### IDEM 

### INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT W

e ProtectHoosiers and Our Environment

. 100 N. Senate Avenue • Indianapolis, IN 46204 (800) 451-6027 • (31 7) 232-8603 • www

.idem.IN.gov Michael R. Pence Gov ernor Thomas W

. Easterly C

omu1 issim1er



### Ms. Susan Hedman Regional Administrator U

.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 77 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, IL 60604-3950
Dear Ms

. Hedman: July 8, 2013

Re: MOBILE6.0 to MOVES MVEB Replacement Update to the Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8

-Hour Ozone Standard for Greene County, Indiana
The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) submits the enclosed MOBILE6

.0 to MotorVehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget (MVEB) replacement update to the maintenance plan for the 1997 8- hour ozone standard for Greene County, Indiana. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) approved the 

### Requestfor Redesignation and Maintenance Plan for Ozone Att ainmentin the 8-Hour Ozone Basic Nonatt ainment Area, for Greene County, Indiana, submitted by IDEM on September 6, 2005, with an effective date of December 29, 2005

. IDEM requests that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) process this final submittal for approval into Indiana's State Implementation Plan

. IDEM provided an opportunity for a public hearing on the MVEB replacement updateto the maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for Greene County, Indiana maintenance area if a public hearing request was received by June 5, 2013. A hearing was scheduled for June 12, 2013. IDEM did not receive a request for a public hearing, so the scheduled hearing was cancelled. However, IDEM did receive a number of public comments during the public notice process

. Documents related to the public participation process, including a summary of, and responses to; all comments are included in Appendix C ofthis submittal.
This MOBILE6

.0 to MOVES MVEB replacement update incorporates onroad emission estimates and revised MVEBs using U.S

. EPA's recently adopted MOVES model. The onroad emission estimates were calculated using the MOVES-based emission factors and data extracted from the Greene County, Indiana, area's traveldemand model.

An Equ alOpportunity Empl oyer 

# 0

AState**at~** 

### @ Recycled Paper

### Ms. Hedman Page 2
MVEBs are being revised in anticipation ofthe mandatory use of the MOVES model in future transportation conformity determinations. Preliminary use of the new model indicates that emission estimates can be considerably different than similar calculations using MOBILE6.0, which was used to create the MVEBs in the original 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan. Onroad safety margins, established through the interagency consultation process, are included for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). These onroad safety margins are allocated to onroad emission estimates in order to account for the wide array of assumptions that are factored into the calculation process. With the addition of onroad safety margins applied to mobile sources, the Greene County, Indiana, ozone maintenance area will continue to remain well below the overall safety margins for all sources. MVEBs are also constrained to ensure that total NOx and VOC emissions (i.e., all source categories) do not exceed attainment year emissions to ensure continued maintenance ofthe 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
This submittal consists of one (1) hard copy ofthe required documentation. An electronic version ofthe submittal in PDF format that is identical to the hard copy has been sent to Pamela Blakley, Chief of U.S. EPA Region 5's Control Strategies Section.
IDEM respectfully requests that U.S. EPA proceed with review ofthe MOBILE6.0 to MOVES MVEB replacement update and revised transportation conformity budgets and approval into Indiana's State Implementation Plan for the Greene County, Indiana, maintenance area under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Ifyou have any questions or need additional information, please contact Scott Deloney, Chief, Air Programs Branch, at (317) 233-5694.

KB/sad/ghf Enclosures: Sincerely,

# ~~~L**Sc.~ ~,;;**  Keith Baugues Assistant Commissioner Office ofAir Quality

Onroad Emissions MOBILE6.0 to MOVES Replacement Submittal for the Greene County, Indiana, Maintenance Area under the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard and Appendices

cc: Doug Aburano, U.S. EPA Region 5 (w/ enclosures) Steve Rosenthal, U.S. EPA Region 5 (no enclosures) Ed Doty, U.S. EPA Region 5 (w/ enclosures) Pam Blakley, U.S. EPA Region 5 (no enclosures) Anthony Maietta, U.S. EPA Region 5 (no enclosures) Steve Smith, INDOT (w/ enclosures) William 

### A. Boyd (w/ enclosures) Jess 

### A. Gwinn (w/ enclosures)

### Ms. Hedman Page 3
Tim Maloney, Hoosier Environmental Council (w/ enclosures) Keith Baugues, IDEM (no enclosures) Scott Deloney, IDEM (no enclosures) Gale Ferris, IDEM (w/ enclosures) Shawn Seals, IDEM (w/ enclosures)

# Onroad Emissions MOBILE6.0 to MOVES Replacement Submittal

Forthe Greene County, Indiana, Maintenance Areaunderthe 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard

July 2013
Final

### This page intentionally left blank

### Introduction
On September 6, 2005, the IndianaDepartment ofEnvironmental Management (IDEM) submitted a Request for Redesignation andMaintenance Planfor OzoneAttainment in the 8-Hour Ozone Basic NonallainmentArea, 

### for Greene County, Indiana The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) subsequently approved the Indianaredesignation ofGreene County, Indiana, to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard onNovember 14, 2005 (70 FR 69085), with an effective date ofDecember 29, 2005. Omoad emissions for the September 6, 2005, submittal were calculated using MOBILE6.0. U.S. EPA has encouraged mobile source stakeholders to transition to the new Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) model as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, IDEM is providing this MOBILE6.0 to MOVES replacement update to the previously submitted 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Greene County, Indiana, ozone maintenance areathat incorporates MOVES-based omoad emissions.


### Emission Inventory

Table 4.1 titled, "Greene County Basic Nonattainment Area 2002 Baseline and Projected 2010 and 2015 Emissions Inventory" was included in Appendix C ofthe original Redesignation Petition and Maintenance Plan. Table 4.1 -A (to be considered a replacement ofthe table included in Appendix C) 

### has beenrevised to incorporate updated omoad emission estimates for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for the years 2002,2010, and 2015; itresults in a different overall safety margin for the area.


### Table 4.1 Greene County Basic Nonattainment Area 2002 Baseline and Projected 2010 and 2015 Emissions Inventory (MOBILE6.0-based Onroad Emissions)* (Tons perDay) . .

. 

### Sector 2002 NO, 2010NO, . 

### 2015NO; .



### Area 0.25 0.27 0.27 Non-road 1.61 1.37 1.22

Omoad JA-l. 

### 2M +.4+)



### Point 0.68 0.46 0.47 

### Total So% 

### 4.!9 

### 3.3b Sector

. 

### 2002VOC 2010VOC .· 2015VOC

Area 3.73 4.33 4.74 Non-road 1.43 1.14 0.94

Omoad**~** 

### -h8+**~**



### Point 0.51 0.59 0.64 

### Total 8.4! 'l-.8+ 

### 1.65 *Stnkeouts represent MOBILE6.0-based onroad em1sswn values bemgreplaced With MOVES-based values.



### 1

### Table 4.1-A Greene County BasicNonattainmentArea 2002 Baseline and Projected 2010 and2015 Emissions Inventory (MOVES-based Onroad Emissions) (Tons perDay) Sector 2002 NOx 2010NOx 2015 NOx

Area 0.25 0.27 0.27 Non-road 1.61 1.37 1.22

Onroad 4

.50 2.55 2

.0 1

Point 0.68 0.46 0.47 Total 7.04 4

.65 3.97 Overall Safety N/A N/A 3.07 Margin Sector 2002

# voc 2010

# voc 2015

# voc

Area 3.73 4.33 4

.74 Non-road 1.43 1.14 0.94

Onroad 1.92 1.1 6 0.78

Point 0.51 0.59 0.64 Total 7.59 7.22 7.10 Overall Safety N/A N/A 0.49 Margin
Onroad emission estimates in Table 4

.1-Awere calculated usingU.S. EPA's MOVES modelproduced emission factors and dataextractedfrom the area's travel-demand model. The MOVES model implements a significantly different approachto emissions estimation than the previous model (MOBILE6

.0)

. Preliminary use ofthe MOVES model indicatesthatemission estimates can be considerably differentthan similarcalculations using MOBILE6.0, which was used to createtheoriginal MVEBs forthe Greene County, Indiana, 1997 8-hourozone nonattainment area. A general summary ofthe MOVES methodology used in this area canbe found in Appendix A. Inaddition, MOVES input andoutput files are being provided electronically with this submittal. Growth and control strategy assumptions for non-mobile sources (i

.e. area, nonroad, and point) from the original submittal for the years 2002, 2010, and 2015 weredeveloped beforethe economic challenges ofthe last several years. Because ofthis, thefactors included inthe original submittal may projectmore growth than will actually occurin the future. As a result, the growth and control strategy assumptions for the non-mobile sources for the years 2002, 2010, and 2015 continue to be valid and do not affectthe overall conclusions ofthe plan.
Onroad safetymargins have been included for onroad emission estimatesto accommodatethe wide array ofassumptions thatare factored intothe calculationprocess. Since assumptions change overtime, itis necessary to have anonroad safetymarginthat will accommodatethe impactofrefined assumptions in theprocess
. Theplan continues to meet all applicable Clean AirAct (CAA) requirements as the revised emissioninventories clearly illustrate that total NOx and VOC emissions in the Greene County, Indiana, 1997 8-hourozone maintenance area will

2

### continue to decline leading to local reductions between 2002 (base year) and 2015 (maintenance plan horizon budget year). 

### Transpm·tation Conformity Budgets
Table 5.1 titled, "EmissionEstimations for On-Road Mobile Sources" was included onPage 17 of the original Redesignation Petitionand MaintenancePlanforthe Greene County, Indiana, 1997 8- hour ozonemaintenance area. Table 5.1- A (to be considered a replacementofTable 5.1) has beenrevisedto incorporate U.S. EPA'sMOVES model-producedemission factors and data extracted from the region'stravel-demandmodel.

VMT VOC (tons/day) NOx (tons/day) 

### Table 5.1 Emission Estimations for On-Road Mobile Sources (MOBILE6.0-based Onroad Emissions)*

2002 2010 2015 1,292,263 1,580,904 1,763,636**~** 

### -h&+**~ ~** **~** +.-4-Q 

### 2015 Margin of Safety

10% 10% *Stnkeouts represent MOBILE6.0-based onroad em1ss1on values bemgreplaced with MOVES-based values.


### Table5.1-A Emission Estimations for Onroad Mobile Sources (MOVES-based Onroad Emissions)
2002 2010 VOC (tons/day) 1.92 1.16 NOx (tons/day) 4.50 2

.55 

### 2015 0.78 2.0 1

Table 5.2 titled, "MobileVehicle Emission Budgets" was also included on Page 17 ofthe original RedesignationPetition and Maintenance Plan for the Greene County, Indiana, 1997 8-hourozone maintenance area. Table 5.2- A (to be considered a replacement ofTable 5.2) has been revised to incorporate MVEBs calculated usingU.S. EPA'sMOVES model-produced emission factors and dataextracted from thearea's travel-demandmodel as detailedinTable 5.1



### - A.

3

### Table 5.2 MobileVehicle Emission Budgets (MOBILE6.0-based Onroad Emissions)*
2015 tons/day 

# voc

*Strikeoutsrepresent MOBILE6.0-based onroad emission values beingreplaced with MOVES

-based values.


### Table 5.2 

### -A MobileVehicle Emission Budgets (MOVES-based Onroad Emissions)
2015 VOC (tons/day) 0.90 NOx (tons/day) 2.31
Throughthe interagency consultationprocess, it was determined that a maintenanceplanhorizon year budgetof2015, would be appropriate. Theinteragency consultation group approved onroad margins ofsafety offifteen percent (15%) for both VOC and NOx onroad emission estimates for the year2015. A summary ofthis interagency consultationdiscussion canbefound inAppendix B. Theserevised emissioninventories clearly illustrate that onroadVOC and NOx emissions in the Greene County, Indiana, 1997 8-hour ozonemaintenance areawill continue to decline leadingto local reductions between2002 (base year) and 2015 (maintenanceplanhorizon budgetyear).
Furthetmore, when comparedto the overall safetymargin as defined in the Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) at40 CFR93.101, it is evidenttheonroad safetymargin allocation is reasonable and appropriate. More specifically, evenwiththe allocation ofanonroad safety margin to mobile sources, emissionswill continue to remain well belowthe overall safety margin for all sources as detailed inTable 4.1 

### -A. MVEBs are constrained to ensurethatthetotal emissions (i.e., all source categories) do notexceedthe 2002 attainment year emissions ofeither VOC or NOx, thereby ensuringcontinuedmaintenance ofthe 1997 8-hour ozone standard.


### Conclusion
This MOBILE6.0 to MOVES replacementupdateto thepreviously submitted

### Requestfor Redesi gnation andMaintenance Plan for OzoneAttainmentin the 8-J-lour OzoneBasic NonattainmentArea, for Greene County, Indiana incorporates omoad emission estimates and a revised MVEB using U.S. EPA's recently adopted MOVES model. MVEBshave been revised in anticipation ofthe mandatory use ofthe MOVES model infuture transpmtationconformity determinations

. The onroad emission estimateswere calculatedusingthe MOVES-based emission factors anddataextracted from the area's tra vel-demand model. Onroad safety margins for VOCs and NOx, established throughthe interagency consultationprocess, are included in order to account

4

### for the wide anay ofassumptions that are factored into the calculationprocess. MVEBs are also constrained to ensure thattotal VOC and NOx emissions (i.e., all source categories) do not exceed attainment year (2002) emissions to ensure continued maintenance ofthe 1997 8-hour ozone standard. With the addition ofMOVES-based onroad safety margins applied to mobile sources, the Greene County, Indiana, ozone maintenance area will continue to remain well belowthe overall safety margins for all sources into the future. As such, the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for Greene County, Indiana, continues to meet all applicable CAArequirements.



### 5

# Appendix A

Greene County, Indiana, Maintenance Area MOVES Methodology

### This page left intentionally blank

# Greene County MOVES2010a Input Data and Parameters
INDOT Planning Contract


# Final Report October 4, 2012



# CDMih Sm1Table of Contents Overview

.............................................................................................................................. 1 Vehicle Age Distribution

....................................................................................................... 1 Vehicle Population

................................................................................................................2 Meteorological Data

..............................................................................................................4 Default VMT Distributions

..................................................................................................... 4 Default Hourly Distributions

.................................................................................................. 5 Default Daily and Monthly Distributions

................................................................................ 6 Ramp Fractions

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

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: MOVES2010a Source Type Codes

............................................................................. 1 Table 2: MOVES2010a Road Type Codes

................................................................................ 1 Table 3: Distribution of MOBILE 6.2 Light Duty Trucks into MOVES Source Types

................... 3 Table 4: Inventory of Permanent Count Stations

....................................................................... 5

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A- MOVES201 Oa Input Settings and Assumptions Appendix B- Vehicle Age Distributions for Greene County Appendix C- Vehicle Populations for Greene County Appendix D- Meteorological Data for Greene County Appendix E- Default Statewide Factors Appendix F- Statewide Default Hourly Distribution Factors Appendix G- Statewide Default Daily Distribution Factors Appendix H- Statewide Default Monthly Distribution Factors Appendix I

- Ramp Fractions

### Overview: This report is being written to document the input parameters for a set of MOVES201Oa runs for the Greene County 8-hour Ozone Maintenance Area. This report contains a discussion on the intended input settings used in MOVES2010a and the development of the input datasets. These MOVES201Oa runs are intended to develop a default set of emission rates that can be used for conformity determination and is part of a statewide effort being conducted by the Indiana Department ofTransportation (INDOT). Throughout this report references are made to MOVES 201 Oa codes for two types of data. The values for the source type codes are shown in Table 1. The values for the road type codes are shown in Table 2. MOVES2010a input settings and assumptions for this effort are shown in Appendix A. Table 1: MOVES201Oa Source Type Codes sourcetypeid Description 11 Motorcycles 

### 21 Passenger Car 

### 31 Passenger Truck 

### 32 Light Commercial Truck 

### 41 Intercity Bus 

### 42 Transit Bus 

### 43 School Bus 

### 51 Refuse Truck 

### 52 Single Unit Short-haul Truck 

### 53 Single Unit Long-haul Truck 

### 54 Motor Home 

### 61 Combination Short-haul Truck 

### 62 Combination Long-haul Truck 

### Table 2: MOVES2010a Road Type Codes roadtypeid



### Vehicle Age Distribution: 1 2 3 4 

### 5 Description 

### Off Network Rural Restricted Access Rural Unrestricted Access Urban Restricted Access Urban Unrestricted Access



### The vehicle age distributions for MOVES source types 21, 31, and 32 (cars, passenger trucks, and light commercial vehicles respectively) were developed through an analysis of Indiana's 2009 vehicle registration data. The analysis was performed by Eastern Research Group (ERG) under contract to the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO). ERG was provided with vehicle identification numbers (VIN) for vehicles in Indiana.

### There were approximately 6.37 million VINs in the statewide data set. Out of these, approximately 1.3 million returned errors. Of these, approximately 200,000 errors were deemed non-critical. This means that the model year and vehicle type assigned to the records were most likely correct despite there being an error in the VIN decoding. These records were included in ERG's analysis. The remaining errors were considered critical enough to call into question the accuracy of the model year and vehicle types. These critical errors were excluded from ERG's analysis.
In all, approximately 5.2 million VINs from around the state were used in the analysis. Each VIN was associated to a specific county. ERG then developed age distributions for each county in the state along with seven combination areas comprised of two or more counties each. Additional information on the methodology used to develop the vehicle age distributions can be found in a May 28, 2010 report written by ERG for LADCO titled MOBILE6 and MOVES Registration Distribution Calculations for Indiana Registration Data. Each set of age distributions was provided in both MOBILE6 and MOVES formats. The MOVES formatted data will be used for these MOVES2010a runs. Due to limitations in ERG's VIN decoder, it was not possible to develop vehicle age distributions for any source types other than 21, 31, and 32 from the vehicle registration data. For all other source types, MOVES2010a default vehicle age distributions specific to each source types were used. This includes motorcycles and all heavy vehicles. Vehicle age distributions for all source types were kept constant for all future years. The vehicle age distributions for Greene County are shown in Appendix B of this report.
Vehicle Population: 

### The vehicle populations for source types 21, 31, and 32 were developed directly from the vehicle registration data. All valid records that were identified from the vehicle registration data set were used to determine the number of vehicles for each of these three source types. The VIN decoded data provided to INDOT contained vehicle types according to MOBILE6.2 vehicle categories. There is a direct correlation between MOVES source type 21 (cars) and the MOBILE6.2 vehicle type LDV. All valid LDV records (those records not excluded from the vehicle age distribution analysis due to errors as was described in the section on Vehicle Age Distribution in this report) were counted in the vehicle population.
There is not a direct correlation between MOVES source types 31 (passenger trucks) and 32 (light commercial vehicles) and the MOBILE6.2 light truck vehicle types (LDT1, LDT2, LDT3, and LDT4). All valid records from the vehicle registration data set for MOBILE6.2 light duty trucks were counted in the vehicle populations. The light duty trucks were distributed between MOVES source types 31 and 32 as per the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) guidance documented in Table A.1 of the appendix of the Technical Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for Emission lnventorv Preparation in State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity. The guidance provides two sets of factors for distributing MOBILE6.2 light trucks between MOVES source types 31 and 32. These are based on fuel type and are shown in Table 3.

