APPENDIX A
MPO Contact Information, population and nonattainment/maintenance status:

Charles Baber
Baltimore Metropolitan Council
Baltimore, MD
cbaber@baltometro.org
Baltimore regional population - 2.5 million
1-hour ozone - severe 15
8-hour ozone - moderate
PM2.5 nonattainment

Mike Clifford
Transportation Policy Board
Washington, D.C.
Mclifford@mwcog.org
Washington, D.C. regional population - 4.5 million
1-hour ozone - severe 15
8-hour ozone - moderate
PM2.5 nonattainment

Tracy Clymer
Atlanta Regional Commission
tclymer@atlantaregional.com
Atlanta regional population - 4.2 million
1-hour ozone - severe 15
8-hour ozone - marginal
PM2.5 nonattainment

Susan E. Hardy
Mountainland Association of Governments
shardy@mountainland.org
Orem, Utah - regional population 308,000
PM-10 nonattainment
CO nonattainment

Candi Nicole Jefferson
East-West Gateway Coordinating Council
Candi.Jefferson@ewgateway.org
St. Louis regional population - 2.5 million
8-hour ozone - moderate
PM2.5 nonattainment

James Joerke
Mid-America Regional Council
jjoerke@marc.org
Kansas City regional population - 1.5 million
1-hour ozone - maintenance
8-hour ozone - unclassifiable

Ross Patronsky
Chicago Area Transportation Study
rpatronsky@catsmpo.com
Chicago regional population - 8.7 million
1-hour ozone - severe 15
8-hour ozone - moderate
SO2 -primary
PM-10 - moderate
PM2.5 nonattainment

Karl Pepple
Houston-Galveston Area Council
Karl.pepple@h-gac.com
Houston regional population - 4.6 million
1-hour ozone - severe 17
8-hour ozone - moderate

Joan Weidner
Southeast Michigan Council of Governments
weidner@semcog.org
Detroit regional population - 4.9 million
8-hour ozone - moderate
PM2.5 nonatttainment

Dawn Dalrymple
North Central Texas Council of Governments
ddalrymple@nctcog.org
Dallas-Ft. Worth regional population - 5 million
1-hour ozone - serious
8-hour ozone - moderate

APPENDIX B
MOBILE6 IMPLEMENTATION QUESTIONNAIRE

Name:

Title:

MPO Name/Agency filling out this Questionnaire:

Telephone:

E-mail:

