Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Redesignation of the City of Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania County, and Stafford County Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Area's Maintenance Plan, 66316-66329 [05-21835]
Download as PDF
66316
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules
demonstration, plan, and maintenance
plan; Utah’s Rule R307–110–31,
‘‘Section X, Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance Program, Part A,’’ which
incorporates general requirements and
applicability for motor vehicle
emissions inspections; and Utah’s Rule
R307–110–34, ‘‘Section X, Vehicle
Inspection and Maintenance Program,
Part D, Utah County,’’ which
incorporates a revised vehicle
inspection and maintenance program for
Utah County. The Governor’s April 1,
2004 submittal also stated that the prior
July 11, 1994 submittal of Utah’s Rule
R307–1–4.12, ‘‘Emissions Standards for
Residential Solid Fuel Burning Devices
and Fireplaces’’ to restrict woodburning
in Utah County, remains part of her
April 1, 2004 submittal and requested
that Utah’s Rule R307–301,
‘‘Oxygenated Gasoline Program,’’ be
eliminated from the Federally-approved
SIP. We note that on September 20,
1999, the Governor submitted Utah
Rules R307–302–3 and –4, which
together comprise a re-numbered and retitled version of R307–1–4.12. The text
of Rules R307–302–3 and –4 is identical
to the text of Rule R307–1–4.12 that the
Governor submitted on July 11, 1994.
EPA is proposing to approve the
Provo area’s attainment demonstration
and plan, the request for redesignation
to attainment for the Provo area, the
maintenance plan, the transportation
conformity MVEBs for 2014 and 2015,
the revisions to Rule R307–110–12, the
revisions to Rule R307–110–31, the
revisions to Rule R307–110–34, Rules
R307–302–3 and –4, and the request to
remove Rule R307–301 from the
Federally-approved SIP. EPA is also
identifying the transportation
conformity MVEB for the year 2000,
which is derived from the attainment
year emission inventory in the
attainment plan. This action is being
taken under section 110 of the Clean Air
Act.
In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’
section of this Federal Register, EPA is
approving the State’s SIP revisions as a
direct final rule without prior proposal
because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial SIP revision and
anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set
forth in the preamble to the direct final
rule. If EPA receives no adverse
comments, EPA will not take further
action on this proposed rule. If EPA
receives adverse comments, EPA will
withdraw the direct final rule and it will
not take effect. EPA will address all
public comments in a subsequent final
rule based on this proposed rule. EPA
will not institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:45 Nov 01, 2005
Jkt 208001
interested in commenting must do so at
this time. Please note that if EPA
receives adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of
this rule and if that provision may be
severed from the remainder of the rule,
EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before December 2, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by RME Docket Number R08–
OAR–2005–UT–0006, by one of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• Agency Web site: https://
docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp.
Regional Materials in EDOCKET (RME),
EPA’s electronic public docket and
comment system for regional actions, is
EPA’s preferred method for receiving
comments. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• E-mail: long.richard@epa.gov and
russ.tim@epa.gov.
• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing
comments).
• Mail: Richard R. Long, Director, Air
and Radiation Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8,
Mailcode 8P–AR, 999 18th Street, Suite
200, Denver, Colorado 80202–2466.
• Hand Delivery: Richard R. Long,
Director, Air and Radiation Program,
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 999
18th Street, Suite 200, Denver, Colorado
80202–2466. Such deliveries are only
accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m.
to 4:55 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays. Special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Please see the direct final rule which
is located in the Rules section of this
Federal Register for detailed
instructions on how to submit
comments.
Tim
Russ, Air and Radiation Program,
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 999
18th Street, Suite 200, Denver, Colorado
80202–2466, phone (303) 312–6436, and
e-mail at: russ.tim@epa.gov
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the
information provided in the Direct Final
action of the same title which is located
in the Rules and Regulations section of
the Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Dated: October 24, 2005.
Robert E. Roberts,
Regional Administrator, Region VIII.
[FR Doc. 05–21836 Filed 11–1–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[R03–OAR–2005–VA–0007; FRL–7993–1]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;
Redesignation of the City of
Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania County,
and Stafford County Ozone
Nonattainment Area to Attainment and
Approval of the Area’s Maintenance
Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
a redesignation request and a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of
Virginia. The Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (VADEQ) is
requesting that the City of
Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania County,
and Stafford County (the Fredericksburg
area) be redesignated as attainment for
the 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS). In
conjunction with its redesignation
request, the Commonwealth submitted a
State Implementation Plan revision
consisting of a maintenance plan for the
Fredericksburg area that provides for
continued attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for the next 10 years.
EPA is proposing to make a
determination that the Frdericksburg
area has attained the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. This proposed determination
is based on three years of complete,
quality-assured ambient air quality
monitoring data for 2002–2004 that
demonstrate the 8-hour NAAQS has
been attained in the area. EPA’s
proposed approval of the 8-hour ozone
redesignation request is based on its
determination that the Fredericksburg
area 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 8hour maintenance plan for the
Fredericksburg area for purposes of
transportation conformity, and is also
proposing to approve those MVEBs.
EPA is proposing approval of the
E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM
02NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules
redesignation request and of the
maintenance plan revision to the
Virginia SIP in accordance with the
requirements of the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before December 2, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Regional Material in
EDocket (RME) ID Number R03–OAR–
2005–VA–0007 by one of the following
methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
Agency Web site: https://
docket.epa.gov/rmepub/ RME, EPA’s
electronic public docket and comment
system, is EPA’s preferred method for
receiving comments. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: morris.makeba@epa.gov.
Mail: R03–OAR–2005–VA–0007,
Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality
Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted 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
RME ID No. R03–OAR–2005–VA–0007.
EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change, and may be
made available online at https://
docket.epa.gov/rmepub/, 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 RME, regulations.gov
or e-mail. The EPA RME and the Federal
regulations.gov Web sites are 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 RME or
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 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:45 Nov 01, 2005
Jkt 208001
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 RME
index at https://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/.
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 RME 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 Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality, 629 East Main
Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amy Caprio, (215) 814–2156, or by email 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 Actions Is EPA 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
Commonwealth’s Request?
VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets Established and Identified in the
Maintenance Plan for the Fredericksburg
Area Adequate and Approvable?
VIII. General Information Pertaining to SIP
Submittals From the Commonwealth of
Virginia
IX. Proposed Actions
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Actions Is EPA Proposing to
Take?
