Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0458-0051
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2012-09-18T04:00Z

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                  REGION IX 
                             75 Hawthorne Street 
                           San Francisco, CA  94105

Memorandum

To: 		Nogales, Arizona PM-10 SIP Final Action Approval Docket, Docket ID EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0458

From: 		Jerry Wamsley, Air Planning Office, EPA Region 9

Date: 		August 24, 2012

RE: 		Adequacy documentation for Nogales PM-10 MVEBs in August 2012 ADEQ Nogales PM-10 179B State Implementation Plan

Attached to this memorandum is the adequacy documentation for the Nogales PM-10 MVEB in the August 2012 ADEQ Nogales PM-10 179B Attainment Plan.

In June 2012, Wienke Tax provided an adequacy review of the May 2012 proposed Nogales PM-10 State Implementation Plan.  Portions of that information are incorporated here for reference and continuity.  

Table 1. Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the 2012 Nogales SIP
                    August 2012 (reviewed by Jerry Wamsley)
                           Adequacy Review Criteria
                               (40 CFR part 93)
                                 Is Criterion
                                  Satisfied?
                      Reference in SIP Document/Comments

                                       

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(i)
The plan was endorsed by the Governor (or designee) and was subject to a public hearing.
                                       Y
ADEQ has satisfied applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing prior to adoption and submittal of the  State Implementation Plan - Nogales PM10 Nonattainment Area, May 2012 ("2012 Nogales Attainment Plan"). The State provided a 30-day public comment period, and held a public hearing prior to the adoption of the Plan on June 21, 2012. Documentation accompanying the SIP describes a public and agency outreach effort. See, e.g., http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/plan/notmeet.html#nog and http://www.azdeq.gov/download/calendar/051612pn1.pdf. 

As result of comments received on the May 2012, 2012 Nogales Attainment Plan , ADEQ revised the MVEB in the 2012 Nogales Attainment Plan and provided a second 30 day comment period, starting July 24, 2012.  Consistent with state and federal statute, ADEQ offered to hold a public hearing if one was requested by the August 15, 2012.  ADEQ did not receive a request for a public hearing, so no hearing was held.  

Both of the SIP submittal included proof of publication for notices of the ADEQ public hearing.  Evidence was provided that the hearings were properly noticed.  See the plan appendices within each submittal.  See appendix K of the submitted plan.
Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(ii)
The plan was developed through consultation with federal, state and local agencies; full implementation plan documentation was provided and EPA's stated concerns, if any, were addressed.
                                       Y
Consultation with federal, state and local agencies was undertaken; this consultation included EPA, ADEQ, and ADOT in March and April of 2012. EPA received several draft versions of the 2012 Nogales Attainment Plan and provided comments.

As part of EPA's review of the May 2012 draft plan, we recommended that road construction dust be included within the MVEB.  See 77 FR 38418-38419; ( June 27, 2012); and, our  letter from Lisa Hanf, EPA to Eric Massey, ADEQ, dated June 21, 2012.  

In response, ADEQ revised the MVEB to incorporate road construction dust, vehicle brake wear, and vehicle tire wear emissions.  These changes to the MVEB were the subject of the 30-day public comment period beginning July 24, 2012.  ADEQ consulted with EPA and ADOT as part of revising this MVEB.       

EPA concerns were addressed in the final SIP that was adopted and submitted.   
Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(iii)
The motor vehicle emission budgets are clearly identified and precisely quantified.
                                       Y
The motor vehicle emissions budget for 2011 is clearly identified and precisely quantified on page 48 of the 2012 Nogales Attainment Plan; see Table 7-1.  This budget reflects federal motor vehicle control measures that were already implemented at the time the ADEQ adopted the 2012 Nogales SIP on August 24, 2012 and was developed using EPA's MOVES model. 
Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(iv)
The motor vehicle emissions budget(s), when considered together with all other emission sources, is consistent with applicable requirements for reasonable further progress and attainment.
                                       Y
EPA has concluded that the budget for the year 2011 when considered together with all other emission sources is consistent with the requirement to demonstrate reasonable further progress for the 1987 24-hour PM10 standard. This finding is based on a review of the RFP demonstration in the 2012 Nogales Attainment Plan. As documented in the notice of proposed rule-making, EPA is proposed to approve the RFP demonstration; see 77 FR 38400, (June 27, 2012).
EPA has concluded that the budget for the year 2011 when considered together with all other emission sources is consistent with the requirement to demonstrate attainment of the 1987 24-hour PM10 standard. This finding is based on review of Arizona's CAA Section 179B attainment demonstration in the 2012 Nogales Attainment Plan. As documented in the Federal Register notice, EPA  proposed to approve Arizona's CAA section 179B attainment demonstration; see 77 FR 38400, (June 27, 2012).  
The motor vehicle emissions budget for PM10 include emissions from re-entrained road dust (paved and unpaved), road construction dust, and vehicle brake wear, tire wear, and exhaust emissions.  See 2012 Nogales SIP, pages 47-48, and Table 7-1.
Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(v)
The plan shows a clear relationship among the emissions budget(s), control measures and the total emissions inventory.
                                       Y
The emission inventories for all point, area, and mobile sources within the Nogales nonattainment area are contained in Chapter 3, pages 13-15, and Appendix B of ADEQ's 2012 Nogales Attainment Plan. The relationship of the emission inventory to control measures and the reductions from the measures are described in Chapter 5  -  Control Measures of the 2012 Nogales Attainment Plan. 
Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(vi)
Revisions to previously submitted control strategy or maintenance plans explain and document any changes to any previous submitted budgets and control measures; impacts on point and area source emissions; any changes to established safety margins (see §93.101 for definition), and reasons for the changes (including the basis for any changes to emission factors or estimates of vehicle miles traveled).
                                       Y
On June 14, 1993, ADEQ submitted the "Final State Implementation Plan for the Nogales PM10 Nonattainment Area." For the document please see the following URL  <http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/plan/download/nogpm10sip_061993.pdf> 

The 1993 SIP did not contain motor vehicle emissions budgets, as EPA had not promulgated the conformity regulations required by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments in 1993. So while the 2012 Nogales SIP revises and updates the 1993 Nogales SIP, it did not update or revise any budget for conformity purposes. 
Sec. 93.118(e)(5)
EPA has reviewed the State's compilation of public comments and response to comments that are required to be submitted with any implementation plan.
                                       Y
ADEQ compiled public comments submitted during the June 21, 2012 public hearing and during the May to June 2012 and July to August 2012 public comment periods.  Any written and verbal comments received during the public comment period and public hearing on the 2012 Nogales Attainment Plan were submitted with the final SIP documents; see appendix K of the submitted plan. 
EPA will review any comments that ADEQ receives on the SIP and ADEQ's responses, and will take into account comments that substantively change the level of the budgets or affect our adequacy finding.