Air Quality Conformity Demonstration

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Air Quality Conformity Demonstration"

Transcription

1 Air Quality Conformity Demonstration for the Fiscal Year (FY) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Amendment to the FY TIP Shelby County, Tennessee Prepared For: Memphis Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization In Cooperation with: DeSoto County, MS United States Environmental Protection Agency Fayette County, TN Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration Marshall County, MS Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality Mississippi Department of Transportation Shelby County, TN Shelby County Health Department Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Tennessee Department of Transportation Memphis MPO Local Member Agencies Adopted This document was prepared and published by the Memphis Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and is prepared in cooperation with and/or with financial assistance from all or several of the following public entities: the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT), and the Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT), as well as, the City of Memphis, Shelby County, the Memphis Area Transit Authority, and DeSoto County, Mississippi. This financial assistance notwithstanding, the local governments in the contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the official view or policies of the funding agencies. It is the policy of the Memphis Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, national origin or disability in its hiring or employment practices, or in its admission to or operations of its program, services, or activities. All inquiries for Title VI and/or the American Disabilities Act, contact Mitchell Lloyd at or

2 Shelby County Air Quality Conformity Demonstration Fiscal Year Transportation Improvement Program i Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction... 1 Planning Assumptions... 4 Emissions Estimation Model... 5 Interagency Consultation and Public Participation... 5 Transportation Control Measure Implementation... 6 Exempt Projects... 6 Conformity Test Methodology... 9 Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES)...10 Travel Demand Modeling MOVES Run Specifications...12 Description...12 Scale...12 Time Spans...12 Geographic Bounds...13 Vehicles/Equipment...13 Road Type...13 Pollutants and Processes...13 Miscellaneous Strategies...14 Output County Data Manager...14 Meteorology Data Importer...14 Source Type Population Importer...14 Age Distribution Importer...15 Vehicle Type VMT and VMT Fractions...15 Average Speed Distribution Importer...16 Road Type Distribution Importer...16 Ramp Fraction Importer...17 Fuel Formulation and Fuel Supply Importer...17 Fueltype and Technologies Importer...17 Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Importer Post-Processing of MOVES Output Summary Results and Conclusions...18

3 ii Shelby County Air Quality Conformity Demonstration Fiscal Year Transportation Improvement Program List of Tables Table 1 - MOVES Runspec Parameters... 9 Table 2 - MOVES County Data Manager Parameters Table 3 - Source Type Population for All Analysis Years Table 4 - Annual VMT by Source Type by Year for Shelby County Table 5 - Summary of Total Mobile Source Emissions Table 6 - Total NOx Emissions (grams/day) by Source Type and Analysis Year Table 7 - Total VOC Emissions (grams/day) by Source Type and Analysis Year Table 8 - Total CO Emissions (grams/day) by Source Type and Analysis Year List of Figures Figure 1 - Memphis, TN-MS-AR Hour Ozone Maintenance Areas... 4 Figure 2 - Travel Demand Model Boundary List of Exhibits Exhibit 1 - Interagency Consultation and Preconsensus Plans Exhibit 2 - Vehicle Registration Distribution and Vehicle Mix Estimation Exhibit 3 - Fiscal Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Projects Exhibit 4 - Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget (MVEB) Regulations

4 Shelby County Air Quality Conformity Demonstration Fiscal Year Transportation Improvement Program Introduction The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAAs) and the Tennessee Transportation Conformity Rules require transportation plans, transportation improvement programs (TIP), and transportation projects to conform to the purpose of the Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP). Conformity to a SIP means that federal funds will not be spent on projects that cause or contribute to any new violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); increase the frequency or severity of NAAQS violations; or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS or any required interim milestone. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and its successor legislations, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), and the Fixing America s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) reinforce the need for coordinated transportation and air quality planning through the metropolitan planning provisions. This conformity determination was prepared based on the Carbon Monoxide (CO) and hour Ozone NAAQS. The purpose of this conformity analysis is to demonstrate that the Shelby County maintenance area supports the implementation of the Fiscal Year (FY) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the amended FY TIP by contributing to improved air quality and will therefore not jeopardize Shelby County s maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS or carbon monoxide NAAQS. The conformity determination has been performed according to procedures prescribed by the following federal and state regulations: United States Federal Register, Volume 69, Page (69 FR 40004); United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Parts 51 and 93 (40 CFR 51 and 93, i.e. Transportation Conformity Rule Requirements); the Tennessee Transportation Conformity Rules; and Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Planning Regulations (23 CFR 450) implementing the FAST Act Requirements. For each transportation plan (RTP), program (FY TIP and amended FY TIP), and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)/Federal Transit Administration (FTA) project to be found to conform, the MPO and United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) must demonstrate that the applicable criteria and procedures have been satisfied (40 CFR a). The following criteria for maintenance and nonattainment areas are found to be applicable and are described as: 1. The TIP and RTP must pass an emissions budget test with a budget that has been found to be adequate by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for transportation conformity purposes, or an interim emissions test; 2. The conformity determinations must be based upon the most recent planning assumptions; 3. The conformity determinations must be based upon the latest emission estimation model available; 4. MPOs and state departments of transportation must provide reasonable opportunity for consultation with state air agencies, local air quality and transportation agencies, USDOT, and the EPA; 5. Timely implementation of Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) in the applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP) must be provided for; and 6. The conformity determination must comply with the FAST Act and MPO Planning Regulations. This report documents the process used by the Memphis Urban Area MPO for the Conformity Determination for the Shelby County portion of the FY TIP and the amended FY TIP. A separate report has been prepared documenting the DeSoto County portion of the Memphis Region Ozone Maintenance Area. EPA s Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) version MOVES2014a model was used to derive emissions as required by the EPA. The MOVES input files were created and modified as discussed in the interagency consultation process, which is provided in the Pre-Analysis Consensus Memorandum (Exhibit 1). The modeled emissions are based on a number of inputs including temperature, relative humidity, presence of inspection and maintenance programs, vehicle source

5 2 Shelby County Air Quality Conformity Demonstration Fiscal Year Transportation Improvement Program type mix, vehicle age distribution, temporal distributions, average daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT), source type populations, hourly distribution, road type distribution, and average speed distribution. The Memphis MPO Travel Demand Model was used to obtain VMT estimates. For more information on the methodology and assumptions used in the development of the Travel Demand Model, please refer to the Model Documentation available upon request from the Memphis MPO. Ozone (O3) In 1991, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated Shelby County, TN a marginal nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone (O3) standard. Due to improvements in the ambient air quality, EPA redesignated Shelby County to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard on February 16, EPA s reclassification of the Memphis and Shelby County nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone standard was published in the Federal Register (60 FR 3352) on January 17, Shelby County was then placed in a 10-year maintenance period for 1-hour ozone during which the area had to demonstrate continued compliance with the 1990 CAAAs. However, EPA s issuance of the 8-hour ozone standard in 1997 to address the impacts of exposure to ozone for longer time periods superseded the previous 1-hour ozone standard. The 1-hour ozone standard was revoked on June 15, On April 30, 2004 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated Memphis, TN-AR as a hour ozone moderate nonattainment area (69 FR 23858). Included in this designation were two counties: Shelby, TN and Crittenden, AR. The 8-hour ozone area designation was effective on June 15, On September 15, 2004 EPA reclassified the area from moderate to marginal. This reclassification indicated the area was expected to reach attainment sooner than originally anticipated. Following this reclassification, the Memphis, TN-AR area was able to demonstrate attainment of the hour ozone standard in January 2010 (75 FR 56, January 4, 2010). A 10-year maintenance plan was established for NOx and VOCs, with new motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs). The last year of this maintenance plan was EPA designated Memphis, TN-MS-AR as a hour ozone marginal nonattainment area effective July 20, The final ruling was published in the Federal Register (77 FR 30088) on May 21, Included in this designation were Crittenden County, AR in the West Memphis MPO area and Shelby County, TN, and the portion of DeSoto County, MS in the Memphis Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) boundary at the time of the designation. With implementation of the 2008 ozone standard, EPA allowed additional time for some affected regions to attain the standard and revoked transportation conformity requirements for areas that did not yet attain the governing 1997 ozone standard or that had recently been designated attainment and were obligated to maintain that status. On December 23, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling on these two elements of the regulations. The court ruled that EPA s time extension to reach attainment and revocation of the transportation conformity requirements exceeded their authority to do so under the Clean Air Act. While these portions of the hour ozone regulations were struck down, it is understood that the remainder of the regulations are still in place. The hour ozone SIP Requirements Rule revoked the hour ozone standards for all purposes, including transportation conformity on April 6, On April 29, 2016, EPA published the Final Rule for approval of the removal of the Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program in Memphis and revision to the Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for Shelby County, Tennessee (81 FR 25605). Effective May 31, 2016, this rule revised the Shelby County MVEB s for NO X and VOC for the years 2006 and 2021, and removed interim budgets for years 2009 and Pursuant to 40 CFR (e)(3), the analysis described and results reported in this document demonstrate conformity to these new NOX and VOC MVEB s within 24 months of April 29, 2016 as required by the transportation conformity rule. In this report, the final rule associated with removal of the I/M program in Memphis is referred to as the I/M SIP.

6 Shelby County Air Quality Conformity Demonstration Fiscal Year Transportation Improvement Program 3 On April 19, 2016, EPA published the proposed rule for Redesignation of the Shelby County Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment (81FR 22948), with a 30-day comment period ending May 19, The final rule for the redesignation to attainment was published on June 23, 2016 ((81 FR 40816), with an effective date of July 25, The request for redesignation from nonattainment to attainment was made through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), Air Pollution Control Division; with information provided by the Shelby County Health Department through the Shelby County Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan (SCRRAMP- 2015). The final rule takes the following four separate actions associated with the redesignation request and SIP revision: Approves base year emissions inventory for the hour ozone standard for the Tennessee portion of the area into the SIP; Determines that Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area has attained the hour ozone NAAQS; Approves the maintenance plan for the Tennessee portion of the area, including the NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2027 into the Tennessee SIP; and Approves Tennessee s redesignation request for the hour ozone NAAQS for the Tennessee portion of the Area. As EPA announced an adequacy finding in the final notice, the MVEBs contained within the ruling are effective on the date it was published, or June 23, Pursuant to 40 CFR (e)(3), the analysis described and results reported in this document demonstrate conformity to the new 2027 NOX and VOC MVEB s within 24 months of the effective date of EPA s adequacy determination for the MVEBs or the effective date for the final rule, whichever is earlier. Since the final rule was published and was effective on June 23, 2016, this conformity determination satisfies the 24-month trigger. In this report, the proposed rule associated with the redesignation of the Shelby County hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment is referred to as the Maintenance SIP. Figure 1 shows the TN-MS-AR existing hour Ozone maintenance areas. In July 2012, EPA issued the companion guidance to the Conformity Rule that addresses ozone and air quality standards. The guidance further clarified how conformity determinations and the regional emissions analyses that support them are completed in existing and new nonattainment and maintenance areas. The guidance noted that states in a multi-state area have the option of submitting SIPs with budgets for their own portion of the area that, when taken together, meet the applicable Clean Air Act requirement. Where states have done so and EPA has found such budgets adequate or approved, the MPO or MPOs in each state with such budgets can determine conformity completely independently of the other states. Furthermore, all affected agencies need to be included in the decision-making process for the area as required by the conformity rule described in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 93, Section 105 (40 CFR ). Shelby County, Tennessee and Crittenden County, Arkansas have budgets of their own. During the interagency consultation process, it was decided that DeSoto County would not be judged within the overall SIP budget established for Shelby County, but would instead be subject to an independent conformity demonstration using the interim emissions test. As of April 8, 2016, DeSoto County s conformity demonstration will use the established SIP budgets for DeSoto County. Therefore, this conformity determination along with its planning assumptions, analysis, and results, is only for the Shelby County portion of the 8- hour ozone maintenance area.

7 4 Shelby County Air Quality Conformity Demonstration Fiscal Year Transportation Improvement Program Figure 1 - Memphis, TN-MS-AR Hour Ozone Maintenance Areas *Final Rule for Redesignation of Shelby County to a Maintenance Area was published on June 23, Carbon Monoxide (CO) On March 3, 1978, EPA designated Shelby County, TN, a moderate (less than 12.7 parts per million) nonattainment area for carbon monoxide (CO). Due to improvements in ambient air quality, EPA redesignated Shelby County to attainment for the CO standard on August 31, EPA's reclassification of the Memphis nonattainment area to attainment status for the CO standard was published in 59 FR (August 31, 1994). Shelby County entered into two 10-year maintenance periods for CO during which the area would have to demonstrate continued compliance with the 1990 CAAAs. Shelby County s attainment status for CO was revisited in the second 10-year maintenance plan for CO and the motor vehicle emission budget (MVEB) contained in it. The approval of the 10 year maintenance plan for CO for Shelby County was documented in 71 FR (October 25, 2006), with an effective date of December 26, In addition to a new budget value established for the MVEB in the 10 year plan, the last year of the plan is now The 2017 MVEB for CO is tons/day. It is required that a conformity demonstration be made for the last year of the maintenance plan, which in the case of Shelby County is Planning Assumptions The Memphis MPO Travel Demand Model was developed with consultation and input from state and local transportation agencies. The FY TIP, the amended FY TIP, and the Livability 2040 RTP provide the

8 Shelby County Air Quality Conformity Demonstration Fiscal Year Transportation Improvement Program 5 appropriate level of detail required by 40 CFR of the conformity regulations. The highway projects in the FY TIP, the amended FY TIP, and Livability 2040 RTP are financially constrained for the entire plan and for each horizon year in terms of capital, operations and maintenance costs. The list of highway projects in the FY TIP, amended FY TIP, and Livability 2040 RTP are provided in Exhibit 3 Fiscal Year Transportation Improvement Program and Amended FY TIP Projects. The conformity analysis is based on assumptions derived from estimates of current and future population, employment, travel, and congestion. As part of the FY , amended FY TIP, and Livability 2040 RTP conformity determination, past assumptions have been discussed with various local, state and federal agencies for their continued validity and updated whenever necessary. Detailed planning assumptions are provided in Section 2 of this report. Emissions Estimation Model Mobile source emissions estimates for the ozone season (summer) and CO season (winter) were developed using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator, MOVES2014 (October Release), and travel estimates from the latest Memphis MPO Travel Demand Model. The Memphis MPO, Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT), Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT), and Shelby County Health Department provided the most current data available for emissions calculations. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and EPA's Air Planning Branch in Atlanta provided assistance and guidance as well. All of the projects in the FY TIP and FY TIP are a subset of the Livability 2040 RTP and as such, are consistent with the scope of the Livability 2040 RTP in design and implementation schedule. The detailed list of projects is provided in Exhibit 3. Interagency Consultation and Public Participation Interagency consultation is the central coordinating mechanism for public agency involvement and input to the conformity determination. The conformity determination must be made according to the requirements of 40 CFR , 40 CFR , and 23 CFR 450. Since the conformity determination for Shelby County is being done concurrently with DeSoto County, consultation and requirements for both Tennessee and Mississippi were considered. The Memphis MPO coordinated its activities for this conformity determination with numerous stakeholders and review agencies, including Shelby County, Shelby County Health Department, DeSoto County, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) Division of Air Pollution Control, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), TDOT, MDOT, FHWA, FTA, EPA, and other necessary agencies. The Memphis MPO held teleconference calls and correspondence to discuss the issues pertinent to the Shelby County Conformity Demonstration (e.g. latest planning assumptions). Verbal and written comments from these calls have been addressed (see Exhibit 1 - Interagency Consultation). To more fully communicate the assumptions being made as a part of the conformity analysis, a preconsensus plan was developed for the ozone and CO analyses. This document, titled Fiscal Year Transportation Improvement Program Pre-Analysis Consensus, was reviewed by the interagency consultation group and modified based on comments received. This document is included in Exhibit 1. The Memphis Urban Area MPO s Public Participation Plan, adopted on November 20, 2014, specifies procedures to ensure public involvement in the planning process. All Transportation Policy Board (TPB) and Engineering and Technical Committee (ETC) meetings are open to the public for comments on any item. The public was notified of the opportunities to comment on this conformity demonstration. All comments received from the public, committee members, and review agencies were addressed.

9 6 Shelby County Air Quality Conformity Demonstration Fiscal Year Transportation Improvement Program Transportation Control Measure Implementation Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are the steps taken to reduce vehicle emissions and improve air quality by reducing or changing the flow of traffic. TCMs identified in an applicable SIP as enforceable measures are required to be implemented and are relied on for a reduction in vehicle emissions. The SIP is the combined set of regulations, permits, and other enforceable measures that a state uses to demonstrate that it will meet a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). TCMs can be implemented voluntarily even though they are not identified in a SIP as an enforceable measure. On March 3, 1978, Memphis/Shelby County was designated as nonattainment for the carbon monoxide (CO) NAAQS. To comply with the Clean Air Act and to ensure continued attainment of the NAAQS, a redesignation request was prepared and was approved in The approved redesignation request, which became part of the federally enforceable Tennessee SIP, is known as the first 10-year Memphis/Shelby County, Tennessee Carbon Monoxide Attainment and Maintenance Plan. The CO maintenance plan included two enforceable control measures: the federal motor vehicle control program, and the motor vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program. These control measures were carried forward in the second 10-year Memphis/Shelby County, Tennessee Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan which became effective on December, 26, The federal motor vehicle control program is a program that requires vehicle manufacturers to equip vehicles with emissions controls to meet applicable emissions standards. As part of this program, manufacturers must certify vehicle prototypes to insure that new vehicle standards are met, provide for random testing of production vehicles at the assembly line, and recall vehicles when a model line is found to have a significant emissions-related defect. The Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program implemented in the City of Memphis was a tailpipe emissions test used to ensure vehicles complied with CO emission standards. In July 2013, the City of Memphis discontinued the I/M program. In May 2014, the Shelby County Health Department submitted a Maintenance Plan revision to EPA to address the City of Memphis elimination of the vehicle I/M Program by removing the program. On April 29, 2016, EPA published the Final Rule for approval of the Removal of the I/M Program (81 FR 25605). Therefore, the I/M program is no longer be an enforceable control measure in the SIP. For this conformity demonstration, all analysis years after 2013 are analyzed without the I/M program. There are no other current enforceable control measures identified in the SIP for the Memphis/Shelby County region. Exempt Projects In evaluating the emissions impact of transportation activities in the conformity process, EPA regulations exempt certain projects included in a TIP or an RTP from analysis (see 40 CFR , , and ). This decision is based on the assumption that these projects do not directly impact transportation related air emissions or that they may not be able to be precisely analyzed. A project of the type that is listed as part of one of these regulations is not exempt from regional analysis if the MPO in consultation with other agencies, EPA, and FHWA (in the case of a highway project) or FTA (in the case of a transit project) concur that it has potential regional impacts. Exempt projects identified in 40 CFR include four primary categories: 1) safety, 2) mass transit, 3) air quality, and 4) other specific activities which do not involve or lead directly to construction as shown below: Safety Railroad/highway crossing Hazard elimination program Safer non-federal aid system roads

10 Shelby County Air Quality Conformity Demonstration Fiscal Year Transportation Improvement Program 7 Shoulder improvements Increasing sight distance Safety improvement program Traffic control devices and operating assistance other than signalization projects Railroad/highway crossing warning devices Guardrails, median barriers, crash cushions Pavement resurfacing and/or rehabilitation Pavement marking demonstration Emergency relief (United States Code, Title 23, Chapter 1, Section U.S.C. 125) Fencing Skid treatments Safety roadside rest areas Adding medians Truck climbing lanes outside the urbanized area Lighting improvements Widening narrow pavements or reconstructing bridges (no additional travel lanes) Emergency truck pullovers Mass Transit Operating assistance to transit agencies Purchase of support vehicles Rehabilitation of transit vehicles Purchase of office, shop, and operating equipment for existing facilities Purchase of operating equipment for vehicles (e.g., radios, fare boxes, lifts, etc.) Construction or renovation of power, signal, and communications systems Construction of small passenger shelters and information kiosks Reconstruction or renovation of transit buildings and structures (e.g., rail or bus buildings, storage and maintenance facilities, stations, terminals, and ancillary structures) Rehabilitation or reconstruction of track structures, track, and track bed in existing rights-of-way Purchase of new buses and rail cars to replace existing vehicles or for minor expansions of the fleet Construction of new bus or rail storage/maintenance facilities categorically excluded in 23 CFR part 771 Air Quality Continuation of ride-sharing and van-pooling promotion activities at current levels Bicycle and pedestrian facilities Other Specific activities which do not involve or lead directly to construction, such as: Planning and technical studies Grants for training and research programs Planning activities conducted pursuant to titles 23 and 49 U.S.C. Federal aid systems revisions Engineering to assess social, economic, and environmental effects of the proposed action or alternatives to that action Noise attenuation Emergency or hardship advance land acquisitions (23 CFR ) Acquisition of scenic easements Plantings, landscaping, etc. Sign removal Directional and informational signs Transportation enhancement activities (except rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures, or facilities)

11 8 Shelby County Air Quality Conformity Demonstration Fiscal Year Transportation Improvement Program Repair of damage caused by natural disasters, civil unrest, or terrorist acts, except projects involving substantial functional, locational or capacity changes Projects exempt from regional emissions analysis (40 CFR ), include the following: Intersection channelization projects Intersection signalization projects at individual intersections Interchange reconfiguration projects Changes in vertical or horizontal alignments Truck size and weight inspection stations Bus terminals and transfer points The FY TIP and Livability 2040 RTP project list and a description of each projects exempt status is provided in Exhibit 3 FY TIP and Amended FY TIP Projects. Conformity Test The conformity tests specified in the federal transportation conformity rule are: (1) the emissions budget test, and (2) the interim emissions test. For the emissions budget test, predicted emissions for the TIP/RTP must be less than or equal to the motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) specified in the approved air quality implementation plan or the emissions budget found to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes. If there is no approved air quality plan for a pollutant for which the region is in nonattainment/maintenance or no emission budget has been found to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes, the interim emissions test applies. In Shelby County, MVEBs have been established for the precursors of ozone and for carbon monoxide. Ozone MVEBs were established for Shelby County as part of the I/M SIP published as a final rule in the Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 83, p , April 29, 2016 and in the Maintenance SIP published as a final rule in the Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 121, p , June 23, The I/M SIP established MVEBs for 2006 and 2021 and the Maintenance SIP established MVEBs for These MVEBs will be compared to the results of the analysis of the ground-level ozone component pollutants volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) to demonstrate conformance. Carbon monoxide MVEBs for 2017 were established in the Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 206, p , October 25, The MVEB for CO will be compared to the results of the emissions analysis for CO to demonstrate conformance to the SIP. MVEB established in the federal regulations are provided in Exhibit 4.

12 Shelby County Air Quality Conformity Demonstration Fiscal Year Transportation Improvement Program Methodology The emissions inventory development and emissions projection discussion below identifies procedures used by the Memphis MPO to obtain emissions for the Shelby County portion of the Memphis maintenance area. Table 1 summarizes the settings used in the MOVES run specification file. Table 2 lists the assumptions used in the MOVES County Data Manager. Further details on the use of MOVES are found in the following sections. Table 1 - MOVES Runspec Parameters MOVES Runspec Parameter MOVES2014a, December 2015 Release Scale Time Span Settings Database version - movesdb County, Inventory Time aggregation = Hour 1 month representing summer conditions (July) for ozone, and winter conditions (January) for CO All hours of the day selected Weekdays only Geographic Bounds 1 custom domain - Shelby County Vehicles/Equipment All valid source types, gasoline, diesel, and E-85 Road Type All road types including off-network Pollutants and Processes General Output Output Emissions Advance Performance NOx, VOCs, total gaseous hydrocarbons, nonmethane hydrocarbons, CO Units = grams, joules, miles Time = hour, location = link, on-road emissions rates by road type and source use type None

13 10 Shelby County Air Quality Conformity Demonstration Fiscal Year Transportation Improvement Program Table 2 - MOVES County Data Manager Parameters County Data Manager Input Meteorology Data Source Type Population Age Distribution Vehicle Type VMT HPMS 1 Vehicle Type VMT Vehicle Type VMT Monthly VMT Fraction Vehicle Type VMT Daily VMT Fraction Vehicle Type VMT Hourly VMT Fraction Data Source Temperature and humidity data taken from State Implementation Plan Adjusted default data was used for all years, adjusted based on University of Tennessee data Default data will be used for source types 41, 53, 54, 61, and 62. All other vehicle source types obtained from Shelby County data (prepared by the University of Tennessee). Local data obtained from Memphis Travel Demand Model with EPA s daily to annual VMT converter applied Shelby County-specific data obtained from the University of Tennessee Shelby County-specific data obtained from the University of Tennessee Local data obtained from Memphis Travel Demand Model Average Speed Distribution Road Type Distribution Ramp Fraction Fuel Supply/Fuel Formulation Fueltype and Technologies I/M Programs Local data obtained from Memphis Travel Demand Model Local data obtained from Memphis Travel Demand Model Local data obtained from Memphis Travel Demand Model Default data adjusted where needed to reflect regulatory maximum values. Default modified to exclude compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles No I/M used 1 Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to regularly update its mobile source emission models. EPA continuously collects data and measures vehicle emissions to make sure the Agency has the best possible understanding of mobile source emissions. This assessment, in turn, informs the development of EPA s mobile source emission models. MOVES represents the Agency s most up-to-date assessment of on-road mobile source emissions. MOVES also incorporates several changes to EPA s approach to mobile source emission modeling based upon recommendations made to the Agency by the National Academy of Sciences. The detailed MOVES approach to modeling allows EPA to easily incorporate large amounts of in-use data from a wide variety of sources, such as data from vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs, remote sensing device (RSD) testing, certification testing, portable emission measurement systems (PEMS), etc. This approach also allows users to incorporate a variety of activity data to better estimate emission differences such as those resulting from changes to vehicle speed and acceleration patterns. MOVES has a graphical user interface which allows users to more easily set up and run the model. MOVES database-centered design provides users much greater flexibility regarding output choices. MOVES output can be expressed as total mass (in tons, pounds, kilograms, or grams) or as emission factors (grams-per-mile and in some cases grams-per-vehicle). Output can be aggregated or disaggregated to examine emissions in a range of scales, from national emissions impacts down to the emissions impacts of individual transportation projects. The database-centered design also allows EPA to update emissions

14 Shelby County Air Quality Conformity Demonstration Fiscal Year Transportation Improvement Program 11 data incorporated in MOVES more easily and will allow users to incorporate a much wider array of activity data to improve estimation of local emissions. Travel Demand Modeling The Memphis Urban Area travel demand model was developed in consultation with states, local transportation agencies and local jurisdictions. Its boundary includes all of Fayette, Shelby, and Tipton County in Tennessee; DeSoto, Marshall, Tate, and Tunica County in Mississippi; and Crittenden County, Arkansas (see Figure 2). Figure 2 - Travel Demand Model Boundary The Memphis Urban Area Travel Demand Model was approved for use in 2015 by the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) using the Minimum Travel Demand Model Calibration and Validation Guidelines for the State of Tennessee. The model was developed using information from the Memphis MPO s Household Travel Survey conducted in The Travel Demand Model s base year is The travel model is a standard four step model with trip generation, trip distribution, mode choice, and trip assignment components. The travel model includes freight and transit subcomponents. Socioeconomic data was forecasted to the year 2050 as a part of the most recent RTP. There are 1,729 internal and 54 external traffic analysis zones in the travel demand model. The travel demand model roadway network includes all interstates, freeways and expressways, principal arterials, minor arterials, and collectors, as well as some local streets. Additional travel demand model development documentation is available from the Memphis MPO upon request.

