### Respons **e t** **o Comments**  **2014 Revised Shelby County**  **Maintenance Plan**  The Pollution Contro l Section o f the Shelb y County Health Department (Department) prepare d a draf

t revision of the federally approved 2010 Maintenanc e Plan (Federal Register/Vol.75, No. 1/Monday, January 4 , 2010) for publi c review and comment prior to submission for approval by the Tennesse e Air Pollution Contro l Board and subsequent submission to the Unite d State s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for their consideration and approval
. The require d 30
- da y publi c comment period was formal l y opened on January 31 , 20 14 wit h the publication of a notic e in the Memphis Daily News
. In accordanc e with the Department’ s publi c notic e protocol , electronic notic e wa s sent to a list o f intereste d individual s and local electe d bodies on January 2 9, 2014
. In addition, electroni c notic e wa s sent to local members o f the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO ) and the MPO distributed an electronic message on February 3 , 2014. A pres s releas e was made by

S helby C ounty G overnment on January 3 1, 2014, announcing the availability o f the plan for review and comment
. Two publi c hearing s were schedule d and held
. One was hel d at the Benjamin L. H ooks Central Li brary in Memphis, Tennessee on Tuesda y, March 4, 2014 at 6:0 0PM
. The second public hearing was held at the Baker Community C enter in Millington, Tennessee on Thursday, March 6, 2014 at 6:00PM. The comment perio d ende d at the close of business on Friday

March 14, 2014 , although comments were accepted that were dated and post -marked for the following Monday, March 17, 2014. The Department received comments from the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 (EPA), the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) and from the Memphis Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
. A listing o f thos e comments and the Department’ s respons e ( in italics ) follows. **Commenter 1**  **- EPA**  The EPA submitte d a letter dated March 6, 2014 by the United States Postal Service and el e ctronically

on March 10, 2014. The letter containe d six ( 6 ) numbered comments. **EPA 1**  **.** Phase 3 of the Contingency P lan: For clarity, please specify that the regulatory programs that will be implemented to correct a monitored violation will be adopted and implemented within eighteen to twenty- four months of the trigger. **Shelby County**  **Respon se**  **to EPA**  **1.**

- Because of the nature of rulemaking in Tennessee, it is not possible to ‘pre

- adopt’ this contingency plan. However, the language for Phase 3 of the plan has been changed to more clearly indicate the steps and timing the Department will take in response to the trigger. **EPA 2.**  On page 9
- 11 the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget (MVEB) Section: InT able III Shelby County has provided a great deal of detail on how the base year inventories with the safety margins have been prepared for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx). However, this may b e confusing to the general public. The EPA suggests that a Table IV be created to reflect MVEBs for years 2006 and 2021. **Shelby County**  **Response to**  **EPA 2.** 

- EPA offered an example Table IVfor use by Shelby County. That table has been utilized , in part, in the revised maintenance plan.**EPA 3.**  Please include a discussion on the methodo logy (MOVES2010b ) used to calculate the mobile source emissions. The discussion can be included in attachments III through VI. A discus sion on Temperatures, Reid Vapor Pressure, and Humidity u sed as inputs will be helpful. Also a statement on how these planning assumptions were agreed on by interagency

consultation should be included. **Shelby County**  **Resp onse**  **to EPA**  **3.**

– Information can be found in the document,
“Methodology

U sed for MOVES Runspec ” , which describes the various parameters required to set up the MOVES Run Specification file for the MOVES2010b model. I nformation concerning methodology used to calculate mobile source emissions, temperatures, Reid Vapor Pressure, and humidity can be found in the document titled
“Methodology

U sed to Develop MOVES Inputs ”
. Both documents are located in Attachment V

III
- Supplemental Support Documents of the maintenance plan revision. These assumptions were agreed upon and are as iterated in the May 17, 2013 IAC memorandum found in A ttachment II

– Intergovernmental Consultation
. **EPA 4 .**  On page 6 it clearly describes the attainment status for particulate matter. Doing the same for Lead, Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide would enhance the non- interference showing. **Shelby County**  **Response to**  **EPA 4.** 

- Changes have been made to clearly def ine the area’s current status with regard to these pollutants. **EPA 5.**  When submitting the final plan, please ensure the MOVES input/output files are included in the submission. An electronic cop y on CD may b e substituted for a hard cop y (input/output file s only). Please ensure the files are unzipped and in excel format. **Shelby County**  **Response to**  **EPA 5.** 
- An electronic copy (CD) of the MOVES input/output files are included in the submission
. The files are unzipped and are in excel format
. **EPA 6.**  On page 3 the second paragraph under section 5 Emissions Reduction Requirements, please clarify the current ozone nonattainment status for the 2008 8
-hour ozone standard. **Shelby County Response to EPA 6.** 

- Language has been added to improve clarity. **Commenter 2**

**– TDEC**  The TDEC submitte d a letter dated March 17, 2014 by the United States Postal Service and electronically

o n March 17, 2014. The letter containe d twelve (12) numbered comments. TDEC 1. The emissions in Table 1 reflect tons/day
. The discussions references tons/year. How were the tons/year derived? Was a model run conducted to generate the emissions in tons/year? **Shelby County**  **Response to**  **TDEC 1.** 

– A model run was conducted to obtain VOC and NOx in tons/day. These numbers were then multiplied by 365 days/year to achieve tons/ year. The document has been corrected to explain and show consistency between thenumbers.