On May 2, 2005, VADEQ formally
submitted a request to redesignate the
Fredericksburg area to attainment of the
8-hour NAAQS for ozone. On May 4,
2005, Virginia submitted a maintenance
plan for the Fredericksburg area as a SIP
revision, to ensure continued attainment
over the next 10 years. The
Fredericksburg area is composed of the
City of Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania
County, and Stafford County. It is
currently designated as a moderate 8-
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
66317
hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA is
proposing to determine that the
Fredericksburg area has attained the 8hour 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 the
Fredericksburg area from nonattainment
to attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to
approve the maintenance plan SIP
revision for the area (such approval
being one of the CAA requirements for
approval of a redesignation request).
The maintenance plan is designed to
ensure continued attainment in the
Fredericksburg area for the next 10
years. Additionally, EPA is announcing
its action on the adequacy process for
the MVEBs identified in the
maintenance plan, and proposing to
approve the MVEBs identified for
volatile organic compounds (VOC) and
nitrogen oxides (NOX) for the
Fredericksburg area for transportation
conformity purposes.
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
Fredericksburg area was designated as
moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment
status in a notice signed on April 25,
2004 and published on April 30, 2004
(69 FR 23857), based on its exceedance
of the 8-hour health-based standard for
ozone during the years of 2001–2003.
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
E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM
02NOP1
66318
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules
by a NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which EPA
refers to as ‘‘classified’’ nonattainment)
provides more specific requirements for
ozone nonattainment areas. Some 8hour 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 8hour 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
Fredericksburg area was designated a
moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area based on air quality monitoring
data from 2001–2003, and is subject to
the requirements of both subparts 1 and
2.
Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part
50, the 8-hour ozone standard is
attained when the 3-year average of the
annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8hour average ambient air quality ozone
concentrations 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. In 2004, the ambient ozone data
for the Fredericksburg area indicated no
further violations of the 8-hour ozone
standard, using data from the 3-year
period of 2002–2004 with a design value
of 0.084 ppm. Available preliminary
monitoring data through September 30,
2005 indicates continued attainment of
the 8-hour ozone standard.
B. The Fredericksburg Area
The Fredericksburg 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area consists of the City
of Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania County,
and Stafford County. Prior to
designation as an 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area, the City of
Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania
County were designated attainment for
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, as part of the
North Eastern Virginia Intrastate (Air
Quality Control Region 224) area.
Stafford County, on the other hand, was
part of the Metropolitan Washington,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:45 Nov 01, 2005
Jkt 208001
DC 1-hour ozone nonattainment area
(the Washington area), and therefore
was subject to requirements for both
serious and severe 1-hour ozone
nonattainment areas pursuant to
sections 182(c) and 182(d) of the Clean
Air Act.1
On May 2, 2005, the Commonwealth
of Virginia requested redesignation to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone
standard for the Fredericksburg area.
The redesignation request included
three years of complete, quality-assured
data for the period of 2002–2004,
indicating that the 8-hour NAAQS for
ozone had been achieved for the
Fredericksburg area. The data satisfies
the CAA requirements when 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. 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).
C. Prior Proposed Rulemaking Actions
On September 12, 2005 (70 FR 53746),
EPA proposed approval of a
redesignation request and maintenance
plan submitted by the Commonwealth
of Virginia for the Fredericksburg area.
On September 30, 2005 (70 FR 57238),
EPA withdrew the September 12, 2005
proposed rule and stated that EPA
would re-propose approval of the
redesignation of the Fredericksburg area
and the associated maintenance plan,
and provide an expanded discussion as
to why the redesignation request for this
area is approvable under the CAA. In
this notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA
is re-proposing approval of the
redesignation of the Fredericksburg area
and the associated maintenance plan as
announced in the September 30, 2005
withdrawal notice.
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;
1 EPA reclassified the Washington area from
serious nonattainment to severe nonattainment for
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS on January 24, 2003. See
68 FR 3410 (January 24, 2003) for the
reclassification and 56 FR 56694 (November 6,
1991) for the original classification.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(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
E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM
02NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules
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.
Relevant rulemakings also include
EPA’s Final Rule to Implement the 8Hour Ozone NAAQS—Phase 1 and the
Notice of Reconsideration thereof. See
69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004) and 70 FR
30592, 30604 (May 26, 2005).
IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
On May 2, 2005, the VADEQ
requested redesignation of the
Fredericksburg area to attainment for
the 8-hour ozone standard. On May 4,
2005, the VADEQ submitted a
maintenance plan for the Fredericksburg
area as a SIP revision, to assure
continued attainment over the next 10
years. EPA has determined that the
Fredericksburg area 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 the
Fredericksburg area from nonattainment
to attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81. It
would also incorporate into the Virginia
SIP a maintenance plan ensuring
continued attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in the Fredericksburg
area for the next 10 years. The
maintenance plan includes contingency
measures to remedy any future
violations of the 8-hour NAAQS (should
they occur), and identifies the NOX and
VOC MVEBs for transportation
conformity purposes for the years 2004,
2009 and 2015. These MVEBs are
displayed in the following table:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:45 Nov 01, 2005
Jkt 208001
TABLE 1.—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS
BUDGETS IN TONS PER DAY (TPD)
Year
NOX
2004 ..............................
2009 ..............................
2015 ..............................
VOC
19.742
13.062
7.576
11.298
8.346
7.334
VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the
Commonwealth’s Request?
EPA is proposing to determine that
the Fredericksburg 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 VADEQ’s May 2, 2005 and May 4,
2005 submittals satisfy the requirements
of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
A. The Fredericksburg Area Has
Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
EPA is proposing to determine that
the Fredericksburg 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 qualityassured air quality monitoring data. To
attain this standard, the 3-year average
of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8hour 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 Aerometric Information
Retrieval System (AIRS). The monitors
generally should have remained at the
same location for the duration of the
monitoring period required for
demonstrating attainment.
In the Fredericksburg area, there is
one ozone monitor, located in Stafford
County, that measures air quality with
respect to ozone. As part of its
redesignation request, Virginia
submitted ozone monitoring data for the
years 2002–2004 (the most recent three
years of data available as of the time of
the redesignation request). This data has
been quality assured and is recorded in
AIRS. The fourth high 8-hour daily
maximum concentrations, along with
the three-year average, are summarized
in Table 2.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
66319
TABLE 2.—FREDERICKSBURG AREA
FOURTH HIGHEST 8-HOUR AVERAGE
VALUES STAFFORD COUNTY STATION
NO.