2Table 3: Distribution of MOBILE6.2 Light Duty Trucks into MOVES Source Types Source Types Fuel 31 32 

### Gas 78% 22% Diesel 42% 58%
As per ERG's assumption documented in MOBILE6 and MOVES Registration Distribution Calculations for Indiana Registration Data, all light duty trucks that did not have a fuel type identified were counted as diesel trucks. This was to prevent an underestimation of diesel trucks and their related emissions. Since only valid records from the vehicle registration data were used to calculate vehicle populations for source types 21, 31, and 32, it is reasonable to assume that some of the erroneous records that were discarded from the analysis actually belonged to these source types. The nature of these errors is not that the vehicle does not exist. Rather, it is that the vehicle could not be properly identified with any sense of certainty. It was therefore necessary to adjust the vehicle populations calculated from vehicle registration data to compensate for these discarded records. Based on an analysis of the error rate reported by ERG, vehicle populations for source types 21, 31, and 32 were increased by 5.8 percent.
Vehicle populations were not able to be developed directly from the vehicle registration data for some source types. This was due to the limitations in the VIN decoder used by ERG to process the vehicle registration data. Vehicle populations for all other source types (motorcycles and heavy vehicles) were derived by applying the Mileage Accumulation Rate (MAR) method documented in EPA's Technical Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for Emission lnventorv Preparation in State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity. Section 3.3 Source Type Population.
The default MARs were ex1racted from MOVES by running MOVES for a single pollutant and a single year for all vehicles, fuels, months, days, and hours. The activity output was set to report both distance and population. A ratio of population to vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) was calculated from these outputs. The ratios were calculated for each source type. The Indiana statewide model was used to derive VMTs for the Southwest Indiana Rural Area by MOVES road. Only VMT from the model's highway network corresponding to the analysis area were analyzed. Since the default MARs in MOVES vary by year (but not by location), the MOVES run that was executed to ex1ract the MARs was run for a year consistent with the travel demand model's base year. This resulted in MARs that could be applied directly to the validated VMTs reported by the travel demand model. The travel demand model VMTs were converted into annual VMT and distributed by vehicle types using statewide default VMT distribution factors documented in this report in the section on Default VMT Distributions. The MARs were then applied to the annual vehicle type VMTs. The result was an estimated vehicle population for each source type for the travel demand model's base year. Since the vehicle populations for source types 21, 31, and 32 were developed directly from the vehicle registration data, the population estimates derived for those source types using the MAR method were discarded and the observed data were used instead.

3Future year vehicle populations were developed base on socioeconomic growth rates for the maintenance area. The MPO provided base year and horizon year population and employment data for the area. Annual growth rates were calculated for population growth and employment growth individually. Population growth rates were then used to grow the light vehicle populations (source types 11, 21, 31, and 32). Employment growth rates were used to grow the heavy vehicle populations (source types 41, 42, 43, 51, 52, 53, 54, 61, and 62). Vehicle populations were calculated for every year from 2008 to 2040. These vehicle populations for Greene County are shown in Appendix C. Meteorological Data: The default set of hourly temperatures and hourly relative humidity was developed using EPA's data converters for changing MOBILE6.2 minimum 

### I maximum temperatures and absolute humidity to the MOVES equivalent formats. The values for the MOBILE6.2 inputs were taken from the Request for Redesignation and Maintenance Plan for Ozone Attainment in the 8-hour Ozone Basic Nonattainment Area, Appendix D, developed by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management in September, 2005. The MOVES formatted meteorological data for Greene County are presented in Appendix D ofthis report.
Default VMT Distributions: As part of this effort, INDOT developed a default set of VMT distribution factors by Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) vehicle type and by MOVES road type. These distribution factors were developed by analyzing four consecutive years of continuous traffic count data ending in 2010 for twenty permanent traffic count stations throughout Indiana. The stations were selected to provide a spread of locations corresponding to each of the four MOVES road types. Furthermore, these stations were selected from among sites that were concentrated in nonattainment and maintenance areas. In some cases, data from the requested site were either partially or completely unavailable. An inventory of the sites used to develop the distributions is shown in Table 4.
The vehicle counts reported at each station were provided by vehicle class. These were aggregated into the six basic HPMS vehicle types: motorcycle, passenger car, light truck, bus, single-unit heavy truck, and combination heavy truck. The distribution of VMT by vehicle type was calculated for each road type by taking each vehicle type's percentage of total traffic. These default statewide factors are shown in Appendix E.

4SiteiD
3000 3200 3300 4000 4500 5600 6100 0105 0201 0210 0303 0327 0403 0501 0502 0507 0602 0603 0608 1315 Table 4· Inventory of Permanent Count Stations City County Location Road Data Quality Type MUNCIE DELAWARE SR 332 RM 0.5 3 Closed since 9/26/2006. No data. CARMEL HAMILTON US 31 RM 125.7 5 Good INDY WEST MARION 1465 MM 10.0 4 Closed since 9/1/10 GARY LAKE I 80 

### I I 94 MM 6.0 4 Only 2010 data passed QC LAPORTE LAPORTE SR 2 RM 65.2 3 Good SELLERSBURG CLARK 165 MM 8.0 4 Bad sensors. Not usable. EVANSVILLE GIBSON 164 MM 27.9 2 Good TERRE HAUTE VIGO US 41 RM 104.2 3 Good-closed 11/13/08- 5/13/09 MIDDLEBURY ELKHART SR 120 RM 13.9 3 Good- closed 8/3/10-12/6/10 FORT WAYNE ALLEN 1-69 0.53 mi N of 4 Good SR3 MUNCIE DELAWARE US 35 RM 44.5 5 Good DALEVILLE DELAWARE 169 MM 31.4 2 Good-built in 12/10/2007 SOUTH BEND ST. JOSEPH US 20 RM 77.1 4 Good INDY SOUTH MARION SR 37 RM 143.5 5 Good-closed 5/22/09-6/1/09 MARTINSVILLE MORGAN SR 67 RM 80.6 3 Good SEYMOUR JACKSON 165 MM 47.0 2 Good HAZLETON GIBSON SR 56 RM 0.6 3 Good DUBOIS DUBOIS SR 56 RM 53.3 3 Good- closed 10/16/08- 3/20/09 EVANSVILLE VANDERBURGH SR 66 RM 23.5 5 Good 170 MARION 170 MM 83.5 4 Closed 5/17/06-3/24/08
Default Hourly Distributions: The same set of twenty permanent traffic count locations discussed in the section on Default VMT Distributions was analyzed to develop a set of hourly distribution factors. These factors were calculated by road type, by HPMS vehicle type. Hourly factors were only calculated for the average weekday. The hourly distribution pattern for each traffic count location was reviewed. Any data that appeared to reflect either an error in the data or an outlier of behavior were removed to prevent bias in the data. The following data were excluded from the analysis:

• Bus data from count stations 0105 and 0603 were excluded due to abnormal midnight peaks in the data; • An abnormal relationship between passenger cars and light duty trucks at count station 4500 prompted the exclusion of all data from this location due to questions of reliability; • Peak spreading behavior observed at count station 4000 from traffic related to Chicago was considered to be too unique to be included in a default statewide data set; and, • Combination truck traffic from station 3200 was excluded due to too much overnight traffic when compared to other vehicles and other stations.
5

### Furthermore, traffic patterns reported by those count stations corresponding to road type 3 (3000, 4500, 0105, 0201, 0502, 0602, and 0603) had a tendency to over represent long distance travel. This was most likely the result of statewide permanent count stations focusing primarily on higher order facilities. Rural collectors and local streets are less likely to reflect long distance travel. The hourly distributions for road type 3 (rural unrestricted access) were adjusted to better account for traffic behavior on lower order facilities in rural areas. A sample of traffic count data from Morgan County, IN was used to introduce more local traffic behavior in the road type 3 hourly distributions. An analysis of the Morgan County data showed a pattern more consistent with AM and PM peaking characteristics reflecting local commuting traffic on collectors and local streets for passenger cars and light duty trucks. The Morgan County data for passenger cars and light duty trucks on collectors and local streets were weighted and added to the road type 3 data set. This analysis assumed that rural collectors and local streets accounted for 20 percent of all VMT for road type 3.
The statewide default hourly distribution factors are presented in Appendix F.
Default Daily and Monthly Distributions: 

### Default daily and monthly distribution factors were calculated from INDOT's official count adjustment factors which are more commonly used to develop AADT from raw traffic counts. These factors are based on the set of daily traffic counts collected from all permanent count stations throughout the state. The daily distribution factors determine what percentage ofVMT is occurring on weekdays and what percentage is occurring on weekends. The monthly distribution factors determine what percentage of annual VMT is occurring in each month of the year. The statewide default daily distribution factors are shown in Appendix G. The statewide default monthly distribution factors are shown in Appendix H. Ramp Fractions: 

### The ramp fractions represent the percentage of vehicle-hours-traveled (VHT) for road types 2 (rural restricted access) and 4 (urban restricted access) occurring on the ramps associated with those road types. Since ramps are not a feature coded onto the Indiana statewide model as explicit facilities, the default MOVES ramp fractions of 8% were used.

6

### Appendix A
NumberofRuns:

I Input Item Ozone

Years 2002, 2010, 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035,2040 Pollutants/ Volatile Processes Organic Compound (VOC), NOx, and supporting Meteorology Summer #of MOVES 8 runsGeneral Parameters: MOVES Input Item Screen Ozone Description Description UserChoice Scale Domain/Scale County Calculation Type Emission Rate Time Spans Time Hour Aggregation Level Year 2002, 2010, 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040 Months July Days Weekday Hours Select All Geographic Geographic Greene County Bounds Bounds Vehicles Vehicles All Gas and Diesel Combinations Road Type Road Type SelectAll Pollutants/ Pollutants/ VOC, NOx, and Processes Processes supporting General Database Name Greene Ozone Output Units Select "Grams" and "Miles" and "Million BTU" Activity Distance, Population Output On Road Select "Source Emissions Use Type" and Detail "Road Type"

### Count D t M 

# • County Data Excel Sheet Tab Manager Input Name

I Ozone

Source (Vehicle) sourceType Year Local Registration for Source Types 21 , 31 ,and Type Population 32; Estimated population using default MOVES mileage accumulation rates and local VMTfor all other source types. Future year vehicle populations based on population growth rates for source types 11, 21, 31 , and 32

. Employment growth used for all other source types

. Vehicle Type HPMSVTypeYear Statewide default vehicle distributions across VMT (by 13 road types developed by INDOT using an MOVES Vehicle analysis of permanent count station data from a Types) statewide data set. MonthVMTFraction Statewide default monthlyfractions developed by INDOT using an analysis of permanent count station data from a statewide data set. DayVMTFraction Statewide default daily fractions developed by INDOT using an analysis of permanent count station datafrom a statewide data set. HourVMTFraction Statewide default hourlyfractions developed by INDOT using an analysis of permanent count station datafrom a statewide data set. Average Speed avgSpeed National defaults

. Distribution (% Distribution ofVHT in each 5 mph speed bin) Road Type roadType Calculated from local VMT data

. Usetravel Distribution Distribution demand model base year distributions forall (VMT by 5 years prior to 2014. Usetravel demand model MOVES Road horizon year distributions for2014 and later to Types) capture new interstate freeway

. Age Distribution source TypeAge Local age distributions developed from vehicle (Vehicle Distribution registration data for source types 21, 31, and 32. Population by Default MOVES age distributions forall other Age ofVehicle) source types. Ramp Fraction RoadType Based on local travel demand model.
Meteorology ZoneMonthHour MOBILE6 Summer Met Data Converted to Data MOVES format
Fuel(% of FueiFormulation MOVES Defaults Market Share by FueiSupply Greene County MOVES Defaults for Summer Fuel Type) (check ifvaries among counties) liM Program IMCoverage No ProgramAppendix B
Vehicle Age Distributions for Greene County: SourceTypes ageid 11 21 31 32 41 42 43 51 52 53 54 61 62 0 0.2109690540 0.01,65642077 0.007_0458404 0.0197280725 0.0643023355 0.0545743076 0.0622220643 0.0494240790 0.0588526168 0.0787544027 0.0615095870 0.0535634660 0.'0670845256 1 0.1921154969 0.0426058743 0.0297113752 0.0383897627 0.0626728412 0.0531913309 0.0606452875 0.0481716155 0.0573612230 0.0767586735 0.0599508636 0.0535634660 0.0670845256 2 0.1573471585 0.0486680328 0.0299660441 0.0439882698 0.0624853S59 0.0530322328 0.0604638952 0.0480275345 0.0571896519 o:o7S5290827 0.0597715492 0.0541045093**0.0677621~47** 3 0.1359771581 0.0432035519 0.0330220713 0.0402559318 0.0624229593 0.0529792497 0.0604034894 0.0479795509 0.0571325186 0.0764526251 0.0597118340 0.0575579884 0.0720873878 4 0.1058454735 0.0455942623 0.0569609508 0.0565182618 0.0617369906 0.0523970560 0.0597397140 0.0474523026 0.0565046834 0.0756124785 0.0590556596 0.0564.182312 0.0706599203 5 0.0750909142 0.0486680328 0.0533955857 0.0621167689 0.0559170498 0.0474575929 0.0541080614 0.0429789769 0.0511779950 0.0684845018 0.0534884926 0.0489290859 0.0612802835 6 0.0476805323 0.0561816940 0.0539898132 9.0551852839 0.0468365056 0.0397508123 0.0453212873 0.0359994879 0.0428670388 0.0573630896 0.0448023279 0.0366034411 0.0458432683 7 0.0331026886 0.0544740437 0.0647707980 0.0634497467 0.0425786431 0.0361370941 0.0412011709 0.0327268079 0.0389700355 0.0521482660 0.0407293873 0.0340742206 0.0426755959 8

. 0.0197278356 0.0578893443 0.0554329372 0.0589176220 0.0468268516 0.0397426124 0.0453119367 0.0359920640 0.0428582007 0.0573512681 0.0447930981 0.0358093100 0.0448486759 9 0.0118473747 0.0683060109 0.0632427844 0.0725139963 0.0534377006 0.0453533365 0.0517089150 0.0410733035 0.0489087688 0.0654479137 0.0511168252 0.0526288382 0.0659139597 10 0.0053251777 0.0649760929 0.0578098472 0.0605171954 0.0532712252 0.0452120443 0.0515478328 0.0409453420 0.0487564067 0.0652440247 0.0509575859 0.0624520143 0.0782168041 11 0.0025378610 0.0575478142 0.0579796265 0.0514529459 0.0407951886 0.0536203440 0.0411075833 0.0313560350 0.0391491717 0.0523881239 0.0302729398 0.0478258601 0.0598985955 12 0.0013011470 0.0601092896 0.0569609508 0.0498533724 0.0331924560 0.0489936472 0.0382933197 0.0255124310 0.0294483131 0.0394065607 0.0466101866 0.0389128550' 0.0487354179 13 0.0006124019 0.0467042350 0.0413412564 0.0389229539 0.0277347637 0.0456089741 0.0333751020 0.0545980574 0.0316399801 0.0194774783 0.0291673253 0.0325145854 0.0462990441 14 0.0002476898 0.0505464481 0,0505093379 0.0421221008 0.0364294706 0.0377746681 0.0430863640 0.0632656498 0.0364439725' 0.0194691525 0.0347804437 0.0427077419 0.0462072388 15 0.0001527705 0.0396174863 0.0509337861 0.0429218875 0.0283511969 0.0332950401 0.0210164622 0.0395649332 0.0357887614 0.0311848083 0.0335202065 0.0332372597 0.0300444032 16 0.0000668536 0.0375683060**0.0353~40917** 0.03279.12557 0.0235884296 0.02Z'9132162 0.0253,671_498 0.0341566540 0.0259987277 0.0230196849 0.0233151075 .Q.0276536739 0.0230524492 17 0.0000299603 0.0313353825 0.0275891341 0.0239936017 0.0175637044 0.0244970846 0.0206833627 0.0146346390 0.0197956396 0.0052258132 0.0206748599 0.0205906442 0.0138452217 18 0.0000127409 0.0246755464 0.0233446520 0.0223940283 0.0201192241 0.0250480695 0,0266888558 0.0401958334 0.0193740288 0.0037212159 ',0.0155464816 0.0235865809 O.Q1 00066460 19 0.0000055369 0.0218579235 0.0209677419 0.0175953079 0.0225790392 0.0366610768 0.0301447753 0.0342277190 0.0227335396 0.0175775477 0.0203628520 0.0264703224 0.0098603738 20 0.0000022027 0.0169911202 0.0232597623 0.0205278592 0.0226407923 0.0281971934 0.0173882093 0.0270081845 0.0289395633 0.0183874556 0.0265944575 0.0265427135 0,0095755112 21 0.0000010015 0.0135758197 0.0219015280 0.0178619035 0.0212965445 0.0224413685 0.0209032932 0.0367430589 0.0255089927 0.0121624816 0.0238465850 0.0249667984 0.0083402541 22 0.0000005320 0.0100751366 0.0146859083 0.0133297787 0.0221366577 0.0207614938 0.0211741003 0.0294241579 0.0211707159 0.0029207200 0,0232916866 0.0259516972 0.0021970287 23 0.0000002372 0.0075136612 0.0117996604 0.0085310584 0.0187753208 0.0176845935 0.0186862600 0.0367365508 0.0255742899 0.0006595597 0.0173635700 0.0220110680 0.0022815392 24 0.0000001072 0.0063183060 0.0129032258 0.0101306318 0.0165801584 0.0153441343 0.0162223474 0.0195371739 0.0181341022 0.0013228019 0.0186391363 0.0194375881 0.0028947085 25 0.0000000515 0.0055498634 0.0080645161 0.0050653159 0.0130464803 0.0119613578 0.0125269842 0.0202862884 0.0101534224 0.0013255722 0.0189070434 0.0152949162 0.0014963357 26 0.0000000201 0.0025614754 0.0056876061 0.00559S5071 0.0052066606 0.0114707358 0.0046276161 0.0058785937 0.0158244798 0.0000000000 0.0123859355 0.0061039775 0.0003051544 27 0.0000000084 0.0016222678 0.0038200340 0.0031991469 0.0044375500 0.0062552616 0.0034269422 0.0066192300 0.0082431519 0.0005S53113 0.0073123264 0.0052023202 0.0002365920 28 0.0000000046 0.0016222678 0.0031409168 0.0034657425 0.0038534093 0.0027153367 0.0040227141 0.0058648852 0.0078447522 0.0004224309 ,0.0040199156 0.0045175071 0.0007539156 29 0.0000000027 0.0017930328 0.0013582343 0.0013329779 0.0050202650 0.0073813428 0.0039557847 0.0014702211 0.0082910352 0.0000000000 0.0005297244 0.0058854602 0.0002483418 30 0.0000000060 0.0152834699 0.0230899830 0.0173287123 0.0041641999 0.0025473919 0.0046291194 0.0021486392 0.0093642209 0.0005969550 0.0069720059 0.0048818593 0.0002641374
Source: Quality assured vehicle registration data for Greene County for source types 21, 32. and 32, MOVES201 Oa default distributions for all other source types.Appendix C Greene Count Vehicle Po utations: Vehicle Populations

