IDEM INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 

We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment. 

100 N. Senate Avenue • Indianapolis, IN 46204 

(800) 451-6027 • (31 7) 232-8603 • www.idem.IN.gov 

Michael R. Pence 

Governor 

Thomas W. Easterly 

Comu1issim1er 

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 Motor Vehicle 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 Request for Redesignation and 

Maintenance Plan for Ozone Attainment in the 8-Hour Ozone Basic Nonattainment 

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 

update to 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 of this 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 Equal Opportunity Employer 0 

A State at~ 

@ Recycled Paper 
Ms. Hedman 

Page 2 

MVEBs are being revised in anticipation of the 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. 

On road 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 of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

This submittal consists of one (1) hard copy of the required documentation. An 

electronic version of the 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 of the 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. If you 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 of Air Quality 

On road 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 

For the Greene County, Indiana, 

Maintenance Area under the 1997 

8-Hour Ozone Standard 

July 2013 

Final 
This page intentionally left blank 
Introduction 

On September 6, 2005, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) submitted a 

Request for Redesignation and Maintenance Plan for Ozone Attainment in the 8-Hour Ozone Basic 

Nonallainment Area, for Greene County, Indiana The United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (U.S. EPA) subsequently approved the Indiana redesignation of Greene County, Indiana, to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard on November 14, 2005 (70 FR 69085), with an 

effective date of December 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 

area that 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 of the original Redesignation Petition and 

Maintenance Plan. Table 4.1 -A (to be considered a replacement of the table included in 

Appendix C) has been revised to incorporate updated omoad emission estimates for nitrogen oxides 

(NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for the years 2002,2010, and 2015; it results 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 per Day) . . 

. 

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 bemg replaced With 

MOVES-based values. 

1 
Table 4.1-A 

Greene County Basic Nonattainment Area 2002 Baseline and Projected 2010 and 2015 

Emissions Inventory (MOVES-based Onroad Emissions) 

(Tons per Day) 

Sector 2002 NOx 2010 NOx 2015 NOx 

Area 0.25 0.27 0.27 

Non-road 1.61 1.37 1.22 

Onroad 4.50 2.55 2.01 

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 1.16 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 -A were calculated using U.S. EPA's MOVES modelproduced emission factors and data extracted from the area's travel-demand model. The 

MOVES model implements a significantly different approach to emissions estimation than the 

previous model (MOBILE6.0). Preliminary use of the MOVES model indicates that emission 

estimates can be 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 

nonattainment area. A general summary of the MOVES methodology used in this area can be 

found in Appendix A. In addition, MOVES input and output 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 were developed before the economic challenges of the last several years. Because of this, 

the factors included in the original submittal may project 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 

of the plan. 

Onroad safety margins have been included for onroad emission estimates to accommodate the 

wide array of assumptions that are factored into the calculation process. Since assumptions 

change over time, it is necessary to have an onroad safety margin that will accommodate the 

impact of refined assumptions in the process. The plan continues to meet all applicable Clean 

Air Act (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 

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, "Emission Estimations for On-Road Mobile Sources" was included on Page 17 of 

the original Redesignation Petition and Maintenance Plan for the Greene County, Indiana, 1997 8-

hour ozone maintenance area. Table 5.1- A (to be considered a replacement of Table 5.1) has 

been revised to incorporate U.S. EPA's MOVES model-produced emission factors and data 

extracted from the region's travel-demand model. 

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 bemg replaced with MOVES-based values. 

Table 5.1-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 

2.01 

Table 5.2 titled, "Mobile Vehicle Emission Budgets" was also included on Page 17 ofthe original 

Redesignation Petition and Maintenance Plan for the Greene County, Indiana, 1997 8-hour ozone 

maintenance area. Table 5.2- A (to be considered a replacement of Table 5.2) has been revised to 

incorporate MVEBs calculated using U.S. EPA's MOVES model-produced emission factors and 

data extracted from the area's travel-demand model as detailed in Table 5.1 - A. 

3 
Table 5.2 

Mobile Vehicle Emission Budgets 

(MOBILE6.0-based Onroad Emissions)* 

2015 tons/day 

voc 

*Strikeouts represent MOBILE6.0-based onroad emission values being replaced 

with MOVES-based values. 

Table 5.2 -A 

Mobile Vehicle Emission Budgets 

(MOVES-based Onroad Emissions) 

2015 

VOC (tons/day) 0.90 

NOx (tons/day) 2.31 

Through the interagency consultation process, it was determined that a maintenance plan horizon 

year budget of2015, would be appropriate. The interagency consultation group approved onroad 

margins of safety of fifteen percent (15%) for both VOC and NOx onroad emission estimates for 

the year 2015. A summary of this interagency consultation discussion can be found in Appendix 

B. These revised emission inventories clearly illustrate that onroad VOC and NOx emissions in the 

Greene County, Indiana, 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance area will continue to decline leading to 

local reductions between 2002 (base year) and 2015 (maintenance plan horizon budget year). 