1. Data Requirements/Collection/Existing Sources
   1. Vehicle Fleet Data (age/type of vehicle/emissions characteristics)
      1. What is the source(s) of vehicle fleet mix data that your agency is currently using? (e.g., national default data? locally generated data? A combination of sources of data? etc.)
      2. Does the data reflect local conditions reasonably well?
      3. How do you handle discrepancies in different sources of data?
      4. In what format is vehicle fleet data available to your agency? (i.e., electronic files consistent with MOBILE6 28 vehicle types, paper files that need to be assembled in useful form for your purposes, etc.)
      5. If you need to put the data in a useful format, what is your approach? Do you use the MOBILE 6 technical guidance to put data in a useful format? If not, what approach do you use?
      6. How frequently are you able to update vehicle fleet data?
      7. Has your area done or do you anticipate conducting special studies or developing other approaches to obtain region-specific fleet data?
   2. Speed Data (by vehicle type)
      1. What is your source(s) of local speed data?
      2. Are you using national default data from MOBILE6?
      3. What is your approach to breaking speed down by facility classification?
      4. How do you match your facility types to 4 facility types in MOBILE6?
      5. Has your area done or do you anticipate conducting special studies or developing other approaches to obtain region-specific speed data?
      6. If you plan to gather region-specific speed data what approach are you taking to do this? (i.e., consultant study, in-house effort, other source of data)
      7. Are you able to break your speed data down hour-by-hour within a 24-hour period?
      8. Are you using four periods within the day for speed data (i.e. am peak, mid-day, pm peak, rest of day)
      9. Are you using the ramp speed default data and the local road data included in MOBILE6?
      10. Have you conducted any sensitivity analysis using locally generated data?
   3. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Data
      1. What is the source(s) of the VMT data being used in your conformity determination?
      2. How are you estimating local VMT?
      3. Are you using HPMS for all of your VMT data?
      4. Are you conducting traffic studies to determine local VMT?
      5. Are you able to estimate what portion of VMT is intraregional vs. interregional?
      6. What approach are you using to develop forecasts of future VMT?
      7. Have you developed methods to adjust data from existing sources (i.e. HPMS?) to better reflect regional conditions? If so, please describe.
      8. How are classification counts converted to MOBILE6 vehicle types?
   4. Truck Data
      1. What is the source(s) of truck data being used in your area?
      2. Are you using national default data?
      3. What is your approach to estimating future VMT for trucks?
      4. Are you generating local/regional data on truck travel within your region?
      5. Have you conducted any sensitivity analysis using locally generated data?
      6. Do you have plans to conduct special studies to generate more regionally representative truck data?
      7. Are you using commercial truck data that distinguishes truck type? (e.g., delivery trucks vs. heavy-duty trucks?
      8. How are you addressing privacy issues relating to commercial truck data?
      9. How are you doing your inventory of trucks?
      10. How do you treat diesel pick-up trucks?
   5. Use of Post-Processor Software
      1. Is your agency using post-processors in your travel demand modeling (e.g., speed)?
      2. What software are you using?
      3. What techniques are you using?
      4. Are you using MOBILE6 to develop look-up tables?
      5. Are you using emission factors by link? Or, are you using aggregate data?
      6. Are you developing local data on start and soak distributions?
      7. How do you handle out of area vehicles?
      8. How would you characterize the ease of use of the software you have chosen?
   6. Other Data Issues
      
      Please indicate if there are other data topics or issues that would help others as they begin to use MOBILE6.
2. Institutional Issues
   1. SIP Updates
      1. Has your (ozone or other) SIP been updated using MOBILE6?
      2. Did you update both your attainment SIP budget and Rate of Progress SIP budgets with MOBILE6?
      3. Do you have a motor vehicle emissions budget that was developed with MOBILE6 and either approved or found adequate by EPA for use in conformity?
      4. If so, will there be adequate time to do your conformity analyses with this budget prior to the expiration of your existing conformity determination?
      5. What mechanism did you use to coordinate the SIP update with the conformity process?
   2. Conformity Analysis
      1. Do you expect to be able to use MOBILE6 for regional emissions analysis after the January 2004 deadline?
      2. Are there obstacles to your agency in meeting this deadline for use of MOBILE6 in regional emissions analysis?
   3. Role of Interagency consultation
      1. Has the interagency consultation process been used as a forum to decide on issues related to the transition to MOBILE6? (Provide examples.)
      2. Can you describe how the process has worked (i.e. inputs agreed to through interagency consultation, etc)?
   4. Training Needs
      1. What training did you have prior to using MOBILE6?
      2. Are there training needs specific to use of MOBILE6 that are not currently being addressed?
      3. Is adequate technical support available to you to answer questions or provide assistance in a timely way?
      4. Is technical support being provided through peers, consultants, and colleagues in other agencies?
   5. Other Issues
      1. Did MOBILE5 provide you information that MOBILE6 does not? What information is that and what more can MOBILE6 provide?
      2. Please note any other issues that you would like to see addressed in the FHWA synthesis of the experience to date with the transition to MOBILE6.

Thank you for your assistance!

APPENDIX C
Vehicle Miles Traveled Forecasting Methodologies in Atlanta and Dallas-Ft.Worth

Atlanta Regional Council - VMT Forecasting Methodology

ARC produces forecasts of population, households by income, employment by industry, and land use by type using a two-step procedure. First a control forecast is produced for the study area, as a whole, using the Interactive Population and Econometric Forecasting (IPEF) model. This control forecast is then disaggregated to individual census tracts using the Disaggregated Residential Allocation Model/Employment Allocation (DRAM/EMPAL) model.