44–1,
AIRS
ID
511790001
Year
2002 ......................................
2003 ......................................
2004 ......................................
Annual 4th
high reading
(ppm)
0.094
0.085
0.073
The average for the 3-year period 2002
through 2004 is 0.084 ppm.
The data for 2002–2004 show that the
area has attained the standard, and
preliminary data for the 2005 ozone
season show that the area continues to
attain the standard. The data collected
at the Stafford County monitor satisfies
the CAA requirement that the three-year
average of the annual fourth-highest
daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration is less than or equal to
0.08 parts per million (ppm). The
VADEQ’s request for redesignation for
the Fredericksburg area indicates that
the data was quality assured in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58. The
VADEQ uses AIRS as the 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,
Virginia has committed to continue
monitoring in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58. In summary, EPA has
determined that the data submitted by
Virginia indicates that the area has
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
B. The Fredericksburg Area Has Met All
Applicable Requirements Under Section
110 and Part D of the CAA and the Area
Has a Fully Approved SIP Under
Section 110(k) of the CAA
EPA has determined that Virginia has
met all SIP requirements for the
Fredericksburg area applicable for
purposes of redesignation under Section
110 of the CAA (General SIP
Requirements) and that it meets all
applicable SIP requirements under Part
D of Title 1 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 what requirements are
applicable to the area, and determined
that the applicable portions of the SIP
meeting these requirements are fully
approved under section 110(k) of the
E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM
02NOP1
66320
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules
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 must meet
only the relevant CAA requirements that
come 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 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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:45 Nov 01, 2005
Jkt 208001
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 25161). 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 classification 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 should be construed to be
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. The Commonwealth will
still be subject to these requirements
after the Fredericksburg 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 requirements, as well
as with the policy on the applicability
of section 184 ozone transport
requirements. See Reading,
Pennsylvania, proposed and final
rulemakings 61 FR 53174–53176
(October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24816, May
7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio,
final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7,
1996); and Tampa, Florida, final
rulemaking at 60 FR 62748, (December
7, 1995). See also the discussion on this
issue in the Cincinnati redesignation (65
FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the
Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR 50399,
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
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
section 110(l) 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 explained below, no
Part D requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation under the 8hour standard became due prior to
submission of the redesignation request.
Therefore EPA concludes that 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 1-Hour
Standard and EPA’s Anti-Backsliding
Rules
Stafford County is the only locality in
the Fredericksburg area that was subject
to ozone requirements for 1-hour ozone
nonattainment areas. As noted
previously, prior to its designation as an
8-hour ozone nonattainment area,
Stafford County was a part of the
Metropolitan Washington, DC 1-hour
ozone nonattainment area, and
therefore, subject to SIP requirements
for serious and severe ozone
nonattainment areas pursuant to
sections 182 (c) and (d) of the CAA.
While, on June 15, 2005, the 1-hour
standard was revoked, 40 CFR 50.9(b),
under EPA’s anti-backsliding rules,
areas designated nonattainment for the
1-hour standard at the time of the 8hour ozone designations remained
subject to certain control measures that
applied by virtue of the area’s
classification for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS. (40 CFR 51.900 et seq., see also
70 FR 30592, 30604, May 26, 2005). The
applicable Part D 1-hour ozone standard
requirements for purposes of
redesignation are those that continue to
apply under EPA’s anti-backsliding
rules, which were promulgated in
conjunction with the implementation of
the 8-hour NAAQS. (40 CFR 51.900 et
seq., as amended 70 FR 30592, 30604
(May 26, 2005)).
EPA’s 8-hour NAAQS implementation
rule in 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1) prescribes
the 1-hour NAAQS requirements that
continue to apply after revocation of the
1-hour NAAQS to former 1-hour ozone
nonattainment areas, such as Stafford
County. Section 51.905(a)(1)(i) provides
that:
The area remains subject to the obligation
to adopt and implement the applicable
E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM
02NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules
requirements as defined in section 51.900(f),
except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of
this section, and except as provided in
paragraph (b) of this section. * * *
Section 51.900(f), as amended by 70
FR 30592, 30604 (May 26, 2005), states
that:
Applicable requirements means for an area
the following requirements to the extent such
requirements apply or applied to the area for
the area’s classification under section
181(a)(1) of the CAA for the 1-hour NAAQS
at designation for the 8-hour NAAQS:
(1) Reasonably available control
technology (RACT).
(2) Inspetion and maintenance programs
(I/M).
(3) Major source applicability cut-offs for
purposes of RACT.
(4) Rate of Progress (ROP) reductions.
(5) Stage II vapor recovery.
(6) Clean fuels fleet program under section
183(c)(4) of the CAA.
(7) Clean fuels for boilers under section
182(e)(3) of the CAA.
(8) Transportation Control Measures
(TCMs) during heavy traffic hours as
provided under section 182(e)(4) of the CAA.
(9) Enhanced (ambient) monitoring under
section 182(c)(1) of the CAA.
(10) Transportation control measures
(TCMs) under section 182(c)(5) of the CAA.
(11) Vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
provisions of section 182(d)(1) of the CAA.
(12) NOX requirements under section
182(f) of the CAA.
(13) Attainment demonstration or an
alternative as provided under section
51.905(a)(1)(ii).
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.905(c), only
the Stafford County portion of the
Fredericksburg area is subject to the
obligations set forth in 51.905(a) and
51.900(f). At the time Stafford County
was designated nonattainment for the 8hour standard, it was part of a 1-hour
nonattainment area classified as severe.
Therefore, two of the elements—clean
fuels for boilers under section 182(e)(3)
and TCMs during heavy traffic hours as
provided under section 182(e) are not
applicable requirements for the Stafford
County portion of the Fredericksburg
area. The following paragraphs discuss
how the applicable requirements have
been met.
