Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
West Virginia; Redesignation of the Parkersburg, WV Portion of the
Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to
Attainment and Approval of the Maintenance Plan
[Federal Register: January 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 8)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 1474-1485]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12ja07-24]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0817; FRL-8267-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
West Virginia; Redesignation of the Parkersburg, WV Portion of the
Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to
Attainment and Approval of the Maintenance Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a redesignation request and a
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for the Parkersburg portion of
the Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH interstate area (herein referred to as
the ``Area'') from nonattainment to attainment of the 8-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) is requesting that the
Wood County, West Virginia (Parkersburg) portion of the Area be
redesignated as attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Area is
comprised of two counties (Wood County, West Virginia and Washington
County, Ohio). EPA is proposing to approve the ozone redesignation
request for the Parkersburg portion of the Area. In conjunction with
its redesignation request, the WVDEP submitted a SIP revision
consisting of a maintenance plan for Parkersburg that provides for
continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 12 years.
EPA is proposing to make a determination that Parkersburg has attained
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based upon three years of complete, quality-
assured ambient air quality ozone monitoring data for 2002-2004. EPA's
proposed approval of the 8-hour ozone redesignation request is based on
its determination that Parkersburg has met the criteria for
redesignation to attainment specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA
is providing information on the status of its adequacy determination
for the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) that are identified in
the Parkersburg maintenance plan for purposes of transportation
conformity, and is also proposing to approve those MVEBs. EPA is
proposing approval of the redesignation request and of the maintenance
plan revision to the West Virginia SIP in accordance with the
requirements of the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 12, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2006-0817 by one of the following methods:
A. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions for submitting comments.
B. E-mail: morris.makeba@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0817, Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality
Planning Branch,
D. Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
E. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2006-0817. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the
[[Page 1475]]
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street, SE., Charleston,
WV 25304.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Caprio, (215) 814-2156, or by e-
mail at caprio.amy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we'',
``us'', or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Proposing To Take?
II. What Is the Background for These Proposed Actions?
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?
IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions?
VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State's Request?
VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Established and
Identified in the Parkersburg Maintenance Plan Adequate and Approvable?
VIII. Proposed Actions
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Proposing To Take?
On September 8, 2006 WVDEP formally submitted a request to
redesignate Parkersburg from nonattainment to attainment of the 8-hour
NAAQS for ozone. On September 8, 2006 West Virginia submitted a
maintenance plan for Parkersburg as a SIP revision, to ensure continued
attainment over the next 12 years. Parkersburg is comprised of Wood
County, West Virginia. Parkersburg is currently designated as a basic
8-hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA is proposing to determine that
Parkersburg has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and that it has met the
requirements for redesignation pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(E) of the
CAA. EPA is, therefore, proposing to approve the redesignation request
to change the designation of Parkersburg from nonattainment to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve
the maintenance plan SIP revision for Parkersburg, such approval being
one of the CAA requirements for approval of a redesignation request.
The maintenance plan is designed to ensure continued attainment
throughout the Area for the next 12 years. Additionally, EPA is
announcing its action on the adequacy process for the MVEBs identified
in the Parkersburg maintenance plan, and proposing to approve the MVEBs
identified for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) for transportation conformity purposes. These MVEBs
are state MVEBs for the West Virginia portion of the Area. In a
separate submittal, the State of Ohio is establishing MVEBs for the
remainder of this area (i.e., Washington County). Concurrently, the
State is requesting that EPA approve the maintenance plan as meeting
the requirements of CAA 175A(b) with respect to the 1-hour ozone
maintenance plan update.
II. What Is the Background for These Proposed Actions?
A. General
Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather,
emissions of NOX and VOC react in the presence of sunlight
to form ground-level ozone. The air pollutants NOX and VOC
are referred to as precursors of ozone. The CAA establishes a process
for air quality management through the attainment and maintenance of
the NAAQS.
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard
of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). This new standard is more stringent
than the previous 1-hour ozone standard. EPA designated, as
nonattainment, any area violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the
air quality data for the three years of 2001-2003. These were the most
recent three years of data at the time EPA designated 8-hour areas. The
Area was designated as basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment status in a
Federal Register notice signed on April 15, 2004 and published on April
30, 2004 (69 FR 23857). On June 15, 2005, the 1-hour ozone NAAQS was
revoked in the Area (as well as most other areas of the country). See
40 CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR at 23996 (April 30, 2004); and see 70 FR 44470
(August 3, 2005).
The CAA, Title I, Part D, contains two sets of provisions--subpart
1 and subpart 2--that address planning and control requirements for
nonattainment areas. Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as ``basic''
nonattainment) contains general, less prescriptive requirements for
nonattainment areas for any pollutant--including ozone--governed by a
NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which EPA refers to as ``classified'' nonattainment)
provides more specific requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. Some
8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are subject only to the provisions of
subpart 1. Other areas are also subject to the provisions of subpart 2.
Under EPA's 8-hour ozone implementation rule, signed on April 15, 2004,
an area was classified under subpart 2 based on its 8-hour ozone design
value (i.e., the 3-year average annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-
hour average ozone concentration), if it had a 1-hour design value at
or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in the CAA for
subpart 2 requirements). All other areas are covered under subpart 1,
based upon their 8-hour design values. In 2004, the Area was designated
a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area based upon air quality
monitoring data from 2001-2003, and is subject to the requirements of
subpart 1.
Under 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when
the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ambient air quality ozone concentration is less than or equal
to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). See 69 FR
23857 (April 30, 2004) for further information. Ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet data completeness
requirements. The data completeness requirements are met when the
average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater
than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data
completeness as determined in Appendix I of 40 CFR part 50. The ozone
monitoring data indicates that Parkersburg has a design value of 0.082
ppm for the 3-year period of 2002-2004 and a design value of design
value of 0.078 ppm for the 3-year period of 2003-2005. The ozone
monitoring data indicates that Marietta
[[Page 1476]]
has a design value of 0.084 ppm for the 3-year period of 2002-2004 and
a design value of 0.081 ppm for the 3-year period of 2003-2005.
Therefore, the ambient ozone data for the Area indicates no violations
of the 8-hour ozone standard. Final monitoring data for 2005 indicates
continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard in the Area.
