# APPENDIXK Public Participation Process Documents

### This page leftintentionally 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 Clarkand Floyd Counties, Indiana Notice is hereby given under40 CFR 51.102 that the IndianaDepartmentof Environmental Management (IDEM) will hold a publichearing onMay 26,2011. The purpose ofthis hearing is to receivepublic commenton the DraftRedesignation Petition and Maintenance Plan in association with the Annual Fine Particle (PM2.5) Standard, for Jefferson County (MadisonTownship) and Clark and Floyd counties, Indiana. The meeting will convene at 5:30 p.m. (local time) inthe 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 concerningthe draft documents. Jefferson County (MadisonTownship) and Clark and Floyd counties, Indiana are part ofthe Louisville KY
-IN NonattainmentArea forFineParticles. This areawas designated as nonattainmentfor the annual standard forfine particles and subjectto the requirements ofSection 172 ofthe Clean AirAct (CAA). One ofthe compliance requirements mandatedby Section 172(c) ofthe CAA, is thedevelopment ofaplan demonstrating that the area will continue to meetthe annual standard for fine particles. This Redesignation Petition and Maintenance Plan is beingdrafted and submitted consistentwith United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) guidance. Copies ofthe draft documents will be available on orbefore May 26,201 I to any person upon request and at the following locations:

• IndianaDepartmentofEnvironmental Management, Office ofAir Quality, Indiana Government CenterNorth, 100North Senate, Room NI003, Indianapolis, Indiana.

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

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

• Jeffersonville Township Public Library, 211 East CourtAvenue, Jeffersonville, Indiana.

• Madison-Jefferson County Public Library, 420 WestMain Street, Madison, Indiana. The draft documents will also be available on the following web page: http://www.in.gov/idem/4658.htmOral statements will beheard, but for the accuracy ofthe record, statements should be submitted in writing. Written statements maybe 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 shouldbe 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 ofEnvironmental Management OfficeofAirQuality
- Mail Code 61-50 100 North Senate Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46206-2251 A transcript ofthehearing and all written submissions provided at thepublic hearing shall be open to public inspection at IDEM and copies maybemade available to anyperson upon payment ofreproduction costs. Anyperson heard orrepresented at the hearing orrequesting notice shall begiven writtennotice ofactions resulting from the hearing. For additional information contactMr. Gale Ferris, at the IndianaDepartment of Environmental Management, AirPrograms Branch, Office ofAirQuality, Room 1001, Indiana Government CenterNorth, 100 North SenateAvenue, Indianapolis orcall (317) 234-3653 or (800) 451-6027 ext. 4-3653 (in Indiana).



### ************************************************************************ Individuals requiring reasonable accommodationsforparticipation in this hearing shouldcontactthe IDEMAmericans with DisabilitiesAct(ADA) coordinatorat: Attn: ADA Coordinator IndianaDepartment ofEnvironmental Management
- Mail Code 50-10 100 North Senate Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46204-2251 Orcall (317) 233-1785 (voice) or(317) 232-6565 (TDD). Pleaseprovide 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 ofthe 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 oftwo) TOTALAfii6iJl'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 ofwhich shall IotaI more than four soiid lines ofthe 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
.. Numberof insertions 

## ..1 Prescribed by State Board ofAccounts 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 properform. 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 businessLEGAL 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 hold a public hearing on May 26, 2011. The purpose of this hearing Is to receive public commenton 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 opportunityto 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 areawas desIgnated as nooattajnment Areafor 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 developmentof a plan demonstrating that the area wili continue to meet the annual standard forfine 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, 180West Spring Street, NewAlbany, 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 forthe 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 ofAirQuality Mall Code**61~50** 100 North Senate Avenue
. ' Indianapolis, IN**4620p~2251** Atranscript 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) 234·3653or (800) 451·6027 ext.**4~3653** (in Indiana). Individuals requirfng reasonable accommodations forparticipation in this hearing shouldcontactthe fDEMAmericans with DisabilitiesAct(ADA) coordinatorat: Attn: ADACoordinator 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 of72 hours notification. <.Prescribed by State Board ofAccounts General Form No. 99P (Rev. 2009A)

COMP1'l1ATION OF CHARGES

........., lines,
... .•... columns wide equals
.**.+.~.~equivalent** lines at**.:.~§~.9** cent&j!Jer line
. Additional chargesfor notices containing rule·ortabularwork (50 percent of above amount)

