UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY REGION III 

### 1650 Arch Street· Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

SUBJECT: Technical Support Document (TSD)

- Adequacy Findings for the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets inthe 1997 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.s) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) Maintenance Plan for the Maryland Portion ofthe Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD 1997 PM2.sNonattainment Area

FROM: Gregory Becoat

# ~- t\ 1

# ~/1

# ~ Office ofAir Program Planning (3AP30) 

## /1 /1 --J 

### //7 

## f7 

## yjs 1

### 1~1 AsrahKhadr**L;Cv~ ~**  Office ofAir Program Planning (3AP30)
TO: Administrative Record for the Adequacy Findings for the MotorVehicle Emissions Budgets inthe 1997 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2

.s) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) Maintenance Plan for the Maryland Portion ofthe Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD 1997 PM2.sNonattainment Area

THRU: Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director Office ofAir Program Planning (3AP30)


### I. Background
OnJanuary 5, 2005 (70 FR944, 1014), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published air quality area designations for the 1997 PM2.s NAAQS. In thatrulemaking action, EPA designated the Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD Area as nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM2.s standard. OnJanuary 10, 2012 (77 FR 1411), it was determined thatthe MartinsburgHagerstown WV-MD 1997 PM2.sNAAQS Nonattainment Areahad attained the 1997 annual PM2.s NAAQS bytheir applicable attainment date ofAprilS, 2010. The MartinsburgHagerstown, WV-MD 1997 annual PM2.sNonattainmentArea consists ofWashington County in Maryland and Berkley County in West Virginia. Additional background information aboutthe Maryland portion ofthe Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD 1997 PM2.sNAAQS Nonattainment Area is available inthe notice ofproposed rulemaking (NPR) inthis docket.
II. 

### Transportation Conformity RequirementsTransportation 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 Implementation Plan (SIP). The CAArequires federal actions innonattainment and maintenance areas to "conformto" 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 subjectto 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 FT A to demonstrate that their metropolitan transportationplans and transportation improvement plans (TIPs) conformto 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 implementationplanwas endorsed bythe 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 plan was submitted; (3) the MVEBs are clearly identified and precisely quantified; (4) the MVEBs, when considered together with all other emissions sources, are consistent with applicable requirements for maintenance; (5) the MVEBs are consistent with and clearly related to the emissions inventory and the control measures in the submitted control strategy implementationplan; and (6) revisions to previously submitted maintenance plans explain and document any changes to previously submittedbudgets and control measures; impacts onpoint 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 MOVES201 Oa. One ofthe models, PPSUITE, was utilized to provide inputs as well as to post-process the output files from MOVES2010a.
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 datamanager. 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 ofMOVES2010b that allows the user to input necessary parameters into the model, was created and run in batch mode. The outputs were provided as an inventorybecause vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle populationwere providedto

2MOVES2010b.
EPAreviewed the modeling methodology utilized by 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 Making Adequacy Findings
EPA followed the process for determining the adequacy ofthe submitted SIP MVEBs in accordance with the procedures listed in the January 2008 Conformity Regulations contained in 40 CFRpart 93, 118(f) "Adequacyreviewprocess for implementationplan submissions." EPA will be issuing a notice ofproposedrulemaking (NPR) for a 30-daypublic commentperiod soliciting public commentfor 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 Maryland portion ofthe Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD 1997 PM2.s Nonattainment Area for PM2.s and nitrogen oxides (NOx).
OnFebruary 12,2014, notices were posted onEPA's web site located at: http://www.epa.gov/otag/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm, for the purpose ofopening EPA's 30-daypublic comment period onthe adequacy/approvability ofthe budgets in the Maintenance Plan for the Maryland portion ofthe Martinsburg-Hagerstown WV-MD, 1997 PM2.s NonattainmentArea. The purpose ofthe notice is to informthe public ofthe availability ofthe Maintenance Plan on its 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's findings on the MVEBs within the 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 ofthat notice. Once EPAhas published the Federal Register notice, the letter sentto MDE and this TSD will also be posted at the EPA website.
Shown in Table 1 are the budgets from the Maintenance Plan. The MVEBs in Table 1for milestone year 2017 and the out-year 2025 for PM2

.sand NOx will be applied to all future tninsportation conformity determinations and analyses for the 1997 annual PM2

.sNAAQS.

3i

.

Table 1. On-Road MVEBs Contained in the Maryland portion ofthe MartinsburgHagerstown, WV-MD 

### 1997 PM2.s NonattainmentArea Maintenance Plan for the 

### 1997 PM2.sNAAQS Year MotorVehicle Emissions Mobile Vehicle Emissions Budget for PM2.s On-Road Budgetfor NOxOn-Road Emissions (tons peryear) Emissions (tons_ger_y_ear) 2017 149.63 4,057.00 2025 93.35 2,774.63

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

### 1997 PM2.s NAAQS
In this TSD, we are evaluating the MVEBs associated withthe Maintenance Plan for conformity purposes. We are using the evaluation criteria detailed inthe 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 Maintenance Plan for the 

### 1997 PM2.s NAAQS Transportation Conformity Review Criteria Was the Criterion Satisfied? Rule IfYes Howwas this Criteria 40 CFR Part 93, 93.118 Satisfied?
93.102(b)(2)Qv) Have EPA and the State Neither EPA nor the State made a finding that NOx is have made such a finding. an insignificant contributor to the direct mobile PM emissions?