B. The Parkersburg-Marietta Area
The Area consists of Wood County, West Virginia and Washington
County, Ohio. Prior to its designation as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area, Parkersburg was a maintenance area for the 1-hour ozone
nonattainment NAAQS. See rulemakings for Parkersburg (59 FR 29977, June
10, 1994) and (59 FR 45978, September 6, 1994).
On September 8, 2006 the WVDEP requested that Parkersburg be
redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The
redesignation request included 3 years of complete, quality-assured
data for the period of 2002-2004, indicating that the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS had been achieved in Parkersburg. The data satisfies the CAA
requirements that the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration (commonly referred to as the
area's design value) must be less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e.,
0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). Under the CAA, a nonattainment
area may be redesignated if sufficient complete, quality-assured data
is available to determine that the area has attained the standard and
the area meets the other CAA redesignation requirements set forth in
section 107(d)(3)(E).
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?
The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA,
allows for redesignation, providing that:
(1) EPA determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS;
(2) EPA has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for
the area under section 110(k);
(3) EPA determines that the improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air
pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable
reductions;
(4) EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as
meeting the requirements of section 175A; and
(5) The state containing such area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D.
EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April
16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28,
1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing
redesignation requests in the following documents:
? ``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations'',
Memorandum from Bill Laxton, June 18, 1990;
? ``Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief,
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
? ``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,'' Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
? ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas
to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992;
? ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in
Response to Clean Air Act (Act) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John
Calcagni Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
? ``Technical Support Documents (TSD's) for Redesignation
Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from
G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;
? ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas
Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On
or After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993;
? Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air
Quality Management Division, to Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10,
``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and
CO Nonattainment Areas,'' dated November 30, 1993;
? ``Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for
Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14,
1994; and
? ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration,
and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' Memorandum from John S.
Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10,
1995.
IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
On September 8, 2006 the WVDEP requested redesignation of
Parkersburg to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard, and submitted
a maintenance plan for Parkersburg as a SIP revision to assure
continued attainment over the next 12 years, until 2018. Concurrently,
West Virginia is requesting that EPA approve the maintenance plan as
meeting the requirements of CAA 175A(b) with respect to the 1-hour
ozone maintenance plan update. EPA is proposing to approve the
maintenance plan to fulfill the requirement of section 175A(b) for
submission of a maintenance plan update eight years after Parkersburg
was redesignated to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA believes
that such an update must ensure that the maintenance plan in the SIP,
provides maintenance of the NAAQS for a period of 20 years after an
area is initially redesignated to attainment. EPA can propose approval
because the maintenance plan, which demonstrates maintenance of the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS through 2018, also demonstrates maintenance of the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS through 2018, even though the latter standard is no
longer in effect. Parkersburg was redesignated to attainment of the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS on September 6, 1994 (59 FR 45978), and the initial 1-
hour ozone maintenance plan provided for maintenance through 2005.
Marietta was designated Unclassifiable/Attainment under the 1-hour
ozone standard. See 40 CFR Part 81.336 (Revised as of July 2001).
Section 51.905(e) of the ``Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour
Requirements--Phase 1'' April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23999), specifies the
conditions that must be satisfied before EPA may approve a modification
to a 1-hour maintenance plan which: (1) Removes the obligation to
submit a maintenance plan for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS eight years after
approval of the initial 1-hour maintenance plan and/or (2) removes the
obligation to implement contingency measures upon a violation of the 1-
hour NAAQS. EPA believes that section 51.905(e) of the final rule
allows a State to make either one or both of these
[[Page 1477]]
modifications to a 1-hour maintenance plan SIP after EPA approves a
maintenance plan for the 8-hour NAAQS. The maintenance plan will not
trigger the contingency plan upon a violation of the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS, but instead upon a violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA
believes that the 8-hour standard is now the proper standard which
should trigger the contingency plan now that the 1-hour NAAQS has been
revoked. EPA has determined that Parkersburg has attained the standard
and has met the requirements for redesignation set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E).
V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions?
Approval of the redesignation request would change the designation
of Parkersburg from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81. It would also incorporate into the West
Virginia SIP a maintenance plan ensuring continued attainment of the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS in Parkersburg for the next 12 years, until 2018. The
maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy any future
violations of the 8-hour NAAQS (should they occur), and identifies the
MVEBs for NOX and VOC for transportation conformity purposes
for 2009 and 2018. These MVEBs are displayed in the following table:
Table 1.--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Tons per Day (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year NOX VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009.................................................... 4.1 3.0
2018.................................................... 2.0 1.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State's Request?
EPA is proposing to determine that the Area has attained the 8-hour
ozone standard and that all other redesignation criteria have been met.
The following is a description of how the WVDEP's September 8, 2006
submittal satisfies the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
A. The Parkersburg-Marietta Area Has Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
EPA is proposing to determine that the Area has attained the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining the
8-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as determined in
accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of part 50, based on three
complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality
monitoring data. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations
measured at each monitor, within the area, over each year must not
exceed the ozone standard of 0.08 ppm. Based on the rounding convention
described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the standard is attained if
the design value is 0.084 ppm or below. The data must be collected and
quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the
Air Quality System (AQS). The monitors generally should have remained
at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period required
for demonstrating attainment.
There are two ozone monitors in the Area, one located in Wood
County, West Virginia and one located in Washington County, Ohio. As
part of its redesignation request, West Virginia submitted ozone
monitoring data for the years 2000-2005 for the Area. This data has
been quality assured and was recorded in AQS. The fourth high 8-hour
daily maximum concentrations, along with the three-year averages, are
summarized in Tables 2 and 3.
Table 2.--Parkersburg's Fourth Highest 8-hour Average Values; Wood
County Monitor, AQS ID 54-107-1002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual 4th
Year high reading
(ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000.................................................... 0.087
2001.................................................... 0.084
2002.................................................... 0.095
2003.................................................... 0.083
2004.................................................... 0.069
2005.................................................... 0.084
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average for the 3-year period 2002 through 2004 is 0.082 ppm.
The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.078 ppm.
Table 3.--Marietta's Fourth Highest 8-hour Average Values; Washington
County Monitor, AQS ID 39-167-0004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual 4th
Year high reading
(ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000.................................................... 0.082
2001.................................................... 0.085
2002.................................................... 0.095
2003.................................................... 0.080
2004.................................................... 0.077
2005.................................................... 0.088
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average for the 3-year period 2002 through 2004 is 0.084 ppm.