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

_ TOTALAMOUNTOF CLAIM PUBLISHER'S CLAIM LINE COUNT Display Master (Must not exceed two actual lines, neitherofwhich shall total morethan four solid lines ofthe type in which the body ofthe advertisement is set) M_ number of equivalent lines
. Head M_ numberof lines Body MM numberof lines
. Tail M_ numberof lines • Total numberof 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
.., 

### ..?:.? Numberof insertions ,**~........** ' Size oftype...

### ?.....point.

Pursuantto the provisions and penalties of Ie 5-11-10-1, I hereby certifythatthe foregoing account is just and correct, that the amount claimed is legally due, afterallowing all just credits, and that no part of the same has been paid. I also certifythat the printed matter attached hereto is atrue copy, ofthe 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 aWeb site
.

.. x. Newspaper has aWeb site and this public notice was posted on the same day as itwas pUblished in the newspaper.

...... Newspaperhas aWeb site, but due to technical problem orerror, public notice was posted on .

.. . , Newspaper has a Web site but refuses to postthe**pUbIIC.JilotiC~.**

# ,~~.~ .....71.'(..

# ~~ 1 Publisher Title
. Date
.

### 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 properform.

That Is dulyauthenticated as required bylaw. That is based upon statutory authority. 

## oorrect. That is apparently incorrect. I certify that the within claims true and correct; thatthe services therein itemized and for which charge is made were ordered by me and were necessaryto the public business.

________, 20



# ----THE MADISON COURIER, MADISON, IN

100·N,. S Indianapolis;:I -Or call (317) .(317)232-6565**Plea~** provide,amu 72 hoursnoUfication>·Prescribed byStateBoardofAccounts 80315-5801966 General FOnTI No. 99P(Rev. 2009A) IND DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANA MARION COUNTY, INDIANA To: INDIANAPOLIS NEWSPAPERS 307N PENNSYLVANIA ST
- PO BOX 145 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46206-0145 PUBLISHER'S CLAIM LINECOUNT DisplayMatter
-(Mustnotexceedtwo actnallines, neitherofwhich shall total morethanfoursolidlines ofthetypeinwhichthebodyofthe advertisement is set).
- numberofequivalentlines Head
-Numberoflines Body
-Numberoflines Tail- Numberoflines Totalnumberoflines innotice COMPUTATIONOFCHARGES 117.0 lines 2.0columnswide equals 234.0 equivalentlines at .458 cents perline Additional chargefor notices containingrule andfigure work(50percent ofabove amount) Charges for extraproofs ofpublication ($1.00 for eachproofinexcess oftwo) TOTALAMOUNTOF CLAIM $,

__-"-,10,-,7-,-,.1,",-7 .00 $,

__-,ljL07h.1u7 DATAFORCOMPUTINGCOST Width ofsinglecolumn5.8 ems Numberofinsertions 1,0 Sizeoftype

### 1
Pursuantto theprovisions andpenalties ofIC 5-11-10-1, Ihereby certilYthatthe foregoing account is justandcorrect, thatthe amountclaimedis legallydue, afterallowing a11justcredits, andthatno partofthe same has beenpaid. 1also certilYthattheprintedmatterattachedhereto is atrue copy, oftlte samecolumnwidtltandtype size, whichwas dulypublishedin saidpaper 1 times, Thedates ofpublicationbeingbetweenthe dates of: 04126/2011 and04126/2011 Additionally, thestatementcheckedbelow is true andcorrect: Newspaperdbes nothave aWeb site. ::/Newspaperhas aWeb site andthis public noticewas posted onthe sameday as itwaspublishedin the newspaper

_ Newspaperhas aWeb site, butdueto atechnicalproblemorerror, publicnotice was postedon

_

_ Newspaperhas aWeb sitebutrefuses to postthepublic notice.