Furthetmore, when compared to the overall safety margin as defined in the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 93.101, it is evident the onroad safety margin allocation is 

reasonable and appropriate. More specifically, even with the allocation of an onroad safety margin 

to mobile sources, emissions will continue to remain well below the overall safety margin for all 

sources as detailed in Table 4.1 -A. MVEBs are constrained to ensure that the total emissions 

(i.e., all source categories) do not exceed the 2002 attainment year emissions of either VOC or 

NOx, thereby ensuring continued maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

Conclusion 

This MOBILE6.0 to MOVES replacement update to the previously submitted Requestfor 

Redesignation and Maintenance Plan for Ozone Attainment in the 8-J-lour Ozone Basic 

Nonattainment Area, for Greene County, Indiana incorporates omoad emission estimates and a 

revised MVEB using U.S. EPA's recently adopted MOVES model. MVEBs have been revised in 

anticipation of the mandatory use of the MOVES model in future transpmtation conformity 

determinations. The onroad emission estimates were calculated using the MOVES-based emission 

factors and data extracted from the area's travel-demand model. Onroad safety margins for VOCs 

and NOx, established through the interagency consultation process, are included in order to account 

4 
for the wide anay of assumptions that are factored into the calculation process. MVEBs are also 

constrained to ensure that total VOC and NOx emissions (i.e., all source categories) do not exceed 

attainment year (2002) emissions to ensure continued maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. With the addition of MOVES-based 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 into the future. As such, the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance 

plan for Greene County, Indiana, continues to meet all applicable CAA requirements. 

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 Sm1 
Table 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 MOVES201 Oa 

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 data sets. These MOVES201 Oa 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 of Transportation (IN DOT). 

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: MOVES201 Oa 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. 

2 
Table 3: Distribution of MO BILE6.2 Light Duty Trucks in to 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. 

3 
Future 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 

of this 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. 

4 
SiteiD 

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 VI GO 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 IN DOT'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 of VMT 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 

Number of Runs: 

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 

runs 
General Parameters: 

MOVES Input Item 

Screen Ozone 

Description Description User Choice 

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 Select All 

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) source Type Year Local Registration for Source Types 21 , 31 , and 

Type Population 32; Estimated population using default MOVES 

mileage accumulation rates and local VMT for 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 monthly fractions developed by 

IN DOT using an analysis of permanent count 

station data from a statewide data set. 

DayVMTFraction Statewide default daily fractions developed by 

IN DOT using an analysis of permanent count 

station data from a statewide data set. 

HourVMTFraction Statewide default hourly fractions developed by 

INDOT using an analysis of permanent count 

station data from a statewide data set. 

Average Speed avgSpeed National defaults. 

Distribution (% Distribution 

of VHT in each 5 

mph speed bin) 

Road Type road Type Calculated from local VMT data. Use travel 

Distribution Distribution demand model base year distributions for all 

(VMT by 5 years prior to 2014. Use travel demand model 

MOVES Road horizon year distributions for 2014 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 for all other 

Age of Vehicle) 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 if varies among counties) 

liM Program IMCoverage No Program 
Appendix B 

Vehicle Age Distributions for Greene County: 

Source Types 

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 

Annual Populations 

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 

Source Types 

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 County for source types 21, 32, and 32, MOVES201 Oa default mileage accumulation rates for all other source types. Population growt11 factors are taken from local socioeconomic data forecasts. 
Appendix D 

G reene C t M t oumy e eoroomca . I 0 a t 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 Attainment in the 8-Hour Ozone Basic Nonattainment Area, Greene County, 

Indiana prepared by IDEM on September, 2005 converted using EPA data converter. 
Appendix E 

Indiana Default VMT Distributions 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 0.56995337 4 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 of Transportation traffic count data. 
Appendix F 

Indiana Default Hourly Distribution Factors for Road Type 2- Rural Restricted Access: 

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 of Transportation traffic count data. 
Indiana Default Hourly Distribution Factors for Road Type 3- Rural Unrestricted Access: 

Source Types 

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 of Transportation traffic count data. 
Indiana Default Hourly Distribution Factors for Road Type 4 -Urban Restricted Access: 

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 of Transportation traffic count data. 
fndiana Default Hour! Distribution Factors for Road Tvoe 5 Urban Unrestricted Access: 

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 of Transportation traffic count data. 
AppendixG 

/d" n tana Of. e au ltD"/ auv D"t"bt" ts n u ton F t 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 of VHT 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 of safety were discussed for the Ozone MVEB 

Replacement submittal for Greene County, Indiana. 

A. After discussion, the consensus of the ICG was that as long as the a 15% 

mobile source margin of safety for VOC and NOx emissions does not result in 

an exceedance of the all sources margins of safety, it was reasonable and 

appropriate for inclusion in MVEB replacement submittal. 

