SUBJECT:

FROM:

TO:

THRU: UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY REGION III 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Maryland 19103

Technical SupportDocument (TSD)- Adequacy Findings for the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the 1997 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.s) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) Maintenance Planfor the Baltimore, Maryland (MD) 1997 PM2.sNonattainment Area
Gregory Becoat

# ~<\:w

# H
Office ofAir Program Planning (3AP30) ) 

## c/1

_ 1]_,;_/): 1 1 /) /)A

# ~/1-t--**1~** AsrahKhadr

## LY~**~** Office ofAir Program Planning (3AP30)
Administrative Record for the Adequacy Findings for the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets inthe 1997 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.s) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) Maintenance Planfor the Baltimore, MD 1997 PM2.sNonattainment Area 

# /2-.. 

# £**S):wj,~** Cri sti naFernandez s ociateDirector Office ofAirProgram Planning (3AP30)
I. Background
OnJanuary 5, 2005 (70 FR 944, 1014), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published air quality area designations for the 1997 PM2.s NAAQS. Inthat rulemaking action, EPA designated Baltimore, MD (the Area), which consists ofAnne Arundel County, Baltimore County, Carroll County, Harford County, Howard County, and Baltimore City, nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM2.s standard. OnMay 22, 2012 (77 FR 30208), EPA determined thatthe Area had attained the 1997 PM2.s NAAQS based on quality-assured, quality-controlled and certified ambient air monitoring datathat showthe Areahas monitored attainment based on 2008 through 2010 data. II. Transportation Conformity Requirements Transportation conformity is required under section 176(c) ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA) to ensure that federally supported highway, transit projects, and other activities are consistent with(conform to) the purpose ofthe State ImplementationPlan (SIP). The CAArequires federal actions innonattainment and maintenance areas to "conform to" the goals ofSIP. This means that such actions will not cause or contribute to violations ofa NAAQS; worsen the severity of an existing violation; or delay timely attainment ofany 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). Underthis rule, metropolitanplanning organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment and maintenance areas coordinate with state air quality and transportation agencies, EPA, FHW A, and FTA to demonstrate that their metropolitan transportation plans and transportation improvementplans (TIPs) 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 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). EPA's adequacy criteria are: (1) the submitted control strategy implementation plan was endorsed by the Governor or designee and was subject to a State public hearing; (2) consultation among Federal, State, and local agencies occurred; full implementation plan documentation was providedto EPA; and EPA's stated concerns, ifany, were addressed before the control strategy implementation planwas submitted; (3) the MVEBs are clearly identified and precisely quantified; (4) the MVEBs, when considered together with all other emissions sources, are consistentwith applicable requirements for maintenance; (5) the MVEBs are consistent with and clearly related to the emissions inventory and the control measures inthe submitted control strategy implementation plan; and (6) revisions to previously submitted maintenance plans explain and document any changes to previously submitted budgets and control measures; impacts on point and area source emissions; any changes to established safety margins; and reasons for the changes (including the basis for any changes related to emission factors or estimates ofvehicle miles traveled).
III. Review ofthe Submitted Modeling Utilizing the Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES2010) Maryland Department ofthe Environment (MDE) utilized MOVES2010ato produce MVEBs for years 2017 and 2025. To utilize the MOVES2010amodel, several different models were used to provide the necessary inputs into MOVES2010a. One ofthe models, PPSUITE, was utilized to provide inputs as well as to post-process the output files from MOVES201Oa. The appropriate traffic related inputs which were processed by PPSUITE were input into MOVES2010a. Additional traffic related inputs as well as non-traffic related inputs were provided as well. The data was input into MOVES2010aviathe county data manager. The county data manager is a function ofthe MOVES2010b model which allows county specific data inputs to be converted into a usable form by MOVES201 Ob. Atthat point a RunSpecification (RunSpec), which is a function ofMOVES2010bthat allows the user to input necessary parameters into the model, was created and run in batch mode. The outputs were provided as an inventory because vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle population were provided to MOVES2010b.

2

## ..

EPA reviewed the modeling methodology utilizedby MDE and all modeling related information to produce the MVEBs for years 2017 and 2025. EPA found that all necessary and required modeling procedures were followed inthe production ofthe 2017 and 2025 MVEBs which were produced using MOVES2010a.
IV. Administrative Requirements for MakingAdequacy Findings
EPA followed the process for determining the adequacy ofthe submitted SIP MVEBs in accordance withthe procedures listed inthe January 2008 Conformity Regulations contained in 40 CFRpart 93, 118(f) "Adequacy reviewprocess for implementationplan submissions." EPA will be issuing a notice ofproposed rulemaking (NPR) for a 30-daypublic comment period soliciting public comment for the approvability ofthe State ofMaryland's SIP submission. The NPR also proposes approval ofthe MVEBs for milestone year 2017 and the out-year 2025 for the Baltimore, MD 1997 PM2.sNonattainment Area for PM2.s and nitrogen oxides (NOx). OnApril 30, 2014, a notice was posted on EPA's web site located at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm, for the purpose ofopening EPA's 30-day public commentperiod onthe adequacy/approvability ofthe budgets inthe Maintenance Plan for the Baltimore, MD 1997 PM2

