1 **UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION III**  **1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103** 

August 26, 2013 **SUB JECT**  : Supplemental Technical Supp ort Document

- Adequacy Findings for the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the A ttainment Demonstration f or the Delaware Portion of the Philadelphia

- Wilmington

- New Jersey 1997 Fine Particulate ( PM 2.5 ) National Ambient Air quality Standard (NAAQS) Nonattai nment Area

**FROM:** /s/

Gregory Becoat , Office of Air Program Planning (3AP30) **TO:** Administrative Record for the Adequacy Findings for the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the Attainment Demonstration for the Delaware Portion of the Philadelphia

- Wilmington

- New Jersey City 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS Nonattainment Area /s/ **THRU:** Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director,

Office of Air Program Planning (3AP30) **I. Background** On April 3, 2008 , the Delaware Department of Natural Reso urces and Environmental Control (DNREC) formall y submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to satisfy the attainment demonstration requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) pursuant to the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS for the Philadelphia

- Wilmington

- New Jerse y PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area . On April 25, 2012, DNREC submitted a formal supplement to the SIP revision that was submitted on April 3, 2008 in order to : (1) replace the MOBILE6.2 model on - road mobile emission budget with a budget that is based on the Moto r Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) model for milestone ye ar 2009; (2) demonstrate that the MOVES

- based mobile source budget is consistent with attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS b y 2010 ; (3) demonstrate that the contingency requirements of the CAA are m et; and (4) establish out

- ye ar 2012 on

- road mobile emissions budget for New Castle County for PM 2.5 and nitrogen oxides (NO x )

. On November 20, 2012, EPA posted a notice on EPA’s website at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm fo r the purpose of opening EPA’s 30

- day public comment period on the adequacy /approvability

of the budgets in the SIP revision and to inform the public of the availability of the SIP on www.regulations.gov , docket number **EPA**

**– R03** 

**– OAR** 

**– 2010** 

**– 0141** 

. EPA’s adequac y review of the motor vehicle emissions budgets and the opportunity for public comment on the SIP revision were concurrent. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) was published in the Federal Register on November 19, 2012 (77 FR2

69399) proposing approval o f the revision to the SIP in accordance with the requirements of the CAA. The purpose of this supplemental technical support document (TSD) is to reflect corrections of ty pographical errors on the technical support document associated with the NPR publish ed on November 19, 2012 (77 FR 69399) entitled, “ Technical Support Document

- Adequacy Findings for the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the A ttainment Demonstration f or the Delaware Portion of the Philadelphia

- Wilmington

- New Jersey 1997 Fine Particulate (PM 2.5 ) National Ambient Air quality

Standard (NAAQS) Nonattainment Area ,” and to establish out

- year 2012 on

road mobile emissions budget for New Castle County for PM 2.5 and NO x . **I I**  **. Transportation Conformity Requirements**  Under section 176(c) of the CAA , new transportation plans, programs, and projects, such as the construction of new highway s, must “conform” to (i.e., be consistent with) the part of the state’s air quality

plan that addresses pollution from cars and trucks. The CAA requires federal actions in nonattainment and maintenance areas to “conform to” the goals of SIP. This means that such actions will not cause or contribute to violations of NAAQS; worsen the severity of an existing violation; or delay

timel y attainment of an y NAAQS or an y interim milestone. For motor vehicle budgets ( MVEBs ) to be approvable, they must meet, at a minimum, EPA’s adequacy criteria found at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). EPA’s adequacy criteria are: (1) the submitted control strategy

implementation plan was endors ed by the Governor or designee and was subject to a State public hearing; (2) con sultation among F ederal, State, and local agencies occurred; full implementation plan documentation was provided to EPA; and EPA's stated concerns, if an y, were addressed befo re the control strategy implementation plan was submitted ; (3) the MVEBs are clearl y identified and precisely quantified; (4) the MVEBs, when considered together wit h all other emissions sources, are consistent with applicable requirements for maintenance; (5) the MVEBs are consistent with and clearl y related to the emissions inventory and the control measures in the submitted control strategy implementation plan; and (6) revisions to previously submitted maintenance plans explain and document an y changes t o previously submitted budgets and control measures; impacts on point and area source emissions; any changes to established safet y margins; and reasons for the changes (including the basis for an y changes related to emission factors or estim ates of vehicle miles traveled).

**I II**  **. Administrative Requirements for Making Adequacy Findings** We have followed the process for determining the adequacy of the submitted SIP MVEBs in accordance with the procedures listed in the January 2008 Conformity

Regulations contained in 40 CFR p art 93, 118(f) “ Adequacy review process for implementation plan submissions

. ” EPA will be issuing a supplemental NPR for a 30

- day public comment period soliciting public comment for the approvability

of Delaware’s SIP submission . The supplemental NPR also proposes approval of the changes to the MVEBs for milestone ye ar 2009 and the out

- year 2012 on

- road mobile emissions budget for New Castle County for PM 2.5 and NO x . Concurrentl y with EPA ’s supplemental NPR , a notice will be posted o n EPA’s website at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm for the purpose of opening EPA’s3

