APPENDIXK

Public Participation Process Documents
This page left intentionally blank.
LEGAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

Redesignation Petition and Maintenance Plan

In Association with the Annual Fine Particle (PM2.s) Standard

Jefferson Couuty (Madison Township) and Clark and Floyd Counties, Indiana

Notice is hereby given under 40 CFR 51.102 that the Indiana Department of

Environmental Management (IDEM) will hold a public hearing on May 26,2011. The

purpose ofthis hearing is to receive public comment on the Draft Redesignation Petition

and Maintenance Plan in association with the Annual Fine Particle (PM2.5) Standard, for

Jefferson County (Madison Township) and Clark and Floyd counties, Indiana. The

meeting will convene at 5:30 p.m. (local time) in the Program Room at the Jeffersonville

Township Public Library, 1312 Eastern Boulevard, Clarksville, Indiana. All interested

persons are invited and will be given opportunity to express their views concerning the

draft documents.

Jefferson County (Madison Township) and Clark and Floyd counties, Indiana are

part ofthe Louisville KY-IN Nonattainment Area for Fine Particles. This area was

designated as nonattainment for the annual standard for fine particles and subject to the

requirements ofSection 172 ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA). One ofthe compliance

requirements mandated by Section 172(c) ofthe CAA, is the development of a plan

demonstrating that the area will continue to meet the annual standard for fine particles.

This Redesignation Petition and Maintenance Plan is being drafted and submitted

consistent with United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) guidance.

Copies ofthe draft documents will be available on or before May 26,201 I to any

person upon request and at the following locations:

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

Government Center North, 100 North Senate, Room NI 003, Indianapolis, Indiana.

• Clarksville Branch Library, 1312 Eastern Boulevard, Clarksville, Indiana.

• Floyd County Public Library, 180 West Spring Street, New Albany, Indiana.

• Jeffersonville Township Public Library, 211 East Court Avenue, Jeffersonville,

Indiana.

• Madison-Jefferson County Public Library, 420 West Main Street, Madison, Indiana.

The draft documents will also be available on the following web page:

http://www.in.gov/idem/4658.htm
Oral statements will be heard, but for the accuracy ofthe record, statements

should be submitted in writing. Written statements may be submitted to the attendant

designated to receive written comments at the public hearing.

IDEM will also accept written comments through May 29,2011. Mailed

comments should be addr-essed to:

Jefferson County (Madison Township) and Clark and Floyd Counties,

Indiana Fine Particle (PM2.5) Redesignation Petition and Maintenance

Plan

Scott Deloney, Chief

Air Programs Branch

Indiana Department of Environmental Management

Office ofAir Quality - Mail Code 61-50

100 North Senate Avenue

Indianapolis, IN 46206-2251

A transcript ofthe 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 ofreproduction 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 information contact Mr. Gale Ferris, at the Indiana Department of

Environmental Management, Air Programs Branch, Office ofAir Quality, Room 1001,

Indiana Government Center North, 100 North Senate Avenue, Indianapolis or call (317)

234-3653 or (800) 451-6027 ext. 4-3653 (in Indiana).

************************************************************************

Individuals requiring reasonable accommodationsfor participation in this hearing

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

Attn: ADA Coordinator

Indiana Department of Environmental Management - Mail Code 50-10

100 North Senate Avenue

Indianapolis, IN 46204-2251

Or call (317) 233-1785 (voice) or (317) 232-6565 (TDD). Please provide a minimum of

72 hours notification.
Pursuant to the provisions and penalties of IC 5-11-10-1, I hereby certify that the foregoing account is

just and correcl, that the amount claimed is legally due, after allowing all just credits, and that no part of the same

has been paid.

COM~,;Tii~:s,O~j~~~~~~S wide eqU~4.~qUiValent lines at !2!P'74

cents per line

Additional charges for-notices-containing-rule-ortibularwork (56 -per-cent - - - - - - --- - ---- - - - - - - - - - --

of above amount) ." .

Charge for extra proofs of publication ($1.00 for each proof in excess

of two) TOTAL Afii6iJl'W6i=-CLAIM- - - - .. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. T"5:'7'.(';; $ 0;:>....... ..·fL.

$?:..?:..?f..

.........'C'Y.."'I .

..........l5.... .

...'if';;).:,... ...........................

Size of type.7 ....poinl.

:},W;:~G~J';i .;;~;IVf!D PO BOX 867 l MAY 12 2011 JEFFERSONVIL~E, IN 47130

PUBLISHER'S CLAIM I State of Indiana

; Department of Environmental Management i Office of Air Quality

(Governmental Unit)

Cla.(.... county, Indiana

LINE COUNT

Display Master (Must not exceed two actual lines, neither of which shall

IotaI more than four soiid lines of the type in which the body of the

advertisement is set) -- number.of equivalent lines

Head -- number of lines .

Body -- number of lines _

Tail -- number of lines _

Total number of lines in notice

DATA FOR COMPUTING COST 10

Width of single column in picas ..

Number of insertions ..1

Prescribed by State Board of Accounts

A

T

T

A

C

H

C

o

p

y

o

F

A

D

V

E

R

T

I

S

E

M

E

N

T

H

E

R

E

. I also certify that the. printed matter attacped hereto is a :rue copy, of the same colunm width and type size,

which was duly published In said paper tlm"s. The dates of publicalion being as follows.

LJ..~??~/J

Additionally, the statement checked below is true and correct:

...... '::!s'wspaper does not have a Web site.

... ~ewspaper has a Web site and this public notice was posted on the same day as it was published in

the newspaper.

...... Newspaper has a Web site, but due ,0 technicai problem or error, public notice was posted on .

...... Newpaper has a Web site but refuses to post the public notice.

5- L, - // Date . Legal Clerk
§

"

ro

J

:t

a

"E

ro

:1l

B

&ro

,1!