B-1 

Appendix C 

Greene County, Indiana, 

Maintenance Area under the 1997 

8-Hour Ozone Standard 

Public Participation Documentation 

• Legal Notice of Public Hearing 

0 IDEM Webmaster Certification of Legal Notice Publication 

0 Screenshot Verification of Legal Notice Posting on IDEM Website 

• Summary of Comments and Responses thereto 
This page left intentionally blank 
LEGAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC 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 51.1 02 that the Indiana Depatiment of 

Environmental Management (IDEM) is accepting written comment and providing an opportunity 

for public hearing regarding the Motor Vehicle 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 

now being 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 of the proposed MVEB replacement update to the Greene County, Indiana, 

maintenance area for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

The purpose of this 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 subject to the requirements of Section 172 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). One ofthe compliance requirements mandated by Section 175A(b) of the CAA, is the 

development of a plan demonstrating that maintenance areas will continue to meet the 1997 8-

hour ozone standard for the next ten years, which includes MVEBs for omoad sources, beyond 

the current maintenance period. This submittal of the proposed MVEB replacement update to 

the Request for Redesignation and Maintenance Plan for Ozone Attainment in the 8-Hour Ozone 

Basic Nonattainment Area for Greene County, Indiana, maintenance area that was originally 

submitted on September 6, 2005, is being drafted and submitted consistent with U.S. EPA 

guidance. Upon completion of this public notice process, the MOBILE6.2-based to MOVESbased MVEB replacement update will be submitted to U.S. EPA for approval into the State 

Implementation Plan. 

Copies of the draft documents will be available on or before May 24, 2013, to any person 

upon request and at the following locations: 

• Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Office of Air Quality, Indiana 

Government Center North, I 00 North Senate A venue, Room N I 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 of all MOVES mobile model input and output files will be 

available at the public hearing, if held, or upon request. 

Any person may submit written comments on the MVEB replacement update to 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 of Air 

Quality, Indiana Department of Environmental Management, 100 Nmih Senate Avenue, 

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204; 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, if held. Oral statements 

will be heard, but for the accuracy of the 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 if a 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. If a 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 if the hearing has been cancelled or will convene. 

A transcript of the hearing and all written submissions provided at the public hearing 

shall be open to public inspection at IDEM and copies may be made available to any person 

upon payment of reproduction costs. Any person heard or represented at the hearing or 

requesting notice shall be given written notice of actions resulting from the hearing. 

For additional infmmation contact Mr. Gale Ferris, at the Indiana Depmiment of 

Environmental Management, Office of Air Quality, Room N1001, 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 for participation in this hearing, if held, 

should contact the IDEM Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) coordinator at: 

Attn: ADA Coordinator 

Indiana Department of Environmental Management- Mail Code 50-1 0 

100 North Senate Avenue 

Indianapolis, IN 46204-2251 

Or call (317) 233-1785 (voice) or (317) 232-6565 (FDD). Please provide 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, Indiana maintenance area if a 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 

and the hearing was cancelled. 

Summary/Response to Comments Received During the Comment Period 

IDEM requested public comment on the MVEB replacement update to the Greene County, 

Indiana maintenance area from May 24,2013 to June 24,2013. IDEM received comments from 

the following pmties: 

William A. Boyd, Concerned Citizen 

Jess A. Gwinn, Concerned Citizen 

Tim Maloney, Senior Policy Director, Hoosier Environmental Council 

Boyd 

Gwinn 

Maloney 

Comment: Page 1 of the legal notice states that "Omoad emissions for the original 

submittal were calculated using the MOBILE6.2 mobile model and are now being 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 required to be used in transpmtation 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. 

Omoad emissions included in the original submittal were calculated using U.S. EPA's 

MOBILE6.0 mobile model, not MOBILE6.2. 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. If there is no other suppmting 

documentation available for public review, U.S. EPA should stamp the submittal as "Revise & 

Re-submit" for lack of full documentation. (Boyd) 

Response: IDEM's web page includes all historical SIP documentation for Greene 

County, Indiana, including a copy of the draft MVEB replacement update and all supporting 

documentation sent to U.S. EPA for review and approval on May 20, 2013. U.S. EPA has 

recently approved a number ofMVEB replacement updates for other areas of the 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 dust from paved and unpaved roads. Greene County has many 

unpaved roads. It does not appear AP-42 was factored into the MVEB replacement update. 

While AP-42 addresses fugitive dust emissions, these emissions contribute to the over-all air 

quality in the county and should be figured into the particulate count. (Boyd) 

Re.111onse: Consistent with the federal implementation JUie for 8-hour ozone, IDEM does 

not consider particulate 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 with MOVES-based 

values. However, there are no notes regarding what the strikeouts represent, nor is there an indepth discussion of the changes in the entries, other than the values were generated using the 

new MOVES 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's travel-demand model. A footnote has been 

added to these tables to provide additional clarification regarding this matter. 