The DRAM/EMPAL model distributes the population and employment in the control forecast to the 589 census tracts that comprise the 13-county study area. It is an iterative model forecasting change over a five-year period. The result of each forecast becomes the base for the next. Important variables affecting the forecast for a given census tract include existing population and employment at the beginning of the forecast period, change in population and employment in the tract over the previous five-year period, the amount of vacant developable land in the census tract and the accessibility of the tract to the rest of the study area. Accessibility is derived using the travel demand model that accounts for existing and planned transportation facilities and congestion levels on those facilities.

ARC invests considerable effort in monitoring local growth trends. Estimates of population, housing and place-of-work employment are produced annually for census tracts in the 10-county ARC planning area and at five-year intervals for the three counties in the study area for these forecasts that are not in the ARC planning area. The DRAM/EMPAL allocation of population and employment serves as the foundation for the travel demand model trip generation and assignment process that calculates VMT across the network.

NCTCOG Methodology for Estimating VMT Fractions by Vehicle Trips

VMT Fractions (VMT Mix)

Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) Mix is estimated for freeways, arterials, and collectors for each of the following three areas: Core Urban Counties (Dallas and Tarrant), Core Rural Counties (Collin and Denton), and Perimeter Counties (Ellis, Henderson, Hood, Hunt, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, and Rockwall). These county groupings were determined by the vehicle activity behavior and demographics of the counties.

The VMT Mix methodology utilizes data, assumptions, and procedure from the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), Texas Transportation Institute (TTI), MOBILE6.2: Mobile Source Emission Factor Model, and The Dallas-Fort Worth TransCAD Regional Travel Model.

Step 1 - Conversion of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) vehicle classifications into intermediate groups.

The axle-based categories are combined by summation as follows:

Intermediate Groups		FHWA Vehicle Classifications
PV	Passenger Vehicles	C	Passenger
		P	2 axle, 4 tire single unit
Bus	Buses	B	Buses
HDV	Heavy-Duty Vehicles	SU2	2 axle, 6 tire single unit
		SU3	3 axle, single unit
		SU4	4+ axle, single unit
		SE4	3 or 4 axle, single trailer
HDX	Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles - Class 8b	SE5	5 axle, single trailer
		SE6	6+ axle, single trailer
		SD5	#5 axle, multi trailer
		SD6	6 axle, multi trailer
		SD7	7+ axle, multi trailer

Step 2 - Conversion of intermediate categories to MOBILE6 28-vehicle types.

The intermediate categories are disaggregated with appropriate TxDOT registration data, and/or MOBILE6 defaults in multiple steps as illustrated below.

Intermediate Groups
Passenger Vehicle (PV)	Light-Duty Vehicle (LDV)	Light-Duty Gas Vehicle (LDGV)*
		Light-Duty Diesel Vehicle (LDDV)*
	Light-Duty Truck (LDT)	Light-Duty Truck 1 (LDT1)	LLDT*	LDGT1*
				LDGT2*
			LDDT*	LDDT12*
				LDDT34*
		Heavy-Light-Duty Truck (HLDT)	LDGT3*
			LDGT4*
Buses	Heavy-Duty Diesel Bus - Transit (HDDBT)*
	Heavy-Duty Diesel Bus - School (HDDBS)*
	Heavy-Duty Gas Bus (HDGB)*
Heavy-Duty Vehicle (HDV)	Heavy-Duty Gas Vehicle (HDGV)		HDGV2b
			HDGV3
			HDGV4
			HDGV5
			HDGV6
			HDGV7
			HDGV8a
			HDGV8b
	Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle (HDDV)		HDDV2b
			HDDV3
			HDDV4
			HDDV5
			HDDV6
			HDDV7
			HDDV8a
Extra Heavy-Duty Diesel (HDX)	Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle - Class 8b (HDDV8b)

• Categories calculated using MOBILE6 defaults

Motorcycles are allocated as 0.1 percent for each functional class, subtracted from the Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicles category.