30

- day public comment period on the adequacy /approvability

of the budgets in the SIP revision. That notice will inform the public of the avai lability of the Delaware SI P revision on its own website. EPA’s website notice will provide a link to the address for the website where interested members of the public could access the SIP revision. Following EPA’s public comment period, responses to an y comments received on the proposed mobile budgets in the Delaware SI P will be addressed in an amendment to this TSD. As stated previousl y, a t ypographical error was made on the MVEBs for ye ar 2009 in the TSD associated with the NPR published on November 19, 2012 and are corrected in Table 1 as follows: **Table 1**  **The Budgets of the Delaware Portion of the Philadelphia** 
**- Wilmington** 
**- New Jersey**  **1997**

**PM 2.5**  **NAAQS Attainment Demonstration** 

Plan Submittals Milestone

Year Mobile Vehicle

Emissions Budget for Dire ct PM

Tons Per Year Mobile Vehicle

Emissions Budget for NO x - Tons Per Year Attainment Plan Demonstration 2009 257 8,448

Shown below in Table 2 are the 2 sets of budgets established as the 2012 on

- road mobile emissions budget for New Castle Co unty for PM 2.5 and NOx.

**Table 2**  **The 2012 out** 
**- year b**  **udgets of the Delaware Portion of the Philadelphia** 
**- Wilmington** 
**- New** 

**Jersey 1997 PM**  **2.5 NAAQS**  **Attainment Demonstration**

Plan Submittals Out

- Year Mobile Vehicle Emissions Budget for Direct PM

- Tons Per Year Mobile Vehicle

Emissions Budget for NO x - Tons Per Year Attainment Plan Demonstration 2012 199 6,273

**IV . Evaluation of the Adequacy of the MVEBs Budgets in the**  **Attainment Demonstration for**  **the Delaware Portion of the Philadelphia** 
**- Wilmington** 
**- N**  **ew Jersey 1997 NAAQS**  **PM 2.5**  **Nonattainment Area Subm**  **itted b**  **y DNREC**  **on April 25, 2012**  In this TSD, we are evaluating the MVEBs associated with the 2009 attainment d emonstration p lan contained in the April 25, 2012 SIP revision , for conformity purposes. We are using the e valuation criteria detailed in the Transportation Conformity Rule, 40 CFR part 93.102(b)(2)(v), 93.102(b)(2)(v), 93.102(b)(3) , and part 93, 93.118(e)4 through 93.118(e)5. The evaluation is4

presented in Table 3 , below. **Table 3**  **Adequacy of t he MVEBs**  **Contained in the Attainment**  **Demonstration for the**  **Delaware Portion of the Philadelphia** 
**- Wilmington** 
**- New Jersey**  **1997 NAAQS PM**  **2.5 N**  **onattainment Area** 

Transportation Conformity Rule 40 CFR Part 93, 93.118 Review Criteria Was the Criterion Satisfied ? If Yes How was this Criteria Satisfied? 93.102(b)(2)(iv) Have EPA and the State made a finding that NO x is an insignificant contributor to the direct mobile PM emissions? EPA and the State have not made such a finding.

93.102(b)(2)(v) Has EPA or Stat e made a finding that VOCs, Sulf

ur Oxides (SO x ) or Ammonia (NH 3 ) as precursors to be a significant contributor to the mobile PM 2.5 emissions? Neither EPA or the State has made such a finding.

93.102(b)(3) Has the EPA or the State made a finding that re

entrained road dust is a significant contributor to the PM mobile emissions? Neither EPA or the State has made such a finding.

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(i) Was the submitted revised plan endorsed b y the Governor (or his or her designee) and subject to a State publi c hearing? Yes. The submitted attainment demonstration was endorsed and submitted as a SIP revision by the Governor ’ s designee, the Secretary of the DNREC , and a public hearing was held on December 28, 2011

. Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(ii) Before the attainment demonstration was submitted to EPA, did consultation between federal, State and local agencies occur; was full implementation plan documentation provided to EPA, and was EPA ’ s stated concerns, if an y, addressed? Yes. Consultation has occurred among all req

uired federal, state and local agencies.5

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(iii) Was the motor vehicle emissions budget(s) clearly identified and precisel y quantified? Yes, the budgets are clearly identified on page s 7 and 8 (Sections 2 and 3) of the April 25, 2012 s ubmittal containing the revised attainment d emonstration. Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(iv) Is the motor vehicle emissions budget(s), when considered together with all other emission reductions, consistent with applicable requirements for attainment demonstrations ? EPA believes the budgets can be declared adequate because in conjunction with the other emission reductions, they demonstrate attainme nt for 20 10 and the chosen out

- ye ar of 2012 is appropriate

.

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(v) Is the motor vehicle emissions budget(s) consistent with and clearly related to the emissions inventory and the control measures in the Plan? EPA believes that the budgets are clearl y related to the emissions inventory

and the control measures in the SIP submittal.
Sec. 93.118(e)(4) (vi) Revisions to previously submitted attainment demonstrations: explain and document an y changes to previously

submitted budgets and control measures; impacts on point and area source emissions; an y changes to established safety margins (see Sec. 93.10 1 for definition); and reasons for the changes (including the basis for an y changes related to emission factors or estimates of vehicle miles traveled). Yes. The plan explains that the additional budgets are established for the purpose of conformity

dete rminations for years beyond the attainment y ear.

Sec. 93.118(e)(5) Did they provide and we review public comments and the State ’ s responses to those Yes6 comments with the submitted control strategy

SIP?
**V .**  **Findings** Based upon our review and evaluat ion of the MVEBs contained in DNREC’ s April 25, 2012 submittal of the attainment p lan for the Delaware 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS nonattainment area, we find the MVEBs adequate for conformity purposes.