.sNonattainment Area. The purpose ofthe notice is to informthe public ofthe availability ofthe Baltimore Maintenance Plan onits own website. EPA's website notice provides a link where interested members ofthe public could access the SIP revision. Following EPA's public commentperiod, responses to any comments received on the proposed mobile budgets will be addressed in an amendment to this TSD. This TSD will be an enclosure to the letter from EPA to MDE informing ofEPA'sfindings on the MVEBs withinthe Baltimore Maintenance Plan. EPA will publish a Federal Register notice announcing the adequacy findings. The effective date ofthe adequacy findings will be 15 days after the publication date ofthatnotice. Once EPA has published the Federal Register notice, the letter sent to MDE and this TSD will also be posted at the EPA website. Shown in Table 1 are the budgets from the Baltimore Maintenance Plan. The MVEBs in Table 1 for milestone year 2017 and the out-year 2025 for PM2.s and NOxwill be applied to all future transportation conformity determinations and analyses for the 1997 annual PM2

.sNAAQS.

Table 

### 1. On-Road MVEBs Contained in the Baltimore,MD 

### 1997 PM2.sNonattainment Area Maintenance Plan for the 

### 1997 PM2.sNAAQS Year Motor Vehicle Emissions Mobile Vehicle Emissions Budget for PM2.s On-Road Budget forNOx On-Road Emissions (tons peryear) Emissions (tons per year) 2017 1,218.60 29,892.01 2025 1,051.39 21,594.96

V. Evaluation ofthe Adequacy ofthe MVEBs in the BaltimoreMaintenance Plan for the

31997 PM2.sNAAQS
In this TSD, we are evaluating the MVEBs associated withthe Baltimore Maintenance Plan for conformity purposes. We are using the evaluation criteria detailed in the Transportation Conformity Rule, 40 CFRpart 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 is presented in Table 2, below.

Table 2. Adequacy ofthe MVEBs Contained in the BaltimoreMaintenance Plan for the 1997 PM2.sNAAQS Transportation Confomtity Rule 40 CFR Part93 93.118
93.102(b)(2)(iv)

93.102(b)(2)(v)

93.102(b)(3)

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(i) Review Criteria

Have EPA and the State made a finding that NOx is an insignificant contributor to the direct mobile PM emissions?
Has EPA or State made a finding that VOCs, Sulfur Oxides (SOx) or Ammonia (NH3) as precursors to be a significant contributorto the mobile PMz.s emissions?

Has the EPA orthe State made a finding that reentrained road dust is a significant contributor to the PMmobile emissions?
Was the submitted revised plan endorsed by the Governor (or his or her designee) and subject to a State public hearing?

4 Was the Criterion atistied? lfYesHow was this Criteria Satisfied?
Neither EPA nor the State have made such a finding.

Neither EPA northe State have made any findings that VOCs, SOx, orNH3 are significant contributors to the PMz.s mobile emissions, and therefore, they have not been included in the SIP. Neither EPA nor the State have made such a finding.

Yes. The Baltimore Maintenance Plan was endorsed and submitted as a SIP revision by the Governor's designee, the Secretary ofMaryland Department ofthe Environment, Robert M. Summers. A public hearing on the SIP proposal was held on October 7, 2013.Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(ii) Before the maintenance plan Yes. Consultation has was submitted to EPA, did occurred among all required consultation between federal, federal, state and local State and local agencies agencies. occur; was full implementationplan documentationprovided to EPA, and was EPA's stated concerns, ifany, addressed?
Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(iii) Was the motor vehicle Yes, the budgets are clearly emissions budget(s) clearly identified onpages 20-21 of identified and precisely the Baltimore Maintenance quantified? Plan prepared by the Maryland Department ofthe Environment. Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(iv) Is the motor vehicle EPAbelieves the budgets can emissions budget(s), when be declared adequate because considered together with all in conjunction with the other other emissionreductions, emissionreductions, they consistent with applicable demonstrate continued requirements for maintenance for years 2017 maintenance? and 2025.

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(v) Is the motor vehicle EPAbelieves thatthe budgets emissions budget(s) are clearly related to the consistent with and clearly emissions inventory and'the related to the emissions control measures inthe SIP inventory and the control submittal. measures inthe Plan?

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(vi) Revisions to previously Yes, the Baltimore submitted attainment Maintenance Planprovides demonstrations: explain and new MVEBs for years 2017 document any changes to and 2025 for PM2.s and NOx. previously submitted budgets The addition ofsafety and control measures; margins to the MVEBs is impacts onpoint and area consistent with continued source emissions; any attainment. changes to established safety margins (see Sec. 93.101 for definition); and reasons for the changes (including the

5basis for any changes related to emission factors or estimates ofvehicle miles traveled).
Sec. 93.118(e)(5) Did they provide and we Yes reviewpublic comments and the State's responses to those comments withthe submitted control strategy SIP?



### VI. Findings Based upon our review and evaluation ofthe MVEBs contained inthe Maintenance Planfor the Baltimore, MD 1997 

### PMz

.sNAAQS NonattainmentArea, EPA finds the MVEBs adequate for conformity purposes and recommends that the MVEBs be SIP approved.

6