••I

ro

a

'*

Claim No, Warrant No. _

IN FAVOR OF

$

ON ACCOUNT OF APPROPRIATION FOR

nppropiiation No. _

ALLOWED _

IN THE SUM OF $ _

have examined the within claim and hereby certify as

follows:

That it isin proper form.

That it is duly authenticated as required by law.

That it is based upon statutory authority

correct

That it is apparently

incorrect

I certify that the within claim is true and correct that the services there in itemized and for which charge is made were ordered

by me and were necessary to the public business
LEGAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

Redesignation Petition and Maintenance Plan

In Association with the Annual Fine Particle (PM2.5) Standard

Jefferson County (Madison Township) and Clark and Floyd Counties, Indiana

Notice .is hereby given under 40 CFR 51.102 that the Indiana Department of Envi

w

momental Management (IDEM) will holda public hearing on May 26, 2011. The purpose of this hearing Is to receive public comment on the Draft Redeslgnat!on Petition

and Maintenance Plan in association with the Annual Fine Particle (pM2.5) Stand·

ard, for Jefferson County (Madison Township) and Clark and Floyd counties, Indi- ana. The meeting will convene at 5:30 p,m, (local time) in the Program Room at the

Jeffersonville Township Public Library, 1312 Eastern Boulevard, ClarksvUle, Indiana.

All Interested persons are invited and will be given opportunity to express their views

concerning the draft documents.

Jefferson County (Madison Township) and Clark' and Floyd counties, Indiana are part of the Louisville KY~IN Nonattainment Are for Fine Particles. Yhis area was desIgnated as nooattajnment Area for Fine Particles; This area was designated as non· attainment for the annual standard for fine partICies and subject to the requirements of Section 172 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). One of the compliance requirements

mandated by Section 172(c) of the CAA, is the development ofa plan demonstrating that the area wili continue to meet the annual standard for fine particles. This Rede~

si~nation Petition and Maintenance Plan is being drafted and submitted consistent

With United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) guidance.

Copies of the draft documents wlll be available on or before May 26, 2011 to any

person upon request and at the following locations:

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

Government Center North, 100 North Senate, Room N1003, Indianapolis, fndiana.

-Clarksville Branch Library, 1312 Eastern Boulevard, Clarksville, Indiana.

-Floyd County Public Library, 180 West Spring Street, New Albany, Indiana.

-Jeffersonville Township Public Library, 211 East Court Avenue, Jeffersonville, Indi· ana.

-Madison·Jefferson County Public Library, 420 West Main Street, Madison, Indiana.

The draft documents will also be available on the following web page:

http://www.in.qovlidem/4658.htm

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 desig~

nated to receive written comments at the public hearing.

IDEM will also accept written comments through May 29,2011. Mailed comments

should be addressed to:

Jefferson County (Madison Township) and Clark and Floyd Counties, Indiana

l:lre.Particle (PM2.5) Redesignation Petition and Maintenance Plan,

Scott Deloney, Chief

Air Programs Branch

Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office of Air Quality Mall Code 61~50

100 North Senate Avenue.' Indianapolis, IN 4620p~2251 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 information contact Mr. Gale Ferris, at the Indiana Department of En~

vlronmental Management, Air Programs Branch, Office of Air Quality, Room 1001,

Indiana Govemment Center North, 100 North Senate Avenue, Indianapolis or call

(317) 234·3653 or (800) 451·6027 ext. 4~3653 (in Indiana).

Individuals requirfng reasonable accommodations for participation in this hearing should contact the fDEM Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) coordinator at:

Attn: ADA Coordinator

Indiana Department of Environmental Management- Mail Code 50-10

100 North Senate Avenue

Indianapolis, IN 46204·2251

Oreal! (317) 233~1785 (voice) or (317) 232·6565 (TOO). Please providea minimum

of 72 hours notification.

<.
Prescribed by State Board of Accounts General Form No. 99P (Rev. 2009A)

COMP1'l1ATION OF CHARGES

........., lines, ... .•... columns wide equals ..+.~.~equivalent lines at .:.~§~.9 cent&j!Jer line .

Additional charges for notices containing rule· or tabular work (50 per cent of above amount) _

Charge for extra proofs of publication ($1.00 for each proof in exce'ss o/two) _

TOTAL AMOUNT OF CLAIM

PUBLISHER'S CLAIM

LINE COUNT

Display Master (Must not exceed two actual lines, neither of which shall

total more than four solid lines of the type in which the body of the

advertisement is set) M_ number of equivalent lines . Head M_ number of lines

Body MM number of lines .

Tail M_ number of lines •

Total number of lines in notice

UJ

0::

UJ

J:

IZ

UJ

;;;:

UJ

V)

UJ

>

o

<{

u..

o

1;:

o

u

J:

u

Indiana Dept. of Enviromental Mgrnt

(Governmental Vnlt)

Jefferson .....County,lndiana

To... Madison Courier

Madison, IN 47250

.........n~ ..

39.60

$ ..

..·..S9·:6U........·

$

DATA FOR COMPUTING COST

Width of single column in picas.. , ..?:.?

Number of insertions , ~........ '

Size of type...?.....point.

Pursuant to the provisions and penalties of Ie 5-11-10-1, I hereby certify that the foregoing account is

just and correct, that the amount claimed is legally due, after allowing all just credits, and that no part of the same

has been paid.

I also certify that the printed matter attached hereto is a true copy, of the same column width and type size,

which was duly published in said paper J.., times. The dates of publication being as follows:

..................................... , ~J?:.~~ ..?~:t~ ! ~~~~ " , .

Additionally, the statement checked below is true and correct

April 22nd, 2011

...... Newspaper does not have a Web site.

.. x. Newspaper has a Web site and this public notice was posted on the same day as it was pUblished in

the newspaper.

...... Newspaper has a Web site, but due to technical problem or error, public notice was posted on .

.. . , Newspaper has a Web site but refuses to post the pUbIIC.JilotiC~.