With respect to RACT and the major
source applicability cut-offs for
purposes of RACT, EPA has fully
approved Virginia’s SIP for the
Washington 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area as meeting the
requirements of sections 182(b)(2),
182(c) and 182(f) of the CAA. On March
12, 1997 (62 FR 11332), EPA fully
approved Virginia’s VOC RACT
regulation SIP revision for control
technique guideline (CTG) sources and
for non-CTG sources which have an
applicability threshold of 25 tons per
year (tpy) or more. On January 2, 2001
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:45 Nov 01, 2005
Jkt 208001
(66 FR 8), EPA fully approved Virginia’s
NOX RACT regulation SIP revision
which had a major source applicability
threshold of 50 tpy or more. On August
9, 2004 (69 FR 48150), EPA fully
approved Virginia’s SIP revision that
lowered the major source applicability
threshold for its NOX RACT (and Part D
NSR) regulations to 25 tpy. EPA has
fully approved Virginia’s SIP revisions
consisting of source category and
individual source RACT
determinations.2 See 62 FR 11332
(March 12, 1997); 62 FR 11334 (March
12, 1997); 64 FR 3425 (January 22,
1999); 66 FR 8 (January 2, 2001); 69 FR
48150 (August 9, 2004); 69 FR 54578
(September 9, 2004); 69 FR 54600
(September 9, 2004); 69 FR 59812
(October 6, 2004); and, 69 FR 72115
(December 13, 2004).
On September 1, 1999 (64 FR 47670),
EPA fully approved Virginia’s I/M
program to meet the enhanced program
required in the Washington 1-hour
ozone nonattainment area under section
182(c)(3) of the CAA.
EPA has fully approved Virginia’s SIP
revisions that demonstrate ROP
reductions required in the Washington
1-hour ozone nonattainment area. On
October 6, 2000 (65 FR 59727), EPA
approved Virginia’s plan to achieve the
15 percent reduction in VOC emissions
in the Washington area that was
required under section 182(b) of the
CAA. On May 13, 2005 (70 FR 25688),
EPA fully approved Virginia’s ROP plan
to achieve further ROP reductions in the
Washington, area by 1999, 2002 and
2005 that were required of serious and
severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment
areas under section 182(c)(2) of the
CAA.
On June 23, 1994 (59 FR 32353), EPA
approved Virginia’s Stage II vapor
recovery program required in the
Washington 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area under section
182(b)(2) of the CAA.
On December 28, 1999 (64 FR 72564),
EPA fully approved Virginia’s SIP
revision which substituted a national
low emission vehicle (NLEV) program
for the clean fuel fleet program required
in the Washington 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area under section
182(c)(4) of the CAA.
On September 11, 1995, (60 FR
47081), EPA fully approved Virginia’s
SIP revision consisting of an enhanced
ambient monitoring program required in
2 Certain sources located in Stafford County
applied for and received Federally Enforceable
State Operating Permits (FESOPs) from VADEQ
which limited their emissions of VOC and NOX
below the RACT applicability thresholds. After
redesignation, those FESOPs will remain applicable
requirements of the Virginia SIP.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
66321
the Washington 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area under section
182(c)(1) of the CAA.
Within six years of November 15,
1990, and every three years thereafter,
section 182(c)(5) requires States to
submit a demonstration of whether
current aggregate vehicle mileage,
aggregate vehicle emissions, congestion
levels, and other relevant parameters
(collectively ‘‘relevant parameters’’) are
consistent with those used for the area’s
demonstration of attainment for serious
and above 1-hour ozone nonattainment
areas. If the levels of relevant
parameters that are projected in the
attainment demonstration are exceeded,
a State has 18 months to develop and
submit a revision of the applicable
implementation plan to include TCMs
to reduce emissions to a level consistent
with emissions levels in the attainment
demonstration for the area.
Alternatively, EPA has determined
that nonattainment areas are not
permanently locked into the estimates
of future emissions given in the initial
SIP submittal, nor locked into those in
any subsequently approved amendment
thereto. As we stated in the General
Preamble, once approved, the amended
SIP revision would have the effect of
increasing the allowable motor vehicle
emissions (including those due to
changes in the relevant parameters). See
57 FR 13498 at 13520 (April 16, 1992).
Thus if actual emissions exceed those
projected in an area’s attainment
demonstration, a State may at any time
before the area reaches attainment,
amend the area’s SIP to demonstrate
attainment while altering the mix of
emissions reductions in its SIP from
various kinds of sources (motor vehicle
versus non-motor vehicle), rather than
include TCMs in the SIP.
On August 19, 2003, Virginia
submitted a SIP revision consisting of a
demonstration that the Washington 1hour ozone nonattainment area would
attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by
November 15, 2005. See 70 FR 25688
(May 13, 2005). This SIP revision
contained information on the relevant
parameters current as of June 2003. On
February 25, 2004, Virginia submitted as
a SIP revision a revised attainment
demonstration and plan for the
Washington 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area which also showed
that the Washington 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area would attain the 1hour ozone NAAQS by November 15,
2005. See 70 FR 25688 (May 13, 2005).
That February 25, 2004 SIP revision
contained information on the relevant
parameters current as of November 23,
2003. On May 13, 2005 (70 FR 25688),
EPA fully approved Virginia’s February
E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM
02NOP1
66322
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules
25, 2004 attainment demonstration and
plan SIP revision for the Washington 1hour ozone nonattainment. In the
February 25, 2004 SIP revision, the
relevant parameters remained consistent
with the demonstration of attainment by
relying on a mix of emissions reductions
from motor vehicle and non-motor
vehicle emission reduction without
need to resort to TCMs.
EPA therefore concludes that Virginia
has complied with the substance of
section 182(c)(5), has no currently due
182(c)(5) obligations, and by virtue of
EPA’s approval of the February 25, 2004
attainment demonstration and plan SIP
revision, has never triggered an
obligation under 182(c)(5) to include
TCMs in its SIP for the Washington 1hour ozone area. Additionally, in line
with EPA’s guidance and policy
regarding what is an applicable Part D
requirement under section 107 of the
CAA that was discussed previously in
this document, EPA believes that any
future activities, which may be required
under section 182(c)(5), e.g., the next or
subsequent triennial demonstration of
the relevant parameters, for the former
Washington 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area did not come due
before Virginia submitted its
redesignation request and therefore are
not applicable Part D requirements with
respect to the approval of Virginia’s
request to redesignate the
Fredericksburg area to attainment of the
8-hour ozone NAAQS.
On May 13, 2005 (70 FR 25688), EPA
fully approved Virginia’s SIP revision
for the Washington 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area that implemented
the VMT provisions of section 182(d)(1)
of the CAA.