The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.081 ppm.
The air quality data for 2002-2004 show that the entire Area has
attained the standard with a design value of 0.082 ppm for Parkersburg
and a design value of 0.084 ppm for Marietta. Also, the air quality
data for 2003-2005 show that the entire Area is still attaining the
standard with a design value of 0.078 ppm for Parkersburg and a design
value of 0.081 ppm for Marietta. The data collected at the Area
monitors satisfy the CAA requirement that the 3-year average of the
annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration
is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. The WVDEP's request for
redesignation for Parkersburg indicates that the data were quality
assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. The WVDEP uses AQS as the
permanent database to maintain its data and quality assures the data
transfers and content for accuracy. In addition, as discussed below
with respect to the maintenance plan, WVDEP has committed to continue
monitoring in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In summary, EPA has
determined that the data submitted by West Virginia and data taken from
AQS indicates that the Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
B. Parkersburg Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110
and Part D of the CAA and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k)
of the CAA
EPA has determined that Parkersburg has met all SIP requirements
applicable for purposes of this redesignation under section 110 of the
CAA (General SIP Requirements) and that it meets all applicable SIP
requirements under Part D of Title I of the CAA, in accordance with
section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA has determined that the SIP
is fully approved with respect to all requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii).
In making these proposed determinations, EPA ascertained which
requirements are applicable to Parkersburg and determined that the
applicable portions of the SIP meeting these requirements are fully
approved under section 110(k) of the CAA. We note that SIPs must be
fully approved only with respect to applicable requirements.
The September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum (``Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section
107(d)(3)(E) with respect to the timing of applicable requirements.
Under this interpretation, to qualify for redesignation, states
requesting redesignation to attainment
[[Page 1478]]
must meet only the relevant CAA requirements that came due prior to the
submittal of a complete redesignation request. See also Michael Shapiro
memorandum, September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7,
1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor). Applicable requirements of
the CAA that come due subsequent to the area's submittal of a complete
redesignation request remain applicable until a redesignation is
approved, but are not required as a prerequisite to redesignation.
Section 175A(c) of the CAA. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir.
2004). See also 68 FR at 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of
St. Louis).
1. Section 110 General SIP Requirements
Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA delineates the general
requirements for a SIP, which include enforceable emissions limitations
and other control measures, means, or techniques, provisions for the
establishment and operation of appropriate devices necessary to collect
data on ambient air quality, and programs to enforce the limitations.
The general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section
110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to, the following:
? Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state
after reasonable public notice and hearing;
? Provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate
procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality;
? Implementation of a source permit program; provisions for
the implementation of Part C requirement (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD));
? Provisions for the implementation of Part D requirements
for New Source Review (NSR) permit programs;
? Provisions for air pollution modeling; and
? Provisions for public and local agency participation in
planning and emission control rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to
prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has
required certain states to establish programs to address transport of
air pollutants in accordance with the NOX SIP Call, October
27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), amendments to the NOX SIP Call, May
14, 1999 (64 FR 26298) and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222), and the Clean
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). However, the
section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are not linked with a
particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that
state. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular
nonattainment area's designation and classifications are the relevant
measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The
transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to
apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular
area in the state.
Thus, we do not believe that these requirements are applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation. In addition, EPA believes
that the other section 110 elements not connected with nonattainment
plan submissions and not linked with an area's attainment status are
not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. West
Virginia and Ohio will still be subject to these requirements after the
Area is redesignated. The section 110 and Part D requirements, which
are linked with a particular area's designation and classification, are
the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request.
This policy is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability
of conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and oxygenated fuels
requirement. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings
61 FR 53174-53176 (October 10, 1996), 62 FR 24826 (May 7, 1997);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking 61 FR 20458 (May 7,
1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking 60 FR 62748 (December 7,
1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio
redesignation 65 FR at 37890 (June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania redesignation 66 FR at 53099 (October 19, 2001).
Similarly, with respect to the NOX SIP Call rules, EPA noted
in its Phase 1 Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, that the
NOX SIP Call rules are not ``an `applicable requirement' for
purposes of section 110(1) because the NOX rules apply
regardless of an area's attainment or nonattainment status for the 8-
hour (or the 1-hour) NAAQS.'' 69 FR 23951, 23983 (April 30, 2004).
EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area's
nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation.
Any section 110 requirements that are linked to the Part D requirements
for 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are not yet due, because, as we
explain later in this notice, no Part D requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour standard became due prior to
submission of the redesignation request.
Because the West Virginia SIP satisfies all of the applicable
general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section 110(a)(2),
EPA concludes that West Virginia has satisfied the criterion of section
107(d)(3)(E) regarding section 110 of the Act.
2. Part D Nonattainment Area Requirements Under the 8-Hour Standard
The Area was designated a basic nonattainment area for the 8-hour
ozone standard. Sections 172-176 of the CAA, found in subpart 1 of Part
D, set forth the basic nonattainment requirements for all nonattainment
areas. As discussed previously, there are no outstanding Part D
submittals under the 1-hour standard for this Area.
Section 182 of the CAA, found in subpart 2 of Part D, establishes
additional specific requirements depending on the area's nonattainment
classification. The Area was classified as a subpart 1 nonattainment
area; therefore, no subpart 2 requirements apply to the Area. With
respect to the 8-hour standard, EPA proposes to determine that the West
Virginia SIP meets all applicable SIP requirements under Part D of the
CAA, because no 8-hour ozone standard Part D requirements applicable
for purposes of redesignation became due prior to submission of the
Area's redesignation request on September 8, 2006. Because the State
submitted a complete redesignation request for Parkersburg prior to the
deadline for any submissions required under the 8-hour standard, we
have determined that the Part D requirements do not apply to
Parkersburg for the purposes of redesignation.
In addition to the fact that Part D requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation did not become due prior to submission of the
redesignation request, EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the
general conformity and NSR requirements as not requiring approval prior
to redesignation.
With respect to section 176, Conformity Requirements, section
176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures
to ensure that federally supported or funded projects conform to the
air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to
determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and
projects developed, funded or approved under Title 23 U.S.C. and the
Federal Transit Act (``transportation conformity'') as well as to all
other Federally supported or funded projects (``general conformity'').