AnnualPopulations 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 .2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

.. 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 11

378 380 382 384 386 389 391 393 395 397 400 402 A04

.. 406 409 411 413 416 418 420 423 425 428 430 432 435 437 440 442 445 447 450 452 21
12,322 12.391

**~2,461** 12,531 12,602 12,673 12,745 12,817 12,889 12,962 13,035 13,108

**~3,182** 13,257 13,331 13,406 13,482 13,558 13,635 13,712 13,789 13,867 13,945 14,023 ,14,103 14,182 14,262 14,343 14,423 14,505 14,587 14,669 14,752 31
12,510 12,580 12,651 12,722 12,794 12,866 12,939 13,012 13,085 13,159 13_,233_ 13,308 13,383 13,459 13,534 13,611 13,688

- 13,765 13,842 13,921 13,999 14,078 14,157 14,237 1:4,318 14,398 14,480 14,561 14,643 14,726 14,809 14,893 14,9n 32
3,830 3,852 3,873 3,895 3,917 3,939 3,961 3,984 4,006 4,029 -4,052 4,074 4,097 4,121 4,144 4,167 4,191 4,214 4,238 4,262 4,286 4,310 4,335 4,359 4,384 4,408 4,433 4,458 4,483 4,509 4,534 4,560 4,585 41

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 42

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 .3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 .3 3 4 4 4 SourceTypes 43 51

32 4 33 4 33 4 33 4 34 4 34 4 34 4 35 4 35 4 35 4 36 4 36 4 37 4. 37 4 37 .4 38 38. 38 39 39 40 40 40 41 41 42 42 43 43 43 44 44 45 4

- ..4

4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 52

210 212 214 216 218 220 223 225 227 230 232 234 237 239 242 244 247 249 252 254 257 259 262 265 267 270 273 276 278 281 284 287 290 53

23 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 26 26 26 26 27 27 27 27 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 30 30 30 31 31 31 54

48 48 49 49 50 50 51 51 52 52 53 53 54. 54 55 55 56 57 57 58 58 59 59 60 61 61 62 63 63 64 65 85 66 61

283 266 269 271 274 277 280 283 286 289

..292

294 297 301 304. 307 310 313 316 319 323 326 329 333 336 339 343 346 350 354 357 361 364 62

284 287 290 292 295 298 302 305 308 311 314 317 320 324 .327 330 334 337 341 344 348 351 355 358 362 366 369 373 377 381 385 389 393
Source: Quality assured vehicle registration data for Greene Countyfor source types 21, 32, and 32, MOVES201 Oa default mileage accumulation rates for all othersource types. Population growt11 factors are taken from local socioeconomic data forecasts.Appendix D Greene 

### C t 

### M t


### . I 0 t oumy e eoroomca 

### a a: monthiD zoneiD HouriD temperature reiHumidity 7 180550 1 69.6 87.8 7 180550 2 68.4 91.7 7 180550 3 67.4 94.8 7 180550 4 66.7 97.2 7 180550 5 66.2 99.0 7 180550 6 65.5 100.0 7 180550 7 65.0 100.0 7 180550 8 65.4 100.0 7 180550 9 68.1 92.5 7 180550 10 72.4 80.0 7 180550 11 76.7 69.2 7 180550 12 80.4 61.2 7 180550 13 83.7 55.0 7 180550 14 85.5 51.9 7 180550 15 86.1 50.9 7 180550 16 86.3 50.6 7 180550 17 85.9 51.3 7 180550 18 84.6 53.4 7 180550 19 82.5 57.2 7 180550 20 79.7 62.6 7 180550 21 77.0 68.5 7 180550 22 74.6 74.2 7 180550 23 72.9 78.6 7 180550 24 71.2 83.2
Source: Mobile 6.2 reported meteorological data from Appendix D of the Request for Redesignation and Maintenance Plan for Ozone Attainmentin the 8-Hour Ozone Basic NonattainmentArea, Greene County, Indiana prepared by IDEM on September, 2005 converted using EPA data converter.Appendix E
Indiana Default VMTDistributions by Vehicle Type and Road Type:

Road Light Duty Single Unit Combination Type Motorcycle Passenger Car Truck Bus Truck Truck 2 0.007033832 0.506408086 0.163786651 0.004174166 0.007773053 0.310824213 3 0.001733929 0.659751199 0.225767175 0.000793168 0.010963315 0.100991214 4 0.003973041 0.569953374 0.254198647 0.002831718 0.009082816 0.159960404 5 0.002785022 0.702754695 0.245240087 0.001402085 0.009764356 0.038053756
Source: Statewide averages developed from Indiana Department ofTransportation traffic count data.Appendix F Indiana DefaultHourlyDistribution Factors forRoad Type 2- Rural RestrictedAccess: Source Types Hour 11 21 31 32 41 42 43 51 52 53 54 61 62 1 0.0125903247 0.0101219844 0.0084967341 0.0084967341 0.0254913340 0.0254913340 0.0254913340 0.0126607789 0.0126607789 0.0126607789 0.0126607789 0.0197906895 0.0197906895 2 0.0104070951 0.0069241973 0.0066421955 0.0066421955 0.0269500431 0.0269500431 0.0269500431 0.0114617645 0.0114617645 0.0114617645 0.0114617645 0.0212124099 0.0212124099 3 0.0098043179 0.0056567534 0.0061275627 0.0061275627 0.0231103443 0.0231103443 0.0231103443 0.0107741941 0.0107741941 0.0107741941 0.0107741941 0.0201622890 0.0201622890 4 0.0140329469 0.0069658232 0.0084286563 0.0084286563 0.0234460042 0.0234460042 0.0234460042 0.0128724692 0.0128724692 0.0128724692 0.0128724692 0.0213065902 0.0213065902 5 0.0165212405 0.0100941552 0.0134026652 0.0134026652 0.0244090660 0.0244090660 0.0244090660 0.0174195788 0.0174195788 0.0174195788 0.0174195788 0.0250478552 0.0250478552 6 0.0312047458 0.0241732202 0.0316551315 0.0316551315 0.0322923692 0.0322923692 0.0322923692 0.0261005783 0.0261005783 0.0261005783 0.0261005783 0.0304976568 0.0304976568 7 0.0399082603 0.0390974746 0.0481531313 0.0481531313 0.0302344914 0.0302344914 0.0302344914 0.0420450985 0.0420450985 0.0420450985 0.0420450985 0.0339947725 0.0339947725 8 0.0482864956 0.0528758381 0.0535145983 0.0535145983 0.0386071681 0.0386071681 0.0386071681 0.0556119122 0.0556119122 0.0556119122 0.0556119122 0.0383435322 0.0383435322 9 0.0472316355 0.0493101459 0.0541442978 0.0541442978 0.0454144773 0.0454144773 0.0454144773 0.0647383083 0.0647383083 0,0647383083 0.0647383083 0.0447350945 0.0447350945 10 0.0521292001 0.0488627065 0.0570682751 0.0570682751 0.0533197396 0.0533197396 0.0533197396 0.0711110358 0.0711110358 0.0711110358 0.0711110358 0.0517738130 0.0517738130 11 0.0559204481 0.0513700269 0.0575854739 0.0575854739 0.0576707709 0.0576707709 0.0576707709 0.0730230234 0.0730230234 0.0730230234 0.0730230234 0.0557712484 0.0557712484 12 0.0572822100 0.0533048469 0.0582753930 0.0582753930 0.0549541212 0.0549541212 0.0549541212 0.0731872952 0.0731872952 0.0731872952 0.0731872952 0.0571435296 0.0571435296 13 0.0592008057 0.0551586141 0.0599414146 0.0599414146 0.0541541840 0.0541541840 0.0541541840 0.0739324454 0.0739324454 0.0739324454 0.0739324454 0.0567014536 0.0567014536 14 0.0615145144 0.0595500442 0.0635019874 0.0635019874 0.0570747392 0.0570747392 0.0570747392 0.0746488056 0.0746488056 0.0746488056 0.0746488056 0.0567500887 0.0567500887 15 0.0647783324 0.0662712693 0.0683897966 0.0683897966 0.0551925339 0.0551925339 0.0551925339 0.0704234655 0.0704234655 0.0704234655 0.0704234655 0.0578234055 0.0578234055 16 O.D713500739 0.0764876319 0.0772110428 0.0772110428 0.0551956709 0.0551956709 0.0551956709 0.0628601912 0,0628601912 0.0628601912 0.0628601912 0.0577540296 0.0577540296 17 0.0754978425 0.0847160034 0.0792545794 0.0792545794 0.0557979766 0.0557979766 0.0557979766 0.0534712990 0.0534712990 0.0534712990 0.0534712990 0.0562910814 0.0562910814 18 0.0693763461 0.0821220539 0.0693254052 0.0693254052 0.0501011685 0.0501011685 0.0501011685 0.0436895095 0.0436895095 0.0436895095 0.0436895095 0.0527021980 0.0527021980 19 0.0542187052 0.0620082513 0.0521045300 0.0521045300 0.0459665909 0.0459665909 0.0459665909 0.0363413126 0.0363413126 0.0363413126 0,0363413126 0.0502215100 0.0502215100 20 0.0432143461 0.0459015588 0.0390794599 0.0390794599 0.0462959768 0.0462959768 0.0462959768 0.0312048570 0.0312048570 0.0312048570 0.0312048570 0.0467116534 0.0467116534 21 0.0358137860 0.0372595462 0.0311015284 0.0311015284 0.0418602463 0.0418602463 0.0418602463 0.0261242877 0.0261242877 0.0261242877 0.0261242877 0.0421311043 0.0421311043 22 0.0294294934 0.0312744978 0.0249803003 0.0249803003 0.0366496745 0.0366496745 0.0366496745 0.0215822587 0.0215822587 0.0215822587 0.0215822587 0.0381387483 0.0381387483 23 0.0223450238 0.0235734666 0.0182964081 0.0182964081 0.0347517842 0.0347517842 0.0347517842 0.0189759266 0.0189759266 0.0189759266 0,0189759266 0.0342326572 0.0342326572 24 0.0179418099 0.0169198902 0.0133194323 0.0133194323 0.0310595247 0.0310595247 0.0310595247 0.0157396039 0.0157396039 0.0157396039 0.0157396039 0.0307625891 0.0307625891

Source: Statewide averages developed from Indiana Department ofTransportation traffic count data.Indiana Default Hourly Distribution Factors forRoad Type 3- Rural UnrestrictedAccess: SourceTypes Hour 11 21 31 32 41 42 43 51 52 53 54 61 S2 1 0.0040299464 0.0073183989 0.0054636028 0.0054636028 0.0036998387 0.0036998387 0.0036998387 0.0043986387 0.0043986387 0.0043986387 0.0043986387 0.0164160879 0.0164160879 2 0.0040299464 0.0041131835 0.0034619242 0.0034619242 0.0045536477 0.0045536477 0.0045536477 0.0041872686 0.0041872686 0.0041872686 0.0041872686 0.0167510731 0.0167510731 3 0.0041817017 0.0032797517 0.0030691885 0.0030691885 0.0046485153 0.0046485153 0.0046485153

-0.0073497934 0.0073497934 0.0073497934 0.0073497934 0.0165479051 0.0165479051 4 0.0053114356 0.0057247729 0.0048082254 0.0048082254 0.0039844417 0.0039844417 0.0039844417 0.0084039684 0.0084039684 0.0084039684 0.0084039684 0.0195836328 0.0195836328 5 0.0140963815 0.0151258840 0.0143177758 0.0143177758 0.0082534864 0.0082534864 0.0082534864 0.0153176438 0.0153176438 0.0153176438 0.0153176438 0.0258467673 0.0258467673 s 0.0292719118 0.0316782840 0.0354335195 0.0354335195 0.0293141068 0.0293141068 0.0293141068 0.0299744215 0.0299744215 0.0299744215 0.0299744215 0.0344245647 0.0344245647 7 0.0397598894 0.0468485516 0.0516314034 0.0516314034 0.0496157860 0.0496157860 0.0496157860 0.0557776279 0.0557776279 -0.0557776279 0.0557776279 0.0440469233 0.0440469233 8 0.0448183995 0.0633910409 0.0636260878 0.0636260878 0.0768428043 0.0768428043 0.0768428043 0.0778885464 0.0778885464 0.0778885464 0.0778885464 0.0512793380 0.0512793380 9 0.0370114322 0.0460357746 0.0558633273 0.0558633273 0.1049236315 0.1049236315 0.1049236315 0.0853025536 0.0853025536 0.0853025536 0.0853025536 0.0568238265 0.0568238265

.. 10 0.0416989849 0.0427840868 0.0547852386 0.0547852386 0.1065363817 0.1065363817 0.1065363817 0.0879727734 0.0879727734 0.0879727734 0.0879727734 0.0599756501 0.0599756501 11 0.0509391967 0.0444183487 0.0568454275 0.0568454275 0.1186794422 0.1186794422 0.1186794422 0,0886336394 0.0886336394 0.0886336394 0.0886336394 0.0633505956 0.0633505956

... 12 0.0563855259 0.0512966366 0.0618918527 0.0618918527 0.1154539418 0.1154539418 0.1154539418 0.0859045570 0.0859045570 0.0859045570 0.0859045570 0.0635864154 0.0635864154 13 0.0638721209 0.0537246907 0.0610818211 0.0610818211 0.0999905132 0.0999905132 0.0999905132 0.0858537212 0.0858537212 0.0858537212 0.0858537212 0.0644099711 0.0644099711

.. 14 0.0708697265 0.0545001954 0.0632013074 0.0632013074 0.0864244379 0.0864244379 0.0864244379 0.0852196109 0.0852196109 0.0852196109 0.0852196109 0.0637040231 0.0637040231 15 0.0774626513 0.0656899700 0.0681384267 0.0681384267 0.0592922873 0.0592922873 0.0592922873 0,0774551039 0.0774551039 0.0774551039 0.0774551039**0~0609657913** 0.0609657913 1S 0.0849155229 0.0775959037 0.0765115831 0.0765115831 0.0295038421 0.0295038421 0.0295038421 0.0663381066 0.0663381066 0.0663381066 0.0663381066 0.0570058311 0.0570058311 17 0.0916096179 0.0871890696 0.0796014405 0.0796014405 0.0317806660 0.0317806660 0.0317806660 0.0433522764 0.0433522764 0.0433522764 0.0433522764 0.0517440242 0.0517440242 18 0.0855899909 0.0856725476 0.0737419189 0.0737419189 0.0184043260 0.0184043260 0.0184043260 0.0290727541 0.0290727541 0.0290727541 0.0290727541 0.0467760851 0.0467760851 19 0.0685259502 0.0656330958 0.0545272751 0.0545272751 0.0120481928 0.0120481928 0.0120481928 0.0187744815 0.0187744815 0.0187744815 0.0187744815 0.0413186686 0.0413186686 20 0.0503658989 0.0457301992 0.0390975413 0.0390975413 0.0118584575 0.0118584575 0.0118584575 0.0129711680 0.0129711680 0.0129711680 0.0129711680 0.0364127078 0.0364127078 21 0.0353421239**~** 0.0400621944 ' 0.0294058171 0.0294058171 0.0096765013 0.0096765013 0.0096765013 0.0106166656 O.D1 06166656 0.0106166656 {).0106166656 0.0318882915 0.0318882915 22 0.0217853168 0.0289018238 0.0218457686 0.0218457686 0.0061663979 0.0061663979 0.0061663979 0.0079972816 0.0079972816 0.0079972816 0.0079972816 0.0290264055 0.0290264055 23 0.0119380838 0.0205028665**0.013673~866** 0.0136731866 0.0048382506 0.0048382506 0.0048382506 0.0061564888 0.0061564888 0.0061564888 0.0061564888 0.0255574344 0.0255574344 24 0.0061882440 0.0127827290 0.0079763402 0.0079763402 0.0035101034 0.0035101034 0.0035101034 0.0050809093 0.0050809093 0.0050809093 0.0050809093 0.0225579868 0.0225579868