15 12 Shelby County Air Quality Conformity Demonstration Fiscal Year Transportation Improvement Program Model Data Adjustments The travel demand model results were compared with the 2010 Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) data obtained from the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) for Shelby County. The annual VMT shown in the HPMS data was compared to the total 2010 Shelby County VMT shown in the travel demand model. This comparison yielded a HPMS/TDM ratio that was used to scale the VMT output from the model to more closely match documented conditions. This scaled VMT was used in the development of the HPMS vehicle type VMT. Pre-Processing Information was gathered from the travel demand model to generate the average speed distribution, road type distribution, hourly VMT distribution, HPMS vehicle type VMT, and ramp fraction. To streamline this process, a preprocessor was developed. The pre-processor performed many of the calculations and disaggregations needed to produce MOVES-ready spreadsheets for each input. MOVES spreadsheet templates for each input type were developed for the identified model years. Following this, a script was developed to pull the needed data from the model and perform any needed calculations. MOVES files generated through this exercise were then applied directly in the County Data Manager. Additional information on the data sources used and needed data manipulation is contained in Sections 3 and 4. The analysis was performed using the inventory method. As a result, no post-processing was needed for the MOVES data output. 3.0 MOVES Run Specifications The MOVES2014 software was released by the Environmental Protection Agency in October This software uses a graphical user interface with a set of input categories. A Runspec was developed that stores the input values for these categories. The values and information included in the Runspecs developed for this analysis are explained in more detail in the following sections. Description The information in this category is used to distinguish the individual Runspecs. For this analysis, the description is used to introduce the purpose for the analysis, the area being studied, and the year of analysis (i.e. 2017, 2020, 2030, and 2040). Scale This input window is used to detail the information needed for the domain/scale of the analysis as well as the calculation type. The county level was selected as the domain for this effort, since it is the appropriate level for use in SIP and regional conformity analysis. The inventory method was chosen for the calculation type. This calculation type was chosen following a discussion with the involved review agencies to determine the most appropriate calculation method for this analysis. Time Spans The Time Spans input window has a variety of different timescale inputs that are used for understanding the level of temporal aggregation being used in the analysis. The time aggregation level was specified as hours, based on

16 Shelby County Air Quality Conformity Demonstration Fiscal Year Transportation Improvement Program 13 guidance from EPA/FHWA for the preferred aggregation level for conformity runs. Based on the interagency consultation process, the years 2017, 2020, 2030, and 2040 were chosen for the analysis years. Each analysis year was evaluated with a different Runspec. Emissions for the MVEB budget year of 2021 and 2027 were interpolated between the values for 2020 and The pollutant analysis for Shelby County is for both 8-hour ozone and CO conditions. July was chosen as the month to best represent summer ozone conditions and January was chosen as the month to best represent winter CO conditions. Weekdays were selected as the representative day type since they are considered to be the worst-case type when compared with weekends. All hours of the day were included in the analysis to represent conditions over a full 24-hour period. Geographic Bounds The geographic boundary for the analysis consisted of all of Shelby County. This input window also asks for the name of the domain input database. A total of four input databases were created during this process, reflecting the appropriate Runspec and input data for each of the analysis years of 2017, 2020, 2030, and Vehicles/Equipment This input window allows the user to specify which fuel and vehicle types are present within the transportation network. There are thirteen different vehicle classes (referred to as source use types) and five different fuel types. This analysis considers the diesel, gas, and E-85 fuel types only. This was partly to reflect the lack of compressed natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas vehicles in the population, and also to allow for default fuel formulation and fuel supply information to be used in the study area. Within this, all possible vehicle and fuel types were considered. Road Type The MOVES software incorporates five different roadway types: off-network, rural restricted access, rural unrestricted access, urban restricted access, and urban unrestricted access. Expressways and freeways in the region are considered as restricted access facilities. For this analysis, all five roadway types were considered. Off-network emissions are intended to account for vehicle starts and evaporative emissions for parked vehicles. While these emissions are not captured through the information in the regional travel demand models, default values can be used to assess their impacts. Pollutants and Processes This input window allows the user to specify different pollutants and processes that are desired for modeling. Since the purpose of this analysis is to assess emissions relating to the CO and 8-hour ozone standards, the interagency consultation specified the inclusion of Carbon Monoxide, Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), Non-Methane Hydrocarbons (NMHC), and Total Gaseous Hydrocarbons (THC). Following discussion with the Shelby County Health Department, all processes for the selected pollutants were considered in this analysis. Output databases were adjusted to include results by pollutant and process types.

17 14 Shelby County Air Quality Conformity Demonstration Fiscal Year Transportation Improvement Program Miscellaneous Strategies The MOVES software includes input windows where provisions can be specified for specific strategies such as on-road retrofit and rate of progress emissions. Since these strategies are not being applied in this location, no information was entered for this section. Output Output for the MOVES program is stored in a user-created database. Output databases were created for each of the analysis years (2017, 2020, 2030, and 2040) for CO and for ozone, for a total of 8 different Runspec conditions. As specified in the interagency consultation process, grams, joules, and miles were used as the units of measure in the output database. Based on the parameters already established in these Runspecs, the time measurement for this analysis was set as hourly, and the location was automatically set for the link level. To assist with post-processing aggregation, the source use type information was included with the output. 4.0 County Data Manager Once all of the base parameters have been established for a given MOVES Runspec, the County Data Manager can be used to enter locally-specific data. Input provided in Excel spreadsheet format can be referenced using this tool, which converts the data to MySQL format and incorporates it into the MOVES analysis. For the Shelby County portion of the maintenance area, locally-specific data could consist of data used for the entire region, statewide, or countylevel data. The following sections detail these input criteria, and the methodology and assumptions used to arrive at the information entered for each. Meteorology Data Importer Meteorological data from the current State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Memphis maintenance area was used in the analysis. Source Type Population Importer This importer provides the user with the opportunity to enter vehicle population data sorted by the 13 MOVES vehicle source types. The MOVES Technical Guidance offers guidance on how to leverage default population and VMT data with local VMT data to arrive at an estimate of the local population. This guidance suggests comparing the ratio of default source type population to default VMT to the local VMT to arrive at an estimate of local source type population. Shelby County specific data for year 2011 was obtained from the University of Tennessee (UT) paper Methodology for Developing Input Datasets for the MOVES Model, August Ratios were developed between the 2011 Shelby County data and the 2011 default data obtained from MOVES. The ratios were then applied to the MOVES default data for the analysis years. A growth rate was not applied, since growth is inherently built in through this methodology. Table 3 shows the source type population used for this analysis.

18 Shelby County Air Quality Conformity Demonstration Fiscal Year Transportation Improvement Program 15 Age Distribution Importer The Age Distribution Importer allows the user to provide vehicle age distribution data sorted by the MOVES vehicle source types. Vehicle age distribution is divided into 30 years based on vehicle model years. For each vehicle type, the sum of all age distributions will equal one. Shelby County specific data was obtained from the University of Tennessee paper Methodology for Developing Input Datasets for the MOVES Model, August 2014 and used for all analysis years except for source types 41, 53, 54, 61, and 62. Default data was used for those five source types. Table 3 - Source Type Population for All Analysis Years Source Type Source Type ID Analysis Year Motorcycle 11 11,807 12,118 13,339 14,596 Passenger Car , , , ,154 Passenger Truck , , , ,744 Light Commercial Truck 32 21,550 22,215 24,500 26,780 Intercity Bus ,089 Transit Bus School Bus ,098 Refuse Truck Single Unit Short-haul Truck 52 12,171 12,754 14,617 16,118 Single Unit Long-haul Truck 53 2,059 2,143 2,408 2,662 Motor Home 54 3,595 3,778 4,393 4,831 Combination Short-haul Truck Combination Long-haul Truck 61 4,943 5,051 5,539 6, ,503 7,070 8,800 9,915 Total for Each Analysis Year 676, , , ,363 Vehicle Type VMT and VMT Fractions This data importer required user inputs for the VMT in the study area by HPMS vehicle class type, hourly VMT distributions, daily VMT distributions, and monthly VMT distributions. The HPMS vehicle class VMT is asked for an annual basis. To determine this information, data can be pulled from available travel demand models or from regional HPMS data. HPMS Vehicle Class VMT The HPMS vehicle class VMT was estimated using the pre-processor developed within the travel demand model. The travel demand model classifies vehicles into automobiles, single unit trucks, and combination unit trucks. The three vehicle classes in the model were divided into the five HPMS vehicle class types through the pre-processor. The HPMS vehicle types are motorcycles, light duty vehicles, buses, single unit trucks, and combination unit trucks. Since the travel demand model produces daily weekday volumes, the EPA conversion tool was used to convert these daily

19 16 Shelby County Air Quality Conformity Demonstration Fiscal Year Transportation Improvement Program VMT numbers to annual values. The adjusted annual vehicle miles traveled by MOVES vehicle source type for the study area are shown in Table 4. Table 4 Annual VMT by Source Type by Year for Shelby County Source Type Source Type ID Analysis Year Motorcycle 10 21,378,499 21,675,787 23,147,867 24,597,868 Passenger Car and Light Truck 25 6,639,445,299 6,731,772,942 7,188,951,589 7,639,273,415 Intercity, Transit, and School Bus 40 75,542,280 78,527,209 87,347,280 95,960,439 Single Unit Truck ,252, ,618, ,524, ,603,368 Combination Unit Truck 60 1,173,267,977 1,225,234,890 1,427,716,928 1,630,760,116 Total for Each Analysis Year 8,576,887,052 8,750,829,238 9,498,688,362 10,238,195,207 Daily VMT Fraction The University of Tennessee developed county-specific daily VMT fractions, which were applied in this analysis. This information was provided in a format appropriate for use in MOVES. Monthly VMT Fraction The University of Tennessee developed county-specific monthly VMT fractions, which were applied in this analysis. This information was provided in a format appropriate for use in MOVES. Hourly VMT Fraction The hourly VMT fraction was determined using the pre-processor developed within the travel demand model. To produce the information needed for the MOVES input file, the three vehicle classes in the model were expanded to the 13 MOVES vehicle source types. In addition, the four time of day periods in the model were expanded to represent each hour of the day. The default mix of off-network hourly distribution percentages was used for all vehicle classes. Average Speed Distribution Importer This importer gives the user the opportunity to enter locally specific average speed data, disaggregated by vehicle source type, road type, weekday/weekend, and hour of the day. The MOVES model uses 16 speed bins, dividing speed distributions into a fraction of driving within each speed bin for each of the criteria listed previously. The average speed distribution was determined using the pre-processor developed within the travel demand model. The vehicle classes in the model were expanded to the 13 MOVES vehicle source types, and the hourly distribution was expanded from the four time periods in the model to each hour of the day. Road Type Distribution Importer The road type distribution importer can be used to incorporate locally-specific roadway distribution information. The road type distribution was determined using the pre-processor developed within the travel demand model. The vehicle classes in the model were expanded to the 13 MOVES vehicle source types.

20 Shelby County Air Quality Conformity Demonstration Fiscal Year Transportation Improvement Program 17 Ramp Fraction Importer This importer allows the user to input the fraction of the vehicle hours traveled on urban restricted and rural restricted roadways that is traveling on ramp facilities. The ramp fractions were determined using the pre-processor developed within the travel demand model. Fuel Formulation and Fuel Supply Importer Default data for Shelby County obtained from the MOVES program was used. The fuel Wizard was used to adjust the data to ensure it was representative of regulatory maximum RVP values, with the applicable 1.0 PSI wavier for E10. Fueltype and Technologies Importer This importer value considers the alternative vehicle fuels and technologies (AVFT). If no information is entered for AVFT, MOVES assumes a default mix of alternative fuels. The MOVES default mix assumes a small percentage of compressed natural gas (CNG) transit buses. Since there are no CNG buses in the transit fleet for Shelby County, the default value for this file was modified to reflect only diesel and gasoline fuel types. Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Importer There is currently no I/M program in use within the City of Memphis. Since the I/M program was discontinued in 2013, no analysis years beyond 2013 provide for inspection and maintenance. 5.0 Post-Processing of MOVES Output Once the appropriate data was input into the MOVES Runspecs and the County Data Manager, the four scenarios were run using the MOVES program. The following MOVES output databases were produced: Shelby_2017_CO Shelby_2017_Ozone Shelby_2020_CO Shelby_2020_Ozone Shelby_2030_CO Shelby_2030_Ozone Shelby_2040_CO Shelby_2040_Ozone Since the inventory method was used for this analysis, results for each pollutant were able to be obtained directly from the MOVES output database, summarized over each hour of the day and source type.

21 18 Shelby County Air Quality Conformity Demonstration Fiscal Year Transportation Improvement Program 6.0 Summary Results and Conclusions The current Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP) established emission budgets for transportation conformity purposes. The hour ozone Maintenance Plan has a baseline year of If the State of Tennessee establishes a MVEB for the 2012 baseline year, the results of all on-road emissions are under all of the applicable budgets for the ozone precursors, VOC and NOX, indicating that the area is in conformance with the Tennessee SIP. In accordance with EPA regulations, estimates of the emissions for each of the analysis years of the Livability 2040 RTP, the FY TIP, and the amended FY TIP were developed. The process of estimating the projections, along with the data inputs used is described in detail earlier in this report. The following steps describe the test required to demonstrate conformity of the 2040 RTP, the FY TIP, and the amended FY TIP under hour ozone standards and CO standards: Ozone Season: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 2017 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2006 I/M SIP Budget and < 2012 Maintenance SIP Baseline (tons/day) 2020 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2006 I/M SIP Budget and < 2012 Maintenance SIP Baseline (tons/day) 2021 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2021 I/M SIP Budget (tons/day) 2027 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2027 Maintenance SIP Budget (tons/day) 2030 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2021 I/M SIP Budget and < 2027 Maintenance SIP Budget (tons/day) 2040 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2021 I/M SIP Budget and < 2027 Maintenance SIP Budget (tons/day) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 2017 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2006 I/M SIP Budget and < 2012 Maintenance SIP Baseline (tons/day) 2020 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2006 I/M SIP Budget and < 2012 Maintenance SIP Baseline (tons/day) 2021 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2021 I/M SIP Budget (tons/day) 2027 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2027 Maintenance SIP Budget (tons/day) 2030 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2021 I/M SIP Budget and < 2027 Maintenance SIP Budget (tons/day) 2040 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2021 I/M SIP Budget and < 2027 Maintenance SIP Budget (tons/day) CO SEASON: Carbon Monoxide (CO) 2017 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2017 Budget (tons/day) Results from this analysis were summarized in Table 5 and compared with the established Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs). Modeled emissions in the table for the 2021 and 2027 analysis years were interpolated between values for 2020 and 2030.

22 Shelby County Air Quality Conformity Demonstration Fiscal Year Transportation Improvement Program 19 Table 5 - Summary of Total Mobile Source Emissions Emissions (tons/day) Analysis Year Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) I/M SIP Budget Maintenance SIP Baseline/ Budget Modeled I/M Budget Oxide of Nitrogen (NOx) Maintenance SIP Baseline/ Budget Carbon Monoxide (CO) Modeled Budget Modeled The analysis indicates that the projected emissions levels based on projects contained in the Shelby County portion of the Memphis Urban Area MPO s FY TIP, the amended FY TIP, and Livability 2040 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) meet the conformity tests specified in the Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments; Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Changes (69 FR 40004) and the Guidance for Transportation Conformity Implementation in Multi-Jurisdictional Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas (EPA-420-B , July 2012). Further, this conformity determination meets the other requirements of 40 CFR Part 93. It is the determination of this analysis that the FY Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), the amended Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and the Livability 2040 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) conform under the hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards and the 1971 CO National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Additional details on the total emissions are provided in Table 6 through Table 8. These tables show emissions for each analysis year by the 13 MOVES vehicle source types. Results from the movesoutput database file were summarized over each hour of the day to obtain these values.

23 20 Shelby County Air Quality Conformity Demonstration Fiscal Year Transportation Improvement Program Table 6 - Total NOx Emissions (grams/day) by Source Type and Analysis Year Source Type Source Type ID Motorcycle 11 34,974 35,211 37,237 39,717 Passenger Car 21 3,119,064 2,264,013 1,074, ,699 Passenger Truck 31 4,428,600 3,200,990 1,301, ,274 Light Commercial Truck , , ,724 57,960 Intercity Bus 41 1,487,616 1,146, , ,119 Transit Bus ,104 66,179 32,702 42,902 School Bus 43 21,863 16,138 16,663 18,359 Refuse Truck , , , ,198 Single Unit Short-haul Truck 52 3,393,311 2,245,495 1,122,444 1,122,244 Single Unit Long-haul Truck , , , ,295 Motor Home , ,119 65,844 42,919 Combination Short-haul Truck 61 3,694,751 2,646,626 1,157,351 1,025,357 Combination Long-haul Truck 62 16,764,001 11,723,574 5,450,667 5,791,551 Total 34,539,899 24,519,905 11,232,197 9,879,594 Tons Table 7 - Total VOC Emissions (grams/day) by Source Type and Analysis Year Source Type Source Type ID Motorcycle , , , ,284 Passenger Car 21 4,166,353 3,514,736 2,151,382 1,541,201 Passenger Truck 31 4,203,154 3,302,366 1,793,268 1,185,555 Light Commercial Truck , , ,892 97,375 Intercity Bus ,480 88,401 39,915 22,160 Transit Bus 42 13,714 5,038 3,999 4,997 School Bus 43 2,489 2,125 2,292 2,538 Refuse Truck 51 10,846 9,786 10,621 11,855 Single Unit Short-haul Truck , , , ,892 Single Unit Long-haul Truck , ,651 42,370 30,858 Motor Home ,826 83,489 52,840 46,906 Combination Short-haul Truck , ,509 94,036 90,805 Combination Long-haul Truck 62 1,222, , , ,898 Total 11,564,020 9,169,756 5,452,253 4,244,324 Tons

24 Shelby County Air Quality Conformity Demonstration Fiscal Year Transportation Improvement Program 21 Table 8 - Total CO Emissions (grams/day) by Source Type and Analysis Year Source Type Source Type ID Motorcycle , , , ,850 Passenger Car 21 51,401,968 43,494,912 25,911,640 18,019,374 Passenger Truck 31 62,557,548 50,789,176 25,351,490 16,396,686 Light Commercial Truck 32 5,126,586 4,149,956 2,051,136 1,320,551 Intercity Bus , , ,527 93,185 Transit Bus 42 56,308 34,028 33,275 37,175 School Bus 43 42,297 42,921 49,556 55,970 Refuse Truck 51 42,489 38,824 41,838 46,569 Single Unit Short-haul Truck 52 8,585,412 6,683,920 5,280,838 5,480,477 Single Unit Long-haul Truck 53 1,518, , , ,202 Motor Home 54 1,536,600 1,232, , ,400 Combination Short-haul Truck 61 1,106, , , ,213 Combination Long-haul Truck 62 4,725,633 3,209,142 1,863,234 2,087,742 Total 137,867, ,306,722 62,620,709 45,322,394 Tons

25 Shelby County Air Quality Conformity Demonstration Exhibit 1 Preconsensus Plans and Interagency Consultation Documentation 1 Exhibit 1 Preconsensus Plans and Interagency Consultation Documentation Contains: Fiscal Year Transportation Improvement Program Pre- Analysis Consensus Plan, April 12, 2016 FY TIP - Interagency Consultation Group s Review Comments and Responses on Draft Conformity Documentation FY TIP Project List Review and Responses Memorandum of Understanding between the Memphis Urban Area MPO and the West Memphis MPO on Air Quality Conformity Determination, 2005

26 Pre-Analysis Consensus Memorandum To: Pragati Srivastava, Memphis Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Interagency Consultation Group (IAC) From: Kenneth Monroe, P.E., Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Allison Fluitt, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Kelsey Ford, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Date: April 12, 2016 Subject: Fiscal Year Transportation Improvement Program Pre-Analysis Consensus The Memphis MPO is developing the Fiscal Year (FY) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Air quality analysis will be conducted to update the TIP and demonstrate conformity with the applicable state implementation plans (SIP). The purpose of this memorandum is to detail the assumptions and procedures that will be used in preparation of the analysis for the TIP and RTP. There are several documents to be included in the Tennessee and Mississippi State Implementation Plans (SIPs) that are in different stages of review and approval. The status of each document is shown below: Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for DeSoto County, Mississippi: Establishes budgets for precursors of Ozone (VOC and NO X) for the hour ozone NAAQS. The Final Rule was published on April 8, 2016 in Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 68, with an effective date of May 9, Inspection and Maintenance (I/M), Shelby County, Tennessee: Revised budgets for precursors of ozone for the hour ozone NAAQS based on removal of the Inspection and Maintenance Program (I/M) in the City of Memphis. The public comment period was complete on March 14, 2016 and there were no significant comments received. The redesignation request is now with EPA Region 4 for final approval and publication. It is anticipated that the final ruling will be published in the next 3-4 weeks. Shelby County Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan (SCRRAMP-2015), Tennessee: Establishes budgets for precursors for ozone for the hour ozone NAAQS. The Plan was published on April 19 th following the approval of the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board and the EPA Region 4. Shelby County Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maintenance Plan, Tennessee: Second of two 10- year maintenance plans that establishes a 2017 budget for CO with an effective date of December 26, 2006.

27 Interagency Consultation Group, April 12, 2016, Pg. 2 The MPO is required to demonstrate conformity with the currently approved SIPs with the FY TIP and within 24 months of the effective date of each SIP with new motor vehicle emissions budgets. For the DeSoto County Redesignation SIP, this date is May 9, For the Shelby County I/M SIP, it is anticipated that the final rule will be effective prior to completion of the FY TIP conformity demonstration. The schedule for the Shelby County Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan is less certain and may not be issued as a final rule prior to completion of the TIP conformity determination. The years that are selected for the TIP analysis are consistent with those used in the current SIPs with the intent to expedite the future conformity demonstrations that will be required with the publication of the final rule of each outstanding SIP. The ozone analysis will be conducted for Shelby County, Tennessee and the DeSoto County, TN-MS- AR hour ozone standard non-attainment and maintenance areas, respectively. The CO analysis will be conducted for Shelby County, Tennessee. Data for this analysis will be obtained from the regional Travel Demand Model, as well as Tennessee and Mississippi sources. Air quality conformity demonstration for the Crittenden County portion of the TN-MS-AR Area is conducted by the West Memphis MPO based on the Memorandum of Understanding between the Memphis Urban Area MPO and the West Memphis MPO, dated October 5, The air quality analysis parameters section of this memorandum describes the common analysis parameters that will be used in the base MOVES setup, with a description of the inputs and data sources for the County Data Manager portion provided separately for Shelby County and for DeSoto County. Air Quality Analysis Parameters Several parameters have been identified for use in the preparation of this analysis. The parameters listed below will be applied in the base MOVES setup: Pollutants to be analyzed: CO (Shelby County only) and the precursors for ozone - oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) Analysis Tool: EPA s Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator MOVES2014a Model years: 2017 (Shelby County only), 2020, 2030, and Emissions for 2021 (Shelby County only) and 2027 will be estimated by interpolation, rather than a full travel demand and MOVES2014 model run. MOVES modeling technique: Inventory method Scale: County Time Span: o Time aggregation: Hour o January (for CO analysis) or July (for NO X and VOC analysis) o All hours of day selected o Weekdays only Geographic Bounds: Two counties one full county (Shelby County, TN) and one partial county (DeSoto County, MS). Each geographic area will be performed separately. Vehicles/Equipment: All source types, gasoline, diesel and E85 vehicles. Road Type: All road types including off-network

28 Interagency Consultation Group, April 12, 2016, Pg. 3 Pollutants and Processes: Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), Non-Methane Hydrocarbons (NMHC), and Total Gaseous Hydrocarbons (THC) Shelby County and DeSoto County; and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Shelby County only Strategies: none General Output: Units = grams, joules and miles Output Emissions: Time = hour, Location = county, on-road emissions by road type and source use type Advanced Performance: None Conformity Tests Conformity tests will be conducted for Shelby County and DeSoto County separately. The Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEB) that each analysis year will be compared to depend on the timeline of the approval and effective date of the final rule of the applicable SIP s. Table 1 shows the FY TIP/RTP analysis years and the MVEB s years based on the applicable SIP documents. Table 1. FY TIP/RTP Analysis Years and the Associated MVEB s Air Quality Emissions Analysis Years (TIP and RTP) Compared To Mobile Vehicle Emission Budget (MVEB) and Baseline Years DeSoto Shelby County County CO Maintenance SIP 1 I/M Ozone SIP 3 Ozone Maintenance SIP 4 Ozone Maintenance SIP MVEB 2006 Base 2012 Base Base 2012 Base 2012 Base MVEB MVEB 2027 MVEB MVEB 2027 MVEB 2027 MVEB MVEB 2027 MVEB 2027 MVEB 1. Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Tennessee: Memphis/Shelby County Area Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan for the Carbon Monoxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 71 Federal Register 206 (25 October 2006), pp Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Tennessee; Redesignation of the Shelby County, Tennessee Portion of the Memphis, TN-Arkansas Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment, 75 Federal Register 1 (4 January 2010), pp Air Plan Approval; Tennessee: Removal of I/M Program in Memphis and Revisions to the Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for Shelby County, Tennessee, 81 Federal Register 29 (12 February 2016), pp Air Plan Approval and Designation of Areas; MS; Redesignation of the DeSoto County, Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment, 81 Federal Register 68 (8 April 2016), pp When the Shelby County I/M SIP is approved and the final rule is made effective, the Shelby County Current Ozone SIP will no longer be active. If this is done prior to the completion of the conformity demonstration, then the Current SIP MVEB s will not be compared to the TIP analysis years. Likewise, if the Shelby County Ozone Maintenance SIP final rule is made effective prior to the

29 Interagency Consultation Group, April 12, 2016, Pg. 4 completion of the conformity demonstration, then the Current Ozone SIP and the I/M SIP will not be compared to the TIP analysis years. Shelby County Data Manager The following assumptions will be applied within the County Data Manager portion of the MOVES software package for the Shelby County portion of the non-attainment area. Each parameter is identified, along with the source data that will be applied (if applicable). Locally-generated data will be referenced first, where available. Source Type Population: Shelby County, TN-specific data for year 2011 was obtained from the UT paper Methodology for Developing Input Datasets for the MOVES Model, August To determine the source type population growth for the analysis years, default data will be obtained from the MOVES program for 2011 as well as the analysis years so a proportional value can be reached. Vehicle Type VMT: Based on local data with EPA converters used to get into MOVES format. o HPMSVTypeYear VMT = daily VMT from Memphis Travel Demand Model with EPA s daily to annual VMT converter applied o monthvmtfraction = Shelby County, TN-specific data will be obtained from the UT paper Methodology for Developing Input Datasets for the MOVES Model, August 2014 and used for all analysis years o dayvmtfraction = Shelby County, TN-specific data will be obtained from the UT paper Methodology for Developing Input Datasets for the MOVES Model, August 2014 and used for all analysis years o hourvmtfraction = local data from Memphis Travel Demand Model. Data pulled for AM, Midday, PM, and Off-Peak periods, and EPA converter applied to get 24- hour data I/M Programs: None Fuel Formulation: Default data for Shelby County obtained from the MOVES program was used. The fuel Wizard was used to adjust the data to ensure it was representative of regulatory maximum RVP values, with the applicable 1.0 PSI wavier for E10. Fuel Supply: Default data for Shelby County (obtained from the MOVES program) will be used. These files will either be pulled directly from MOVES or will be obtained from EPA. Meteorology Data: Meteorological data will be used that is consistent with the currently adopted State Implementation Plans (SIP) for Shelby County and DeSoto County. Ramp Fraction: Using local data obtained from the Memphis Travel Demand Model. Ramp fractions will be obtained for Shelby County. Road Type Distribution: Using local data obtained from the Memphis Travel Demand Model. Road type distributions will be obtained for Shelby County. Age Distribution:. Local data will be obtained from the UT paper Methodology for Developing Input Datasets for the MOVES Model, August 2014 and used for all analysis years. Default data will be used for source types 41, 53, 54, 61, 62. Average Speed Distribution: Using local data obtained from the Memphis Travel Demand Model. This information will be drawn specifically from Shelby County.

