\1E 0 S?.

)

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX

L PRO 75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

NOV 222013

\lr. Lrr C. sri. 1 ijycicir

Air ()afitv Diviso:

Arizona L)cpartment of ivirmmeithil Quality

1111) \\cst Washinciun Si.

ICHi x. An zona 05 ( )( ) 7

Mr. Dennis Smith. Executive Director

Maricopa Association ot Governments

302 tsorth 1 St Avenue Suite 300

Phoenix. Arizona OS! 103

k \ I mdiii ut \ n op C ount )j\ 1-10 Non itt unim lit Ai i

Deer .‘ascv

In ecrurdLince with -lt) (‘.Rk. 03.11 S’( 11(u). ihis leiter transmits our decision that the motor vehicle

s hudoet (\ I \‘F K) for particulate matter less than 1) microns (PM- 10) in the Fire Perreiii i7un

fur 11/-! (1 fur F’ fuji c ‘ivy (u?u1n AOI1C!llalIli;IC’nI - l rca (.lIm 2012) (Five Percent Plan) is adequate ilu

ire sr rwti. coaGrniiv purposes. tpun the elldctive date of this adequacy determination (15 dass

aErn publicati in of our determinatuon in the In:’L’1ul RL’i,f IC;.). the ivlaiieopJ Association of

Governments (f\L\Oi) and ihe I J.S. Department ot 1rinsportation must use the MVEB in the Five

Percent Plan in Eiiure eon form itv analyses. 1

The Five Percent Plan, which was submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on May 25.

2012. identilies a PM-lu MIVI/13 for the Muricope County Nonattainncnt Area of 5-UP metric tons per

day ftir 2(112. We announced receipt of the Five Percent Plan and the N’IVEB on IEPAs transportation

con Formitv Web site on September 12. 2013 and requested public comment on the MVEB by October

15. 2013. We received no comments in resuonse to the adequacy review posting.

in reaching our adequacy deiei’mination. we have delerinined that the M V[IB in the Five Percent Plan.

when coiisideieci witi i aI I other cmissions sources in the Marieopa County Nonauainment Area. is

eunsisient with he :adequec criteria tound in 41) CFR 03. 11 Si e)(4). We have enclosed a table thai

summarizes our adequacy determination. ‘2re isill SOOfl Post this information on the Internet at:

udrLlnacv.htm.

i’lcase note that an a lequnes review is separate From EP1’’sreview of’ the Five Percent Plan. and should

not he used to predict EPA s action liar the SI P.

‘1 ode’ s adequacy cleterm HLIL ion dues not supercede I: )\ s action on an earlier I’M- 10 MVEB ol 59.2 metric ions per dcv

in eOflflCC!]Ufl with our apnrovLn ci the Serious Area Plan liar PM-I 0. which was final ited i cdv 25. 2002. 67 FR 4S7 1 .As a

practical metier, how ever. the i 1VLU in the Five Perceni Plan will he controlling because ills a lower \‘alue.

Printed on Recycled Paper
if von have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Colleen ivI faughan n (520) 5—O I S

or Greg Nudcl at (415) 947-4107.

Sincerely.

LcThorah Jordan

Director. Air Division

l-nc1osure

cc: Lindy Bauer, i\’Iaricopa ,i\ssociation of Governments

Dean Giles. Maricopa Association of Governments

Beverly Chenauskv. Arizona Department of Transportation

Ed Stillings. Federal 1—ligh\vay Admimstration
Enclosure

Transportation Conformity A(lequacv Review

Control Strategy Slate Implementation Plan (SIP) Under Review: Fii’e Peive;n Date of SIP Revision Receipt by EPA: 5/25’12P/un/ta’ P31-10/Q1’ 1/ic .1 ILII’icU/)c Coii,iii A OiidlliliiiiiC/71 .-Irci(1ILfl 20/2)

Reviewer: Greg Nndd Date: I I 20 13

Transportation Review Criteria Is Criterion Reference in SIP Document Comments

Sat is lied?

y :

Sec. 93. I I Ste)14)(i) The plan was endorsed by the Y The coer letter transmitting the SIP, dated May 25. 2012. was froni Henry

(Jo\ ernor (or desionee) and was Darw in. Director. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) tosubject to a public hearing. .Jared Blumenfeld. Regional Administrator. US EPA Region 9 There was

documentation in the package demonstrating that ADEQ has been designated b

the Governor of Arizona to submit such plans to EPA. There was also information

: in the SIP package demonstrating that the Maricopa Association of Go ernments

(MAG I was the appropriate agenc to de clap the plan for the areas of MaricopaCounty within the P\ 1—10 nonattainment area.