DATE: 04/2612011 Title: ClerkINDIANAPOLIS 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 Clarkand Floyd Counties, Indiana Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan in Association with the Annual Fine Particle (PM2.s) Standard Summary/Responseto Comments Received at the Public Hearing On May 26,2011, the IndianaDepartmentofEnvironmental Management (IDEM) conducted a public hearingin Clarksville, Indianaconcerningthe draft Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan forJefferson County (Madison Township) and Clark and Floyd counties, Indiana. IDEM received no comments atthepublic hearing. Summary/Response to Comments Received During the Comment Period IDEM requested public commenton the draft Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for Jefferson County (Madison Township) and Clark and Floyd counties, Indianafrom 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 sufficientuncertainty associated with several variables used in the analysis ofregional airquality that establishingmotorvehicle emissionbudgets (MVEBs) for PM2.5 and NO, based on 15% margins ofsafetywill be too low. Establishing MVEBs that are too low (i.e. too stringent) will increase the probabilitythat a conformityfailure will occur. Ifthis occurs, the metropolitan transportation plan (MTP) and transportation improvementplan (TIP) cannotbe updated oramended. This would hinderthe progress in implementing transportationprojects some ofwhichhavethe potential to reduce pollutantemissions and presumablyimprove local air quality. (LC) Response: IDEM agrees with the commenterthat anumberofvariables used in theregional air quality analysis canresult in adjustments to future emission projections (e.g. new tools and emission factors). This variability applies to all source sectors, notjustmobile sources, and has to be accounted for withinthemaintenanceplan to preventbackslidingbypreserving an overall margin ofsafety. In an effortto accommodate future variations in the transportation demand model and the total dailyvehiclemiles 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% safetymargin for direct 1PM2.5mobile source emission estimates for the years 2015 and 2025, and a 15% safetymargin for NOxmobile 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 ofair quality analyses to demonstratethatits MTP and TIP conformto theregion's MVEBs for ozone precursors (i.e. volatile organic compounds and NOx). These analyses havedemonstrated that the region's projected future yearemissions are well below the MVEBs and have shown thata margin ofsafetyof7:5% would havebeen adequate fortheregion to demonstrate conformity.. A 15% margin ofsafety is morethan twice the amounthistorically shown to be necessary forthe region to demonstrate conformitywith the 8-hourozone MVEBs and should more than adequately accommodate future growth in theregion. With new ozone and fine particles standards scheduled to be released within the next year, these conformitybudgets will almost certainlybe replaced within the nextthreeto four years. Due to the fact that thosebudgets will be contained in attainment state implementationplans (SIPs) as opposed to maintenance plans, IDEM will notbe in a position to accommodate a margin ofsafety as large as 15%. Therefore, it is highly likely that the MVEBs contained in this particularSIP will only be applicable for the nextthreeto five years. KIPDA's MTP and TIP clearlydemonstrate conformance withthe maintenance SIPbudgets for this window oftime, withoutreliance on amargin ofsafety. Comment: Population growth, employment, commuting, and VMT information from the 2010 Census and related sources is not available at a sufficiently small level ofgeographyto be able to quantifythe impacts ofsocioeconomic changes. County-level information does indicatethat although the region has suffered from the recent economic downturn, there is still growth in socioeconomic attributes and VMT. Regional planningcannotbebased on short-term events like the economic downturn. Therefore, growth intravel mustbe expected once the economy improves. When it does, MVEBs mustbe large enough to account for future growth in VMT. (LC) Response: Motor vehicle emission inventories were developed using thelatest available planning assumptions at thetime the SIP was developed. Future year emissions projections are likelyto change when they areupdated overtime. Ifwarranted, IDEM canprocess a SIP revision in conjunction with a MTP orTIP revisionthrough the interagency consultationprocess. U.S. EPA can process such arevision within 90 days. This process and schedulewould not impede the transportationplanningprocess. Additionally, fleet turnover, everevolving fuel and engine standards, and emission factor model upgrades havehistoricallyresulted in future year emissionprojections to decreaseratherthan increase, and there is no reason to expectthat historical trend to reverse overthenext few years.