Source: Statewide averages developed from Jndiana Department ofTransportation traffic count data.Indiana Default Hourly Distribution Factors forRoad Type 4 -Urban RestrictedAccess: Source Types Hour 11 21 31 32 41 42 43 51 52 53 54 61 62 1 0.0114838630 0.0104500369 0,0090397680 0.0090397680 0.0186488577 0.0186488577 0.0186488577 0.0090968023 0.0090968023 0.0090968023 0.0090968023 0.0194173119 0.0194173119 2 0.0071800855 0.0062500477 0.0056304309 0.0056304309 0.0163411464 0.0163411464 0.0163411464 0.0080102618 0.0080102618 0.0080102618 0.0080102618 0.0198708197 0.0198708197 3 0.0063691205 0.0049689741 0.0046493622 0.0046493622 0.0157775876 0.0157775876 0.0157775876 0.0078361983 0.0078361983 0.0078361983 0.0078361983 0.0186489893 0.0186489893 4 0.0073777516 0.0058427101 0.0058801326 0.0058801326 0.0161766037 0.0161766037 0.0161766037 0.0086827231 0.0086827231 0.0086827231 0.0086827231 0.0198231326 0.0198231326 5 0.0108139353 0.0098545059 0.0108999000 0.0108999000 0.0221330492 0.0221330492 0.0221330492 0.0117453229 0.0117453229 0.0117453229 0.0117453229 0.0232515449 0.0232515449 6 0.0235457656 0.0231603609 0.0263517526 0.0263517526 0.0299755654 0.0299755654 0.0299755654 0.0204013312 0.0204013312 0.0204013312 0.0204013312 0.0294638153 0.0294638153 7 0.0461747881 0.0495085217 0.0542414568 0.0542414568 0.0393812372 0.0393812372 0.0393812372 0.0435263184 0.0435263184 0.0435263184 0.0435263184 0.0375553768 0.0375553768 8 0.0567226756 0.0788353145 0.0674512195 0.0674512195 0.0503870867 0.0503870867 0.0503870867 0.0659533819 0.0659533819 0.0659533819 0.0659533819 0.0446175773 0.0446175773 9

.... 0.0493171440 0.0638279223 0.0614111771 0.0614111771 0.0589556475 0.0589556475 0.0589556475 0.0756333178 0.0756333178 0.0756333178

. 0.0756333178 0.0515843704 0.0515843704 10 0.0406144957 0.0466481655 0.0536303211 0.0536303211 0.0581555587 0.0581555587 0.0581555587 0.0790728466 0.0790728466 0.0790728466 0.0790728466 0.0553194565 0.0553194565 11 0.0415130748 0.0428102606 0.0512594850 0.0512594850 0.0616027281 0.0616027281 0.0616027281 0.0824723032 0.0824723032 0.0824723032 0.0824723032 0.0583081277 0.0583081277 12 0.0465166969 0.0452333632 0.0529793024 0.0529793024 0.0644246353 0.0644246353 0.0644246353 0.0820640679 0.0820640679 0.0820640679 0.0820640679 0.0589378233 0.0589378233 13 0.0517959830 0.0478487216 0.0547982766 o;o547982766 0.0637644078 0.0637644078 0.0637644078 0.0808088903 0.0808088903 0.0808088903 0.0808088903 0.0575925555 0.0575925555 14 0.0566713893 0.0502151226 0.0576880799 0.0576880799 0.0625591325 0.0625591325 0.0625591325 0.0811795580 0.0811795580 0.0811795580 0.0811795580 0.0571667797 0.0571667797 15 0.0671882913 0.0580384620 0.0656779676 0.0656779676 0.0619482678 0.0619482678 0.0619482678 0.0795090490 0.0795090490 0.0795090490 0.0795090490 0.0573429674 0.0573429674 16 0.0810035452 0.0715596945 0.0786905659 0.0786905659 0.0609466141 0.0609466141 0.0609466141 0.0727723312 0.0727723312 0.0727723312 0.0727723312 0.0567213465 0.0567213465 17 0.0863864724, 0.0838541123 0.0821371575 0.0821371575 0.0577256909 0.0577256909 0.0577256909 0.0563364761 0.0563364761 0.0563364761 0.0563364761 0.0551911545 0.0551911545 18 0.0843264717 0.0874512168 0.0756929494 0.0756929494 0.0510164625 0.0510164625 0.0510164625 0.0371719560 0.0371719560 0.0371719560 0.0371719560 0.0531125437 0.0531125437 19 0.0645951265 0.0604364374' 0.0543673700 0.0543673700 0.0450990958 0.0450990958 0.0450990958 0.0249336618 0.0249336618 0.0249336618 0.0249336618 0.0487199307 0.0487199307 20 0.0469536991 0.0424749554 0.0373951308 0.0373951308 0.0384927066 0.0384927066 0.0384927066 0.0188134711 0.0188134711 0.0188134711 0.0188134711 0.0432101938 0.0432101938 21 0.0373781148

. 0.0353280630 0.0293181427 0.0293181427 0.0322318571 0.0322318571 0.0322318571 0.0162446774 0.0162446774 0.0162446774 0.0162446774 0.0390319248 0.0390319248 22 0.0316564842 0.0313403787 0.0249971308 0.0249971308 0.0282046747 0.0282046747 0.0282046747 0.0142456600 0.0142456600 0.0142456600 0.0142456600 0.0355118446 0.0355118446 23 0.0245992722 0.0251562568 0.0203505544 0.0203505544 0.0242700475 0.0242700475 0.0242700475 0.0124474209 0.0124474209 0.0124474209 0.0124474209 0.0317711657 0.0317711657 24 0.0198157539 0.0189063955 0.0154623663 0.0154623663 0.0217813392 0.0217813392 0.0217813392 0.0110419727 0.0110419727 0.0110419727 0.0110419727 0.0278292477 0.0278292477
Source: Statewide averages developed from Indiana Department ofTransportation traffic count data.fndiana Default Hour! Distribution Factors forRoad Tvoe 5 Urban UnrestrictedAccess: Source Types Hour 11 21 31 32 41 42 43 51 52 53 54 61 62 1 0.0092279794 0.0085268711 0.0060669694 0.0060669694 0.0126828270 0.0126828270 0.0126828270 0.0037158531 0.0037158531 0.0037158531 0.0037158531 0.0106396358 0.0106396358 2 0.0055316691 0.0048527626 0.0037675180 0.0037675180 0.0099485186 0.0099485186 0.0099485186 0.0038117041 0.0038117041 0.0038117041 0.0038117041 0.0124309233 0.0124309233 3 0.0047273286 0.0037895145 0.0033129405 o;0033129405 0.0069482800 0.0069482800 0.0069482800 0.0044165887 0.0044165887 0.0044165887 0.0044165887 0.0121505035 0.0121505035 4 0.0047017359 0.0044201159 0.0042394230 0.0042394230 0.0113599945 0.0113599945 0.0113599945 0.0056282193 0.0056282193 0.0056282193 0.0056282193 0.0144699998 0.0144699998 5 0.0081859928 0.0079416389 0.0087215410 0.0087215410 0.0153898606

.0.0153898608 0.0153898606 0.0000545038 0.0086545038 0.0086545038 0.0088545038 0.0210508569 0.0210508589 6 0.0225361588 0.0203883353 0.0238668712 0.0238668712 0.0258929528 0.0256929528 0.0256929528 O.D191822890 0.0191822890 0.0191822890 0.0191822890 0.0299165403 0.0299165403 7 0.0435184779 0.0478282898 0.0541952158 0.0541952158 0.0448331117 0.0448331117 0.0448331117 0.0418068371 0.0418068371 0.0418068371 0.0418068371 0.0436775030 0.0436775030 8 0.0602121997 0.0721456866 0,0675347974 0.0675347974 0.0691895946 0.0691895946 0.0691895946 0.0731482386 0.0731482386 0.0731482386 0.0731482386 0.0588646976 0.0588646976 9 0.0556311148 0.0567013667 0.0643660182 0.0643660182 O.D747059425 O.D747059425 0.0747059425 0.0880926125 0.0880926125 0.0880926125 0.0880926125 0.0640862836 0.0640862836 10 0.0485821670 0.0466493163_ 0,0603283916 0.0603283916 0.0803995772 0.0803995772 0.0803995772 0.0921313810 0.0921313810 0.0921313810 0.0921313810 0.0680944168 0.0680944168 11 0.0495985610 0.0468148434 0.0590657789 0.0590657789 0.0774061573 0.0774061573 0.0774061573 0.0943973720 0.0943973720 0.0943973720 0.0943973720 0.0703404942 0.0703404942 12 0.0573056055 0.0516032787 0.0615645883 0.0615645883 0.0753332651 0.0753332651 0.0753332651 0.0911430924 0.0911430924 0.0911430924 0.0911430924 0.0698309800 0.0698309800 13 0.0607752380 0.0555323143 0.0626732860 0.0626732860 0.0739763390 0.0739763390 0.0739763390 0.0895629476 0.0895629476 0.0895629476 0.0895629476 0.0685413889 0.0685413889 14 0.0609214817 0.0562211160 0.0629887267 0.0629887267 0.0779993863 0.0779993863 0.0779993863 0.0912650000 0.0912650000 0.0912650000 0.0912650000 0.0671175363 0.0671175363 15 0,0649907135 0.0607579027 0.0667909366 0.0667909366 0.0761037810 0.0761037810 0.0761037810 0.0905726397 0.0905726397 0.0905726397 0.0905726397 0.0651260461 0.0651260461 16 0.0724418316 0.0715477952 0.0751790074 0.0751790074 0.0728035185 0.0728035185 0.0728035185 0.0775387708 0.0775387708 0.0775387708 0.0775387708 0.0605241028 0.0605241028 17 0.0773519648 0.0803647101 0.0757034489 0.0757034489 0.0526405510 0.0526405510 0.0526405510 0.0464337395 0.0464337395 0.0464337395 0.0464337395 0.0557685235 0.0557685235 18 0.0770777578 0.0832250581 0.0684911688 0.0684911688 0.0347686748 0.0347686748 0.0347686748 0.0260342365 0.0260342365 0.0260342365 0.0260342365 0.0506461891 0.0506461891 19 0.0635977420 0.0637849687 0.0526386278 0.0526386278 0.0285090860 0.0285090860 0.0285090860 0.0173341336 0.0173341336 0.0173341336 0.0173341336 0.0402747366 0.0402747366 20 0.0483079600 0.0462284324 0.0372839274 0.0372839274 0.0220585728 0.0220585728 0.0220585728 0.0112536468 0.0112536468 0.0112536468 0.0112536468 0.0310667712 0.0310667712 21 0.0383158572 0.0386568197 0.0292289942 0.0292289942 0.0174082029 0.0174082029 0.0174082029 0.0076615624 0.0076615624 0.0076615624 0.0076615624 0.0268533367 0.0268533367 22 0.0305027859 0.0325107827 0.0236169348 0.0236169348 0.0137124544 0,0137124544 0.0137124544 0.0062358957 0.0062358957 0.0062358957 0.0062358957 0.0231915644 0.0231915644

.. 23

. 0.0214502991 0.0236017051 0.0170601049 0.0170601049 0.0139442910 0.0139442910 0.0139442910 0.0053276381 0.0053276381 0.0053276381 ,0.0053276381 0.0193751364 0.0193751364 24 0.0145073780 0.0159083752 0,0113147831 0.0113147831 0.0121850602 0.0121850602 0.0121850602 0.0046510979 0.0046510979 0.0046510979 0.0046510979 0.0159618330 0.0159618330

Source: Statewide averages developed from Indiana Department ofTransportation traffic count data.

### AppendixG 

### /d" Of. ltD"/ D"t"bt" F t 

### n tana e au auv ts n u ton ac ors: dayiD monthiD 2 5 1 0.2325411725 0.7674588275 2 0.2380547378 0.7619452622 3 0.2393402049 0.7606597951 4 0.2396052454 0.7603947546 5 0.2484757701 0.7515242299 6 0.2489743665 0.7510256335 7 0.2481153021 0.7518846979 8 0.2527028648 0.7472971352 9 0.2496078420 0.7503921580 10 0.2462808693 0.7537191307 11 0.2439742406 0.7560257594 12 0.2258784720 0.7741215280
Source: Statewide averages developed from Indiana Department of Transportation traffic count data.Appendix H
Indiana Default Monthly Distribution Factors: monthiD monthVMTFraction 1 0.0733424010 2 0.0693661929 3 0.0827036024 4 0.0831789580 5 0.0891346903 6 0.0888150873 7 0.0907968617 8 0.0918542094 9 0.0854175366 10 0.0875162272 11 0.0812354405 12 0.0766387926
Source: Statewide averages developed from Indiana Department of Transportation traffic count data.Appendix I Greene County Ramp Fractions:

Road Type 2 4 Ramp Fraction 1.55% 8%
Source: Analysis ofVHT from MOVES defaults for urban roads and prevailing rural ramp fractions in Indiana rural roads.

# Appendix B
GreeneCounty, Indiana, Maintenance Area Interagency Consultation Group Meeting Minutes/Summary

### This page left intentionally blank

### Interagency Consultation Group (ICG) Conference Call Minutes

For the MOBILE6.0 to MOVES MVEB Replacement Update Related to the Greene County, Indiana, Maintenance Area under the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard

ICG Conference Call Date and Time
• March 22, 2013 at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time

ICG Attendees
• Shawn Seals (IDEM), Gale Ferris (IDEM), Anthony Maietta (EPA), Greg Kalter (INDOT), Jay Mitchell (INDOT), Steve Smith (INDOT), Frank Baukert (INDOT), Larry Heil (FHWA), Joyce Newland (FHWA), and Roberto Miguel (COM Smith)

ICG Discussion Topics and Conclusions I. Various mobile source margins ofsafety were discussed for the Ozone MVEB Replacement submittal for Greene County, Indiana. A. 

### After discussion, the consensus ofthe ICG was that as long as the a 15% mobile source margin ofsafety for VOC and NOx emissions does notresult in an exceedance ofthe all sources margins ofsafety, it was reasonable and appropriate for inclusion in MVEB replacement submittal.



### B-1

# Appendix C
Greene County, Indiana, Maintenance Areaunderthe 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard Public Participation Documentation

• Legal Notice ofPublic Hearing

0 

## IDEMWebmaster Certification ofLegal Notice Publication

0 

## Screenshot Verification ofLegal Notice Posting on IDEMWebsite

• Summary ofComments and Responses thereto

### This page left intentionally blank

### LEGAL NOTICE OFPUBLIC HEARING
Motor Vehicle Emission Budget Replacement Update to the Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standat·d for Greene County, Indiana
Notice is hereby given under 40 CFR 51.102 that the IndianaDepatiment of Environmental Management (IDEM) is accepting written comment and providing an opportunity for public hearing regarding the MotorVehicle Emission Budget (MVEB) replacement update to the maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone standm·d for Greene County, Indiana. Omoad emissions for the original submittal were calculated using the MOBILE6.2 mobile model and are nowbeing replaced with the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA's) recently adopted Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) mobile model. All interested persons are invited and will be given reasonable opportunity to express their views concerning the submittal ofthe proposed MVEB replacement update to the Greene County, Indiana, maintenance area for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
The purpose ofthis notice is to solicit public comment on Indiana's proposed MVEB replacement update. Greene County, Indiana, was designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8- hour ozone standard and is subjectto the requirements ofSection 172 ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA). One ofthe compliance requirements mandated by Section 175A(b) ofthe CAA, is the development ofa plan demonstratingthat maintenance areas will continue to meet the 1997 8- hour ozone standard for the nextten years, which includes MVEBs for omoad sources, beyond the current maintenance period. This submittal ofthe proposed MVEB replacementupdate to the Request for Redesignation andMaintenance Planfor OzoneAttainment in the 8-Hour Ozone Basic NonattainmentArea for Greene County, Indiana, maintenance areathat was originally submitted on September 6, 2005, is being drafted and submitted consistent with U.S. EPA guidance. Upon completion ofthis public notice process, the MOBILE6.2-basedto MOVESbased MVEB replacement update will be submitted to U.S. EPA for approval into the State Implementation Plan. Copies ofthe draft documents will be available on or before May 24, 2013, to any person upon request and at the following locations:

• Indiana Department ofEnvironmental Management, Office ofAir Quality, Indiana

Government CenterNorth, I

### 00 North Senate Avenue, Room NI

### 003, Indianapolis, Indiana.

• Linton Public Library, 95 S.E. I st 

### Street, Linton, Indiana.

The draft documents will also be available on the following web page: http://www.in.gov/idem/airqualitv12400.htm

C-1

### An electronic version ofall MOVES mobile model input and output files will be available at the public hearing, ifheld, oruponrequest. Any person may submit written comments onthe MVEB replacementupdateto the Greene County, Indiana, 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance area on or before June 24, 2013. Written comments should be directed to Mr. Gale Ferris, Mail Code 61-50, Office ofAir Quality, IndianaDepartment ofEnvironmental Management, 100Nmih Senate Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana46204; or fax (317) 233-5967; or email at gferris@idem.in.gov. Interested pmiies may also present oral or written comments at the public hearing, ifheld. Oral statements will be heard, but for the accuracy ofthe record, statements should be submitted in writing. Written statements may be submitted to the attendant designated to receive written comments at the public hearing.
A public hearing on the MVEB replacement update to the maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for Greene County, Indiana will be held ifa public hearing request is received by June 5, 2013. A hearing has been scheduled for June 12, 2013. The meeting will convene at 6:00p.m. (local time) at the Linton Public Library, 95 S.E. 1'1

### Street, Linton, Indiana 47441. Ifa request for a public hearing is not received by June 5, 2013, the hearing will be cancelled. Interested parties can check the State oflndiana's online calendar at http://www.in.gov/activecalendar/EventList.aspx or contact Mr. Gale Ferris at (317) 234-3653, after June 5, 2013, to see ifthe hearing has been cancelled or will convene.
A transcript ofthe hearing and all written submissions provided at thepublic hearing shall be opento public inspection at IDEM and copies may be made available to any person upon payment ofreproduction costs. Any person heard or represented atthe hearing or requesting notice shall be given writtennotice ofactions resulting from the hearing.
For additional infmmation contact Mr. Gale Ferris, atthe Indiana Depmiment of Environmental Management, Office ofAir Quality, RoomN1001, Indiana Govemment Center North, 100 North Senate Avenue, Indianapolis, IN 46204 or call (317) 234-3653 or (800) 451- 6027 ext. 4-3653 (in Indiana). 

## ************************************************************************ Individuals requiring reasonable accommodations forparticipation in this hearing, if held, shouldcontact the IDEMAmericans with DisabilitiesAct(ADA) coordinator at:
Attn: ADA Coordinator Indiana Department ofEnvironmental Management- Mail Code 50-10 100 North Senate Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46204-2251
Or call (317) 233-1785 (voice) or (317) 232-6565 (FDD). Pleaseprovide a minimum of72 hours notification.