93.102(b)(2)(v) Has EPA or State made a Neither EPA nor the State finding that VOCs, Sulfur have made any findings that Oxides (SOx) or Ammonia VOCs, SOx, orNH3 are (NH3) as precursors to be a significant contributors to the significant contributorto the PM2.s mobile emissions, and mobile PM2.s emissions? therefore, they have not been included inthe SIP. 93.102(b)(3) Has the EPA orthe State Neither EPA nor the State made a finding thatre- have made such a finding. entrained road dust is a significant contributorto the PM mobile emissions?

4Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(i) Was the submitted revised Yes. The submitted plan endorsed by the Maintenance Plan was Governor (or his or her endorsed and submitted as a designee) and subject to a SIP revision by the State public hearing? Governor's designee, the Secretary ofMaryland Department ofthe Environment. A public hearing on the SIP proposal was held on October 8, 2013

. Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(ii) Before the maintenance plan Yes. Consultationhas was submitted to EPA, did occurred among all required consultation between federal, federal, state and local State and local agencies agenctes. 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 23-24 of identified and precisely the Maintenance Plan quantified? prepared by the Maryland Department ofthe Environment. Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(iv) Is the motor vehicle EPA believes the budgets can emissions budget(s), when be declared adequate because considered together with all in conjunction withthe other other emissionreductions, emission reductions, 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 EPA believes that the budgets emissions budget(s) are clearly related to the consistent with and clearly emissions inventory and the related to the emissions control measures in the SIP inventory and the control submittal.
measures in the Plan?

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(vi) Revisions to previously Yes, the Maintenance Plan submitted attainment provides newMVEBs for

5demonstrations: explain and years 2017 and 2025. The document any changes to addition ofsafety margins to previously submitted budgets the MVEBs is consistent with and control measures; continued attainment. impacts onpoint and area source emissions; any changes to established safety margins (see Sec. 93.101for definition); and reasons for the changes (including the basis for any changes related to emission factors or estimates ofvehicle miles traveled).

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



### VI. Findings
Based upon our review and evaluation ofthe MVEBs contained inthe Maintenance Plan for the Maryland portion ofthe Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD 1997 PMz.s NAAQS Nonattainment Area, EPA finds the MVEBs adequate for conformity purposes and recommends thatthe MVEBs be SIP approved.

6MDES Summers____,,..----,-- MDEDS Kinsey 

### tkldf< MDEDS Costello ---::::l..,....,.=-::-- MDEARMA Aburn**~** Date: 26-Nov-13
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY TRACKING SHEET
ISSUE/DESCRIPTION: The attached State Implementation Plan requests that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) redesignate the Washington County, MD 1997 fine particulate (PM2
.5

) matter nonattainment area to attainment for this standard pursuant to the provisions under§ 107 ofthe federal Clean Air Act (CAA). We are also requesting that USEPA concurrently approve, as a revision to the state implementation plan (SIP), the related§ 175A maintenance plan. This plan ensures that good PM2.5 air quality will be maintainedthrough 2025.
PRINCJP ALADMINISTRATION/LEADER: ARMA/

# Aburn/Fr~fs/Hug PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TRACKING SHEET TO SECRETARY'S OFFICE: Request signature to submitthe SIP to USEPA.
BACKGROUND ON ISSUE (IDENTIFY CONTROVERSIES): Since the designations for the National AmbientAir Quality Standards (NAAQS) for this pollutant were published (Federal Register, Vol. 70, No.3, 1/5/2005), the area's PM2
.5air quality has improved due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions. Air quality in the area is significantly better than required by this standard. Due to the improvement in PM2

. 5air quality, the USEPA finalized a clean data determination for the Washington County area on February 9, 2012 (Federal Register, Vol. 77, No.6, 1/10/2012).
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SECRETARY'S ACTIONS: Please sign the enclosed submittal letter and return to ARMA Planning.
PERMIT/ENFORCEMENTIMPLICATIONS (IF APPLICABLE): N/ A
SMART GROWTH IMPLICATIONS (IF APPLICABLE): N/A
INTERESTED PARTIES OR GOVERNMENTS, ETC.: USEPA, MDOT, local governments, West Virginia, The Hagerstown I Eastern Panhandle Metropolitan Planning Organization, environmental organizations, businesses, and citizen's groups. DUE DATES OR MILESTONES:
SECRETARY'S COMMENTS: