

added based on population, vehicle miles traveled, and the likely contr ibution by motor vehicles

to high ozone levels in these counties and nearby counties. This expanded the program to a total

of 48 counties.

In 2011, Session Law 2011

- 95 was passed to exempt plug

- in electric vehicles from the emissions

inspection requirement. In the following year, Session Law 2012

- 199 was enacted to change the

I/M exemption from first model year vehicles to three newest model year vehicles with less than

70,000 miles.

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)

- Division of Motor Vehicles

(DMV), License and Theft Bureau, has operational responsibility for the emissions inspection

program in North Carolina and has created rules for implementing and monitoring the program

under the North Carolina Administrative Code (Title 19A NCAC 03D.05). The North Carolina

Division of Air Quality ( NC DAQ) has adopted air quality rules under 15A NCAC 02D .1000 to

reflect the requi rements of Senate Bill 953 and USEPA regulations. In addition the NCDAQ

develops s pecifications for the program and certif ies the emissions testing equipment used in the

program.

The initial emissions inspection program in North Carolina was based on a “tail

- pipe” test. The

test was administered by inserting a probe in the vehicle’s tailpipe and measuring the amount of

pollution emitted. The tail

- pipe test measured carbon monoxide and volatile organic compound

emissions. The test could not identify th e emissions

- related component that was malfunctioning,

nor could it measure emissions of nitrogen oxides, which is a key precursor to ozone formation.

Beginning October 2002 , inspection stations in the original nine counties converted from tail

pipe test ing to the new On Board Diagnostic II (OBD II ) emissions testing for all 1996 and newer4

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 23 , 2013 

### light duty gasoline vehicles. The program continued to expand until January 1, 2006, at which

time inspection stations in 48 counties were performing the OBD II emission s test on all 1996

and newer light duty gasoline vehicles. Once the program was fully implemented, tail

- pipe

testing for vehicles older than 1996 was discontinued.

Model year 1996 and newer vehicles have standardized computer systems that continually

mo nitor the electronic sensors of engines and emission control systems. The vehicle’s dashboard

warning light is required by the USEPA to illuminate whenever vehicle emissions exceed 1.5

times allowance of the Federal Test Procedure (FTP). When a potential problem is detected, the

dashboard warning light may also be illuminated to alert the driver. An OBD II system detects a

problem well before symptoms such as poor performance, high emissions or poor fuel economy

are recognized by the driver. An OBD II emi ssion test provides a more timely and

comprehensive picture of a vehicle’s emissions status because it evaluates emissions during

vehicle operation, whereas a tailpipe test measures emissions for a few moments once a year.

Early detection helps to avoid c ostly repairs and improves engine and emission control system

performance.

On November 1, 2008, the s tate ended the use of paper stickers and began the electronic

authorization program. The electronic authorization program also synchronized the vehicle

registration renewal date with the vehicle inspection due date, essentially requiring a passing

inspection prior to a vehicle’s registration renewal. A safety only inspection is required for all

vehicles less than 35 years old in counties without the I /M program and vehicles older than 1996

in counties with the I/M program.

A vehicle that qualifies for an emissions waiver may have their registration renewed after

passing the safety equipment portion of the vehicle inspection and receiving a waiver for the

OBD portion. The DMV had contracted with Verizon Business to manage the Vehicle

Inspection Database (VID). In April 2012, the DMV signed a contract with Systech

International to serve as the State’s new VID contractor and to enhance its functionalit y. These

new enhancements are expected to not only benefit the state by reducing administrative costs,

but to minimize the financial impact current ly placed on inspection station owners. The

enhancement will be deployed through the implementation of a we b

- based solution to eliminate

the need for inspection stations to own specific analyzers, costly service contracts with analyzer

providers and dedicated phone lines for dial up connections. This new system w ould allow for

real time data transfer between t he inspection stations, the VID, and the DMV’s vehicle

registration database, thus minimizing wait time for vehicle registration issuance and renewals.5

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 23 , 2013 

### In 2002, North Carolina inspection stations performed over 2.5 million vehicle emission

inspections. Th e number of OBD inspections in 2006 was about 4.6 million. In 2011,

approximately 4.8 million vehicles were tested.6

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 23 , 2013 

### 3.0 EMISSIONS INVENTORIES AND MAINTENANCE DEMONSTRATION

3.1 Study Areas

Section 175A(a) of the CAA ( Maintenance Plan Revision ) , requires states to submit a request for

re

- desig n ation from nonattainment to attainment once an area has attained the NAAQS. It also

requires states to submit a maintenance plan for the pollutant of concern for at least 10 years

after the redesignation

. Furthermore, Section 110(l) of the CAA ( Implementation Plan

Revisions )

, states that a revision of a maintenance SIP would not be approved if a proposed

action would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable

further pr ogress, or any other applicable requirement of the Act.

North Carolina has several ozone and CO maintenance areas which rely on the I/M program for

continued compliance with the NAAQS. Two of these areas are currently violating the 2008 8

-

hour ozone st andard. Based on this current status, the USEPA has advised the DAQ that

emissions analysis would be required for maintenance areas that are currently violating a

NAAQS and all other areas where the I/M program is included as part of a federally approved

SIP. Based on these criteria, the three study areas are: Metrolina ozone nonattainment area

(pending USEPA approval for maintenance status) , Triad ozone maintenance area, and the

remaining I/M counties. Table 3

- 1 summarizes key aspects of each study are a.

Table 3

- 1 I/M Program Study Areas

1 

### For a complete list of I/M program counties, see Table 4

- 1.

Area 1 was assigned to the Metrolina area because it is currently designated nonattainment under

both the 1997 and 2008 8

- hour Ozone Standard. The Metrolina area with the I/M program

includes the counties of Cabarrus, Gaston, Lin coln, Mecklenburg, Rowan, Union and Iredell.

Area 2 was assigned to represent the Triad counties which are maintenance for the 1997 8

- hour Area Name # of

Counties 1 

### Current Designation Current NAAQS

Violations

1 Metrolina 7 1997 8

- hr Ozone NAAQS: moderate

nonattainment, pending redesignation

approval from USEPA

2008 8

- hr Ozone NAAQS: marginal

nonattainment 2008 8

- hr Ozone

Standard

2 Triad 3 Attainment or maintenance for all

applicable NAAQS 2008 8

- hr Ozone

Standard

3 All

Remaining 38 Attainment and/or maintenance for all

applicable NAAQS None7

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 23 , 2013 

### ozone standard. The three Triad counties with an I/M program in operation includes the counties

of Davidson, Forsyt h and Guilford. The Triad area was selected because it has recently violated

the 20 08 8

- hour ozone standard, despite being designated as attainment of this standard. Area 3

is comprised of the Raleigh

- Durham

- Chapel Hill (an ozone maintenance area) as wel l as the

remaining 31 I/M counties which are not part of either Area 1 or 2. The Triangle counties

consist of Chatham, Durham, Franklin, Granville, Johnston, Orange and Wake. A list of

remaining I/M program counties in Study Area 3 is provided later in T able 4

- 1.

Several counties in Area 1, 2, and 3 are designated CO maintenance areas. This includes

Mecklenburg Count y in Area 1, Forsyth Count y in Area 2, and Durham and Wake Counties in

Area 3. The CO levels in each of these maintenance counties are less than 23% of the CO

NAAQS.

3.2 Theory of Approach

T here are t wo basic approaches used to demonstrate continued maintenance. The first is the

comparison of an emissions inventory between the current program and the target program. The

second approach involves complex analysis using gridded dispersion modeling. The approach

used by the NCDAQ is the comparison of emissions inventories (i.e., current I/M program versus

the target I/M program with the new exemptions).

USEPA Region 4 has sta ted that since the current I/M p rogram meets the performance standards

described in 40 CFR Part 51, Section 352, the target I/M p rogram is not to cause an emissions

increase which would interfere with the attainment of NAAQS. To demonstrate this, on

- road

mobile source emissions for each county of the 48 I/M counties were modeled twice, first with

the current I/M p rogram parameters and th en with the target I/M p rogram parameters. Emissions

of each pollutant were compared at the county and area levels in units of kilograms per day

(kg/day) to determine whether the target program causes increases in emissions

.

USEPA’s Motor Vehicle Emissi on Simulator (MOVES) mobile model was used to generate on

road mobile sources emissions. The MOVES model uses road class vehicle miles traveled and

other operating conditions as input parameters to generate an output file containing estimated

emissions. For the projected years’ inventories, the on

- road mobile sources emissions are

calculated by running the MOVES mobile model for the future year with the projected VMT to

generate emissions under the current and target I/M program specifications. The USEPA

recommends that users modeling an existing I/M program in MOVES begin by examining the

default I/M program description included in MOVES for the particular county in question. The

NCDAQ modified the default data in MOVES to reflect county specific compli ance factors. The8

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 23 , 2013 

### USEPA Region 4 has also stated that no additional T ravel D emand M odeling (TDM) would be

necessary to generate the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and speed data needed for the modeling

and that default data could be used if necessary. The NC DAQ has TDM data from recent SIP

development and transportation conformity projects for the Metrolina, Triad, and Triangle non

attainment and maintenance areas, so no MOVES default VMT and speed data was used. A

complete discussion of the MOVES model ing is provided in Sections 4 through 7.

Compliance Rate

The current I/M SIP (submitted to US EPA on May 21, 2010) commits North Carolina to ensure

a C ompliance R ate (CR) of no less than 92% among subject vehicles by 2011. This SIP has not

yet been approved by the US EPA. The most recent approved version of the I/M SIP requires a

CR of at least 95%.

In recent years, North Carolina instituted an electronic authorization program which replaced

paper stickers with electronic authorizations. This process sync hronized vehicle registration

renewal date with the vehicle inspection renewal date, essentially requiring a safety and/or

emissions inspection prior to the vehicle’s registration renewal. As a result of tying the

inspection requirements to vehicle regist ration, the actual CR has improved and varies between

96 and 99 percent. In 2011, the North Carolina DMV reported a program

- wide CR of 98.48% to

US EPA based on electronic records. The reported CR for 2010 was 99.34%. The NC DAQ is

proposing to increase t he I/M SIP CR to 96% to compensate for emission increases associated

with the target exemptions. Based on the trends observed in recent years, the NC DAQ believes

the target compliance rate is achievable. Table 3

- 2 summarizes the study scenarios.

Table 3

- 2 I/M Program Study Compliance Rates

Modeling Year

The proposed changes to the I/M p rogram are planned to go into effect in 2014, pending

approval of a revised I/M SIP by the USEPA. The USEPA Region 4 has stated that emissions

modeling regarding revisions to the I/M p rogram are to be contemporaneous with the

implementation date of the pr oposed changes as practical. Therefore, the emissions modeling

was performed for the year 2014, plus or minus one year in keeping with the year of

I/M Program Model Years

Exempted Compliance

Rate Waiver

Rate

Current Latest Model Year 95% 5%

Target 3 L atest Model Years 96% 5%9

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 23 , 2013 

### implementation specified in the legislation. Table 3

- 3 summarizes the projected years modeled

for each stud y area.

Table 3

- 3 MOVES Emissions Modeling Years

Pollutants Modeled

Table 3

- 4 lists the pollutants which were modeled using MOVES2010b. For CO, the model was

run for a typical winter (January) day to represent highest emission levels expected. For all other

pollutants, the model was run for a typical ozone season (July) day

.

Table 3

- 4 I/M Pollutants Modeled

Pollutant Emissions Modeling

Month Unit

Carbon Monoxide

(CO) January kg/day

Oxides of Nitrogen

( NOx ) July kg/day

Volatile Organic

Compounds (VOC) July kg/day

Particulate M atter

PM2.5 July kg/day

Three Newest Model Year Vehicles with 70,000 Miles

As mentioned earlier, the legislation requires emissions inspections for three newest model year

vehicles with greater than 70,000 miles and are not qualified for the exempt ion

. Due to the

complexities involved in modeling such vehicles in MOVES , the NC DA Q has assumed that all

three newest model year vehicles would be exempted . This approach results in an

overestimation of modeled emissions for the target program, therefore provid ing a more

conservative estimate of its impact. For example, it is estimate d that approximately 0.5 million Study

Area Name Year

Modeled Origin of Data

1 Metrolina 2013 Metrolina Redesignation and

Maintenance Plan

2 Triad 2015 Triad transportation conformity

– Long Range Transportation Plan

update from 2012

3 All Remaining 2014 Triangle Redesignation Plan

Supplement10

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 23 , 2013 

### vehicles out of 4.8 million total number of vehicles tested in 2011 were less than three model

years old with less than 70,000 mile odometer reading captured during time of inspection

. About

13,600 vehicles were less than three model years and had greater than 70,000 miles. The

modeling approach used in this SIP revision assumes that all vehicles less than three model years

would be exempted from emissions inspection requirements. I n reality

, these new vehicles less

than three years old with over 70,000 miles traveled would be required to have an emissions

inspection and so the study’s air emissions would be less than the modeled amounts.

3. 3 Summary of Emissions

Using the emission estimation approach in the MOVES model gives a summary of emissions in

kilograms per typical winter or summer weekday, by county. The county level data results are

summed to arrive at total daily emission s by study area. County specific emissions results are

provi ded in Section 6.3

.

Tables 3

- 6 and 3

- 7 present the results for NOx and VOC, respectively, which are precursors to

ozone formation. The modeling results indicate that the increase in emissions associated with

additional vehicles being exempted from the target I/M program can be easily offset by a higher

compliance rate i n all areas. Additionally, it is estimated that statewide, NOx e missions could

decrease by about 133 kg/day. Therefore, it is concluded that the target I/M program will not

interfere with the attainment of the ozone NAAQS.

Table 3

- 6 NOx Emissions (kg/da y)

Table 3

- 7 VOC Emissions (kg/day) Study

Area Name Current I/M Program

(95% compliance Rate,

1 year Exemption) Target I/M Program

(96% compliance Rate,

3 year Exemption) Difference

1 Metrolina 98,157 98,122

- 35

2 Triad 36,157 36,143

- 15

3 All Remaining 226,196 226,113

- 83

Statewide Total 360,510 360,377

- 133

Study

Area Name Current I/M Program

(95% compliance Rate,

1 year Exemption) Target I/M Program

(96% compliance Rate,

3 year Exemption) Difference

1 Metrolina 48,545 48,523

- 22

2 Triad 19,965 19,954

- 11

3 All Remaining 115,443 115,384

- 59

Statewide Total 183,953 183,860

- 9211

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 23 , 2013 

### Table 3

- 8 summarizes direct PM2.5 emissions under the current and target I/M programs. N o

increase in emissions is expected.

Table 3

- 8 PM2.5 (Direct) Emissions (kg/day)

Table 3

- 9 summarizes CO emissions results. The data suggests that with the exception of the

Metrolina area, all other areas could achieve a decrease in CO emissions under the target I/M

program scenario. A closer look at Metrolina indicate s that Mecklenburg County is the only

county where a CO emissions increase is modeled (see Table 3

- 1 0 ). The current design value in

Mecklenburg County is 1.7 ppm which is 19% of the 8

- hour CO NAAQS set at 9 ppm. Since

the ambient concentrations are so far below the NAAQS, t he NC DAQ is concluding that the

projected increase in CO is comparatively minimal, and the effect to ambient concentration of

CO will be correspondingly minimal as well. Therefore, there is no expectation or concern that

this change in CO emissions due to the I/M program change will affect the attainment status of

the Metrolina area CO NAAQS.