C-2

# MOBILE6.0 to MOVES MVEB Replacement Update to the Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard for Greene County, Indiana Summary/Response to Comments Received at the Public Hearing
IDEM provided an opportunity for a public hearing on the MVEB replacement update to the Greene County, Indianamaintenance area ifa public hearing request was received by June 5, 2013. A hearing was scheduled for June 12,2013. No request for a public hearing was received andthe hearing was cancelled. 

### Summary/Response to Comments Received During the Comment Period
IDEMrequested public comment onthe MVEB replacement update to the Greene County, Indianamaintenance area from May 24,2013 to June 24,2013. IDEMreceived comments from the following pmties:
William A. 

### Boyd, Concerned Citizen Jess A. 

### Gwinn, Concerned Citizen Tim Maloney, SeniorPolicy Director, Hoosier Environmental Council Boyd Gwinn Maloney


### Comment: Page 1 ofthe legal notice states that "Omoademissions for the original submittal were calculated using the MOBILE6.2 mobile model and are nowbeing replaced with the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA's) recently adopted Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) mobile model". MOBILE6.0 was released by U.S. EPA
on January 27, 2002, and has been requiredto be used intranspmtation conformity analyses since January 27, 2004 tlu·oughout the United States. What is meant by "original submittal", since MOBILE6.2 did not exist in 1997? (Boyd) 

### Response: The legal notice is refen·ing to the final 8-hour Ozone Redesignation Petition and Maintenance Plan for Greene County, Indiana submitted to U.S. EPA on September 5, 2005. Omoademissions included in the original submittal were calculated using U.S. EPA's MOBILE6.0 mobile model, notMOBILE6.2. The MVEB replacement update has been revised according!y.


### Comment: IDEM's web page listed in the legal notice only contains historical documentation and the draft MVEB replacement update. Ifthere is no other suppmting documentation available for public review, U.S. EPA should stamp the submittal as "Revise & 

### Re-submit" for lack offull documentation. (Boyd) 

### Response: IDEM's web page includes all historical SIP documentation for Greene County, Indiana, including a copy ofthe draft MVEB replacement update and all supporting documentation sentto U.S. EPAfor review and approval on May 20, 2013. U.S. EPAhas recently approved a number ofMVEB replacement updates for other areas ofthe state using similar documentation. As such, IDEM does not believe any additional documentation is required for this submittal at this time.

C-3

### Comment: 

### U.S. EPA has developed separate revised AP-42 methodologies for estimating re-entrained road dustfrom paved and unpavedroads. Greene County has many unpaved roads. It 

### does not appear AP-42 was factored into the MVEB replacementupdate. While AP-42 addresses fugitive dust emissions, these emissions contribute to the over-all air quality inthe county and should be figured into the particulate count. (Boyd) Re.111onse: 

### Consistentwith the federal implementation JUie for 8-hour ozone, IDEM does not considerparticulate matter, including fugitive dust emissions, to be a significant contributor to ground-level ozone concentrations. As such, particulate matter emissions have not been included in the MVEB replacement update.
Comment: 

### Various tables in the MVEB replacement update contain strike-outs. It

### is assumed these existing MOBILE-based emission values are being replaced withMOVES-based values. However, there are no notes regarding what the strikeouts represent, nor is there an indepth discussion ofthe changes inthe entries, other than the values were generated using the newMOVES model. (Boyd) Response: 

### The strike-outs represent MOBILE-based VOC and NOx onroad emission estimates and MVEBs that are being updated using U.S. EPA's MOVES model-produced emission factors and data extracted from the area'stravel-demand model. A footnote has been added to these tables to provide additional clarification regarding this matter.
Comment: 

### Page 2 ofthe MVEB replacement update states that "Growth and control strategy assumptions for non-mobile sources (i.e. area, nomoad, and point) from the original submittal for the years 2002, 2010, and 2015 were developed before the economic challenges of the last several years. Because ofthis, the factors included inthe original submittal mayproject more growth than will actually occur in the future. As a result, the growth and control strategy assumptions for the non-mobile sources for the years 2002, 2010, and 2015 continue to be valid and do not affect the overall conclusions ofthe plan." This statement cannotbe accurate as it fails to take into account the projections included inthe Greene County Comprehensive Plan, which shows the economic and transportation character ofthe county has been altered significantly. As such, revised emission estimates for all source categories needto be included in the MVEB replacementupdate. (Boyd) Response: 

### MVEBs are being revised in anticipation ofthe mandatory use ofthe MOVES model infuture transportation conformity determinations. This submittal is not intended to update orrevise any other data from the original SIP. U.S. EPA and LADCO modeling for future year design values have consistently shown that existing (e.g. NOx SIP Call, CAIR, Tier 2 Vehicle Standards, Heavy-Duty Gasoline and Diesel Highway Vehicle Standards, Large NonRoad Diesel Engine Standards, Non-Road Spark-Ignition Engines and Recreational Engines Standard) and future (e.g. CASPR, the Pmiland Cement Rule, and additional Light and Heavy Duty Vehicle Standards) national control measures being implemented over the next several years will ensure that Greene County will continue to maintain compliance withthe standard with an increasing margin ofsafety. Ifemissions start increasing ormonitored violations occur, as part ofthe maintenance plan, IDEM commits to taking swift action in orderto reverse the trend and take whatever action is necessary to ensure that standard is reattained as expeditiously as possible. As such, IDEM believes the SIP continues to meet all applicable Clean Air Act

C-4

### (CAA) requirements as the revised emission inventories clearly illustrate thattotal NOx and VOC emissions in the Greene County, Indiana, 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance area will continue to decline leadingto local reductions between 2002 (base year) and 2015 (maintenance planhorizon budget year).
Comment: 

### There is no attempt inthe submittal to move Greene County towards a 2-hour window or evento bring the county into full compliance. (Boyd) Comment: 

### I am a resident ofGreene County and am very concerned that the countyhas been in non-attainment status for many years. There doesn't seemto be any effort to alleviate this status. In fact, the opposite appears to be occurring with the construction ofl-69 through Greene County. The increased vehicle traffic inthe county can only exacerbate the ozone problem. Ifthis increased traffic makes the problem worse, how canI-69 be allowed to be built? What impactwill this continuednon-attainment status have on future development within Greene County? Will other commercial or industrial development be curtailedjust because I-69 was constructed and Greene County remains in non-attainment ofthe 1997 8-hour ozone standard? (Gwinn) Response: 

### Greene Connty was designated nonattainment effective June 15, 2004. Atthe close ofthe 2004 ozone season (i.e. September 30, 2004), Greene County measured air quality that complied with the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. On September 6, 2005, the IDEM submitted a Request for Redesignation andMaintenance Planfor OzoneAttainment in the 8-How· Ozone Basic NonattainmentArea, 

### for Greene County, Indiana The U.S. EPA subsequently approved the Indiana redesignation ofGreene County, Indiana, to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard onNovember 14, 2005. Greene County has measured air qualitybelowthe 1997 8-hour ozone standard sincethe redesignation was effective. Redesignating the areato attainment does not mean thatpublic health will no longer be protected; it simply recognizes the fact that the area's air quality meets the health based standard. Indiana's petition includes a long-term maintenance plan that is and will continue to be implementedto ensure thatthe area continues to attain the 1997 8- hour standard for ground-level ozone. With the addition ofMOVES-based onroad safetymargins applied to mobile sources, the Greene County, Indiana, ozone maintenance area will continue to remain well belowthe overall safety margins for all sources into the future. As such, the 1997 8- hour ozone maintenance plan for Greene County, Indiana, continues to meet all applicable CAA requirements. Indiana is committed to maintaining all emission control measures necessary to ensure continued compliance withthe standard. Furthermore, because this area is subjectto significant transport ofpollutants, significantNOxreductions from existing and future regional control measures will ensure continued compliance (maintenance) withthe standards with an increasing margin ofsafety overtime. Ifemissions stmt increasing or monitored violations occur, as pmt of the maintenance plan, IDEM commits to taking swift action in orderto reverse the trend and take whatever action is necessary to ensure that standard is reattained as expeditiously as possible. Large projects that may represent emission increases beyond normal expected growth would be subject to the new source review permittingprogram for attainment areas known as Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). Newmajor sources ormajor modifications ofexisting sources must install best available control technology and demonstrate that the resulting emissions would not cause or contribute to a violation ofany national ambient air quality standard. These permits are subjectto public review, comment and the opportunity for a public hearing to help ensure that these requirements are satisfied.

C-5

### Comment: Vehicle age distribution data should be included inthis submittal. (Boyd) 

### Re.1ponse: Vehicle age distribution data used to generate MOVES-based onroad emission estimates for Greene County is included on Pages 1 and 2 ofAppendix 

### A.


### Comment: The submittal lacks sufficient detail for meaningful and substantive comment. The commentingpublic should have all suppmting documentation available withinthe submittal. Instead, the submittal directs both reviewing agencies and the general public to other sources for suppmting documentation. (Boyd) 

### Response: MOVES model-produced mobile emission estimates were calculated using the latest input settings and planning assumptions included in Appendix A ofthis submittal, consistent with the consensus achieved through interagency consultation, at the timethe modeling analysis was performed. U.S. EPAhas recently approved a number ofMVEB replacement updates for other areas ofthe state using similar documentation. As such, IDEM does not believe any additional documentation is required for this submittal at thistime. It 

### should be notedthatthe original SIP, the MVEB replacement update, and all supporting documentation for Greene County is readily available for public viewing on IDEM's website at the following location: http://www.in.gov/idem/airguality/2400.htm.


### Comment: The last sentence in Paragraph 2 on Page 2 ofAppendix A statesthat "The MOVES formatted data will be used for these MOVES20IOa runs." This leads the public to the conclusionthat the current MOVES-based datahas not yet been incorporated into this submittal. This statementrequires further clarificationto be valid. (Boyd) 

### Response: Onroad emission estimates included in the MVEB replacementupdate were calculated using MOVES fotmatted vehicle age distribution data included in this analysis. 

### Comment: The vehicle population data for Greene County included in Appendix C of Appendix A ofthe submittal seems imbalanced in comparison to other available information. This is one area were additional research andverification needs to be performed. Time constraints limit providing additional comment on this topic, as well as many other comments on the current submittal. Why is there no direct conelationbetween MOVES sourcetypes 31 & 

### 32 and the MOBILE-based data? Could this be an error in the algorithm used inthe modeling which caused this skew? This vehicle type is not uncommon and quite possibly equal with vehicle type 21 for this county. (Boyd) 

### Response: Vehicle population data included in this analysis was developed and finalized bythe Indiana Department ofTranspmtation (INDOT), tluough its contractor, independently of this submittal in accordance with U.S. EPA's Technical Guidance on the Use ofMOVES2010 for Emission Inventory Preparation in State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity. MOVES model-produced mobile emission estimates were calculated using the latest input settings and planning assumptions, consistent withthe consensus achieved tluough interagency consultation, at the time the modeling analysis was performed.

C-6

### Comment: 

### There is no explanation in Appendix C ofAppendix A as to why source types in Table 3 do not equal!00%. Datapresentations such as this cause one to have doubt inthe accuracy ofall datapresented. (Boyd) Response: 

### Vehicle source types 31 and 32 in Table 3 ofAttachment A do in fact add up to 100% when separated and calculated by fuel type (i.e. gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles). Vehicle source types were developed and finalized by the INDOT, tlu·ough its contractor, independently ofthis submittal in accordance with U.S. EPA's Technical Guidance onthe Use of MOVES2010 for Emission Inventory Preparation in State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity. MOVES model-produced mobile emission estimates were calculated using the latest input settings and planning assumptions, consistentwiththe consensus achieved tlu·ough interagency consultation, at the time the modeling analysis was perfmmed.
Comment: 

### VMT's for Greene County are now heavily impacted by the I-69 project and iffully incorporated into the data set(s) for this submittal show significant increases in all pollutants. (Boyd) Response: 

### MOVES model-produced mobile emission estimates were calculated using the latest input settings and planning assumptions, consistent with the consensus achieved through interagency consultation, atthe time the modeling analysis was performed, including any future projected increases in VMTresulting from the I-69 project.
Comment: 

### Tables 5.1 and 5.1 -A on Page 3 ofthe MVEB replacement update show a considerable difference in onroad VOC emissions for 2015 with no supporting documentation, yet there is a significant increase in NOx for the same time period. (Boyd) Response: 

### MOVES incorporates substantial new vehicle emissions-related data and accounts for changes in vehicle technology and regulations as well as improved understanding of in-use emission levels and the factors that influence them. This allows federal reduction programs to be better accounted for (e.g. new fuel and engine standards) and will likely result in more accurate emission estimates. Preliminary use ofthe MOVES model indicates that mobile emission estimates canbe considerably different than similar calculations using MOBILE6.0, which was used to create the original MVEBs for the Greene County, Indiana, 1997 8-hour ozone nonattaimnent area. Onroad safety margins have been included for onroad emission estimates to accommodate for the wide array ofassumptions that are factored into the calculation process. Withthe addition ofMOVES-based onroad safety margins applied to mobile sources, the Greene County, Indiana, ozone maintenance area will continue to remain well belowthe overall safety margins for all sources into the future.
Comment: 

### Both Appendix Band C in Appendix A ofthe submittal contain an enorin the source footnote listing vehicle type 32. This appears to be a typographical error. However, the data needs to be verified to assure its validity. Appendix B also appears to be out ofbalance when looking overthe distribution numbers. Vehicle type 11, for which no data was reportedly available, contains the highest numbers. Yet vehicle types 21 and 31, for whichthere was VIN information, indicates a lesserpopulation, or is more evenly distributed across all vehicle types. This does not seem to indicate true numbers for Greene County, ifone is at all familiar with the population ofGreene County. (Boyd)

C-7

### Response: There appears to be a typographical error inthe footnotes included below Appendices B and C in Appendix A ofthe submittal, as source type 32 is listed twice as opposed to listing both vehicle source types 31 and 32. However, these typographical errors do not appear to impactthe analysis results. IDEM has not made any revisions to the analysis, as it was developed and finalized bythe INDOT, through its contractor, independently ofthis submittal.
Comment: The data inAppendix C in Appendix A ofthe submittal does not seemto coincide with other data for Greene County (e.g. the I-69 FEIS and Greene County Comprehensive Plan) since the data shows vhtually no growth in vehicle populations. This data appears to invalidate all the data used to support the I-69 project, so which data is correct? The footnote belowAppendix C states that the data was taken from socioeconomic dataforecast, yet cites no specific report that the general public may refer to for validation. (Boyd) Response: Various analyses have been developed and finalized for Greene County at separate times for separate purposes independently ofthis submittal. MOVES model-produced mobile emission estimates were calculated using the latest input settings and planning assumptions, consistent withthe consensus achieved through interagency consultation, at the time the modeling analysis wasperformed, including any future projected increases in VMT resulting from the I-69 project.
Comment: The data included in Appendix D inAppendix A ofthe submittal appears to bequite old. Current ambient air quality monitoring data is available for the ozone monitor located in Greene County. (Boyd) Response: MOVES model-produced mobile emission estimates were calculated using the latest input settings and planning assumptions, consistent with the consensus achieved through interagency consultation, at the time the modeling analysis was performed.
Comment: A horizon year budget of2015 seems totally inappropriate since it is less than 18 months away and will likely be less than I year away whenthis submittal is finalized. This submittal does notreflect the true impact oftraffic traveling on I-69, since Section 4 

### is not scheduledto be open until2015. The modeling inputs should incorporate results fmther into the future, when traffic increases from I-69 showup fully. Why is such a short horizon being used in this submittal? The entire evaluation should bere-studied to incorporate all influences into the data and ensure proper data is used. The use ofold data gives the appearance of"cookingthe books"to achieve the desired outcome. (Gwinn) Response: U.S. EPA's Redesignation Guidance requires SIPs to include aprojection of the emission inventory ofozoneprecursor emissions (VOC and NOx) representative to a year at leastten (10) years following redesignation. In consultation with the U.S. EPA, IDEM selected 2015 as the horizon budgetyear in the original SIP submittal. MVEBs are beingrevised in anticipation ofthe mandatory use ofthe MOVES model in future transportation confonnity determinations. This submittal is not intended to update or revise any other data from the original SIP.
Comment: The submittal has beenpoorly researched and contains a number offatal flaws by not incorporating all available data for input. Non-mobile sources are increasing as a direct impact ofl-69 being opened onNovember 2012, well within the timefrmne ofthis report. Most impmtantly, the Greene County "Analysis ofVolatile Organic Compounds and Nitrogen

C-8

### Oxides Emissions", as attached, included inthe FEIS for Section 4 ofthe I-69 project contains data which is contradictory to data report in the MVEB replacement update. These documents and their accompanying data sets need to be correlated and balanced to produce a more accurate and reliable MVEB replacementupdate for Greene County. (Gwinn) Response: 

### MVEBs are being revised in anticipation ofthe mandatoryuse ofthe MOVES model in future transpotiation conformity determinations. This submittal is not intended to update or revise any other data from the original SIP. The FEIS for Section 4 

### ofthe I-69 project was developed and finalized by the INDOT, through its contractor, independently ofthis submittal. MOVES model-produced mobile emission estimates included inthe MVEB replacement update were calculated using the latest input settings and planning assumptions, consistent withthe consensus achieved through interagency consultation, at the time the modeling analysis was performed, including any future projected increases in VMT/mobile source emissions resulting from the I-69 project. The SIP continues to meet all applicable Clean AirAct (CAA) requirements as the revised emission inventories clearly illustrate that total NOx and VOC emissions in the Greene County, Indiana, 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance area will continue to decline leadingto local reductions between 2002 (base year) and 2015 (maintenance planhorizon budget year).
Comment: 

### The Indiana Department ofTransportation (INDOT) used outdated fleet data
as part ofits conformity demonstration for the Tier 2 EIS process. Why has newer data, available for many years, not been used? Ifthe new data shows continued non-conformity, then there are seriousproblems with the permitting process that allows I-69 to be constructed. While I am concerned about future motor vehicle emissions and their impact onthe ozone standard, what about thepresent? (Gwinn) Reoponse: 