Comment: Page 2 of the 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 of this, the factors included in the original submittal may project 

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 of the plan." This statement cannot be accurate as it 

fails to take into account the projections included in the Greene County Comprehensive Plan, 

which shows the economic and transportation character of the county has been altered 

significantly. As such, revised emission estimates for all source categories need to be included 

in the MVEB replacement update. (Boyd) 

Response: MVEBs are being revised in anticipation of the mandatory use of the MOVES 

model in future transportation conformity determinations. This submittal is not intended to 

update or revise 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 with the standard 

with an increasing margin of safety. If emissions start increasing or monitored violations occur, 

as part of the 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. 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 that total NOx and 

VOC emissions in the Greene County, Indiana, 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance area will 

continue to decline leading to local reductions between 2002 (base year) and 2015 (maintenance 

plan horizon budget year). 

Comment: There is no attempt in the submittal to move Greene County towards a 2-hour 

window or even to bring the county into full compliance. (Boyd) 

Comment: I am a resident of Greene County and am very concerned that the county has 

been in non-attainment status for many years. There doesn't seem to 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 in the county can only exacerbate the ozone 

problem. If this increased traffic makes the problem worse, how can I-69 be allowed to be built? 

What impact will this continued non-attainment status have on future development within 

Greene County? Will other commercial or industrial development be curtailed just because I-69 

was constructed and Greene County remains in non-attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard? (Gwinn) 

Response: Greene Connty was designated nonattainment effective June 15, 2004. At the 

close of the 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 and Maintenance Plan for Ozone Attainment in the 8-How· Ozone Basic 

Nonattainment Area, for Greene County, Indiana The U.S. EPA subsequently approved the 

Indiana redesignation of Greene County, Indiana, to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

on November 14, 2005. Greene County has measured air quality below the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard since the redesignation was effective. Redesignating the area to attainment does not mean 

that public 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 implemented to ensure that the area continues to attain the 1997 8-

hour standard for ground-level ozone. With the addition of MOVES-based 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 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 with the standard. Furthermore, because this area is subject to significant 

transport of pollutants, significant NOx reductions from existing and future regional control 

measures will ensure continued compliance (maintenance) with the standards with an increasing 

margin of safety over time. If emissions stmt increasing or monitored violations occur, as pmt of 

the 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. 

Large projects that may represent emission increases beyond normal expected growth would be 

subject to the new source review permitting program for attainment areas known as Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD). New major sources or major modifications of existing sources 

must install best available control technology and demonstrate that the resulting emissions would 

not cause or contribute to a violation of any national ambient air quality standard. These permits 

are subject to 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 in this 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 of Appendix A. 

Comment: The submittal lacks sufficient detail for meaningful and substantive comment. 

The commenting public should have all suppmting documentation available within the 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 time the 

modeling analysis was performed. U.S. EPA has recently approved a number of MVEB 

replacement updates for other areas of the state using similar documentation. As such, IDEM 

does not believe any additional documentation is required for this submittal at this time. It 

should be noted that the 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 of Appendix A states that "The 

MOVES formatted data will be used for these MOVES20 I Oa runs." This leads the public to the 

conclusion that the current MOVES-based data has not yet been incorporated into this submittal. 

This statement requires further clarification to be valid. (Boyd) 

Response: Onroad emission estimates included in the MVEB replacement update 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 of the submittal seems imbalanced in comparison to other available information. 

This is one area were additional research and verification 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 conelation between MOVES source types 31 & 32 

and the MOBILE-based data? Could this be an error in the algorithm used in the 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 

by the 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 with the consensus achieved tluough 

interagency consultation, at the time the modeling analysis was performed. 

C-6 
Comment: There is no explanation in Appendix C of Appendix A as to why source types 

in Table 3 do not equal! 00%. Data presentations such as this cause one to have doubt in the 

accuracy of all data presented. (Boyd) 

Response: Vehicle source types 31 and 32 in Table 3 of Attachment 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 of this submittal in accordance with U.S. EPA's Technical Guidance on the 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, consistent with the 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 

if fully 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, at the time the modeling analysis was performed, including 

any future projected increases in VMT resulting from the I-69 project. 

Comment: Tables 5.1 and 5.1 -A on Page 3 of the 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 of the MOVES model indicates that mobile emission 

estimates can be 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 of assumptions that are factored into the calculation process. 

With the addition of MOVES-based 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 into the future. 

Comment: Both Appendix Band C in Appendix A of the submittal contain an enor in 

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 of balance when 

looking over the distribution numbers. Vehicle type 11, for which no data was reportedly 

available, contains the highest numbers. Yet vehicle types 21 and 31, for which there was VIN 

information, indicates a lesser population, or is more evenly distributed across all vehicle types. 

This does not seem to indicate true numbers for Greene County, if one is at all familiar with the 

population of Greene County. (Boyd) 

C-7 
Response: There appears to be a typographical error in the footnotes included below 

Appendices B and C in Appendix A of the 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 impact the analysis results. IDEM has not made any revisions to the analysis, as it was 

developed and finalized by the INDOT, through its contractor, independently of this submittal. 

Comment: The data in Appendix C in Appendix A of the submittal does not seem to 

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 below Appendix C states that the data was taken from socioeconomic data forecast, 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 of this submittal. 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, including any future projected increases in VMT 

resulting from the I-69 project. 