Table 3

- 9 CO Emissions (kg/day) Study

Area Name Current I/M Program

(95% compliance Rate,

1 year Exemption) Target I/M Program

(96% compliance Rate,

3 year Exemption) Difference

1 Metrolina 2,413 2,413 0

2 Triad 791 791 0

3 All Remaining 5,175 5,172 0

Statewide Total 8,377 8,377 0

Study

Area Name Current I/M Program

(95% compliance Rate,

1 year Exemption) Target I/M Program

(96% compliance Rate,

3 year Exemption) Difference

1 Metrolina 1,047,712 1,047,737 24

2 Triad 492,801 492,720

- 82

3 All Remaining 2,560,587 2,560,367

- 220

Statewide Total 4,101,100 4,100,823

- 27712

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 23 , 2013 

### Table 3

- 10 County Specific CO Emissions in the Metrolina Area (kg/day)

County Current I/M Program

(95% compliance Rate, 1

year Exemption) Target I/M Program

(96% compliance Rate,

3 year Exemption) Difference

CABARRUS 103,874 103,862

- 12

GASTON 117,917 117,901

- 16

IREDELL 106,337 106,326

- 11

LINCOLN 47,477 47,467

- 10

MECKLENBURG 477,930 478,026 96

ROWAN 92,986 92,973

- 13

UNION 101,191 101,181

- 10

Total: 1,047,712 1,047,737 24



### The I/M program does not affect emissions of other criteria pollutants (e.g., SO 2 

### , lead).

Therefore, the target changes to the I/M program are not expected to interfere with the attainment

of other NAAQS.

3.4 Conclusion

The s tate of North Carolina i s revising its I/M program to exempt the three newest model year

vehicles with less than 70,000 miles from requiring an emissions insp ection. The NC DAQ has

demonstrated that emissions increase associated with this exemption can be offset by a higher

program compliance rate. As documented in 2010 and 2011 Test Data R eports to the USEPA,

the state of North Carolina is already achieving a compliance rate greater than 96%. In

summary, the I/M program change is not expected to affect emissions of criteria pollutants, and

is not expected to interfere with the attainment of any NAAQS.13

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 23 , 2013 

### 4.0 ON

- ROAD EMISSIONS ESTIMATION APPROACH

Mo bile source emissions are estimated by the methodologies suggested in the USEPA

documents : Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations, Policy

Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for State Implementation Plan Development

, Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes (EPA

- 420

- B

- 09

- 046, December 2009), and

Technical Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for Emission Inventory Preparation in State

Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity (EPA

- 420

- B

- 10

- 023, April 2010).

In 2010, the MOBILE6.2 model was superseded by the MOVES (Motor Vehicle Emissions

Simulator) model. MOVES2010b (hereafter referred to as MOVES) replaces the USEPA’s

previo us emissions model for on

- road mobile sources, MOBILE6.2. MOVES can be used to

estimate exhaust and evaporative emissions as well as brake and tire wear emissions from all

types of on

- road vehicles. To ease the transition from MOBILE6.2 to MOVES, the USEPA also

established a grace period, ending March 2, 2013. After th is grace period, MOVES must be used

for all SIP and transportation conformity emissions analysis modeling; therefore, MOVES

- based

modeling is the official approved model at this time and was u sed for this analysis of the

proposed change to the I/M Program

This report covers only the procedures for developing MOVES

- based emissions (kg/day) for the

following criteria pollutants: NOx, VOC, PM2.5 (Direct), and CO emissions for on

- road mobile

sourc es. In this analysis, generating emissions in inventory mode was the preferred option

because it is relatively quick and greatly simplifies the post

- processing of MOVES output. When

the inventory option is selected, MOVES provides emissions estimates as m ass, using VMT and

vehicle population entered by the user. If the emission rate option is selected, MOVES provides

emission rates as mass per unit of activity. The emission rate option produces a look

- up table of

emission rates that must be post

- processed to produce an inventory.

MOVES

- based emission inventories were developed for all 48 I/M counties in duplicate with

changes only to the I/M input parameters which reflected a difference in compliance rate and the

model year value for vehicles exempt from the target I/M Program . The base year selected for

each modeled area is contemporaneous with when the rule change is to be implemented in

accordance with the NC legislative mandate for this I/M Program update. Each of the three

areas’ emissions inventory r epresents the estimated county emissions summed for CO based on a

typical winter weekday and for NOx, VOC & PM2.5 (Direct) based on a typical summer

weekday.14

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 23 , 2013 

### Furthermore

, this technical analysis documents the development of on

- road mobile source

emissions analysis for North Carolina counties subject to the I/M p rogram grouped by area

designated as Nonattainment or Attainment and Maintenance. The technical analysis grouped the

modeling of the 48 North Carolina I/M counties into 3 areas. Area 1 was assigned to the

Metrolina area because it is designated nonattainment under both the 1997 and 2008 8

- hour O 3



### standard. The Metrolina area includes the counties of Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln, Mecklenburg,

Rowan, Union and Iredell. Area 2 was assigned to represent th e three Triad area counties

consisting of Davidson, Forsyth and Guilford which follows USEPA’s comments during the

March 25, 2013 conference call with NC DAQ

. The USEPA’s recommendation was based on the

most recent air quality data which shows violations o f the 2008 8

- hour ozone standard

. Area 3

included the Raleigh

- Durham

- Chapel Hill, North Carolina 8

- Hour Ozone Maintenance Area as

well as the remaining 31 I/M counties not part of either Area 1 or 2. The Triangle counties

consist of Chatham, Durham, Frank lin, Granville, Johnston, Orange and Wake. Table 4

- 1 lists all

48 I/M counties according to the area they were assigned to in this technical analysis.

Table 4

- 1 I/M Program Counties by Area

Study

Area FIPs Code County Name

1 37025 Cabarrus

1 37071 Gaston

1 37097 Iredell

1 37109 Lincoln

1 37119 Mecklenburg

1 37159 Rowan

1 37179 Union

2 37057 Davidson

2 37067 Forsyth

2 37081 Guilford

3 37037 Chatham

3 37063 Durham

3 37069 Franklin

3 37077 Granville

3 37101 Johnston

3 37135 Orange

3 37183 Wake15

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 23 , 2013 

### Table 4

- 1 I/M Program Counties by Area

Study

Area FIPs Code County Name

3 37001 Alamance

3 37019 Brunswick

3 37021 Buncombe

3 37023 Burke

3 37027 Caldwell

3 37031 Carteret

3 37035 Catawba

3 37045 Cleveland

3 37049 Craven

3 37051 Cumberland

3 37065 Edgecombe

3 37085 Harnett

3 37087 Haywood

3 37089 Henderson

3 37105 Lee

3 37107 Lenoir

3 37125 Moore

3 37127 Nash

3 37129 New Hanover

3 37133 Onslow

3 37147 Pitt

3 37151 Randolph

3 37155 Robeson

3 37157 Rockingham

3 37161 Rutherford

3 37167 Stanly

3 37169 Stokes

3 37171 Surry

3 37191 Wayne

3 37193 Wilkes

3 37195 Wilson16

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 23 , 2013 

### 5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE MEASURES

The quality assurance (QA) for the on

- road mobile source category can be broken into two

components: 1) input files and 2) MOVES outputs/summaries. Each of these components is

detailed in the paragraphs below.

After the speed and VMT information is acquired from the North Carolina Department of

Transportation (NCDOT), the speed information is checked for reasonableness against previous

sets of speeds for the areas. Once the speeds are deemed reasonable, the NCD AQ enters the

speed information into MOVES input files. In addition to the speed information, the user enters

data to characterize local meteorology, fleet and activity information. All input files are checked

against a “key” with the original source of the information. This QA step is always performed

by a person other than the one who generated the files. If any discrepancies are found, they are

noted back to the person who generated the input files for correction. Additionally, a report is

maintaine d that identifies the person who produced the input file, the person that QA’d the file,

and where the data originated. Once the input files have passed through the QA procedure,

MOVES is run to generate an emissions inventory

.17

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 23 , 2013 

### 6.0 DISCUSSION OF MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS MODELING

On

- road mobile sources produce daily emission rates for NOx and VOC as well as other criteria

pollutants. Emissions of four pollutants: NOx, VOC, PM2.5 (Direct), and CO were estimated for

this analysis. The objective of the fol lowing section is to describe the mobile source categor y,

the MOVES input files, and the emissions estimation procedures. This section also includes

summary tables of the estimated emissions by county for each of the three areas.

6 .1 Introduction and Scope

On

- road mobile sources are defined as those vehicles that travel on public roadways. Emissions

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

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

reflect the total emissions from this source category. An important component of the on

- road

mobile emission estimation process is interagency consultation. The primary transportation

partners involved include the Met ropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), NCDAQ, NCDOT

and USEPA. The MPOs provide d NCDAQ TDM speed and VMT data for the areas within their

municipal planning organization boundaries. The NCDOT provided speed and VMT data for

portions of four counties (Da vidson, Franklin, Granville, and Johnston Counties) not covered by

the TDM which are referred to as N on

- M odeled A nalysis A reas (NMAA). The NCDOT also

provided vehicle registration data and vehicle mix data.

6 .2 MOVES Model Input

All input data for MOVES m odeling is first compiled into county

- level MySQL databases which

includ ing separate tables for each type of input data needed. Output data from MOVES

modeling runs are also created as MySQL databases. Due to their size and complexity, the

MOVES input an d output database files will be provided to USEPA electronically.

6 .2.1 On

- road Vehicle Speed Data

Emission modeling using MOVES requires vehicle speed input data formatted as fractions of

driving time in each of sixteen speed ranges, called “speed bins”, for each combination of clock

hour/day type (week day or weekend day), vehicle type, and road type. Speed Bin 1 represents

speeds from 0 to 2.5 mph, and Speed Bin 16 represents speeds of 72.5 mph and greater. Speed

Bins 2 through 15 each represent 5 mph speed ranges between 2.5 mph and 72.5 mph. The

fractions for each combination of vehicle type, road type, and hour/day type sum to one. To

generate these average speed distribution input tables, the NCDAQ used spreadsheet

- based data

converters developed by the USEPA to process the speed data provided by MPOs and NCDOT.18

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 23 , 2013 

### Raw Speed Data

The MPOs were the source of the TDM speed and VMT data for the areas within the MPO

boundary jurisdiction. Area 1 included the Metrolina counties of Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell,

Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan, and Union. Area 2 included the Triad counties of Davidson

(partial), Forsyth and Guilford. Area 3 included the Triangle counties of Chatham, Durham,

Franklin (partial), Granville (partia l), Johnston (partial), Orange and Wake and also the

remaining 31 NC counties currently un der to the I/M Program . The following shortened road

type acronyms correspond to the longer functional road classifications which a re used in T ables

6

- 1 through 6

- 5.

RI Rural Interstate

ROPA Rural Other Principle Arterial

RMinArt Rural Minor Arterial

RMjrColl Rural Major Collector

RMinColl Rural Minor Collector

RL Rural Local

UI Urban Interstate

UF Urban Freeway & Expressway

UOPA Urban Other Principal Arterial

UMinArt Urban Minor Arterial

UColl Urban Collector

UL Urban Local

UH Urban HOV

For the Metrolina Regional Model (MRM), travel period speed data was categorized by roadway

functional class and by the four travel periods described in Table 6

- 1. Speeds p rovided for 2013

were broken down to four time periods during the day; AM Peak, Midday, PM Peak and Night.

The 2013 speed data was from the Charlotte

- Gastonia

- Rock Hill, NC

- SC 1997 8

- Hour Ozone

Nonattainment Area Redesignation Demonstration and Maintenance Plan

– Supplement.19

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 23 , 2013 

### Table 6

- 1 Regional Model Speeds for the Metrolina Area (miles/hour)

- Area 1

Year Time RI ROPA RMinArt RMjrColl RMinColl RL UI UF UOPA UMinArt Ucoll UL UHOV

Cabarrus

2013 AM NA 49 51 38 39 28 44 NA 30 29 27 24 NA

Midday NA 53 55 43 42 28 66 NA 33 31 30 22 NA

PM NA 48 48 36 37 28 40 NA 28 27 25 22 NA

Night NA 56 59 51 46 28 68 NA 41 39 38 25 NA

Gaston

2013 AM 60 57 39 41 39 28 42 52 30 29 29 24 NA

Midday 63 58 53 48 40 28 63 54 34 35 29 24 NA

PM 55 57 41 41 39 28 41 52 28 29 25 24 NA

Night 63 58 57 51 41 28 63 56 39 39 34 24 NA

Iredell

2013 AM 53 NA 15 28 26 29 48 NA 25 25 27 25 NA

Midday 68 NA 14 34 28 29 61 NA 25 27 27 25 NA

PM 56 NA 12 25 28 28 44 NA 21 23 23 24 NA

Night 68 NA 32 42 42 30 68 NA 36 36 38 26 NA

Lincoln

2013 AM NA 56 46 56 44 28 NA 68 36 35 34 26 NA

Midday NA 61 49 57 46 28 NA 68 39 38 36 26 NA

PM NA 54 43 55 44 28 NA 68 35 33 33 25 NA

Night NA 65 55 58 47 28 NA 68 45 44 39 27 NA

Mecklenburg

2013 AM NA 33 30 30 35 29 44 49 24 24 21 22 63

Midday NA 43 42 39 40 29 57 55 27 27 26 21 65

PM NA 34 37 29 34 29 40 46 21 22 20 19 66

Night NA 48 45 46 45 29 62 58 37 37 35 24 NA

Rowan

2013 AM NA 54 54 51 46 29 59 NA 38 34 33 24 NA

Midday NA 58 58 55 49 29 65 NA 39 35 30 24 NA

PM NA 55 53 51 46 29 58 NA 36 32 28 23 NA

Night NA 60 60 58 50 29 67 NA 44 41 37 25 NA

Union

2013 AM NA 50 47 44 44 31 NA 27 33 27 31 26 NA

Midday NA 52 50 47 46 30 NA 36 37 30 35 27 NA

PM NA 51 45 44 44 31 NA 27 31 25 28 26 NA

Night NA 53 56 51 48 30 NA 46 44 38 42 28 NA



### The Piedmont Triad Regional Model (PTRM) speeds and NMAA speeds data for Area 2 are

listed below in Table 6

- 2 and represent the Triad area counties. Forsyth and Guilford counties are

completely within the PTRM model boundary. Davidson is partially covered by the PTRM.20

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 23 , 2013 

### NCDOT analyzed the parts o f Davidson County outside the model boundary using the NMAA

spreadsheet. Note that the NMAA speeds provided were a single average daily speed.

The MPOs provided the Triangle Regional Model (TRM) speed data for Area 3. The TRM

contains three travel periods, AM peak, Off

- Peak (OP) and PM peak, similar to the Metrolina

area with the only difference being that the Metrolina area had 4 peak travel periods per day.

Table 6

- 3 lists the speeds.