### This analysis was developed and finalized by the INDOT, through its contractor, independently ofthis submittal. MOVES model-produced mobile emission estimates included in the MVEB replacement update were calculatedusing the latest input settings and planning assumptions, including quality-assured 2009 vehicle registration data, consistent with the consensus achieved through interagency consultation. With the addition ofMOVES-based onroad safety margins applied to mobile sources, the Greene County, Indiana, ozone maintenance area will continue to remain well belowthe overall safety margins for all sources into the future. Indiana is committed to maintaining all emission control measures necessaryto ensure continued compliance with the standard. Ifemissions start increasing ormonitored violations occur, as part ofthe maintenance plan, IDEM commits to taking swift action in order to reverse the trend and take whatever action is necessary to ensure that standard is reattained as expeditiously as possible.
Comment: 

### Why did INDOT/IDEM not incorporate 2009 vehicle fleet data into the new model, regardless ofwhich modeling software is used? As for future modeling, why use a horizon budget year of2015? I-69 will barley be operational in Greene County at thattime. Any impact it will have on air quality will not be felt until after construction is complete and the road is open for traffic, for at least a couple ofyears. (Gwinn) Response: 

### MOVES model-produced mobile emission estimates were calculated using the latest input settings andplanning assumptions, consistent with the consensus achieved through interagency consultation, at the time the modeling analysis was performed, including quality-assured 2009 vehicle registration data for Greene County. U.S. EPA'sRedesignation

C-9

### Guidance requires SIPs to include a projection ofthe emission inventory ofozoneprecursor emissions (VOC and NO,)representative to a year at least ten (I

### 0) years following redesignation. In consultation with the U.S. EPA, IDEM selected 2015 as the horizon budget year inthe original SIP submittal. MVEBs are being revised in anticipation ofthe mandatory use ofthe MOVES model in future transpmiation conformity determinations. Ifemissions start increasing ormonitored violations occur, as pali ofthe maintenance plan, IDEM commits to taking swift action in orderto reverse the trend and take whatever action is necessary to ensure that standard is reattained as expeditiously as possible.
Comment: I am requesting an additional 14 days to prepare substantive comments to the proposed "Motor Vehicle Emission Budget Replacement Update to the Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard for Greene County, Indiana". As a member ofthe general public who wishes to submit comments, I find thatthe documents to review and comment on are quite technical and voluminous. Fact checking and verification for members ofthe general public is a more time-consumingprocess than for those within agencies who are familiar with terms, data relationships, regulations, STIPs and inventory processes. (Boyd) Comment: I am requesting a 30 day extension ofthe comment period on this proposed MVEB replacement update. The update request contains a substantial amount oftechnical information which will take time to reviewproperly. We havejustlearned ofthis proposal, and would like additional time to review the materials and prepare substantive comments. (Maloney) Response: This submittal is only intendedto update MVEBs from the original SIP in anticipation ofthe mandatory use ofthe MOVES model in future transpmiation conformity

**dete~minations.** 

### U.S. EPA has recently approved a number ofMVEB replacement updates for other areas ofthe state using similar documentation. The SIP continues to meet all applicable CleanAirAct (CAA) requirements as the revised emission inventories clearly illustrate thattotal NOx and VOC emissions inthe Greene County, Indiana, 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance area will continue to decline leadingto local reductions between 2002 (base year) and 2015 (maintenance plan horizonbudget year). The majority ofthe public comments received during the original public commentperiod do not directly pertainto the MVEB replacement submittal (MOVES-based calculations). No significant revisions have beenmade to the replacement submittal as a result ofthese comments. As such, IDEM does not believe an extension ofthe original30-day commentperiod (May 24,2013 to June 24, 2013) is necessary.

C-10Re: Public comment on MVEB Replacement --Greene County, IN -Message (Plain Text)

Reply Reply Forward to All

Youforwarde<l**thi~** menage on 6/241201?9;QlAM, From: To: WilliamA, Boyd [waboyd@quest.net] FERRIS, GAlE Bill &Jan Boyd) Hedman.susan:lj:Epa.gov**~** tfivsafell!h"



## " Subject:. Re: Public comment on MVEB Replacement--Greene County,IN 

### a Mel-sage I**:'12:1R~port_GreenCO_AirQuallty_Conformity-Sertion4.pdf** @09 KB) n::JGrnCnty MVEB commenh 6-21-B.pdf 12 MB] -**~** X

Sent: fri6J21J201311:26 PM**--------------------~** HI'. feP!'is, Hy comments brief and not fully developed are as folious: CO!·U·IHJTS TO Hoto!' Vehicle Emission Budget Replacement Update to the Haintenance Plan for the 1997 8-Hout' Ozone Standard for Greene County, Indiana
Version HOBILE6.e 1·1as released on January 27, 2902 and is !'equi!'ed to be used {since January 27, 2GG4) in t!'ansportation conformity analyses throughout US. In I·IOBILE6.2, analysis capabilities of PlUG, P/-12.5, and ail' taxies ue1•e added, Page 1 parag!'aph 1of the Legal llotice states that Hobile6.2 Has used fop the original submittal. This statement is either in e!'ror o!' needs better explanation as to Hha't is meant by "original submittal" since 6.2 did not exist in 1997. The statement is mis-leading 'to any casual !'eade!'.
The L·iebsite listed for the draft documents contains histodcal documents along Hith the Draft Orwoad Emissions !·IOBILE6.2 to !·lOVES Replacement Submital For the Greene County, Indiana, Haintenance A!'ea under the 1997 S-Hout' Ozone Standard. Hot-Jeve!' the is no other supporting documentation available for public revieL·I. If the above reference document is all there is to this submittal, then I !'ecommend that EPA stamp the submittal as "Revise & Re-submit" for lack of full documentation. Additionally, EPA has developed separate revised AP-42 methodologies fo!' estimating re-entrained road dust from paved and unpaved !'Oads. These ne1•1 methods fop estimating !'oad dust emission factors for paved and unpaved !'oads a!'e being incorporated in EPA's document AP-42. These neL·J



### C-11COMMENTSTO:
MotorVehicle Emission Budget Replacement Updatetothe Maintenance Plan for the 1997

**8~** Hour Ozone Standard for Greene County. Indiana

VersionMOBILE6.0 wasreleased onJanuary 27,2002 andis required to beused (since Janumy 27, 2004) intransportation conformity analyses throughout US. In MOBILE6.2, analysis capabilities ofPMlO, PM2.5, and airtoxicswere added. Page 1 paragraph loftheLegalNotice states thatMobile6.2 was used for the original submittal. TI1is statement is either inerror orneedsbetterexplanation as towhatis meantby

11original submittal" since 6.2 didnotexistin 1997, The statement ismis-leadingto any casualreader.
The website listedfor the draft documents containshistorical documents along withthe Draft Onroad Emissions MOBILE6.2 to MOVES Replacement Submital Forthe Greene County, Indiana, Maintenance Areaunderthe 1997 8-HourOzone Standard. Howeverthe is no other suppmiing documentation available for public review. Ifthe above reference docmnentis all there is to this submittal.then I recommend that EPAstamp the submittal
as "Revise & Re-submit" for lackoffull documentation. Additionally, EPAhas developed separate revised AP-42 methodologies for estimatingre-entrainedroad dust from paved and unpaved roads. Thesenewmethods for estimatingroad dust emission factors forpaved and unpaved roads are being incorporated inEPA's docmnent AP·42. Thesenew AP-42 methodologies (AP-42, Sections 13.2.1, PavedRoads and 13.2.2, Unpaved Roads, each dated December2003)replaceprevious methods for estimating reentrainedroad dust emissions for these categories with some limitations. Greene County has many un-pavedroads. There appears to be noincorporation ofAP-42 into the plan. WhileAP-42may be afugitive dustissue, itcontributesto the over-all air qualityinthe county and shouldbe figured into the particulate count Beginning onpage 1, Table 4.1 contains strike-outs, whichitis assumedthese are old numbers and that new numbers will beentered, howeverthere is no notes regarding what the strike-outs are for. Inthe Emissions Inventory, there is no in-depth discussion ofthe changes inthe entries, otherthan the numbers camefrom the newMOVES model. The general swnmaryreferenced does notprovide adequate information for a complete public evaluation. Page 2 makes the statementthat "Growth andconh·ol sh·ategy assumptions/or

.....were developedbefore the economic challenges of the last severalyears. Because of this, the 

### factors includedin the Ol'iginalsubmittalmayprojectmoregrowth than willactually

occur in the future. Asa result, the gouwth andcontrolstregyassumptions for the nonmobilesources....and2015 continue to be validanddo notaffect the overall conclusions of

theplad'. This statement cannotbe accurate as itfails to take into accmmt the projections contained inthe Greene County ComprehensivePlan. The economic and transportationcharacterofGreene County has been altered significantly. That dataneeds



### C-12to beincluded inthis revision. The indicationisthatthis planupdate will only attemptto ensurethatGreene County stays marginally within the 8-Hour critieria. There is no attempt to move Greene Cmmty towards a2-Hour window oreven to bring the County into full compliance. The dataonVehicleAge Distribution shouldbe included inthis submittal. Here again, this submittal documentis lacking sufficientdetail for meaningful and substative comment. The commentingpublic should have all supporting documents available withinthe submittal.**Instead~** the submittal1S authors directbothreviewing agencies andthe generalpublic to other sources for their supporting data. There is a statementof "The MOVES formatted datawillbe used

..." leads the public to the conclusionthatthe currentMOVES datahas not yetbeen incorporated into this submittal. This statementrequires further clarificationtobe valid.
TheVehicle Population datafor Greene County seems imbalancedincomparisonto other available inf01mation. This is one area where additionalresearch and verificationneeds to beperfom1ed. Time constraintslimitproviding additional commentonthistopic, as well asmanyofthe othercomments onthecUirent submittal. Onehas to question whythereis nota directcoorelationbetween theMOVES source types (31 & 32) and theMOBILE6.2 data. Couldthis be an error in the algorithimused inthe modelling which causedthis skew? This vehicletype is not**un~common** and quitepossiblycompare equallywith vehicle type 21 for this county. ForTable 3, there is no explanationwhy the Source Types do notequal 100% as a casualreaderwould expect. Datapresentation suchas this causes one to have doubtinthe accuracy ofallthe datapresented. VMT1s for Greene County are nowheavily impacted bythe 1-69 projectandiffully incorporated into the data set(s) for this submittal may show significantincreases in all pollutants. Page 3 contains a considerable difference (Table 5.1 vs. 5.1-A) inthe VOC for 2015 with no supporting data, yetthere is a significant increase intheNOx forthe sametimeperiod. Both Appendix B and C containan error inthe source footnote, listingvehicletype 32 twice. Itis assumed this is atypographical error. However, the data needs to be verified to assure it's validity. Appendix B seems outofbalance, when looking overthe distribution numbers. Vehicle type II,for which no data was repmtedly available contains the highest numbers. Whichto the casual reader appears toindicatea higherpopulation. Yettypes 21 & 31, for whichthere wasVIN information, indicates a lesserpopulation, ormore evenly distributed across all vehicletypes. ThisAppendix doesnotseemto indicate tme numbers for Greene County, ifone is at all familiar withthepopulation ofGreene County. Appendix C data does not seemto coincide with otherdata, see the 1-69 FEIS, and the Greene County Comprehensive Plan sincethe data shows virtuallyno growthin vehicle populations. This data appears to invalidate all the dataused to supportthe**1~69** project,
so which data set is correct? The footnote states itwastaken from 11local socioeconomic data forcasts 11

, yetcitesno specific repmt thatthe generalpublicmayreferto for validation. Appendix D calls upon datathatis quite old. Greene Countyhascurrentdata available from the monitoring station thatis part ofthemaintenance & attainment for whichthis 2



### C-13submittal is attempting to update.
The horizonyearbudgetof2015 seemstotally inappropriate, since its lessthan a mere 18 month away, and likelyless than 1year awayby thetimethis submittal is fully commented on, responsed to and approved. This submittal does notreflectthe true effect ofl-69 traffic, since Section 4 isnot scheduled tobe openuntil thehorizondate. The modeling inputs should incorporate results farther in thefuture, whentraffic increases from I-69 showup fully. Why such a shorthorizon. The entire evaluation should berestudiedto incorporate all influences into the data. And ensure proper datais used. This approachofa re-hash ofold datagivesthe appearance of"cookingthebooks" to acheive the desired outcome.
Tt is quite obviousthat this submittal has beenpoorlyresearched and contains a nmnber offatal flaws bynot incorporating all available datafor input.

**Non~mobile** sources are increasing as a directimpact ofl-69being opened onNovemberof2012) wellwithinthe time-frame ofthis report. Mostimportantly the Greene County "ANALYSIS OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND AND NITROGEN OXIDES EMISSIONS" report ofOctober2010 (copy attachedto these comments) which was included in the FEIS for the I-69, Section 4 projectcontains datawhichis contradictmyto data reported in the resubmittal document. These two reports and their accompanying data setsneed to be conelated andbalanced to produce anmore accurate andreliable re-submittal document,
Forthe abovereasons and othersthattime constraints do notpe11nit full development, I askthatthis submittal bewithdrawnuntil a moreaccurate and detailed submittalmay be prepared.

3



### C-14--------- **~·-~~·-~·-----------~**



# GREENE COUNTY

**N"&I&·Of.tVOlA71\I.Jj,~:Q8~AtUCcCOil!IPOlJND.~····.•** •
..· .. ·· ... •.·
.... · ... ··• •. •··.·.•.·.·

.. · .. ·.·.·•.·
.. .·...



# i··.~.·.····.·

..· .• ·.·.·· •.·.· .. ·.· ... ··.•.·.·
.. · . ·.·

...·.·.·.•·.·

..•..·.·.·.·.·

.. ··••·
.. .· ...



# ~.·.·.·.·

.. ·· ... · ..... · . ·· ... ·.·•·
....··•.·.·.·.•.·

•.. · .• · ... · .. ··.·.•.•
.. •.·•.•·.·.·.•.·

•. · ..



# ~ ... ·.·.·.. •.··.·.·
.. •
..·.·.···.•.·.··.·

•... ··· ..•
... ·· ... ··.·.· .•• •.·.·.•.·•·
... ·.· •...



# ~ ...· ....·.· ... ··.•.·•.

· .. ·.·.· • ·.·•·.·.·

..··.'··.·.·.·

....



# ~ ....·.·.·.··.··."···.·.·.·.·.·

.... ·.·.·.·... ·.·•···.·.··
.. ·.· ..



# ~.· •. · ..·.•
.. ·.·.·•···
..·.. •.·.·.·
.. ·.·.· . ·.· •.



# ~ ...



# ~ .·.·.·.·.·

..·.•.·.·.·.•·

...



# ··.~ ...



# ·~ .. ·.··.·•··

...·.•.·.·.·.·

... · ..··· ..·.·•·.·

..·.·.·.·.·

..



# ·.·.·.·.·.~

...· .. ·• ·.···.··•··.·•·····.·.··
.. · •.·.·.·.· ...•. · . · .. ·· •.• · .• · ..•. · .• ·.· ..• · .• ·..· .• · •. · •.·· •. · . ·· •..• ··.· •.•.· .. · ..· ..•.•. ·.·.•.. ·.· •. ·.·.·.· ... · .. · .•.·•.···.·

.. .· ..•.



# .4,~··~.·~·~1'ii9.~e~ **c:)~j·~·~~·~oo~~~'I9.N,$··•.·····················.\**
DRAFT

Prepared for the Indiana Department ofTransportation

October 2010

Prepared by: Bernardin, Lochmueller & Associates, Inc. 6200 Vogel Road Evansville, Indiana 47715



### C-15Volatile Orgsnlc CompoundtmdNittogen OxkhEmlsoions

Table ofContents

BERNARD!N• LOCIIMUEUERANDASSOCJA'J'ESINC.



### C-16Volatli::J 01l{1Mia Compound;;andNitrogen Oxit:!a Emlssfom

List ofTables**~i;f#JI~&~~;~~I~~~'~Nf~~!~~~lt\lf~~liV~~~~1lE~~tl~I~tj1;\~B1L~it~Et7JI~1~t;r~~l~~i~f:{0~~f~Htllif~1f4~~** 

## ;'fK!i!:li'i11i1§1Qi\iG]IPMSVMtiNDi:iio\VT)iMTES

## fROM)STDivi. 

# r \

. ,,·.;; $}**tiffi1};§t{ltg;fHQ_U@~lf:>,Thl!tlVlftftYL-&~1<t~~~t'£~1~~H~~t11;Et~t1!:lfii1 :_J'?~f~l** **m~~~2~~~~**

# !;:l[~lti~~~i~i~;~ifi~~~~Nm$~~~~t~~~~:~~~rr~1!J~0~t~~~w:~~tf$!;~~~~~i~!~;t**~~if~~~ti~1 'fJ@;\l'!i:ziil$\id!<ECA~'r** **~·GiiiiriNE.CO\lNTY**

### .•..•.·.· ,··,·,;··,.·,:•,·
..';:.·.';;·•.·,...•,••.

### ;.,•:.\''&:'(ii)''''\ ;;;·;'?''\:**li!E4lr~~i~\~il~Wi1l!\i1fi'ii~m\\l\@[i1Jl•(@>®~~m;Jr::1ill'.!:"l'~~if1!~';;1~:t£•~''il'11\'?~;~1l~f~'2~** 

### i'fABLE•'i:.2Q35FClRECAST-PREEl"ECOUNTY'

..... \ ,f;

### iB.,•. ·.

### Fw:iii\i)W[?Wz!!J,'~t~il~JlNttf1G_t~li2l!il®i!»Ja\iilll!J1lill,rJif!li!irj§f~~illli!ti~Mlli!IiiL't~

## li'il''Zi'Sl

List ofFigures

BRUNARDJN•LOCHMUELLERANDASSOCIATESINC. ii



### C-17Volatile Oiganlc CompoundandNiirogtm OKltla Emissions

INTRODUCTION Analysis ofvolatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides ofnitrogen (NOx) emissions produced by motor vehicles in Greene County, Indiana, demonstrates that these ozone precursors will continue to decrease in future years. Moreover, this decrease will occm irrespective of the construction of I**~69** or other transportation infrastructure improvements in the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOTfs Long Range Transpottation Plan. Cleaner, lower-emitting vehicle fleets will continue to more than offset growth in vehicle miles of travel (VMT) and result in lower overall emissions inventories.
This rc]Jort documents the process involved in this analysis as well as its findings and is presented in support of fl conformity determination for the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for I-69 Section 4. The goal was to analyze air pollutant emissions levels (VOC nnd NOx) corresponding to the latest assumptions in the FEIS for 1-69 Section 4 and compare them to the budget for ozone precmsm: emissions set by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) in its ozone maintenance plan for Greene County.
As per the EPA's fmalmlepublished in the Federal Registe1· Vol. 69, No. 126 on July 1, 2004, "Transportation Conformity is required under the Clean Air Act section 176(e) (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) to ensure that federally suppo1ied highway and transit project activities are consistent with cnconform to") the purpose of the state air quality implementation plan (SIP). Conformity cmrcntly applies under EPA's rules to areas that are designated non-attainment or maintenance. 11 Areas are designated "nonHattainment" for violating the National AmbientAir Quality Standards (NAAQS). Final Rules published in the Federal Register Vol. 69, No. 84 on April30, 2004 state "CAA definition ofthe**non~attainment** aroa that is defined in Section 107(d) (1) (A) (i) as an area that is violating the standard. lf an area meets this definition, EPA is obligated to designate the area as non-attainment." The**non~attainment** areas can be**re~designatcd** as attainment/maintenance as pet· section 107(d) (3) ofthe CleanAirAct. EPAmade a determination thatthe Greene County ozone**non~attainment** area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS on November 14, 2005. This determination was based on three years of complete**quatity~assured** ambient air quality monitoring data for the 2002-2004 seasons that demonstrated that the 8wlwur o:zone NAAQS has been attained in the area. In making this re-designation, EPA also approved the State's plans for maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2015 and beyond in this area as a revision to the Indiana State Implementation rlan (SIP). EPA also found adequate and approved the State's 2015 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MYERs) for the Greene County area which IDEM bas determined to be 1.46 tpd fOr VOC and 1.54 tpd for NOx. It should be noted that the MVEB exceeds the**on~road** mobile source NOx emissions projected by IDEM fm· 2015. All plans, programs and projects must be reviewed for confmmity with the standards to assure that they do not exceed the established budgets as determined in the SJP. Any project subject lo the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) mmt be found to conform with the SIP before a final record ofdecision (ROD) may be issued (40 CFR 93.102).