State conformity revisions
[[Page 1479]]
must be consistent with Federal conformity regulations relating to
consultation, enforcement and enforceability that the CAA required the
EPA to promulgate.
EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the
redesignation request under section 107(d) since state conformity rules
are still required after redesignation and federal conformity rules
apply where state rules have not been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.
3d 426, 438 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation. See also 60
FR 62748 (December 7, 1995).
EPA has also determined that areas being redesignated need not
comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to
redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the
standard without Part D NSR in effect, because PSD requirements will
apply after redesignation. The rationale for this position is described
in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, ``Part D NSR Requirements
or Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.'' West Virginia has
demonstrated that the Area will be able to maintain the standard
without Part D NSR in effect in Parkersburg, and therefore, West
Virginia need not have a fully approved Part D NSR program prior to
approval of the redesignation request. West Virginia's SIP-approved PSD
program will become effective in Parkersburg upon redesignation to
attainment. See rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR at 12467-68);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, Ohio (61 FR at 20458, 20469-70); Louisville,
Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 53669 October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan
(61 FR at 31831, 31834-37, June 21, 1996).
3. Parkersburg Has a Fully Approved SIP for the Purposes of Redesignation
EPA has fully approved the West Virginia SIP for the purposes of
this redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a
redesignation request. Calcagni Memo, p. 3; Southwestern Pennsylvania
Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F. 3d 984, 989-90 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall
v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), plus any additional measures it
may approve in conjunction with a redesignation action. See 68 FR at
25425 (May 12, 2003) and citations therein. Parkersburg was a 1-hour
maintenance area at the time of its designation as a basic 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area on April 30, 2004. Because Parkersburg was a 1-hour
maintenance area, all previous Part D SIP submittal requirements were
fulfilled at the time Parkersburg was redesignated to attainment of the
1-hour ozone NAAQS or have been fulfilled with the September 8, 2006
submittal of the 8-hour maintenance plan. See rulemakings for
Parkersburg (59 FR 29977, June 10, 1994) and (59 FR 45978, September 6,
1994). Because there are no outstanding SIP submission requirements
applicable for the purposes of redesignation of Parkersburg, the
applicable implementation plan satisfies all pertinent SIP requirements.
C. The Air Quality Improvement in the Area Is Due to Permanent and
Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting From Implementation of
the SIP and Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations and
Other Permanent and Enforceable Reductions
EPA believes that the State has demonstrated that the observed air
quality improvement in the Area is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP,
Federal measures, and other state-adopted measures. Emissions
reductions attributable to these rules in the Area are shown in Table 4.
Table 4.--Parkersburg Total VOC and NOX Emissions for 2002 and 2004 (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Point Area Nonroad Mobile Total*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2002................................. 1.8 7.6 2.8 4.8 17.0
Year 2004................................. 2.1 7.8 2.8 4.0 16.7
Diff. (02-04)............................. +0.3 +0.2 0 -0.8 -0.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2002................................. 2.6 0.7 4.9 6.1 14.3
Year 2004................................. 2.6 0.7 6.2 5.7 15.2
Diff. (02-04)............................. 0 0 +1.3 -0.4 +0.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marietta Total VOC and NOX Emissions for 2002 and 2004 (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2002................................. 2.1 3.0 1.3 4.4 10.8
Year 2004................................. 2.1 2.9 1.2 3.6 9.8
Diff. (02-04)............................. 0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.8 -1.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2002................................. 94.6 0.2 5.3 5.7 105.8
Year 2004................................. 71.9 0.2 5.0 4.9 82.0
Diff. (02-04)............................. -22.7 0 -0.3 -0.8 -23.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Emissions not exact due to rounding.
Between 2002 and 2004, VOC emissions in the Area were reduced by
approximately 1.3 tpd, and NOX emissions in the Area were
reduced by 22.9 tpd. The reductions, and anticipated future reductions,
are due to the following permanent and enforceable measures.
[[Page 1480]]
Programs Currently in Effect
(a) National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV);
(b) Motor vehicle fleet turnover with new vehicles meeting the Tier
2 standards; and,
(c) Clean Diesel Program.
West Virginia has demonstrated that the implementation of permanent
enforceable emissions controls have reduced local VOC and
NOX emissions. Reductions in VOC are attributable to mobile
and nonroad source emission controls such as Federally mandated Tier 2
Vehicle and Gasoline Sulfur Program and the Clean Diesel Program.
Although there are no electric generating units (EGUs) in Wood
County, West Virginia, the WVDEP, Division of Air Quality (DAQ) has
identified permanent and enforceable reductions in NOX
emissions from EGUs in the Washington County, Ohio portion of the Area.
In addition, the WVDEP has identified permanent and enforceable
reductions in NOX emissions from the implementation of the
NOX SIP call from EGUs and large industrial boilers located
in counties adjacent to the Area, such as Pleasant County, West Virginia.
Additionally, WVDEP has identified, but not quantified, additional
reductions in VOC emissions that will be achieved as a co-benefit of
the reductions in the emission of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) as a
result of implementation of EPA's Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT) standards.
Other regulations, such as the non-road diesel, 69 FR 38958 (June
29, 2004), the heavy duty engine and vehicle standards, 66 FR 5002
(January 18, 2001) and the new Tier 2 tailpipe standards for
automobiles, 65 FR 6698 (January 10, 2000), are also expected to
greatly reduce emissions throughout the country and thereby reduce
emissions impacting the Area monitors. The Tier 2 standards came into
effect in 2004, and by 2030, EPA expects that the new Tier 2 standards
will reduce NOX emissions by about 74 percent nationally.
EPA believes that permanent and enforceable emissions reductions
contributed to the long-term improvement in ozone levels and are the
cause of the Area achieving attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard.
D. Parkersburg Has a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to
Section 175A of the CAA
In conjunction with its request to redesignate Parkersburg to
attainment status, West Virginia submitted a SIP revision to provide
for maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Parkersburg for at least
12 years after redesignation. West Virginia is requesting that EPA
approve this SIP revision as meeting the requirements of CAA sections
175A(a) and 175A(b). Section 175A(a) was met with the September 8, 2006
submission of the maintenance plan, because it states that Parkersburg
will maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after
redesignation. Section 175A(b) was met with the September 8, 2006
submission of the maintenance plan, because it will replace the 1-hour
ozone maintenance plan update requirement that was due 8 years after
redesignation of Parkersburg to attainment.