Table 6

- 3 Triangle Regional Model Period Specific Speeds for Triangle (miles/hour)

– Area 3

County Year Period RI ROPA RMinArt RMjrColl RMinColl RL UI UF UOPA UMinArt UColl UL

Chatham 2014 AM NA 57 47 45 41 22 NA NA 55 31 48 43

OP NA 56 47 44 40 22 NA NA 54 28 46 43

PM NA 57 48 45 41 21 NA NA 56 39 51 43

Durham 2014 AM 70 44 53 44 41 27 63 53 39 38 40 22

OP 68 43 51 42 41 28 59 50 35 36 38 22

PM 71 46 56 47 42 27 66 57 42 40 42 22

Franklin 2014 AM NA 60 54 51 46 23 NA NA 52 43 42 21

OP NA 59 54 51 45 23 NA NA 51 41 42 21

PM NA 60 55 52 46 23 NA NA 53 45 43 21

Granville 2014 AM 71 50 36 45 42 24 NA NA NA 31 46 NA

OP 69 50 35 45 42 24 NA NA NA 30 45 NA

PM 71 50 40 46 43 24 NA NA NA 36 47 NA

Johnston 2014 AM 71 59 53 51 45 24 68 NA 40 44 42 24

OP 70 57 53 50 44 24 66 NA 37 42 40 24

PM 70 60 54 53 45 24 69 NA 42 46 44 24

Orange 2014 AM 69 NA 52 47 41 24 66 40 34 34 38 22

OP 66 NA 51 47 41 24 59 37 31 32 37 22

PM 68 NA 53 48 42 24 68 45 38 37 39 22 

### Table 6

- 2 Piedmont Triad Regional Model and NMAA Speeds for Triad (miles/hour)

- Area 2

Modeled speeds for Ar ea 2

- Triad

County Year RI ROPA RMinArt RMjrColl RMinColl RL UI UF UOPA UMinArt UColl UL

Forsyth 2015 0 62 47 37 35 35 61 56 32 34 31 29

Guilford 2015 61 48 37 37 37 44 63 55 33 31 29 24

Davidson 2015 69 35 45 34 33 31 69 42 33 31 30 29

Non

- Modeled speeds for Area 2

- Triad

County Year RI ROPA RMinArt RMjrColl RMinColl RL UI UF UOPA UMinArt UColl UL

Davidson 2015 66 46 44 43 42 42 62 56 29 32 30 3121

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 23 , 2013 

### The NCDOT provided speed data for the NMAA portions of Franklin, Granville, and Johnston

counties. The NMAA speed data, unlike the TRM speed data, was provided as daily average

speeds categorized by roadway functional c lass. Table 6

- 4 lists all NMAA speeds for the

Triangle counties not fully covered by the TRM for 2013. Speed data in table 6

- 3 and 6

- 4 are

from the Supplement to the Redesignation Demonstration and Maintenance Plan for Raleigh

Durham

- Chapel Hill, NC 1997 8

- hour Ozone Nonattainment Area.

Table 6

- 4 NMAA Sp eeds for the Triangle Counties P artially C overed by TRM

County Year RI ROPA RMinArt RMjrColl RMinColl RL UI UF UOPA UMinArt UColl UL

Franklin 2014 NA 47 44 43 42 42 NA NA 29 32 NA 31

Granville 2014 66 46 44 43 42 42 63 NA 29 32 31 31

Johnston 2014 66 47 44 43 42 42 63 NA 29 31 31 31



### Table 6

- 5 lists the speeds for the remaining 31 NMAA counties within Area 3. Wake county OP

speeds were used as a daily average speeds for the remaining I/M counties not covered by a

TDM.

Table 6

- 5 NM AA Speeds for Remaining I/M Counties

- Area 3 (miles/hour)

County Year RI ROPA RMinArt RMjrColl RMinColl RL UI UF UOPA UMinArt UColl UL

Alamance 2014 68 65 48 48 38 26 65 61 49 43 41 24

Brunswick 2014 68 65 48 48 38 26 65 61 49 43 41 24

Buncombe 2014 68 65 48 48 38 26 65 61 49 43 41 24

Burke 2014 68 65 48 48 38 26 65 61 49 43 41 24

Caldwell 2014 68 65 48 48 38 26 65 61 49 43 41 24

Carteret 2014 68 65 48 48 38 26 65 61 49 43 41 24

Catawba 2014 68 65 48 48 38 26 65 61 49 43 41 24

Cleveland 2014 68 65 48 48 38 26 65 61 49 43 41 24

Craven 2014 68 65 48 48 38 26 65 61 49 43 41 24

Cumberland 2014 68 65 48 48 38 26 65 61 49 43 41 24

Edgecombe 2014 68 65 48 48 38 26 65 61 49 43 41 24

Harnett 2014 68 65 48 48 38 26 65 61 49 43 41 24

Haywood 2014 68 65 48 48 38 26 65 61 49 43 41 24

Henderson 2014 68 65 48 48 38 26 65 61 49 43 41 24

Lee 2014 68 65 48 48 38 26 65 61 49 43 41 24

Lenoir 2014 68 65 48 48 38 26 65 61 49 43 41 24

Moore 2014 68 65 48 48 38 26 65 61 49 43 41 24

Nash 2014 68 65 48 48 38 26 65 61 49 43 41 24

New Hanover 2014 68 65 48 48 38 26 65 61 49 43 41 2422

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 23 , 2013



### Table 6

- 5 NM AA Speeds for Remaining I/M Counties

- Area 3 (miles/hour)

County Year RI ROPA RMinArt RMjrColl RMinColl RL UI UF UOPA UMinArt UColl UL

Onslow 2014 68 65 48 48 38 26 65 61 49 43 41 24

Pitt 2014 68 65 48 48 38 26 65 61 49 43 41 24

Randolph 2014 68 65 48 48 38 26 65 61 49 43 41 24

Robeson 2014 68 65 48 48 38 26 65 61 49 43 41 24

Rockingham 2014 68 65 48 48 38 26 65 61 49 43 41 24

Rutherford 2014 68 65 48 48 38 26 65 61 49 43 41 24

Stanly 2014 68 65 48 48 38 26 65 61 49 43 41 24

Stokes 2014 68 65 48 48 38 26 65 61 49 43 41 24

Surry 2014 68 65 48 48 38 26 65 61 49 43 41 24

Wayne 2014 68 65 48 48 38 26 65 61 49 43 41 24

Wilkes 2014 68 65 48 48 38 26 65 61 49 43 41 24

Wilson 2014 68 65 48 48 38 26 65 61 49 43 41 24



### Average Speed Distribution Calculations

To generate the MOVES average speed distribution tables from the speed and VMT data

discussed earlier

, the NCDAQ used spreadsheet

- based tools developed by NCDAQ and US EPA

to perform the calculation procedures described below.

MOVES uses four different roadway type categories that are affected by the average speed

distribution input: rural restricted access, rural unrestricted access, urban restricted access, and

urban unrestricted access (these road types are discussed in more detail in Section 6 .2.6). In

MOVES, local roadways are included with arterials and collectors in the urban and rural

unrestricted access roads category. The USEPA recommends that the average speed distribution

for local roadw ay activity be included as part of a weighted distribution of average speed across

all unrestricted roads along with the distribution of average speeds for arterials and connectors.

When only a single average speed is available for a specific road type an d that average speed is

not identical to the average speed in a particular speed bin, MOVES guidance stipulates that

users apply the following formula for creating the appropriate speed distribution among two

adjacent speed bins.23

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 23 , 2013 

### The general formula is :

VHT Fraction A in Speed Bin with closest average speed lower than observed average speed +

VHT Fraction B in Speed Bin with closest average speed higher that observed average speed = 1

VHT Fraction A (low bin) 

### = 1

– [(observed average speed

– average speed of lower speed bin) /

(average speed of higher speed bin

– average speed of lower speed bin)]

VHT Fraction B (high bin) 

### = 1

– [(average speed of higher speed bin

– observed average speed) /

(average speed o

f higher speed bin

– average speed of lower speed bin)]

Or more simply: VHT Fraction B = 1

– VHT fraction A



### The following is an example of applying the above equations. If the single average speed for a

roadway is 58 miles per hour, the average speed distribution will be split between the 55 and 60

mph speed bins. The appropriate VHT fractions are found with the following equations:

VHT fraction A (low bin) 

### = 1

– [(58 mph Avg. Speed

– 55 mph (Bin Speed)) / (60 mph (Bin Speed)

–

55 mph (Bin Speed)] = 0.4

VHT fraction B (high bin) 

### = 1

– [(60 mph (Bin Speed)

– 58 mph Avg. Speed) / (60 mph (Bin Speed)

–

55 mph (Bin Speed)] = 0.6

VHT Fraction A (low bin) 

### + VHT Fraction B (high bin) 

### = 1

0.4 + 0.6 = 1



### As stated above, MOVES uses only four different roadway types: rural restricted access, rural

unrestricted access, urban restricted access and urban unrestricted access. This means that the

speeds for multiple roadway types need to be combined into the appropriate speed bins. To

create the speed bin f

ractions for combined roadways, the VMT for each roadway is used to

weight the speed bin fraction. For example, below are speeds and VMT for urban restricted

access road types:

Road type Speed

(miles/hour) VMT

(hourly miles)

Urban Interstate 63 250,000

Urban Freeway 56 100,00024

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 23 , 2013 

### The first step is to determine the speed bin fractions for each road type separately. For the urban

interstate road type, the speed 63 miles/hour is split between the MOVES speed bins of 60 and

65 as described above, which results in the VHT fractions of 0.4 and 0.6 for speed bins 60 and

65, respectively. Similarly, the speed for the urban freeway road type (56 miles/hour) is split

between the MOVE S speed bins of 55 and 60 and results in the VHT fractions of 0.8 and 0.2,

respectively.

The next step requires road type VMT to weigh the VHT fractions so that the final MOVES

speed bin fractions can be developed. The VHT Fraction, specific to the road type and speed

bin, is multiplied by the corresponding hourly VMT. These hourly totals are divided by the total

VMT for that hour for the road type category (in this example, urban restricted access includes

urban interstate and urban freeway). The foll owing equation is used to calculate the combined

speed bin fractions:

Where:

RT = the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) road type



### In this example, the HPMS road types are urban interstate (UI) and urban freeway (UF) and the

speed bins are 55, 60 and 65. The following layout summarizes the speed bin fractions for this

example.

HPMS Road Type Speed Bin 55 Speed Bin 60 Speed Bin 65

Urban Interstate

Urban Freeway 0.0

0.8 0.4

0.2 0.6

0.0

Using the equation below, the final MOVES speed bin fractions are calculated for the urban

restricted access road type.

VHT (Speed Bin X) 

### = [(VHT Fraction (UI) 

### * hourly VMT (UI) 

### ) + (VHT Fraction (UF) 

### * hourly VMT (UF) 

### )]

(hourly VMT

(UI) 

### + hourly VMT (UF) 

### )

VHT (Speed Bin 55) 

### = [(0.0 * 250,000) + (0.8 * 100,000)]

(250,000 + 100,000)

VHT (Speed Bin 55) 

### = 0.228625

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 23 , 2013 

### VHT (Speed Bin 60) 

### = [(0.4 * 250,000) + (0.2 * 100,000)]

(250,000 + 100,000)

VHT (Speed Bin 60) 

### = 0.3428

VHT (Speed Bin 65) 

### = [(0.6 * 250,000) + (0.0 * 100,000)]

(250,000 + 100,000)

VHT (Speed Bin 65) 

### = 0.4286



### The sum of the VHT fractions for all speed bins within a road type category must add up to 1.0.

The hourly VHT fractions by speed bin and road type are then processed through a MOVES

supplied converter to develop the speed distribution file by hour and road type.

6 .2.2 Vehicle Age Distribution

The age distribution of vehicle fleets can vary significantly from area to area. Fleets with a

higher percentage of older vehicles will have higher emissions for two reasons. Older vehicles

have typically been driven more miles and have experienced more deterioration in emission

control systems. In a ddition, a higher percen tage of older vehicles would impl y there are more

vehicles in the fleet that do not meet newer more stringent emissions standards. Surveys of

registration data indicate considerable local variability in vehicle age distributions.

For SIP and conformity purposes, the USEPA recommends and encourages states to develop

local age distributions. The MOVES model categorizes the vehicle fleet into different vehicle

classes and more model years than MOBILE6.2. A typical vehicle fleet includes a mix of

vehicles of different ages. MOVES covers a 31 year range of vehicle ages, with vehicles 30

years and older grouped together. The MOVES model allows the user to specify the fraction of

vehicles in each of 30 vehicle ages for each of the 13 source types in the model

.

Since MOVES categorizes the vehicle fleet into different vehicle classes and more model years,

the USEPA has created data converters that take registration distribution input files created for

MOBILE6.2 and converts them to the appropriate age distribu tion input tables for MOVES.

Local age distributions can be estimated from local vehicle registration data. The vehicle age

distribution comes from annual registration data for North Carolina from the NCDOT. For this

technical analysis, the age distribu tion was generated based on 2012 data. The NCDOT provided

the data based on the number of vehicle types per year from 1974 through 2012. Vehicles

greater than 25 years old were combined and included as the 25 th 

### model year. The vehicle count

information is provided for nine vehicle types; light duty gas vehicles (LDGV), light duty diesel

vehicles (LDDV), light duty gas trucks 1 (LDGT1), light duty gas trucks 2 (LDGT2), light duty

diesel trucks 1 (LDDT1), light d uty diesel trucks 2 (LDDT2), heavy duty gas vehicles (HDGV),

heavy duty diesel vehicles (HDDV) and motorcycles (MC). LDDT1 and LDDT2 are combined26

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 23 , 2013 

### and labeled as light duty diesel trucks (LDDT). The data converter was then used to take this

information an d make it ready as an input for MOVES.

6 .2.3 Vehicle Mix Data

Vehicle mix or VMT mix is used by MOVES to convert annual VMT to VMT by HPMS class,

VMT fractions by hour, and VMT by road type distribution. The vehicle mix is developed by

the same method use d in MOBILE6.2, as outlined below. The resulting file is then used in a

MOVES supplied converter to develop the VMT by HPMS class, VMT fractions by hour, and

VMT by road type distribution. The vehicle mix refers to the percentage of different vehicle

type s on each of the 12 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) HPMS road types. These

road types are listed above in the speed assumptions section. It is critical for estimating on

- road

mobile emissions in an area to use data that accurately reflects the vehi cles types traveling on

each of these different road types.

In August 2004, the USEPA released the guidance document

, Technical Guidance on the Use of

MOBILE6.2 for Emission Inventory Preparation ( EPA420

- R

- 04

- 013 )

, which outlines how to

convert HPMS tra ffic count data to MOBILE6.2 vehicle mix data

. Outlined below is the

methodology used to convert the 13 HPMS vehicle types count data reported to FHWA and

generate a state specific vehicle mix.

The North Carolina HPMS data used to generate the statewide vehicle mix was based on 2011

count data for the contemporaneous modeling of all three areas for years 2013, 2014 and 2015.