Step 3 - Application of local truck and non-truck data using split identified by the Dallas-Fort Worth TransCAD Regional Travel Model.

The VMT mix calculated above is redistributed utilizing a local truck and non-truck split, for each of the three functional classes and three time periods. This step assumes classification of non-trucks as Motorcycles, LDGV, LDDV, LDGT1 - LDGT4, LDDT12 - LDDT34. All other vehicle classes are considered trucks. Time periods represented are AM peak (6:30 - 9:00), PM peak (3:00 - 6:30), and off-peak.

Step 4 (weekend episode day analysis only) - Adjustment for reduced truck traffic on weekends.

An additional adjustment is applied to weekend (Saturday and Sunday) analyses to account for reduced VMT by trucks. Factors quantified from data documented in the publication FHWA-Rd-98-117, Understanding Traffic Variations by Vehicle Classifications, are applied to the same truck classifications described in Step 3.

APPENDIX D
NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
Dallas-Fort Worth Pre-analysis Consensus Plan
for Transportation Conformity

Purpose of Analysis

Check Those That Apply and Provide Brief Explanation:

The North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) is proposing the following plan and procedures to conduct a transportation conformity analysis. This plan is being submitted to the interagency consultation partners for soliciting consensus before commencement of a full-scale transportation conformity analysis. The plan and procedures may be revised as the NCTCOG proceeds with the analysis. Notification of such changes will be made to the interagency consultation partners. Specifically, the process will consist of a Plan Update as a result of new demographics, updated revenue forecasts, and refinements to Plan recommendations. The TIP will incorporate necessary modifications in its three-year scope. In addition, this analysis will meet the 18-month conformity requirement following submittal of a new SIP to EPA and will utilize MVEB's deemed adequate for transportation air quality conformity purposes.

Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Transportation Improvement Program

Demographics

1. Population:
   NCTCOG will use the latest State government population projections issued by the Department of Economic Development.

2. Employment:
   NCTCOG will use the latest State government employment projections issued by the Department of Economic Development.

3. Socio-economics:
   NCTCOG will use the latest Socio-economic data published in a report entitled "The Socio-economic Factors for the Urbanized Planning Area", January 2000.

Validation year: 1999

TIP years: 2002 - 2004

MTP year: 2025

Conformity Analysis Years

1. Baseline: 1999
2. Attainment: 2007
3. Intermediate: 2015 (not more than 10 years from attainment date or horizon year)
4. Horizon: 2025

Affected Nonattainment Counties: Collin, Dallas, Denton, Tarrant

Land-Use Model: NCTCOG is currently using the DRAM/EMPAL model.

Travel Demand Model: The VMT will be forecasted by using the Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Travel Model (DFWRTM).

Modal Split/Mode Choice: The modal split for transit ridership will be accomplished through the travel demand model.

VMT Adjustments: NCTCOG will adjust the forecasted VMT to TxDOT's HPMS for all roadway facilities based on a 1.28 DFWRTM validation error.

State Implementation Plan

The Attainment Demonstration State Implementation Plan for 2007 is the applicable SIP. The SIP motor vehicle emissions budgets deemed adequate by the Environmental Protection Agency are:

1. VOC: 107.60 tons/day
2. NOx: 164.30 tons/day
3. CO: n/a
4. PM: n/a

Control Strategies

Emission reduction credits will be taken for the following on-road mobile SIP commitments.

	Strategy	Methodology
a	Speed Limit Reduction (5mph)	DFWRTM
b	Transportation Control Measures	See MERS list below
c	Voluntary Mobile Emission Reduction Measures	See MERS list below
d	Remote Sensing	Post processed (ERG)
e	I/M Programs	MOBILE
f	Tier 2/Low Sulfur	EPA guidance (TTI methodology)
g	Heavy Duty Gasoline Vehicle Rule	MOBILE
h	California Diesel Fuel	Post processed (ERG)

Mobile Source Emission Reduction Strategies

NCTCOG will take emissions credits for the following Transportation Control Strategies. Emission benefits will be modeled directly in the DFWRTM, or a documented post-process methodology will be used.