30 Interagency Consultation Group, April 12, 2016, Pg. 5 Alternative Fuel Vehicle Types: MATA has provided information regarding the composition of its bus fleet. Based on this information, there are no CNG buses operating in Shelby County. As a result, the default AVFT data will be modified to reflect only standard fuel types. DeSoto County Data Manager The following assumptions will be applied within the County Data Manager portion of the MOVES software package for the DeSoto County portion of the non-attainment area. Each parameter is identified, along with the source data that will be applied (if applicable). Locally-generated data will be referenced first, where available. Source Type Population: Local and state information was previously determined to be insufficient to generate source type population information for DeSoto County. Default data will be used as a starting point for all source types. The MOVES Technical Guidance provides guidance on how to adjust default data with local VMT data, a methodology that will be referenced for all analysis years. Vehicle Type VMT: Based on local data with EPA converters used to get into MOVES format. o HPMSVTypeYear VMT = daily VMT from Memphis Travel Demand Model with EPA s daily to annual VMT converter applied o monthvmtfraction = Shelby County, TN-specific data will be obtained from the UT paper Methodology for Developing Input Datasets for the MOVES Model, August 2014 and used for all analysis years. Shelby County data is assumed to be a reasonable surrogate for DeSoto County-specific information. o dayvmtfraction = Shelby County, TN-specific data will be obtained from the UT paper Methodology for Developing Input Datasets for the MOVES Model, August 2014 and used for all analysis years. Shelby County data is assumed to be a reasonable surrogate for DeSoto County-specific information. o hourvmtfraction = local data from Memphis Travel Demand Model. Data pulled for AM, Midday, PM, and Off-Peak periods, and EPA converter applied to get 24- hour data I/M Programs: None Fuel Formulation: Default data for DeSoto County (obtained from the MOVES program) will be used. Fuel Supply: Default data for DeSoto County (obtained from the MOVES program) will be used. Meteorology Data: Meteorological data will be used that is consistent with the currently adopted State Implementation Plans (SIP) for DeSoto County and Shelby County. Ramp Fraction: Using local data obtained from the Memphis Travel Demand Model. Ramp fractions will be obtained for the portion of DeSoto County being modeled. Road Type Distribution: Using local data obtained from the Memphis Travel Demand Model. Road type distributions will be obtained for the portion of DeSoto County being modeled.

31 Interagency Consultation Group, April 12, 2016, Pg. 6 Age Distribution:. Local data will be obtained for the UT paper Methodology for Developing Input Datasets for the MOVES Model, August 2014 and used for all analysis years. Default data will be used for source types 41, 53, 54, 61, 62. Average Speed Distribution: Using local data obtained from the Memphis Travel Demand Model. This information will be drawn specifically from the portion of DeSoto County being studied here. Alternative Fuel Vehicle Types: There are no fixed-route transit buses operating in DeSoto County at this time. The default AVFT data will be modified to reflect only standard fuel types. Travel Demand Modeling Assumptions used for the Memphis Region Travel Demand Model are as follows: 1. Base/Validation Year: Project Listing: Provided as a part of the Livability 2040 Regional Transportation Plan; to consist of: a. Regionally Significant and Federally Funded b. Regionally Significant and Non-Federally Funded c. Conforms with the Fixing America s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act guidelines, including fiscal constraint 3. Travel Demand Model: State of the practice and described in separate model documentation. 4. Demographic Data: Provided in a separate document 5. Transit Modeling a. Transit mode split is estimated using trip end mode choice i. Estimates trips from the person trips developed in trip generation ii. Determines transit-oriented person trips prior to conversion of region s person trips to vehicle trips Analysis and Documentation Kimley-Horn will perform the emissions analysis and provide the results to the members of the Interagency Consultation Group. All files, including scripts, queries, computer language, look-up tables, etc. will be provided to the interagency consultation group for review and reference. A methodology memorandum will be prepared in conjunction with this analysis to explain the steps taken and assumptions used in conducting this analysis. If it determined that the results of this analysis are appropriate for inclusion within the conformity process, documentation will be produced for the FY TIP.

32 Memorandum To: Interagency Consultation Group (IAC) From: Kenneth Monroe, P.E. Date: May 16, 2016 Subject: Memphis MPO Quarterly IAC Conference Call Introductions and Roll Call An Interagency Consultation Group (IAC) conference call was conducted on April 22 at 10:00 a.m. to discuss the status of active and upcoming projects of the Memphis MPO. The conference call was attended by the following: Scott Allen, Tennessee Office of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Chris Boyd, Shelby County Health Department (SCHD) Marc Corrigan, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) Corbin Davis, FHWA Jessica Dilley, Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) Stephen Edwards, City of Memphis Allison Fluitt, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) Kelsey Ford, KHA Keith Head, Mississippi Department of Environmental Conservation (MDEQ) Elton Holloway, MDOT Kate Horton, Memphis Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Mitchell Lloyd, Memphis MPO Egide Louis, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 4 Kenneth Monroe, KHA Dianna Myers, EPA, Region 4 Purpose and expectation of the Call The IAC call of the Memphis MPO was conducted to discuss the preconsensus memorandum for the conformity demonstration associated with the Fiscal Year (FY) Transportation Program (TIP). The goal of the call was to aid in the IAC s review of the preconsensus memorandum by providing an overview of the document and discuss any preliminary comments or questions the IAC members may have.

33 Interagency Consultation Group, May 16, 2016, Pg. 2 Review of Schedule The schedule was reviewed and there were no comments on the call about the below proposed milestones and dates Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Conformity Timeline Key Milestone Duration Date (all 2016) Submit Preconsensus Plan and Meeting Minutes to IAC April Days Comments Due from IAC April 29 Distribute TIP Project List for review and comment May 6 14 Days IAC Project List review complete May 19 Submit Draft TIP and Conformity to IAC for review and comment May Days Receive IAC comments and begin response June 23 IAC Concurrence June 29 Release conformity for public review and comment July 1 30 Days Public review and comment period complete July 30 Complete response to public review comments August 12 Engineering and Technical Committee Meeting August 4 Transportation Policy Board Plan Adoption August 25 Air Quality Conformity to FHWA/FTA for review September 1 30 Days Receive Federal Approval for Air Quality Determination October 14 Status of the Tennessee and Mississippi State Implementation Plans (SIP) The Redesignation Request and Maintenance SIP for DeSoto County was published as a final rule on April 8, Conformance with this SIP must be demonstrated within 24 months of April 8 th which is the date that the final rule was published and available. The preconsensus memo will be updated to reflect this information. The Shelby County Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) SIP has been approved by EPA, Region 4 and has been mailed to the federal registry for publication. The final rule should be published in about 10 days from the date of the IAC call (April 22, 2016). The proposed rule for the Redesignation Request and Maintenance SIP for Shelby County was published on April 19, The 30 day public comment period ends on May 19. If there are no comments then the final notice could be as early as July. If the conformity demonstration for the FY TIP compares emissions to the budgets established in the Shelby County Redesignation and Maintenance SIP, that will satisfy the requirement to demonstrate conformity within the 24 months of the publishing the final rule, even if the date of the final rule is after the conformity for the TIP has been completed. The effective end date of the second 10-year Shelby County Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maintenance Plan is December 26, The air quality analysis for the FY TIP

34 Interagency Consultation Group, May 16, 2016, Pg. 3 will demonstrates conformity with the CO Maintenance SIP. TIP and RTP s will not require conformity demonstrations associated with CO after December 26, Adjustments to the Preconsensus Memorandum The inventory method will be used for the analysis, so the use of rates should be deleted in the preconsensus memorandum from the description of output emissions. The document should reference the Transportation Improvement Program, rather than the Transportation Improvement Plan. A list of comments were received by from the TDEC. These comments will be addressed in the final Preconsensus Memorandum, with the list of all comments received from the IAC as an attachment. The current Ozone SIP does not need to be considered for the FY TIP because it will be replaced by the IM SIP when approved. The test shown in the draft preconsensus plan for the years prior to 2027 was a quantitative test that compare the analysis years to the 2012 MVEBs. However, the DeSoto and Shelby County Ozone Maintenance SIPs do not provide 2012 MVEB s. Therefore, a qualitative test will be conducted for TIP analysis years prior to 2027 (namely 2020) by comparing those emissions to the 2012 attainment year emissions estimates provided in the documents used to develop SIPs. An updated Preconsensus memo will be provided to reflect the changes that were a result from this IAC call. EPA requested the UT paper Methodology for Developing Input Datasets for the MOVES Model, August 2014 and a separate call with TDEC, the Shelby County Health Department, and KHA to discuss the MOVES model inputs for source type population and vehicle age distribution.

35 Comment Number Document Page No. Memphis-Shelby County Draft Conformity Determination Report for New FY TIP EPA Comments Information contained in the Document EPA Comment MPO Response A. Required Changes 1 CDR-Pg. 3, 1.0 Introduction, 2nd to the last paragraph from bottom 2 CDR-Pg 3, 1.0 Ozone Section- third paragraph from top 3 CDR- Pg 4, 1.0 Ozone Section-last paragraph Pursuant to 40 CFR (e)(3), the analysis described and results reported in this document demonstrate conformity to these new NO X and VOC MVEBs required by transportation partners within 24 months Pursuant to 40 CFR (e)(3), the analysis described and results reported in this document demonstrate conformity to the new 2027 NO X and VOC MVEBs within 24 months required by transportation partners within 24 months of the effective date of EPA s adequacy determination for the MVEBs or the effective date for the final rule, whichever is earlier. [Revise as indicated in the text] During the interagency consultation process, it was decided that Desoto County not be judged within the overall SIP budget established for Shelby County, but will but would instead be subject to an independent conformity demonstration using the interim emissions test. April 29, 2016 is the publication date of the FR. Revise this sentence to say: Pursuant to 40 CFR (e)(3), the analysis described and results reported in this document demonstrate conformity to these new NOX and VOC MVEBs within 24 months of April 29, 2016 as required by the transportation conformity rule. Add a statement after whichever is earlier that says: Since the final rule was published on June 23, 2016, this conformity determination satisfies the 24- month conformity trigger. Add statement at the end that says: As of April 8, 2016, Desoto County s conformity demonstration will use the established SIP budgets. Agree. Revised sentence related to the I/M SIP per the comment. Agree. Deleted required by transportation partners and added statement per comment. Agree. Added the statement per the comment. Good catch!

36 Comment Number Document Page No. Information contained in the Document EPA Comment MPO Response A. Required Changes 4 CDR-Pg Conformity Section 5 CDR- Pg Methodology 6 CDR-Pg 18 Section 6.0 Summary Results and Conclusions the I/M SIP published as a final rule in the Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 83, p , April 29, 2016 and in the Attainment SIP published. Attainment SIP established MVEBs for Shelby County portion of the Memphis nonattainment/maintenance area The current Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP) established emission budgets for transportation conformity purposes. [Add sentence here] Ozone Season: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 2017 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2006 I/M SIP Budget and < 2012 Attainment SIP Baseline (tons/day) 2020 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2006 I/M SIP Budget and < 2012 Attainment SIP Baseline (tons/day) 2021 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2021 I/M SIP Budget (tons/day) 2027 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2027 Attainment SIP Budget (tons/day) 2030 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2021 I/M SIP Budget and < 2027 Attainment SIP Budget (tons/day) 2040 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2021 I/M SIP Budget and < 2027 Attainment SIP Budget (tons/day) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Change Attainment to Maintenance when referencing the 2008 Ozone Maintenance Plan The area in now a maintenance area You should add a statement here that says: The hour ozone Maintenance Plan has a baseline year of If the State of Tennessee establishes a MVEB for the 2012 baseline year, the results of all on-road emissions are under all the applicable budgets for the ozone precursors, VOC and NOx, so this indicates that the area is in conformance with the Tennessee SIP. You should also Change Attainment to Maintenance. Agree. Changed Attainment SIP to Maintenance SIP throughout the document. Agree. Deleted nonattainment. Agree. Added statement per comment. Also changed Attainment to Maintenance

37 Comment Number Document Page No. Information contained in the Document EPA Comment MPO Response A. Required Changes 7 CDR-Pg 18 Section 6.0 Summary Results and Conclusions 2017 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2006 I/M SIP Budget and < 2012 Attainment SIP Baseline (tons/day) 2020 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2006 I/M SIP Budget and < 2012 Attainment SIP Baseline (tons/day) 2021 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2021 I/M SIP Budget (tons/day) 2027 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2027 Attainment SIP Budget (tons/day) 2030 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2021 I/M SIP Budget and < 2027 Attainment SIP Budget (tons/day) 2040 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2021 I/M SIP Budget and < 2027 Attainment SIP Budget (tons/day) Table 5 - Summary of Total Mobile Source Emissions Attainment SIP Baseline/ Budget Change Attainment to Maintenance. Appears 2 places in the Table 5 Agree. Changed Attainment to Maintenance in Table 5.

38 Monroe, Kenny From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Holloway, Elton Thursday, June 23, :32 PM Monroe, Kenny; Ely, Jeff; Thurman, Kim Brown, Perry; Dilley, Jessica E.; Johnson, Adam FW: Memphis MPO - FY Transportation Improvement Program DeSoto County_Memphis FY TIP CDR EPA Comments.docx Kenny, The Mississippi Department of Transportation Planning Division agrees with the comments from Dianna Myers, EPA, on the DeSoto County Document. We do not have any other comments on the DeSoto County Document. Sincerely, Elton Holloway, Physicist, MBA Planning Division Mississippi Department of Transportation From: Myers, Dianna [mailto:myers.dianna@epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, June 23, :03 PM To: Kenny.Monroe@kimley-horn.com; Brantley, Al; acardosi@desotocountyms.gov; aswims@desotocountyms.gov; bpage@obms.us; Barnwell, Claiborne; jbeasley@deq.state.ms.us; bhopkins@desotocountyms.gov; ebickerstaff@deq.state.ms.us; Christopher.Boyd@shelbycountytn.gov; Brown, Perry; ccocke@midsouthcoop.com; Chin-Cheng.Chen@tn.gov; christopherpate@hotmail.com; Marc.Corrigan@tn.gov; dcordell@civil-link.com; deborah.fleming@tn.gov; edwardh@a2h.com; bce@sbcglobal.net; louis.egide@epg.gov; Elizabeth.Martin@dot.gov; Allison.Fluitt@kimley-horn.com; fmcphail@ci.collierville.tn.us; kelsey.ford@kimley-horn.com; carter.gray@shelbycountytn.gov; greg.riggs@tn.gov; tgwaltney@germantown-tn.gov; khead@deq.state.ms.us; hmatheny@pickeringfirm.com; Holloway, Elton; Jim.Holt@shelbycountytn.gov; kate.horton@memphistn.gov; James.Collins@kimley-horn.com; Jansen, Randy; jdarby@cityofhernando.org; j.dixon@millingtontn.gov; jclancaster@matatransit.com; Ely, Jeff; Dilley, Jessica E.; Jpitner@fayettetn.us; Alan.Jones@state.tn.us; judy.watters@gmail.com; Jhall@marshallcoms.org; kbriley@hornlake.org; kwasi.agyakwa@memphistn.gov; LCaldwell@DeSotoCountyMs.gov; Vicki.Lowe@tn.gov; mayor@townofwalls.com; Mark.McAdoo@tn.gov; Mmerry@mdot.ms.gov; Mitchell.Lloyd@memphistn.gov; Nathaniel.Heyward@memphistn.gov; nicholas.oyler@memphistn.gov; jim.ozment@tn.gov; manny.belen@memphistn.gov; pbrown47@comcast.net; randall.tatum@memphistn.gov; andrew.ray@memphistn.gov; Randy@portofmemphis.com; rmcclanahan@cityofbartlett.org; bob.rogers@shelbycountytn.gov; Sajid.Hossain@memphistn.gov; s.hall@millingtontn.gov; scott.allen@dot.gov; Sheckler, Kelly A.; sonja.owens@shelbycountytn.gov; Spann, Jane; pragati.srivastava@memphistn.gov; Stephen.Edwards@memphistn.gov; barry.stephens@tn.gov; shill@phdmemphis.com; Quincy.Styke@tn.gov; Tom.Needham@shelbycountytn.gov; tskehan@lakelandtn.org; trung.vo@kimley-horn.com; townclerk@townofwalls.com; wchoat@southaven.org; Dean, Kenneth; zhiyong.guo@kimley-horn.com; Farngalo, Zuri Subject: RE: Memphis MPO - FY Transportation Improvement Program Kenny, Here are my comments on the DeSoto County Document. I will send the Shelby County comments in the morning. Dianna B. Myers Physical Scientist Regional Transportation Conformity Contact 1

39 Monroe, Kenny Subject: RE: Memphis MPO - FY Transportation Improvement Program Marc, Please find responses to your comments below and let me know if you have any questions or comments. Thank you, Kenny From: Marc Corrigan [mailto:marc.corrigan@tn.gov] Sent: Monday, June 20, :49 PM To: Monroe, Kenny <Kenny.Monroe@kimley-horn.com>; albrantley@mdot.state.ms.us; acardosi@desotocountyms.gov; aswims@desotocountyms.gov; bpage@obms.us; claiborne.barnwell@dot.gov; jbeasley@deq.state.ms.us; bhopkins@desotocountyms.gov; ebickerstaff@deq.state.ms.us; Christopher.Boyd@shelbycountytn.gov; pbrown@mdot.ms.gov; ccocke@midsouthcoop.com; Chin-Cheng Chen <Chin-Cheng.Chen@tn.gov>; christopherpate@hotmail.com; dcordell@civillink.com; Deborah Fleming <Deborah.Fleming@tn.gov>; edwardh@a2h.com; bce@sbcglobal.net; louis.egide@epg.gov; Elizabeth.Martin@dot.gov; Fluitt, Allison <Allison.Fluitt@kimley-horn.com>; fmcphail@ci.collierville.tn.us; Ford, Kelsey <kelsey.ford@kimley-horn.com>; carter.gray@shelbycountytn.gov; Greg Riggs <Greg.Riggs@tn.gov>; tgwaltney@germantowntn.gov; khead@deq.state.ms.us; hmatheny@pickeringfirm.com; eholloway@mdot.state.ms.us; Jim.Holt@shelbycountytn.gov; kate.horton@memphistn.gov; Collins, James <James.Collins@kimley-horn.com>; randal.jansen@dot.gov; jdarby@cityofhernando.org; j.dixon@millingtontn.gov; jclancaster@matatransit.com; jely@mdot.state.ms.us; jdilley@mdot.ms.gov; Jpitner@fayettetn.us; Alan.Jones@state.tn.us; judy.watters@gmail.com; Jhall@marshallcoms.org; kbriley@hornlake.org; kwasi.agyakwa@memphistn.gov; LCaldwell@DeSotoCountyMs.gov; mayor@townofwalls.com; Mark McAdoo <Mark.McAdoo@tn.gov>; Mmerry@mdot.ms.gov; Mitchell.Lloyd@memphistn.gov; Myers.Dianna@epa.gov; Nathaniel.Heyward@memphistn.gov; nicholas.oyler@memphistn.gov; Jim Ozment <Jim.Ozment@tn.gov>; manny.belen@memphistn.gov; pbrown47@comcast.net; randall.tatum@memphistn.gov; andrew.ray@memphistn.gov; Randy@portofmemphis.com; rmcclanahan@cityofbartlett.org; bob.rogers@shelbycountytn.gov; Sajid.Hossain@memphistn.gov; s.hall@millingtontn.gov; scott.allen@dot.gov; Sheckler.Kelly@epamail.epa.gov; sonja.owens@shelbycountytn.gov; Spann.Jane@epamail.epa.gov; pragati.srivastava@memphistn.gov; Stephen.Edwards@memphistn.gov; Barry Stephens <Barry.Stephens@tn.gov>; shill@phdmemphis.com; Quincy Styke <Quincy.Styke@tn.gov>; Tom.Needham@shelbycountytn.gov; tskehan@lakelandtn.org; Vo, Trung <trung.vo@kimleyhorn.com>; townclerk@townofwalls.com; wchoat@southaven.org; dean.william-kenneth@epamail.epa.gov; Guo, Zhiyong <zhiyong.guo@kimley-horn.com>; farngalo.zuri@epa.gov Subject: RE: Memphis MPO - FY Transportation Improvement Program Kenny, I think the CDR is well written. A few comments/suggestions for your consideration: In the CDR, page 10, in Table 2, there is I believe, a typo in the Vehicle Type VMT row regarding EPS s daily to - Response: Changed EPS to EPA Did we not elect, in a previous conformity determination, to shorten the timeframe of the CO analysis as per (d)(3)? I am under the vague recollection (in the TIP) that we proposed and solicited public comment (and IAC comment during our discussion) on this approach. It is no problem if we analyzed CO for the other years too. It is informative. - The effort associated with the additional analysis years for CO was minimal, so it was decided that we would include it for informational purposes. 1

40 Does the TDFM have a vehicle ownership submodel? Does the TDFM also provide for economic growth in the business sector to help derive the number of commercial and freight vehicles on the network? If so, in the future, it should be investigated if these tools should be used to derive growth in vehicle population. - The travel demand model does have a vehicle ownership submodel and the freight component of the travel model is used to estimate and assign truck volumes based on land use inputs from the MPO s land use model. We agree that it is worthwhile to investigate using this to understand the potential change in vehicle population versus the current methodology for future efforts. Shelby County appears to include emissions from refueling displacement vapor loss and refueling spillage loss in the area source emissions inventory. Thus these emissions are not included as onroad emission. If this approach holds in the respective SIPs (which it appears they do), these emissions need not be included in the conformity analysis for the Shelby County portion. Having these emissions included makes the conformity analysis conservative (increases VOC emissions from refueling). I do not think this requires a new set of model runs for this analysis. - It is agreed that these results yield conservative values for VOC, and we will consider not including the refueling displacement vapor loss and refueling spillage loss in future conformity demonstrations. Those are my suggestions. I ll let you know if I have any further comments/suggestions. Marc Marc Corrigan Environmental Consultant Air Pollution Control Division Tennessee Tower, 15 th Floor 312 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Nashville, TN p Marc.Corrigan@tn.gov tn.gov/environment We value your opinion. Please take a few minutes to complete our customer service survey. From: Kenny.Monroe@kimley-horn.com [mailto:kenny.monroe@kimley-horn.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 25, :39 PM To: albrantley@mdot.state.ms.us; acardosi@desotocountyms.gov; aswims@desotocountyms.gov; bpage@obms.us; claiborne.barnwell@dot.gov; jbeasley@deq.state.ms.us; bhopkins@desotocountyms.gov; ebickerstaff@deq.state.ms.us; Christopher.Boyd@shelbycountytn.gov; pbrown@mdot.ms.gov; ccocke@midsouthcoop.com; Chin-Cheng Chen; christopherpate@hotmail.com; Marc Corrigan; dcordell@civil-link.com; Deborah Fleming; edwardh@a2h.com; bce@sbcglobal.net; louis.egide@epg.gov; Elizabeth.Martin@dot.gov; Allison.Fluitt@kimley-horn.com; fmcphail@ci.collierville.tn.us; kelsey.ford@kimley-horn.com; carter.gray@shelbycountytn.gov; Greg Riggs; tgwaltney@germantown-tn.gov; khead@deq.state.ms.us; hmatheny@pickeringfirm.com; eholloway@mdot.state.ms.us; Jim.Holt@shelbycountytn.gov; kate.horton@memphistn.gov; James.Collins@kimley-horn.com; randal.jansen@dot.gov; jdarby@cityofhernando.org; j.dixon@millingtontn.gov; jclancaster@matatransit.com; jely@mdot.state.ms.us; jdilley@mdot.ms.gov; Jpitner@fayettetn.us; Alan.Jones@state.tn.us; judy.watters@gmail.com; Jhall@marshallcoms.org; kbriley@hornlake.org; Kenny.Monroe@kimleyhorn.com; kwasi.agyakwa@memphistn.gov; LCaldwell@DeSotoCountyMs.gov; Vicki Lowe-HOLD; mayor@townofwalls.com; Mark McAdoo; Mmerry@mdot.ms.gov; Mitchell.Lloyd@memphistn.gov; Myers.Dianna@epa.gov; Nathaniel.Heyward@memphistn.gov; nicholas.oyler@memphistn.gov; Jim Ozment; manny.belen@memphistn.gov; pbrown47@comcast.net; randall.tatum@memphistn.gov; andrew.ray@memphistn.gov; Randy@portofmemphis.com; rmcclanahan@cityofbartlett.org; bob.rogers@shelbycountytn.gov; Sajid.Hossain@memphistn.gov; s.hall@millingtontn.gov; scott.allen@dot.gov; Sheckler.Kelly@epamail.epa.gov; sonja.owens@shelbycountytn.gov; Spann.Jane@epamail.epa.gov; pragati.srivastava@memphistn.gov; Stephen.Edwards@memphistn.gov; Barry Stephens; shill@phdmemphis.com; Quincy Styke; Tom.Needham@shelbycountytn.gov; tskehan@lakelandtn.org; trung.vo@kimley-horn.com; townclerk@townofwalls.com; 2