Table 6

- 6 uses the new FHWA Functional Classification designations and the standard FHWA

13 vehicle classification scheme which sho ws the percent of VMT per vehicle type for each of

the 12 road classes.27

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 23 , 2013 

### Table 6

- 6 North Carolina Vehicle Activity Summary by Functional Classification

- 2011

FC Functional Class Stations MC Cars 2A4T Bus 2ASU 3ASU 4ASU 4AST 5AST 6AST 5AMT 6AMT 7AMT

1 Rural Interstate 23 0.0038 0.7025 0.1448 0.0057 0.0213 0.0067 0.0003 0.0086 0.1017 0.0011 0.0022 0.0010 0.0002

3 Rural P rincipal Arterial 164 0.0061 0.6954 0.1959 0.0063 0.0278 0.0068 0.0007 0.0117 0.0459 0.0018 0.0009 0.0003 0.0003

4 Rural Minor Arterial 167 0.0055 0.7172 0.1976 0.0053 0.0256 0.0061 0.0006 0.0088 0.0312 0.0017 0.0001 0.0000 0.0003

5 Rural Major Collector 401 0.0070 0.7057 0.2137 0.0055 0.0276 0.0062 0.0006 0.0086 0.0235 0.0013 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002

6 Rural Minor Collector 25 0.0120 0.6640 0.2178 0.0078 0.0311 0.0105 0.0009 0.0078 0.0455 0.0025 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002

7 Rural Local 52 0.0086 0.7178 0.2046 0.0090 0.0351 0.0103 0.0010 0.0055 0.0069 0.0011 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

1 Urban I nterstate 71 0.0041 0.7579 0.1563 0.0049 0.0182 0.0057 0.0003 0.0039 0.0466 0.0005 0.0011 0.0005 0.0001

2 Urban Principal Arterial

-

Frwy/Expwy 100 0.0062 0.7360 0.1748 0.0054 0.0217 0.0069 0.0007 0.0100 0.0354 0.0011 0.0012 0.0004 0.0001

3 Urban P rincipal Arterial 330 0.0053 0.7736 0.1686 0.0048 0.0206 0.0057 0.0010 0.0053 0.0130 0.0014 0.0003 0.0001 0.0003

4 Urban Minor Arterial 231 0.0057 0.7708 0.1772 0.0041 0.0220 0.0048 0.0006 0.0052 0.0085 0.0008 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001

5 Urban Major Collector 37 0.0046 0.7859 0.1688 0.0053 0.0199 0.0043 0.0004 0.0046 0.0055 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001

7 Urban Local 23 0.0108 0.7175 0.1976 0.0099 0.0296 0.0130 0.0003 0.0055 0.0152 0.0006 0.0000 0.0002 0.000128

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013 

### 6 .2.4 Disaggregating State Specific Vehicle Mix Information for MOVES

The procedures in Section 4.1.4 and 4.1.5 of the Technical Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6.2

for Emission Inventory Preparation were used to create vehicle mix tables used as inputs for

VMT converter applications provided by the USEPA. The procedures map the vehicle mixes

shown in Section 6 .2.3 (12 roadway functional classes, 13 vehicle types) to the mix matrix

required for the V MT converter applications (12 roadway functional classes, 16 vehicle types).

The process also provides calculation of projected mixes for future years. The resulting vehicle

mix tables for years 2013, 2014, and 2015 are presented in Section 7.1.

6 .2.5 Veh icles/Equipment: On

- Road Vehicle Equipment

The Vehicles/Equipment menu item and panel is used to specify the vehicle types that are

included in the MOVES run. The MOVES model allows the user to select from among 13 source

use types and 4 different fuel ty pes (gasoline, diesel, compressed natural gas (CNG), and

electricity).

For SIP and regional conformity analyses, users must select the appropriate fuel and vehicle type

combinations that reflect the full range of vehicles that will operate in each county. In general,

all valid diesel, gasoline, and CNG (only transit buses) vehicle and fuel combinations should be

selected, unless data is available showing that some vehicles or fuels are not used in the area of

analysis.

6 .2.6 Road Type

The determination o f rural or urban road types should be based on the HPMS classification of the

roads in the county being analyzed. The Road Type Panel is used to specify the types of roads

that are included in the run. The MOVES model defines five different road types to c ategorize

the roadways used in a particular MOVES run. The five road types are:

 Off

- Network (road type 1)

– all locations where the predominant activity is vehicle starts,

parking and idling (parking lots, truck stops, rest areas, freight or bus terminals )

 Rural Restricted Access (2)

– rural highways that can only be accessed by an on

- ramp

 Rural Unrestricted Access (3)

– all other rural roads (arterials, connectors, and local streets)29

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013 

###  Urban Restricted Access (4)

– urban highways or freeways that can only be accessed by an

on

- ramp

 Urban Unrestricted Access (5)

– all other urban roads (arterials, connectors, and local

streets).

The NCDAQ followed the USEPA guidance that states that all SIP and regional conformity

analyses must include the Off

- Networ k road type in order to account for emissions from vehicle

starts, extended idle activity, and evaporative emissions (for VOCs). The Off

- Network road type

is automatically selected when start or extended idle pollutant processes are chosen and must be

sel ected for all evaporative emissions to be quantified. Off

- Network activity in MOVES is

primarily determined by the Source Type Population input, which is described in Section 6 .2.9 of

this document. Some evaporative emissions are estimated on roadways (i .e., road types 2, 3, 4,

and 5) to account for evaporative emissions that occur when vehicles are driving. All roads

types are automatically selected when Refueling emission processes are selected.

The MOVES model uses Road Type to assign default drive cycles to activity on road types 2, 3,

4, and 5. For example, for unrestricted access road types, MOVES uses drive cycles that assume

stop and go driving, including multiple accelerations, decelerations, and short periods of idling.

For restricted access r oad types, MOVES uses drive cycles that include a higher fraction of

cruise activity with less time spent accelerating or idling, by default MOVES incorporates some

ramp activity as well

.

6 .2.7 Pollutants and Processes

For this analysis, county

- level year specific daily emissions were modeled. In order to account

for the complete on

- road source emissions, all emission processes generating NOx, VOC, CO

and PM2.5 pollutant emissions; including running exhaust, start exhaust, and evaporative

processes we re incorporated into the model run as required for SIP development.

6 .2.8 Temperature and Relative Humidity Data

Local temperature and humidity data are required inputs for SIP development with MOVES.

Ambient temperature is a key factor in estimating emis sion rates for on

- road vehicles for all

pollutant processes. Relative humidity is also important for estimating NOx emissions from

motor vehicles. The MOVES model requires a temperature (in degrees Fahrenheit) and relative

humidity (in percent

– 0 to 100 S cale) for each clock hour. For example, MOVES requires a 24

-

hour temperature and relative humidity profile to model a full day of emissions on an hourly

basis. For the technical analysis a typical January and July monthly average 24

- hour temperature30

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013 

### an d relative humidity profiles from twelve distinct meteorology zones representative of the 48

I/M counties were applied. The source of the meteorology was specific to the years for I/M

modeling for each of the three areas , as summarized earlier in Table 3

- 3 . T he data was pulled

from airport weather stations referred to as “Met_Station_Name” listed by Meteorology Zone ID

below in Table 6

- 7 . The input data tables used in the MOVES modeling are listed in Section 7.2.

Table 6

- 7 Metrology Stations Assigned to I/M Counties

County FIPS MET_Zone_ID MET_Station_Name

BUNCOMBE 37021 2 Asheville Airport

HAYWOOD 37087 2 Asheville Airport

HENDERSON 37089 2 Asheville Airport

RUTHERFORD 37161 4 Rutherford County Airport

BURKE 37023 5 Hickory Airport

CALDWELL 37027 5 Hickory Airport

CATAWBA 37035 5 Hickory Airport

SURRY 37171 6 Wilkes County Airport

WILKES 37193 6 Wilkes County Airport

ALAMANCE 37001 7 Piedmont Triad International Airport

DAVIDSON 37057 7 Piedmont Triad International Airport

FORSYTH 37067 7 Piedmont Triad International Airport

GUILFORD 37081 7 Piedmont Triad International Airport

RANDOLPH 37151 7 Piedmont Triad International Airport

ROCKINGHAM 37157 7 Piedmont Triad International Airport

STOKES 37169 7 Piedmont Triad International Airport

CABARRUS 37025 8 Charlotte / Douglas International Airport

CLEVELAND 37045 8 Charlotte / Douglas International Airport

GASTON 37071 8 Charlotte / Douglas International Airport

IREDELL 37097 8 Charlotte / Douglas International Airport

LINCOLN 37109 8 Charlotte / Douglas International Airport

MECKLENBURG 37119 8 Charlotte / Douglas International Airport

ROWAN 37159 8 Charlotte / Douglas International Airport

STANLY 37167 8 Charlotte / Douglas International Airport

UNION 37179 8 Charlotte / Douglas International Airport

CHATHAM 37037 9 Raleigh

- Durham International Airport

DURHAM 37063 9 Raleigh

- Durham International Airport

FRANKLIN 37069 9 Raleigh

- Durham International Airport

GRANVILLE 37077 9 Raleigh

- Durham International Airport31

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013



### Table 6

- 7 Metrology Stations Assigned to I/M Counties

County FIPS MET_Zone_ID MET_Station_Name

JOHNSTON 37101 9 Raleigh

- Durham International Airport

ORANGE 37135 9 Raleigh

- Durham International Airport

WAKE 37183 9 Raleigh

- Durham International Airport

CUMBERLAND 37051 10 Fayetteville Regional Airport

HARNETT 37085 10 Fayetteville Regional Airport

LEE 37105 10 Fayetteville Regional Airport

MOORE 37125 10 Fayetteville Regional Airport

ROBESON 37155 10 Fayetteville Regional Airport

EDGECOMBE 37065 11 Rocky Mount

- Wilson Regional Airport

NASH 37127 11 Rocky Mount

- Wilson Regional Airport

WILSON 37195 11 Rocky Mount

- Wilson Regional Airport

LENOIR 37107 12 Greenville Airport

PITT 37147 12 Greenville Airport

WAYNE 37191 12 Greenville Airport

BRUNSWICK 37019 14 Wilmington International Airport

NEW HANOVER 37129 14 Wilmington International Airport

ONSLOW 37133 14 Wilmington International Airport

CARTERET 37031 15 Craven County Airport

CRAVEN 37049 15 Craven County Airport



### 6 .2.9 Source Type Population

Source type (i.e., vehicle type) population is used by MOVES to calculate start and evaporative

emissions. In MOVES, start and resting evaporative emissions are related to the population of

vehicles in an area. Since vehicle type population directly determines start and evaporative

emission, users must de velop local data for this input.

The MOVES model uses a vehicle classification system based on the way vehicles are classified

in the Federal Highway Administration’s HPMS rather than on the way they are classified in the

USEPA emissions regulations; thus making it easier for users to develop local data for MOVES.

The MOVES model categorizes vehicles into 13 source types, which are subsets of the 6 HPMS

vehicle types in MOVES, as shown in the crosswalk in Table 6

- 8 . The USEPA believes that

states should be able to develop population data for many of these source type categories from

state motor vehicle registration data (e.g., motorcycles, passenger cars, passenger trucks, light32

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013 

### commercial trucks) and from local transit agencies, school districts, bus com panies, and refuse

haulers (intercity, transit, and school buses, and refuse trucks). The NCDOT supplied the

NCDAQ with source population data as described in the following section.

Table 6

- 8 MOVES Source Types and HPMS Vehicle Types

Source

Type ID Source Types HPMS Vehicle

Type ID HPMS Vehicle Type

11 Motorcycle 10 Motorcycles

21 Passenger Car 20 Passenger Cars

31 Passenger Truck 30 Other 2 axle

- 4 tire vehicles

32 Light Commercial Truck 30 Other 2 axle

- 4 tire vehicles

41 Intercity Bus 40 Buses

42 Transit Bus 40 Buses

43 School Bus 40 Buses

51 Refuse Truck 50 Single Unit Trucks

52 Single Unit Short

- haul Truck 50 Single Unit Trucks

53 Single Unit Long

- haul Truck 50 Single Unit Trucks

54 Motor Home 50 Single Unit Trucks

61 Combination Short

- haul Truck 60 Combination Trucks

62 Combination Long

- haul Truck 60 Combination Trucks

Source Type Population

– Local Data

The MOVES model uses allocation factors to distribute emissions and activity (such as vehicle

type populations) to individual counties. The NCDAQ is committed to using representative local

data which will override MOVES default values through the County D ata Manager. This

decision was based on the fact that default allocation factors used in MOVES are derived from

the VMT. Since the allocations are based on VMT, the vehicle populations allocated to counties

are proportional to the VMT being allocated to that county. The NCDAQ corresponded with the

USEPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) to arrive at an acceptable method to

allocate current year vehicle populations, as well as to project future year vehicle populations, to

source type popula tions. The NCDAQ believes that using MOVES default vehicle population to

estimate a fraction is the best method of taking state specific vehicle registration data and

allocating county total vehicles to specific vehicle source types.

The MOVES model cat egorizes vehicles into 13 source types, which are subsets of 6 HPMS

vehicle types. Presently NCDAQ is unable to develop county source type population data for

many of these source type categories based on how the NCDOT collects vehicle registration33

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013 

### data. The latest vehicle registration data broken down by county and towns is available by

January of each year. Since the vehicle type database available from NCDOT differs from what

is required for MOVES2010b, the NCDAQ relies on MOVES default fractions and a pplies these

fractions to county total vehicle population, not including registered trailers. It is assumed that

trailers do not have engines and do not generate emissions

.

For future year MOVES runs, the NCDAQ needed to be able to grow the vehicle population

reflective of the county of interest. From FHWA Highway Statistics graph of Licensed Drivers,

Vehicle Registrations, and Resident Population , the NCDAQ has determined t hat growth in

human population is a better indicator of growth in vehicle ownership as compared to VMT

growth.

Figure 6

- 1 Federal Highway Association Statistics Graph



### In order to forecast future year vehicle population and disaggregate to the appropriate source

type, a reliable source of county population is needed. The North Carolina Office of State

Budget and Management (OSBM) coordinates with the Census in the Feder al State Cooperative

Program for population estimates for all state government data, with special emphasis on a

consistent set of population projections. On the OSBM website are certified annual county

population estimates which account for births, deaths and natural growth representing a net

migration populous at the county level.34

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013 

### Population data is updated annually in May and certified by September for the previous year’s

data. Projected annual county population estimates are available to adjust futur e year county

vehicle populations as needed. The USEPA has indicated that using human population growth as

a surrogate to project vehicle population growth is an acceptable option. For this technical

analysis the North Carolina DMV provided 2012 vehicle r egistration data and the OSBM

provided future year annual county populations for 2013, 2014, and 2015 based on the 2011

certified database. An example of how a 2012 vehicle population would be grown to 2015 based

on this surrogate of projected county pop ulation follows:

Vehicle Pop 2015 

### = Vehicle Pop 2012 

### * (Human Pop 2015 

### / Human Pop 2012 

### )



### 6 .2.10 Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program Parameters

In 2002, N orth Carolina implemented an innovative emission I/M Program based on vehicle

onboard diagnostics (OBDII). This program covers all light duty gasoline powered vehicles

(designated in MOVES as source type IDs 21, 31, and 32) that are model year 1996 and newer.

The program was initially implemented in 9 counties and was later expanded to include a total of

48 counties between July 2002 and January 2006. In addition, the inspection stations are

required to administer an anti

- tampering check to ensure that emissions contr ol equipment on

any vehicle 35 years old or new er has not been altered.

For this technical analysis MOVES modeling was run for all 48 I/M counties for two I/M

scenarios; the current and the target I/M Program . The purpose of the two scenarios was to

demonstrate that the legislative changes to the curr ent I/M Program would not increase emissions

of criteria pollutants if balanced by increasing compliance rate

. An emissions difference was

measured based on MOVES results from the current program with a compliance factor (CF) of

95 percent and waiver rate (WR) of 5 percent to the target I/M Program with CF = 96 percent

and WR = 5 percent , summarized earlier in Table 3

- 2

. For each year modeled, the appropriate

endModelYearID value was specified either to account for exemption of only the current model

yea r vehicles or a three model year (MY) exemption from the I/M Program . For example, if the

year 2013 was modeled, the endModelYearID value was set to 2012 as required in the current

approved I/M SIP. The proposed I/M SIP changes would dictate an endModelYea rID set to 2010

for modeling 2013 and exempting the most recent 3 MY vehicles.