	Strategy	Category	Modeled	Post-processed	Year(s) Credited
a.	Intersection Improvements	TCM		x	07, 15, 25
b.	Rail Service	TCM	x		07, 15, 25
c.	High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes	TCM	x		07, 15, 25
d.	Park-n-Ride Lots	TCM	x	x	07, 15, 25
e.	Vanpools	TCM		x	07, 15, 25
f.	Grade Separations	TCM	x		07, 15, 25
g.	Traffic Signal Improvements	TERM		x	7
h.	Intelligent Transportation Systems	TERM		x	07, 15, 25
i.	Clean Vehicle Commitments	VMEP		x	7
j.	Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities	TCM		x	07, 15, 25
k.	Employer Trip Reduction Programs	VMEP		x	07, 15, 25
l.	Vehicle Retirement Program	VMEP		x	07, 15, 25
m.	Sustainable Development	VMEP		x	7
n.	Public Education/ Ozone Season Fare Reduction	VMEP		x	07, 15, 25

MOBILE Model

NCTCOG will use the following MOBILE model input parameters in the conformity analysis.

	Parameter	Details	Data Source
a.	Emission Model Version(s):	MOBILE5ah, MOBILE5b	EPA
b.	Emission Model Runs:	Years 2007, 2015, and 2025
c.	Time Periods:	11 time periods and a 24-hour analysis	NCTCOG
d.	Pollutants Reported:	VOC, NOx, CO
e.	Calendar Dates:	1-Jul
f.	Vehicle Class:	EPA 8 classification	EPA
g.	Functional Class:
h.	Temperatures:	Min., Max., Ambient; for each time period/county	TCEQ
i.	VMT mix:	Local data calculated from EPA default	NCTCOG
j.	Speed:	1-65 mph
k.	Vehicle Registration:	Year 1999	TxDOT
l.	I/M Program:	ASM/OBDII
m.	RVP:	7.1
n.	Low Sulfur Diesel:	15 ppm
o.	Local Area Parameters:
p.	Strategies:	RFG, NLEV, Tier2, HDDV
q.	Meteorological data:	Not included in MOBILE5 (Cloud cover, humidity, sunrise/sunset)	TCEQ

Project Listings

A roadway listing, including all projects that change roadway capacity (new roads, widenings, roadway removals, etc.) will be provided in addition to the following:

CMAQ Projects

NCTCOG will include a spreadsheet in the conformity document showing status of funded CMAQ projects, including; emission reductions for each project, amount of funding for each project, and implementation dates.

Non-Federal Projects

NCTCOG will identify all projects in the MTP and TIP that do not receive federal funding (local initiatives, private ventures, etc.).

Exempt Projects

NCTCOG will identify exempt projects in the TIP according to the specifications outlined in the Conformity Regulations (§93.126).

APPENDIX E
NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
2007 MOBILE6.2 Input File Parameters

MOBILE6 EXTERNAL CONDITIONS

Command	Input Parameter Values	Description
Calendar Year	2007	Attainment Year; Required
Evaluation Month	7	July, representing summer ozone season
Minimum/Maximum Temperature	N/A	See Hourly Temperatures
Hourly Temperatures	See 99temperature.txt	County-specific 1999 episode temperatures, provided by TCEQ
Altitude	1	Low altitude; EPA default
Relative Humidity	See 99humidity.txt	County-specific 1999 episode humidity, provided by TCEQ
Barometric Pressure	See 99pressure.txt	County-specific 1999 episode pressure, provided by TCEQ
Environmental Effects on Air Conditioning: Commands used by MOBILE6 to model the extent of vehicle air-conditioning usage.
CLOUD COVER	0%	EPA default
PEAK SUN	10 A.M./4 P.M.	EPA default
SUNRISE/SUNSET	7 A.M./8row P.M.	Regionally-specific 1999 episode data, provided by TCEQ