Date . 1Title

,~~.~Publisher.....71.'(..~~.
Claim No. Warrant No.. _

IN FAVOR OF

--------

$,-----

ON ACCOUNT OF APPROPRIATION FOR

ALLOWED 20 _

In lhesum of$,~. _

I have examined the within claim and

hereby certify as follows:

That it is in proper form.

That Is duly authenticated as required

bylaw.

That is based upon statutory

authority.

oorrect.

That is apparently

incorrect.

I certify that the within claims true and correct;

that the services therein itemized and for which

charge is made were ordered by me and were

necessary to the public business.

________, 20----
THE MADISON COURIER, MADISON, IN

100·N,. S

Indianapolis;:I

-Or call (317)

.(317)232-6565

Plea~ provide, amu 72 hours noUfication>·
Prescribed by State Board ofAccounts 80315-5801966 General FOnTI No. 99P (Rev. 2009A)

IND DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANA

MARION COUNTY, INDIANA

To: INDIANAPOLIS NEWSPAPERS

307 N PENNSYLVANIA ST - PO BOX 145

INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46206-0145

PUBLISHER'S CLAIM

LINE COUNT

Display Matter - (Must not exceed two actnallines, neither ofwhich shall

total more than four solid lines ofthe type in which the body ofthe

advertisement is set). - number of equivalent lines

Head - Number oflines

Body - Number oflines

Tail- Number oflines

Total number oflines in notice

COMPUTATION OF CHARGES

117.0 lines 2.0 columns wide equals 234.0 equivalent lines at .458

cents per line

Additional charge for notices containing rule and figure work (50 per cent

of above amount)

Charges for extra proofs of publication ($1.00 for each proofin excess oftwo)

TOTAL AMOUNT OF CLAIM

$,__-"-,10,-,7-,-,.1,",-7

.00

$,__-,ljL07h.1u7

DATA FOR COMPUTING COST

Width ofsingle column 5.8 ems

Number ofinsertions 1,0

Size oftype 1

Pursuant to the provisions and penalties ofIC 5-11-10-1, I hereby certilY that the foregoing account is

just and correct, that the amount claimed is legally due, after allowing a11 just credits, and that no part ofthe same

has been paid.

1also certilY that the printed matter attached hereto is a true copy, oftlte same column widtlt and type size,

which was duly published in said paper 1 times, The dates ofpublication being between the dates of:

04126/2011 and 04126/2011

Additionally, the statement checked below is true and correct:

Newspaper dbes not have a Web site.

::/Newspaper has a Web site and this public notice was posted on the same day as it was published in

the newspaper

_ Newspaper has a Web site, but due to a technical problem or error, public notice was posted on _

_ Newspaper has a Web site but refuses to post the public notice.

DATE: 04/2612011 Title: Clerk
INDIANAPOLIS STAR AND NEWS, INDIANAPOLIS, IN

t£GAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

.1

,-,-;,

'i~~ri~~n~, 0-10 ':, o eAvenue':'.:::"'-; .... ,,: '.. :< ".~2l;l4~2~~;l,::\:'',: ":",_",::,' 01' ci!1" (317)' 233~17ss:,'?VOfCI!j.;Q;"l317)232.:

f/{/1f~C:;~Wn~~7~pr()vlde::~;l!1.-'nlmu.o/.t>t!2 i

':, "-',::- :", O(S:~·4/2.6/!1,_:" 5801966):,':" : ",:; . " ·;:·1
Jefferson County (Madison Township) and Clark and Floyd Counties,

Indiana Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan in Association with the

Annual Fine Particle (PM2.s) Standard

Summary/Response to Comments Received at the Public Hearing

On May 26,2011, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) conducted a

public hearing in Clarksville, Indiana concerning the draft Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan for Jefferson County (Madison Township) and Clark and Floyd counties,

Indiana. IDEM received no comments at the public hearing.

Summary/Response to Comments Received During the Comment Period

IDEM requested public comment on the draft Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for

Jefferson County (Madison Township) and Clark and Floyd counties, Indiana from April 20,

2011 to May 29,2011.

IDEM received comments from the following parties:

Larry D. Chaney, MPO Director, Kentuckiana Regional Planning and Development

Agency(LC)

Comment: There is sufficient uncertainty associated with several variables used in the analysis

ofregional air quality that establishing motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for PM2.5 and

NO, based on 15% margins ofsafety will be too low. Establishing MVEBs that are too low (i.e.

too stringent) will increase the probability that a conformity failure will occur. Ifthis occurs, the

metropolitan transportation plan (MTP) and transportation improvement plan (TIP) cannot be

updated or amended. This would hinder the progress in implementing transportation projects

some ofwhich have the potential to reduce pollutant emissions and presumably improve local air

quality. (LC)

Response: IDEM agrees with the commenter that a number of variables used in the regional air

quality analysis can result in adjustments to future emission projections (e.g. new tools and

emission factors). This variability applies to all source sectors, not just mobile sources, and has

to be accounted for within the maintenance plan to prevent backsliding by preserving an overall

margin ofsafety. In an effort to accommodate future variations in the transportation demand

model and the total daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) forecast when no change to the network

is planned, IDEM consulted with the interagency consultation group (lCG), including United

States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Regions IV and V, to determine a

reasonable approach to address this variation. The ICG approved a 15% safety margin for direct

1
PM2.5 mobile source emission estimates for the years 2015 and 2025, and a 15% safety margin

for NOx mobile source emission estimates for the years 2015 and 2025. IDEM believes that this

margin ofsafety provides adequate flexibility to account for mobile source-related variability.

As a maintenance area for the 8-hour ozone standard, KIPDA has performed a number of air

quality analyses to demonstrate that its MTP and TIP conform to the region's MVEBs for ozone

precursors (i.e. volatile organic compounds and NOx). These analyses have demonstrated that

the region's projected future year emissions are well below the MVEBs and have shown that a

margin ofsafety of 7:5% would have been adequate for the region to demonstrate conformity..