Comment: The data included in Appendix D in Appendix A of the submittal appears to 

be quite 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 when this submittal is finalized. This 

submittal does not reflect the true impact of traffic traveling on I-69, since Section 4 is not 

scheduled to be open until2015. The modeling inputs should incorporate results fmther into the 

future, when traffic increases from I-69 show up fully. Why is such a short horizon being used 

in this submittal? The entire evaluation should be re-studied to incorporate all influences into the 

data and ensure proper data is used. The use of old data gives the appearance of"cooking the 

books" to achieve the desired outcome. (Gwinn) 

Response: U.S. EPA's Redesignation Guidance requires SIPs to include a projection of 

the emission inventory of ozone precursor emissions (VOC and NOx) representative to a year at 

least ten (10) years following redesignation. In consultation with the U.S. EPA, IDEM selected 

2015 as the horizon budget year in the original SIP submittal. MVEBs are being revised in 

anticipation of the 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 been poorly researched and contains a number of fatal 

flaws by not incorporating all available data for input. Non-mobile sources are increasing as a 

direct impact ofl-69 being opened on November 2012, well within the timefrmne of this report. 

Most impmtantly, the Greene County "Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds and Nitrogen 

C-8 
Oxides Emissions", as attached, included in the FEIS for Section 4 of the 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 replacement update for Greene County. (Gwinn) 

Response: MVEBs are being revised in anticipation of the mandatory use of the 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 of the I-69 project 

was developed and finalized by the INDOT, through its contractor, independently of this 

submittal. MOVES model-produced mobile emission estimates included in the MVEB 

replacement update 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, including any future projected increases in VMT/mobile 

source emissions resulting from the I-69 project. The SIP continues to meet all applicable Clean 

Air Act (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 leading to local reductions between 2002 (base year) and 2015 (maintenance 

plan horizon budget year). 

Comment: The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) used outdated fleet data 

as part of its conformity demonstration for the Tier 2 EIS process. Why has newer data, 

available for many years, not been used? If the new data shows continued non-conformity, then 

there are serious problems with the permitting process that allows I-69 to be constructed. While 

I am concerned about future motor vehicle emissions and their impact on the ozone standard, 

what about the present? (Gwinn) 

Reoponse: This analysis was developed and finalized by the INDOT, through its 

contractor, independently of this submittal. MOVES model-produced mobile emission estimates 

included in the MVEB replacement update were calculated using 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 of MOVES-based 

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 

into the future. Indiana is committed to maintaining all emission control measures necessary to 

ensure continued compliance with the standard. If emissions start increasing or monitored 

violations occur, as part of the 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 IN DOT/IDEM not incorporate 2009 vehicle fleet data into the new 

model, regardless of which 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 that time. 

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 of years. (Gwinn) 

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, including 

quality-assured 2009 vehicle registration data for Greene County. U.S. EPA's Redesignation 

C-9 
Guidance requires SIPs to include a projection of the emission inventory of ozone precursor 

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 in the original SIP submittal. MVEBs are being revised in anticipation of the mandatory 

use of the MOVES model in future transpmiation conformity determinations. If emissions start 

increasing or monitored violations occur, as pali of the 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: 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 of the general 

public who wishes to submit comments, I find that the documents to review 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 within agencies who are familiar with 

terms, data relationships, regulations, STIPs and inventory processes. (Boyd) 

Comment: I am requesting a 30 day extension of the comment period on this proposed 

MVEB replacement update. The update request contains a substantial amount of technical 

information which will take time to review properly. We have just learned of this proposal, and 

would like additional time to review the materials and prepare substantive comments. (Maloney) 

Response: This submittal is only intended to update MVEBs from the original SIP in 

anticipation ofthe mandatory use of the MOVES model in future transpmiation conformity 

dete~minations. U.S. EPA has recently approved a number of MVEB replacement updates for 

other areas of the state using similar documentation. The SIP continues to meet all applicable 

Clean Air Act (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 leading to local reductions between 2002 (base year) and 2015 

(maintenance plan horizon budget year). The majority of the public comments received during 

the original public comment period do not directly pertain to the MVEB replacement submittal 

(MOVES-based calculations). No significant revisions have been made to the replacement 

submittal as a result of these comments. As such, IDEM does not believe an extension of the 

original30-day comment period (May 24,2013 to June 24, 2013) is necessary. 

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

Reply Reply Forward 

to All 

Youforwarde<l thi~ menage on 6/241201?9;Ql AM, 

From: 

To: 

William A, 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-11 
COMMENTS TO: 

Motor Vehicle Emission Budget Replacement Update to the Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8~ 

Hour Ozone Standard for Greene County. Indiana 

Version MOBILE6.0 was released on January 27,2002 and is required to 

be used (since Janumy 27, 2004) in transportation conformity analyses throughout US. In 

MOBILE6.2, analysis capabilities ofPMlO, PM2.5, and air toxics were added. Page 1 

paragraph lofthe Legal Notice states that Mobile6.2 was used for the original submittal. 