Under 40 CFR 51.905(e), the EPA may approve a SIP revision
requesting the removal of the obligation to implement contingency
measures upon a violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS when the State
submits and EPA approves an attainment demonstration for the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for an area initially designated nonattainment for the 8-
hour NAAQS or a maintenance SIP for the 8-hour NAAQS for an area
initially designated attainment for the 8-hour NAAQS. The rationale
behind 40 CFR 51.905(e) is to ensure that Parkersburg maintains the
applicable ozone standard (the 8-hour standard in areas where the 1-
hour standard has been revoked). EPA believes this rationale
analogously applies to areas that were not initially designated, but
are redesignated as attainment with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Therefore,
EPA intends to treat redesignated areas as though they had been
initially designated attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and
accordingly proposes to relieve Parkersburg of its maintenance plan
obligations with respect to the 1-hour standard. Once approved, the
maintenance plan for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS will ensure that the SIP
for Parkersburg meets the requirements of the CAA regarding maintenance
of the applicable 8-hour ozone standard.
What Is Required in a Maintenance Plan?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
Under section 175A(a), the plan must demonstrate continued attainment
of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after approval of a
redesignation of an area to attainment. Section 175A(b) states that
eight years after redesignation from nonattainment to attainment, the
State must submit a revised maintenance plan demonstrating that
attainment will continue to be maintained for the next 10-year period
following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility of
future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such
contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation, as EPA deems
necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 8-hour ozone
violations. Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a
maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment. The Calcagni memorandum dated September 4, 1992, provides
additional guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. An ozone
maintenance plan should address the following provisions:
(a) An attainment emissions inventory;
(b) a maintenance demonstration;
(c) a monitoring network;
(d) verification of continued attainment; and
(e) a contingency plan.
Analysis of the Parkersburg Maintenance Plan
(a) Attainment Inventory--An attainment inventory includes the
emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data
showing attainment. An attainment year of 2004 was used for Parkersburg
since it is a reasonable year within the 3-year block of 2002-2004 and
accounts for reductions attributable to implementation of the CAA
requirements to date.
The WVDEP prepared comprehensive VOC and NOX emissions
inventories for Parkersburg, including point, area, mobile on-road, and
mobile non-road sources for a base year of 2002.
To develop the NOX and VOC base year emissions
inventories, WVDEP used the following approaches and sources of data:
(i) Point source emissions--There are no EGUs in Parkersburg so
documentation of procedures for developing ozone season day emissions
is unnecessary. For the non-EGUs WVDEP used data supplied by facilities
that is maintained in their i-STEPs database (a WVDEP maintained
database that contains the states point source emission information).
(ii) Area source emissions--In order to calculate the area source
emissions inventory the WVDEP took the annual values from the
Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast
(VISTAS) base year inventory and derived the typical ozone summer
weekday, using procedures outlined in the EPA's Emissions Modeling
Clearinghouse (EMCH) Memorandum, ``Temporal Allocation of Annual
Emissions Using EMCH Temporal
[[Page 1481]]
Profiles, April 29, 2002.'' This enabled WVDEP to arrive at the
``typical'' summer day emissions.
(iii) On-road mobile source emissions--VISTAS developed 2002 on-
road mobile (highway) emissions inventory data based on vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) updates provided by WVDEP. VISTAS also estimated future
emissions based upon expected growth for the future years 2009 and
2018. However, federal Transportation Conformity requirements dictate
that the WVDEP consult with the Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) responsible for transportation planning in developing SIP
revisions which may establish MVEBs. This applies to the maintenance
plan submitted by WVDEP on September 8, 2006. Therefore, the WVDEP has
consulted with the Parkersburg MPO, the Wood-Washington-Wirt Interstate
Planning Commission (WWW) to develop state MVEBs for the West Virginia
portion of the Area. The WWW provided base year and projection
emissions data consistent with their most recent available Travel
Demand Model (TDM) results along with EPA's most recent emission factor
model, MOBILE6.2. The WVDEP used these data to estimate highway
emissions and, in consultation with the WWW, to develop highway
emissions budgets for VOC and NOX. The WWW must evaluate
future Long Range Transportation Plans and Transportation Improvement
Programs to ensure that the associated emissions are equal to or less
then the final emissions budgets. The budgets are designed to
facilitate a positive conformity determination while ensuring overall
maintenance of the 8-hour NAAQS. It should be noted that the MVEBs and
budgets only represent the Parkersburg, West Virginia (Wood County)
portion of the Area.
(iv) Mobile non-road emissions--The 2002 mobile non-road emissions
inventory was developed by WVDEP staff using the NONROAD2005b Model.
The 2004 attainment year VOC and NOX emissions for the
Area are summarized along with the 2009 and 2018 projected emissions in
Table 5, which cover the demonstration of maintenance for the Area. EPA
has concluded that West Virginia has adequately derived and documented
the 2004 attainment year VOC and NOX emissions for Parkersburg.
(b) Maintenance Demonstration--On September 8, 2006 the WVDEP
submitted a SIP revision. The SIP submittal by WVDEP consists of the
maintenance plan as required by section 175A of the CAA. The
Parkersburg plan shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by
demonstrating that current and future emissions of VOC and
NOX remain at or below the attainment year 2004 emissions
levels throughout Parkersburg through the year 2018. The Parkersburg
maintenance demonstration need not be based on modeling. See Wall v.
EPA, Supra, Sierra Club v. EPA, Supra. See also 66 FR at 53099-53100;
68 FR at 25418, 25430-32.
Table 5 shows the Area's VOC and NOX emissions for 2004,
2009, and 2018. The WVDEP chose 2009 as an interim year in the 12-year
maintenance demonstration period to demonstrate that the overall VOC
and NOX emissions are not projected to increase above the
2004 attainment level during the time of the 12-year maintenance period.