6 .2.11 Reid Vapor Pressure Specifications

Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) is a measurement of gasoline volatility. The use of lower RVP

gasoline leads to lower VOC emissions from gasoline handling and evaporative VOC emissions

from motor vehicles. Gasoline with an RVP of 7.8 pounds per square inch (ps i) is required in35

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013 

### I/M Program counties Davidson, Durham, Forsyth, Gaston, Guilford, Mecklenburg and Wake

during the months of June through September. Gasoline with an RVP of 9.0 psi is required for

months during May through September for the remaining 41 I /M Program counties. Table 6

- 9

lists the monthly requisite RVPs for the technical analysis.

6

- 9 Monthly Reid Vapor Pressure

Month RVP Area

January 15.0 Statewide

February 13.5 Statewide

March 13.5 Statewide

April 13.5 Statewide

May 9.0 Statewide

June

- September 9 (7.8*) Statewide

October 13.5 Statewide

November 13.5 Statewide

December 15.0 Statewide

* I/M counties of Davidson, Durham, Forsyth, Gaston, Guilford, Mecklenburg, and Wake.



### 6 .2.12 Diesel Sulfur Content

The diesel fuel sulfur content is required in MOVES to generate fine particulate matter emission

because the amount of sulfur in diesel fuel directly correlates to sulfate particulate emissions.

The USEPA recommends a diesel fuel sulfur content of 43 parts per million (ppm) for the period

June 2006 through May 2010 and 11ppm for June 2010 through 2017.

6 .2.13 Fuel (Formulation and Supply)

In general, users should first review the MOVES default fuel formulation and fuel supply data,

and then make changes only where local volu metric fuel property information is available. The

lone exception to this guidance is in the case of RVP where a user should change the value to

reflect the regulatory requirements and differences between ethanol and non

- ethanol blended

gasoline. The cur rent version of MOVES does not allow the user to create new fuel

identification numbers. Thus, in accordance with current USEPA guidance, the NCDAQ edited

the default fuel supply tables for the individual counties to reflect the county

- specific RVP data.36

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013 

### 6 .2.14 VMT Data

The Travel Demand Model (TDM) data of daily VMT was provided to NCDAQ from the MPOs

prior to this analysis for SIP modeling purposes. For the remaining I/M counties either attaining

the NAAQS or not fully covered by a TDM, average annual da ily HPMS was used. The NCDOT

provided daily VMT data for the NMAA portions of Davidson, Franklin, Granville, and Johnston

Counties. The NMAA VMT values were calculated by scaling the HPMS county

- level VMT by

the fraction of the county human population with in the NMAA area:

VMT NMAA 

### = VMT county 

### * (Population NMAA 

### / Population

county 

### )



### Tables 6

- 1 0 through 6

- 1 3 list the VMT data for the I/M technical analysis areas by county. The

values represent the average annual daily vehicle miles traveled (AADVMT) for the specified

county/road type/travel period designation. The road types used in the modeling are listed below.

RI Rural Interstate

ROPA Rural Other Principle Arterial

RMinArt Rural Minor Arterial

RMjrColl Rural Major Collector

RMinColl Rural Minor Collector

RL Rural Local

UI Urban Interstate

UF Urban Freeway & Expressway

UOPA Urban Other Principal Arterial

UMinArt Urban Minor Arterial

UColl Urban Collector

UL Urban Local



### Table 6

- 1 0 2013 Average Annual Daily VMT for Area 1

- Metrolina Counties

Roadtype AM Peak Midday PM Peak Night Daily

Cabarrus

Rural Interstate 0 0 0 0 0

Rural Principal Arterial 39,690 49,744 43,924 29,564 162,922

Rural Minor Arterial 57,579 66,303 63,817 40,285 227,983

Rural Major Collector 96,286 122,000 107,152 69,310 394,749

Rural Minor Collector 62,542 76,133 77,570 39,591 255,837

Rural Local 112,935 160,718 135,518 86,098 495,269

Urban Interstate 305,951 396,182 327,132 223,159 1,252,42537

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013 

### Table 6

- 1 0 2013 Average Annual Daily VMT for Area 1

- Metrolina Counties

Roadtype AM Peak Midday PM Peak Night Daily

Urban Freeway/Xprway 0 0 0 0 0

Urban Principal Arterial 192,786 285,433 224,489 166,822 869,530

Urban Minor Arterial 202,876 302,243 229,675 168,931 903,725

Urban Collector 152,677 230,977 182,953 107,757 674,364

Urban Local 206,400 332,279 244,643 163,129 946,452

Gaston

Rural Interstate 39,920 46,879 42,542 26,866 156,208

Rural Principal Arterial 57,530 60,049 59,597 38,012 215,188

Rural Minor Arterial 71,617 85,918 78,877 47,154 283,566

Rural Major Collector 85,009 107,250 99,803 63,740 355,803

Rural Minor Collector 43,389 49,328 53,106 26,419 172,241

Rural Local 75,729 106,826 91,902 57,861 332,319

Urban Interstate 473,043 576,738 505,107 351,848 1,906,735

Urban Freeway/Xprway 24,520 29,373 25,343 17,972 97,208

Urban Principal Arterial 285,899 393,624 326,360 226,281 1,232,163

Urban Minor Arterial 222,284 319,668 260,111 182,535 984,598

Urban Collector 61,364 83,850 73,860 43,295 262,370

Urban Local 216,940 342,924 253,970 179,110 992,944

Iredell

Rural Interstate 60,907 79,552 63,384 41,332 245,175

Rural Principal Arterial 0 0 0 0 0

Rural Minor Arterial 18,078 28,512 20,174 18,321 85,086

Rural Major Collector 40,694 59,367 46,413 34,379 180,853

Rural Minor Collector 52,559 72,863 60,697 35,499 221,617

Rural Local 115,046 175,266 134,567 88,827 513,706

Urban Interstate 231,120 328,445 247,783 184,652 992,000

Urban Freeway/Xprway 0 0 0 0 0

Urban Principal Arterial 32,272 53,161 37,476 29,999 152,908

Urban Minor Arterial 42,380 65,741 47,876 37,799 193,796

Urban Collector 54,385 88,086 62,687 42,526 247,685

Urban Local 91,890 157,637 109,768 72,838 432,133

Lincoln

Rural Interstate 0 0 0 0 0

Rural Principal Arterial 23,188 29,615 24,716 16,393 93,912

Rural Minor Arterial 107,645 144,944 117,874 83,754 454,217

Rural Major Collector 54,304 68,830 61,370 38,898 223,40238

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013 

### Table 6

- 1 0 2013 Average Annual Daily VMT for Area 1

- Metrolina Counties

Roadtype AM Peak Midday PM Peak Night Daily

Rural Minor Collector 56,727 64,637 63,750 34,462 219,575

Rural Local 144,169 208,472 169,443 110,220 632,304

Urban Interstate 0 0 0 0 0

Urban Freeway/Xprway 54,822 62,997 58,679 34,685 211,183

Urban Principal Arterial 28,570 40,195 31,988 22,408 123,161

Urban Minor Arterial 68,337 98,137 75,567 61,732 303,774

Urban Collector 19,293 27,097 22,974 14,202 83,567

Urban Local 44,890 71,428 52,948 37,697 206,963

Mecklenburg

Rural Principal Arterial 41,842 52,184 47,660 31,107 172,793

Rural Minor Arterial 18,110 22,074 21,075 14,584 75,844

Rural Major Collector 17,717 24,810 21,328 11,914 75,769

Rural Minor Collector 35,360 45,669 44,763 23,383 149,174

Rural Local 80,837 113,409 98,815 52,845 345,905

Urban Interstate 1,790,341 2,359,615 1,968,068 1,364,383 7,482,406

Urban Freeway/Xprway 1,159,775 1,468,138 1,341,647 764,373 4,733,934

Urban Principal Arterial 1,160,728 1,761,649 1,352,005 984,438 5,258,820

Urban Minor Arterial 1,074,833 1,629,080 1,260,429 877,703 4,842,045

Urban Collector 841,681 1,267,545 983,510 675,933 3,768,668

Urban Local 1,536,645 2,471,519 1,828,373 1,188,629 7,025,167

Urban HOV 17,602 303 7,967 0 25,873

Roadtype Rowan

Rural Interstate 0 0 0 0 0

Rural Principal Arterial 38,819 48,803 42,594 25,946 156,161

Rural Minor Arterial 23,678 31,776 26,484 20,031 101,969

Rural Major Collector 129,431 151,206 142,099 92,222 514,958

Rural Minor Collector 89,551 99,045 101,577 51,814 341,986

Rural Local 127,858 170,928 147,212 95,977 541,975

Urban Interstate 359,744 444,089 388,311 256,404 1,448,548

Urban Freeway/Xprway 0 0 0 0 0

Urban Principal Arterial 115,437 165,808 130,437 92,105 503,787

Urban Minor Arterial 127,918 192,234 147,426 108,655 576,233

Urban Collector 128,048 176,700 150,249 93,242 548,239

Urban Local 171,846 269,386 201,954 135,967 779,152

Union

Rural Interstate 0 0 0 0 039

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013 

### Table 6

- 1 0 2013 Average Annual Daily VMT for Area 1

- Metrolina Counties

Roadtype AM Peak Midday PM Peak Night Daily

Rural Principal Arterial 70,096 96,044 75,072 53,588 294,799

Rural Minor Arterial 24,786 32,658 29,029 18,953 105,426

Rural Major Collector 252,669 351,610 283,699 200,275 1,088,252

Rural Minor Collector 80,709 104,375 93,854 54,951 333,889

Rural Local 300,162 408,814 349,995 206,434 1,265,405

Urban Interstate 0 0 0 0 0

Urban Freeway/Xprway 22,998 30,410 22,674 16,605 92,687

Urban Principal Arterial 149,005 214,505 164,498 120,074 648,082

Urban Minor Arterial 102,821 155,838 118,260 93,893 470,812

Urban Collector 123,687 178,885 141,387 91,287 535,246

Urban Local 225,374 347,969 265,295 179,610 1,018,248



### Table 6

- 11 2015 Average Annual Daily VMT for Area 2

- Triad Counties

County Davidson Davidson Forsyth Guilford

Type/Period Road Type 2015 2015 2015 2015

TDM/Daily UI 294,260 1,792,305 3,788,027

UF 689,389 2,928,881 1,788,735

UOPA 318,748 254,817 1,939,286

UMinArt 218,710 1,337,790 2,460,938

UColl 125,159 1,370,449 1,084,833

UL 137,154 1,074,240 561,842

RI 274,178 0 899,525

ROPA 676 101,431 426,729

RMinArt 306,219 137,283 223,163

RMjrColl 77,108 38,349 542,055

RMinColl 71,251 87,249 219,970

RL 206,695 91,945 333,723

NMAA/Daily UI 342,847

UF 260,587

UOPA 175,980

UMinArt 218,130

UColl 124,693

UL 154,231

RI 205,483

ROPA 64,656

RMinArt 171,223

RMjrColl 176,390

RMinColl 102,134

RL 226,595

County Total VMT 2,719,547 2,222,949 9,214,741 14,268,82740

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013



### Table 6

- 12 2014 Average Annual Daily V MT for Area 3

- Triangle Counties

County Chatham Durham Franklin Granville Johnston Orange Wake

Road Type TRM

AM UI 0 640,417 0 0 54,031 246,374 1,823,471

AM UF 0 443,311 0 0 0 95,273 496,784

AM UOPA 8,605 272,114 42,997 0 72,130 108,370 1,374,694

AM UMinArt 3,591 395,762 16,522 3,179 63,693 136,569 1,573,250

AM UColl 3,208 157,963 5,478 9,185 29,032 23,834 654,914

AM UL 32 327,679 11,665 0 69,869 109,204 1,333,956

AM RI 0 35,648 0 100,986 408,840 295,992 9,993

AM ROPA 137,863 7,998 50,985 1,703 197,424 0 34,968

AM RMinArt 7,961 49,701 87,382 1,285 65,417 39,226 25,684

AM RMjrColl 58,579 44,610 62,062 98,602 245,820 84,168 44,269

AM RMinColl 16,428 10,315 33,253 30,035 56,484 51,392 17,374

AM RL 68,427 35,979 63,094 60,942 187,586 76,010 68,872

OP UI 0 1,168,731 0 0 110,133 501,224 2,990,054

OP UF 0 693,973 0 0 0 148,172 775,902

OP UOPA 12,583 419,458 69,072 0 109,989 166,844 2,225,635

OP UMinArt 4,471 574,068 25,188 4,416 91,920 195,786 2,286,606

OP UColl 4,116 225,702 8,125 12,424 41,279 30,503 900,642

OP UL 37 472,697 17,041 0 99,161 144,966 1,824,121

OP RI 0 66,370 0 225,820 1,263,880 657,703 9,428

OP ROPA 246,081 11,708 87,233 2,638 376,787 0 66,797

OP RMinArt 12,510 61,668 138,639 1,923 95,745 71,697 33,815

OP RMjrColl 90,239 61,108 97,581 167,640 359,629 121,801 71,652

OP RMinColl 23,020 14,833 46,368 40,543 75,760 77,300 23,042

OP RL 92,864 46,303 87,765 88,265 249,605 106,449 84,440

PM UI 0 807,441 0 0 69,667 333,540 2,210,569

PM UF 0 522,281 0 0 0 111,808 614,552

PM UOPA 9,984 332,468 52,395 0 90,229 130,839 1,678,995

PM UMinArt 4,918 501,439 21,380 3,875 77,194 178,208 1,957,105

PM UColl 4,337 204,362 6,971 11,106 37,986 33,573 826,226

PM UL 61 429,485 14,805 0 92,805 146,488 1,719,024

PM RI 0 46,249 0 142,305 672,378 406,972 12,850

PM ROPA 178,824 9,299 64,537 2,227 241,878 0 46,473

PM RMinArt 9,735 57,097 110,754 1,509 82,077 52,917 33,682

PM RMjrColl 83,000 56,484 79,241 125,613 313,052 111,363 55,308

PM RMinColl 21,163 13,265 40,085 37,826 72,254 67,825 23,169

PM RL 89,940 48,076 80,126 77,025 237,621 97,299 92,12841

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013



### Table 6

- 12 2014 Average Annual Daily V MT for Area 3

- Triangle Counties

County Chatham Durham Franklin Granville Johnston Orange Wake

NMAA

Daily UI 0 0 0 55,939 91,238 0 0

Daily UF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Daily UOPA 0 0 12,255 27,480 52,654 0 0

Daily UMinArt 0 0 7,830 39,802 70,792 0 0

Daily UColl 0 0 0 23,564 14,717 0 0

Daily UL 0 0 3,410 12,291 16,255 0 0

Daily RI 0 0 0 229,136 230,850 0 0

Daily ROPA 0 0 26,278 12,153 93,780 0 0

Daily RMinArt 0 0 40,337 22,630 35,411 0 0

Daily RMjrColl 0 0 41,258 156,868 128,856 0 0

Daily RMinColl 0 0 30,672 62,292 37,489 0 0

Daily RL 0 0 23,287 67,528 141,160 0 0

County Total VMT 1,192,577 9,266,062 1,606,071 1,960,755 7,224,557 5,159,689 28,020,44442

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013 

### Table 6

- 13 2014 HPMS Average Annual Daily VMT for Area 3

- Re maining Counties

Federal Functional Road Classification

County RI ROPA RMinArt RMjrColl RMinColl RL UI UF UOPA UMinArt UColl UL

Alamance 121,717 2 191,001 275,395 175,196 334,489 1,575,585 0 246,708 629,530 503,401 371,837

