SUBJECT:

FROM:

TO:

THRU: UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION III 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

Technical Support Document (TSD)- Insignificance Findings for the Motor Vehicle Emissions for the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the West Virginia Portion ofthe Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH 1997 Fine Particulate Matter(PM2.s) Nonattainment Area 

# 111**~ rh~** **ll..** Gregory Becoat

### ~ Environmental Scientist (3AP30)

Administrative Record for the Insignificance Findings for the Motor Vehicle Emissions for the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for West Virginia Portion ofthe Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH 1997 PM2

.5Nonattainment Area

DonnaMastro, Acting Associate Director

# ~"1\,l\

# av'\J**(\o~\td..** Office ofAir Program Planning (3AP30)

I. Background

The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires federal actions innonattainment and maintenance areas to "conformto" the goals ofState Implementation Plans (SIP). 

### See, e.g., CAA section 176. This

means that such actions will not cause orcontribute to violations ofa national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS); worsen the severity ofan existing violation; or delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any interim milestone. Actions involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to the transportation conformity rule (40 CFRpart 93, subpart A). Under this rule, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) innonattainment and maintenance areas coordinate with state air quality and**tr~~tion** agencies, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), FHWA, and FTA to demonstrate that their metropolitan transportation plans and transportation improvement programs (TIP) conform to applicable SIPs. This is typically determined by showing that estimated emissions from existing and planned highway and transit systems are less than or equal

. to the motorvehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) contained in a SIP.**~**

For MVEBs to be approvable, they must meet, at a minimum, EPA's adequacy criteria found at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). In certain instances, the Transportation Conformity Rule allows areas toforgo establishment ofa MVEB where it is demonstrated that the regional motor vehiclt:? emissions for a particular pollutant orprecursor are an insignificant contributor to the air quality problem in an area. The general criteria for insignificance determinations canbe found in40 CFR 93.109(£). Insignificance determinations are based on a number offactors, including the percentage ofmotor vehicle emissions in context ofthe total SIP inventory; the current state of air quality as determined by monitoring data for the relevant NAAQS; the absence ofSIP motor vehicle control measures; and the historical trends and future projections ofthe growth ofmotor vehicle emissions. EPA's rationale for providing for insignificance determinations is described inthe July 1, 2004, revisionto the Transportation Conformity Rule at 69 FR 40004. Specifically, the rationale is explained onpage 40061 under the subsection XXIII.B. entitled, "Areas With Insignificant Motor Vehicle Emissions." Any insignificance determinationunder review ofEPA is subject to the adequacy and approval process for EPA's action onthe SIP.



### II. Administrative Requirements for Making Insignificance Findings

EPA has followed the process for reviewing the submitted SIP and determining ifan insignificance finding for MotorVehicle Emissions is warranted in accordance withthe procedures listed in the January 2008 Conformity Regulations contained in 40 CFRpart 93.102(b)

- "Geographical applicability" and 40 CFRpart 93 .118(f)

- "Adequacyreview process for implementationplan submissions."

On June 30, 2011, the State ofWest Virginia formally submitted a Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for West Virginia Portion ofthe Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH 1997 PM2

.sNonattainment Area (hereafter the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan); The SIP included a request for a finding ofinsignificance by EPAfor motor vehicle emissions for nitrogen oxides (NOx), directparticulate matter (PM), and sulfur dioxide (S02).



### III. Evaluation ofthe Request for an Insignificance Findingfor Motor Vehicle Emissions in the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for theWestVirginia Portion ofthe Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH 1997 PM2.s Nonattainment Area Submitted By 

### The West Virginia Department ofEnvironmentalProtection

In this TSD, EPA is evaluating the West Virginia Department ofEnvironmental Protection's request for an insignificance finding for motor vehicle emissions associated withthe Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan contained in the submittal. EPA is using the evaluation criteria detailed inthe Transportation Conformity Rule, 40 CFRpart 93.102(b)(2)(iv), 93.102(b)(2)(v), 93.102(b)(3), and part 93.118(e)4 through 93.118(e)5. The evaluation is presented below.