A 15% margin ofsafety is more than twice the amount historically shown to be necessary for the

region to demonstrate conformity with the 8-hour ozone MVEBs and should more than

adequately accommodate future growth in the region. With new ozone and fine particles

standards scheduled to be released within the next year, these conformity budgets will almost

certainly be replaced within the next three to four years. Due to the fact that those budgets will

be contained in attainment state implementation plans (SIPs) as opposed to maintenance plans,

IDEM will not be in a position to accommodate a margin ofsafety as large as 15%. Therefore, it

is highly likely that the MVEBs contained in this particular SIP will only be applicable for the

next three to five years. KIPDA's MTP and TIP clearly demonstrate conformance with the

maintenance SIP budgets for this window oftime, without reliance on a margin ofsafety.

Comment: Population growth, employment, commuting, and VMT information from the 2010

Census and related sources is not available at a sufficiently small level of geography to be able to

quantify the impacts ofsocioeconomic changes. County-level information does indicate that

although the region has suffered from the recent economic downturn, there is still growth in

socioeconomic attributes and VMT. Regional planning cannot be based on short-term events

like the economic downturn. Therefore, growth in travel must be expected once the economy

improves. When it does, MVEBs must be large enough to account for future growth in VMT.

(LC)

Response: Motor vehicle emission inventories were developed using the latest available

planning assumptions at the time the SIP was developed. Future year emissions projections are

likely to change when they are updated over time. Ifwarranted, IDEM can process a SIP

revision in conjunction with a MTP or TIP revision through the interagency consultation process.

U.S. EPA can process such a revision within 90 days. This process and schedule would not

impede the transportation planning process. Additionally, fleet turnover, ever evolving fuel and

engine standards, and emission factor model upgrades have historically resulted in future year

emission projections to decrease rather than increase, and there is no reason to expect that

historical trend to reverse over the next few years.

2
Comment: How can the MTP demonstrate conformity with the proposed MVEBs? It is not

feasible to change projects in the MTP in order to demonstrate conformity except in cases where

the otherwise failing MTP is only failing by a small amount. Theoretically, it is possible to

determine which projects, if any, have negative air quality impacts and remove them. However,

MTPs are required to be financially responsible and additional funding for new projects would

have to come from funding not used by the projects with positive air quality impacts. An

extreme case ofthis would be to remove all projects that do not show positive air quality

impacts. This might be theoretically possible, but it would be impractical because the air quality

neutral projects may provide benefits that are not normally considered. (LC)

Response: The proposed MVEBs have been built around the region's long range travel demand

model and MTP. All projects contained within the current MTP and TIP are thus protected

without reliance on a margin ofsafety. IDEM believes that the MVEBs established in the SIP

provide an adequate margin ofsafety to account for any variability that may occur in the

transportation plamling process, especially considering the estimated lifespan ofthese particular

MVEBs. If adding a new or unexpected project results in the region being unable to demonstrate

conformity, existing projects will need to be adjusted accordingly to ensure emissions are below

the MVEBs, or an amendment to the SIP could occur concurrently with an amendment to the

plan or TIP ifwarranted.

Comment: Mobile source emission estimates used in the MVEB setting process were calculated

using a new model recently released by U.S. EPA referred to as the Motor Vehicle Emission

Simulator (MOVES). Because ofits newness and complexity, there is ample reason to expect

that "bugs" will be found in the software and "fixes" will need to be made. KIPDA believes that

the uncertainty associated with the MOVES model and its inputs are considerable and should be

accompanied by more lenient, rather than more stringent MVEBs. (LC)

Response: MOVES incorporates substantial new vehicle emissions-related data and accounts

for changes in vehicle technology and regulations as well as improved understanding ofin-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. IDEM feels that it is inappropriate to refer to the MVEBs as "stringent",

"overly stringent", or "more stringent" considering the fact that the MVEBs accommodate

everything contained in the current long-range MTP and provide a margin ofsafety that is

approximately 200% greater than the region has needed historically.

MVEBs were developed using the latest available planning assumption and should adequately

accommodate for future growth in the region. Ifwarranted, IDEM can process a SIP revision in

conjunction with a MTP or TIP revision through the interagency consultation process. U.S. EPA

can process such a revision within 90 days. This process and schedule would not impede the

transportation planning process.

3
Comment: As new vehicle registration data for Bullitt and Jefferson counties becomes

available, it is likely that the majority ofthe NOx margin ofsafety and a significant portion ofthe

PM2.5 margin ofsafety will be used up. Ifthe region should need to use MOVES in the emission

rate mode, the rest ofthe NOx margin ofsafety will be immediately consumed. (LC)

Response: Motor vehicle emission inventories were developed using the latest available

planning assumptions at the time the SIP was developed. Ifnew vehicle registration data or

estimating emissions in the "emission rate mode" necessitates the need to revise the MVEBs in

the future, IDEM can process a SIP revision in conjunction with a MTP or TIP revision through

the interagency consultation process. U.S. EPA can process such a revision within 90 days. This

process and schedule would not impede the transportation planning process. However, IDEM

does not anticipate this to be necessary. When population shifts from one county to another and

is accounted for within a regional emissions analysis, the net impact is negligible (because it is

accounted for in both scenarios). Additionally, socio-economic data suggests that the growth

that is occurring within the metropolitan region would likely affect the fleet mix in a favorable

manner (i.e., decrease in average vehicle age).

Conclusion: IDEM is not making any changes to the MVEBs contained within the maintenance

plan. The MVEBs are consistent with the consensus achieved through interagency consultation

and based on close evaluation of historical conformity demonstrations, provides a generous

margin ofsafety. Any increase to the margin ofsafety contained within the SIP needs to be

quantified (actual VMT for 2010 is 30% greater than what was projected by the travel demand

model for the same year, etc.) in order to properly substantiate a percent greater than that which

is currently contained. IDEM believes that 15% is more than adequate to account for the

qualitative variabilities presented as concern by KIPDA.