 

MOBILE6 VEHICLE FLEET CHARACTERISTICS

Command	Input Parameter Values	Description
Registration Distribution	See external files: reg03.*	County specific July 2003 LDV data and area specific July 2003 HDV data from TxDOT. LDVs in Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant Counties are weighted by County-to-County Worker Flow data from the 2000 census.
Diesel Fractions	See 03 diesel fractions.txt	2003 EPA defaults applied for light-duty categories and HDBS. Area specific 2003 TxDOT registration data used for HDV classes.
Mileage Accumulation Rates	See technical report: M6FLT.007	EPA default; annual mileage accumulation rates by vehicle type and age.
Natural Gas Vehicle (NGV) Fraction	0	EPA default.
NGV Emission Factors	None	EPA default; alternate NGV emissions factors for each of the 28 vehicle types, for running and start emissions.

 

MOBILE6 ACTIVITY

Command	Input Parameter Values	Description
Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) Fractions	N/A	POST-PROCESSED. VMT mix fractions are applied to link VMT using IMPSUM6 utility from TTI; see Section II-5.2 for more information.
VMT By Facility	See technical report: M6.SPD.003	EPA default; VMT fractions by MOBILE6 road types are used to combine the four individual road type emissions factors into the "all road types" emissions factors. Data has no impact for this analysis.
VMT By Hour	See external files: hrvmt_*.*	Regionally specific, derived from 2002 ATR data. Specific data sets for Monday, midweek (Tues-Thursday), Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.
Speed VMT	N/A	Generated by POLFAC62 utility; No input required.
Average Speed	N/A	Allows a single average speed for combined freeways and arterials for the entire day.
Starts Per Day	See technical report: M6.FLT.003	EPA default; Specifies average number of engine starts per vehicle per day by vehicle types for weekend days and weekdays.
Start Distribution	See technical report: M6.FLT.003	EPA default; allocates engine starts by hour of the day for weekend days and weekdays.
Soak Distribution	See technical reports: M6.FLT.003 and M6.FLT.004	EPA default; alternate vehicle soak duration distributions for weekend days and weekdays.
Hot Soak Activity	See technical reports: M6.FLT.003 and M6.FLT.004	EPA default; specifies a hot soak duration distribution for each of 14 daily time periods for weekend days and weekdays.
Diurnal Soak Activity	See technical report: M6.FLT.006	EPA default; identifies diurnal soak time distributions for each of 18 daily time periods.
Week Day Trip Length Distribution	See external files: 07wdtrip.*	Regional data derived from the TransCAD Regional Travel Model, distributions applied for AM peak (6:00-9:00), PM peak (15:00-19:00), and Off-peak.
Weekend Trip Length Distribution	Same values as Week Day Trip Length Distribution	Regional data derived from the TransCAD Regional Travel Model, distributions applied for AM peak (6:00-9:00), PM peak (15:00-19:00), and Off-peak.
Weekend Vehicle Usage	Flag Activated; No input required	Directs MOBILE6 to use weekend activity data for calculating emissions factors. Parameter applied to episode days August 14, 15, 21, and 22, for all counties.

MOBILE6 STATE PROGRAMS

Note: Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Programs and associated Anti-Tampering Programs (ATP) are modeled in a multi-step format to appropriately account for mid-year start dates and varied requirements for particular model year vehicles. Modeling an ATP for analysis year 2007 requires three MOBILE6 input files for each I/M Program.