41 Monroe, Kenny From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Myers, Dianna Friday, June 24, :16 PM Monroe, Kenny; Fluitt, Allison; Ford, Kelsey; RE: FY TIP Amendment and Conformity Kenny, Based on the thread and my understanding of what TDOT wants to do with the FY14 to 17 Amendments, I would recommend that we proceed with the Projects in the New FY17 to 20 TIP instead of trying to complete a parallel process for those amendments. Here is my rationale: 1) The Amendment and the New TIP update will have the same schedule for federal approval (correct me if I am wrong on this). 2) The regional emissions analysis has already been completed with these projects in it. 3) Based on this information (highlighted in yellow below) from Pragati s on Wednesday, June 22, 2016, I feel we can have an expedited Federal review to cut down on the review time. 4) Based on what s underlined below ( and in yellow highlights), TDOT wants federal approval before the FY17-20 TIP is incorporated into the STIP, If that is true and If the expedited review is agreed to, then the federal approval will be completed earlier eliminating the need to wait until December to finalized. (I don t know enough about the State processes to know why it would take almost 1.5 to 2 additional months for TDOT to expend the funds for the Amended projects to move forward. (Someone, please enlighten me so I can have a full understanding). I will be out of the office all of next week returning on July 5, If I get an opportunity, I will try to check my s periodically. Dianna B. Myers Physical Scientist Regional Transportation Conformity Contact Air Regulatory Management Section Phone: (404) Fax: (404) myers.dianna@epa.gov From: Kenny.Monroe@kimley-horn.com [mailto:kenny.monroe@kimley-horn.com] Sent: Friday, June 24, :46 AM To: Myers, Dianna <Myers.Dianna@epa.gov>; Pragati.Srivastava@memphistn.gov 1

42 Cc: Subject: RE: FY TIP Amendment and Conformity Dianna, Thank you for sending your comments on the FY TIP DeSoto and Shelby County Conformity documents. Based on previous discussion, we would like to include discussion of the FY TIP amendments in the conformity document as well prior to sending those documents out for public review and comment. Do you think that is an acceptable approach? With the recent final rule established for the Shelby County maintenance rule, we believe this would be the most straight forward approach. Kenny From: Myers, Dianna Sent: Wednesday, June 22, :27 PM To: Monroe, Kenny Cc: Fluitt, Allison Ford, Kelsey Subject: RE: FY TIP Amendment and Conformity Ok. So, you all are expecting the amendment to be approved in the Sept/Oct timeframe. Since the amendment will be completed using the new MVEBs, the write-up in the new TIP will have to be revised to capture what is happening. I need to give it some thought. Dianna B. Myers Physical Scientist Regional Transportation Conformity Contact Air Regulatory Management Section Phone: (404) Fax: (404) myers.dianna@epa.gov From: Pragati.Srivastava@memphistn.gov [mailto:pragati.srivastava@memphistn.gov] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, :09 PM To: Myers, Dianna <Myers.Dianna@epa.gov>; Kenny.Monroe@kimley-horn.com Cc: scott.allen@dot.gov; marc.corrigan@tn.gov; Kate.Horton@memphistn.gov; allison.fluitt@kimley-horn.com; Theresa.Claxton@dot.gov; kelsey.ford@kimley-horn.com; Mitchell.Lloyd@memphistn.gov Subject: RE: FY TIP Amendment and Conformity Dianna, The new TIP along with the STIP will not be fully approved until December 2016 (based on the final STIP approval). Meanwhile, the current TIP would remain in effect. These amendments to the current TIP will allow TDOT to obligate the funds sooner. As far as the process of approval of the TIP, which we have been sharing with the IAC, shows the following: 2

43 1. Approval of the TIP + conformity by MPO Board- August MPO submits the TIP + conformity report to FHWA/FTA and EPA for conformity approval letter- September Mid-October MPO submits the approved TIP + approved conformity to TDOT for inclusion in STIP - October 2016 (TDOT wants all non-attainment MPOs to submit the TIP for inclusion in the STIP, only after the MPO has received the federal approval on the conformity) 4. Final Approval of STIP- December 2016 Regards, PRAGATI SRIVASTAVA, AICP ADMINISTRATOR Memphis Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 125 N Main Street Suite # 450 Memphis, TN PH: FAX: Pragati.Srivastava@memphistn.gov The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. From: Myers, Dianna [mailto:myers.dianna@epa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, :53 PM To: Srivastava, Pragati; Kenny.Monroe@kimley-horn.com Cc: scott.allen@dot.gov; marc.corrigan@tn.gov; Horton, Kate; allison.fluitt@kimley-horn.com; Theresa.Claxton@dot.gov; kelsey.ford@kimley-horn.com; Lloyd, Mitchell Subject: RE: FY TIP Amendment and Conformity I guess I having trouble understanding why there are two separate processes instead of just one process since the project is in the new TIP. Dianna From: Pragati.Srivastava@memphistn.gov [mailto:pragati.srivastava@memphistn.gov] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, :47 PM To: Myers, Dianna <Myers.Dianna@epa.gov>; Kenny.Monroe@kimley-horn.com Cc: scott.allen@dot.gov; marc.corrigan@tn.gov; Kate.Horton@memphistn.gov; allison.fluitt@kimley-horn.com; Theresa.Claxton@dot.gov; kelsey.ford@kimley-horn.com; Mitchell.Lloyd@memphistn.gov Subject: RE: FY TIP Amendment and Conformity Hi Dianna TDOT has requested us to take these amendments to our August 2016 meeting, which is the same meeting when we will approve the new TIP + the new conformity. Regards, PRAGATI SRIVASTAVA, AICP ADMINISTRATOR Memphis Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 125 N Main Street Suite # 450 Memphis, TN PH: FAX: Pragati.Srivastava@memphistn.gov The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. 3

44 From: Myers, Dianna Sent: Wednesday, June 22, :45 AM To: Cc: Allen, Scott (FHWA); Srivastava, Pragati; Horton, Kate; Claxton, Theresa (FHWA); Lloyd, Mitchell Subject: RE: FY TIP Amendment and Conformity Hello Kenny, The MVEBs in the 2008 ozone Maintenance plan will be published within the next week or so. Therefore, you cannot rely on the previous regional emissions analysis. You will have to use a new regional emissions analysis with the new MVEB. So, are you proposing to amend the FY TIP to add funds for construction for the 2 nonexempt TDOT projects using the regional emissions analysis conducted for the new FY TIP? If so, how long will it take to get final approval for the amendment? Dianna B. Myers Physical Scientist Regional Transportation Conformity Contact Air Regulatory Management Section Phone: (404) Fax: (404) myers.dianna@epa.gov From: Kenny.Monroe@kimley-horn.com [mailto:kenny.monroe@kimley-horn.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, :36 PM To: Myers, Dianna <Myers.Dianna@epa.gov> Subject: RE: FY TIP Amendment and Conformity Hey Dianna, I am sorry, but I keep typing in the wrong address for you. Please see the below and let me know if you have any questions or comments. Thank you, Kenny From: Monroe, Kenny Sent: Tuesday, June 21, :12 PM To: Scott Allen <scott.allen@dot.gov>; Marc Corrigan <Marc.Corrigan@tn.gov>; 'meyers.dianna@epa.gov' <meyers.dianna@epa.gov> Cc: Pragati.Srivastava@memphistn.gov; Kate.Horton@memphistn.gov; Mitchell.Lloyd@memphistn.gov; Fluitt, Allison <Allison.Fluitt@kimley-horn.com>; Ford, Kelsey <kelsey.ford@kimley-horn.com>; Claxton, Theresa <theresa.claxton@dot.gov> Subject: RE: FY TIP Amendment and Conformity Thanks Marc and Scott for your feedback and comments. The nonexempt projects that were requested to be amended in the FY TIP are both TDOT projects as described below: 4

45 1. Add SR-196 to the current TIP- This project is in the current RTP and TDOT is requesting that construction funds in the amount of $12 million be added in FY This project is also included in the new TIP. 2. Add SR-14 widening to the current TIP - - This project is in the current RTP and TDOT is requesting that construction funds in the amount of $54 million be added in FY This project is also included in the new TIP. The remaining requests for project amendments are exempt. Based on the current timeline, the FY TIP will be approved on August 25, 2016 along with the new conformity. Once the Policy Board of the MPO approves the conformity, we then have to submit a packet to FHWA for review and approval of the conformity determination. This would be completed by end of September 2016, around the same time TDOT wants us to submit the finally approved new TIP + conformity determination to them for the its inclusion in the STIP. TDOT will then submit their STIP to FHWA for final approval (along with all MPOs tip), which is expected to be completed by December Using the conformity determination of the new TIP (currently under review) may make sense as these projects are included in the new TIP as well. If everyone agrees with this approach, we will do the following: 1. Prepare a exempt packet memo for IAC for review and approval for TIP amendments to the current TIP 2. Prepare a short conformity report for the two TDOT project listed above and in the document referencing the new conformity instead of the old one 3. The new conformity determination for TIP is already under review and hence no change Please respond and let us know if you agree with this approach. If you prefer, we can also have a conference call to discuss just let me know your availability between now and the end of the day on Friday and I can send out a calendar appointment with a call-in number. Thank you again for working with us to address this! Kenny Kenneth Monroe, P.E. Kimley-Horn 6625 Lenox Park Drive, Suite 117, Memphis, TN Direct: Mobile: CUyyrdCPqLGH4VkD3ydj9JdDryF1DS1lwswyODEGXtd0lootIaCzBV5UlgKMeIOwyZHNEVdCPpIS02aOlfYIn9Rz3BYdCT6nbCPtPqpJUTsTsSyrh From: Allen, Scott (FHWA) [mailto:scott.allen@dot.gov] Sent: Monday, June 20, :20 AM To: Marc Corrigan <Marc.Corrigan@tn.gov>; Monroe, Kenny <Kenny.Monroe@kimley-horn.com>; dianna.myers@epa.gov Cc: Pragati.Srivastava@memphistn.gov; Kate.Horton@memphistn.gov; Mitchell.Lloyd@memphistn.gov; Fluitt, Allison <Allison.Fluitt@kimley-horn.com>; Ford, Kelsey <kelsey.ford@kimley-horn.com>; Claxton, Theresa (FHWA) <Theresa.Claxton@dot.gov> Subject: RE: FY TIP Amendment and Conformity Kenny, For FHWA (without seeing the details of the amendment) the cleanest approach would be for the MPO to complete a short conformity demonstration report (scdr) that relies on the previous conformity demonstration. This is assuming that the FY14-17 TIP financial changes trigger an amendment rather than an adjustment, and that the new MVEBs will not trigger the need for a full CDR (EPA s opinion is valuable here). As Marc stated below, the new CDR for the FY STIP/TIP will not be approved until DEC 2016, and an approved CDR or scdr is required as part of each STIP/TIP amendment package. 5

46 Thanks, SA Scott Allen Planning & Air Quality Specialist FHWA TN Division (615) BNA Drive, BLDG 200 Nashville TN, From: Marc Corrigan Sent: Monday, June 20, :19 AM To: Allen, Scott (FHWA) Cc: Subject: RE: FY TIP Amendment and Conformity Kenny, I m not sure I fully understand the question, or the implications. It sounds like you are looking to possibly make some minor amendments/adjustments to the current TIP with regards to funding. Is that correct? If so, I would wonder about two things that I would defer to FHWA and EPA on: first, could this be done by an amendment/adjustment? Second, if so, could we rely on the previous conformity determination with the possibility of new MVEBs out there since the previous conformity determination? Both of these questions assume I have an inkling about what it is you are really asking; without any of the details on the amendments you are actually looking to make. If you were wanting to rely on the documentation under review, the TIP, that may be well and fine, but those amendments would not be incorporated/final until it receives Federal approval in December, I think. Maybe you could provide more detail on you question, or maybe Dianna or Scott better understand what you are proposing and could outline the possibilities. Short of that, maybe the four of us could meet by conference call to examine the question and look at the possible scenarios we have before us to move things forward. Your thoughts? Marc Marc Corrigan Environmental Consultant Air Pollution Control Division Tennessee Tower, 15 th Floor 312 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Nashville, TN p Marc.Corrigan@tn.gov tn.gov/environment We value your opinion. Please take a few minutes to complete our customer service survey. From: Kenny.Monroe@kimley-horn.com [mailto:kenny.monroe@kimley-horn.com] Sent: Friday, June 17, :51 PM To: dianna.myers@epa.gov; Marc Corrigan; scott.allen@dot.gov Cc: Pragati.Srivastava@memphistn.gov; Kate.Horton@memphistn.gov; Mitchell.Lloyd@memphistn.gov; Allison.Fluitt@kimley- 6

47 horn.com; Subject: RE: FY TIP Amendment and Conformity *** This is an EXTERNAL . Please exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected . - STS-Security*** Dianna, Marc, and Scott, As you know, the Memphis MPO is currently in the review and approval process for the FY TIP. This TIP will be effective on January 1, 2017 following final approval in December (see the TIP timeline below). FY Transportation Improvement Program Timeline Key Milestone Duration Date Status IAC - Project List for Review and Comment 14 Days May 6 Complete Comments Due from IAC May 19 Complete DOTs Draft TIP for Review and Comment 30 Business May 12 Complete Comments Due from DOT Days June 24 Consultation Agencies Draft TIP for Review and Comment 30 Days May 12 Complete Comments Due from Consultation Agencies June 14 IAC Draft Conformity and Draft TIP for Review and Comment 30 Days May 25 Complete Comments Due from IAC June 23 MPO Responds to Comments June Mail Draft TIP to DOTs for FHWA/FTA Review June 30 FHWA/FTA Draft TIP for Review and Comment 20 Business July 8 Comments Due from FHWA/FTA Days August 4 Public Draft TIP for Review and Comment 30 Days July 6 Comments Due from the Public August 4 Public Meetings (1 Per County) July MPO Responds to Comments August 5-12 Engineering and Technical Committee Meeting August 4 Transportation Policy Board Meeting August 25 FHWA/FTA Air Quality Conformity for Review and Comment 30 Business September 2 Receive Federal Approval for Air Quality Determination Days October 14 DOTs Final TIP Submission (Deadline November 9) October 27 FHWA/FTA Final Review and Approval 20 Business November 2 FINAL APPROVAL Days December 1 Until that time, the FY TIP is the current program. TDOT and MDOT have requested amendments to the FY TIP. The amendments consist of changes in funding and do not impact the committed projects in the TIP. They also remain consistent the current 2040 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the FY TIP currently in the review and approval process. Since the changes do not impact the FY TIP conformity analysis or documentation, can the MPO rely on the conformity document currently under review by the IAC, or do we need to complete a short conformity demonstration report (CDR) that relies on the previous conformity demonstration? Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Thank you, Kenny Kenneth Monroe, P.E. Kimley-Horn 6625 Lenox Park Drive, Suite 117, Memphis, TN Direct: Mobile: CUyyrdCPqLGH4VkD3ydj9JdDryF1DS1lwswyODEGXtd0lootIaCzBV5UlgKMeIOwyZHNEVdCPpIS02aOlfYIn9Rz3BYdCT6nbCPtPqpJUTsTsSyrh 7

48 Monroe, Kenny Subject: FW: Memphis MPO TIP From: Myers, Dianna [mailto:myers.dianna@epa.gov] Sent: Friday, April 29, :51 PM To: IAC Subject: RE: Memphis MPO TIP Hello Kenny, This approach is fine with EPA. Dianna B. Myers Physical Scientist Regional Transportation Conformity Contact Air Regulatory Management Section Phone: (404) Fax: (404) myers.dianna@epa.gov From: Kenny.Monroe@kimley-horn.com [mailto:kenny.monroe@kimley-horn.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 27, :50 PM To: IAC Subject: FW: Memphis MPO TIP Dear IAC Members, Thank you for participating in our call on Friday last week to discuss preliminary comments on the draft preconsensus plan for the FY Transportation Improvement Program. We are now addressing comments from the call and those we received by . One of the comments received on the call was related to the test for analysis years prior to the 2027 Mobile Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEB) years. The test shown in the draft preconsensus plan for the years prior to 2027 was a quantitative test that compare the analysis years to the 2012 MVEBs. However, the DeSoto and Shelby County Ozone Maintenance SIPs do not provide 2012 MVEB s. Therefore, it is proposed that a qualitative test be conducted for TIP analysis years prior to 2027 (namely 2020) by comparing those emissions to the 2012 attainment year emissions estimates provided in the documents used to develop SIPs. Please let us know before the end of the day Friday, April 29 if this is an acceptable approach for evaluation of the analysis years prior to Thank you, Kenny Kenneth Monroe, P.E. Kimley-Horn 6625 Lenox Park Drive, Suite 117, Memphis, TN Direct: Mobile:

49 Monroe, Kenny Subject: FW: Memphis MPO TIP From: Marc Corrigan [mailto:marc.corrigan@tn.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 27, :04 PM To: IAC Subject: RE: Memphis MPO TIP Kenny, I m OK with your proposed approach for the analysis for the hour ozone NAAQS conformity test: using the 2012 actual emissions in the SIP for 2012 for those analysis years relative to this NAAQS prior to the budget year. Marc Marc Corrigan Environmental Consultant Air Pollution Control Division Tennessee Tower, 15 th Floor 312 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Nashville, TN p Marc.Corrigan@tn.gov tn.gov/environment We value your opinion. Please take a few minutes to complete our customer service survey. From: Kenny.Monroe@kimley-horn.com [mailto:kenny.monroe@kimley-horn.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 27, :50 PM To: IAC Subject: FW: Memphis MPO TIP *** This is an EXTERNAL . Please exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected . - STS-Security*** Dear IAC Members, Thank you for participating in our call on Friday last week to discuss preliminary comments on the draft preconsensus plan for the FY Transportation Improvement Program. We are now addressing comments from the call and those we received by . One of the comments received on the call was related to the test for analysis years prior to the 2027 Mobile Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEB) years. The test shown in the draft preconsensus plan for the years prior to 2027 was a quantitative test that compare the analysis years to the 2012 MVEBs. However, the DeSoto and Shelby County Ozone Maintenance SIPs do not provide 2012 MVEB s. Therefore, it is proposed that a qualitative test be conducted for TIP analysis years prior to 2027 (namely 2020) by comparing those emissions to the 2012 attainment year emissions estimates provided in the documents used to develop SIPs. Please let us know before the end of the day Friday, April 29 if this is an acceptable approach for evaluation of the analysis years prior to

50 From: Monroe, Kenny Sent: Tuesday, April 12, :01 PM To: IAC Subject: RE: Memphis MPO TIP Dear IAC Members, Please find the attached draft Preconsensus Plan for the air quality conformity demonstration associated with the Memphis Urban Area MPO s Fiscal Year (FY) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for your review and comment. Per the calendar appointment distributed last week, we will conduct a conduct a conference call on Friday, April 22, 2016 from 10:00 11:00 a.m. (central time) to provide an overview of the document and discuss any preliminary comments or questions you may have. Please provide all of your comments on the Preconsensus Plan before the end of the day Wednesday, April 26, Thank you, Kenny Kenneth Monroe, P.E. Kimley-Horn 6625 Lenox Park Drive, Suite 117, Memphis, TN Direct: Mobile: From: Monroe, Kenny Sent: Friday, April 01, :17 AM To: AIR Subject: FW: Memphis MPO TIP Dear IAC Members, The MPO is working on the preconsensus plan for the air quality conformity analysis of the upcoming Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). We anticipate distributing the draft preconsensus plan on or before April 15 with a follow up conference call during the week of April 18. Please click the link ( to respond to a doodle poll to identify the best time for all during the week of April 18. A calendar appointment with call in details will be distributed once we settle on a time. Give me a call or send an if you have any questions or comments. Thank you, Kenny Kenneth Monroe, P.E. Kimley-Horn 6625 Lenox Park Drive, Suite 117, Memphis, TN Direct: Mobile:

51 Monroe, Kenny Subject: FW: Memphis MPO TIP From: corbin.davis@dot.gov [mailto:corbin.davis@dot.gov] Sent: Tuesday, April 26, :57 AM To: Monroe, Kenny <Kenny.Monroe@kimley-horn.com>; Pragati.Srivastava@memphistn.gov; Kate.Horton@memphistn.gov; Mitchell.Lloyd@memphistn.gov; Kwasi.Agyakwa@memphistn.gov; Nathaniel.Heyward@memphistn.gov; Sajid.Hossain@memphistn.gov; Nicholas.Oyler@memphistn.gov Cc: Angela.Midgett@tn.gov; Carlos.McCloud@tn.gov; Emmily.Tiampati@tn.gov; Randal.Jansen@dot.gov; Elizabeth.Martin@dot.gov; Marc.Corrigan@tn.gov; Myers.Dianna@epa.gov Subject: RE: Memphis MPO TIP Thank you for the opportunity to review. The FHWA Tennessee Division only has one minor comment beyond what was discussed during the Interagency Consultation (IAC) Group teleconference on Friday, April 22 nd. In the first paragraph of the memorandum, the TIP should reference the Transportation Improvement Program this nomenclature is more consistent with the Memphis Urban Area MPO s current practices and the Federal regulations in 23 CFR Part 450. Regards, Corbin Corbin Davis Planning & Air Quality Specialist Federal Highway Administration Tennessee Division 404 BNA Drive Building 200, Suite 508 Nashville, TN corbin.davis@dot.gov Phone: Fax: From: Kenny.Monroe@kimley-horn.com [mailto:kenny.monroe@kimley-horn.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, :01 PM To: IAC Subject: RE: Memphis MPO TIP Dear IAC Members, Please find the attached draft Preconsensus Plan for the air quality conformity demonstration associated with the Memphis Urban Area MPO s Fiscal Year (FY) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for your review and comment. Per the calendar appointment distributed last week, we will conduct a conduct a conference call on Friday, April 22, 2016 from 10:00 11:00 a.m. (central time) to provide an overview of the document and discuss any preliminary comments or questions you may have. Please provide all of your comments on the Preconsensus Plan before the end of the day Wednesday, April 26, Thank you, Kenny 1

52 Monroe, Kenny Subject: FW: Memphis MPO TIP From: Marc Corrigan [mailto:marc.corrigan@tn.gov] Sent: Sunday, April 24, :26 PM To: Monroe, Kenny <Kenny.Monroe@kimley-horn.com>; Pragati.Srivastava@memphistn.gov Cc: christopher.boyd@shelbycountytn.gov Subject: RE: Memphis MPO TIP Pragati, Kenny, I really appreciate all the efforts on putting together the Pre-consensus Plan. Unfortunately, I had not finished reviewing it before the call, despite my efforts. Below are my comments, many of which are merely editorial in nature. First paragraph, I would strike, in the third line Livability 2040 and because we are demonstrating conformity of the TIP and LRTP to the SIP. Also at the end of that paragraph I would add and RTP to the end of the sentence. Third bullet, as Kenny mentioned on the call, the FR notice for the SCRRAMP-2015 was published on April 19 th Page 2, first paragraph: remember, we are also demonstrating conformity for the RTP. Replace an outstanding final rule with new motor vehicle emissions budgets. Next to the last sentence, add determination before the period. Second paragraph add MPO after West Memphis. Third paragraph, first word, change This to The. In the Air Quality analysis Parameters section: First bullet change monitored to analyzed. Vehicles/Equipment: add E85 vehicles Table 1: Add RTP to the title. Can we not take out the Current Ozone SIP column? For the source type population. I d recommend considering any growth indicator from the TDM to help grow the source type population. Remind me how we grew the sourcetype population for the SIP; I looked in the SIP documentation but did not find the methodology? If the TDM has a vehicle ownership submodel, that could be used to develop growth factors to grow the UT source type population from 2011 out to the years needed. This could be used for source types 11, 21, 31 and 32. Then for the heavier vehicles, using either growth in business or VMT from the TDM for these vehicles. I m open to discuss this to help look at what might be locally available specific to Shelby County that might be more indicative of growth. For the fuel formulations, I would talk with Chris. For historical years, say 2015 and back, I d recommend using the default formulations. For future years, I d recommend considering using the regulatory maximum RVP, with the applicable 1.0 PSI waiver for E10. Chris can help with this, he s good at it by now. Meteorology Data replace DeSoto with Shelby. UT is working on developing MOVES inputs for 2014, similar to those developed for If they are available in time, we should consider using them in place of the 2011 data for any years 2014 and beyond. Those are my comments for now. Please feel free to call me if you want to discuss any of my comments or if I need to clarify anything. 1

53 Marc Marc Corrigan Environmental Consultant Air Pollution Control Division Tennessee Tower, 15 th Floor 312 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Nashville, TN p tn.gov/environment We value your opinion. Please take a few minutes to complete our customer service survey. From: Kenny.Monroe@kimley-horn.com [mailto:kenny.monroe@kimley-horn.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, :01 PM To: IAC Subject: RE: Memphis MPO TIP *** This is an EXTERNAL . Please exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected - STS-Security. *** Dear IAC Members, Please find the attached draft Preconsensus Plan for the air quality conformity demonstration associated with the Memphis Urban Area MPO s Fiscal Year (FY) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for your review and comment. Per the calendar appointment distributed last week, we will conduct a conduct a conference call on Friday, April 22, 2016 from 10:00 11:00 a.m. (central time) to provide an overview of the document and discuss any preliminary comments or questions you may have. Please provide all of your comments on the Preconsensus Plan before the end of the day Wednesday, April 26, Thank you, Kenny Kenneth Monroe, P.E. Kimley-Horn 6625 Lenox Park Drive, Suite 117, Memphis, TN Direct: Mobile: From: Monroe, Kenny Sent: Friday, April 01, :17 AM To: AIR Subject: FW: Memphis MPO TIP Dear IAC Members, The MPO is working on the preconsensus plan for the air quality conformity analysis of the upcoming Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). We anticipate distributing the draft preconsensus plan on or before April 15 with a follow up conference call during the week of April 18. Please click the link ( to respond to a doodle poll to identify the best time for all during the week of April 18. A calendar appointment with call in details will be distributed once we settle on a time. Give me a call or send an if you have any questions or comments. Thank you, Kenny 2