Brunswick 923 885,669 202,267 645,214 39,747 502,880 0 292,193 151,194 117,613 260,149 255,434

Buncombe 0 4 72,659 145,048 63,752 338,272 2,772,042 614,181 1,158,611 902,620 435,863 987,943

Burke 91,302 727 204,357 57,521 112,046 236,162 970,833 11,147 245,350 445,873 138,001 213,210

Caldwell 0 121,018 94,628 44,399 64,379 345,685 0 70,413 609,241 267,788 182,368 353,625

Carteret 0 272,487 49,552 293,340 10,352 110,947 0 0 618,616 218,906 60,218 123,085

Catawba 98,118 210,358 287,054 92,282 289,228 320,555 797,066 281,184 774,523 695,209 212,548 539,504

Cleveland 331,651 316,344 172,497 336,308 118,670 296,567 0 333,061 275,818 254,237 57,168 124,050

Craven 82,306 362,562 590 632,629 74,272 579,151 0 267,397 870,652 187,643 91,082 237,287

Cumberland 769,336 274,015 248,244 266,224 184,971 695,635 824,281 781,796 3,151,647 2,572,053 481,224 2,181,467

Edgecombe 48 302,706 119,400 366,954 142,418 103,351 0 193,895 105,799 156,370 34,457 47,437

Harnett 229,985 430,444 192,665 525,718 203,797 312,153 153,054 0 115,616 70,691 75,387 58,379

Haywood 515,954 4 165,418 56,806 17,395 235,265 529,171 404,847 208,259 260,601 42,955 183,424

Henderson 128,659 75,938 180,921 73,717 30,911 311,407 659,027 0 396,944 306,155 201,523 240,956

Lee 0 424,927 37,040 136,360 58,400 96,651 0 150,819 228,426 196,416 65,451 78,914

Lenoir 0 299,488 202,951 310,414 93,841 182,027 0 0 331,302 109,804 147,613 76,459

Moore 0 178,661 225,983 435,007 127,402 211,364 0 119,098 449,446 345,133 82,847 103,678

Nash 850,990 633,659 102,827 442,511 336,159 197,913 79,933 341,638 296,723 355,186 116,195 80,394

New Hanover 0 165 21,505 1,407 19,832 17,219 288,877 105,066 2,162,633 781,451 295,348 1,099,281

Onslow 0 808,425 28,326 492,756 133,008 1,729,142 0 246,843 1,265,748 669,863 252,731 614,078

Pitt 0 384,301 362,535 643,583 178,716 412,615 0 120,226 1,061,330 1,140,434 237,322 290,838

Randolph 124,297 548,375 97,941 426,270 146,824 378,125 367,950 455,131 480,397 279,427 131,435 154,266

Robeson 1,335,190 152,262 193,525 1,075,912 346,767 621,326 590,675 0 300,739 155,732 128,727 121,529

Rockingham 0 646,326 328,479 569,659 247,031 440,134 0 89,257 282,770 378,145 37,181 135,576

Rutherford 0 245,049 175,584 88,133 133,925 406,670 0 0 250,347 239,549 97,650 146,772

Stanly 0 153,609 215,370 231,676 83,350 181,149 0 0 185,262 99,381 48,451 37,265

Stokes 0 118,353 96,686 224,851 138,990 299,150 0 60,021 1,459 32,783 66,521 27,730

Surry 649,944 283,214 222,798 243,384 129,241 411,999 26,773 0 111,589 163,361 54,167 95,850

Wayne 118,021 297,957 136,955 394,710 205,678 457,085 69,184 320,024 489,312 711,493 181,973 190,589

Wilkes 282 301,446 139,081 236,873 139,571 413,693 0 103,770 172,387 219,474 79,774 72,958

Wilson 651,706 515,097 137,378 230,754 96,892 154,957 0 14,921 324,300 213,820 45,142 80,26943

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013 

### 6 .3 ESTIMATED EMISSION FROM ON

- ROAD MOBILE SOURCES

Using the inventory approach in the MOVES model gives a summary of emissions in kilograms

per typical w inter weekday, by county. Pollutants were modeled for the season wh en they are

most likely to impact air quality so July was selected for NOx, VOC, PM2.5 (Direct) and

January was selected for CO, as summarized previously in Table 3

- 4. T ables 6

- 1 4 through 6

- 1 7

below summarize the impact of the target I/M Program on criteria pollutant s by study area on a

county level.

Table 6

- 1 4 NOx County Emissions by Area

County FIPS 95/5 1yr 96/5 3yr ∆

Area 1 NOx kg/day

CABARRUS 37025 9,838 9,835

- 4

GASTON 37071 11,705 11,700

- 5

IREDELL 37097 9,840 9,836

- 4

LINCOLN 37109 4,523 4,522

- 2

MECKLENBURG 37119 44,067 44,052

- 15

ROWAN 37159 9,306 9,302

- 4

UNION 37179 8,877 8,874

- 3

Total: 98,157 98,122

- 35

Area 2 NOx kg/day

DAVIDSON 37057 7,286 7,283

- 3

FORSYTH 37067 11,751 11,746

- 5

GUILFORD 37081 17,120 17,113

- 6

Total: 36,157 36,143

- 15

Area 3 NOx kg/day

ALAMANCE 37001 7,506 7,503

- 3

BRUNSWICK 37019 4,585 4,584

- 2

BUNCOMBE 37021 11,407 11,402

- 5

BURKE 37023 4,947 4,945

- 2

CALDWELL 37027 4,108 4,106

- 2

CARTERET 37031 2,207 2,206

- 1

CATAWBA 37035 7,299 7,296

- 3

CHATHAM 37037 4,054 4,053

- 1

CLEVELAND 37045 4,727 4,725

- 2

CRAVEN 37049 4,077 4,075

- 1

CUMBERLAND 37051 13,990 13,987

- 3

DURHAM 37063 11,924 11,920

- 544

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013 

### Table 6

- 1 4 NOx County Emissions by Area

County FIPS 95/5 1yr 96/5 3yr ∆

EDGECOMBE 37065 2,376 2,375

- 1

FRANKLIN 37069 2,669 2,667

- 1

GRANVILLE 37077 3,464 3,463

- 1

HARNETT 37085 3,681 3,680

- 1

HAYWOOD 37087 4,275 4,274

- 1

HENDERSON 37089 4,285 4,283

- 2

JOHNSTON 37101 10,615 10,611

- 4

LEE 37105 2,202 2,201

- 1

LENOIR 37107 2,533 2,531

- 1

MOORE 37125 3,472 3,470

- 1

NASH 37127 5,596 5,594

- 2

NEW_HANOVER 37129 5,447 5,445

- 2

ONSLOW 37133 6,773 6,771

- 1

ORANGE 37135 7,983 7,980

- 3

PITT 37147 5,797 5,795

- 2

RANDOLPH 37151 6,673 6,670

- 3

ROBESON 37155 7,886 7,883

- 3

ROCKINGHAM 37157 5,771 5,768

- 2

RUTHERFORD 37161 3,271 3,270

- 1

STANLY 37167 2,351 2,350

- 1

STOKES 37169 2,291 2,290

- 1

SURRY 37171 4,084 4,082

- 2

WAKE 37183 29,675 29,665

- 10

WAYNE 37191 5,141 5,139

- 2

WILKES 37193 3,584 3,583

- 1

WILSON 37195 3,471 3,469

- 1

Total: 226,196 226,113

- 8345

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013 

### Table 6

- 1 5 VOC County Emissions by Area

County FIPS 95/5 1yr 96/5 3yr ∆

Area 1 VOC kg/day

CABARRUS 37025 5,129 5,127

- 2

GASTON 37071 5,866 5,864

- 3

IREDELL 37097 4,902 4,899

- 2

LINCOLN 37109 2,489 2,488

- 1

MECKLENBURG 37119 20,452 20,443

- 9

ROWAN 37159 4,799 4,797

- 2

UNION 37179 4,908 4,905

- 2

Total: 48,545 48,523

- 22

Area 2 VOC kg/day

DAVIDSON 37057 4,181 4,178

- 2

FORSYTH 37067 6,536 6,532

- 4

GUILFORD 37081 9,248 9,243

- 5

Total: 19,965 19,954

- 11

Area 3 VOC kg/day

ALAMANCE 37001 3,979 3,976

- 2

BRUNSWICK 37019 2,352 2,351

- 1

BUNCOMBE 37021 5,856 5,853

- 3

BURKE 37023 2,612 2,611

- 1

CALDWELL 37027 2,468 2,467

- 1

CARTERET 37031 1,299 1,298

- 1

CATAWBA 37035 4,048 4,046

- 2

CHATHAM 37037 1,971 1,970

- 1

CLEVELAND 37045 2,579 2,578

- 1

CRAVEN 37049 2,037 2,036

- 1

CUMBERLAND 37051 6,534 6,532

- 3

DURHAM 37063 5,637 5,634

- 3

EDGECOMBE 37065 1,261 1,260

- 1

FRANKLIN 37069 1,478 1,477

- 1

GRANVILLE 37077 1,595 1,595

- 1

HARNETT 37085 2,157 2,156

- 1

HAYWOOD 37087 1,853 1,853

- 1

HENDERSON 37089 2,396 2,395

- 1

JOHNSTON 37101 4,434 4,431

- 2

LEE 37105 1,243 1,242

- 1

LENOIR 37107 1,334 1,333

- 1

MOORE 37125 2,185 2,184

- 146

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013 

### Table 6

- 1 5 VOC County Emissions by Area

County FIPS 95/5 1yr 96/5 3yr ∆

NASH 37127 2,587 2,586

- 1

NEW_HANOVER 37129 3,147 3,145

- 2

ONSLOW 37133 3,199 3,198

- 1

ORANGE 37135 3,518 3,516

- 2

PITT 37147 2,915 2,913

- 2

RANDOLPH 37151 3,778 3,776

- 2

ROBESON 37155 3,436 3,435

- 2

ROCKINGHAM 37157 3,041 3,039

- 1

RUTHERFORD 37161 1,848 1,847

- 1

STANLY 37167 1,505 1,504

- 1

STOKES 37169 1,427 1,426

- 1

SURRY 37171 2,202 2,201

- 1

WAKE 37183 15,007 14,999

- 8

WAYNE 37191 2,702 2,701

- 1

WILKES 37193 2,091 2,090

- 1

WILSON 37195 1,734 1,733

- 1

Total: 115,443 115,384

- 5947

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013 

### Table 6

- 1 6 PM2.5 County Emissions by Area

County FIPS 95/5 1yr 96/5 3yr ∆

Area 1 PM2.5 kg/day

CABARRUS 37025 249 249 0

GASTON 37071 296 296 0

IREDELL 37097 242 242 0

LINCOLN 37109 111 111 0

MECKLENBURG 37119 1,072 1,072 0

ROWAN 37159 216 216 0

UNION 37179 227 227 0

Total: 2,413 2,413 0

Area 2 PM2.5 kg/day

DAVIDSON 37057 157 157 0

FORSYTH 37067 264 264 0

GUILFORD 37081 371 371 0

Total: 791 791 0

Area 3 PM2.5 kg/day

ALAMANCE 37001 166 166 0

BRUNSWICK 37019 107 107 0

BUNCOMBE 37021 248 248 0

BURKE 37023 113 113 0

CALDWELL 37027 90 90 0

CARTERET 37031 49 49 0

CATAWBA 37035 159 159 0

CHATHAM 37037 90 90 0

CLEVELAND 37045 105 105 0

CRAVEN 37049 96 96 0

CUMBERLAND 37051 325 325 0

DURHAM 37063 266 266 0

EDGECOMBE 37065 52 52 0

FRANKLIN 37069 57 57 0

GRANVILLE 37077 88 88 0

HARNETT 37085 85 85 0

HAYWOOD 37087 104 104 0

HENDERSON 37089 100 100 0

JOHNSTON 37101 259 259 0

LEE 37105 49 49 0

LENOIR 37107 55 55 0

MOORE 37125 73 73 048

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013 

### Table 6

- 1 6 PM2.5 County Emissions by Area

County FIPS 95/5 1yr 96/5 3yr ∆

NASH 37127 131 131 0

NEW_HANOVER 37129 113 113 0

ONSLOW 37133 166 166 0

ORANGE 37135 201 201 0

PITT 37147 134 134 0

RANDOLPH 37151 147 147 0

ROBESON 37155 195 195 0

ROCKINGHAM 37157 125 125 0

RUTHERFORD 37161 78 78 0

STANLY 37167 51 51 0

STOKES 37169 53 53 0

SURRY 37171 88 88 0

WAKE 37183 670 670 0

WAYNE 37191 119 119 0

WILKES 37193 86 86 0

WILSON 37195 80 80 0

Total: 5,172 5,172 049

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013 

### Table 6

- 1 7 CO County Emissions by Area

County FIPS 95/5 1yr 96/5 3yr ∆

Area 1 CO kg/day

CABARRUS 37025 103,874 103,862

- 12

GASTON 37071 117,917 117,901

- 16

IREDELL 37097 106,337 106,326

- 11

LINCOLN 37109 47,477 47,467

- 10

MECKLENBURG 37119 477,930 478,026 96

ROWAN 37159 92,986 92,973

- 13

UNION 37179 101,191 101,181

- 10

Total: 1,047,712 1,047,737 24

Area 2 CO kg/day

DAVIDSON 37057 95,082 95,053

- 30

FORSYTH 37067 162,969 162,934

- 35

GUILFORD 37081 234,750 234,733

- 17

Total: 492,801 492,720

- 82

Area 3 CO kg/day

ALAMANCE 37001 86,074 86,058

- 17

BRUNSWICK 37019 50,019 50,013

- 6

BUNCOMBE 37021 139,127 139,105

- 22

BURKE 37023 55,007 54,993

- 14

CALDWELL 37027 46,316 46,301

- 16

CARTERET 37031 28,399 28,395

- 4

CATAWBA 37035 86,913 86,895

- 18

CHATHAM 37037 39,355 39,350

- 6

CLEVELAND 37045 51,276 51,261

- 15

CRAVEN 37049 44,391 44,392 1

CUMBERLAND 37051 146,579 146,631 52

DURHAM 37063 133,512 133,505

- 7

EDGECOMBE 37065 25,722 25,713

- 8

FRANKLIN 37069 29,442 29,433

- 8

GRANVILLE 37077 33,871 33,865

- 6

HARNETT 37085 46,034 46,029

- 5

HAYWOOD 37087 43,476 43,473

- 3

HENDERSON 37089 56,095 56,082

- 13

JOHNSTON 37101 99,585 99,575

- 10

LEE 37105 25,651 25,647

- 4

LENOIR 37107 28,543 28,535

- 8

MOORE 37125 43,064 43,057

- 750

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013 

### Table 6

- 1 7 CO County Emissions by Area

County FIPS 95/5 1yr 96/5 3yr ∆

NASH 37127 56,051 56,045

- 6

NEW HANOVER 37129 70,083 70,076

- 8

ONSLOW 37133 70,492 70,517 25

ORANGE 37135 77,547 77,543

- 4

PITT 37147 68,381 68,377

- 5

RANDOLPH 37151 77,879 77,858

- 22

ROBESON 37155 72,152 72,142

- 10

ROCKINGHAM 37157 58,932 58,914

- 18

RUTHERFORD 37161 36,234 36,221

- 13

STANLY 37167 29,085 29,075

- 10

STOKES 37169 26,360 26,351

- 9

SURRY 37171 47,471 47,456

- 14

WAKE 37183 390,948 390,991 43

WAYNE 37191 59,176 59,166

- 10

WILKES 37193 42,946 42,934

- 12

WILSON 37195 38,398 38,394

- 4

Total: 2,560,587 2,560,367

- 22051

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013 

### 7.0 MOVES Input Data

7 .1 VEHICLE MIX DATA

Tables 7

- 1 through 7

- 2 show definitions of the vehicle types and facility (roadway) types

referred to in the vehicle mix tables. Tables 7

- 3 through 7

- 5 list the vehicle mix data used

specific to each inventory year modeled.