Table 5.--Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH Nonattainment Area Summary of Emissions
[All emissions in tpd for an ozone season day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions in tpd
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 2009 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WV \1\ OH \2\ Total WV \1\ OH \2\ Total WV \1\ OH \2\ Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point:
NOX........................ 2.6 71.9 74.5 2.6 15.1 17.7 2.8 22.0 24.8
VOC........................ 2.1 2.1 4.2 1.4 2.3 3.7 1.7 2.7 4.4
Area:
NOX........................ 0.7 0.2 0.9 0.7 0.2 0.9 0.8 0.3 1.1
VOC........................ 7.8 2.9 10.7 7.2 2.8 10.0 8.0 2.9 10.9
Nonroad: \3\
NOX........................ 6.2 5.0 11.2 4.4 4.2 8.6 3.8 3.6 7.4
VOC........................ 2.8 1.2 4.0 2.4 1.0 3.4 2.0 0.8 2.8
MVEBs: \4\
NOX........................ 5.7 4.9 10.6 4.1 3.6 7.7 2.0 1.8 3.8
VOC........................ 4.0 3.4 7.4 3.0 2.6 5.6 1.9 1.7 3.6
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
Total: \5\
NOX........................ 15.2 82.0 97.2 11.8 23.1 34.9 9.4 27.7 37.1
VOC........................ 16.7 9.6 26.3 14.0 8.7 22.7 13.6 8.1 21.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ WV emissions are total emissions for Wood County in West Virginia.
\2\ OH emissions are total emissions for Washington County in Ohio, as provided by Ohio EPA.
\3\ Nonroad includes NONROAD model results plus Commercial Marine Vessels, Railroad and Airports.
\4\ MVEBs for 2004 are actual; budgets established for 2009 and 2018 include 15% reallocation from the safety
margin.
\5\ Sums may not total exactly due to rounding.
Additionally, the following mobile programs are either effective or
due to become effective and will further contribute to the maintenance
demonstration of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS:
? Heavy duty diesel on-road (2004/2007) and low-sulfur on-
road (2006); 66 FR 5002 (January 18, 2001); and
[[Page 1482]]
? Non-road emissions standards (2008) and off-road diesel
fuel (2007/2010); 69 FR 39858 (June 29, 2004).
In addition to the permanent and enforceable measures, CAIR,
promulgated May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162) should have positive impacts on
West Virginia and Ohio's air quality. CAIR, which will be implemented
in the eastern portion of the country in two phases (2009 and 2015),
should reduce long range transport of ozone precursors, which will have
a beneficial effect on air quality in the Area. West Virgina projected
to achieve a 64 percent reduction and a 62 percent reduction in
NOX emissions by 2009 and 2018, respectively in the Area.
The future year NOX emissions decreases are largely
attributable to the implementation of CAIR which West Virginia projects
to result in a decrease of 83 percent and 74 percent for 2009 and 2018
from EGU sources located in Washington County, Ohio.
Currently, West Virginia is in the process of adopting rules to
address CAIR through state rules 45CSR39, 45CSR40, and 45CSR41, which
require annual and ozone season NOX reductions from EGUs and
ozone season NOX reductions from non-EGUs. These rules were
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision by September 11, 2006 as required in
the May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162) Federal Register publication.
Based upon the comparison of the projected emissions and the
attainment year emissions, along with the additional measures, EPA
concludes that WVDEP has successfully demonstrated that the 8-hour
ozone standard should be maintained in the Area.
(c) Monitoring Network--The Area currently has two ozone monitors,
one in Wood County, West Virginia and one in Washington County, Ohio.
West Virginia will continue to operate its current air quality monitor
(located in Wood County) in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
(d) Verification of Continued Attainment--The State of West
Virginia has the legal authority to implement and enforce specified
measures necessary to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Additionally,
Federal programs such as Tier 2/Low Sulfur Gasoline Rule, 2007 On-Road
Diesel Engine Rule, and Federal Non-road Engine/Equipment Rules will
continue to be implemented on a national level. These programs help
provide the reductions necessary for the Area to maintain attainment.
In addition to maintaining the key elements of its regulatory
program, the WVDEP proposes to fully update its point, area, and mobile
emission inventories at 3-year intervals as required by the
Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR) to ensure that its growth
projections relative to emissions in these areas are sufficiently
accurate to assure ongoing attainment with the NAAQS. The WVDEP will
review stationary source VOC and NOX emissions by review of
annual emissions statements and by update of its emissions inventories.
The area source inventory will be updated using the same techniques as
the 2002 ozone inventory. However, some source categories may be
updated using historic activity levels determined from Bureau of
Economic Analysis (BEA) data or West Virginia University/Regional
Research Institute (WVU/RRI) population estimates. The mobile source
inventory model will be updated by obtaining county-level VMT from the
West Virginia Department of Transportation (WVDOT) for the subject year
and calculating emissions using the latest approved MOBILE model.
Alternatively, the motor vehicle emissions may be obtained in
consultation with the MPO, the WWW, using methodology similar to that
used for Transportation Conformity purposes.
The WVDEP shall also continue to operate the existing ozone
monitoring stations in the areas pursuant to 40CFR58 throughout the
maintenance period and submit quality-assured ozone data to EPA through AQS.
West Virginia also commits to submit a revision of the SIP eight
years after final approval of the State's redesignation request to
provide for maintenance of the NAAQS for a total of 20 years as
required by the CAA.
(e) The Maintenance Plan's Contingency Measures--The contingency
plan provisions are designed to promptly correct a violation of the
NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. Section 175A of the Act requires
that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to ensure that the State will promptly correct a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should
identify the events that would ``trigger'' the adoption and
implementation of a contingency measure(s), the contingency measure(s)
that would be adopted and implemented, and the schedule indicating the
time frame by which the State would adopt and implement the measure(s).
The ability of Parkersburg to stay in compliance with the 8-hour
ozone standard after redesignation depends upon VOC and NOX
emissions in Parkersburg remaining at or below 2004 levels. The State's
maintenance plan projects VOC and NOX emissions to decrease
and stay below 2004 levels through the year 2018. The State's
maintenance plan lays out two situations where the need to adopt and
implement a contingency measure to further reduce emissions would be
triggered. Those situations are as follows:
(i) If the triennial inventories indicate emissions growth above
the 2004 maintenance base-year inventory or if a monitored air quality
exceedance pattern indicates that an ozone NAAQS violation may be
imminent--The maintenance plan states that an exceedance pattern would
include, but is not limited to, the measurement of six exceedances or
more occurring at the same monitor during a calendar year. The plan
also states that comprehensive tracking inventories will also be
developed every 3 years using current EPA-approved methods to ensure
that its growth projections relative to emissions in Parkersburg are
sufficiently accurate to assure ongoing attainment with the NAAQS. If
the inventories indicate emissions growth above the 2004 maintenance
base-year inventory or a monitored air quality exceedance pattern
occurs, the following measure will be implemented:
? WVDEP will evaluate existing control measures to ascertain
if additional regulatory revisions are necessary to maintain the ozone
standard.