54 Monroe, Kenny Subject: FW: Heavy duty source types (IDS From: Marc Corrigan Sent: Thursday, May 12, :54 PM To: 'Louis, Egide' Monroe, Kenny Cc: Fluitt, Allison Myers, Dianna Benjamin, Lynorae Subject: RE: Heavy duty source types (IDS Egide, Almost, I think. I think you may have meant that we can/will use local data for 43 (school bus) instead of 53 (single unit long haul truck). Also, we ll use default values for 41, intercity bus, as well. Thank you Egide for working with us on this! Marc Marc Corrigan Environmental Consultant Air Pollution Control Division Tennessee Tower, 15 th Floor 312 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Nashville, TN p Marc.Corrigan@tn.gov tn.gov/environment We value your opinion. Please take a few minutes to complete our customer service survey. From: Louis, Egide [mailto:louis.egide@epa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, May 11, :20 AM To: Marc Corrigan; 'Kenny.Monroe@kimley-horn.com' Cc: 'christopher.boyd@shelbycountytn.gov'; 'Allison.Fluitt@kimley-horn.com'; Myers, Dianna; Benjamin, Lynorae Subject: RE: Heavy duty source types (IDS *** This is an EXTERNAL . Please exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected - STS-Security. *** Thanks Marc. A quick recap: Of the list of heavy duty source types I provided, use local age distributions data for #42, 52, and 53 and default values for # 53, 54, 61 and 62. Default values also for # 41 (intercity school buses) since local data were not available. I am looking forward to a review/comment on the MOVES files and documentation when modeling is complete. Thanks, 1

55 Egide From: Marc Corrigan Sent: Monday, May 09, :57 AM To: Louis, Egide Cc: Myers, Dianna Benjamin, Lynorae Subject: RE: Heavy duty source types (IDS Egide, Thank you for taking the time to talk with me this morning. I enjoyed speaking with you and comparing notes. I look forward to having you as a MOVES resource, and sharing with us the best practices from around the region. Per our discussion, we ll continue with the development of inputs for our conformity determination in Memphis. We ll also look to include you in all of our IAC discussion in the future. Again, thank you for your participation in our IAC discussion. Marc From: Marc Corrigan Sent: Wednesday, May 04, :11 PM To: 'Louis, Egide'; Kenny.Monroe@kimley-horn.com Cc: christopher.boyd@shelbycountytn.gov; Allison.Fluitt@kimley-horn.com; Myers, Dianna; Lynorae Benjamin Subject: RE: Heavy duty source types (IDS Hi Egide, I have a couple of comments I would like to discuss with you regarding your below (I ve attached the I believe you reference in your to Kenny as to the rational for your recommendation): For sourcetype 42, transit buses, there may be locally available data, and since they typically only travel locally, if local data is developed, it would typically be more suitable than national defaults (case in point is that MOVES assumes some of the transit fleet is CNG; as far as I am aware, there are not yet any CNG buses in TN). Not included in your list is sourcetype 43, school buses. I agree, if local data is available, use it since they only travel in a limited domain. The same argument, I think, can be made for sourcetype 42. For sourcetype 51 it may be a mixed bag. Some areas may have only a couple of companies that do the majority of refuse pickup, and so if a local agency has/can establish a relationship with them and that data is available, they should use it. These vehicles are typically local in nature. In addition, they are becoming a more targeted source for retrofits, and thus some agencies are collecting data on them for that reason. Therefore, if the data is available, and the local agencies are comfortable with it, they should be used. For sourcetype 52: this data sometimes shows up in obtainable registration data. Note, these are local vehicles, as defined by EPA, they are a vehicle that travel no more than about 200 miles (presumed to be from their home ). We ve collected data in TN, and I believe this data may be more appropriate since it may better characterize the fleet locally. For soucetypes 53, 54, 61 and 62, I agree with your recommendation. Until we can better collect data on those vehicles that travel on TN s roads (not specifically just those registered locally), the best approach for age distribution is to rely on national default data, which is what was done.. A couple other points I would like to discuss are: a) If that data is used in the SIP, and it is considered to be some of the best data available, it should be considered for conformity determinations, until or unless better data is available or other reasons are established for not using it. 2

56 b) For locally developed data like this, as per EPA guidance, we keep the age distribution constant over time, and do not assume the distribution changes, specifically we do not assume the fleet becomes younger. c) There is guidance on best available planning assumptions which has to be considered. d) This is generally an IAC discussion point, often decided by the group which may outweighs guidance. e) Further, resources and time have been invested in gathering this information that is specific to TN (in fact, specific to Shelby County, in this case). If you are making the case that we need not continue to invest effort to characterize the fleet as best we can, that may save us some resources, and can discontinue attempting to improve certain aspects of MOVES inputs. Note, that some of this same data that is used to develop age distribution is based on the data that is developed for source type population. Hence, gathering local data is the preferred method in the guidance over a factoring approach when possible. I ve done some investigating into the national defaults and their distribution over time. At first I looked at the MOVES age distribution tool you mentioned in your . However, I think there may be updated data in MOVES2014, so I extracted the age distribution data from the default MOVES sourcetypeagedistribution table in the MOVES database. The attached spreadsheet examines some of this data. No guarantee I did this correctly, so I am relying on you to check me on this. The first tab is summarized data from the MOVES default database (MOVES ), the second tab is the same thing with the age distribution data from the MOVES age distribution tool. The third tab looks at the age distribution used for the SIP and previous conformity determinations in Shelby County, as far as I am aware, and compares that to the data from the MOVES database. The next two tabs were already in the MOVES tool. The sourcetypeagedistribution-defau tab has the raw data from the two databases and an interim calculation to develop average age. The last two tabs are the pivot tables I used to manipulate and summarize the data. In short, after looking at this, my opinion is that local data is still preferable where it is gathered. If using local age distribution data, it has been my recommendation, to hold the age distribution constant for those sources over time (as per guidance). It appears what you are advocating is to use more default data, and to use the data from the year of analysis and not necessarily hold the age distribution constant (for default values). Those are my quick thoughts on this. I ll invite anyone else to weigh in. Since your recommendation has broader implications in Tennessee, I would like to discuss this with you and make sure that we use a consistent application of this approach as much as possible. If we deviate from the proposed approach in the pre-analysis consensus plan, we may need to send that modification out to the IAC with the updated version of the plan. I am told my Kenny that there is some urgency to resolving this matter as the MPO is about to undertake modeling. Marc Marc Corrigan Environmental Consultant Air Pollution Control Division Tennessee Tower, 15 th Floor 312 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Nashville, TN p Marc.Corrigan@tn.gov tn.gov/environment We value your opinion. Please take a few minutes to complete our customer service survey. From: Louis, Egide [mailto:louis.egide@epa.gov] Sent: Monday, May 02, :14 PM To: Kenny.Monroe@kimley-horn.com Cc: Marc Corrigan; christopher.boyd@shelbycountytn.gov; Allison.Fluitt@kimley-horn.com Subject: Re: Heavy duty source types (IDS Hi Kenny: 3

57 I read the document you ed to me, especially from Page 8 to 12, and I still recommend you use EPA defaults for age distributions for heavy duty source types (IDs: 42, 51, 52, 53, 54, 61, 62). The rational for this, and information on how to get the defaults were in the I forwarded to you on 4/27. I noticed that you plan also to use default age distributions for Intercity Buses (Id #41). That will be fine with me. If you have any question, please call or . Thanks, Egide N. Louis, PhD Air Emissions Modeler/Regional Emissions Inventory Coordinator Air Data Analysis and Support Section Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division US. EPA/Region 4 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, GA Tel (404)

58 to IAC April 1, 2016 Dear IAC Members, The MPO is working on the pre-consensus plan for the air quality conformity analysis of the upcoming Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). We anticipate distributing the draft pre-consensus plan on or before April 15 with a follow up conference call during the week of April 18. Please click the link here to respond to a doodle poll to identify the best time for all during the week of April 18. A calendar appointment with call in details will be distributed once we settle on a time. Give me a call or send an if you have any questions or comments. Thank you, Kenneth Monroe, P.E. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc Lenox Park Drive, Suite 117 Memphis, TN Phone: (901) to IAC April 12, 2016 Dear IAC Members, Please find the attached draft Pre-consensus Plan for the air quality conformity demonstration associated with the Memphis Urban Area MPO s Fiscal Year (FY) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for your review and comment. Per the calendar appointment distributed last week, we will conduct a conduct a conference call on Friday, April 22, 2016 from 10:00 11:00 a.m. (central time) to provide an overview of the document and discuss any preliminary comments or questions you may have. Please provide all of your comments on the Preconsensus Plan before the end of the day Wednesday, April 26, Thank you, Kenneth Monroe, P.E. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc Lenox Park Drive, Suite 117 Memphis, TN Phone: (901) IAC Comment #1 April 24, 2016 Pragati, Kenny, I really appreciate all the efforts on putting together the Pre-consensus Plan. Unfortunately, I had not finished reviewing it before the call, despite my efforts. Below are my comments, many of which are merely editorial in nature. First paragraph, I would strike, in the third line Livability 2040 and because we are demonstrating conformity of the TIP and LRTP to the SIP. Also at the end of that paragraph I would add and RTP to the end of the sentence. Third bullet, as Kenny mentioned on the call, the FR notice for the SCRRAMP-2015 was published on April 19th Page 2, first paragraph: remember, we are also demonstrating conformity for the RTP. Replace an outstanding final

59 rule with new motor vehicle emissions budgets. Next to the last sentence, add determination before the period. Second paragraph add MPO after West Memphis. Third paragraph, first word, change This to The. In the Air Quality analysis Parameters section: First bullet change monitored to analyzed. Vehicles/Equipment: add E85 vehicles Table 1: Add RTP to the title. Can we not take out the Current Ozone SIP column? For the source type population. I d recommend considering any growth indicator from the TDM to help grow the source type population. Remind me how we grew the sourcetype population for the SIP; I looked in the SIP documentation but did not find the methodology? If the TDM has a vehicle ownership submodel, that could be used to develop growth factors to grow the UT source type population from 2011 out to the years needed. This could be used for source types 11, 21, 31 and 32. Then for the heavier vehicles, using either growth in business or VMT from the TDM for these vehicles. I m open to discuss this to help look at what might be locally available specific to Shelby County that might be more indicative of growth. For the fuel formulations, I would talk with Chris. For historical years, say 2015 and back, I d recommend using the default formulations. For future years, I d recommend considering using the regulatory maximum RVP, with the applicable 1.0 PSI waiver for E10. Chris can help with this, he s good at it by now. Meteorology Data replace DeSoto with Shelby. UT is working on developing MOVES inputs for 2014, similar to those developed for If they are available in time, we should consider using them in place of the 2011 data for any years 2014 and beyond. Those are my comments for now. Please feel free to call me if you want to discuss any of my comments or if I need to clarify anything. Marc Marc Corrigan Environmental Consultant Air Pollution Control Division Tennessee Tower, 15th Floor 312 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Nashville, TN p Marc.Corrigan@tn.gov tn.gov/environment MPO Response #1 MPO incorporated the recommended changes into the Pre-consensus Memorandum. IAC Comment #2 April 26, 2016 Thank you for the opportunity to review. The FHWA Tennessee Division only has one minor comment beyond what

60 was discussed during the Interagency Consultation (IAC) Group teleconference on Friday, April 22nd. In the first paragraph of the memorandum, the TIP should reference the Transportation Improvement Program this nomenclature is more consistent with the Memphis Urban Area MPO s current practices and the Federal regulations in 23 CFR Part 450. Regards, Corbin Corbin Davis Planning & Air Quality Specialist Federal Highway Administration Tennessee Division 404 BNA Drive Building 200, Suite 508 Nashville, TN corbin.davis@dot.gov Phone: MPO Response #2 MPO incorporated the recommended changes into the Pre-consensus Memorandum. to IAC April 27, 2016 Dear IAC Members, Thank you for participating in our call on Friday last week to discuss preliminary comments on the draft preconsensus plan for the FY Transportation Improvement Program. We are now addressing comments from the call and those we received by . One of the comments received on the call was related to the test for analysis years prior to the 2027 Mobile Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEB) years. The test shown in the draft preconsensus plan for the years prior to 2027 was a quantitative test that compare the analysis years to the 2012 MVEBs. However, the DeSoto and Shelby County Ozone Maintenance SIPs do not provide 2012 MVEB s. Therefore, it is proposed that a qualitative test be conducted for TIP analysis years prior to 2027 (namely 2020) by comparing those emissions to the 2012 attainment year emissions estimates provided in the documents used to develop SIPs. Please let us know before the end of the day Friday, April 29 if this is an acceptable approach for evaluation of the analysis years prior to Thank you, Kenneth Monroe, P.E. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc Lenox Park Drive, Suite 117 Memphis, TN Phone: (901) IAC Comment #3 April 24, 2016 Kenny,

61 I m OK with your proposed approach for the analysis for the hour ozone NAAQS conformity test: using the 2012 actual emissions in the SIP for 2012 for those analysis years relative to this NAAQS prior to the budget year. Marc Corrigan Environmental Consultant Air Pollution Control Division Tennessee Tower, 15th Floor 312 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Nashville, TN p Marc.Corrigan@tn.gov tn.gov/environment IAC Comment #4 April 24, 2016 Hello Kenny, This approach is fine with EPA. Dianna B. Myers Physical Scientist Regional Transportation Conformity Contact Air Regulatory Management Section Phone: (404) Fax: (404) myers.dianna@epa.gov to IAC May 5, 2016 Good Morning IAC, Please find attached the FY Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Project List for your review. The project list is divided by State Projects (TDOT and MDOT), Local Projects (TN and MS), Congestion, Mitigation, and Air Quality Program (CMAQ) Projects, and Transit Projects. Information for each project is provided including the name, termini and description, RTP and TIP ID numbers, as well as the proposed status (exempt/non-exempt), if the project is regionally significant, and if it can be modeled. The IAC review of the TIP Project List is a 14-day period, and we ask that you provide any comments by Thursday, May 19, If members of the IAC feel it is necessary to conduct a conference call to discuss, please let us know and we will schedule a call. Thank you, KATE HORTON, RLA, ASLA TRANSPORTATION PLANNER Memphis Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 125 N Main Street Suite # 450 Memphis, TN PH: FAX: Kate.Horton@memphistn.gov IAC Comment #1 May 11, 2016 Kate,

62 The Mississippi Department of Transportation Planning Division has reviewed the attached TIP Project List and agrees with the air quality status of all projects in Mississippi. We do not have any comments or questions at this time. Sincerely, Elton Holloway, Physicist, MBA Planning Division Mississippi Department of Transportation IAC Comment #2 May 11, 2016 Kate, Thank you for the opportunity to review the Memphis MPO s FY TIP Project List. I have few questions/comments for the IAC s consideration 1. Regarding the following Grouping projects: TN-NHPP , TN-STP , TN-HSIP : In the project description for the above projects, the language, Intersection/Interchange Modifications is used. 40 CFR (table 3) cites Intersection channelization projects, Intersection signalization projects at individual intersections, and Interchange reconfiguration projects as projects that are exempt from regional emissions analysis. Could it be possible that Intersection/Interchange Modifications could involve work that is outside of the three aforementioned exemptions from 40 CFR (table 3) and not meet the exemption criteria? 2. Regarding MS-HSIP (Project name: I-55): The project description for this project states, intersection improvements. The project is also programmed as an exempt, regionally significant project. Please provide more detail on the type of regionally significant intersection improvements are being made for this individual project? (e.g. resignalization, channelization, etc.)? 3. Regarding STP-M (Project name: Church Street at Navy Road Intersection Improvements) The project description states, Widening of Church Street north of Navy Road to provide additional southbound lane, drainage improvements, and replacement of traffic signal including emergency vehicle preemption and video detection. This project is programmed as exempt and it is indicated that this project cannot be modeled? Why could the additional southbound lane not be modeled? Thanks in advance! SA Scott Allen Planning & Air Quality Specialist FHWA TN Division (615) BNA Drive, BLDG 200 Nashville TN, MPO Response #1 May 13, 2016 Good Afternoon Scott, Thank you for your review of the FY TIP Project List. Please see below for responses to your comments in red (shown as italicized below). Please let us know if you have any additional questions/comments.

63 1. Regarding the following Grouping projects: TN-NHPP , TN-STP , TN-HSIP : In the project description for the above projects, the language, Intersection/Interchange Modifications is used. 40 CFR (table 3) cites Intersection channelization projects, Intersection signalization projects at individual intersections, and Interchange reconfiguration projects as projects that are exempt from regional emissions analysis. Could it be possible that Intersection/Interchange Modifications could involve work that is outside of the three aforementioned exemptions from 40 CFR (table 3) and not meet the exemption criteria? As specific projects are identified by TDOT, they should be reviewed to ensure they are consistent with the exempt status described in 40 CFR (Table 2 Exempt projects), and 40 CFR (Table 3 - Projects exempt from regional emissions analyses). This is usually accomplished during the environmental review process for the specific project. 2. Regarding MS-HSIP (Project name: I-55): The project description for this project states, intersection improvements. The project is also programmed as an exempt, regionally significant project. Please provide more detail on the type of regionally significant intersection improvements are being made for this individual project? (e.g. resignalization, channelization, etc.)? After consultation with MDOT, the scope of this project more specifically includes channelization at the exit ramps onto MS-302. These types of improvements cannot be modeled in the Travel Demand Model, therefore we will change the responses for modeling and regional significance from Yes to No. 3. Regarding STP-M (Project name: Church Street at Navy Road Intersection Improvements) The project description states, Widening of Church Street north of Navy Road to provide additional southbound lane, drainage improvements, and replacement of traffic signal including emergency vehicle preemption and video detection. This project is programmed as exempt and it is indicated that this project cannot be modeled? Why could the additional southbound lane not be modeled? The additional southbound lane in the project description is a southbound exclusive left turn lane at the intersection (channelization). Turn lanes at intersections cannot be modeled using the Memphis MPO Regional Travel Demand model. Also, 40 CFR (Table 3) lists intersection channelization project as exempt from regional emissions analyses. Thank you, KATE HORTON, RLA, ASLA TRANSPORTATION PLANNER Memphis Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 125 N Main Street Suite # 450 Memphis, TN PH: FAX: Kate.Horton@memphistn.gov IAC Comment #3 May 16, 2016 Kate, Thank you very much for the follow-up and information. I have no further comments/questions. Scott Allen Planning & Air Quality Specialist FHWA TN Division (615) BNA Drive, BLDG 200

64 Nashville TN, IAC Comment #4 May 16, 2016 Hello Kate, I have a couple questions/comments: Following up on Scott s question on Grouping projects: TN-NHPP , TN-STP , TN-HSIP , I want to be sure that those projects that you state would be reviewed as exempt during the environmental review process actually do come before the IAC for that determination. In addition, that grouping has the term Construction, but it does not indicate that it is specific to the construction of the other items listed. What does the construction here refer to, specifically? Also, there is an etc. at the end of this description, what does that refer to? Thank you for providing the level of detail in the project description. Have a great day! Marc Corrigan Environmental Consultant Air Pollution Control Division Tennessee Tower, 15th Floor 312 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Nashville, TN p Marc.Corrigan@tn.gov tn.gov/environment MPO Response #2 May 16, 2016 Good Afternoon Marc, Thank you for your review and comments of the FY TIP Project List. Since the projects you have questions about are TDOT projects we will need to check with them. We will provide the response to the group once we hear back. Thank you, KATE HORTON, RLA, ASLA TRANSPORTATION PLANNER Memphis Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 125 N Main Street Suite # 450 Memphis, TN PH: FAX: Kate.Horton@memphistn.gov IAC Comment #4 May 19, 2016 Kate, Thanks for sending the project list for our review. I have reviewed the list and I do not have any comments at this time. Dianna B. Myers Physical Scientist Regional Transportation Conformity Contact

65 Air Regulatory Management Section Phone: (404) Fax: (404) MPO Response #3 May 19, 2016 Good Afternoon, Dianna, thank you for your review of the FY TIP Project List. All, as a reminder, the 14-day review and comment period for the FY TIP Project List ends today. The Draft Air Quality Conformity Reports for Shelby County and DeSoto County along with the FY Draft TIP Document will be sent to IAC for a 30-day review period beginning next week. Along with this we will send the revised Pre- Consensus Plan and the Conference Call Meeting Minutes for your reference. Thank you, KATE HORTON, RLA, ASLA TRANSPORTATION PLANNER Memphis Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 125 N Main Street Suite # 450 Memphis, TN PH: FAX: Kate.Horton@memphistn.gov IAC Comment #5 May 20, 2016 Kate, Sorry I missed the deadline of yesterday afternoon. I reviewed the list and have no comments. Thanks, Keith Keith Head, P.E., BCEE Chief, Air Quality Management Branch Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 515 Amite Street Jackson, MS MPO Response #4 May 24, 2016 Good Afternoon IAC, After consultation with TDOT regarding these groupings, they have confirmed that during the environmental review process each project scope is checked to ensure compliance with the 40 CFR or 40 CFR as an exempt project. If a project is not identified as exempt TDOT works with the MPO to address the changes accordingly in the TIP. Additionally, the word construction in the grouping is used to describe the action to implement those exempt projects such as resurfacing, guardrail installation, and slide repair. The word etc. in the grouping is used to describe other potential Exempt Safety Projects that could potentially be excluded from the list. Additionally, MDEQ responded to the MPO that they had reviewed the project list and had no additional comments.

66 The Draft Air Quality Conformity Reports for Shelby County and DeSoto County along with the FY Draft TIP Document will be sent to IAC tomorrow for the 30-day review period. Have a nice evening, KATE HORTON, RLA, ASLA TRANSPORTATION PLANNER IAC Comment #6 May 25, 2016 Kate, Thank you very much for the follow-up and thorough response. SA Scott Allen Planning & Air Quality Specialist FHWA TN Division (615) BNA Drive, BLDG 200 Nashville TN, MPO Response #5 May 25, 2016 Good Afternoon Scott, You are welcome! Thank you. Have a nice afternoon, KATE HORTON, RLA, ASLA TRANSPORTATION PLANNER Memphis Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 125 N Main Street Suite # 450 Memphis, TN PH: FAX: Kate.Horton@memphistn.gov

67

68

69 Shelby County Air Quality Conformity Demonstration Exhibit 2 Vehicle Registration Distribution and Vehicle Mix Estimation 1 Exhibit 2 Vehicle Registration Distribution and Vehicle Mix Estimation Contains: Methodology for Developing Input Datasets for the MOVES Model, August 2014; by James Calcagno, the University of Tennessee Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.

70 Methodology for Developing Input Datasets for the MOVES Model The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering 851 Neyland Drive Knoxville, TN Contact Person: James Calcagno Post-doc Research Associate Room 432, John Tickle Engineering Blgd. Office phone: August 2014

71 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction... 5 Source Type Population... 6 Vehicle Registration Data Method... 7 Transit Bus... 9 School Bus Refuse Truck National Default-Local Data Method Age Distribution Road Type Distribution Vehicle Type VMT Summary References Appendix Appendix A - Tables mentioned in body of document Appendix B - Equations and sample calculations mentioned in body of document Sample Calculations Source Type Population: Sample Calculations VMT Distribution: Sample Calculations AAVMT Distribution:

72 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Input Data Files Table 2: Number of Records in the TDOR Initial Data Extraction Table 3: Number of Records after Redistribution of Data Table 4: FHWA and Polk Vehicle Registration Data Tennessee Table 5: HPMS 2011 DVMT Rural and Urban Table 6: Class Count 2011 Summary for the Rural and Urban Road System Table 7: HPMS and MOVES Road Type Mapping Scheme Table 8: Statewide Population Data from National Default-Local Data Method Table 9: Population Data based on Registration Data Adjusted by Age Table 10: 5-Year Average Monthly Variation Factors, by Day of Week for Table 11: HPMS and TDOT Road Category Mapping Scheme Table 12: Source Type Population Data using ROD Data Table 13: Source Type Population Data using RODP Data

73 LIST OF EQUATIONS Equation 1: General formula used to convert default population/vmt data, local DVMT, and local vehicle count summaries into MOVES source type population data Equation 2: General formula used to convert HPMS local DVMT and vehicle classification summaries into MOVES road type VMT distributions by source types Equation 3: General formula used to calculate local AADVMT for HPMS vehicle types

74 Introduction The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a new regulatory computer model in April 2004 called MOVES (the MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator). It was in-line to replace an earlier model called MOBILE (the Mobile Source Emission Factor Model) because the Clean Air Act necessitates that EPA periodically update its regulatory computer models. Differences between the two models will not be discussed in much detail, except to mention that MOVES is written in open-source Java software code and uses a graphical user interface (GUI) and the relational database program MySQL. Whereas in contrast, MOBILE is written in Fortran which requires a compiler and before several important advances in programming languages were developed, such as in using simplified facilities to store input and output data. MOVES also incorporates the latest measured emission data from vehicles and has state-of-thescience computer algorithms to better estimate vehicle emissions, and most importantly, it has much larger input data requirements than those which were necessary to run MOBILE. As of March 2, 2013, the EPA requires that MOVES is used for inventory development in State Implementation Plans (SIP) and regional emissions analysis for transportation conformity determinations for all states in the U.S. except California. Currently several versions of the model exist for these purposes: MOVES2010, MOVES2010a, and MOVES2010b. Performance enhancements were made to each succeeding version of the model; yet, the net impact of any changes on emissions was small in computer runs at the county or project level scale. A new version of the model, MOVES2014, was released in July 2014 that contained major revisions, and eventually it will replace MOVES2010 and the two minor revisions (MOVES2010a and MOVES2010b) for regulatory purposes. Details concerning MOVES can be found in EPA documentation on the Internet: At the present, adequate input data to run MOVES2010 are not available for Tennessee especially because of the multifaceted data requirements that are needed to run the model. Thus, the purpose of this project was to develop several of these new datasets for use in the most recent version of the model, MOVES2010b, hereafter referred to as MOVES. Table 1 lists the dataset that were developed. (Note that all tables mentioned in this document are included in Appendix A.) Thus as shown in the table, the Source Type Population, Age Distribution and Road Type Distribution tabs for the County Data Manager (CDM) only require a single input data table, 5

75 whereas the Vehicle Type VMT tab requires four separate input data tables. The CDM is the GUI importer tool in MOVES for the county level scale which is used for SIPs and regional conformity analysis. The importer tool aids the user in bringing specific types of input data into MySQL. Tabs refer to the dialog boxes of the importer tool that are actuated to select files and import data tables into the model. Other input datasets, located in the CDM, such as the average speed distribution, meteorological data, fuel, fuel type and technologies, and I/M Programs will not be discussed in this report; these datasets will instead be developed by other entities. Input data (based on the calendar year 2011) were first developed for five counties: Anderson, Blount, Knox, Loudon, and Roane because the data were needed as soon as possible by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) to use for modeling transportation conformity analysis purposes for the region. Also, 2011corresponds to a reporting year for state supplied data to the EPA National Emission Inventory (NEI). Data developed for the five counties mentioned above will be discussed in some detail. Also several Microsoft Excel files will accompany this document to exhibit calculations or data manipulation in spreadsheet format using Knox County data as an example to show how the input datasets were developed. The name of these files will be listed in the closing paragraph of each section. Additionally, the input datasets for MOVES that were developed for each county will be supplied as an Excel file. (At a later time, a total of 95 Excel input data files will be supplied in a single compressed file format, but for the moment only five files are provided.) These files will be named by county. All input data are provided in the appropriate format for use with the CDM importer tool in MOVES. The following methodology will describe the preparation of these input datasets, as well as any quality assurance measures that were taken to ensure data integrity. Source Type Population In MOVES, vehicles are categorized into 13 source types: motorcycle, passenger car, passenger truck, light commercial truck, intercity bus, transit bus, school bus, refuse truck, single unit short-haul truck, single unit long-haul truck, motor home, combination short-haul truck, and combination long-haul truck. Detailed definitions of these source types can be found in the EPA documentation for MOVES. The word source is used to describe vehicles because the model relies more heavily on the usage of the vehicles to simulate emissions rather than on just engine and body style configurations. 6