BERNAlWJN• LOCHMUELLERANDASSOCIATESINC.



### C-18Vo!aiila Organk: CompoundandNitrogan Oxfd9Emissions

The air quality analysis presented here involved four procedures. First, the updated Indiana Statewide Travel Dematld Model (ISTDM) was used to determine the vehiclemiles-traveled (VMT) for a base year (2006) and for each ofthe analysis years (2015, 2025 and 2035). The modeled VMT was then used to develop growth rates which were applied to the official estimates of VMT from the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS). Second, a post processing procedure was used to compute average speed for each facility type, and from that data, Mobile 6.2 input files were created. Third, the Mobile 6.2 emission factor model was used to determine the emission rates for VOCs and NOx. Fourlh, the VMT by functional classification was then multiplied by the emission rate factors to determine lhe total emissions inventories.

PROJECTASSUMPTIONS The most significant change since the Greene County emiSSions analysis that demonstrated conformity for I-69 Section 3 is the accelerated construction schedule for Section 4 and the associated open-to-traffic date ofthe end of2014. The representation ofl-69 in Greene County in future years reflects this timetable and the latest assumptions regarding theplacement ofinterchanges included in the FEIS for Section4.
Federal regulations (40 CFR 93.109) stipulate that in isolated rural maintenance areas, regionally significant projects should be included from the statewide long range transportalion plan. INDOT is currently updating their Long Range Transportation Plan from 2005-2030 to 2010-2035, and integrating it with theh· Major Moves construction program. The new plan incorporates the increased nearterm constn!Ction associated with Major Moves, jncluding the acceleralion of Seclion 4, while 1·eflecting a more conservative assumption in later years. Although the new Long Range Plan is still in draft form, it was agreed through intemgency consultation on July 28, 2010, that it represented the besl and latestplanning assumptions.

TRAVELDElYIAND MODELAND VMT GROWTH
The ISTDM is a mathematical computer model, using state of the art TransCAD software, which relates current and future travel demand to basic socioeconomic infmmation. The model area covers all ofIndiana including Greene County. All major roadways are represented in the travel model.
The Indiana State travel demand model uses the standard four steps ofmodeling: tt'ip generation, tdp distt'ibution, mode choice, and traffic assignment. ln addition, itconsiders travel by vehicles (trucks and autos) entering, leaving, and crossing lndiana, and it predictstnJCktraffic based inpart on the representation ofcommodity flows. TheISTDM was re-validated for a new 2006 base year with improvements to the mode choice and tmck models. During the mode] calibration process, model parameters were adjusted such that the model output matched, within accepted standards, several calibration criteria based on measured data. These criteria included items such as comparisons

BERNARDIN•LOCHMUELLERANDASSOCiATESJNC. 2



### C-19Volatile**O~nfc** CompoundandNitrogen Oxide Emlssfons
against traffic counts, modeled vs. observed vehicle miles oftravel, trip lengths by trip purpose, etc. The result ofthe recalibration was a travel model which replicated travel in Indiana for the year 2006 and is capable ofproducing reasonable traffic forecasts out to year 2035. This analysis makes use of the official version 5.0 of ISTDM finalized January 28,2010.
Model outputs are expressed in terms ofdaily volumes for each roadway segment. The raw model results fi:om each scenario have traffic estimales only for those facilities coded in the model. These modeled traffic estimates generally include facilities that are classified as major collectm· or higher. Travel on the lower classed roadways (collector and local), while not entirely absent, is under-represented in the model.
TAlJ.El: ;HPMSVMT

'""'"' 'il; .,, ,. "' '·""" li.fi\i'fl "" m "" m '''" m '·"' m "'' '""'"""' .;;,**·~** "' "" '·"''" 1·.;;,•,,1


### """""" :;, 

### "' "' 

### "" '""'



## ,'" "'''""' :
..;x " " " '"'" ' ,r (-,; 

## ·, '""' 

# .: ' " "'" I '" , '"""' ·" '" '" " •.•w I '""""'' ;.,, I "" 

## •= '"' ' om ! "" '·"" ,..,, 

### " '•oo• " I '"" " o.•oo " '·"'**1,~** l•.m I**•~** I''" 

### "' 

# .., "" HH 

### "" Adjustment factors, provided by INDOT) were applied to account tOr the fact that HPMS daily VMT represents an annual average day; whereas, VMT used for the emissions analysis must represent a summer day. Growth rates for predicting fuhJre year VMT are estimated by functional classification. Formost functional classes, which are represented in the model network, the growth rate is simply taken as the ratio ofmodeled VMT in the forecast year versus the base year. For mrallocal roads, urban collectors and urban local roads, which arc not represented in the model network for Greene County, gwwth rates were based on the growth ofall rural or mban non-freeway VMT. For rural interstates, which only appear in Greene County in futm·e year scenarios, the model VMT is used directly, without adjustment, since there is no base year HPMS VMT to which growth factors could he applied. The historic HPMS estimates ofVMT in Greene County for 2006, 2007 and 2009 are displayed in Table 1 together with the ISTDM estimates of VMT for the base year and 2015, 2025 and 2035 forecast years and resulting growth rates. A second 2035 scenario also assumes construction ofthe I-69 Ohio River Bridge. This last scenario is not required to demonstrate conformity but is provided for information purposes only, to disclose maximum possible impacts under NEPA.

BERNARDIN• WCHMUF.l.Ui'.RANDASSOCIATESINC. 3



### C-20Volailla Organic CompoundandNfiroglm OxideEmlaslorm

TRAVEL**MODELl'OST~~ ROCESSING**  AND OTHERMOBILE 6.2 INPUTS
In the Federal Register on March 2, 2010, US EPA formally adopted the new MOVES2010 model as its official mobile source emissions model and announced a two year grace period after which (March 2, 2012) it must be used for confmmlty purposes. Until that time, it is still permissible to use the Mobilc6 emissions factor model. Itwas decided through interngency consultation on July 28,2010, that it was appropriate to tJse the Mobile6 model for this analysis, so as to make a fair, "apples to apples" comparison wlththe SIP budgets which were developed llsing Mobile6. Speeds are included in Mobile6 inputs to produce more accurate emissions rates. The methodology for estimating speeds used in developing the SIP budgets for Greene County was based on an implied default assumption regarding the distdbulion oftranic throughout the 24 hours ofthe day. This analysis used the hourly distribution oftraffic from the 1995 Indiana Household Travel Survey to post-process the ISTDM 1·esults and generally produced slightly higher speeds for most funclional classes than were assumed in the SIP development The previous emissions analysis conducted for 1-69 Section 3 estimated emissions both ways, using the SIP's horizon year speeds and using the speeds resulting from post-processing lhe ISIDM. Thetesults ofthat analysis demonstrated that there were no significant differences in the emissions resulting from the two methodologies. It was therefore agreed through interagency consultation on July 28. 2010that it was appropriate to use the ISTDM's**post~proccsscd** speedsfor this analysis.

TABLE 2· HOURI YDISTIUBUTION OF TRAFFIC "DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL TRAFFIC BY HOUR PERCENT OF PERCENT OF HOUR OF DAY DAILY TRAFFIC HOUR OF DAY DAILY TRAFFIC 1:00AM 0.47% 1:00PM 4.77% 2:00AM 0.36% 2:00PM 5.13% 2:00AM 0.26% 3:00PM 8.62% 4:00AM 0.36% 4:00PM 9.60% 5:00AM 1.61% 5:00PM 9.22% 6:00AM 6.55% 6:00PM 5.13% 7:00AM 8.01% 7:00PM 3.99% 8:00AM 6.24% 8:00PM 2.90% 9:00AM 4.61% 9:00PM 2.95% 10:00 AM 4.41% 10:00 PM 3.06% 11:00 AM 4.61% 11:00 PM 1.71% 12:00 AM 4.61% 12:00 PM 0.83%
Source: 1995 Indiana Household Travel Survey

BERNARDJN• LOCHMUHLUIRANDASSOCIATESJNC. 4



### C-21Volailte Orgsnic Compound&ndNitrogen Oxlds Emissions

In the post-processing of the

**IS'flJM~** accomplished by its POST_ALT program, an average speed and VMT arc computed for each time period for each link. In the postprocessing, peak period volumes are compared to a peak period capacity to determine a volume to capacity ratio. Capacities usc HCM2000 methodology (described inthe model documentation). Volumeto capacity (v/c) ratios for each link for each hour arc then used to estimate a period specific speed. A BPR volume delay function was used to estimate the link speeds for each timeperiod formulated as follows. 

### S d Speedflwflow

.pee '""''"'"' 1+o:

### (vIc)' The alpha and beta parameters are the same as assumed in the ISTDM and specific to each roadway segment. For the base year model in Greene County, alpha's range from 0.42to 0.72 and betasrangefrom 2.5 to 4.0.
After speeds were estimated for each modeled link and for each ofthe analysis years, the data was aggregated by FI-IWA functional classification for use in Mobile 6.2 using the AVERAGE SPEED command. The average speed for each functional class was calculatedusing a VMTweighted average. The VMTweighted average was computed by multiplying the speed for each link by the link's VMT. Nex_t, the Spced*VMT values were summed for each functional class. Thefunctional class sum was divided by the sum ofthatfunctional class's modeled VMT to yield an average speed.
The calculated congested speeds for Rural Interstates, Urban Interstates and Urban Expressways were adjusted for an assumed percentage oframp VMT according to the procedures outlined in the Mobile6 User's Guide Section 2.8.8.2.d. Speed assumptions are listed in Tables 5 through 8and in theMobile6 input files contained in AppendixA.
Indiana specific VMT per vehicle type we1·e also used to improve estimates of emission

**rates~** as in the SIP. The distribution applied was derived by IDEM from the INDOT's 2002 state-wide HPMS data for vehicle classification for each of the twelve INDOT functional classes, The INDOT data covers thirteen vehicle groups which are different from the sixteen vehicle groups required by Mobile6, An adjustment wasmadeby IDEM to convert the INDOT VMT fraction to a Mobile6 VMT

**fraction~** and this data was provided by IDEM for the Greene County. The VMT fraction fOr each functional class was input toMobile6 using the VMT FRACTIONcommand. All VMT Fractions used in the analysis are listed in the Mobile6 input tiles contained in AppendixA.
The Mobile6 emissions analysis, as documented in Appendix A, also includes the use of an age distribution of registered vehicles in Greene County, except for I-69 which assumes the default national fleet age distribution, The vehicles on 1-69 are presumed to have characteristics reflective of the national vehicle fleet, rather than of the vehicles registered within Greene County. The Greene County distribution is based on the Lake Michigan Air Dii·ectors Consortium's (LADCO) VlN decoding of2004 l'cgistrntion data for Greene County from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. Although INDOT has since procured updated registration data for 2009, it had not been quality assured atthe time of

BERNARDIN•LOCI/MUELLERANDASSOCIATe'SJNC. 5



### C-22Vo161me Oiyiilnlc Compound

**~£nd**Nltmgen Ox!doEmissions

this analysis. The vehicle fleet age assumptions foL' this analysis were agreed to by interagency consultation on August 17, 2010.
Mobile6 also requires certain basic meteorological and other inputs for the estimation of emissions rates. The values fOr these assumptions must be the same as used in the development ofthe SJP budgets. For July in Greene County, the SIP assumptions are a minimum daily temperature of 65.0 degrees (Fahrenheit) and maximum daily temperatme of 86.3 degrees, absolute humidity of 93.7 grains per pound, 34% cloud cover, 6 am sunrise and 8 pm sunset, and a fuel Reid vapor pressure of9.0 psi.

ANALYSIS RESULTS The analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) emission levels for Greene County demonstrates that motor vehicle emissions have consistently decreased and can be expected to continue to .decrease in the future. A summary ofthe analysis results is presented in Table 3 and in Figure 1.

The state, in consultation with FHWA and US EPA, established budgets fol' VOC and NOx in Greene County in 2015 and beyond. These budgets are pmt ofthe state's plan to maintain safe levels of ozone which attain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) established by the US EPA. VOC and NOx arc regulated since they contribute directly to the production of ozone. The state's ozone maintenance plan for Greene County was approved by US EPA on November 14, 2005. The maintenance plan included estimates of VOC and NOx emissions fmm motor vehicles in 2002 and forecasts ofemissions in 2010 and 2015. The budgets were established by applying a safety margin to the 2015 estimates.

JlERNARDJN• LOCIJMUEU.ERANDASSOC!ATESINC. 6



### C-23Vofat/10 Organic CompoundandNf'irogan 0Jrlde Emllmfmnt

Official HPMS data (fi·om 2004-2009) over multiple cycles of fNDOT data collection indicate that VMT in Greene County has remained relatively stable relative to the 2002 estimate in the nmintenance plan. However, emissions estimates based on HPMS data for 2009 (the most recent year for which data was available at the time ofthis analysis) demonstrate that emissions had ah'eady fallen below the maintenance plan's forecast fm 2010 by 2009 despite no decline inVMT.

,------------·-·········--------, 

### Greene County MotorVehicle Emissions
4.0
3.5
3.0

> 2.5 

### • 0**~** 2.0**~** 

### • 

### • {'. 1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0 2002: 2009 2015 2025 2035 2035 Historic Historic forecast Forecast Forecast Forecastw/ 1-69 Bridge Figure 1: EMISSION ANALYSIS RESULTS**~voc ~NOx**  --VOCRudgal

--- Nox Budget

Although VMT in Greene County is forecast to grow in futme years with theconstruction ofl-69j emissions are forecast to continue their decline due to lower emission rates from Mobile6 in future years associated with increasingly lower emitting vehicle fleets. The decreasein emissions from the move to cleaner vehicles in future years more than offsets the increase in travel resulting from the construction of 1-69 in the county. Detailed analysis results presented in Tables 5 through 8 demonstrate that regardless of whether the 1-69 Ohio River Bridge is assumed to be completed by 2035 (see Table 8), future emissions arc forecast well below their established budgets.
The draft version of this document is to be made available for public comment and agency review from October 8, 2010 through November 8, 2010. Public notice will be published twice in local print media and online at the projectwebsite.