(ii) In the event that a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard
occurs at any monitor in the Parkersburg-Marietta Area--The maintenance
plan states that in the event that a violation of the ozone standard
occurs at any monitor in the Parkersburg-Marietta Area, the State of
West Virginia, will implement one or more of the following measures to
assure continued attainment:
? Extend the applicability of 45CSR21 (VOC/RACT rule) to
include source categories previously excluded (e.g., waste water
treatment facilities);
? Revised new source permitting requirements requiring more
stringent emissions control technology and/or emissions offsets;
? NOX RACT requirements;
? Regulations to establish plant-wide emissions caps
(potentially with emissions trading provisions);
? Stage II Vapor Recovery regulations;
? Establish a Public Awareness/Ozone Action Day Program, a
two pronged program focusing on increasing the public's understanding
of air quality issues in the region and increasing support for actions
to improve the air quality, resulting in reduced emissions
[[Page 1483]]
on days when the ozone levels are likely to be high.
? Initiate one or more of the following voluntary local
control measures:
(1) Bicycle and Pedestrian Measures--A series of measures designed
to promote bicycling and walking including both promotional activities
and enhancing the environment for these activities;
(2) Reduce Engine Idling--Voluntary programs to restrict heavy duty
diesel engine idling times for both trucks and school buses;
(3) Voluntary Partnership with Ground Freight Industry--A voluntary
program using incentives to encourage the ground freight industry to
reduce emissions;
(4) Increase Compliance with Open Burning Restrictions--Increase
public awareness of the existing open burning restrictions and work
with communities to increase compliance; and
(5) School Bus Engine Retrofit Program--Have existing school bus
engines retrofitted to lower emissions.
The following schedule for adoption, implementation and compliance
applies to the contingency measures concerning the option of
implementing regulatory requirements.
? Confirmation of the monitored violation within 45 days of occurrence;
? Measure to be selected within 3 months after verification
of a monitored ozone standard violation;
? Develop rule within 6 months of selection of measure;
? File rule with state secretary (process takes up to 42 days);
? Applicable regulation to be fully implemented within 6
months after adoption.
The following schedule for adoption, implementation and compliance
applies to the voluntary contingency measures.
? Confirmation of the monitored violation within 45 days of occurrence;
? Measure to be selected within 3 months after verification
of a monitored ozone standard violation;
? Initiation of program development with local governments
within Parkersburg by the start of the following ozone season.
(f) An Additional Provision of the Maintenance Plan--The State's
maintenance plan for Parkersburg has an additional provision. That
provision states that based on the 2002 inventory data and calculation
methodology, it is expected that area and mobile source emissions would
not exhibit substantial increases between consecutive periodic year
inventories. Therefore, if significant unanticipated emissions growth
occurs, it is expected that new point sources would be the cause. West
Virginia regulation 45CSR29 requires significant point source emitters
in nearby counties, including Cabell, Wayne, Kanawha, Putnam and Wood
to submit annual emission statements which contain emission totals for
VOCs and NOX. Any significant increases that occur can be
identified from these reports without waiting for a periodic inventory.
WVDEP believes this will give West Virginia the capability to identify
needed regulations by source, source category and pollutant and to
begin the rule promulgation process, if necessary, in an expeditious manner.
The maintenance plan adequately addresses the five basic components
of a maintenance plan: attainment inventory, maintenance demonstration,
monitoring network, verification of continued attainment, and a
contingency plan. EPA believes that the maintenance plan SIP revision
submitted by West Virginia for Parkersburg meets the requirements of
section 175A of the Act.
VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Established and Identified
in the Parkersburg Maintenance Plan Adequate and Approvable?
A. What Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets?
Under the CAA, States are required to submit, at various times,
control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone areas. These
control strategy SIPs (i.e., RFP SIPs and attainment demonstration
SIPs) and maintenance plans identify and establish MVEBs for certain
criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from
on-road mobile sources. In the maintenance plan the MVEBs are termed
``on-road mobile source emissions budgets.'' Pursuant to 40 CFR part 93
and 51.112, MVEBs must be established in an ozone maintenance plan. An
MVEB is the portion of the total allowable emissions that is allocated
to highway and transit vehicle use and emissions. An MVEB serves as a
ceiling on emissions from an area's planned transportation system. The
MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble to the November 24,
1993, transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The preamble also
describes how to establish and revise the MVEBs in control strategy
SIPs and maintenance plans.
Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation projects, such
as the construction of new highways, must ``conform'' to (i.e., be
consistent with) the part of the State's air quality plan that
addresses pollution from cars and trucks. ``Conformity'' to the SIP
means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality
violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of
or reasonable progress towards the NAAQS. If a transportation plan does
not ``conform,'' most new projects that would expand the capacity of
roadways cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA
policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and ensuring
conformity of such transportation activities to a SIP.
When reviewing submitted ``control strategy'' SIPs or maintenance
plans containing MVEBs, EPA must affirmatively find the MVEB budget
contained therein ``adequate'' for use in determining transportation
conformity. After EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is
adequate for transportation conformity purposes, that MVEB can be used
by State and Federal agencies in determining whether proposed
transportation projects ``conform'' to the state implementation plan as
required by section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA's substantive criteria for
determining ``adequacy'' of a MVEB are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
EPA's process for determining ``adequacy'' consists of three basic
steps: public notification of a SIP submission, a public comment
period, and EPA's adequacy finding. This process for determining the
adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs was initially outlined in EPA's May 14,
1999 guidance, ``Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2,
1999, Conformity Court Decision.'' This guidance was finalized in the
Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the ``New 8-Hour Ozone
and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous
Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments--Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Change'' on
July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA consults this guidance and follows this
rulemaking in making its adequacy determinations.