4
Kentucky

Member

Counties

Bullill

Henry

Jefferson

Oldham

Shelby

Spencer

Trimble

Indiana

Member

Counties

Clark

Floyd

Equal

Opportunity

Employer

KIPDA Kt'/Utll"kiillla Ht'~i()nai PiiUlIlln~

..lid Dc:\,("/opl1lt'nt "stt'lleY

May 26,2011

Scott Deloney, Chief

Air Programs Branch

Indiana Department of Environmental Management

Office of Air Quality - Mail Code 61-50

100 North Senate Avenue

Indianapolis, IN 46206-2251

SUBJECT: Comments concerning the State Implementation Plan (SIP) Budgets

Proposed by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management

It is our understanding that new emission budgets for the Louisville KY-IN Metropolitan

Area are proposed for PM 2.5 in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) developed by the

Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) with the aid of other

agencies. The SIP including the budgets is presently undergoing public review. These

budgets were proposed to limit the amount of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) and one

of its precursors, oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) that could be emitted. Please know that

KIPDA staff is not in any way opposed to the reduction of those pollutants. However,

we do have concerns regarding the margin of safety proposed by IDEM, as well as the

potential negative impacts on transportation planning if those budgets are not met and

the local area experiences a conformity failure.

To summarize the position of the KIPDA MPO, please refer to the attachments: NOx

Emission Levels and PM2.5 Emission Levels. As can be seen in the graphs, the

emissions were at a certain level when the Annual PM 2.5 standard was attained.

Therefore, the 2008 total emissions for each pollutant represent a level that can be

emitted with the expectation that attainment of the standard would continue. It can also

be noted that onroad mobile source emissions are expected to drop in each case (as

shown by the lighter blue). The levels for onroad mobile sources for 2015 and 2025 are

based on the metropolitan transportation plan (MTP) as it existed last year. Those

levels were calculated with data from the regional travel demand forecasting model

(TDFM). If the budgets were set at those levels, any change to any of the inputs

(projects, socioeconomic data, etc.) to the TDFM would have a reasonable chance of

causing a conformity failure. To decrease the probability of a conformity failure, a

margin of safety (the darker blue on each graph) was added to the emission level

calculated from TDFM outputs, and the budgets were set as being the sum of the

emissions from TDFM outputs and the margins of safety. The margins of safety

currently being proposed by IDEM are 15%.

Melropolitan Planning Organization

11520 Commonwealth Drive

Louisville, KY 40299

502-266-6084

Fax: 502-266-5047

KY TDD 1-800-648-6056

www,kipda.org

Kentllckv Designated Area Agencv on ARing
The concern of KIPDA is that there is sufficient uncertainty that bUdgets based on 15%

margins of safety will be too low. Having budgets which are too low (Le. too stringent)

increase the probability that a conformity failure will occur. If this occurs, the MTP and TIP

cannot be updated or amended. This situation will hinder-if not stop-the progress in

implementing projects. The irony of this situation is that at least some of the projects being

delayed or cancelled could reduce pollutant emissions and presumably improve air quality.

KIPDA will be providing comments to IDEM to support larger, less stringent budgets.

KIPDA recognizes that the emission levels from all sources must remain below 2008

(attainment) levels. Further, we also recognize that the onroad mobile source budgets will

still require emission reductions. However, we believe that the uncertainty associated with

the calculation of the emissions supports larger budgets. We do not believe it is necessary

to set budgets for 2015 at approximately 40% below 2008 (attainment) levels and for 2025

at almost 70% below 2008 (attainment) levels. The proposed emission reductions contain

enough excess that a more modest set of reductions would still improve air quality without

the significant risk of a conformity failure. Discussed below are several issues we believe

support the larger budgets.

Issue 1 - Growth in Population, Employment, Commuting, and VMT

At this time, much of the information from the 2010 Census and related sources is not

available at a sufficiently small level of geography to be able to quantify the impacts of

socioeconomic changes. However, there are some inferences that can be drawn from the

county-level that is presently available. Below are several important pieces of that

information.

1. The increase in population from 2000 to 2010 exceeded that from 1990 to 2000 for

four of the five counties in the metropolitan area and for the region as a whole. The

regional increase in population from 2000 to 2010 was about 30% higher than the

regional increase from 1990 to 2000.

2. The employment in all counties grew noticeably from 2000 to 2008 before the recent

recession caused some job losses in 2009. Still, four of the five counties showed a

net increase in employment from 2000 to 2009. The regional increase in

employment from 2000 to 2008 was slightly above 5%, and even after the job losses

in 2009, there was a modest net increase from 2000 to 2009.

3. The patterns of inter-county commuting also show continued growth. The total

number of people commuting to jobs in the five metropolitan counties grew from

102,304 to 114,380 during the period from 2000 to the 2006-2008 timeframe (the

most recent data available). This represents an increase of 12,076, which is slightly

less than 12%.

4. The 15-year (1993-2007) trend of vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) shows a positive

slope. The recent economic downturn has led to indications that there has been no

growth or perhaps a decline in VMT in the last 2-3 years. However, a similar

phenomenon occurred during 2000 and 2001. When the economy "recovered", the

growth in VMT returned and at a slope of the same order of magnitude.
This information indicates that although the KIPDA region has suffered from the recent

economic downturn, there is still growth in socioeconomic attributes and VMT. Planning

cannot be based on short-term events like the recent economic downturn. Therefore,

growth in travel must be expected once the economy improves. When it does, the

emission budgets must be large enough to allow the growth to occur.

Issue 2 - Can VMT be "controlled" through the proper choice of transportation

projects?

During consultation concerning the PM 2.5 SIP budgets, the KIPDA MPO made a

statement questioning how conformity could be "passed" with the proposed budgets. The

response was that KIPDA would have to change the projects in the plan. KIPDA believes

that this is not feasible except in cases where the otherwise failing MTP is only failing by a

small amount. As can be noted in 40 CFR 93.122 (b) and (d), the tool of choice for a

regional emissions analysis is to be the TDFM. TDFMs usually determine projects which

increase capacity to have travel impacts which translate into emission reductions and those

which decrease capacity to have travel impacts which translate into emission increases.

