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

**- 2029** 

May 31 , 20 12

**SUB JECT**  **:** Technical Support Document

- Adequacy Findings for the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the 20 0 9 Attainment Plan for the Mary land Portion of the Philadelphia

- Wilmington

- Atlantic City Nonattainment Area ( Cecil Count y )

**FROM:** /S/

Martin Kotsch, Office of Air Program Planning (3AP30)

**TO:** Administrative Recor d for the Adequacy Findings for the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the 20 0 9 Attainment Plan for the Maryland Portion of the Philadelphia

- Wilmington

- Atlantic City Nonattainment Area ( Cecil Count y)

**THRU: /**  S **/**

Donna Mastro, Acting Associate Director Office of Air Program Planning (3AP30)

I. Administrative Requirements For Making Adequacy Findings

We have followed the process for determining the adequacy of the submitted S tate I mplementation P lan (SIP ) Motor Vehicle Emissions B udgets (MVEBs) in accordance with the procedures listed in the January 2008 Conformity

Regulations contained in 40 CFR part 93

. 118(f) “ Adequacy review process for implementation plan submissions .”

On June 4 , 2007, the Maryland Department of the Environment ( M D E ) formally submitted a combined 2008 Reasonable Further Progress Plan (hereafter the 2008 RFP Plan) and 2009 8

- Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan (hereafter the 2009 attainment demonstration) for the Mary land Portio n of the Philadelphia

- Wilmington

Atlantic City

8

- Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area as a State Implementation Plan (SI P) revision.

This TSD is only

addressing the MVEBs contained in the 200 9 attainment demonstration since on April 8, 2010 (75 FR 17893) EPA had previously approved and found adequate the MVEBs for the 2008 RFP plan

.EPA will be issuing its own Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for a 30

- day public comment period soliciting public comment as to the approvabilit y of the Maryland SI P submission. C oncurrently with EPA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, a notice will be posted on EPA’s website at h ttp://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm for the purpose of opening EPA’s 30

- day

public comment period on the adequacy /approvability

of the budgets in the SIP revision. That notice will inform the public of the availability of the Delaware SIP 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 SI P revision. Following EPA’s public comment period, responses to an y comments received on the proposed mobile budgets in the Maryland SIP will be addressed in an amendment to this Technical Support Document (TSD).

**II. Evaluation of the Budge ts** 

**Table 1**

**- The Budgets** 

Clean Air Act Requirement Milestone Year Mobile Vehicle Emissions Budget for NOx in Tons Per Day Mobile Vehicle

Emissions Budget for VOC s in Tons Per Day

Attainment Demonstration Cecil County 200 9 7. 3 2

. 2

**Table 2**

**A de**  **quacy of the Budgets in the 200**  **9 Attainment**  **Demonstration for the**  **Maryland Po**  **rtion of the Philadelphia** 

**- Wilmington** 

**- Atlantic City**  **Ozone Nonattainment Area (**  **Cecil County Budgets)** 
**Transportation Conformity Rule**  **40 CFR Part 93, '**  **93.118 Review Criteria**  **W as the Criterion Satisfied?**  **If Yes How was this Criteria Satisfied?** 
Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(i) Was the submitted control strategy implementation plan endorsed b y the Governor (or his or her designee) and subject to a State public hearing? Yes. The SIP was endorsed and submitted by

the Secretary of MDE , the Governor ’ s designee formally delegated the authority

to submit SI P revisions to EPA. A public hearing was held.Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(ii) Before the control strategy implementation plan was submitted to EPA, did consultation between F ederal, 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 required federal, state and l ocal agencies.

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(iii) Were the motor vehicle emissions budgets clearly identified and precisel y quantified? Yes. The 200 9 budgets are found on page 88 of the attainment p lan submittal.

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(iv) Are the motor vehicle

em issions budgets, when considered together with all other emission reductions, consistent with applicable requirements for the control strategy implementation plan? Yes

. The budgets are consistent with the ROP plan ’ s requirements. The SI P submittal demo nstrates that the control measures and strategy adopted and imposed by Maryland in Cecil County achieve the reductions
necessary to meet the attainment requirements. The control measures include the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) including the National Low Emission Vehicle Program (NLEV) and federal Tier II / Low Sulfur Fuel Program; Emissions standards for medium and heav y dut y vehicles in 2002, 2004 and 2007; Stage II and Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR). Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(v) Are the motor vehicle emissions budgets consistent with and clearl y related to the emissions inventory

and the control measures in the submitted control strategy implementation plan? Yes.Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(vi) Revisions to previously submitted control strategy implementation plan: 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. 93.101 for definition); and reasons for the ch anges (including the basis for an y changes related to emission factors or estimates of vehicle miles traveled). Yes. The SIP submission explains that the revised MVEBs are in response to EPA’s 1997 revision to the previous ozone standard. This revi sion revoked the previous1

- hour ozone standard and replaced with a more stringent 8 hour ozone standard

.

Sec. 93.118(e)(5) Did they provide and did we review public comments and the State ’ s responses to those comments with the submitted control strategy SI P? There were no comments on the proposed mobile emissions budgets in the SI P.

**III. Findings** 

- Based upon our review and evaluation of the budgets contained in the attainment demonstration for 200 9 submitted on June 4 2007 by the State of Mary land f

or Cecil Count y , we recommend that the motor vehicle budgets be found adequate.

**IV. The Applicable Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Purposes of**  **Demonstrating Conformity for 200**  **9 in**  **Cecil Count** **y -**  The applicable motor vehicle emissions budgets for p urposes of demonstrating conformity are 7.3 tons/day

of NOx and 2.2 tons/day

VOC for C ecil County

.