With respect to NOX requirements
under section 182(f) of the CAA, as
discussed above, EPA has fully
approved Virginia’s SIP revision
implementing the NOX RACT
requirements in the Washington 1-hour
ozone nonattainment area. For the
Stafford County portion of the
Fredericksburg area, EPA has fully
approved, pursuant to section 110(k),
Virginia’s Part D NSR program that
meets the requirements for a severe
ozone nonattainment area set under Part
D of Title I of the CAA. The Virginia
Part D NSR program covers major
sources of NOX as well as VOC. See 64
FR 51047 (September 21, 1999); 65 FR
21315 (April 21, 2000); and, 69 FR
48150 (August 9, 2004).
On August 9, 2004 (69 FR 48150),
EPA fully approved Virginia’s SIP
revision that lowered the major source
applicability threshold for its NOX
RACT (and Part D NSR) regulations to
25 tpy.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:45 Nov 01, 2005
Jkt 208001
On May 13, 2005 (70 FR 25688), EPA
fully approved Virginia’s 1-hour ozone
attainment demonstration SIP revision
for the Washington 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area.
In its May 2, 2005 redesignation
request, Virginia identified certain SIP
revisions as pending before EPA. As
explained previously, EPA has since
approved all those SIP revisions which
are applicable Part D requirements. The
remainder of these SIP revisions are not
needed to fulfill an applicable Part D
requirement for the Fredericksburg area.
These other non-Part D SIP revisions
propose to amend the Virginia SIP. EPA
will approve these SIP revisions only if
they meet the applicable requirements
of the CAA and EPA’s regulations,
including but not limited to EPA’s rules
for the transition from the 1-hour to the
8-hour NAAQS under 40 CFR part 51,
subpart X.
Thus EPA believes that Virginia has
met all applicable Part D requirements
under the 1-hour standard for purposes
of redesignation under the 8-hour
standard.
3. Part D Nonattainment Area
Requirements Under the 8-Hour
Standard
The Fredericksburg area was
designated a moderate 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. Section 182 of the
CAA, found in subpart 2 of Part D,
establishes additional specific
requirements depending on the area’s
nonattainment classification. For a
moderate nonattainment area for the 8hour ozone standard, such as the
Fredericksburg area, section 182(b) sets
forth requirements. Section 184 also sets
forth additional requirements for
Stafford County, due to its location
within the Ozone Transport Region
(OTR). With respect to the 8-hour
standard, EPA proposes to determine
that the 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.
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 conformity, NSR, and OTR
requirements as not requiring approval
prior to redesignation.
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires
states to establish criteria and
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 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) because
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, 438–440 (6th Cir.
2001), upholding this interpretation. See
also 60 FR 62748 (Dec. 7, 1995, Tampa
FL).
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,
since PSD requirements will apply after
redesignation. The rationale for this
view 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.’’ Virginia has demonstrated
that the area will be able to maintain the
standard without Part D NSR in effect in
the City of Fredericksburg and
Spotsylvania County, and therefore,
Virginia need not have a fully approved
Part D NSR program prior to approval of
the redesignation request. Virginia’s
PSD program will become effective in
the area upon redesignation to
attainment in the City of Fredericksburg
and Spotsylvania County. See
rulemakings for Detroit, MI (60 FR
12467–12468, March 7, 1995);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, OH (61 FR
20458, 20469–70, May 7, 1996);
Louisville, KY (66 FR 53665, October
23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan (61
FR 31834–31837, June 21, 1996).
As to Stafford County, which is
located in the OTR, nonattainment NSR
requirements will continue to be
applicable. EPA has also interpreted the
section 184 OTR requirements,
E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM
02NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules
including NSR, as not being applicable
for purposes of redesignation. The
rationale for this is based on two factors.
First, the requirement to submit SIP
revisions for the section 184
requirements continues to apply to areas
in the OTR after redesignation to
attainment. Therefore the
Commonwealth remains obligated to
have NSR, as well as RACT, and Vehicle
I/M programs in Stafford County even
after redesignation. Second, the section
184 control measures are region-wide
requirements and do not apply to the
area by virtue of its designation and
classification. See 61 FR 53174, 53175–
53176 (October 10, 1996) and 62 FR
24826, 24830–32 (May 7, 1997).
In any event, as discussed previously,
EPA has fully approved Virginia’s
RACT, I/M and Part D nonattainment
NSR SIP revisions for the Stafford
County, the only part of the
Fredericksburg area inside the OTR.
Also, as noted previously, Virginia’s
approved RACT SIP sets the major
source applicability thresholds for both
VOC and NOX at 25 tpy which are well
below the 50 and 100 tpy applicability
thresholds required in the OTR for VOC
sources and NOX sources, respectively.
EPA also notes that for the Stafford
County portion of the Fredericksburg
area EPA has fully approved under
section 110(k) Virginia’s nonattainment
NSR program that met the requirements
for a severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment
area. See 65 FR 21315 (April 21, 2000)
as amended by 64 FR 51047 (September
21, 1999) (recodification) and by 69 FR
32928, June 14, 2004. Consequently
Stafford County’s approved NSR
program satisfies the NSR requirements
applicable in the OTR. Thus, EPA
proposes to find that the Fredericksburg
area has satisfied all 8-hour ozone
standard requirements applicable for
purposes of section 107(d)(3)(E) under
Part D of the CAA.
4. The Area Has a Fully Approved
Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of
the CAA
EPA has fully approved the applicable
Virginia SIP for the area under section
110(k) of the Clean Air Act. 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
25425 (May 12, 2003) and citations
therein. Virginia has adopted and
submitted and EPA has fully approved
at various times provisions addressing
the various 1-hour ozone standard SIP
elements applicable for purposes of
redesignation, in the Stafford portion of
66323
the Fredericksburg area. As indicated
above, EPA believes that the section 110
elements not connected with
nonattainment plan submissions and
not linked to the area’s nonattainment
status are not applicable requirements
for purposes of redesignation. EPA also
believes that no 8-hour Part D
requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation have yet become due, and
therefore they need not be approved
into the SIP prior to redesignation.
C. The Air Quality Improvement in the
Fredericksburg 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 Commonwealth
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. EPA approved Virginia’s SIP
control strategy for the Fredericksburg
area, including enforceable rules and
the emissions reductions achieved as a
result of those rules. Emissions
reductions attributable to these rules are
shown in Table 3.