2Review ofthe Request for Insignificance Finding ofMotor Vehicle Emissions in the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the West Virginia Portion ofthe Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH FPM 2.5 Nonattainment Area

Transportation Conformity Rule Review Criteria Was the Criterion Satisfied? If 40 CFRPart 93, 93.118 Yes, How was this Criteria Satisfied? 93.102(b)(2)(iv) Has the EPA and the State The State has requested that NOx made a finding thatNOx is be found an insignificant
an insignificant contributor contributor to the mobile PM to the direct mobile PM emissions. This request is based emissions or does the on the fact that Onroad mobile implementationplan fail to source NOx constitutes six establish a NOxbudget as percent or less ofthe area's total part ofthe PM 2.5 NOx emission in the 2015 and maintenance strategy? 2022 horizon years due to continuing fleet turnover even with future vehicle miles traveled (VMT) growth included in the emission projections. In addition, the area attained the standard in 2009 based onthree years of monitored data. 93.102(b)(2)(v) Has the EPA or State made a Neither EPA nor the State have finding that Volatile Organic made any findings that VOC's, Compounds (VOCs), Sulfur S02, or NH(3) are a significant Dioxide (S02) or Ammonia contributor to the PM2.5 mobile**~H(3))** as precursors to be a emissions, and therefore, it has significant contributor to the not been included in the SIP. mobile PM emissions or does Onroad mobile source S02 the implementation plan constitutes less than 0.1% ofthe submission establish a area's total so2emissions in the budget for VOCs, SOx or 2015 and 2022 horizon years. NH(3) as part ofa PM 2.5 maintenance strategy? 93.102(b)(3) Has the EPA orthe State The State has requested that direct made a finding that direct PMbe found an insignificant PM is a significant contributor to the mobile PM contributor to the PMmobile emissions. This request is based emissions or does the onthe fact that Onroad mobile implementation plan source PM2.s constitutes less than establish a budget that three percent ofthe area's total

3includes direct PM as part of PM2.semissions inthe 2015 and

a PM z.s maintenance 2022 horizonyears due to strategy? continuing fleet turnover even with future VMT growth included in the emissionprojections. In addition, the area attained the standard in 2009 based on three years ofmonitored data.

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(i) Was the submitted revised Yes. The submitted plan endorsed by the Redesignation Request and Governor (or his orher Maintenance Plan was endorsed designee) and subjectto a and submitted as a SIP revisionby State public hearing? the Governor's design_ee, the Secretary ofthe WestVirginia Department ofEnvironmental Protection. A public hearing on

. the SIP proposal was held. Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(ii) Before the maintenance plan Yes, Consultation has occurred

was submitted to EPA, did among all required Federal, State, consultation between federal, and local agencies. State and local agencies 

# . occur; was full implementation plan documentation provided to EPA, and was EPA's stated
concerns, ifany, addressed? Sec. 93 .118(e)(4)(iii) Was the MVEBs clearly As there was a request for an identified and precisely insignificance finding, no MVEBs quantified? were identified inthe SIP. Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(iv) Are the motor vehicle EPA believes that motor vehicle emissions, when considered emissions can be declared together with all other insignificant contributors because emissionreductions, incomparing the motor vehicle consistent with applicable emissions to the overall emissions requirements for inventory, the motor vehicle maintenance strategies? emissions comprise only a small portion ofthe over PMz.s emissions for the nonattainment

area and are projected to continue to significantly decline due to fleet turnover. Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(v) Is the motor vehicle EPA believes that the motor emissions consistent with vehicle emissions have clearly and clearly related to the related to the emissions inventory

4emissions inventory and the in the SIP submittal. control measures inthe Plan?

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(vi) Revisions to previously N/A submitted maintenance plan: This is a newNAAQS that the explain and document any area was designated as changes to previously nonattainment for and this is the submitted budgets and initial control strategy SIP control measures; impacts on submitted by the state to address point and area source the newNAAQS. emissions; any changes to established safety margins (see Sec. 93.101 for definition); and reasons for 

# I the changes (including the basis for any changes related I to emission factors or estimates ofvehicle miles traveled). Sec. 93.118(e)(5) Didthey provide and we There were no comments on the reviewpublic comments and SIP related to the proposed the State's responses to those insignificance finding request. comments withthe submitted control strategy SIP?



### IV. Findings

Basedupon ourreview and evaluation ofthe motor vehicle emissions contained inthe Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the West Virginia Portion ofthe Huntington-

. Ashland, WV-KY-OH 1997 PM2

.5 Nonattainment Area, EPA finds that the SIP submittal meets the criteria in the transportation conformity rules for an insignificance finding for NOx, PM2.s, and S02contribution from motor vehicles. Weighing all the factors for an insignificance finding, particularly the minor contributio"n ofmobile source NOx, PM2.s, and S02, EPA has determined that the NOx, PM2.s, and S02contribution from motor vehicles emissions to the Annual PM2

.s pollution for the West Virginiaportion ofthe Nonattainment Area are insignificant.

5

# -