Table 7

- 1 Vehicle Type Descriptions

ID# Vehicle Type Description

1 LDV Light

- Duty Vehicles (Passenger Cars)

2 LDT1 Light

- Duty Trucks 1 (0

- 6,000 lbs. GVWR, 0

- 3,750 lbs. LVW)

3 LDT2 Light

- Duty Trucks 2 (0

- 6,000 lbs. GVWR, 3,751

- 5,750 lbs. LVW)

4 LDT3 Light

- Duty Trucks 3 (6,001

- 8,500 lbs. GVWR, 0

- 5,750 lbs. ALVW)

5 LDT4 Light

- Duty Trucks 4 (6,001

- 8,500 lbs. GVWR, 5,751 lbs. and greater ALVW)

6 HDV2 Class 2b Heavy

- Duty Vehicles (8,501

- 10,000 lbs. GVWR)

7 HDV3 Class 3 Heavy

- Duty Vehicles (10,001

- 14,000 lbs. GVWR)

8 HDV4 Class 4 Heavy

- Duty Vehicles (14,001

- 16,000 lbs. GVWR)

9 HDV5 Class 5 Heavy

- Duty Vehicles (16,001

- 19,500 lbs. GVWR)

10 HDV6 Class 6 Heavy

- Duty Vehicles (19,501

- 26,000 lbs. GVWR)

11 HDV7 Class 7 Heavy

- Duty Vehicles (26,001

- 33,000 lbs. GVWR)

12 HDV8A Class 8a Heavy

- Duty Vehicles (33,001

- 60,000 lbs. GVWR)

13 HDV8B Class 8b Heavy

- Duty Vehicles (>60,000 lbs. GVWR)

14 HDBS School Buses

15 HDBT Transit and Urban Buses

16 MC Motorcycles



### Table 7

- 2 Facility (Roadway) Type Descriptions

Facility Type Description Facility Type Description

11 Rural Interstate 23 Urban Interstate

13 Rural Other Principal Arterial 25 Urban Other Freeways and Expressways

15 Rural Minor Arterial 27 Urban Other Principal Arterial

17 Rural Major Collector 29 Urban Minor Arterial

19 Rural Minor Collector 31 Urban Collector

21 Rural Local 33 Urban Local52

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013



### Table 7

- 3 North Carolina Vehicle Mix for 2013

Fraction of VMT on Facility Type by Vehicle Type (each column should sum to 1)

Vehicle

Type 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33

1 0.3130 0.3300 0.3383 0.3407 0.3288 0.3424 0.3378 0.3373 0.3487 0.3506 0.3526 0.3405

2 0.0915 0.0964 0.0989 0.0996 0.0960 0.1000 0.0987 0.0985 0.1018 0.1025 0.1031 0.0995

3 0.3045 0.3210 0.3292 0.3315 0.3197 0.3331 0.3285 0.3281 0.3390 0.3412 0.3432 0.3312

4 0.0939 0.0990 0.1015 0.1022 0.0986 0.1027 0.1013 0.1011 0.1045 0.1052 0.1058 0.1021

5 0.0431 0.0455 0.0466 0.0469 0.0453 0.0472 0.0465 0.0465 0.0480 0.0483 0.0486 0.0469

6 0.0478 0.0330 0.0256 0.0236 0.0341 0.0221 0.0262 0.0266 0.0168 0.0149 0.0131 0.0238

7 0.0047 0.0032 0.0025 0.0023 0.0033 0.0022 0.0026 0.0026 0.0016 0.0015 0.0013 0.0023

8 0.0039 0.0027 0.0021 0.0019 0.0028 0.0018 0.0022 0.0022 0.0014 0.0012 0.0011 0.0020

9 0.0029 0.0020 0.0016 0.0015 0.0021 0.0014 0.0016 0.0016 0.0010 0.0009 0.0008 0.0015

10 0.0107 0.0074 0.0057 0.0053 0.0076 0.0049 0.0059 0.0059 0.0038 0.0033 0.0029 0.0053

11 0.0126 0.0087 0.0068 0.0062 0.0090 0.0058 0.0069 0.0070 0.0044 0.0039 0.0035 0.0063

12 0.0137 0.0095 0.0074 0.0068 0.0098 0.0064 0.0075 0.0077 0.0048 0.0043 0.0038 0.0068

13 0.0489 0.0337 0.0262 0.0241 0.0349 0.0227 0.0268 0.0273 0.0172 0.0152 0.0134 0.0244

14 0.0025 0.0017 0.0013 0.0012 0.0017 0.0011 0.0013 0.0014 0.0009 0.0008 0.0007 0.0012

15 0.0012 0.0008 0.0007 0.0006 0.0009 0.0006 0.0007 0.0007 0.0004 0.0004 0.0003 0.0006

16 0.0051 0.0054 0.0056 0.0056 0.0054 0.0056 0.0055 0.0055 0.0057 0.0058 0.0058 0.0056

Sum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 153

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013



### Table 7

- 4 North Carolina Vehicle Mix for 2014

Fraction of VMT on Facility Type by Vehicle Type (each column should sum to 1)

Vehicle

Type 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33

1 0.3049 0.3215 0.3295 0.3318 0.3201 0.3333 0.3290 0.3285 0.3394 0.3416 0.3434 0.3316

2 0.0929 0.0980 0.1005 0.1012 0.0976 0.1017 0.1003 0.1001 0.1035 0.1041 0.1048 0.1011

3 0.3093 0.3260 0.3344 0.3367 0.3247 0.3383 0.3337 0.3332 0.3443 0.3465 0.3486 0.3364

4 0.0953 0.1004 0.1030 0.1037 0.1000 0.1042 0.1028 0.1026 0.1061 0.1067 0.1074 0.1036

5 0.0438 0.0462 0.0474 0.0477 0.0460 0.0479 0.0473 0.0472 0.0488 0.0491 0.0494 0.0476

6 0.0478 0.0330 0.0256 0.0236 0.0341 0.0222 0.0262 0.0266 0.0168 0.0149 0.0131 0.0238

7 0.0046 0.0032 0.0025 0.0023 0.0033 0.0022 0.0025 0.0026 0.0016 0.0014 0.0013 0.0023

8 0.0039 0.0027 0.0021 0.0019 0.0028 0.0018 0.0021 0.0022 0.0014 0.0012 0.0011 0.0019

9 0.0029 0.0020 0.0016 0.0014 0.0021 0.0014 0.0016 0.0016 0.0010 0.0009 0.0008 0.0015

10 0.0108 0.0074 0.0058 0.0053 0.0077 0.0050 0.0059 0.0060 0.0038 0.0034 0.0029 0.0054

11 0.0126 0.0087 0.0067 0.0062 0.0090 0.0058 0.0069 0.0070 0.0044 0.0039 0.0034 0.0063

12 0.0137 0.0094 0.0073 0.0068 0.0098 0.0063 0.0075 0.0076 0.0048 0.0043 0.0037 0.0068

13 0.0489 0.0337 0.0262 0.0241 0.0349 0.0227 0.0268 0.0273 0.0172 0.0152 0.0134 0.0244

14 0.0024 0.0017 0.0013 0.0012 0.0017 0.0011 0.0013 0.0014 0.0009 0.0008 0.0007 0.0012

15 0.0012 0.0008 0.0007 0.0006 0.0009 0.0006 0.0007 0.0007 0.0004 0.0004 0.0003 0.0006

16 0.0050 0.0053 0.0054 0.0055 0.0053 0.0055 0.0054 0.0054 0.0056 0.0056 0.0057 0.0055

Sum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 154

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013



### Table 7

- 5 North Carolina Vehicle Mix for 2015

Fraction of VMT on Facility Type by Vehicle Type (each column should sum to 1)

Vehicle

Type 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33

1 0.2978 0.3138 0.3216 0.3241 0.3124 0.3256 0.3212 0.3207 0.3313 0.3335 0.3356 0.3237

2 0.0941 0.0992 0.1018 0.1025 0.0988 0.1029 0.1015 0.1014 0.1048 0.1054 0.1061 0.1024

3 0.3134 0.3304 0.3388 0.3411 0.3290 0.3428 0.3381 0.3376 0.3489 0.3511 0.3532 0.3409

4 0.0965 0.1018 0.1044 0.1051 0.1014 0.1056 0.1042 0.1040 0.1075 0.1082 0.1088 0.1050

5 0.0444 0.0468 0.0480 0.0483 0.0466 0.0486 0.0479 0.0478 0.0494 0.0497 0.0500 0.0483

6 0.0477 0.0329 0.0256 0.0236 0.0341 0.0221 0.0262 0.0266 0.0168 0.0149 0.0130 0.0238

7 0.0048 0.0033 0.0026 0.0023 0.0034 0.0022 0.0026 0.0027 0.0017 0.0015 0.0013 0.0024

8 0.0039 0.0027 0.0021 0.0019 0.0028 0.0018 0.0021 0.0022 0.0014 0.0012 0.0011 0.0019

9 0.0029 0.0020 0.0016 0.0014 0.0021 0.0014 0.0016 0.0016 0.0010 0.0009 0.0008 0.0015

10 0.0107 0.0074 0.0058 0.0053 0.0077 0.0050 0.0059 0.0060 0.0038 0.0033 0.0029 0.0054

11 0.0127 0.0088 0.0068 0.0063 0.0091 0.0059 0.0070 0.0071 0.0045 0.0040 0.0035 0.0063

12 0.0137 0.0094 0.0073 0.0067 0.0098 0.0063 0.0075 0.0076 0.0048 0.0043 0.0037 0.0068

13 0.0488 0.0337 0.0262 0.0241 0.0349 0.0226 0.0268 0.0272 0.0172 0.0152 0.0133 0.0243

14 0.0024 0.0017 0.0013 0.0012 0.0017 0.0011 0.0013 0.0014 0.0009 0.0008 0.0007 0.0012

15 0.0012 0.0008 0.0007 0.0006 0.0009 0.0006 0.0007 0.0007 0.0004 0.0004 0.0003 0.0006

16 0.0050 0.0053 0.0054 0.0055 0.0053 0.0055 0.0054 0.0054 0.0056 0.0056 0.0057 0.0055

Sum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 155

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013 

### 7 .2 METEOROLOGICAL DATA

Table 7

- 6 below lists the meteorological data used for all 48 counties. This data was based on

annual monthly average 24

- hour temperature and relative humidity profiles from twelve distinct

meteorology zones representative of the 48 I/M counties. Table 6

- 7

, presented earlier, details the

source of the raw temperature and relative humidity for each zone. Each record represents the

temperature and relative humidity reading for a specific clock hour, averaged over all days of the

month of January or July. For example, the first record shows the average temperature and

relative humidity observed between midnight and 1:00AM during January.