76 Two methods were used to develop source type population data: the vehicle registration data method and the national default-local data method. The former utilizes statewide motor vehicle registration data which is the preferred EPA method if actual road count data are not available because this method relies more specifically on using information at the county or local level. The later method applies a ratio scheme or calculation procedure which combines default population and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) activity data generated by MOVES, as well as using local daily VMT and vehicle classification data that are based on statewide averages. Vehicle Registration Data Method Motor vehicle registration data were provided by the Tennessee Department of Revenue (TDOR) in the form of a text file format. It resulted from a query developed by TDOR personnel that had been based on the MOVES and/or the HPMS vehicle classifications conveyed to them during the course of several group discussions held among stakeholders. The 13 MOVES source types mentioned earlier for the most part can be thought of as subsets of the six primary Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) vehicle type categories: motorcycles, passenger cars, other 2-axle 4-tire vehicles, buses, single unit trucks, and combination trucks. Actually there are 13 vehicle types in HPMS, as well, but they can be grouped into the six primary categories mentioned previously. (Note that that the HPMS classification will change slightly for MOVES2014.) Detail of HPMS can be found in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) documentation on the Internet: The TDOR text file contained the vehicle identification number (VIN) for each vehicle and other coded or abbreviated information that could be used to identify source types, such as year, make, model, fuel, type, use, county, class, body, gvwt (gross vehicle weight), and number of axles. These codes had been assigned to the vehicle by the county clerks or state personnel when it was first registered in the state. The text file also contained the MOVES source type and the HPMS vehicle type classification listing for each vehicle that were assigned during the TDOR query run. The dataset contained only those vehicles that were currently registered or scheduled for a license renewal at the time when the query was run. Registered are those vehicles that have been issued a license plate or tag, as distinguished from vehicles which have title certificates. (The title is a legal form, establishing the owner of the vehicle.) Typically, 7

77 registered vehicles are a subset of all titled vehicles. Licensed vehicles are permitted to be driven on the public roads, whereas some titled vehicles, as such cannot be driven on public roads because for various reasons may not have a current or valid license plate. It should be noted that heavy-duty freight trucks, utility trailers, and special government vehicles in the motor vehicle registration database were excluded from the original text file. For instance as may be the case, locally registered heavy duty vehicles used for hauling freight over long distances are not necessarily representative of that portion of the fleet at the county level because these vehicle typically transport freight across state and county borders. Several text files were received from TDOR that covered different calendar year time periods. In the current study, the data extraction conducted July 1, 2011 was used. For reference purposes, Table 2 shows the total number of vehicles that were associated with the HPMS and MOVES vehicle categories assigned by TDOR. Preliminary investigation of this data revealed that the percentage of passenger cars (HPMS 20 or MOVES 21) and light duty trucks (HPMS 30 or MOVES 32 & 33) were approximately 83% and 13%, respectively of total vehicles statewide. This lead to the suspicion that the numbers of vehicles initially assigned to passenger vehicles were overstated. For example, published FHWA highway statistics compiled for Tennessee for 2011 showed about 50% automobiles and 47% trucks. As a second illustration, the number of single unit trucks (HPMS 50) which includes refuse truck, single unit short- and long-haul trucks, and motor home (MOVES 51, 52, 53 & 54, respectively) were reported as 233 vehicles statewide. This number was surely too low to represent the total quantity of these vehicles types. Thus, further action was required to transform this data into more conclusive results. The abbreviated coded information, such as make, model, type, use, county, class, body, gvwt, and no. of axles were used to identify and group the data into the different MOVES source type categories using Microsoft Access, a VIN decoder on the Internet, and trial-and-error methods. Population data for the MOVES source types resulting from this analysis are shown in Table 3. At this moment the percentage of passenger cars (HPMS 20 or MOVES 21) and light duty trucks (HPMS 30 or MOVES 32 & 33) are approximately 50% and 45%, respectively of the total vehicles. A list of the cars and light-duty trucks that were processed independently from the Tennessee motor vehicle registration database was also purchased from R.L. Polk & Co. to use 8

78 for extra quality assurance measures. (Polk, currently operating as IHS Automotive, is a private company that provides automotive information for a fee.) The EPA has customarily relied on Polk as one of its sources for vehicle data. For comparison purposes, the Tennessee registration data for 2011 from the FHWA highway statistics report and the Polk 2011 data are shown in Table 4. As shown in this table and the previous table, some differences exist between these sources of data. Several factors may account for the differences: (1) the TDOR registration data included only vehicles that were registered as of July 1, 2011; (2) the FHWA data included all vehicles that were registered throughout the year and the Polk data included all data that were registered at the close of the year 2011; (3) how vehicles are classified may vary between TDOR, FHWA, and Polk classification systems. For instance in Polk data, light-duty trucks are classified by gross vehicle weight (i.e., typically classes 1, 2, & 3) but no distinction is made between passenger and light commercial trucks. Trucks may also be classified by the gross weight rating for the entire vehicle or separately by the axles. It was decided to partition the Polk light duty truck data into the source types (passenger cars and light commercial trucks) by using the ratio of these two vehicles derived from the TDOR motor vehicle registration data on a per county basis. Nonetheless, it was still obvious that quantities for several of the other source types were not satisfactory using the motor vehicle registration dataset, so other data sources were pursued to improve the population data. In the following sections, the methodology will be discussed for these source types. Transit Bus To meet the needs of public transportation systems, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) maintains a National Transit Database (NTD). Recipients or beneficiaries of grants for public transportation from the FTA are required to submit operating and financial data to the NTD. Among other information, fleet size, vehicle model and year, fuel type, seating and standing capacity, and average mileage per vehicle on a county basis are contained in the database. This data are available at Statistics from the NTD were used to determine source type population data for transit buses. It was estimated that approximately 1,200 transit buses operated in the state during 2011, and of this total, 217 buses 9

79 operated in Knox County area. Note that the other four counties in the five county evaluation area did not operate transit buses. School Bus The National Association for Pupil Transportation (NAPT) is a non-profit organization that supports the school bus industry. The primary goal of NAPT is to provide safe and economical transportation for school children. Since preventative maintenance is one of the keys to the safe operation of school buses, detailed operating records for school buses are usually maintained. Operating and maintenance records for school buses were received from the Tennessee Association of Pupil Transportation (TAPT) after they were contacted by phone. Information from their database included VIN, model year, type, class, and the number of years the buses were in service. From this data source, it was estimated that between 2012 and 2013 approximately 9,300 school buses were operating in the state, and of this total, between 650 and 800 have been operating inside the five county area for Refuse Truck Refuse haulers were contacted via phone surveys with minimal success statewide. Thus, total refuse trucks operating statewide are still only partially supported using this auxiliary data. For the most part, the owner or operator did not return voice mail messages, and/or if reached by phone, they did not have existing fleet records readily available for distribution. However, some data were collected for the five county areas verbally over the phone. From this survey, it was estimated that approximately 190 refuse trucks were operating in the five county area. It should be noted that total refuse truck population data are not yet available statewide. National Default-Local Data Method Local vehicle data were not available for the single unit long-haul truck, the combination short-haul truck, and the combination long-haul truck. In addition, the quantities for the Intercity Bus and Motor Home were not satisfactory using the vehicle registration data method. Hence, the EPA recommends other courses of action for cases where local motor vehicle registration data are not available and/or inappropriate. In the current situation, population data were derived by ratio computations using national default data in conjunction with local VMT and statewide vehicle classification summaries. The national default data for Tennessee was obtained by 10

80 running MOVES for the calendar year Distance traveled per road type (VMT) and population source type data are written to an output activity file which can be copied for other applications. This data were used to simulate national default emissions for the year of interest. Local or county daily vehicle miles traveled (DVMT) for 2011 and statewide vehicle classification summaries by the function road system were obtained from the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT). The archive DVMT data are also available on the Internet To smooth out yearly fluctuations in vehicle count summaries, the five-year average (that is, years 2007 through 2011) were used. It should be noted that the final average values were adjusted proportionally across the six HPMS vehicle types, so that the sum of the averaged percentages would equal 100%. For reference purposes, the DVMT data and the vehicle classification summaries just for 2011 are shown in Table 5 and Table 6, respectively. Note that the DVMT for Rural Freeway is zero for all counties because this road classification is not used in Tennessee. Also Urban and Rural Local DVMT are not represented in the Class Count Summaries, thus the summary data from the Rural Minor Collector were used for Rural Local summaries, and in turn, the Urban Collector summary data were used for Urban Local summaries. The DVMT and vehicle count data collected by the state are classified by the HPMS. Thus, additional preprocessing or computations were required to distribute or map the MOVES source types using the HPMS vehicle type. The HPMS to MOVES relationships were shown previously in Table 2. For instance, other 2 axle-4 tire vehicles in HPMS encompass both passenger truck and light commercial truck in MOVES. The 13 HPMS based functional road system also had to be mapped to the four road types in MOVES. This was relatively straightforward, and the mapping scheme for road types are shown in Table 7. The general formula that was used to calculate population source type data is Equation 1. It has three parts represented by the symbols A, B, and C. (Note that all equations mentioned are included in the Appendix B of this document.) The A expression evaluates local DVMT for the HPMS vehicle type; the MOVES default population to VMT ratio is the B expression; and the C expression (also a ratio) maps the HPMS vehicle type to the MOVES source type. The C value will equal unity (or 1.0) when the HPMS vehicle type is equivalent to the MOVES source type, such as for motorcycles and passenger cars; otherwise it is equal to a fraction that 11

81 sums to unity within MOVES source types that were mapped from the HPMS vehicle type. Sample calculations using Knox County data for passenger cars and passenger trucks are also included in the Appendix. The supplemental Microsoft Excel file that will show all calculations or data manipulations in spreadsheet format for this section using Knox County data is named Sample Calculations for SourceType Populations - Knox Draft xlsx. Lastly, the results from the national default-local data method are shown in Table 8 for statewide (i.e., all counties). Note for comparison purposes, all source type population data derived from this method are included in the table although they were all not all used for final population data. Age Distribution Vehicle ages in MOVES cover a range of 31 years with vehicles 30 years and older grouped together. States were again encouraged by EPA to develop age distributions with local data. In the present study, local population data were available for only eight of the 13 source types using the motor vehicle registration data and/or other valid data sources. Since the motor vehicle registration data received from TDOT was just a snapshot of registrations on July 1, 2011 and age fractions are needed as of December 31, 2011, population data were adjusted. Model year 2012 vehicles were removed from the database and model year 2011 vehicles were assigned to the Age 0 category. Likewise for the Polk data, vehicles of model year 2012 or newer than 2011 were removed. Moreover, since the Polk data only included vehicles 1961 and newer, all population data developed from the TDOT motor vehicle registration database with model years older than 1961 were eliminated from that database, as well. Since these actions affected the population data, Table 9 is included to show the final source type population data adjusted for age. Where local population were not available to determine the age distributions, the default age distributions for the year 2011 were used instead. These distributions were obtained from the EPA MOVES Internet site. (That is, default age distributions were used for Intercity Bus, Single Unit Long-haul Truck, Motor Home, Combination Short-haul Truck and Combination Long-haul Truck.) Road Type Distribution The fraction of VMT for the road type for each of the source types is the road type distribution dataset. The four primary road types in MOVES are rural restricted, rural 12

82 unrestricted, urban restricted, and urban unrestricted. They are used to represent the entire roadway network. A fifth road type is off-network; it accounts for locations where the predominant vehicle activity is essentially not conducted on the roadway, such as starting, parking, and idling. Road type distribution data in this format are not available for Tennessee, so a calculation method was used to convert HPMS road data into MOVES data. The average vehicle summary classification by road type ( ) and the 2011 DVMT (both mentioned previously) were used to develop the road type distribution. Note that local data are classified by HPMS, so a mapping scheme is needed to transform HPMS data into MOVES data. Table 7 shows the mapping scheme between HPMS and MOVES road types. Equation 2 is the overall formula that was used to calculate the VMT road type distributions. It has two parts which are represented by the symbols A and B. The A expression evaluates local DVMT for the MOVES road types per HPMS vehicle type; the B expression is the MOVES road type ratio that distributes the road type fractions across source types. The supplemental Microsoft Excel file showing calculations in spreadsheet format for this section using Knox County data is named Sample Calculations for RoadType VMT Distributions - Knox Draft xlsx. Off-network was assigned a value of zero and it should be noted that the road type VMT fractions are the same for those source types that were mapped from the HPMS vehicle type. For example, passenger truck and light commercial truck in MOVES were mapped together from other 2-axle 4-tire vehicles in HPMS, thus VMT fractions will be identical for these two source types. Vehicle Type VMT Annual VMT by the HPMS vehicle classes are required by MOVES. Monthly, daily, and hourly distributions or fractions of the VMT by source types are also required. Furthermore, the daily and hourly distributions must include the fraction of VMT on each road type per source type. The vehicle type VMT data in this format are not available for Tennessee. To help the user develop inputs for MOVES, the EPA created several Microsoft Excel spreadsheet-based converter or calculator tools. A modified version of the file named aadvmtcalculator_hpms.xls was used to develop the data for vehicle type VMT. First, some general information will be 13

83 given about the original EPA file which can be downloaded at their Internet site for MOVES listed earlier in the report. The EPA tool is intended to use average annual daily (AAD) VMT at the HPMS level as well as monthly and weekend-day adjustment factors to calculate type of day, monthly and yearly VMT The tool contains default vehicle type VMT datasets for monthly, daily, and hourly VMT fractions and provides default monthly and weekend-day adjustment factors if local inputs are not available. Instructions on the use of the calculator are included in the Excel file. However, the decision was made to modify the EPA converter tool after some discussion among stakeholders. The primary concern was that annual VMT (i.e., the MOVES input for the HPMSBaseYearVMT as calculated via the tool) should equal 365 times the HPMS DVMT data that had been provided by TDOT. It is assumed that the EPA tool was designed to handle average annual weekday VMT (AAWDVMT) rather than average annual daily traffic (AADVMT). The HPMS data are reported in terms of AADVMT and by definition represents an average day regardless of weekday or weekend. Thus, the EPA tool was modified to essentially multiply daily VMT by 365 (because 2011 was not a leap year) to create the HPMSVTypeYear data. Since TDOT provided daily adjustment factors by months of the year, the weekday adjustment factors could be determined as well as weekend-day directly from the data; these were added to the calculator tool which originally only included default monthly and weekend-day adjustment factors. A copy of the TDOT five year seasonal variation factors for 2011 are shown in Table 10. The method of averaging the seasonal variation factors are shown in the Microsoft Excel preprocessing data file mentioned below in the final paragraph of this section. The adjustment factors that were used are the inverse of the variation factors shown in the table. They are listed for Rural Interstate, Rural Other, Urban, and Recreational. This required preprocessing of the road categories into HPMS road types and averaging the results before the adjustment factors could be applied to the modified EPA calculator tool. Table 11 shows this mapping scheme. It should be noted that variation factors for Recreational were not used; these are for road traffic in state parks. In effect, weighting factors were created from the road categories that had been mapped to HPMS road types, and then these weighting factors were 14

84 applied to the averaged adjustment factors to create monthly, weekday, and weekend-day factors for use in the modified calculator tool. Once more it was necessary that local data be preprocessed before it could be used. The general formula that was applied to prepare AADVMT data is Equation 3. Note that this formula is identical to the A expression of Equation 1. (It was listed again only to maintain continuum in the narrative.) Sample calculation using Knox County data for passenger car and passenger truck source types also appear in the Appendix. Two Microsoft Excel file will accompany this section. The names of these files are Sample Calculations for AADVMT - Knox Draft xlsx and Sample Modified AADVMT Calculator HPMS - Knox Draft xlsx. The latter file is the modified EPA calculator tool that was run using the Knox County AADVMT data. The tool generated the HPMS base year VMT data and the monthly and daily VMT fractions required by MOVES. The default hourly VMT fractions were kept in the modified tool because at the moment no hourly vehicle data are available at the local level to aid in calculating hourly fractions. Finally, the former file includes calculations in spreadsheet format for Knox County that were used to develop the AADVMT input data for the tool. It also includes a second spreadsheet showing the averaging scheme that was used to group the five-year monthly variation factors by day of week for rural interstate, rural other, and urban road types collected by TDOT. Summary Two compressed zip type files are attached to this document. The file named MOVES Input Data files for 2011.zip contain five Excel files. Each one of these files contains the input datasets for one of the priority counties that are referenced in Table 1. In the interest of brevity, only the source type year population data that were developed for these counties will be presented. Table 12 shows the final population data that were developed from the TDOT motor vehicle registrations database, other sources of information, and the national default method. Table 13 shows the final population data that were developed by replacing the TDOR motor vehicle registrations data for passenger car, passenger truck and light commercial truck with the data developed from the Polk motor vehicle registration information. Similarly two sets of age distributions are included in each Excel file which reflect the methods mentioned above that 15

85 were used to develop the age distributions from the population data. The second compressed file contains the four Excel files that demonstrate all sample calculations discussed in this document in spreadsheet format. The name of this file is Sample Calculations for Knox Draft zip. 16

86 References 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES): User Guide for MOVES2010b. Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality; EPA-420-B b; June U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Using MOVES2010 to Prepare Emission Inventories in State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity: Technical Guidance for MOVES2010, 2010a and 2010b. Transportation and Climate Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality; EPA-420-R ; April U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. MOVES2010 Highway Vehicle Population and Activity Data. Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality; EPA-420-R ; November U.S. Department of Transportation. Highway Performance Monitoring System Field Manual. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); Office of Highway Policy Information; March U.S. Department of Transportation. Traffic Monitoring Guide. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); Office of Highway Policy Information; September

87 Appendix 18

88 Appendix A - Tables mentioned in body of document 19

89 Table 1: Input Data Files CDM (tab) Name Data Source (file) Name Source Type Population sourcetypeyear Age Distribution Road Type Distribution sourcetypeagedistribution roadtypedistribution HPMSVTypeYear Vehicle Type VMT monthvmtfraction dayvmtfraction hourvmtfraction Table 2: Number of Records in the TDOR Initial Data Extraction HPMS ID HPMS Vehicle Type TDOR Extraction MOVES ID MOVES Source Type TDOR Extraction 10 Motorcycles 170, Motorcycle 170, Passenger Cars 4,181, Passenger Car 4,181, Other 2 axle-4 tire vehicles 673, Passenger Truck 575, Light Commercial Truck 97, Intercity Bus 3, Buses 23, Transit Bus School Bus 20, Refuse Truck Single Unit Trucks Single Unit Short-haul Truck na 53 Single Unit Long-haul Truck na 54 Motor Home Combination Trucks na 61 Combination Short-haul Truck na 62 Combination Long-haul Truck na na = not available Total 5,049,678 Total 5,049,678 20

90 Table 3: Number of Records after Redistribution of Data MOVES ID MOVES sourcetypename TDOR Extraction 11 Motorcycle 181, Passenger Car 2,544, Passenger Truck 1,992, Light Commercial Truck 256, Intercity Bus 1, Transit Bus 1, School Bus 7, Refuse Truck Single Unit Short-haul Truck 55, Single Unit Long-haul Truck na 54 Motor Home 9, Combination Short-haul Truck na 62 Combination Long-haul Truck na Total 5,049,678 Table 4: FHWA and Polk Vehicle Registration Data Tennessee 2011 Source Vehicle Type Private and Commercial Publicly Owned Total Motorcycles 168, ,420 Automobiles * 2,607,173 30,250 2,637,423 FHWA Trucks 2,448,356 35,365 2,483,721 Buses 6,334 6,437 12,771 Total 5,230,271 72,064 5,302,335 Cars - 2,488,824 Polk Light-duty Trucks - 3,023,286 Total - 5,512,110 * Including Taxicabs; Sources: FHWA Highway Statistics, State Motor-Vehicle Registrations, abridged from Table MV-1; Polk car and light truck registration database, condensed. 21

91 Table 5: HPMS 2011 DVMT Rural and Urban 22

92 (continued) 23

93 (continued) 24

94 Table 6: Class Count 2011 Summary for the Rural and Urban Road System Functional Class RURAL INTERSTATE RURAL PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL RURAL MINOR ARTERIAL RURAL MAJOR COLLECTOR RURAL MINOR COLLECTOR URBAN INTERSTATE URBAN FREEWAY URBAN PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL URBAN COLLECTOR Motorcycles (1) 0.58% 1.14% 0.86% 0.73% 0.72% 0.70% 1.00% 0.90% 0.77% 0.46% Cars (2) 56.61% 64.08% 67.41% 68.74% 70.61% 56.94% 69.59% 69.02% 74.94% 76.68% Pick-ups, Panels & Vans (3) 16.91% 24.39% 25.37% 26.15% 25.71% 18.36% 20.63% 19.75% 18.23% 18.71% Total Passenger Vehicles (2+3) 73.52% 88.47% 92.78% 94.89% 96.32% 75.30% 90.22% 88.77% 93.17% 95.39% Subtotal (1+2+3) 74.10% 89.61% 93.64% 95.62% 97.04% 76.00% 91.22% 89.67% 93.94% 95.85% Buses (4) 0.21% 0.05% 0.04% 0.03% 0.03% 0.15% 0.10% 0.06% 0.03% 0.02% Dual Rear Trucks (5) 0.99% 0.91% 1.02% 0.84% 0.81% 1.05% 1.06% 0.88% 0.68% 0.70% 3-Axle Trucks (6) 0.90% 1.32% 1.15% 0.93% 0.57% 1.21% 1.04% 0.93% 0.50% 0.44% 4-Axle Trucks (7) 0.16% 0.46% 0.23% 0.24% 0.09% 0.14% 0.32% 0.80% 0.46% 0.17% Total Single Unit Trucks (5) 2.05% 2.69% 2.40% 2.01% 1.47% 2.40% 2.42% 2.61% 1.64% 1.31% Subtotal (4+5) 2.26% 2.74% 2.44% 2.04% 1.50% 2.55% 2.52% 2.67% 1.67% 1.33% 2S-1, 3S-1, 2S-2 (8) 1.49% 2.10% 0.94% 0.84% 0.51% 2.44% 2.30% 3.55% 2.26% 1.15% 3S-2, 2S-3 (9) 19.77% 4.04% 2.52% 1.04% 0.75% 15.02% 2.67% 1.60% 0.58% 0.99% 3S-3, 3S-4 (10) 0.37% 0.31% 0.11% 0.05% 0.03% 0.81% 0.19% 0.27% 0.13% 0.12% Total Semi Combinations (6) 21.63% 6.45% 3.57% 1.93% 1.29% 18.27% 5.16% 5.42% 2.97% 2.26% 2S-1-2 (11) 1.20% 0.43% 0.15% 0.19% 0.04% 1.22% 0.29% 0.57% 0.47% 0.16% 2S-2-2, 3S-1-2 (12) 0.64% 0.16% 0.04% 0.06% 0.01% 0.70% 0.35% 0.53% 0.29% 0.11% Any 7 Axle (13) 0.18% 0.61% 0.16% 0.14% 0.12% 1.24% 0.46% 1.15% 0.63% 0.30% Total Twin Trailer Trucks (7) 2.02% 1.20% 0.35% 0.39% 0.17% 3.16% 1.10% 2.25% 1.39% 0.57% Total Tractor Trailer (6+7) 23.65% 7.65% 3.92% 2.32% 1.46% 21.43% 6.26% 7.67% 4.36% 2.83% Total Trucks ( ) 25.91% 10.39% 6.36% 4.36% 2.96% 23.98% 8.78% 10.34% 6.03% 4.16% Total Vehicles % % % 99.98% % 99.98% % % 99.97% % 25

95 Table 7: HPMS and MOVES Road Type Mapping Scheme HPMS Rural Interstate & Freeway MOVES Rural Restricted Rural Principal Arterial Rural Minor Arterial Rural Major Collector Rural Unrestricted Rural Minor Collector Rural Local Urban Interstate & Freeway Urban Restricted Urban Principal Arterial Urban Minor Arterial Urban Collector Urban Unrestricted Urban Local Table 8: Statewide Population Data from National Default-Local Data Method MOVES sourcetype Population Motorcycle 539,794 Passenger Car 3,426,792 Passenger Truck 1,149,383 Light Commercial Truck 383,990 Intercity Bus 5,847 Transit Bus 3,232 School Bus 39,683 Refuse Truck 1,466 Single Unit Short-haul Truck 105,290 Single Unit Long-haul Truck 13,988 Motor Home 24,549 Combination Short-haul Truck 41,492 Combination Long-haul Truck 50,760 Total 5,786,266 26

96 Table 9: Population Data based on Registration Data Adjusted by Age Data Source Vehicle Type Population Motorcycle 180,922 Passenger Car 2,536,154 Passenger Truck 1,988,480 Light Commercial Truck 255,999 TDOR Intercity Bus Transit Bus School Bus Refuse Truck na na na na Single Unit Short-haul Truck 55,775 Single Unit Long-haul Truck Motor Home Combination Short-haul Truck Combination Long-haul Truck na na na na Total 5,017,330 Cars 2,453,727 Polk Light-duty Trucks 2,998,279 Total 5,452,006 27

97 Table 10: 5-Year Average Monthly Variation Factors, by Day of Week for JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. Rural Interstate Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Rural Other Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Urban Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Recreational Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Table 11: HPMS and TDOT Road Category Mapping Scheme HPMS Rural Interstate & Freeway TDOT Rural Interstate Rural Principal Arterial Rural Minor Arterial Rural Major Collector Rural Other Rural Minor Collector Rural Local Urban Interstate & Freeway Urban Principal Arterial Urban Minor Arterial Urban Urban Collector Urban Local 28

98 Table 12: Source Type Population Data using ROD Data MOVES sourcetype Name/County Anderson Blount Knox Loudon Roane Total Motorcycle R 3,303 5,657 10,738 2,299 1,935 23,932 Passenger Car R 40,705 55, ,949 23,664 22, ,828 Passenger Truck R 34,932 55, ,441 23,749 21, ,188 Light Commercial Truck R 2,805 3,728 11,423 1,108 1,243 20,307 Intercity Bus D Transit Bus O School Bus O Refuse Truck O Single Unit Short-haul Truck R , ,902 Single Unit Long-haul Truck D , ,728 Motor Home D , ,031 Combination Short-haul Truck D , ,467 Combination Long-haul Truck D , ,690 Total 84, , ,302 53,783 49, ,092 R = Motor Vehicle Registration Data from TDOT; O = Other Data Sources; D = Default Data Method 29