TI1is statement is either in error or needs better explanation as to what is meant by 11 original submittal" since 6.2 did not exist in 1997, The statement is mis-leading to any 

casual reader. 

The website listed for the draft documents contains historical documents along with the 

Draft Onroad Emissions MOBILE6.2 to MOVES Replacement Submital For the Greene 

County, Indiana, Maintenance Area under the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard. However the 

is no other suppmiing documentation available for public review. If the above reference 

docmnent is all there is to this submittal. then I recommend that EPA stamp the submittal 

as "Revise & Re-submit" for lack of full documentation. Additionally, EPA has 

developed separate revised AP-42 methodologies for estimating re-entrained road dust 

from paved and unpaved roads. These new methods for estimating road dust emission 

factors for paved and unpaved roads are being incorporated in EPA's docmnent AP·42. 

These new AP-42 methodologies (AP-42, Sections 13.2.1, Paved Roads and 13.2.2, 

Unpaved Roads, each dated December 2003) replace previous methods for estimating reentrained road dust emissions for these categories with some limitations. Greene County 

has many un-paved roads. There appears to be no incorporation of AP-42 into the plan. 

While AP-42 may be a fugitive dust issue, it contributes to the over-all air quality in the 

county and should be figured into the particulate count 

Beginning on page 1, Table 4.1 contains strike-outs, which it is assumed these are old 

numbers and that new numbers will be entered, however there is no notes regarding what 

the strike-outs are for. In the Emissions Inventory, there is no in-depth discussion of the 

changes in the entries, other than the numbers came from the new MOVES model. The 

general swnmary referenced does not provide adequate information for a complete public 

evaluation. 

Page 2 makes the statement that "Growth and conh·ol sh·ategy assumptions/or ..... were 

developed before the economic challenges of the last several years. Because of this, the 

factors included in the Ol'iginal submittal may project more growth than will actually 

occur in the future. As a result, the gouwth and control stregy assumptions for the nonmobile sources .... and 2015 continue to be valid and do not affect the overall conclusions 

of the plad'. This statement cannot be accurate as it fails to take into accmmt the 

projections contained in the Greene County Comprehensive Plan. The economic and 

transportation character of Greene County has been altered significantly. That data needs 

C-12 
to be included in this revision. The indication is that this plan update will only attempt to 

ensure that Greene County stays marginally within the 8-Hour critieria. There is no 

attempt to move Greene Cmmty towards a 2-Hour window or even to bring the County 

into full compliance. The data on Vehicle Age Distribution should be included in this 

submittal. Here again, this submittal document is lacking sufficient detail for meaningful 

and substative comment. The commenting public should have all supporting documents 

available within the submittal. Instead~ the submittal1

S authors direct both reviewing 

agencies and the general public to other sources for their supporting data. There is a 

statement of "The MOVES formatted data will be used ... " leads the public to the 

conclusion that the current MOVES data has not yet been incorporated into this submittal. 

This statement requires further clarification to be valid. 

The Vehicle Population data for Greene County seems imbalanced in comparison to other 

available inf01mation. This is one area where additional research and verification needs to 

be perfom1ed. Time constraints limit providing additional comment on this topic, as well 

as many of the other comments on the cUirent submittal. One has to question why there is 

not a direct coorelation between the MOVES source types (31 & 32) and the MOBILE6.2 

data. Could this be an error in the algorithim used in the modelling which caused this 

skew? This vehicle type is not un~common and quite possibly compare equally with 

vehicle type 21 for this county. For Table 3, there is no explanation why the Source 

Types do not equal 100% as a casual reader would expect. Data presentation such as this 

causes one to have doubt in the accuracy of all the data presented. VMT1

s for Greene 

County are now heavily impacted by the 1-69 project and if fully incorporated into the 

data set(s) for this submittal may show significant increases in all pollutants. 

Page 3 contains a considerable difference (Table 5.1 vs. 5.1-A) in the VOC for 2015 with 

no supporting data, yet there is a significant increase in the NOx for the same time period. 

Both Appendix B and C contain an error in the source footnote, listing vehicle type 32 

twice. It is assumed this is a typographical error. However, the data needs to be verified to 

assure it's validity. Appendix B seems out of balance, when looking over the distribution 

numbers. Vehicle type II, for which no data was repmtedly available contains the highest 

numbers. Which to the casual reader appears to indicate a higher population. Yet types 21 

& 31, for which there was VIN information, indicates a lesser population, or more evenly 

distributed across all vehicle types. This Appendix does not seem to indicate tme 

numbers for Greene County, if one is at all familiar with the population of Greene 

County. 

Appendix C data does not seem to coincide with other data, see the 1-69 FEIS, and the 

Greene County Comprehensive Plan since the data shows virtually no growth in vehicle 

populations. This data appears to invalidate all the data used to support the 1~69 project, 

so which data set is correct? The footnote states it was taken from 11 local socioeconomic 

data forcasts 11 , yet cites no specific repmt that the general public may refer to for 

validation. 