Projects which do not change capacity are not reflected in the TDFM. In the past, "nobuild" (not to be confused with a similar but slightly different concept using the same term in

40 CFR 93) analyses were tested by removing all projects from a future year scenario. In

these test analyses, the emissions associated with this "no-build" analysis were higher than

the scenario with all the projects included. However, the differences in emissions have

been small and not at the level necessary to offset a problem with an insufficient budget.

Theoretically, it is possible to determine which projects, if any, have negative air quality

impacts and remove them. That being said, MTPs are required to be financially

responsible. Therefore, additional funding for new projects would have to come from the

funding not used by the projects with positive air quality impacts. An extreme case of this

would be to remove all projects that do not show positive air quality impacts. This might be

theoretically possible, but it would be impractical because the air quality neutral projects

may provide benefits that are not normally considered. For example, the repaving of a

street is normally an air quality neutral project. If this is not accomplished according to a

reasonable schedule, however, the condition of the street will become so bad that it loses

its capacity, and a negative air quality impact would occur.

Issue 3 - Variability of MOVES

The emission estimates used in the budget-setting process involved a new model called

MOVES. MOVES is a new and very complex model. KIPDA has three concerns which

deal directly with MOVES. They are discussed below.

1. As stated above, MOVES is a new and very complex model. It is a model which can

be used in two different ways. One of these is to develop emission rates (e.g.

amount of pollutant per mile traveled), and the other is to have MOVES combine the

travel-related information and the emission rates and calculate emissions. The first

of these methods is known as the emission rate mode, and the latter is known as

the inventory mode. Various parties across the county have made test runs to
determine the difference in results when using MOVES in the emission rate mode

versus using MOVES in the inventory mode. The results presented vary by

pollutant, but for oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), which is one of the pollutants with a

proposed budget, researchers have found increases of 3%-4% when using MOVES

in the emission rate mode versus the inventory mode. That increase is not large

until it is compared with the 15% margin of safety. In this area, we have used the

emission rate method of estimating emissions because that was all that was

available with the previous model. However, there were other advantages to using

this method, not the least of which was that it was more precise and more

conceptually correct.

2. Because of the newness and compleXity of MOVES, KIPDA expects that "bugs" will

be found in the software, and "fixes" will be made. The previous emissions model

was in its sixth generation before it was replaced by MOVES. For most-if not allof those models, errors were found after their releases, and they had to be fixed.

The fixes changed the emission rates produced by the model. KIPDA believes

there is ample reason to expect the same from MOVES, which introduces still

another unknown variable in the consideration of margins of safety and budgets.

3. Also of concern are the inputs used in MOVES. In particular, there has been

speculation about one of the inputs. This concern is the vehicle registration data for

Bullitt and Jefferson counties in KY. New registration information has been recently

developed for the Indiana counties in the nonattainment area, but the process for

the KY counties is still ongoing. When the new registration data was used for the

Indiana counties, the emission levels for each county increased on the order of 6%

to 17% for PM 2.5 and 5% to 15% for NOx. At present, the emission levels for the

Kentucky counties-particularly Jefferson counties-are on the order of 3 times

larger than the Indiana counties. If the emissions for the KY counties increase with

new registration data in a manner similar to what happened with the IN counties, the

margin of safety will essentially be used up. To test the situation, a test run was

made using the combined new Clark/Floyd county data for the Kentucky counties.

The results of this run indicated a 2%-3% regional increase for PM 2.5 and a 7%-

8% regional increase for NOx. However, after the test run, it was noted that the

existing registration data for Bullitt County indicated that its fleet was already older

than the new Indiana data. Since the expected reason for the fleet getting older

was the economy, it seems unlikely that the Bullitt County vehicle fleet would

become newer while the vehicle fleets of the other counties are getting older.

Therefore, KIPDA staff believe that the results should be viewed as an indication of

the direction emissions will trend when the new Kentucky registration data is

available but that the increase in emissions will be greater-probably closer to the

6%-8% increase in PM 2.5 and the 11 %-12% increase in NOx shown by Jefferson

County in the results of the test run.

KIPDA believes that uncertainty associated with the MOVES model and its input are

considerable. Because of its newness, we do not expect anyone to have a good "feel" for

what are "reasonable" results. In addition, after the discussion concerning the budgets,

corrections were still being made to the emission results. KIPDA feels that because of the
newness and complexity, the use of MOVES should be accompanied by more lenient

rather than more stringent budgets.

Issue 4 - Past Experience with setting budgets

In December 2010, Larry Heil of FHWA-IN asked the Indiana MPOs (in nonattainment and

maintenance areas) to evaluate what the use of the new (2009) vehicle registration data

would do to their chance to pass conformity once the new data has been quality assured

and, therefore, had to be used. Five MPOs (besides KIPDA) provided information to Mr.

Heil concerning test runs made to determine if they could pass conformity for Ozone. All

five indicated that they would fail at least one of their conformity tests. The failures ranged

from 1% to over 16%. On the other hand, the information for the Louisville area indicated

that the KIPDA region could pass conformity with the critical (smallest) difference being

about 7.5%. The bUdget for which KIPDA would pass conformity by 7.5% was for NOx,

and the margin of safety for that budget was originally set at slightly over 50%.

In summary, KIPDA believes that there is too much uncertainty to expect budgets with a

15% margin of safety to be sufficient. As new registration data for Bullitt and Jefferson

counties become available, it is likely that the majority of the NOx margin of safety and a

significant portion of the PM 2.5 margin of safety will be used up. If the region should need

to use MOVES in the emission rate mode, the rest of the NOx margin of safety will be

immediately consumed. As a consequence, there will be nothing left as a margin of safety

for other concerns such as what happens when 2010 Census data and accompanying

projections become available and must be used. Finally, past experience with setting

budgets indicates that 15% (while it may seem appropriate when they are set) can

ultimately turn out to be far too small when changes occur in the future.