A public hearing was held by MAO on April 12. 2012. Documentation of thishearing may be found in Appendix E of the submitted plan.

Sec. 93.1 1 S(e04)( ii) The plan was de\elopedl through Y During the development of the plan. the strticture. approach and control measures

consultation with federal. state and were discussed and coordinated in meetings of the \IAG Air Quality Technical

local agencies; full implementation Ad isory Committee. The almost—final version of the plan was clisctissed at an

plan documentation was provided April 26. 2012. The Air QLlalitv Technical Advisory Committee includes

and EPA’s stated concerns, if any, representatives from EPA, Federal l-lighwav Administration. Arizona Departmentwere addressed. of Transportation, and local governments such as Maricopa County. Phoenix.

Mesa and smaller cities.

Sec. 03.1 1 S(eH-I)( iii) The motor vehicle emission Y Chapter 6 of the plan clearly quantifies and identifies the motor vehicle emissions

budget) s) is cleark identified and budget (pp 6-12 through 6-43). \iAG used MOVES 201 On to calculate PM-I 0precisel\ quantified, emissions from exhaust, tire and brake wear. They used the Januar 2011 version

of AP-42’s appropriate methods to calculate re—entrained dust emissions from

paved roads and dust emissions fronm unpaved roads.

Sec. 93.1 1 S(et(4)( iv) Ihe motor vehicle emissions V EPA has determined that the MVEB, when considered together with all other

budget(s), when considered together emission sources, are consistent with requirement to demonstrate five percent

with all other emission sources. is reductions until attainment, reasonable further progt’ and attainment of the PM—consistent with applicable 10 standard. (See Chapters 4. 5 and 6 of the plan)requirements for reasonable further

progress, attainment, or maintenance

( whichever is relevant to the given

plan).
Sec. 93.1 1 8(e)(4)(v) The plan shows a clear relationship Y The on—road control measures include the use of PM— 10 certified street sweepers.

among the emissions budget(s). paving and stabilizing unpaved roads and alley and shoulders, reduced speedcontrol measures and the total limits and overlaying highways with rubberized asphalt. These were implementedemissions inventory, as advanced contingency measures and the reductions were not considered in

demonstrating 500 reductions. RFP or attainment, but these controls are assumed

in the calculation of the MVEB. (Chapter 4)

There were some ancillary benefits to the on-road emissions due to increased

compliance with \iaricopa counts’ rules for stabilizing Private unpa ed roads andalleys. These benefits were included in the emissions inventory for the 50

reductions. RFP and attainment demonstrations and in the MVEBs. (Chapters 5

and 6)

Sec. 93.1 l8(e)(4)(i) Revisions to previously submitted Y The previous MVEB under the approved Serious Area Plan for PM-b was 59.7

control strategy or maintenance plans metric tons per da of PM— 10. The budget in this plan is 54.9. h ich is lower dueexplain and document any changes to to changes in methodology, improvements in rule compliance and reductions clueany previous submitted budgets and to paving of roads, alle s and shoulders and from improved street sweepers.control measures: impacts on point 84.690 of the on-road emissions are from re—entrained dust and dust from unpavedand area source emissions: an roads and alleys. These emissions are calculated using methods from AP-42. EPA

changes to established safety margins has reviewed the AP—12 method, resulting in a more accurate. bLit lower estimate(see 93. 101 for definition), and of emissions for the Maricopa Count\ PM— 10 Nonattainment Area. Thisreasons for the changes (including calculation is discussed on in Chapter 5 ofthe 2008 \laricopa County Emissionsthe basis for an changes to emission Inventory v hich is included as Appendix A of the plan .Asaresult of these

factors or estimates of VMT. changes. the a smaller emissions budget is appropriate for the area. e en though

vehic Ic miles traveled is increasing.

The other required reductions for the demonstrations in the plan were made b

improving compliance with dust control regulations for construction projects and

undeveloped lands. The area is also making good progress redticing road—related

emissions by improved street sweeping and a program to pave or stabilize roads.alleys and shoulders.

Sec. 93.1 1 S(e)(5) EPA has re iewed the State’s Y MAG accepted and responded to verbal and written public comments on the plan

compilation of public comments and as part of their public hearing process documented in Appendix E of the plan.response to comments that are MAG addressed all public comments in detail and submitted both the commentsrequired to be submitted with any and their responses as part of Appendix E. EPA has reviewed these comments and

implementation plan. responses and has considered them in our finding that the MVEBs are adequate.