For Dallas and Tarrant Counties: one input file (a) models ATP for 1983 model year vehicles. The second file (b) models ATP for post-1983 vehicles. The third file (c) models no ATP. These files are combined as follows:

Emission Factor (EF)_final=EF_ATP(a) + EF_ATP(b) - EF_ATP(c)

For Collin, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, and Rockwall Counties, the above process is utilized in combination with a second multi-step input file equation to account for the mid-year start of the I/M Program. Emission factors from input files a, b, and c, plus a second set (x, y, and z) are calculated as indicated above, then adjusted and combined to account for multiple ATP and mid-year start I/M programs. The basic equations are as follows:

Emission Factor (EF)_final=(adj1)(EF_abc)+ (adj2)(EF_xyz)

where,

EF_abc=EF_ATP(a) + EF_ATP(b) - EF_ATP(c)

EF_xyz=EF_ATP(x) + EF_ATP(y) - EF_ATP(z)

adj1=((N-1)12 + 8)/12N

adj2=4/12N

N=analysis year (2007)

See section II-5 for more information.

MOBILE6 STATE PROGRAMS

	Input Parameter Values	Description
Stage II Refueling	N/A	Accounted for as an area source category. Allows modeling of at-the-pump refueling emissions.

Anti-Tampering Program (ATP): This program is not included in MOBILE6.2 inputs for Hood, Henderson, and Hunt Counties.

counties	start year	model years		subject vehicles	test only 1=no 2=yes	frequency 1=annual 2=biennial	compliance rate	checks performed
Dallas/Tarrant (a)	86	83	83	22222 22222222 2	1	1	096.	21112222
Dallas/Tarrant (b)	86	84	05	22222 22222222 2	1	1	096.	22112222
Collin/Denton (a)	02	83	83	22222 22222222 2	1	1	096.	21112222
Collin/Denton (b)	02	84	05	22222 22222222 2	1	1	096.	22112222
Collin/Denton (x)	03	83	83	22222 22222222 2	1	1	096.	21112222
Collin/Denton (y)	03	84	05	22222 22222222 2	1	1	096.	22112222
Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, and Rockwall (a)	03	83	83	22222 22222222 2	1	1	096.	21112222
Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, and Rockwall (b)	03	84	05	22222 22222222 2	1	1	096.	22112222
Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, and Rockwall (x)	04	83	83	22222 22222222 2	1	1	096.	21112222
Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, and Rockwall (y)	04	84	05	22222 22222222 2	1	1	096.	22112222

Inspection & Maintenance (I/M) Commands: No I/M program modeled in Hood, Henderson, and Hunt Counties in 2007.

Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Tarrant, and Rockwall I/M data provided by Eastern Research Group.

Note: Multiple I/M external files are required to correctly model the mid year start date I/M program as discussed above. The values presented below represent the I/M programs with their actual start date. This data is modeled with files a, b, and c. To model the second set of files: x, y, and z, adjustments are made to the start year for Collin, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, and Rockwall for I/M Programs 1, 2, and 3.

Inspection & Maintenance (I/M) Commands: No I/M program modeled in Hood, Henderson, and Hunt Counties in 2007.

I/M Program	1	2	3	4	5	6	Identifies program number when multiple programs are modeled
start year	1990	1990	1990	1996	1996	1996	Dallas and Tarrant Counties
	2002	2002	2002	2000	2000	2000	Collin and Denton Counties
	2003	2003	2003	2000	2000	2000	Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, and Rockwall Counties
end year	2050	2050	2050	2050	2050	2050	Program specifications
frequency	1	1	1	1	1	1	Annual testing; program specifications
type	TRC	TRC	TRC	TRC	TRC	TRC	Computerized test and repair
name	2500/ IDLE	ASM 2525/5015 PHASE-IN	OBD IM	GC	GC	EVAP OBD & GC	Exhaust and evaporative; program specifications
I/M Model Years	1983 2005	1983 1995	1996 2005	1983 2005	1983 1995	1996 2005	Program definition; 24 year rolling window, 2-year new car exemption
I/M Vehicles	11111 22222222 2	22222 11111 111 1	22222 11111111 1	11111 22222222 2	22222 11111111 1	22222 11111 111 1	All gasoline vehicles tested
I/M Stringency	20.	20.	20.	N/A	N/A	N/A	Exhaust program only: failure rate for pre 1981 model year vehicles (%)
I/M Compliance	96.						Expected compliance (%)
I/M Waiver Rates	3 3						% waiver rate for pre 1981 vehicles and 1981 and later model year vehicles.
I/M Exemption Age	25						EPA default; age at which a vehicle is no longer subject to mandatory I/M requirements
I/M Grace Period	2						Program definition; age at which a vehicle is first subject to mandatory I/M requirements
I/M Effectiveness	1.0 1.0 1.0						Applies only to exhaust program; optional
I/M Cutpoints	N/A						Optional for exhaust (but required for IM240). Do not use with evaporative.
No I/M Technical Training Course (TTC) Credits	N/A						Optional for exhaust. Do not use with evaporative.
I/M Descriptive File	N/A						Optional for both exhaust and evaporative.