Part of our charge is to be good stewards of our environment, through air quality monitoring

and analysis, reduction of Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMTs), and the development and

implementation of alternatives to Single Occupancy Vehicles (SOVs) in our region.

However, we also feel it necessary that we continuously move forward with a Metropolitan

Transportation Plan that can adequately address those issues. Non-conformity as a result

of overly restrictive budgets would certainly impede that effort.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this very important matter. If you have

questions or concerns regarding this information, please contact me either by phone at

502-266-6084 or bye-mail at larrv.chaney@ky.gov.

Si~erely, >---L.. ~ei7~'" MPO Director

LDe/RS

Attachments
NOx Emission Projections

by Source Type

,..------------------ 00_ooסס10

Attainment Invento

!IOIlOll.OO +--

T 70000.00 +--

o

n

5 60000.00 t--

p

e 50000.00 -I--r---L---

r

V 40000.00 +---1

e

a

r

3000D.00 +--:

lOOOD.OO +---:

l000D.OO +----i

• Margin of salely

• Nonroad

Point

0.00 +------..,.-----'---.------,

2008 1015 1025
PM 2.5 Emiss·on Projections

by Source Type

8000.00 T"'""'"----------------

7000.00 +---

6000.00 +---

T

o

n 5OOll.oo +---

s

p

e 4OOIl.00 +---1

r

y

e 3000.00 +---1

a

r

2000.00 +---1

1000.00 +---1

Attainment Inventory

• M<lr~n ofs.atety

• onrOild

• Nonroad

point

0.00 -I-------'--"'---~--L---'--_r_--'-----___,

Z008 2015 ZOZ5
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

DRAFT REDESIGNATION PETITION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN

DATE:

TIME:

PLACE:

PRESENT:

May 26, 2011

5:30 P.M.

Jeffersonville Township Public Library

1312 Eastern Boulevard

Program Room

Clarksville, IN 47129

Christine E. Pedersen, Hearing Officer

Gale Ferris, Hearing Officer

Sharon Shields, Reporter

Sliaron Sliielifs SJlS. tRevortinn Service

3650 N. Old S~ 62, rJadison, IN 47250

Business: (812) 265-2994

Fax (812) 273-5220
1 A public hearing of the Department of

2 Environment Management Redesignation Petition and

3 Maintenance Plan in association with the Annual Fine

4 Particle (PM2 .s) Standard for the Jefferson County, Madison

5 Township and Clark and Floyd Counties, Indiana was held in

6 the Program Room, at the Jeffersonville Township Public

7 Library, 1312 Eastern Boulevard, Clarksville, IN at 5:30

8 P.M. on May 26, 2011.

9

10 OPENING STATEMENT BY MS. CHRISTINE E. PEDERSEN:

11 This is a public hearing to accept comments

12 concerning the Draft Redesignation and Maintenance Plan

13 under the annual National Ambient Air Quality Standard or

14 (NAAQS) for fine particles for the Indiana portion of the

15 Louisville KY-IN Nonattainment Area for Fine Particles,

16 including Madison Township in Jefferson County and Clark and

17 Floyd counties in Indiana. This hearing is being held to

18 conform to the provisions in 40 CFR Part 51 regarding public

19 hearings for State Implementation Plan or (SIP) submittals.

20

21 My name is Christine Pedersen. I am Section

22 Chief of the Rule and State Implementation Plan Development

23 Section of the Indiana Department of Environmental

24 Management's or (IDEM's) Office of Air Quality. I have been

25 appointed to act as hearing officer for this public hearing.

- 2 -
1 Also here with me from the Office of Air Quality is Gale

2 Ferris.

3

4

5

6

Notice of the time and place of the hearing

was given as provided by law by publication in the following

newspapers:

The Indianapolis Star, Indianapolis, Indiana

The New Albany Tribune, New Albany, Indiana

The Evening News, Jeffersonville, Indiana

The Madison Courier, Madison, Indiana

1 .

2 .

3 .

4.

8

9

7

10

11

12 The purpose of this public hearing is to

13 provide interested persons an opportunity to offer comments

14 to the state regarding the draft Redesignation and

15 Maintenance Plan under the annual NAAQS for fine particles

16 for Madison Township in Jefferson County, and Clark and

17 Floyd counties in Indiana.

18

19 Appearance cards have been distributed in the

20 hearing room for all those desiring to be shown appearing on

21 record in this cause. If you wish to speak and have not

22 already filled out a card, please do so and indicate if you

23 are appearing for yourself or on behalf of a group or

24 organization and identify the group or organization. Also

25 note the capacity in which you appear, such as attorney,

- 3 -
1 officer or authorized spokesperson.

2

3 Any person who is heard or represented at this

4 hearing or who requests notice may be given written notice

5 of the final action taken on the SIP submittal. Please

6 indicate on the appearance card if you wish to receive this

7 notification. When appearance cards have been completed,

8 they should be handed to Gale or I and we will include them

9 with the official record of this proceeding.

10

11 Oral statements will be heard, but written

12 statements may also be handed to me. These statements can

13 also be mailed to the Office of Air Quality on or before

14 close of business on May 29, 2011. A written transcript of

15 this hearing is being made. The transcript will be open for

16 public inspection and a copy of the transcript will be made

17 available to any person upon payment of the copying cost.

18

19 After the conclusion of this public hearing, I

20 will prepare a written report summarizing the comments

21 received at this hearing and recommending changes which may

22 need to be made to this document.

23

24 I would like to introduce the following

25 documents into the record:

- 4 -
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1)

2)

The notice of public hearing.

And the Draft Request for Redesignation and

Maintenance Plan under the annual NAAQS for

Fine Particles for the Indiana portion of the

Louisville KY-IN Nonattainment Area for Fine

Particles, including Madison Township in

Jefferson County, and Clark and Floyd counties

in Indiana.

9

10 Finally, I would like to briefly go over the

11 contents of the draft document.