Appendix D calls upon data that is quite old. Greene County has current data available 

from the monitoring station that is part ofthe maintenance & attainment for which this 

2 

C-13 
submittal is attempting to update. 

The horizon year budget of2015 seems totally inappropriate, since its less than a mere 18 

month away, and likely less than 1 year away by the time this submittal is fully 

commented on, responsed to and approved. This submittal does not reflect the true effect 

ofl-69 traffic, since Section 4 is not scheduled to be open until the horizon date. The 

modeling inputs should incorporate results farther in the future, when traffic increases 

from I-69 show up fully. Why such a short horizon. The entire evaluation should be restudied to incorporate all influences into the data. And ensure proper data is used. This 

approach of a re-hash of old data gives the appearance of "cooking the books" to acheive 

the desired outcome. 

Tt is quite obvious that this submittal has been poorly researched and contains a nmnber 

of fatal flaws by not incorporating all available data for input. Non~mobile sources are 

increasing as a direct impact ofl-69 being opened on November of2012) well within the 

time-frame of this report. Most importantly the Greene County "ANALYSIS OF 

VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND AND NITROGEN OXIDES EMISSIONS" 

report of October 2010 (copy attached to these comments) which was included in the 

FEIS for the I-69, Section 4 project contains data which is contradictmy to data reported 

in the resubmittal document. These two reports and their accompanying data sets need to 

be conelated and balanced to produce an more accurate and reliable re-submittal 

document, 

For the above reasons and others that time constraints do not pe11nit full development, I 

ask that this submittal be withdrawn until a more accurate and detailed submittal may 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 of Transportation 

October 2010 

Prepared by: 

Bernardin, Loch mueller & Associates, Inc. 

6200 Vogel Road 

Evansville, Indiana 47715 

C-15 
Volatile Orgsnlc Compound tmd Nittogen Oxkh Emlsoions 

Table of Contents 

BERNARD!N • LOCIIMUEUER ANDASSOCJA'J'ES INC. 

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

List of Tables 

~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]IPMS VMtiND i:iio\VT)i MTES 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 of Figures 

BRUNARDJN • LOCHMUELLER AND ASSOCIATES INC. ii 

C-17 
Volatile Oiganlc Compound and Niirogtm OKltla Emissions 

INTRODUCTION 

Analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (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 fmalmle published 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 Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Final Rules published in the Federal 

Register Vol. 69, No. 84 on April30, 2004 state "CAA definition of the non~attainment 

aroa that is defined in Section 1 07(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) of the Clean Air Act. EPA made a determination that the 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 of decision (ROD) may be issued (40 CFR 93.102). 

BERNAlWJN • LOCHMUELLER AND ASSOCIATES INC. 

C-18 
Vo!aiila Organk: Compound and Nitrogan Oxfd9 Emissions 

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 of the 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. 

PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS 

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 of the end of 2014. The representation 

ofl-69 in Greene County in future years reflects this timetable and the latest assumptions 

regarding the placement of interchanges included in the FEIS for Section 4. 

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 near term 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 latest planning assumptions. 

TRAVEL DElYIAND MODEL AND 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 of Indiana including Greene County. All major 

roadways are represented in the travel model. 

The Indiana State travel demand model uses the standard four steps of modeling: tt'ip 

generation, tdp distt'ibution, mode choice, and traffic assignment. ln addition, it considers 

travel by vehicles (trucks and autos) entering, leaving, and crossing lndiana, and it 

predicts tnJCk traffic based in part on the representation of commodity flows. The ISTDM 

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 • LOCHMUELLER AND ASSOCiATES JNC. 2 

C-19 
Volatile O~nfc Compound and Nitrogen Oxide Emlssfons 

against traffic counts, modeled vs. observed vehicle miles of travel, trip lengths by trip 

purpose, etc. The result of the recalibration was a travel model which replicated travel in 

Indiana for the year 2006 and is capable of producing 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 of daily 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 IN DOT) 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. For most functional classes, which are represented 

in the model network, the growth rate is simply taken as the ratio of modeled 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 of all 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 of VMT 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 of the 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'.R AND ASSOCIATES INC. 3 

C-20 
Volailla Organic Compound and Nfiroglm Oxide Emlaslorm 

TRAVEL MODELl'OST~~ ROCESSING AND OTHER MOBILE 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. It was 

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 

wlth the 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 of tranic 

throughout the 24 hours of the day. This analysis used the hourly distribution of traffic 

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. The tesults of that 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. 

2010 that it was appropriate to use the ISTDM's post~proccsscd speeds for this analysis. 

TABLE 2· HOURI Y DISTIUBUTION 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 • LOCHMUHLUIR AND ASSOCIATESJNC. 4 

C-21 
Volailte Orgsnic Compound &nd Nitrogen 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 HCM 2000 methodology (described in the model 

documentation). Volume to 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 time period 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 

0.42 to 0.72 and betas range from 2.5 to 4.0. 