 

MOBILE6 FUELS

Command	Input Parameter Values		Description
	Core Counties	Perimeter Counties
Gasoline Sulfur	234.0 ppm	304.3 ppm	see Technical Description of the Toxics Module for MOBILE6.2 and Guidance on Its Use for Emissions Inventory Preparation, Nov 2002, EPA420-R-02-029. Data provided by Eastern Research Group and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
Fuel Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP)	6.8 psi	7.6 psi	See Technical Description of the Toxics Module for MOBILE6.2 and Guidance on Its Use for Emissions Inventory Preparation, Nov 2002, EPA420-R-02-029. Data provided by Eastern Research Group and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
Fuel Program	2 S	1 S	Core Counties: Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) for southern region; Perimeter Counties: Conventional Gasoline East
Oxygenated Fuels	N/A		Models effects of oxygenated gasoline on exhaust emissions for all gasoline-fueled vehicle types.
Season	1		EPA default; summer

 

MOBILE6 ALTERNATIVE EMISSIONS REGULATIONS AND CONTROL MEASURES

Command	Input Parameter Values	Description
No Clean Air Act	N/A	Models vehicle emissions as if the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 had not been implemented.
HDDV NOx Off-Cycle Emissions Effects:
No Defeat Device	N/A
No NOx Pull Ahead	N/A
No Rebuild	N/A
Rebuild Effects	90%	Provided by TCEQ
Tier 2 Emission Standards and Fuel Requirements: Overrides default Tier 2 emissions standards and fuel requirements settings.
No Tier2	N/A
Tier2 Exhaust Phase-in	N/A
Tier2 Evaporative Phase-in	N/A
Tier2 Certification	N/A
94+ LDG Implementation	N/A	Applies alternate 1994 and later fleet penetration fractions for LDGVs under the Tier 1, NLEV (or California LEV 1), and Tier 2 emissions standard programs.
No 2007 HDDV Rule	N/A	Disables 2007 Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle emissions standards.

APPENDIX F
Distribution of Transportation Conformity Determination - Concurrent Review

	Approximate Timeline - 90 Days 1 Week Submittal of Document MPO transmits eight (8) sets to interagency consultaton partners 1 set=MTP, TIP & Conformity 1 Week Formal Submittal Letter TxDOT-TPP forwards official letter to start formal review process of 30 days 30 Days Beginning of Independent Agency Review & Comment Period* Initial review and transmittal of comments by interagency consultation partners to TxDOT and MPO Transmittal Process EPA to FHWA/FTA FHWA/FTA to TxDOT TCEQ to TxDOT 30 Days MPO Response to Comments (see note)* MPO addresses comments received and transmits back through interagency process 2 Weeks Follow-up Review & Comment Period (see note)* Follow-up review by interagency consultation partners 1 Week Concurrence letters to FHWA* TxDOT on behalf of TCEQ & EPA 1 Week FHWA/FTA* Joint Conformity Determination forwarded to TxDOT-TPP   Transmittal of Approval Transmit approval to TCEQ & MPO   ** Following Conformity Approval, MPO to transmit 1 Final MTP & TIP to TxDOT
Interagency Consultation Process Note: These steps continue until all partners are satisfied their comments have been adequately addressed. * Informational copy to all parties.
Revised 8/2/04