The MVEBs for Parkersburg are listed in Table 1 of this document
for 2009 and 2018. These are the projected emissions for the on-road
mobile sources plus any portion of the safety margin allocated to the
MVEBs. These emission budgets, when approved by EPA, must be used for
transportation conformity determinations.
B. What Is a Safety Margin?
A ``safety margin'' is the difference between the attainment level
of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions
(from all sources) in the maintenance plan. The attainment level of
emissions is the
[[Page 1484]]
level of emissions during one of the years in which the area met the
NAAQS. The following example is for the 2018 safety margin: Parkersburg
first attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS during the 2002 to 2004 time
period. The State used 2004 as the year to determine attainment levels
of emissions for Parkersburg. The total emissions from point, area,
mobile on-road, and mobile non-road sources in 2004 equaled 16.7 tpd of
VOC and 15.2 tpd of NOX. The WVDEP projected emissions out
to the year 2018 and projected a total of 13.6 tpd of VOC and 9.4 tpd
of NOX from all sources in Parkersburg. The safety margin
for 2018 would be the difference between these amounts, or 3.1 tpd of
VOC and 5.8 tpd of NOX. The emissions up to the level of the
attainment year including the safety margins are projected to maintain
the Area's air quality consistent with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The
safety margin is the extra emissions reduction below the attainment
levels that can be allocated for emissions by various sources as long
as the total emission levels are maintained at or below the attainment
levels.
Table 6 shows the safety margins for the 2009 and 2018 years.
Table 6.--2009 and 2018 Safety Margins for Parkersburg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
Inventory Year emissions emissions
(tpd) (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 Attainment............................... 16.7 15.2
2009 Interim.................................. 14.0 11.8
2009 Safety Margin............................ 2.7 3.4
2004 Attainment............................... 16.7 15.2
2018 Final.................................... 13.6 9.4
2018 Safety Margin............................ 3.1 5.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The WVDEP allocated 0.39 tpd VOC and 0.54 tpd NOX to the
2009 interim VOC projected on-road mobile source emissions projection
and the 2009 interim NOX projected on-road mobile source
emissions projection to arrive at the 2009 MVEBs. For the 2018 MVEBs
the WVDEP allocated 0.25 tpd VOC and 0.27 tpd NOX from the
2018 safety margins to arrive at the 2018 MVEBs. Once allocated to the
mobile source budgets these portions of the safety margins are no
longer available, and may no longer be allocated to any other source
category. Table 7 shows the final 2009 and 2018 MVEBS for Parkersburg.
Table 7.--2009 and 2018 Final MVEBs for Parkersburg*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
Inventory year emissions emissions
(tpd) (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 projected on-road mobile source projected 2.6 3.6
emissions......................................
2009 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs........... 0.4 0.5
2009 MVEBs...................................... 3.0 4.1
2018 projected on-road mobile source projected 1.7 1.8
emissions......................................
2018 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs........... 0.3 0.3
2018 MVEBs...................................... 2.0 2.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers not exact due to rounding.
C. Why Are the MVEBs Approvable?
The 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for Parkersburg are approvable because the
MVEBs for NOX and VOC, including the allocated safety
margins, continue to maintain the total emissions at or below the
attainment year inventory levels as required by the transportation
conformity regulations.
D. What Is the Adequacy and Approval Process for the MVEBs in the
Parkersburg Maintenance Plan?
The MVEBs for the Parkersburg maintenance plan are being posted to
EPA's conformity Web site concurrent with this proposal. The public
comment period will end at the same time as the public comment period
for this proposed rule. In this case, EPA is concurrently processing
the action on the maintenance plan and the adequacy process for the
MVEBs contained therein. In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to
find the MVEBs adequate and also proposing to approve the MVEBs as part
of the maintenance plan. The MVEBs cannot be used for transportation
conformity until the maintenance plan update and associated MVEBs are
approved in a final Federal Register notice, or EPA otherwise finds the
budgets adequate in a separate action following the comment period.
If EPA receives adverse written comments with respect to the
proposed approval of the Parkersburg MVEBs, or any other aspect of our
proposed approval of this updated maintenance plan, we will respond to
the comments on the MVEBs in our final action or proceed with the
adequacy process as a separate action. Our action on the Parkersburg
MVEBs will also be announced on EPA's conformity Web site:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/index.htm, (once
there, click on the ``Conformity'' button, then look for ``Adequacy Review
of SIP Submissions'').
VIII. Proposed Actions
EPA is proposing to determine that Parkersburg has attained the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the redesignation of
the Parkersburg portion of the Area from nonattainment to attainment
for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA has evaluated West Virginia's
redesignation request and determined that it meets the redesignation
criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA believes
that the redesignation request and monitoring data demonstrate that the
Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. The final approval of this
redesignation request would change the designation of Parkersburg from
nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is also
proposing to approve the associated maintenance plan for Parkersburg,
submitted on September 8, 2006, as a revision to the West Virginia SIP.
EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan for Parkersburg
because it meets the requirements of section 175A as described
previously in this notice. EPA is also proposing to approve the MVEBs
submitted by West Virginia for Parkersburg in conjunction with its
redesignation request. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues
discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before
taking final action.
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)).
This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Redesignation of an area to attainment under
section 107(d)(3)(e) of the Clean Air Act does not impose any new
requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects
the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new
regulatory requirements on sources. Redesignation of an area to
attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act does
[[Page 1485]]
not impose any new requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not
impose any new regulatory requirements on sources. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law
and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This proposed
rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000), nor will it have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
because it merely proposes to affect the status of a geographical area,
does not impose any new requirements on sources, or allow the state to
avoid adopting or implementing other requirements, and does not alter
the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because
it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission; to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not
impose any new requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements of
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of
Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this
proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a
clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with
Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the
takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order.
This rule proposing to approve the redesignation of Parkersburg to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the associated maintenance plan,
and the MVEBs identified in the maintenance plan, does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
This rule proposing to approve the redesignation of Parkersburg to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the associated maintenance plan,
and the MVEBs identified in the maintenance plan, does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen oxides,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control, National Parks, Wilderness Areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: January 4, 2007.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. E7-249 Filed 1-11-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090510213552im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}