2Comment: How can the MTP demonstrate conformitywith theproposed MVEBs? It is not feasible to change projects in the MTP in orderto 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, ifany, have negative air quality impacts and removethem. However, MTPs are required to be financially responsible and additional funding for new projects would have to come from funding notused by the projects with positive airquality impacts. An extreme case ofthis wouldbeto remove all projects that do not show positive airquality impacts. This mightbe theoreticallypossible, but it would be impractical because the air quality neutral projects mayprovide benefits that are not normally considered. (LC) Response: The proposed MVEBs havebeenbuilt around the region's longrange travel demand model and MTP. All projects contained within the currentMTP and TIP are thus protected withoutreliance on a margin ofsafety. IDEM believes that the MVEBs established in the SIP provide an adequate margin ofsafety to account for any variabilitythatmay occurin the transportation plamlingprocess, especially consideringthe estimated lifespan ofthese particular MVEBs. Ifadding a new orunexpected project results in the region being unable to demonstrate conformity, existingprojects will need to be adjusted accordinglyto ensure emissions arebelow the MVEBs, or an amendmentto the SIP could occur concurrentlywith an amendmentto the plan orTIP ifwarranted. Comment: Mobile source emission estimates used in the MVEB settingprocess were calculated using a new model recentlyreleasedby U.S. EPA referred to as the MotorVehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES). Because ofits newness and complexity, there is amplereason to expect that "bugs" will be found in the software and "fixes" will need to bemade. KIPDA believes that the uncertainty associated with the MOVES model and its inputs are considerable and shouldbe accompaniedby more lenient, ratherthan 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 improvedunderstanding 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 likelyresult in more accurate emission estimates. IDEM feels that itis inappropriate to referto the MVEBs as "stringent", "overly stringent", or "more stringent" consideringthe fact that the MVEBs accommodate everything contained in the current long-range MTP and provide a margin ofsafety thatis approximately 200% greaterthan the region has needed historically. MVEBs were developed usingthe latest available planning assumption and should adequately accommodate for future growth in the region. Ifwarranted, IDEM can process a SIP revision in conjunction with aMTP orTIP revision through the interagency consultationprocess. U.S. EPA can process such arevision within 90 days. This process and schedule would not impede the transportation planningprocess.
3Comment: As new vehicle registration data for Bullitt and Jefferson countiesbecomes available, itis likelythat the majority ofthe NOx margin ofsafety and a significantportion ofthe PM2.5 margin ofsafetywill be used up. Iftheregion should need to use MOVES in the emission ratemode, the rest ofthe NOxmargin ofsafety will be immediately consumed. (LC) Response: Motor vehicle emission inventories were developed using the latest available planning assumptions at thetimethe SIP was developed. Ifnew vehicle registration data or estimatingemissions in the "emissionratemode" necessitates the need to revise the MVEBs in the future, IDEM can process a SIP revision in conjunction with a MTP orTIP revision through the interagency consultation process. U.S. EPA can process such arevision within 90 days. This process and schedule would not impede thetransportation planningprocess. However, IDEM does not anticipate this to be necessary. When population shifts from one county to another and is accounted for within aregional emissions analysis, thenet impactis negligible (because it is accounted for inboth scenarios). Additionally, socio-economic data suggests that the growth that is occurring within themetropolitanregion would likely affect the fleet mix in a favorable manner (i.e., decrease in averagevehicle age). Conclusion: IDEM is notmaking any changes to the MVEBs contained within themaintenance plan. The MVEBs are consistent with the consensus achieved through interagency consultation and based on close evaluation ofhistorical conformitydemonstrations, provides a generous margin ofsafety. Any increaseto the margin ofsafety contained within the SIP needs to be quantified (actual VMT for 2010 is 30% greaterthan what was projectedby the travel demand model for the same year, etc.) in orderto properly substantiate apercent greaterthan that which is currentlycontained. IDEM believes that 15% is more than adequate to account for the qualitative variabilities presented as concern by KIPDA.

4Kentucky 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 ofAir 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 ofthis situation is that at least some ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 afterthejob 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 ofthe 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 allowthe growth to occur. Issue 2 - Can VMT be "controlled" through the properchoice oftransportation 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 capacityto 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 higherthan 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 impactwould 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 directlywith 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 todetermine 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 ofthe 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. Ifthe emissions for the KY counties increase with new registration data in a manner similarto 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 ofthe 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 ratherthan 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 safetyforthat 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 ofthe PM 2.5 margin of safety will be used up. Ifthe 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 outto be fartoo 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 • Marginofsalely

• 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** of

### s.atety

• onrOild

• Nonroad
point

0.00**-I-------'--"'---~--L---'--_r_--'-----___,** Z008 2015 ZOZ5INDIANA 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



# SliaronSliielifs SJlS. 

## tRevortinnService 3650 N. Old**S~** 62, rJadison, IN47250 Business: (812) 265-2994 Fax (812) 273-52201 

### 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 •