BERNARDIN•LOCHMUELT.ERANDASSOCIATESINC. 7



### C-24Volatlla Organic CompoundendNitrogen OJddtJ

**~Emlssform**

TABLE 5· 2015 FORECAST GREENE COUNTY 

### - ,, 2006 July ISTDM 2015 ISTDM voc NOx Functional HPMS Adj. 2015/ VMT Speed tate rate voc NOx Class VMT Fact 2006 mph g/ml g/ml tpd tpd

- Rurallnterst. 1.127 297,905.5 73.2 0.402. 1.683 0.13 0.55 Rural OPA 129,000 1.064 0.965 132,1103.2 48.4 0.601 0.936 0.09 0.14 RurMinArt 144,000 1.064 0.935 14:1,239.5 48.3 0.624 O.T/7 0.10 0.12

.···- Rur Maj Col 460,000 1.05:1 0.748 362,382,6 47.4 0.64 0.713 0.26 0.28 RurMinCol 133,000 1.053 0.996 139,447.7 40.3 0.671 0,756 0.10 0.12



## -- Rural Local 129,000 1.053 0.839 113,898.0 29.2 0.724 0.695 0.09 0.09

- UrbanOPA

- 53,000 1.011 1.007 53,979.8 35.8 0.685 0.655 0.04 0.04 UrbMinArl 24,000 1.011 1.013 24,575.2 35.6 0.691 0.633 0.02 0.02 Urban Col 5,000 1.011 1.008 5,096.7 34.0 0.708 0.604 0.00 o.oo Urban Local 40,000 1.011 1.008 40,773.8 1.052 0.621 0.05 0.03 1,117,000

**~.13,702.0** 0.88 1.38

---····- TADLE 6· 2025 FORECAST- GREENE COUNTY =c- 2006 July ISTDM ISTOM voc NOx 2025 Functional HPM5 Adj. 2025/ Speed rate rate voc

**NO~** ·-- VMT Class VMT Fact. 2006 mph g/ml f}{ml tpd tpd Rurallnterst. 1.12.7 440,928.0 73.2 0.267 0.602 0.13 0.?:9 Rural OPA

. ___129,000 1.064 1.057 145,050.l 48.3 0.371 0.1121 0.06 0.07 Rur Min Art 144,000 1.064

**0.9~~--** 152,446.8 4&4 0.383 0.392 0.06 O.Dl Rur Maj Co! 460,000 1.053 0.855 413,910.0 47.4 0.393_ 0.379 0.18 0.17 Rvr Min Col 133,000 1.053 1.121 156,872.0 40.3 0.428 0.39 0.07 0.07 Rural Local 129,000 1.053 0.932 126,533.2 29.2 0.454 0.37 0.06 0.05 Urban OPA 53,000 1.011 1.058 56,684.1 35.7 0.425 0.357 0.03 O.D2

**.J:!..r:~.-~inArt** 24,000 1.011 1.063 25,799.0 35.4 0.429 0.353 0.01 o.ot

Urban Col 5,000 1.011 1.059 5,351.8 34.0 0.44 0.349 0.00 0.00 Urban Local 40,000

__ 1.011 1.059 42,814.7 0.701 0.361 0.03 0,02 1,117,000

**1,566,3_8_~~** 0.64

- Q.1]__
TABLE 7'2035 FORI'C'AST- GREENE COUNTY " ... 2006 July ISTDM ISTDM voc NOx 2035 Func!lonal HPMS Adj. 2035/

**-~peed** rate rate voc NOx VMT Fact. 2006 VMT mph g/ml g/mi tpd tpd Class Rurallnterst. 1.127 530,302.8 73.2 0.258 0.393 0.15 0.23

.. Rural OPA 129,000 1.064 1.154

**15~!339.9** 48.2 0.359 0.332 0.06

**···~** RurMinArt 144,000 1.064 1.052 161,095.5 48.1 0.371 0.328 0.07 0.06

- RurMajCol 460,000 1.053 0.947 458,705.5 47.4 0.38 0.325 0.19 0.16



### -

- Rur Min Col 133,000 1.053 1.215 170,102.4 40.3 0.415 0.329 0.08 0.06 Rural Local 129,000 1.053 1.017 138,079.8 29.2 0.441 0.318 Q.Q7 0.05 Urban OPA

**53,~po** 1.011 1.107 59,302.6 35.6 0.412 0.31 0.03

**1-~** Urb Min Art 24,000 1.011 1.115 27,064.8 35.3 0.416 0.31 0.01 O.Dl

.. --- Urban Col 5,000 1.011 1.108 5,601,5 34.0 0.427 0.311 0.00 0.00

- Urban local 40,000 1.011 1.108 44,811.8 0.684 0.32 0.03 0.02 1,117,000 1,753,406.5 0.69 0.67

BERNARDIN• WCHMUELLERANDASSOCIATESINC. 8



### C-25Vo!aWo OrgBnlc CompoundtmdNitrogen OxldeEmissions

TABI E 8· 2035 FORECASTASSUMJNG l-69 OHIO RivERBRIDGEBUILT- GREENE COUNTY " 2006 July !STOM 2035w/ ISTOM voc NOx Funttlonal IIPMS Adj. 2035/ Bridge Speed rate rate voc NOx Class VMT Fact. 2006 VMT mph g/mi g/ml**_tp~- _p_~**  Rurallnterst. 1.127 632,736.2 73.2 0.7.58 0.393 0.18 0.27

.--·-- Rural OPA**1~~J.~9P** 1.064 1.156 158,640.0 48.7. 0.359 0.332 0.06 0.06 RurMinArt 144,000 1.064 1.050 160,887.5 48.2 0.371 0.37.8 0.07 0.06 Rur Maj Col 1)60,000 1.053 0.950 459,879.3 1)7.4 0.38 0.325 0.19 0.16 Rur Min Col 133,000 1.053 1.215 170,073.5 40.3 0.415 0.329 0.08 0.06 Hura! local 129,000 1.053 1.018 138,278.0 29.2 0.'11)1 0.318 O.o7 0.05 UrbanOPA 53,000 1.011 1.103 59,123.4 35.7 0.412 0.31 0,03 0.02 UrbMinArt 24,000 1.011 1.116 27,084.8 35.3 0.416 0.31 0.01 0.01 Urban Col 5,000 1.011 1,105 5,587.9 34.0 0.427 0.311 o.oo 0,00 Urban Local 40,000 1.011 1.105 44,703.0 0.684 0.32 0.03 0.02 1,11'1,000 1,856,993.7 0.72 0.71

BERJMRDJN•!.OCHMUELLERANDASSOCIATESINC. 9



### C-26Voramc Orgmnic Compoundsndi\!ltJogan OxldfJEmissions

APPENDIX A- MOBILE 6.2FJLES GREENECOUNTY VEIUCLEREGJSTRATlON- INPUTFJLE

### ili~:~;;;:::~:~(~~~.~:~.~==·~~:.~~=-~---·-~·---~-·--------------------·--------------------·-1
O.OSSlO.O!>J0.051SM·mO.OUll.OI!<Ul!Jt01•SM1110.0"1**O.OI~G ~$lll10.0~UO.OOl!O.~l<>l**  'LfiTI**~O.OllO!!.O!OlMJSSMJ!J70.0l57UJ!.l:U(JI<tMl(lMJG!:t.OJIO** O

..,.llO.O:l!UOmo.omO.OilH.Olli!OnlliMIYO.ISIUI>l

.. 0.0UIO.Om0.0U'MI"0.011l !**;~~~ll.«IH.omM~ll0.0>1liMJ'UMilJO.O::OiO.O>l!OM.<.<l** !**O.Oil~O.OII!O.OlliO.Omo.omo.omo.Niotoo!So.o.,,MIIt O.ll"l110.1"4.1lMOII0.00110.0!!~** 

•J.nn**~UI(5Mm0."l~llilli.O.O<I!O.I/.I;IMHIO.ll.!i00.0l010.0!~5** M!&IO.OIOJO.OJUMIOlMIJIO.OmO.OlUO.t!OSil.ml<I.OZ1J MIOIO.OI•>O.IXIJJ!I.JIOSlO.IOll •wn**~0.0.'<110.01.12** U<illlOlllO.OUIM:\61Mll(O.OJOOO.OJO/O.Oll. a
..**noomO.Oml.OIOlO.OtllllO.O!OlOMSIMl!OO.O~Oo.!IOI -~~M.III\.~~!~t.l.lll**  ______________________________ ··-----------------------···-········---·-··-·-·

11,\TMM--'".OUTI,J/ : IV!D!FffiW.'l,\MI!S : A<IOIUX!AliDOUIWf:**rr~.1.urmn< ,uc~ox**  RI!I'O!ITU.!l**'"'""'"-~J.I-It ThiiSSlDNSTAlll~**  ;{],,..,,;,_1l_,(**m~II>ATII** ""'""'"""""R<nS"ll>n "'""'""""""**'ll<"m"'"""'''"""'"'''"'MfOI<>>t<>fo"'nCife<o:<~W.J)" MlllM~XTEMI'**  :<il.O 'l'J Al<SOLUfGl!IJMDltY :91.7**~1.0llll(O'If:R** ;OJ! SUIIIU'illiWNIE" ;G 8 !-Uill.KVP :M**t/O~F,fllfJ,)>."G** :**''""'"""''"'"S<on~lo!«li«t"'""""'"'"'"** S(W,\RIOIUXO!UJ**:~e<n!ok>** 1: 1\lll**1'~·69SliPMl** ll:or<l lot«"-'<•(lo.l> l'r=uJil'<=o>yl<>qo)



### "

BERNARDIN• UJCHMUEI"LERANDASSOCIATESINC.



### C-27 10Volatile Organic Compound&ndNltmgan Oxide Emissions

BERNARDIN•LOCH MUELLERANDASSOCIATESINC, 11



### C-28Vo!atlla Olganlc CompoundandN#rogon OJ!ItieEmlsstom;

BERNA/WIN• LOCIIMURJLERAND tiSSOCIATESINC. 12



### C-29Va!aWa Orgtm!G Compuuud**~nd** Nitrogen Oxhle lEmisviorm

' ''**~"'·&~tl""** "'""'"'"'"""**'T"'"'"'..m..''""""""'"""''"'""''r'""'"'"'"'C'o~~r ~ntlii>IAXTI'MI'**  ;(,l0**~l** M-WI.O!OUI.'J.IIDITY :,1.1 CLOlUOJVEft**:~.11 WN!<ISfJ>;IJH~I;r** **:~** 8 RJa.RVP : ?.0 !>OREfliiLINO :**""'"""""'""!;.-..~!iol><-<tk<."''""'"''''""'** Sl"I'NAmORKORD :S<:<..rot?.lOIIR""'lWmW.(l.''f'"'"'J.!-"""''flb>"l•) (cAi.E!lUA.'iYI!hll ,;11115 EVAWAT!DIIW»!!I! ;7**AVf~!AOH'-Pilal :lllflllili\VAY~l.O**  0.0**~0** 10 V1ff**~JW.•J]{)._'{£**

BERNAIIDJN• LOCHMUELLERANDASSOCIATESINC



### C-30 13From: To: Cc: Jess G\·,;nn Uagmo&.bluemarb!.o.nel] fERRIS, GALE Gr.,enecountr ozone redeslgnation

- Message**{HTML~** _ 0 X

Sent: Fri 6/21!201311:03 AM**su~<?"'----"'"''o'"c'c'c'o"o"'"'"'~''o"o'c''c'o'o ig'""'cu"o"c_** __________________________________________________________________________________"" Mr. Ferris,
I am a rl'sident of Grei'cne County. I have a fe,·t questions/comment; on the redesignation of GreenE County relating to the o:o:one standard. ilm V<"-ry concerned thilt my county hils been in**non-<~ttilin"~-Ent st<~tus**  for "tany**ye<~rs.** There doesn't seem to be any effort to alleviate this status. In f»ct, the opposite seems to be occurring with the construction of I-59 through the county. The increased vehicle traffic in the county can only exacerb»tl: the o.;:one problem. If thh increased traffic makes the problem worse, horl can 69 b€ allm:.•ed to be built? h1hat impact will this continued**nor~-attcdnment** st<1tus h<1ve on future development within my county? Hill other commercial or industrial development be curt11iled just because 59 was constructed and kept my county in non-attainment?
IlllXlT used outdated fleet data as part of its conformity demonstration for the Tier 2 EIS process. I·Jhy has newer di!ta, available for several years, not been used? If the ne1-1 data shom; continued non-conformity, then there are serious problems 1·1ith the permitting process that allm"/5 69 to be constructed. \·ihile I am concerned about future motor vehicle emissions and their impact on the owne standard, what about the present? Again, I ""nt to knoa ,-,hy IIJOOT/IDEI\ did not incorporatE the 2009 vehicle fleet data into the new model, regardless of which nmdeling software they used. As for the future modeling, l'<hy use the year 2015? 59 will barEly be operational at that time. Any impact it will g: have on air**qu<~lity** will not be felt until after construction h complete <1nd the ro01d open for traffic, at least for a couple of years. lastly, there are ne,·l tables proposed for the Greene County maintenance phn that**dor~'t** reflect the same data as the original tables. \•ihy?
Thank you for your time, Jess A. Gwinn 762.5 North Newark Road Solsberry, IN 47459 812/876-8623



### C-31From: To: Bil &Jan Boyd [wahoyd@.iquest.net] f£RRJS, GAtE waboyd;**Hedrmln,su~anjl:Epa.gov** Public**comm~:ent** on M'/EB**R~plac~rnent --Gre~ne**  County, !N ·Message {Plain Te>..'t)

Cc Subject: Public comment on MVEB**Repl~{ement** -Greene County,**II~**

f.lP. Ferris,

I am requesting an additional 14 days to**prepar~** substantive comments to the proposed "l·lotor Vehicle Emission Budget**Replace~ent** Update to the J.laintenance Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard for Greene county, Indiana".
As a member of the general public Hho Hishes to submit comment, I find that the documents to reviet-J and comment on are quite technical and voluminous. Fact checking and verification for members of the general public is a more time-consuming process than for those 1'1ithin agencies Hho are fa1:1iliar Hith terms, data relationships, regulations, STIPs and inventory processes.

Thank you. \olilliam A. Boyd 83131 For1·1ard Pass Road Indianapolis, HI 46217

This message uas sent using HlP, the Internet 1·\essaging Program.



### C-32 Sent: Fri 6/21/20131::18 PMfor**e~iension** of comment period

-- Motor vehicle emission budget replacement update for Greene County ozone m.,. M

- fl1 X

## ~ 

## QlJ**L~** 

# xta**R~ply** Rfply Forward toAll**Action~ C~~~~':f-~~-rd~~-thh** **m~s:-sage- ~n** 6ii4_n013_e-:Oi'M;I, From: Timl•laloney**[tma\oney@hecl~fb.orgj** To: FERRIS, GAlE Cc**hedman.susan~ama~.epa.gov ~find** **~Related~**

Subject: Request for**~)(l:emion** of comment period-- Motorvehicle**~mission** budget**rep~a~-~:_~pdate f~!__0~_Coun_ty**  ozone malntenan<e plan

Mr. Ferris, Sent: Fri6/21/2Q13 5:05PM

This Is ourrequestfor a 30 day extension ofthecommentperiod on this proposedMVEB replacementupdate. The update requestcontains a substantial amountoftechnical information VJh!ch will take time toreview properly. Wehavejustlearned ofthis proposal, and would like additionaltime to review the materials and prepare substantive comments.
We hopeyou will grant this request.
Tim Maloney SeniorPolicy DirectOl' Hoosie-r Em·irorune-ntal Comlcil 3951 K Metidian St. Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46108 317-685-8800 ext. 115 C: 812-369-8677**tmaloney~llhent·eb.org** Join Us. Becomea memberatlnnr.henreb.org.



### C-33

### INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT We ProtectHoosiers andOurEnvironment. MitchellE. Daniels Jr. Governor
Thomas W. Easterly Commissioner 

### May23, 2013



### CERTIFICATE OF PUBLICATION 100 North Senate Avenue Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 (317) 232-8603 Toll Free (800) 451-6027 www.idem.IN.gov



### This is to certify thatthe Indiana Department ofEnvironmental Management (IDEM) Notice of the opportunity for a Public Hearing regarding the following:

• Motor Vehicle Emission Budget (MVEB) Replacement Update to the Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard for Greene County, Indiana

was published on IDEM's web site onMay 22, 2013. It

### is expectedthat it will remain posted on the site until at least June 21, 2013.
The notice in full was available online at the following web address, under "Southwestern". http://www.in.gov/idem/5474.htm

Web publication ofthe notice was at the request ofScott Deloney, Branch Chief, Programs Branch, Office ofAir Quality, IDEM.

Attachments: Copy ofweb page as published. By:

Mike Finklestein IDEM Webmaster

C-34

### SCREENSHOT VERIFICATION OFLEGAL NOTICE POSTING ON IDEM WEBSITE

{'?



### Favorite~ 

## I W,

**~login-** att.netYahoo! 

### 6 Latitudeand



### lo~itudetoA...



### ~Pihttp--www.epa.gov-ttn-oar

... 

### I1JfreeHot""1 

### lj) R<ohPnnter, RNPOll2673J

... Extranet 

## J IDEM: Puhh: Notices: Sou

... X >'>- n ,@ » cir • Iii) [:;']

**~** • Pageo Safety. Tools •

**~·** Watersheds andl!onpointSource Water Pollution Certifications &Training Compliance .,. Monitoring .,. Permitting .,. Repor1ing "' Video andAudio library "'Signuptoreceive

**~**

e-m1111and wireless

**~pdate~fromJDEM**

I
·fer Dut:ai;

Dutci; srd Fi'·:e

**Pi~:-:, Sp~nrer,**  1597 Vand:rhurgh snd Vfg•fiQ.:

Gib;on

Gib;cn

**Gr;~r;**

GreHoo

Krcx

Kr.c·x !.ill]

**0~":10.'2013**

I<FDES Fire!

**R~m.::·,\·;;1** 04·2fr2013- !E..illi

**or-.:1~**..·2013

Sclid 1 No;t;: lsni

**O~·.OE.:2013-** ilHii.:;;:icr. Po:rn·it oe-.Oi/2013 l.QQQ

**l~ijBI** Hati(};

**B~d** 05."1!-·2013- Ocwil.nittfc.rht-lio oe<!.V2013 He;ringiPDF1

**I~PDES Dr~ft**  **R;r~.·,.al** 04'1S-'2013· IEQE o:\·20,2013

I>FDESCwcl=t;m; 0{0f:2013. &

**A<ail~l:ililt** d

**a~** O!:-.oe.,.2o13ArtidoradEticrD;mcnlratbn iFCF1 LE2EI il:tiw ad o:--22.-"2013- Cc-r:rtt.ni!if::r

**F~Ciic** oe-.·21/2013 H;scir,o

**fpc;~·**

!-iPDES 1f-S

**"R;cHi~l-'** 05i1E,:2()13-

**G;ner~l** Pemit IPDFl

**05.0~,.'2013**
l'i<tHi'lell Con;truclicn {14-03,.'2013- fer C•in<ir,g \\'st.or !PDF! 05.-o:.:;::ol3 Sdid \fls;le P;rmit OE·.-20•2013- IEQE] Oe:OB,-_:1:013

**~01 w~t~rQcsli!'('** 

**0~·/14J2013·**

**C~rlific:ati~r Puc-li~**  oe
...

**o~J20t3** tlc·lic>.: iFOf;



### C-35 Jahn Dcnn,;llsn

**~I** MOre;; en Nolio: YH FrojHi

**/.ls-1~g;;r.** /datt

**Ccc~** Add!;:;; c;n /lotio: Y;:;

**FrojHlf.f::m~:r.** Brenda S!ephancfl ACtir;:;; en /lotio= YE; Addrm on flotiw

Ye; PmjEct t.lsnsga Bill St<:nn€r
Addr<:n on Noliw Y;:; Fmjact

**Uana~;r** SIE'/E Rou;h
Addr;;z

**o~** Notice Ye; AOdr;;; en tiolic>.:

He

**FtojHll,lsns~;r:**

**S~eri** J::-rdsn

YE; Adllrm on flotioa

He PrcjH:I tJsnsg;r Cmi"jlclmr Y;;; P10jHi

**Ma~aa:r Acpli~nl**  Harr.e:

**Jsm~;** Turn;;r Mr. Them;; WHmH AddrHs on Notice

**A_p~li~nl** Compan:r lr1DOT l[iEI.JIDHumt:;:r