12

13 In 1997, the United States Environmental

14 Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) set daily and annual ambient

15 air quality standards for fine particles at 15.0 micrograms

16 per cubic meter on an annual basis and at 65.0 micrograms

17 per cubic meter on a 24-hour or daily basis. Legal

18 challenges to the new standards for fine particles resulted

19 in delayed implementation of the standard until February of

20 2001, when the Supreme Court upheld the standard and ruled

21 that the U.S. EPA could proceed with implementation of the

22 new standards. This submittal pertains solely to the 1997

23 annual standard for fine particles. The Louisville area is

24 in compliance with both the 1997 and 2006 24-hour fine

25 particle standards. Indiana began monitoring for fine

- 5 -
1 particles in 1999. In December 2004, U.S. EPA originally

2 designated counties under the fine particle standards based

3 on 2001 through 2003 monitoring data. U.S. EPA formally

4 designated areas throughout the country as attainment,

5 nonattainment, or unclassifiable, including Madison Township

6 in Jefferson County, and Clark and Floyd counties in Indiana

7 as part of the Louisville KY-IN Nonattainment Area for Fine

8 Particles. In addition to these Indiana counties, the

9 nonattainment area includes Bullitt and Jefferson counties

10 in Kentucky.

11

12 The agencies responsible for assuring the

13 nonattainment area complies with the Clean Air Act

14 requirements are:

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

•

•

•

The Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District,

which is responsible for Jefferson County, Kentucky.

The Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection,

which is responsible for Bullitt County, Kentucky.

The Indiana Department of Environmental Management,

which is responsible for Madison Township in

Jefferson County and Clark and Floyd counties in

Indiana.

Indiana and Kentucky have worked cooperatively

- 6 -
1 with U.S. EPA Regions IV and V to address planning issues.

2

3 The Indiana portion of the nonattainment area

4 has been in compliance with the annual standard for fine

5 particles since the end of 2008 with values that are now

6 well below the standard. Furthermore, photochemical

7 modeling conducted by the State of Indiana, the Midwest

8 Regional Planning Organization, and U.S. EPA demonstrates

9 that beginning in 2011, this area will benefit greatly from

10 the implementation of U.S. EPA's proposed Clean Air

11 Transport Rule, with projected design values well below the

12 standard, and providing for an ample margin of safety.

13 These modeling results are considered to be conservative

14 since they do not include emission reductions that will

15 occur as a result of several federal control programs

16 including substantial off-road diesel fuel and engine

17 reductions.

18

19 Although Indiana and Kentucky have worked

20 together to ensure the use of consistent information, each

21 state is required to make a separate submittal for its

22 portion of the planning components to U.S. EPA. As such,

23 this submittal only covers Indiana's portion of the

24 nonattainment area, including Madison Township in Jefferson

25 County and Clark and Floyd counties in Indiana.

- 7 -
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

The highest most recent design value for the

area, based on 2008 through 2010 quality-assured ambient

air quality monitoring data is 14.1 micrograms per cubic

meter. This design value repr€sents fine particl€

concentrations that are below the national ambient air

quality standards, therefore, the area is eligible to be

redesignated to attainment under the annual standard for

fine particles and classified as maintenance.

IDEM has prepared the draft Redesignation and

Maintenance Plan for Indiana's portion of the Louisville

KY-IN Fine Particle Nonattainment Area consistent with

u.s. EPA guidance. The draft redesignation plan outlines a

demonstration that the area has attained the standard

based on monitored concentrations, and that the reductions

in monitored concentrations are attributable to permanent

and enforceable reductions in precursor emissions,

specifically, reductions of nitrogen oxides or (No2) and

sulfur dioxide or (S02). Furthermore, the draft maintenance

plan outlines the following information.

22

23

24

25

•

•

Regional precursor emissions of N02 and S02 will

continue to decline in the future.

Due to existing and future emission controls, the

area's air quality is not projected to worsen, and

- 8 -
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

•

•

•

•

should further improve over time.

A commitment for all existing emission controls to

remain in place.

A commitment to revise the plan within eight years

of redesignation.

A commitment to adopt and expeditiously implement

necessary corrective actions if an action level

response is triggered.

A mobile source budget for transportation

conformity purposes.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

This concludes my comments regarding the draft

Redesignation and Maintenance Plan under the annual NAAQS

for fine particles for the Indiana portion of the

Louisville KY-IN Nonattainment Area for Fine Particles.

Before opening this hearing for public comments, may I

once again remind you that this hearing pertains only to

this draft Redesignation and Maintenance Plan for the

annual NAAQS for fine particles standard for Indiana's

portion of the Louisville KY-IN Nonattainment Area for

Fine Particles, and only comments pertaining to this

matter will be considered as part of the public record.

Gale and I will be available following this

hearing to address any questions you may have that do not

- 9 -
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

pertain to this specific matter.

This hearing is now open for public comment.

Are there any public comments?

In the absence of any further comments, these

proceeds are concluded. This hearing is adjourned.

- 10 -
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

C E R T I FIe ATE

STATE OF INDIANA

SS:

COUNTY OF JEFFERSON

I, Sharon Shields, do hereby certify that I am a

Notary Public in and for the County of Jefferson, State of

Indiana, duly authorized and qualified to administer oaths;

That the foregoing public hearing was taken by me in

shorthand and on a tape recorder on May 26, 2011 in the

Program Room at the Jeffersonville Township Public Library,

1312 Eastern Boulevard, Clarksville, IN; That this public

hearing was taken on behalf of the Indiana Department of

Environmental Management pursuant to agreement for taking at

this time and place; That the testimony of the witnesses was

reduced to typewriting by me and contains a complete and

accurate transcript of the said testimony.

I further certify that pursuant to stipulation by and

between the respective parties, this testimony has been

transcribed and submitted to the Indiana Department of

Environmental Management.

WITNESS my hand and notarial seal this 6th day of

22

23

24

25

June, 2011.

My Commission Expires: July 2, 2015

. 11 •