TABLE 3.—TOTAL VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR 2002 AND 2004 (TPD)
Year
Point
Area*
Nonroad
Mobile
Total
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
Year 2002 ................................................................................................
Year 2004 ................................................................................................
Diff. (02–04) .............................................................................................
0.563
0.602
0.039
13.487
14.070
0.583
3.545
3.304
¥0.241
13.054
11.298
¥1.756
30.649
29.274
¥1.375
3.258
3.465
0.207
3.717
3.601
¥0.116
22.498
19.742
¥2.756
29.651
26.987
¥2.664
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
Year 2002 ................................................................................................
Year 2004 ................................................................................................
Diff. (02–04) .............................................................................................
0.178
0.179
0.001
* Area source category includes emissions from motor vehicle refueling.
Between 2002 and 2004, VOC
emissions were reduced by 1.4 tpd, and
NOX emissions were reduced by 2.7 tpd,
due to the following permanent and
enforceable measures implemented or in
the process of being implemented in the
Fredericksburg area:
Programs Currently in Effect
(a) National Low Emission Vehicle
(NLEV);
(b) Open burning restrictions for
Stafford County only;
(c) CTG RACT requirements for
Stafford County only;
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:29 Nov 01, 2005
Jkt 208001
(d) Non-CTG RACT requirements for
Stafford County only;
(e) Stage I and Stage II vapor recovery
requirements for Stafford County only;
(f) Reformulated gasoline (RFG)
requirements for Stafford County only;
(g) Area source VOC regulations
concerning portable fuel containers;
mobile vehicle refinishing; architectural
and industrial maintenance coatings;
solvent cleaning; and, consumer
products for Stafford County only;
(h) Motor vehicle fleet turnover with
new vehicles meeting the Tier 2
standards; and,
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(i) Low-sulfur gasoline.
Virginia has demonstrated that the
implementation of permanent
enforceable emissions controls have
reduced local VOC and NOX emissions.
Nearly all of these reductions are
attributable to mobile source emission
controls such as NLEV and Tier I
programs. Additionally, Virginia has
indicated in its submittal that the NOX
SIP Call took effect in 2004. While there
are no subject sources currently located
in the City of Fredericksburg, Stafford
County or Spotsylvania County, Virginia
expects to indirectly benefit in terms of
E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM
02NOP1
66324
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules
improved air quality due to this
program. EPA believes that permanent
and enforceable emissions reductions
are the cause of the long-term
improvement in ozone levels and are
the cause of the area achieving
attainment of the 8-hour ozone
standard.
D. The Fredericksburg Area Has a Fully
Approvable Maintenance Plan Pursuant
to Section 175A of the CAA
In conjunction with its request to
redesignate the Fredericksburg area to
attainment status, Virginia submitted a
SIP revision to provide for maintenance
of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the area
for at least 10 years after redesignation.
1. 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, 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. Eight years after
the redesignation, the Commonwealth
must submit a revised maintenance plan
demonstrating that attainment will
continue to be maintained for the 10
years 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.
2. Analysis of the Fredericksburg Area
Maintenance Plan
(a) Attainment Inventory—An
attainment inventory includes the
emissions during the time period
associated with the monitoring data
showing attainment. The VADEQ
determined that the appropriate
attainment inventory year is 2004. That
year establishes a reasonable year
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:45 Nov 01, 2005
Jkt 208001
within the 3-year block of 2002–2004 as
a baseline and accounts for reductions
attributable to implementation of the
CAA requirements to date.
The VADEQ prepared comprehensive
VOC and NOX emissions inventories for
the City of Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania
County, and Stafford County, including
point (sources with emissions over 10
tons per year or greater), area, mobile
on-road, and mobile non-road sources
for a base year of 2002. All inventories
are based on actual emissions for a
‘‘typical summer day’’ and consist of a
list of sources and their associated
emissions. An attainment year of 2004
was used for the Fredericksburg area
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. Because an actual
emissions inventory for point sources
has not yet been completed for 2004, the
actual 2002 emissions inventory was
used as a starting point and then
projected to 2004 using Economic
Growth Analysis System (EGAS 5.0).
To develop the NOX and VOC base
year emissions inventories, VADEQ
used the following approaches and
sources of data:
(i) Point source emissions are
recorded and maintained electronically
in the VADEQ’s Comprehensive
Environmental Data System (CEDS). The
emissions for these sources are updated
annually by collecting year-specific
emissions and/or activity level
information. While developing the
emissions inventory, a cutoff emissions
level of 10 tpy of ozone precursor
pollutants was used to determine
whether a source was included in these
inventories. Smaller emissions sources
were assumed to be included in the area
source emissions inventories.
(ii) Area source emissions were
developed using the 2002 periodic year
stationary area source emissions
inventories along with growth factors.
Before attempting to calculate the
growth factors, VADEQ determined the
appropriate annual growth rate
representative of each industry or
indicator. ‘‘Growth Rate’’ refers to the
annual percentage of growth that occurs
in a category per year. The area source
growth rate estimates also involve the
use of current local source data,
including area populations and
employment data by source type.
(iii) The process of estimating on-road
mobile source emissions consists of two
components: Vehicular-related activity
(i.e., VMT) and an average rate of
pollutant produced as a result of a
particular level of activity. A pollutant
emission rate associated with a
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
particular level of activity emissions
were estimated using MOBILE6.2
emissions factors. The VADEQ has
provided detailed data summaries to
document the calculations of mobile onroad VOC and NOX emissions for 2002,
as well as for the projection years of
2004, 2009, and 2015 (shown in tables
4 and 5 below).
(iv) Mobile non-road emissions were
calculated using the NONROAD model
that incorporates EPA’s recent
regulations affecting these engine types
(recreational vehicles, lawn and garden
equipment, and outdoor power
equipment) well into the future. The
VADEQ used the NONROAD model to
calculate emissions for all nonroad
engine types except for aircraft,
locomotives, and commercial marine
vessels which were inventoried
separately. The VADEQ’s nonroad
inputs are based on the required RFG
and the Stage II vapor recovery systems
in Stafford County, while the City of
Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania
County’s non-road inputs are based on
southern-grade conventional gasoline.