99 Table 13: Source Type Population Data using RODP Data MOVES sourcetype Name/County Anderson Blount Knox Loudon Roane Total Motorcycle R 3,303 5,657 10,738 2,299 1,935 23,932 Passenger Car P 33,070 58, ,194 20,907 23, ,533 Passenger Truck P 38,139 66, ,717 26,147 28, ,533 Light Commercial Truck P 2,552 4,471 11,891 1,749 1,921 22,584 Intercity Bus D Transit Bus O School Bus O Refuse Truck O Single Unit Short-haul Truck R , ,902 Single Unit Long-haul Truck D , ,728 Motor Home D , ,031 Combination Short-haul Truck D , ,467 Combination Long-haul Truck D , ,690 Total 79, , ,291 54,065 58, ,419 R = Motor Vehicle Registration Data from TDOT; O = Other Data Sources; D = Default Data Method; P = Registration Data from Polk 30

100 Appendix B - Equations and sample calculations mentioned in body of document 31

101 Equation 1: General formula used to convert default population/vmt data, local DVMT, and local vehicle count summaries into MOVES source type population data where: Population Source Type = A B C A = (Vehicle Fraction Road DVMT Road ) HPMS B = ( Default Population Source Type Default VMT Source Type ) MOVES (Default VMT Source Type ) MOVES C = (Default VMT Source Type ) HPMS to MOVES Sample Calculations Source Type Population: Knox County - Passenger Car A = [( ,361) + ( ,133,399 ) + ( ) + ( ,869) + ( ) + ( ,590,470) + ( ,777) + ( ,182,515) + ( ,547) + ( ,499) + ( ,584) + ( ,431) + ( ,661,170 )] = 10,152,931 miles day 209,744 passenger cars B = ( ) 2,927,686,000 miles year 32

102 C = 2,927,686,000 miles year = 1.0 2,927,686,000 miles year Local Population Passenger Car = 10,152,931 miles day 209,744 passenger cars 365 days ( ) 1.0 ( ) = 2,927,686,000 miles year year 265,491 passenger cars Knox County - Passenger Truck A = [( ,361) + ( ,133,399 ) + ( ) + ( ,869) + ( ) + ( ,590,470) + ( ,777) + ( ,182,515) + ( ,547) + ( ,499) + ( ,584) + ( ,431) + ( ,661,170 )] = 2,997,376 miles day 153,221 passenger cars B = ( ) 1,519,577,800 miles year C = 1,519,577,800 miles year = (1,519,577, ,666,000) miles year Local Population Passenger Truck = 2,997,376 miles day 153,221 passenger cars 365 days ( ) ( ) = 1,519,577,800 miles year year 82,689 passenger trucks 33

103 Equation 2: General formula used to convert HPMS local DVMT and vehicle classification summaries into MOVES road type VMT distributions by source types VMT Fraction MOVES Road Type for Source Type = ( A B ) Road Type for Source Type A = ( Fraction Vehicle Type Local DVMT) HPMS to MOVES B = ( A Road Types ) HPMS to MOVES Sample Calculations VMT Distribution: Knox County - Passenger Car A Rural Restricted = (( ,361) + ( )) = 336,477 miles day A Rural Unrestricted = (( ) + ( ,777) + ( ,547) + ( ,584) + ( ,431)) = 461,579 miles day A Urban Restricted = (( ,133,399) + ( ,869)) = 3,315,603 miles day A Urban Unrestricted = (( ,590,470) + ( ,182,515) + ( ,499) + ( ,661,170)) = 6,039,272 miles day B = 336, , ,315, ,039,272, = 10,152,931 miles day 336,477 miles day VMT Fraction Rural Restricted = ( 10,152,931 miles day ) =

104 461,579 miles day VMT Fraction Rural Restricted = ( 10,152,931 miles day ) = ,315,603 miles day VMT Fraction Rural Restricted = ( 10,152,931 miles day ) = ,039,272 miles day VMT Fraction Rural Restricted = ( 10,152,931 miles day ) = Knox County - Passenger Truck A Rural Restricted = (( ,361) + ( )) = 116,050 miles day A Rural Unrestricted = (( ) + ( ,777) + ( ,547) + ( ,584) + ( ,431)) = 176,000 miles day A Urban Restricted = (( ,133,399) + ( ,869)) = 1,054,990 miles day A Urban Unrestricted = (( ,590,470) + ( ,182,515) + ( ,499) + ( ,661,170)) = 1,650,336 miles day B = 116, , ,054, ,650,336, = 2,997,367 miles day 116,050 miles day VMT Fraction Rural Restricted = ( 2,997,367 miles day ) =

105 176,000 miles day VMT Fraction Rural Restricted = ( 2,997,367 miles day ) = ,054,990 miles day VMT Fraction Rural Restricted = ( 2,997,367 miles day ) = ,650,336 miles day VMT Fraction Rural Restricted = ( 2,997,367 miles day ) = Equation 3: General formula used to calculate local AADVMT for HPMS vehicle types AADVMT = (Vehicle Fraction Road DVMT Road ) HPMS Sample Calculations AAVMT Distribution: Knox County Passenger Car AADVMT = [( ,361) + ( ,133,399 ) + ( ) + ( ,869) + ( ) + ( ,590,470) + ( ,777) + ( ,182,515) + ( ,547) + ( ,499) + ( ,584) + ( ,431) + ( ,661,170 )] = 10,152,931 miles day 36

106 Knox County Passenger Truck AADVMT = [( ,361) + ( ,133,399 ) + ( ) + ( ,869) + ( ) + ( ,590,470) + ( ,777) + ( ,182,515) + ( ,547) + ( ,499) + ( ,584) + ( ,431) + ( ,661,170 )] = 2,997,376 miles day 37

107 Shelby County Air Quality Conformity Demonstration Exhibit 3 Fiscal Year Transportation Improvement Program Projects 1 Exhibit 3 Fiscal Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Amended FY TIP Projects Contains: Listing of FY Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Projects List of Amended FY TIP Projects

108 # TIP Number RTP Number Project Name Termini Horizon Year Project Description Status Lead Agency Length Func Class 1 NHS I-40 Interchange at SR-196 (Hickory Withe Road) 2025 Construct standard diamond interchange. Non-Exempt TDOT NA Urban Interstate 2 TN-IM I-55 Interchange at Crump Boulevard 2020 Interchange modification. Non-Exempt TDOT NA Urban Interstate 3 TN-IM I-240 Interchange at Airways Boulevard 2025 Modify interchange in Memphis. Non-Exempt TDOT 0.48 miles Urban Interstate 4 NHS I-240 Midtown I-40 to I Widen from 6 lanes to 8 lanes. Non-Exempt TDOT 6.0 miles Urban Interstate 5 TN-NHPP I-240 Overhead Bridges TN-NHPP SR-4 (US-78/Lamar Avenue) TDOT Projects Replace existing overhead bridges at Norfolk Southern R/R and SR-57 (Poplar Avenue., EB &WB). Replace or repair overhead bridge at Park Avenue. Geometric improvements to ramps connecting SR-57 (Poplar Avenue) to southbound I-240 to complete I-240 project. (CM/GC project). Mississippi State Line to south of Shelby Drive 2020 Reconstruct and widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes (divided). Non-Exempt TDOT 1.1 miles 7 TN-STBG SR-14 (Austin Peay) East of Old Covington Pike to SR Widen from 2 to 5 lanes and 4 lanes (divided). Non-Exempt TDOT 3.7 miles Can it be modeled? ADT Regionally Significant RTP Amendment Needed Yes 33,325 Yes No Yes 73,417 Yes No Yes 147,032 Yes No Yes 99,844 Yes No Exempt TDOT 0.28 miles NA No 53,939 No No Urban Principal Arterial Rural Minor Arterial Yes 37,975 Yes No Yes 13,344 Yes No 8 TN-STBG SR-14 (Austin Peay) East of Kerrville-Rosemark Road to SR-385 (Paul Barrett Parkway) 2035 Widen to 4-lane divided typical section. Non-Exempt TDOT 4.7 miles Rural Minor Arterial Yes 10,757 Yes No 9 TN-NHPP NA National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) Grouping Memphis MPO Area NA Resurfacing, Guardrail, Slide Repair, Signs, Signals, Marking, Intersection / Interchange Modifications, Sight Distance Modifications, Noise walls, Wetland and or Stream Mitigation, Safety Improvements, Bridge Replacement, Repair, Rehabilitation, Preservation, Rockfall Mitigation, Sidewalks Traffic Calming, Pedestrian or Bicycle Facilities, ITS Operations, Maintenance, Power, Communications, Construction, Operate the TN 511 System, Freeway Service Patrols, Traffic Diversion, Non-Infrastructure, School and Other Flashing Signals, Bridge and Tunnel Inspection, Rail- Highway Grade Crossing Improvements, Enhancement Activities, etc. Exempt TDOT NA Varies No NA No No 10 TN-STP NA Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG) Grouping Memphis MPO Area NA Resurfacing, Guardrail, Slide Repair, Signs, Signals, Marking, Intersection / Interchange Modifications, Sight Distance Modifications, Noise Walls, Wetland and or Stream Mitigation, Safety Improvements, Bridge Replacement, Repair, Rehabilitation, Preservation, Rockfall Mitigation, Sidewalks Traffic Calming, Pedestrian or Bicycle Facilities, ITS Operations, Maintenance, Power, Communications, Construction, Operate the TN 511 System, Freeway Service Patrols, Traffic Diversion, Non-Infrastructure, School and Other Flashing Signals, Bridge and Tunnel Inspection, Rail- Highway Grade Crossing Improvements, Enhancement Activities, etc. Exempt TDOT NA Varies No NA No No 11 TN-HSIP NA Highway Safety Improvement Program (HISP) Grouping Memphis MPO Area NA Any strategy, activity or project on a public road that is consistent with the State Strategic Highway Plan (SHSP) and corrects or improves a hazardous road location or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. Including Workforce Development, Training and Education Activities, Alignment, Intersection Interchange Improvements, Signalization, Guardrail, Lighting, Marking, Railroad Crossings, Railroad Crossing Pads, Bells, Lights, Gates, Pavement Markings, Bridge and Tunnel Inventory and Inspections on all Public Roads, etc. Exempt TDOT NA Varies No NA No No

109 # TIP Number RTP Number Project Name Termini Horizon Year Project Description Status Lead Agency Length Func Class 1 MS-NHS Star Landing Corridor Tulane Road to Getwell Road 2025 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Non-Exempt MDOT 6.0 miles 2 MS-NHPP SR-304 and McIngvale Road Interchange SR-304 at McIngvale Road 2020 Interchange construction. Non-Exempt MDOT NA 3 MS-SSTP NA SR-304 /I-269 I-55 to Marshall County Line (Debt Service) NA Repayment of bonds for the construction of SR-304/I-269 in DeSoto County. Exempt MDOT NA 4 MS-SSTP NA Maintenance and Repair Grouping Urban Collector/ Rural Major Collector Interstate Highway Interstate Highway Can it be modeled? ADT Regionally Significant RTP Amendment Needed Yes NA Yes No Yes NA Yes No Yes Future Yes No Various locations NA Funds will be used for operation, maintenance or minor reconstruction works. Exempt MDOT NA NA NA NA NA No 5 MS-SSTBG NA Safety Grouping Various locations NA Funds will be used for various safety projects. Exempt MDOT NA NA NA NA NA No 6 MS-SSTBG NA Bridge Grouping Various locations NA Funds will be used for various bridge projects. Exempt MDOT NA NA NA NA NA No 7 MS-HSIP NA I-55 8 CMAQ NA Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Group SR-302 from Interstate Drive to Southcrest Parkway Various locations NA NA MDOT Projects Intersection improvements to include channelization at the exit ramps onto SR-302. WB left turns to Interstate Drive and EB left turns to Southcrest Parkway will be required to travel through signalized intersections from the ramps. This project will fund programs to reduce congestion and improve air quality in DeSoto County in accordance with CMAQ guidelines. Local TN Projects Exempt MDOT NA Interstate Highway No NA No No Exempt MDOT NA NA NA NA NA No # TIP Number RTP Number Project Name Termini Horizon Year 1 STP-M E+C North Second Street I-40 to US 51 E+C Project Description Status Lead Agency Length Func Class Improve North Second Street corridor to a parkway design including right-ofway acquisition, reconstruction of sidewalks, provisions for bicycles, landscaping, and utility relocation. From I-40 to A.W. Willis Avenue, Second Street and Third Street will both be improved to provide two-lane two-way roadways with two-way left-turn lanes. From A.W. Willis Avenue to Henry Avenue Second Street will be improved to provide a two-lane two-way roadway. From A.W. Willis Avenue to Chelsea Avenue, Third Street will be improved to provide a two-lane two-way roadway. North Third Street will be extended on new alignment as a two lane roadway from Chelsea Avenue to intersect North Second Street at Henry Avenue at a roundabout. From Chelsea Avenue to the Wolf River Bridge, Second Street will be widened to four lanes with a raised median. From the Wolf River bridge to Harvester Lane, North Second Street will be constructed on new alignment as a 4 lane divided roadway. From Harvester Lane to US 51, North Second Street / Whitney Avenue will be widened from 2 to 4 lanes. Bicycle lanes will be provided along the improved North Second Street corridor. This project will be undertaken in phases as funding allows. Phase one will be from I-40 to Cedar Avenue as approved in TDOT contract # Non-Exempt Memphis 2.5 miles Urban Principal Arterial Can it be modeled? ADT Regionally Significant RTP Amendment Needed Yes 4,257 Yes No 2 STP-M Walnut Grove Road Middle Kirby/Whitten Pkwy to Germantown Pkwy STP-M Walnut Grove Road East Walnut Bend Road to Rocky Point Road 2020 Walnut Grove Road will remain four lanes. Access management measures will be provided to limit left turn movements across Walnut Grove traffic. These include construction of a "green bridge" type grade separated intersection approximately one mile west of Germantown Parkway. The new "green bridge" will connect to the internal road network of Shelby Farms Park and the Agricenter allowing wildlife, pedestrians, bicyclist, and vehicles to cross Walnut Grove. The "green bridge" design will include landscaping, vehicular travel lanes, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and connections to Walnut Grove. All intersecting streets and drives between the Kirby Whitten Project (Shelby Farms Parkway) and the "green bridge" will converted to right in, right out operation. The project will include installation of a shared use trail on the north side of Walnut Grove from Patriot Lake to Germantown Parkway and pavement reconstruction of Walnut Grove. Widen existing four and two lane roadway to six lanes with a median, eliminate sharp curves and realign Rocky Point Road intersection to improve safety. This project will provide wide outside lanes for bikes. Project scope will include ADA accessible pedestrian improvements. Non-Exempt Memphis 3.0 miles Non-Exempt Memphis 2.5 miles Urban Principal Arterial Urban Minor Arterial Yes 42,302 Yes No Yes 28,260 Yes No

110 # TIP Number RTP Number Project Name Termini Horizon Year 4 STP-M Forest Hill Irene Walnut Grove to Macon Road STP-M E+C Holmes Road West Mill Branch to Tchulahoma E+C 6 STP-M New Canada Road I-40 to US STP-M Old Brownsville Austin Peay to Kirby Whitten STP-M Plough Blvd Plough Blvd. Interchange with Winchester Rd Local TN Projects Continued Project Description Status Lead Agency Length Func Class Construct new six lane roadway with a median, adjacent bike path, sidewalks, and curb ramps. The project also includes an 1,100 foot extension of Trinity Road from Sanga Creek Road to Forest Hill Irene. Trinity Road will maintain a seven lane cross section. Widen existing four and two lane roadway to seven lanes. Project will include sidewalk improvements, crosswalks, bike facilities, curb ramps, and modern traffic signals with camera detection and emergency vehicle preemption. Design and Construction of a new four lane divided highway between Interstate 40 (Exit 20) and U.S. Highway 70 (State Route #1). Project scope will include designated bicycle facilities and ADA accessible pedestrian improvements. Widen to a four lane divided roadway with a raised median and median openings and turn lanes for access to existing driveways. Project scope will include designated bicycle facilities and ADA accessible pedestrian improvements. Improve 3,000 feet along Plough-Airways Blvd. south from Brooks Rd. and improve 3,000 feet along Winchester east of original at-grade section. The improvements will provide a grade-separated interchange to replace the existing at-grade condition at the Plough-Airways/Winchester Rd. intersection. The final design will maintain the present direct connectors between Plough Blvd. and the airport. The preliminary planning will include coordination with MATA to address future light rail service to the airport. Non-Exempt Memphis 3.03 miles Non-Exempt Memphis 3.0 miles Non-Exempt Lakeland 2.3 miles Non-Exempt Bartlett 2.3 miles Non-Exempt Memphis 1.5 miles Urban Minor Arterial Urban Minor Arterial Urban Minor Arterial Urban Minor Arterial Urban Other Freeway Can it be modeled? ADT Regionally Significant RTP Amendment Needed Yes Future Yes No Yes 13,145 Yes No Yes 8,000 Yes No Yes 9,247 Yes No Yes 41,880 Yes No 9 STP-M E+C Holmes Road East Malone to Lamar E+C Widen existing two lane roadway to seven lanes. Project will include sidewalk improvements, crosswalks, bike facilities, curb ramps, and modern traffic signals with camera detection and emergency vehicle preemption. Non-Exempt Memphis 1.7 miles Urban Minor Arterial Yes 10,016 Yes No 10 STP-M STP-M NA Kirby/Whitten Parkway (Shelby Farms Parkway) Church Street at Navy Road Intersection Improvements Walnut Grove Road to Macon Road 2020 South of Buford Avenue to Navy Road NA Widen Walnut Grove Road from 4 lanes to 6 lanes from just east of the Wolf River to the proposed Walnut Grove/Kirby-Whitten interchange with a heavily landscaped median. Construct a 4 lane heavily landscaped roadway with a variable width median from the proposed interchange to Mullins Station Road. Construct and/or widen Kirby-Whitten from 2 lanes to 4 lanes with a two-way left-turn lane from Mullins Station Road to Macon Road. The proposed interchange at Walnut Grove Road and Kirby-Whitten and the associated ramps are included in the project. Adjacent pedestrian and bicycle paths will be designed in conjunction with this project. Two grade separated trail crossing will be provided along Kirby-Whitten and one grade separated trail crossing will be provided along Walnut Grove. Widening of Church Street north of Navy Road to provide additional southbound lane, drainage improvements, and replacement of traffic signal including emergency vehicle preemption and video detection. Non-Exempt Memphis 2.5 miles Exempt Millington 0.11 miles Urban Minor Arterial Urban Minor Arterial Yes 13,514 Yes No No 13,700 No No 12 STP-M SR-57 Widening Collierville-Arlington Rd/Eastley St to SR STP-M STP-M Houston Levee Road Widening Walnut Grove Road Widening Walnut Grove Road to Wolf River Bridge 2025 Rocky Point Road to Houston Levee Road 2025 Project involves the widening of SR 57 from an existing two lane rural cross section to a five lane urban cross section. Project scope will include designated bicycle facilities and ADA accessible pedestrian improvements. This project improves Houston Levee Road by widening the segment from Walnut Grove Road to the Wolf River Bridge from two to four lanes. The roadway segment will include a median and landscaping. Project scope will include designated bicycle facilities and ADA accessible pedestrian improvements. This project widens Walnut Grove Road from two to six lanes from Rocky Point Road to Houston Levee Road with a bridge over Gray's Creek. Project scope will include designated bicycle facilities and ADA accessible pedestrian improvements. Non-Exempt Collierville 0.91 miles Non-Exempt Shelby County 1.67 miles Non-Exempt Shelby County 1.0 miles Urban Principal Arterial Urban Minor Arterial Urban Minor Arterial Yes 10,000 Yes No Yes 16,650 Yes No Yes 16,587 Yes No 15 STP-M NA Navy Road Streetscape and Median US 51 to Veterans Parkway NA This is the second phase of the Navy Road Streetscape project. It includes the construction of paved crosswalks, sidewalk improvements, streetscape improvements, and the realignment of the intersection of Navy and Easley. Project scope will include shared bicycle lanes and ADA accessible pedestrian improvements. Exempt Millington 1.05 miles Urban Minor Arterial Yes 13,500 No No

111 # TIP Number RTP Number 16 STP-M STP-M STP-M Project Name Termini Germantown Road at Wolf Germantown Road at Wolf River Boulevard River Boulevard Intersection Intersection Improvements Highway 70 at Jetway Road Improvements SR-205 (Airline Road) North Widening Horizon Year 2020 US 70 at Jetway Road 2025 From the Hall Creek bridge at I-40 north to 1,100' north of the Airline - Milton Wilson intersection 2025 Local TN Projects Continued Project Description Status Lead Agency Length Func Class Reconstruct intersection of Wolf River Blvd and Germantown Road, with widening and reconstruction of traffic signals on Germantown Road from Brierbrook Road to Wolf Trail Cove. Widen Highway 70 from 4 lanes to 5 lanes from just east of SR-385 to just west of Airline Road. The widening is to provide for a left turn lane associated with the installation of a traffic signal, which will not increase roadway capacity. Project includes the installation of a traffic signal at the Highway 70 - Jetway Road Intersection. Project scope will include designated bicycle facilities and ADA accessible pedestrian improvements. The project includes the widening of SR-205 (Airline Road) from 2 lanes to 5 lanes, with the addition of curb & gutter, drainage improvements, sidewalks, bike lanes and other amenities. The project extends from I-40 on the south end to 1,100' north of the Airline - Milton Wilson Intersection. Non-Exempt Germantown 0.34 miles Exempt Arlington 0.3 miles Non-Exempt Arlington 0.75 miles Urban Principal Arterial Urban Minor Arterial Urban Collector Can it be modeled? ADT Regionally Significant RTP Amendment Needed Yes 80,000 Yes No Yes 13,721 Yes No Yes 15,147 Yes No 19 STP-M Wilkinsville Road US 51 to Veterans Parkway 2020 Extension of a 5 lane road through a newly developing area of the City. This project will create a pedestrian friendly roadway through a mixed use center that will function as the town center and connect to Veterans Parkway. Non-Exempt Millington 0.74 miles NA Yes NA Yes No 20 STBG-M SR-175 (Shelby Drive) Jasper Park to Shelby Post Road STBG-M Shelby Drive Sycamore Road to US STBG-M US-72/SR-57 (Poplar Avenue) I-240 off ramp to Yates STBG-M Union Avenue (US-79) Flicker to Cleveland STBG-M Poplar Avenue Bellevue to Front STBG-M NA Raleigh Millington Road at SR-385 Intersection Improvements Raleigh Millington Road at SR-385 NA Widen from 2 to 6 lanes (divided). Project scope will include designated bicycle facilities and ADA accessible pedestrian improvements. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided). Project scope will include designated bicycle facilities, ADA accessible pedestrian improvements, and drainage improvements. Add WB lane. Project scope will include traffic signal modernization, transit and pedestrian improvements, and safety enhancements. Reduce Union Avenue from 6 lanes to 5 lanes and include; bicycle lanes, permitted/protected left turns at signalized intersections, transit and pedestrian improvements, and access management. Reduce Poplar from 6/7 lanes to 5 lanes, and include; bicycle lanes, traffic signal modernization, transit and pedestrian improvements, and access management. The project improves the intersection of Raleigh Millington Road at SR-385 by extending the southbound left turn lane by shifting the southbound thru lanes to the west to create the extended left turn lane. Non-Exempt Collierville 0.96 miles Urban Minor Arterial Non-Exempt Collierville 1.3 miles Urban Collector Urban Non-Exempt Memphis 0.31 miles Principal Arterial Urban Non-Exempt Memphis 2.5 miles Principal Arterial Urban Non-Exempt Memphis 1.8 miles Principal Arterial Exempt Millington 0.80 miles 26 STBG-M Hacks Cross Road Stateline Road to SR-175 (Shelby Drive) 2025 Widen from 2 to 7 lanes. Non-Exempt Shelby County 1.78 miles 27 STBG-M & 61 Shelby Drive Paul Lowry Road to Weaver Road STBG-M NA Transfer Centers and Super Stops Various NA Paul Lowry Road to Sewanee Road will be a new 4 lane road (divided) with grade separation at the railroad crossing. The section from Sewanee Road to Weaver Road will be widened from 2 to 4 lanes with grade separation at the railroad crossing. MATA plans to implement a system of transfer centers in various locations throughout MATA's service area. Bus routes in each area will be adjusted to serve the centers, and schedules will be adjusted to minimize waiting time for transfers. The Transfer Center Program may be funded with a comination of Section 5307, Section 5339, STBG and possibly CMAQ funds or other federal flex funds. Transfer centers typically consist of a small off-street passenger waiting area and bus berthing area. Non-Exempt Urban Minor Arterial Urban Minor Arterial Port Urban Minor Commission/M 3.59 miles Arterial emphis Yes 3,300 Yes No Yes 2,155 Yes No Yes 43,648 Yes No Yes 31,561 Yes No Yes 23,287 Yes No No 13,160 No No Yes 22,000 Yes No Yes 10,000 Yes No Exempt MATA NA NA NA NA NA No 29 STBG-M NA Fixed Route Vehicles Various NA 30 STP-L NA Oakland Transportation Master Plan NA NA This project provides funding for the purchase of up to 6 fixed route vehicles between FY 2017 and FY 2019 using STBG funds. These vehicles generally have a service life of 12 years or 500,000 miles, whichever comes first, and will replace up to 6 diesel buses that have met their useful service life. All vehicles will be replaced in accordance with FTA's currently rolling stock policy. This project will consist of a broad study of the transportation system for the Town of Oakland. The intent of the study is to make recommendations on how to create a more complete multimodal transportation system for the Town of Oakland. Exempt MATA NA NA NA NA NA No Exempt Oakland NA NA NA NA NA No

