Document ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0625-0005
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2007-10-24T04:00Z

SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103-2029

									

										July 12,  2007

SUBJECT:	Technical Support Document - Findings for Motor Vehicle
Emission Budgets; 2009 and 2018 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the
Maintenance Plan for the York/Adams Counties, Pennsylvania 8-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area

      FROM: 	Martin Kotsch, 3AP23 /s/

	TO:	Administrative Record for Review of the 2009 and 2018 Motor Vehicle
Emission Budgets in the Maintenance Plan for the York/Adams Counties,
Pennsylvania 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area

	THRU:	Carol Febbo, Chief  /s/

Energy, Radiation and Indoor Environment Branch (3AP23)	

I.   Administrative Requirements For Making Adequacy Findings  

The adequacy and approvability of the 2009 and 2018 Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budgets contained in the Maintenance Plan submitted by the
Pennsylvania  Department of  Environmental Protection (PADEP) on June
14, 2007 for the York/Adams Counties, Pennsylvania 8-Hour Non-attainment
Area  was reviewed in accordance with the procedures and criteria of the
Transportation Conformity Rule contained in 40 CFR Part 93, Sections
93.106(a)(1) 106(a)(2)(i), 93.110, 93.113(b), 93.118 (e) (4) through (5)
and the following guidance: 

-  January 18, 2002 EPA memorandum from John Seitz and Margo Oge
entitled: “Policy Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for SIP Development
and Transportation Conformity”, and

-  February 12, 2003 EPA memorandum from Tom Helms and Leila Cook
entitled: “Clarification of Policy Guidance for MOBILE6 SIPs in
Mid-course Review Areas”, and

- March 8, 2005 EPA memorandum from Suzanne Rudzinski and Lydia Wegman
entitled  “Guidance for Determining the "Attainment Year" for
Transportation Conformity in New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 Nonattainment
Areas”, and 

- May 2005  Reference document entitled  “Complete Transportation
Conformity Regulations that Incorporate Recent Conformity Final Rule
Amendments (Through May 2005)”. 

On June 14, 2007, the Pennsylvania Department of the Environmental
Protection (PADEP) submitted its motor vehicle emission budgets to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a part of its State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision.  The Pennsylvania  public comment
period on the SIP revision closed on June 8, 2007.			

EPA will be issuing its own Notice of  Proposed Rule Making for a 30-day
public comment period  soliciting public comment as to the approvability
of the Pennsylvania SIP submission.  Concurrently with the EPA Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, a notice will be posted on EPA’s website at   
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp.htm" 
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp.htm      HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm" 
http://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 Pennsylvania  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 SIP revision.  Following EPA’s public comment period,
responses to any comments received on the proposed mobile budgets in the
Pennsylvania SIP will be addressed in an amendment to this TSD.

		

II.  Evaluation of the Budgets 

Table 1 - The Budgets 

				

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

Maintenance Plan	2009	20,705	14,453

	2018	9,108	8,219

Table 2

Adequacy/Approvability of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the
Maintenance Plan Submitted by PADEP on June 14, 2007 for the York/Adams
Counties, Pennsylvania  8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area 

Transportation Conformity Rule

	Review Criteria	Was the Criterion Satisfied?    If “Yes” How was
this Criterion Satisfied?

93.106(a)(1)	Are the budget years correct?	Yes

93.106(a)(2)(i)	Does the plan quantify and document the demographic and
employment factors influencing transportation demand?	Yes

93.110	Are the emissions budgets based upon the latest planning
assumptions?

(a)   Are the emission budgets, with respect to all other applicable
criteria in §§93.111 - 93.119, based upon the most recent planning
assumptions in force at the time of the development of the budgets?

(b) Are the assumptions derived from the estimates of current and future
population, employment, travel, and congestion most recently developed
by the MPO or other designated agency and are the budgets based upon the
latest assumptions about current and future background concentrations?

	Yes

Yes

Yes

	(e)  Do the budgets include the latest existing information regarding
the effectiveness of TCMs and other implementation plan measures which
have already been implemented.

(f) Are key assumptions specified and included in the draft documents
and supporting materials used for the interagency and public
consultation required by §93.105?	There are no previous TCMs.

Yes

 93.111	Are the budgets based upon the latest emissions model?	Yes,
MOBILE6.2, the latest EPA emissions model was utilized.

93.113(b)	Have previously committed TCM's been implemented?	There were
no TCMS in the previously approved SIP

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(ii)	Before the control strategy implementation plan
was submitted to EPA, did consultation between  federal, State and local
agencies occur; was full implementation plan documentation provided to
EPA, and were EPA’s stated concerns, if any, addressed?	Yes

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(iii)	Were the motor vehicle emissions budgets clearly
identified and precisely quantified?	Yes

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(iv)	Is the motor vehicle emissions budget(s), when
considered together with all other emission reductions, consistent with
applicable  requirements for the control strategy implementation 

plan?	Yes

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(v)	Is the motor vehicle emissions budget(s) consistent
with and clearly 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 any changes to previously
submitted budgets and control measures; impacts on point and area source
emissions; any changes to established safety margins (see Sec. 93.101
for definition); and reasons for the changes (including the basis for
any changes related to emission factors or estimates of vehicle miles
traveled).	The new budgets have been changed to reflect a new emissions
inventory and a new baseyear which were required in the development of
the new maintenance plan under the 8-hour ozone standard.

Sec. 93.118(e)(5)	Did they provide and did  we review the State’s
responses to the public comments?	There was one comment submitted
relevant to the mobile vehicle emissions budgets in the SIP during the
State comment period.  The State responded adequately to the comment.

III.  Recommendation

Based upon our review and evaluation of the motor vehicle emission
budgets contained in the Maintenance Plan submitted by PADEP for the
York/Adams Counties, Pennsylvania 8-Hour Ozone Non-attainment Area
submitted on June 14, 2007, we recommend that the mobile emission
budgets be found adequate and approved.