**TDEC 2.**  Does the point source inventory f or 2021 reflect all changes to the point source sector (other than Cleo Inc.) that have occurred since the second half of the maintenance plan was originall y submitted? Have other industries expanded or shutdown since this maintenance plan was last submitted? If so, are those changes to the emission inventory reflected here? If not, why not? **Shel by**  **County Response**  **to TDEC**  **2.**

– The point source sector of the 2021 emissions inventory only reflects the reductions that have occurred due to the shutdown of Cleo Inc. Other industries relevant to the point source sector have shutdown. None have expanded and no new sources have been constructed
. The reductions from these closures are a weight of evidence as to the continued progress of the overall plan to maintain air quality that attains the 1997 national ambient air quality standard for ozone, but are no t necessary to demonstrate an offset of the emissions that occur with the shutdown of the vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program by the City of Memphis. Further, until history proves otherwise, it is not known what emission reductions may or may not occur in the years ahead and until 2021 occurs. Consequently, the main issue of the entire revision is to assure the offset of emissions that occur with the shutdown of the I/M program. **TDEC 3.**  Page 11, 1 st paragraph, the third sentence seems to indicate that there are reductions of NOx and VOCs from point sources, which is not borne out by the tables. In the second paragraph, the safety margins allocated to the MVEB do not appear to match the information in Table III. **Shelby County**  **Response to**  **TDEC 3.** 

– The third sentence in the first paragraph has been corrected to reflect the figures in Table III. The safety margins discussed in the second paragraph have been corrected to match the information in Table III. **TDEC 4.**  The emissions inventory does not show interim emissions estimates between 2006 and 2021. **Shelby County**  **Response to**  **TDEC 4.** 

– In early proposals by the Department to revise the 2010 Shelby County Maintenance Plan, several interim years were discussed with the IAC. In an October 31, 2013 IAC teleconference , **“ .**  **. .**  **it was**  **agreed by**  **those on**  **the call**  **that the SIP would consist of a**  **base analysis year of 2006 and a final year of 2021. MVEB’s**  **will be**  **established for**  **2006 and**  **2021.”** Reasons for this determination were summarized in the original minutes for the October 31 teleconference in a memorandum dated November 1, 2013
. A

fter review of the memorandum by the agencies attending the call, the memorandum was finalized and redistributed on November 18, 2013, by email , to the call attendees. This memorandum can be found in Attachment II

– Intergovernmental Consultation of the proposed 2014 Revised Maintenance Plan and is entitled “ SIP Revision Budget Years and Memphis MPO Conformity” in the Subject line. **TDEC 5.**  The documentation lacked information on how the inputs for the MOVES model were developed. **Shelby County**  **Response to**  **TDEC 5.** 

– Documentation titled “Methodology U sed to Develop MOVES Inputs ” is included in the maintenance plan revision in Attachment V III
- Supplemental Support Documents
.**TDEC 6.** What was the source of the vehicle miles traveled VMT used? What are the VMT

for each of the anal ys is years? **Shelby County Response to TDEC 6.**

– Veh icle miles traveled (VMT ) were provided by the MPO and were generated by th e Memphis Urban Area T ra vel Demand M

odel ( TDM )
. T he VMT for 2006 and 2021 are displayed in the tables below. **Shelby County Annual VMT by Source Type**  **and by Year**  **Source Type Source**  **Type ID**  **Source Type VMT**

**2006 2021**  Motorcycle 11 25,604,577 30,597,047 Passenger Car 21 6,116,293,396 7,308,869,710 Passenger Truck 31 1,393,265,928 1,664,929,980 Light Commercial Truck 32 465,466,353 556,224,433 Intercity Bus 41 3,712,127 4,873,218 Transit Bus 42 1,942,992 2,309,079 School Bus 43 25,201,662 32,497,370 Refuse Truck 51 2,897,462 2,074,341 Single Unit Shorthaul Truck 52 198,308,587 249,731,833 Single Unit Longhaul Truck 53 25,487,609 39,169,765 Motor Home 54 45,859,407 59,508,279 Combination Short
- haul Truck 61 166,694,865 222,336,742 Combination Long
- haul Truck 62 199,421,654 316,912,033 **Total 8,670,156,620**  **10,490,033,832 TDEC 7.**  What version of the MOVES database was used? **Shelby County Response to TDEC 7.** 

- MOVES2010b
. **TDEC 8.** How was the source type population developed and adjusted over time? **Shelby County Response to TDEC 8.**

- The MOVES Technical Guidance offers direction on how to leverage default population and VMT data alongside local VMT data to arrive at an estimate of the local population. This guidance suggests comparing the ratio of default source type population to default VMT to the local VMT to arrive at an estimate of local source type population. This methodology was applied for all analysis years. A growth rate was not applied, since growth is inherently built in through this methodology. **TDEC 9.** How were the compliance factors in the IM inputs calculated? **Shel by**  **County Response**  **to TDEC**  **9.**

– The compliance factors for the revised ozone maintenance plan for Shelby County were developed as discussed in the document titled
“MOVES2010b Compliance Factor for Shelby C ounty T ennessee ” found in Attachment VIII
- Supplemental Support Documents
.**TDEC 10.**  Why i s the endModelYear 2002 in the 2006 IMinput file? Did the 4 ye ar exemption apply

then? When did the change to the ordinance for the 4 ye ar exemption take effect? **Shelby County**  **Response to**  **TDEC 10.** 

– 2002 should not be used as the endModelYear in the 2006 IM input file, MOVES has been rerun to correct this using 2005 as the end year. The 4 year exemption should not be used in the 2006 IM input file, MOVES has been rerun to correct this using 2005, a one- year exemption . The 4 year exemption took effect January 3, 2011 , however this was an incorrect application of this exemption and should not have been used in the MOVES I/M input for 2006. **TDEC 11.**  The last paragraph on page 9 seems to indicate that the MVEBs did not change as provided in the 2010 ozone maintenance plan. Isthis true? Table III and subsequent discussion do not agree with this statement. **Shelby County**  **Response to**  **TDEC 11.** 

– the second sentence of the referenced paragraph has been restructured to provide clarity. TDEC 12. Table III has a column indicating ‘On
- Road Allocation Percent’

– these values appears to be a fraction, not a percent. The last column states that this is the “On
- Road Safety M argin”; the safety

margin identified in 4 0 CFR 93.101 indicates that any s afety margin is not explicitly

for on
-road

– it is the overall safety margin, some of which (95% in this case) is being applied towards the MVEB. The column headings are somewhat confusing. Shelby County Response to TDEC 12.

– The values referenced in Table III have been corrected to show percent. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 40 CFR 93.101 , defines “s afety margin ” to mean “the amount by which the total projected emissions from all sources of a given pollutant are less than the total emissions that would satisfy the applicable requirement for
. . . maintenance. ” Subpart 93.101 also states that the “m otor vehicle emissions bud get ” (MVEB) is that “
. . . portion of the total allowable emissions defined in the submitted or approved
. . . maintenance plan for a certain date for the purpose of
. . . demonstrating
. . . maintenance of the NAAQS, for any criteria pollutant or its precursors, allocated (emphasis added) to highway and transit vehicle use and emissions.” As used in Table III (which has been restructured to add clarity), the “safety margin” is the difference between “baseline” emissions in 2006 and “total” emissions in 2021 , which has occurred in the summation of the increases and decreases in emissions from the five categories of area, non - road, on - road, point, and Cleo, Inc Offsets at 1.1 to 1, in Table III
. Considering VOC emissions specifically

, as the method would be the same for NOx emissions, “Total” emissions of 93.433 tpd in 2021 evidence a reduction of emissions from 2006 (98.061 tpd) of 4.628 tpd (98.061 tpd minus 93.433 tpd) which is the “safety margin”. Ninety
- five percent (95%) of the “

safety margin ”, 4.396 tpd, which is termed the “motor vehicle safety margin”, is allocated to the MVEB (as provided for by the definition of MVEB in 40 CFR 93.10 0 ) which is a summation of the emissions expected to occur in 2021 from on - road sources plus the “motor vehicle safety margin ” of 4.396 tpd
. To further clarify the intent and use of Table III, a column has been added which is labeled “Safety Margin” and , the former “On

-Road Safety Margin” column has been repositioned and is now termed “ M otor V ehicle Safety Margin”
. As was discussed and implemented in response to EPA 2., a TableIV has been added to the revised maintenance plan to better clarify the MVEBs for VOC

and NOx. **Commenter 3** 

**– MPO**  The MPO submitte d a letter dated March 6, 2014 by email on March 10, 2014. The letter containe d two (2) numbered comments. **MPO 1.** Under Section 11 Public Comment, please list the public hearing that will be held on March 6, 201 4
. The draft document onl y lists the public hearing on March 4, 201 4
. **Shelby County Response to MPO 1.** 

- March 6, 2014 has been added to the document
. **MPO 2**  **.** Under Section IIA, Regulatory Portio n : Revis ed Maintenance Plan Project s , if discontinuing the I/M program re sulte d in 129 tpy of VOCs and if 224.4 tpy are available from the cl o sure of the Cleo plant , the remaining emi s sion bank would seem to be 104.94 when the two are subtracte d and multiplied by 1.1. Under the s ection it s tates that there would be 105.5 tpy in banked em iss i ons. We woul d like to get a cl a ri f i c ati on on the remaining b an

ke d emiss i

o ns . **Shelby County**  **Response to**  **MPO 2.** 

- The actual emissions increase that must be offset is 128.48 tons per year (tpy) (0.352 tons per day times 365 days per year) of VOC. This has been corrected in the document.