112 # TIP Number RTP Number Project Name Termini 31 STP-M NA Resurfacing Grouping Various NA 32 STP-M NA Bike and Pedestrian Grouping Various 33 STP-M NA Signalization Grouping Various NA 34 STP-M NA Bridge Grouping Various NA 35 DEMO NA 36 ENH NA Cobblestone Landing Railroad Pedestrian Improvements I-40 / Riverside Drive Gateway Enhancements Court Ave, Monroe Ave, and Union Ave Railroad Crossings Riverside Drive from I-40, Tennessee Exit 1A ramp to Jefferson Ave Horizon Year NA NA NA Local TN Projects Continued Project Description Status Lead Agency Length Func Class This grouping will be used to fund road resurfacing and other preventative maintenance throughout the Tennessee portion of the Memphis MPO area. This grouping will be used to fund for Greenways, Sidewalks, Bicycle Facilities and Amenities, Streetscaping etc. throughout the Tennessee portion of the Memphis MPO area. This grouping will be used to fund for Upgrade, Replace, Improve Traffic Signals and Signal Systems throughout the Tennessee portion of the Memphis MPO area. This grouping will be used to fund bridge replacement, rehabilitation, preservation, systematic repairs & Seismic retrofit projects throughout the Tennessee portion of the Memphis MPO area. Railroad safety improvements to Court Ave, Monroe Ave, and Union Ave. Project also includes ADA upgrades for pedestrians, signage, pedestrian signals, and crossing surfaces. The landscaping enhancements planned for the I-40 and Riverside Drive gateway consist of tree plantings and ground cover for three sections of the exit area. Trees will be planted along a median strip primarily visible by traffic entering Downtown from westbound I-40. Another cluster of trees and ground cover will be planted in an exit area median strip that is visible to traffic exiting from both I-40 eastbound and westbound lanes. In addition, landscaping will be replaced adjacent to the Tennessee Visitors Center. A welcome entry sign will be installed at the bottom of the Exit 1A ramp. Can it be modeled? ADT Regionally Significant RTP Amendment Needed Exempt Various NA NA NA NA NA No Exempt Various NA NA NA NA NA No Exempt Various NA NA NA NA NA No Exempt Various NA NA NA NA NA No Exempt Memphis NA NA NA NA No No Exempt Memphis 0.3 miles NA NA NA No No 37 ENH Elvis Presley Blvd Shelby Drive to Brooks Road 2020 Construct a six lane heavily landscaped roadway adjacent to Graceland, which includes median, wide outside lanes for bikes and a bus stop turn-out lane. From Craft to Winchester widen from four to six lanes with a median. The other two segments will have the same existing laneage, but the entire project will have improved ped/bike/bus stop and landscaping. Non-Exempt Memphis/ TDOT 2.85 miles Urban Principal Arterial Yes 25,373 Yes No 38 ENH NA 39 ENH NA Collierville Center Connect -Center Street from South Rowlett Street to South Phase I & II Street & from Keough Road to Starlight Drive Wolf River Greenway - Phase 4 NA Streetscape and Pedestrian Improvements. Exempt Collierville 0.55 miles NA NA NA No No McLean Avenue to Hollywood Street NA 1.1 mile segment of 10' asphalt trail for multi-purpose use. Exempt Memphis 1.1 miles NA NA NA No No 40 ENH NA Walker Avenue Streetscape Phase 2 Brister Steet to Patterson Street NA Modification of existing roadway to accommodate new streetscape including new curb and gutter, sidewalks, landscaping, lighting, and bike lanes. Exempt Memphis 0.15 miles NA NA NA No No 41 FBD NA Beale Street Landing Water Taxi and Dock Connections 42 FLAP NA Naval Facility Connector 43 HPP NA Biomedical Planning District Riverside Drive and Beale Street Astoria Avenue (South of Navy Road to Hornet Avenue) 44 TAP NA Transportation Alternatives Various NA 45 TCSP Donelson Farms Parkway From SR-385 (Future I269) to Airline Road 2025 NA NA NA NA Design and construction of water taxi service for the Wolf River Harbor, to include design and construction of docking connections and the purchase of water taxis. This project will make improvements to a 0.5 mile section of Astoria Avenue by reconstructing the existing two-lane roadway to improve the existing pavement conditions, the horizontal and vertical geometry, and to provide access for bicycles and pedestrians. A regional detention basin, west of the project and south of Dakar Street will be constructed for all parcels. Reconstruction of sidewalks and curbs and streetscape improvements along roadways in this district This grouping will be used to fund the Transportation Alternatives Program, which provides funding for programs and projects defined as transportation alternatives, including on- and off-road pedestrian and bicycle facilities, infrastructure projects for improving non-driver access to public transportation and enhanced mobility, community improvement activities, and environmental mitigation; recreational trail program projects; and projects for the planning, design or construction of boulevards and other roadways largely in the right-of-way of former Interstate System routes or other divided highways under the FAST Act throughout the Tennessee portion of the Memphis MPO area. This project consists of the design and construction of approximately 2,400 linear feet of 2-lanes of the Donelson Farms Parkway. The ultimate roadway is intended to be a 4-lane urban collector with a median, bike and pedestrian facilities. Exempt Memphis NA NA NA NA No No Exempt Millington 0.5 miles NA NA NA No No Exempt Memphis NA NA No NA No No Exempt Various NA NA NA NA NA No Non-Exempt Arlington 0.5 miles Urban Collector Yes Future Yes No

113 # TIP Number RTP Number Project Name Termini Horizon Year 1 MS-LSTP Getwell Road Star Landing Road to Church Road MS-LSTP Nail Road Extension Elmore Road to Swinnea Road 2020 Local MS Projects Project Description Widen existing variable width road to a four-lane divided typical section with curbs and storm drains. A 10' wide multi-use Bike-Ped lane will be provided. Extend Nail Road from Elmore Road to Landau Drive to a 5-lane typical section with bicycle lanes on each side. Widen the section from Landau Drive to Swinnea Road from 2 to 5 lanes with bicycle lanes. Lead Agency Status Length Func Class Non-Exempt Southaven 4.0 miles Urban Principal Arterial Can it be modeled? ADT Regionally Significant RTP Amendment Needed Yes 10,550 Yes No Non-Exempt Southaven 0.51 miles NA Yes 6,500 Yes No 3 MS-LSTP Commerce Street Extension (SR-304) Commerce Street to Jaybird Road 2020 New 2-lane road, with roadbed for future expansion to a 4-lane divided. Non-Exempt DeSoto County 0.5 miles NA Yes Future Yes No 4 MS-LSTP NA Stateline Road Bridge Stateline Road (east of Highway 178) NA Replacement of existing structurally deficient bridge by replacing the timber supports with a new concrete box culvert. Exempt Olive Branch NA Urban Minor Arterial NA NA No No 5 MS-LSTP NA Stateline Road Pedestrian Project Highway 51 to Northwest Drive and Northwest Drive to Municipal Center NA Install sidewalks (5' wide) on both sides of Stateline Road from Highway 51 to Northwest Drive and Northwest Drive to library/police dept/city hall. Exempt Southaven 1.5 miles NA No NA No No 6 MS-LSTBG McIngvale Road Green T Road to Byhalia Road 2035 Widen from 2 to 5 lanes with the realignment of McIngvale Rd with I-269 Intersection. Project scope will include designated bicycle facilities and ADA accessible pedestrian improvements. Non-Exempt Hernando 1.1 miles NA Yes 7,200 Yes No 7 NA 195 Pleasant Hill Road Church Road to Nail Road 2025 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided). Non-Exempt Olive Branch 1.0 miles Urban Minor Arterial Yes 2,500 Yes No 8 MS-LSTP NA Resurfacing Grouping Various NA This grouping will be used to fund road resurfacing and other preventative maintenance throughout the Mississippi portion of the Memphis MPO area. Exempt Various NA NA NA NA NA No 9 MS-LSTP NA Signalization Grouping Various NA This grouping will be used to fund for Upgrade, Replace, Improve Traffic Signals and Signal Systems throughout the Mississippi portion of the Memphis MPO area. Exempt Various NA NA NA NA NA No 10 MS-LSTBG NA Bike and Pedestrian Grouping Various NA This grouping will be used to fund Greenways, Sidewalks, Bicycle Facilities and Amenities, Streetscaping etc. throughout the Mississippi portion of the Memphis MPO area. Exempt Various NA NA NA NA NA No 11 MS-TAP NA Transportation Alternatives Various NA # TIP Number RTP Number 1 CMAQ NA 2 CMAQ NA Project Name Congestion Management Program Diesel Emission Reduction Strategies Grouping Various Locations Termini Horizon Year NA This grouping will be used to fund the Transportation Alternatives Program, which provides funding for programs and projects defined as transportation alternatives, including on- and off-road pedestrian and bicycle facilities, infrastructure projects for improving non-driver access to public transportation and enhanced mobility, community improvement activities, and environmental mitigation; recreational trail program projects; and projects for the planning, design or construction of boulevards and other roadways largely in the right-of-way of former Interstate System routes or other divided highways under the FAST Act throughout the Mississippi portion of the Memphis MPO area. Local CMAQ Projects Project Description This project is the continuation of a very effective program to provide improvements to intersections throughout Shelby County, including the installation of coordinated signal systems, vehicle detection improvements, isolated signal improvements, and isolated unsignalized intersection improvements in accordance with the approved Shelby County Congestion Management Program. Exempt Various NA NA NA NA NA No Lead Agency Status Length Func Class Can it be modeled? ADT Regionally Significant Exempt Shelby County NA NA NA NA NA No Various Locations NA Projects to reduce diesel emissions. Exempt Shelby County NA NA NA NA NA No RTP Amendment Needed

114 # TIP Number RTP Number 3 CMAQ NA 4 CMAQ NA 5 CMAQ NA 6 CMAQ NA 7 CMAQ NA 8 CMAQ NA 9 CMAQ NA 10 CMAQ NA Project Name Termini Horizon Project Description Lead Agency Status Length Func Class Year Traffic Signal Equipment Replacement I-40 Corridor/Shelby Farms Transit Service Improvements TDOT HELP Truck Program Expansion Commute Options Travel Demand Management Initiative Central Station Phase 2 Redevelopment Memphis Area Rideshare Program Shelby Farms Greenline: Cordova Station to Lenow New Transit Service/Operating Assistance Walnut Grove from I-240 to City Limits Various Locations NA NA Main Street and G.E. Patterson NA NA NA NA NA NA NA B Street to Lenow Road NA NA NA Local CMAQ Projects Continued This project provides for improvements to the Walnut Grove Road corridor by upgrading obsolete signal equipment with new ITS technologies enabling interconnected operation of traffic signals within the project limits. MATA plans to provide transit service on three new routes and to two new park and ride locations under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program. The three routes include the I-40 Corridor Circulator, the Route 34 Express and the Shelby Farms Circulator. The two new park and ride lots will serve the Route 53 Express-Greenline and the Route 34 Express- Agricenter. To expand the existing TDOT Freeway Service Patrol Program by acquiring six new HELP trucks, adding six operators and adding/ expanding routes to provide coverage and services during peak hours in the Memphis-Shelby County area. Develop employer program to reduce drive-alone commuting and increase use of transit, bicycling, rideshare and walking among employees and students. Develop marketing and outreach tools, pilot strategies with six employers during grant period, and establish replicable program for ongoing use. Funding for the public infrastructure improvements at Central Station to improve the multimodal functionality of the project and increase the utilization of transit, biking, and walking as alternative modes of transportation. Major components will include a new trolley station, transit connector concourse, and other pedestrian and bike-friendly streetscape improvements. This project will provide funds to continue the Memphis Area Rideshare Program (vanpooling and carpooling). Extend the Shelby Farms Greenline from the old Cordova Train Station to the TVA Substation on Lenow Road along an inactive CSX Railroad right-of-way. The proposed improvements will convert the railbed to an asphalt bicycle/pedestrian trail approximately 2.5 miles in length. New Transit Service for four proposed routes that will expand bus service to employment centers in the Memphis area. The four routes include (1) Wolfchase Connector, (2) Airways Transit Center, (3) Getwell Connector, (4) Airport Shuttle Express. Can it be modeled? ADT Regionally Significant Exempt Memphis NA NA NA NA NA No Exempt MATA NA NA NA NA NA No Exempt TDOT NA NA NA NA NA No Exempt Memphis Innovate NA NA NA NA NA No Exempt MATA NA NA NA NA NA No Exempt Shelby County Health Dept NA NA NA NA NA No Exempt Shelby County NA NA NA NA NA No Exempt MATA NA NA NA NA NA No 11 CMAQ NA Electric Rail Trolleys NA NA Purchase of three new electric rail trolleys for MATA's trolley system. Exempt MATA NA NA NA NA NA No Transit Projects RTP Amendment Needed # TIP Number RTP Number Project Name Termini Horizon Year Project Description Status Lead Agency Length Func Class Can it be modeled? ADT Regionally Significant RTP Amendment Needed NA ADA Paratransit Services NA NA MATA is permitted to use up to 10% of their annual apportionment under Section 5307 to cover operating expenses for its demand-response service known as MATAPlus. Exempt MATA NA NA NA NA NA No NA Advanced Public Transportation Systems NA NA Advanced Public Transportation Systems apply advanced technologies to address public transportation needs. These systems may include, communication systems, fare collection systems, security systems, mobility management software, project administration, and other management systems. Exempt MATA NA NA NA NA NA No NA Bus Facility Improvements NA NA Includes various routine improvements to bus-related facilities, such as construction and repairs to maintenance, operations and passenger facilities. Typical items include roof repairs, equipment repairs, painting, security elements, HVAC modifications, paving etc. Exempt MATA NA NA NA NA NA No

115 Transit Projects Continued # TIP Number RTP Number Project Name Termini Horizon Year Project Description Status Lead Agency Length Func Class Can it be modeled? ADT Regionally Significant RTP Amendment Needed NA Computer Hardware and Software NA NA These systems are used to maintain accurate records and keep various department tasks such as finance, purchasing, scheduling, transportation, maintenance, grants, planning, marketing,and human resources operational. Exempt MATA NA NA NA NA NA No NA Fixed Route Vehicles NA NA NA Paratransit Vehicles NA NA NA Preventive Maintenance NA NA This project provides funding for the purchase of up to 12 fixed route vehicles between FY 2017 and FY 2020 using Section 5307 funds. These vehicles generally have a service life of 12 years or 500,000 miles, whichever comes first, and will replace up to 12 diesel buses that have met their useful service life. All vehicles will be replaced in accordance with FTA's currently rolling stock policy. This project provides funding for the purchase of paratransit vehicles between FY 2017 and FY 2020 using Section 5307 funds as follows: up to 14 in FY 2017; up to 14 in FY 2018; up to 14 in FY 2019 and up to 14 in FY These vehicles will replace up to 56 diesel paratransit vehicles that have met their useful service life. All vehicles will be replaced in accordance with FTA's currently rolling stock policy. Preventive Maintenance provides funds for materials and supplies, inspections and routine maintenance needed to maximize the efficiency and service life of MATA's capital assets, including fixed-route and demandresponse bus fleet, rail fleets, service vehicles, infrastructure, and facilities. Exempt MATA NA NA NA NA NA No Exempt MATA NA NA NA NA NA No Exempt MATA NA NA NA NA NA No NA Transfer Centers and Super Stops NA NA MATA plans to implement a system of transfer centers in various locations throughout MATA's service area. Bus routes in each area will be adjusted to serve the centers, and schedules will be adjusted to minimize waiting time for transfers. The Transfer Center Program may be funded with a combination of Section 5307, Section 5339 and possibly CMAQ funds or other federal flex funds. Transfer centers typically consist of a small off-street passenger waiting area and bus bething area. Exempt MATA NA NA NA NA NA No NA Service Vehicles NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment Associated Transit Improvements Midtown Area Connector Alternative 11 - Union Ave and Poplar Ave Corridor Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program - Operations Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program - Capital NA NA From CBD along Union Avenue and Poplar Avenue to the intersection of Poplar Avenue and Goodlett NA NA NA NA NA NA NA This project involves periodic replacement of MATA's service vehicles between FY 2017 and FY 2020 using Section 5307 funds as follows: up to seven in FY 2017; up to seven in FY 2018; up to seven in FY 2019; and up to seven in FY The service life of these vehicles is typically four years or 100,000 miles, whichever comes first. These vehicles will replace service vehicles that have met their useful service life. Includes various purchases and replacement of MATA's capital assets such as furniture, office equipment, or site furnishings. Includes various projects designed to enhance public transportation service or use and that is physically or functionally related to transit. Eligible projects include: historic preservation, rehabilitation and operation of historic public transportation buildings, structures, and facilities intended for use in public transportation service; bus shelters; landscaping and streetscaping, including benches, trash receptacles, and street lights; pedestrian access and walkways; bicycle access or storage equipment; signage; or enhanced access for persons with disabilities to public transportation. Imlementation of a high capacity transit route along Union and Poplar Avenue, which will include new buses, traffic signal priority, enhance station locations, and super stops. This route is being advanced as the Locally Preferred Alternative (Alternative 11) resulting from the Midtown Alternatives Analysis study. MATA plans to use Section 5310 funds for eligible operating projects under the Section 5310 Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program. MATA plans to use Section 5310 funds for eligible capital projects under the Section 5310 Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program. Exempt MATA NA NA NA NA NA No Exempt MATA NA NA NA NA NA No Exempt MATA NA NA NA NA NA No Exempt MATA NA NA NA NA NA No Exempt MATA NA NA NA NA NA No Exempt MATA NA NA NA NA NA No

116 # TIP Number RTP Number Project Name Enhanced Mobility of NA Seniors and Individuals NA with Disabilities Program - Administration Enhanced Mobility of NA Seniors and Individuals NA with Disabilities Program - Operations Enhanced Mobility of NA Seniors and Individuals NA with Disabilities Program - Capital NA Preventative Maintenance - NA Rail Only Termini NA Rail Facility Improvements NA NA NA Advanced Public Transportation Systems - Rail Only NA Bus Facility Improvements NA NA NA Bus Operations and Maintenance Facility NA Fixed-Route Vehicles NA NA NA Advanced Public Transportation Systems - Bus Only NA NA NA Horizon Year NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Transit Projects Continued Project Description Status Lead Agency Length Func Class MATA plans to use Section 5310 funds for Project Administration costs associated with administering projects under the Section 5310 Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program. MDOT plans to use Section 5310 funds for eligible operating projects under the Section 5310 Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program. MDOT plans to use Section 5310 funds for eligible capital projects under the Section 5310 Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program. Preventive Maintenance provides funds for materials and supplies, inspections and routine maintenance needed to maximize the efficiency and service life of MATA's capital assets, including MATA's rail fleet, service vehicles, infrastructure and facilities. This project includes various routine improvements to rail related facilities. Such improvements include repairs to tracks, switches, crossties, the catenary system, bridges, substations, stations and the Trolley Maintenance and Storage Facility. Advanced Public Transportation Systems apply advanced technologies to address public transportation needs. These systems may include communication systems, fare collection systems, security systems, mobility management software, project administration, and other management systems. Section 5337 funds may be used for APTS for rail division only. Includes various routine improvements to bus-related facilities such as construction and repairs to maintenance, operations and passenger facilities. Typical items include roof repairs, equipment repairs, painting, security elements, HVAC modifications, paving, etc. MATA completed a feasibility study in 2012 which recommended gradual relocation of MATA's existing Bus Operations, Maintenance and Administration functions from 1370 Levee Road to another site as funding permits. The existing facility was built on a former landfill and continues to sink causing numerous problems that are expected to worsen in the future. This project provides funding for the purchase of up to 12 fixed route vehicles between FY 2017 and FY 2020 using Section 5339 funds. These vehicles generally have a service life of 12 years or 500,000 miles, whichever comes first, and will replace up to 12 diesel buses that have met their useful service life. All vehicles will be replaced in accordance with FTA's currently rolling stock policy. Advanced Public Transportation Systems apply advanced technologies to address public transportation needs. These systems may include communication systems, fare collection systems, security systems, mobility management software, project administration, and other management systems. Section 5339 funds may be used for APTS for bus division only. Can it be modeled? ADT Regionally Significant RTP Amendment Needed Exempt MATA NA NA NA NA NA No Exempt MDOT NA NA NA NA NA No Exempt MDOT NA NA NA NA NA No Exempt MATA NA NA NA NA NA No Exempt MATA NA NA NA NA NA No Exempt MATA NA NA NA NA NA No Exempt MATA NA NA NA NA NA No Exempt MATA NA NA NA NA NA No Exempt MATA NA NA NA NA NA No Exempt MATA NA NA NA NA NA No NA 26 STBG-F NA Transfer Centers and Super Stops West Memphis Transit Funding NA NA MATA plans to implement a system of transfer centers in various locations throughout MATA's service area. Bus routes in each area will be adjusted to serve the centers, and schedules will be adjusted to minimize waiting time for transfers. The Transfer Center Program may be funded with a comination of Section 5307, Section 5339 and possibly CMAQ funds or other federal flex funds. Transfer centers typically consist of a small off-street passenger waiting area and bus berthing area. Exempt MATA NA NA NA NA NA No NA NA Funding for fixed-route bus service in West Memphis, AR. Exempt MATA NA NA NA NA NA No

117 S NO TIP ID# Lead Agency County 1 TN STP TDOT Shelby STP SR 14 2 TN NHPP TDOT Fayette ACNHPP SR MS TE MDOT DeSoto TE/SRTS TE/SRTS Grouping 4 MS HSIP MDOT DeSoto HSIP Funding Source 5 STBG F MATA Shelby CMAQ S Project Name August 2016 Proposed FY TIP Amendments Memphis MPO Proposed Changes New Federal Funds Old Federal Funds Conformity Exempt Amend the TIP by adding $43,200,000 in federal funds and $10,800,000 in state funds to FY 2017 for $43,200,000 New Project Non Exempt Construction. Amend the TIP by adding $12,165,000 in ACNHPP state funds for Construction in FY No Federal Funds New Project Exempt Amend funding grouping into the FY TIP by adding $206,384 in federal funds and $51,596 in state funds to FY 2016 and $1,848,000 in federal funds and $462,000 in state funds to FY 2017 for all phases of work. Amend project into the FY TP by adding $5,400,000 in federal funds and $600,000 state funds for I 55 (SR 302 from CONST in FY 2017 for intersection improvements to Interstate Dr to Southcrest include channelization at the exit ramps onto SR 302. WB Pkwy) left turns to Interstate Drive and EB left turns to Southcrest Parkway will be required to travel through signalized intersetions from the ramps. West Memphis Transit Funding Amend the TIP by adding $100,000 in CMAQ S federal funds and $25,000 in state funds to FY 2017 to fund a fixed route bus service in West Memphis, AR. $206,384 $1,848,000 New Project Exempt $5,400,000 New Project Exempt $100,000 New Project Exempt

118 New TIP Page Funding Sources SECTION A TDOT SPONSORED PROJECTS Funding & Expenditures Fiscal Years Fiscal Year 2014 Fiscal Year 2015 Fiscal Year 2016 Fiscal Year 2017 Amended STP Federal Funds $2,400,000 $2,400,000 $2,400,000 $45,600,000 $52,800,000 STP State Funds $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $11,400,000 $13,200,000 Total STP Funds $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $57,000,000 $66,000,000 HPP Federal Funds $7,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $7,500,000 HPP State Funds $1,875,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,875,000 Total HPP Funds $9,375,000 $0 $0 $0 $9,375,000 HSIP Federal Funds $2,700,000 $5,850,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $13,950,000 HSIP State Funds $300,000 $650,000 $300,000 $300,000 $1,550,000 Total HSIP Funds $3,000,000 $6,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $15,500,000 IMD Federal Funds $940,419 $0 $0 $0 $940,419 IMD State Funds $104,491 $0 $0 $0 $104,491 Total IMD Funds $1,044,910 $0 $0 $0 $1,044,910 NHPP Federal Funds $175,250,000 $14,400,000 $24,466,700 $111,350,000 $325,466,700 NHPP State Funds $23,250,000 $3,600,000 $3,496,300 $13,150,000 $43,496,300 Total NHPP Funds $198,500,000 $18,000,000 $27,963,000 $124,500,000 $368,963,000 ACNHPP Federal Funds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ACNHPP State Funds $0 $0 $0 $12,165,000 $12,165,000 Total ACNHPP Funds $0 $0 $0 $12,165,000 $12,165,000 ACSTP State Funds $0 $0 $9,000,000 $0 $9,000,000 Total ACSTP Funds $0 $0 $9,000,000 $0 $9,000,000 Local Funds $3,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,000,000 Total Local Funds $3,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,000,000 TOTAL FUNDING $217,919,910 $27,500,000 $42,963,000 $196,665,000 $485,047,910 TOTAL EXPENDITURE $217,919,910 $27,500,000 $42,963,000 $196,665,000 $485,047,910 BALANCE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES Memphis MPO FY Transportation Improvement Program 23

119 Old TIP Page Funding Sources SECTION A TDOT SPONSORED PROJECTS Funding & Expenditures Fiscal Years Fiscal Year 2014 Fiscal Year 2015 Fiscal Year 2016 Fiscal Year 2017 Adjusted STP Federal Funds $2,400,000 $2,400,000 $2,400,000 $2,400,000 $9,600,000 STP State Funds $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $2,400,000 Total STP Funds $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $12,000,000 HPP Federal Funds $7,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $7,500,000 HPP State Funds $1,875,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,875,000 Total HPP Funds $9,375,000 $0 $0 $0 $9,375,000 HSIP Federal Funds $2,700,000 $5,850,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $13,950,000 HSIP State Funds $300,000 $650,000 $300,000 $300,000 $1,550,000 Total HSIP Funds $3,000,000 $6,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $15,500,000 IMD Federal Funds $940,419 $0 $0 $0 $940,419 IMD State Funds $104,491 $0 $0 $0 $104,491 Total IMD Funds $1,044,910 $0 $0 $0 $1,044,910 NHPP Federal Funds $175,250,000 $14,400,000 $24,466,700 $111,350,000 $325,466,700 NHPP State Funds $23,250,000 $3,600,000 $3,496,300 $13,150,000 $43,496,300 Total NHPP Funds $198,500,000 $18,000,000 $27,963,000 $124,500,000 $368,963,000 ACSTP State Funds $0 $0 $9,000,000 $0 $9,000,000 Total ACSTP Funds $0 $0 $9,000,000 $0 $9,000,000 Local Funds $3,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,000,000 Total Local Funds $3,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,000,000 TOTAL FUNDING $217,919,910 $27,500,000 $42,963,000 $130,500,000 $418,882,910 TOTAL $217,919,910 $27,500,000 $42,963,000 $130,500,000 $418,882,910 EXPENDITURE BALANCE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES Memphis MPO FY Transportation Improvement Program 23

120 New TIP Page: Amendment Number 13 Amended TIP # TN-STP TDOT PIN # Horizon Year NA Lead Agency TDOT County Shelby Length 3.7 LRTP # NA Conformity Non-Exempt Project Name SR-14 Total Cost $54,000,000 Termini/Intersection Project Description East of Old Covington Pike to SR-385 (Paul Barrett Parkway) Widen to 5 lanes on Existing Alignment Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2017 CONST STP $54,000,000 $43,200,000 $10,800,000 Remarks TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES Memphis MPO FY Transportation Improvement Program 35

121 Shelby County Air Quality Conformity Demonstration Exhibit 4 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget (MVEB) Regulations 1 Exhibit 4 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget (MVEB) Regulations Contains: Approval and Promulgation of Final Rule for Removal of Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program in Memphis and Revisions to the Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for Shelby County, Tennessee (Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 83, Friday, April 29, 2016, pages ) Final Rule for Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; TN; Redesignation of the Shelby County Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment (Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 121, Thursday, June 23, 2016, pages ) Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Tennessee: Memphis/Shelby County Area Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan for the Carbon Monoxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard (Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 206, October 25, 2006, pages )

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134