After speeds were estimated for each modeled link and for each of the 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 

calculated using a VMT weighted average. The VMT weighted 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. The functional class sum was divided by the sum 

of that functional 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 of ramp 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 8 and in the Mobile6 input files contained in Appendix A. 

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 was made by 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 to Mobile6 using the VMT FRACTION command. All VMT Fractions used in 

the analysis are listed in the Mobile6 input tiles contained in Appendix A. 

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 at the time of 

BERNARDIN • LOCI/MUELLER AND ASSOCIATe'S JNC. 5 

C-22 
Vo161me Oiyiilnlc Compound ~£nd Nltmgen Ox!do Emissions 

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 of the 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 of 9.0 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 of the 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 of the 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 of emissions in 2010 and 2015. The budgets were established by applying a 

safety margin to the 2015 estimates. 

JlERNARDJN • LOCIJMUEU.ER AND ASSOC!ATES INC. 6 

C-23 
Vofat/10 Organic Compound and Nf'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 of this analysis) 

demonstrate that emissions had ah'eady fallen below the maintenance plan's forecast fm 

2010 by 2009 despite no decline in VMT. 

,------------·-·········--------, 

Greene County Motor Vehicle 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 Forecast w/ 

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 the construction 

of l-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 

decrease in 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 project website. 

BERNARDIN • LOCHMUELT.ER AND ASSOCIATES INC. 7 

C-24 
Volatlla Organic Compound end Nitrogen 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 IS TOM 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 Class mph g/ml g/mi tpd tpd 

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 • WCHMUELLERAND ASSOCIATES INC. 8 

C-25 
Vo!aWo OrgBnlc Compound tmd Nitrogen Oxlde Emissions 

TABI E 8· 2035 FORECAST ASSUMJNG l-69 OHIO RivER BRIDGE BUILT- 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 •!.OCHMUELLER AND ASSOCIATES INC. 9 

C-26 
Voramc Orgmnic Compound snd i\!ltJogan OxldfJ Emissions 

APPENDIX A-MOBILE 6.2 FJLES 

GREENE COUNTY VEIUCLE REGJSTRATlON- INPUT FJLE 

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<ill lOlllO.OUIM:\61 Mll(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"LER AND ASSOCIATES INC. 

C-27 

10 
Volatile Organic Compound &nd Nltmgan Oxide Emissions 

BERNARDIN • LOCH MUELLER AND ASSOCIATES INC, 11 

C-28 
Vo!atlla Olganlc Compound and N#rogon OJ!Itie Emlsstom; 

BERNA/WIN • LOCIIMURJLER AND tiSSOCIATES INC. 12 

C-29 
Va!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""'l WmW.(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 • LOCHMUELLER AND ASSOCIATES INC 

C-30 

13 
From: 

To: 

Cc: 

Jess G\·,;nn Uagmo&.bluemarb!.o.nel] 

fERRIS, GALE 

Gr.,ene countr 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'oig'""'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-31 
From: 

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 PM 
for 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 

to All 

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-- Motor vehicle ~mission budget rep~a~-~:_~pdate f~!__0~_Coun_ty ozone malntenan<e plan 

Mr. Ferris, 

Sent: Fri6/21/2Q13 5:05PM 

This Is our request for a 30 day extension of the comment period on this proposed MVEB replacement update. The update request contains a substantial 

amount of technical information VJh!ch will take time to review properly. We have just learned of this proposal, and would like additional time to review the 

materials and prepare substantive comments. 

We hope you will grant this request. 

Tim Maloney 

Senior Policy 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. Become a memberatlnnr.henreb.org. 

C-33 
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 

We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment. 

Mitchell E. 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 that the Indiana Department of Environmental 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 on May 22, 2013. It is expected that 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 of the notice was at the request of Scott Deloney, Branch Chief, Programs 

Branch, Office of Air Quality, IDEM. 

Attachments: 

Copy of web page as published. 

By: 

Mike Finklestein 

IDEM Webmaster 

C-34 
SCREEN SHOT VERIFICATION OF LEGAL NOTICE POSTING ON IDEM WEBSITE 

{'? Favorite~ I W, ~login- att.net Yahoo! 6 Latitude and lo~itude to A... ~Pi http--www.epa.gov-ttn-oar ... I1J free Hot""1 lj) R<oh Pnnter, RNPOll2673J ... 

Extranet J IDEM: Puhh: Notices: Sou ... X >'>- n ,@ » cir • Iii) [:;'] ~ • Pageo Safety. Tools • ~· 

Watersheds and l!onpoint Source 

Water Pollution 

Certifications & Training 

Compliance .,. 

Monitoring .,. 

Permitting .,. 

Repor1ing "' 

Video and Audio library 

"'Signuptoreceive ~ e-m1111 and 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.,.2o 13 

ArtidoradEticrD;mcnlratbn iFCF1 

LE2EI il:tiw ad o:--22.-"2013-

Cc-r:rtt.ni!i f::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>.: iF Of; 

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