The 2004 attainment year VOC and
NOX emissions for the Fredericksburg
area are summarized along with the
2009 and 2015 projected emissions for
this area in Tables 4 and 5 below, which
covers the demonstration of
maintenance for this area. EPA has
concluded that the Commonwealth has
adequately derived and documented the
2004 attainment year VOC and NOX
emissions for this area.
(b) Maintenance Demonstration—On
May 4, 2005, the VADEQ submitted a
SIP revision to supplement its May 2,
2005 redesignation request. The
submittal by VADEQ consists of the
maintenance plan as required by section
175A of the CAA. This 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 the
Fredericksburg area through the year
2015. A maintenance demonstration
need not be based on modeling. See
Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir.
2001); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537
(7th Cir. 2004). See also 66 FR 53094,
53099–53100 (October 19, 2001), 68 FR
25430–32 (May 12, 2003).
Tables 4 and 5 specify the VOC and
NOX emissions for the Fredericksburg
area for 2004, 2009, and 2015. The
VADEQ chose 2009 as an interim year
in the 10-year maintenance
demonstration period to demonstrate
that the VOC and NOX emissions are not
projected to increase above the 2004
attainment level during the time of the
10-year maintenance period.
E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM
02NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4.—TOTAL VOC EMISSIONS
FOR 2004–2015 (TPD)
Source
category
2004
VOC
emissions
2009
VOC
emissions
2015
VOC
emissions
Mobile 1
Nonroad
Area 2 ....
Point ......
11.298
3.304
14.070
0.602
8.346
2.555
13.161
0.692
7.334
2.231
15.303
0.782
Total ..
29.274
24.754
25.650
1 Includes transportation conformity provisions.
2 Includes vehicle refueling emissions and
the benefits of selected local controls (Stage I,
CTG RACT, and open burning).
TABLE 5.—TOTAL NOX EMISSIONS
2004–2015 (TPD)
Source
category
2004
NOX
emissions
2009
NOX
emissions
2015
NOX
emissions
Mobile 1
Nonroad
Area 2 ....
Point ......
19.742
3.601
3.465
0.179
12.062
3.080
3.926
0.180
7.576
2.195
4.742
0.182
Total ..
26.987
20.248
14.695
1 Includes
transportation conformity provisions.
2 Includes selected local controls (open
burning).
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);
(January 18, 2001, 66 FR 5002); and
• Non-road emissions standards
(2008) and off-road diesel fuel (2007/
2010); (June 29, 2004, 69 FR 39858).
Lastly, to further improve air quality
and to ensure continued attainment by
maintaining emissions in the area at or
below 2004 levels, the Commonwealth
of Virginia has initiated rulemaking to
implement the following programs:
• Stage I Vapor Recovery
requirements in Fredericksburg and
Spotsylvania;
• Open burning restriction
requirements in Fredericksburg and
Spotsylvania; and
• VOC RACT requirements for CTG—
subject sources in Fredericksburg and
Spotsylvania.
In addition to the above permanent
and enforceable measures, CAIR should
have positive impacts on the
Commonwealth’s air quality by the
years 2009 and 2015.
Based on the comparison of the
projected emissions and the attainment
year emissions along with the additional
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:45 Nov 01, 2005
Jkt 208001
measures, EPA concludes that VADEQ
has successfully demonstrated that the
8-hour ozone standard should be
maintained in the Fredericksburg area.
(c) Monitoring Network—There is
currently one monitor measuring ozone
in the Fredericksburg area. VADEQ will
continue to operate its current air
quality monitor in accordance with 40
CFR part 58. Should measured mobile
source parameters change significantly
over time, the Commonwealth will
perform a saturation monitoring study
to determine the need for, and location
of, additional permanent monitors.
(d) Verification of Continued
Attainment—The Commonwealth of
Virginia has the legal authority to
implement and enforce specified
measures necessary to attain and
maintain the NAAQS. Key regulatory
requirements that VADEQ will
implement and retain to maintain
attainment include expanding VOC
RACT for CTG sources, Stage I Vapor
Recovery, and open burning restrictions
to the City of Fredericksburg and
Spotsylvania County. The VADEQ will
track the progress of the maintenance
demonstration by periodically updating
the emissions inventory. This tracking
will consist of annual and periodic
evaluations. The annual evaluation will
consist of checks on key emissions trend
indicators such as the annual emissions
update of stationary sources, the
Highway Performance Monitoring
System (HPMS) VMT data reported to
the Federal Highway Administration,
and other growth indicators. These
indicators will be compared to the
growth assumptions used in the plan to
determine if the predicted versus the
observed growth remains relatively
constant. The Commonwealth will also
develop and submit comprehensive
tracking inventories to EPA every three
years during the maintenance plan
period. For purpose of performing this
tracking function for point sources, the
Commonwealth will retain the annual
emission statement requirements for the
maintenance area (9 VAC 5–20–160).
(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
Commonwealth 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 measures
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
66325
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 the Fredericksburg area
to stay in compliance with the 8-hour
ozone standard after redesignation
depends upon VOC and NOX emissions
in the area remaining at or below 2004
levels. The Commonwealth’s
maintenance plan projects VOC and
NOX emissions to decrease and stay
below 2004 levels through the year
2015. However, if emissions do not
decrease as expected, or if emissions
increase, the area may experience 8hour ozone violations.
The Commonwealth’s maintenance
plan lays out three situations where the
need to adopt and implement a
contingency measure to further reduce
emissions would be triggered. Those
situations are as follows:
(i) An actual increase of the VOC or
NOX emissions above the 2004
attainment levels is identified or
predicted through the development of
the comprehensive periodic tracking
inventories—The maintenance plan
states that the VADEQ will monitor the
observed growth rates for VMT,
population, and point source VOC and
NOX emissions on a yearly basis which
will serve as an early warning indicator
of the potential for a violation. The plan
also states that comprehensive tracking
inventories will also be developed every
3 years using current EPA-approved
methods to estimate emissions,
concentrating on areas identified in the
less rigorous yearly evaluations as being
potential problems. If the 2004
attainment level emissions for VOC or
NOX is exceeded or is predicted to be
exceeded, the following measures will
be implemented:
• Preparation of a complete VOC and
NOX emission inventory; and
• The expanded implementation of
one or more of the following of
Virginia’s area source VOC regulations
throughout the entire Fredericksburg
area (these regulations are already
required in Stafford County): Emission
Standards for Portable Fuel Container
Spillage (9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article
42); Emission Standards for Mobile
Equipment Repair and Refinishing
Operations (9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article
48); Emission Standards for
Architectural and Industrial
Maintenance Coatings (9 VAC 5 Chapter
40, Article 49); and Emission Standards
for Consumer Products (9 VAC 5
Chapter 40, Article 50).