Table 7

- 6 MET Zone T emperature and Relative Humidity

monthID hourID MET_Zone_ID temperature relHumidity

MET Zone 2 Temperature and Relative Humidity

1 1 2 36.6 76

1 2 2 35.9 77

1 3 2 35.7 79

1 4 2 34.9 81

1 5 2 34.3 82

1 6 2 34.7 81

1 7 2 33.9 81

1 8 2 33.5 81

1 9 2 35.7 77

1 10 2 39.7 71

1 11 2 43.1 64

1 12 2 46.5 57

1 13 2 48.4 53

1 14 2 49.7 53

1 15 2 50.6 53

1 16 2 49.7 54

1 17 2 47.7 58

1 18 2 45.9 63

1 19 2 43.9 67

1 20 2 42.9 69

1 21 2 41.4 69

1 22 2 40 68

1 23 2 38.8 7056

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013



### Table 7

- 6 MET Zone T emperature and Relative Humidity

monthID hourID MET_Zone_ID temperature relHumidity

1 24 2 38.2 72

7 1 2 70 89

7 2 2 69.5 90

7 3 2 68.8 90

7 4 2 68.6 91

7 5 2 68.2 91

7 6 2 68 91

7 7 2 69.8 88

7 8 2 72.5 82

7 9 2 76 74

7 10 2 79.4 66

7 11 2 81.8 60

7 12 2 82.8 58

7 13 2 83.2 57

7 14 2 82.5 59

7 15 2 82.4 60

7 16 2 81.8 61

7 17 2 81.3 60

7 18 2 80 63

7 19 2 78.2 68

7 20 2 75.9 74

7 21 2 74.3 79

7 22 2 72.6 84

7 23 2 71.6 86

7 24 2 70.7 88

MET Zone 4 Temperature and Relative Humidity

1 1 4 39.5 75

1 2 4 39 76

1 3 4 38.3 76

1 4 4 37.7 77

1 5 4 36.9 79

1 6 4 36.3 79

1 7 4 35.7 81

1 8 4 35.8 8157

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013



### Table 7

- 6 MET Zone T emperature and Relative Humidity

monthID hourID MET_Zone_ID temperature relHumidity

1 9 4 37.4 80

1 10 4 40.9 73

1 11 4 43.7 67

1 12 4 46.6 60

1 13 4 48.7 57

1 14 4 50.1 56

1 15 4 51.1 54

1 16 4 51.3 53

1 17 4 50.4 56

1 18 4 48.4 60

1 19 4 46.5 63

1 20 4 45.2 65

1 21 4 44.2 68

1 22 4 43 69

1 23 4 42 70

1 24 4 41.1 71

7 1 4 71 92

7 2 4 70.1 93

7 3 4 69.4 95

7 4 4 68.8 94

7 5 4 68.6 94

7 6 4 68.6 94

7 7 4 70.6 91

7 8 4 75.1 81

7 9 4 78.3 76

7 10 4 81 70

7 11 4 83.4 65

7 12 4 84.8 61

7 13 4 84.9 60

7 14 4 85.5 59

7 15 4 83.5 64

7 16 4 81.6 68

7 17 4 82 66

7 18 4 80.6 6958

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013



### Table 7

- 6 MET Zone T emperature and Relative Humidity

monthID hourID MET_Zone_ID temperature relHumidity

7 19 4 78.1 77

7 20 4 76.4 80

7 21 4 74.5 84

7 22 4 73.2 88

7 23 4 72.3 89

7 24 4 71.8 90

MET Zone 5 Temperature and Relative Humidity

1 1 5 40.1 70

1 2 5 39.2 71

1 3 5 38.4 72

1 4 5 37.6 74

1 5 5 36.6 76

1 6 5 36.4 75

1 7 5 35.9 75

1 8 5 35.6 76

1 9 5 38.7 71

1 10 5 41.7 65

1 11 5 45.1 60

1 12 5 47.9 54

1 13 5 49.9 50

1 14 5 50.8 50

1 15 5 51.3 49

1 16 5 50.9 51

1 17 5 49.7 54

1 18 5 47.6 58

1 19 5 45.7 61

1 20 5 44.9 62

1 21 5 44.1 63

1 22 5 43.2 64

1 23 5 42.1 66

1 24 5 41.3 67

7 1 5 73.3 85

7 2 5 72.5 87

7 3 5 71.9 8859

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013



### Table 7

- 6 MET Zone T emperature and Relative Humidity

monthID hourID MET_Zone_ID temperature relHumidity

7 4 5 71.5 89

7 5 5 70.9 90

7 6 5 71.1 90

7 7 5 72.7 87

7 8 5 75.8 80

7 9 5 79 73

7 10 5 82.5 65

7 11 5 84.9 60

7 12 5 86.6 56

7 13 5 87.5 53

7 14 5 87.1 54

7 15 5 85.6 57

7 16 5 83.6 62

7 17 5 82.6 64

7 18 5 82 65

7 19 5 80.5 69

7 20 5 78.4 74

7 21 5 77 77

7 22 5 75.5 80

7 23 5 74.7 82

7 24 5 73.7 84

MET Zone 6 Temperature and Relative Humidity

1 1 6 38 73

1 2 6 37.3 76

1 3 6 36.8 77

1 4 6 35.6 80

1 5 6 35.1 80

1 6 6 34.7 79

1 7 6 34.3 79

1 8 6 33.7 81

1 9 6 36.7 77

1 10 6 40.3 68

1 11 6 44.1 61

1 12 6 46.9 5760

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013



### Table 7

- 6 MET Zone T emperature and Relative Humidity

monthID hourID MET_Zone_ID temperature relHumidity

1 13 6 49.1 51

1 14 6 50.3 50

1 15 6 50.8 50

1 16 6 50.3 51

1 17 6 48.8 54

1 18 6 46.4 57

1 19 6 45 59

1 20 6 43.3 66

1 21 6 42.6 67

1 22 6 41.1 68

1 23 6 40 70

1 24 6 39.1 72

7 1 6 69.2 95

7 2 6 68.8 96

7 3 6 67.9 97

7 4 6 67.3 98

7 5 6 66.8 96

7 6 6 67.3 96

7 7 6 69.6 92

7 8 6 73.3 85

7 9 6 76.6 79

7 10 6 80.3 71

7 11 6 82.3 66

7 12 6 83.2 63

7 13 6 81.7 66

7 14 6 82.2 65

7 15 6 81.8 65

7 16 6 80.8 69

7 17 6 80.2 70

7 18 6 79.2 72

7 19 6 77.7 78

7 20 6 74.8 84

7 21 6 73 89

7 22 6 71.7 9261

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013



### Table 7

- 6 MET Zone T emperature and Relative Humidity

monthID hourID MET_Zone_ID temperature relHumidity

7 23 6 71.2 93

7 24 6 70.3 94

MET Zone 7 Temperature and Relative Humidity

1 1 7 39.7 67

1 2 7 39 68

1 3 7 38.8 68

1 4 7 38 69

1 5 7 37.4 69

1 6 7 36.4 70

1 7 7 36.1 72

1 8 7 35.7 73

1 9 7 39.3 67

1 10 7 42.6 60

1 11 7 45.3 55

1 12 7 47.5 51

1 13 7 49.6 49

1 14 7 50.9 47

1 15 7 51.5 46

1 16 7 51.1 47

1 17 7 49.2 50

1 18 7 46.8 54

1 19 7 45.4 58

1 20 7 43.8 62

1 21 7 43.1 62

1 22 7 42.4 63

1 23 7 41.4 64

1 24 7 40.9 63

7 1 7 74.8 82

7 2 7 73.9 84

7 3 7 73.2 86

7 4 7 72.7 87

7 5 7 72.3 88

7 6 7 72.4 89

7 7 7 74.5 8562

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013



### Table 7

- 6 MET Zone T emperature and Relative Humidity

monthID hourID MET_Zone_ID temperature relHumidity

7 8 7 77.7 77

7 9 7 81.2 69

7 10 7 84 62

7 11 7 86.2 57

7 12 7 87.7 54

7 13 7 88 53

7 14 7 88.8 51

7 15 7 88.2 51

7 16 7 87.7 52

7 17 7 87.5 53

7 18 7 85.2 57

7 19 7 82.8 63

7 20 7 80.1 69

7 21 7 78.2 74

7 22 7 77 77

7 23 7 76.3 79

7 24 7 75.2 82

MET Zone 8 Temperature and Relative Humidity

1 1 8 42.2 71

1 2 8 41.4 72

1 3 8 40.3 75

1 4 8 39.6 74

1 5 8 38.6 76

1 6 8 38.4 76

1 7 8 37.4 79

1 8 8 38.2 78

1 9 8 41.3 73

1 10 8 44.7 64

1 11 8 47.4 59

1 12 8 50.2 56

1 13 8 51.8 53

1 14 8 53.5 50

1 15 8 53.8 50

1 16 8 53.8 5063

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013



### Table 7

- 6 MET Zone T emperature and Relative Humidity

monthID hourID MET_Zone_ID temperature relHumidity

1 17 8 52.6 53

1 18 8 49.4 59

1 19 8 48.2 61

1 20 8 46.8 64

1 21 8 45.8 65

1 22 8 44.9 66

1 23 8 44.1 66

1 24 8 43.1 67

7 1 8 75.1 82

7 2 8 74.4 84

7 3 8 73.6 86

7 4 8 73.2 87

7 5 8 72.5 88

7 6 8 72.7 89

7 7 8 75.3 84

7 8 8 78.5 76

7 9 8 81.6 69

7 10 8 84.5 63

7 11 8 87.4 56

7 12 8 88.9 52

7 13 8 90.4 49

7 14 8 91.2 47

7 15 8 90.9 48

7 16 8 89.5 50

7 17 8 87.2 56

7 18 8 84.7 60

7 19 8 82.9 64

7 20 8 80.3 70

7 21 8 79 74

7 22 8 78.2 75

7 23 8 76.7 79

7 24 8 75.9 80

MET Zone 9 Temperature and Relative Humidity

1 1 9 42.4 6864

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013



### Table 7

- 6 MET Zone T emperature and Relative Humidity

monthID hourID MET_Zone_ID temperature relHumidity

1 2 9 41.6 69

1 3 9 40.9 68

1 4 9 40.3 70

1 5 9 39.4 72

1 6 9 39.1 73

1 7 9 38.4 75

1 8 9 38.5 75

1 9 9 41.7 71

1 10 9 45.4 61

1 11 9 48.3 55

1 12 9 50.5 51

1 13 9 52.6 47

1 14 9 53.5 46

1 15 9 54.3 46

1 16 9 53.9 47

1 17 9 52.4 49

1 18 9 49.6 55

1 19 9 47.8 59

1 20 9 46.8 61

1 21 9 46.3 62

1 22 9 45.2 64

1 23 9 44.5 64

1 24 9 43.5 65

7 1 9 76.3 81

7 2 9 75.4 83

7 3 9 74.9 85

7 4 9 74.4 86

7 5 9 73.7 87

7 6 9 74.2 87

7 7 9 76.5 83

7 8 9 79.4 76

7 9 9 82.6 69

7 10 9 85.6 63

7 11 9 88.3 5765

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013



### Table 7

- 6 MET Zone T emperature and Relative Humidity

monthID hourID MET_Zone_ID temperature relHumidity

7 12 9 89.9 54

7 13 9 91.1 51

7 14 9 92.4 48

7 15 9 91 49

7 16 9 89.4 52

7 17 9 88.2 54

7 18 9 86.2 58

7 19 9 83.5 64

7 20 9 80.4 70

7 21 9 79.1 74

7 22 9 78 77

7 23 9 77.2 79

7 24 9 76.6 81

MET Zone 10 Temperature and Relative Humidity

1 1 10 44.2 71

1 2 10 43.3 73

1 3 10 42.5 74

1 4 10 41.3 76

1 5 10 41 76

1 6 10 40.4 77

1 7 10 39.8 80

1 8 10 39.9 79

1 9 10 43.4 72

1 10 10 46.7 63

1 11 10 50.1 56

1 12 10 53.2 50

1 13 10 55 47

1 14 10 55.9 47

1 15 10 56.4 46

1 16 10 56.4 48

1 17 10 55 51

1 18 10 51.8 56

1 19 10 49.7 62

1 20 10 48.4 6466

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013



### Table 7

- 6 MET Zone T emperature and Relative Humidity

monthID hourID MET_Zone_ID temperature relHumidity

1 21 10 47.3 67

1 22 10 47 68

1 23 10 45.9 70

1 24 10 45 70

7 1 10 76.5 88

7 2 10 75.8 90

7 3 10 75.8 89

7 4 10 75.2 91

7 5 10 74.6 91

7 6 10 74.7 92

7 7 10 76.8 88

7 8 10 79.9 79

7 9 10 82.9 72

7 10 10 85.8 65

7 11 10 87.9 60

7 12 10 89.2 58

7 13 10 90.5 55

7 14 10 90.2 56

7 15 10 89.1 58

7 16 10 87.8 61

7 17 10 87.1 62

7 18 10 84.7 67

7 19 10 82.5 72

7 20 10 80 78

7 21 10 78.9 80

7 22 10 78.3 81

7 23 10 77.4 84

7 24 10 76.6 86

MET Zone 11 Temperature and Relative Humidity

1 1 11 42.2 72

1 2 11 43.7 73

1 3 11 40.2 75

1 4 11 39.5 75

1 5 11 38.8 7767

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013



### Table 7

- 6 MET Zone T emperature and Relative Humidity

monthID hourID MET_Zone_ID temperature relHumidity

1 6 11 38.4 77

1 7 11 38 78

1 8 11 38.5 77

1 9 11 42.4 70

1 10 11 45.2 63

1 11 11 48.8 56

1 12 11 51.5 52

1 13 11 53.9 49

1 14 11 54.2 48

1 15 11 55.9 45

1 16 11 56.2 46

1 17 11 52.4 52

1 18 11 48 61

1 19 11 47.9 66

1 20 11 44.9 70

1 21 11 44.3 71

1 22 11 47 67

1 23 11 44 70

1 24 11 45.9 68

7 1 11 75.4 89

7 2 11 74.9 89

7 3 11 74.8 89

7 4 11 74.2 91

7 5 11 74.1 91

7 6 11 74.7 91

7 7 11 77.1 86

7 8 11 80.1 79

7 9 11 82.9 73

7 10 11 85.3 67

7 11 11 87.7 62

7 12 11 89.7 58

7 13 11 90.2 57

7 14 11 90.7 56

7 15 11 89.8 5668

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013



### Table 7

- 6 MET Zone T emperature and Relative Humidity

monthID hourID MET_Zone_ID temperature relHumidity

7 16 11 87.4 61

7 17 11 86 64

7 18 11 83.8 69

7 19 11 81.7 74

7 20 11 78.5 82

7 21 11 77.2 84

7 22 11 76.4 86

7 23 11 76 87

7 24 11 75.7 88

MET Zone 12 Temperature and Relative Humidity

1 1 12 40.9 76

1 2 12 40.6 75

1 3 12 39.8 76

1 4 12 39.2 77

1 5 12 38.2 78

1 6 12 37.7 80

1 7 12 37.6 79

1 8 12 37.6 80

1 9 12 41.2 74

1 10 12 43.9 65

1 11 12 46.4 59

1 12 12 48.8 56

1 13 12 50.5 51

1 14 12 51.9 49

1 15 12 52.5 47

1 16 12 52.6 47

1 17 12 50.9 52

1 18 12 47.8 58

1 19 12 45.5 66

1 20 12 44.6 68

1 21 12 43.9 70

1 22 12 43.4 70

1 23 12 42.8 71

1 24 12 41.9 7369

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013



### Table 7

- 6 MET Zone T emperature and Relative Humidity

monthID hourID MET_Zone_ID temperature relHumidity

7 1 12 73.6 90

7 2 12 73 91

7 3 12 72.5 92

7 4 12 71.7 93

7 5 12 72 93

7 6 12 72.3 92

7 7 12 74.7 87

7 8 12 77.1 81

7 9 12 80.2 74

7 10 12 83.1 69

7 11 12 84.9 64

7 12 12 86.6 60

7 13 12 87.3 58

7 14 12 87.2 59

7 15 12 86.5 61

7 16 12 84.3 65

7 17 12 82.7 68

7 18 12 80.8 71

7 19 12 79.2 75

7 20 12 76.9 80

7 21 12 75.6 85

7 22 12 75 87

7 23 12 74.2 88

7 24 12 73.6 90

MET Zone 14 Temperature and Relative Humidity

1 1 14 46.6 78

1 2 14 45.8 79

1 3 14 45.1 79

1 4 14 44.8 79

1 5 14 44.3 78

1 6 14 44.2 77

1 7 14 43.4 78

1 8 14 44.2 77

1 9 14 48.1 7070

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013



### Table 7

- 6 MET Zone T emperature and Relative Humidity

monthID hourID MET_Zone_ID temperature relHumidity

1 10 14 51.3 62

1 11 14 54.2 57

1 12 14 56.4 52

1 13 14 57.8 50

1 14 14 58.9 47

1 15 14 59 47

1 16 14 58.4 48

1 17 14 56.4 53

1 18 14 53.5 61

1 19 14 51.2 68

1 20 14 49.7 73

1 21 14 48.6 77

1 22 14 48.2 77

1 23 14 47.8 78

1 24 14 47.8 77

7 1 14 77.9 87

7 2 14 77.6 88

7 3 14 77.2 89

7 4 14 77 89

7 5 14 76.8 89

7 6 14 77.1 88

7 7 14 79.5 82

7 8 14 82.4 74

7 9 14 85.1 68

7 10 14 87.6 62

7 11 14 89.4 58

7 12 14 90.6 56

7 13 14 91.7 53

7 14 14 91.2 54

7 15 14 91.3 55

7 16 14 89 60

7 17 14 87.5 63

7 18 14 84.1 69

7 19 14 82 7471

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013



### Table 7

- 6 MET Zone T emperature and Relative Humidity

monthID hourID MET_Zone_ID temperature relHumidity

7 20 14 80.5 78

7 21 14 79.7 81

7 22 14 79.5 81

7 23 14 78.9 84

7 24 14 78.5 86

MET Zone 15 Temperature and Relative Humidity

1 1 15 44.9 76

1 2 15 44.6 76

1 3 15 44.3 76

1 4 15 43.9 75

1 5 15 43.4 74

1 6 15 42.7 75

1 7 15 42.2 76

1 8 15 42.7 78

1 9 15 46.5 70

1 10 15 49.9 62

1 11 15 52.2 57

1 12 15 54.2 53

1 13 15 55.8 50

1 14 15 56.8 48

1 15 15 57.3 48

1 16 15 57 48

1 17 15 54.5 53

1 18 15 51 62

1 19 15 48.9 67

1 20 15 48 70

1 21 15 47.3 72

1 22 15 46.5 73

1 23 15 46.5 73

1 24 15 46.2 73

7 1 15 75.9 89

7 2 15 75.5 91

7 3 15 75.4 91

7 4 15 75.4 9072

Pre

- Hearing Draft I/M SIP Attachment A

Maintenance Demonstration August 2 3 , 2013



### Table 7

- 6 MET Zone T emperature and Relative Humidity

monthID hourID MET_Zone_ID temperature relHumidity

7 5 15 75 92

7 6 15 75.6 91

7 7 15 78.2 86

7 8 15 81.3 79

7 9 15 83.8 73

7 10 15 86.1 70

7 11 15 88 66

7 12 15 88.8 64

7 13 15 89.5 62

7 14 15 89.6 62

7 15 15 89.3 62

7 16 15 88.3 64

7 17 15 85.9 69

7 18 15 83.2 76

7 19 15 80.6 81

7 20 15 78.9 85

7 21 15 77.8 87

7 22 15 77.3 88

7 23 15 76.7 90

7 24 15 76.3 89