(ii) The Stafford County monitor
indicates two or more ozone
exceedances (any fourth highest 8-hour
E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM
02NOP1
66326
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules
average above 0.08 ppm) in consecutive
years—According to the maintenance
plan, if two or more ozone exceedances
(any fourth highest 8-hour average
above 0.08 ppm) are recorded in
consecutive years, the following
measure(s) will be implemented:
• The expanded implementation of
one or more of the following of
Virginia’s area source VOC regulations
throughout the entire Fredericksburg
area (these regulations are already
required in Stafford County): Emission
Standards for Portable Fuel Container
Spillage (9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article
42); Emission Standards for Mobile
Equipment Repair and Refinishing
Operations (9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article
48); Emission Standards for
Architectural and Industrial
Maintenance Coatings (9 VAC 5 Chapter
40, Article 49); and Emission Standards
for Consumer Products (9 VAC 5
Chapter 40, Article 50).
(iii) A violation (any 3 year average of
each annual fourth highest 8-hour
average) of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS of
0.08 ppm occurs—The maintenance
plan states that if a violation (any 3 year
average of each annual fourth highest 8hour average) of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS of 0.08 ppm occurs, the
contingency measures will be
implemented as follows:
• If there remain any VOC regulations
[Emissions Standards for Portable Fuel
Container Spillage (9 VAC 5 Chapter 40,
Article 42); Emissions Standards for
Mobile Equipment Repair and
Refinishing Operations (9 VAC 5
Chapter 40, Article 48); Emission
Standards for Architectural and
Industrial Maintenance Coatings (9 VAC
5 Chapter 40, Article 49); and Emission
Standards for Consumer Products (9
VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article 50)] not yet
implemented following an earlier
maintenance plan trigger event, expand
the implementation of those remaining
measures throughout the entire
Fredericksburg area (these regulations
are already required in Stafford County);
• If a violation of the ozone standard
occurs in an ozone season subsequent to
implementation of all of the
Commonwealth’s VOC area source
regulations, then implement NOX RACT
and VOC RACT for non-CTG sources
emitting above 100 tpy located in
Spotsylvania County and the City of
Fredericksburg. Source categories that
may be affected by this requirement
include equipment manufacturing (NOX
RACT and VOC RACT for non-CTG
RACT has already been implemented in
Stafford County, due to prior 1-hour
ozone NAAQS requirements).
The following schedule for adoption,
implementation and compliance applies
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:45 Nov 01, 2005
Jkt 208001
to the contingency measures concerning
non-CTG RACT requirements. It would
also apply to the imposition of the area
source VOC regulations if those
regulations had not already been
implemented due to other triggers or
provisions of the maintenance plan.
• Notification received from EPA that
a contingency measure must be
implemented, or three months after a
recorded violation;
• Applicable regulation to be adopted
6 months after this date;
• Applicable regulation to be
implemented 6 months after adoption 3;
• Compliance with regulation to be
achieved within 12 months of adoption.
(f) An Additional Provision of the
Maintenance Plan—The
Commonwealth’s maintenance plan for
the Fredericksburg area has an
additional provision. That provision
states that regardless of the number of
exceedances or violations noted, the
regulations controlling VOC emissions
from area sources: Article 42 Emission
Standards for Portable Fuel Container
Spillage (9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article
48); Emission Standards for Mobile
Equipment Repair and Refinishing
Operations (9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article
49); Emission Standards for
Architectural and Industrial
Maintenance Coatings (9 VAC 5 Chapter
40, Article 50); and Emission Standards
for Consumer Products (9 VAC 5
Chapter 40) will be expanded to the City
of Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania
County such that these regulations will
take effect in 2008, or as expeditiously
as possible thereafter in order to provide
additional air quality benefits.
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 Virginia for the
Fredericksburg area meets the
requirements of section 175A of the Act.
3 In the event of implementation of the RACT
contingency measure, Virginia would amend its
current RACT regulations to apply them to nonCTG sources in Spotsylvania County and the City
of Fredericksburg within 6 months after (a)
notification received from EPA that the contingency
measure must be implemented, or (b) three months
after a recorded violation. The newly subject nonCTG RACT sources would need to develop sourcespecific RACT plans and comply with their plans
no later than 12 months from the date of Virginia’s
adoption of the amended regulations.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets Established and Identified in
the Maintenance Plan for the
Fredericksburg Area 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.
Reasonable Further Progress 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 national ambient air quality
standards. 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 assuring conformity
of such transportation activities to a
state implementation plan.
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
E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM
02NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules
‘‘conform’’ to the state implementation
plan as required by section 176(c) of the
CAA. EPA’s substantive criteria for
determining ‘‘adequacy’’ of an 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
follows this guidance and rulemaking in
making its adequacy determinations.
The MVEBs for the Fredericksburg
area are listed in Table 1 of this
document for the 2004, 2009, and 2015
years and 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
level of emissions during one of the
years in which the area met the NAAQS.
The following example is for the 2015
safety margin: The Fredericksburg area
first attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
during the 2002 to 2004 time period.
The Commonwealth used 2004 as the
66327
year to determine attainment levels of
emissions for the Fredericksburg area.
The total emissions from point, area,
non road and mobile sources in 2004
equaled 29.274 tpd of VOC and 26.987
tpd of NOX. The VADEQ projected
emissions out to the year 2015 and
projected a total of 25.650 tpd of VOC
and 14.695 tpd of NOX from all sources
in the Fredericksburg area. The safety
margin for the Fredericksburg area for
2015 would be the difference between
these amounts, or 3.624 tpd of VOC and
12.292 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. The following table shows the
safety margins for the 2009 and 2015
years.
TABLE 6.—2009 AND 2015 SAFETY MARGINS FOR THE FREDERICKSBURG AREA
VOC emissions
(tpd)
Inventory year
2004
2009
2009
2004
2015
2015
Attainment ...............................................................................................................................................
Interim .....................................................................................................................................................
Safety Margin .........................................................................................................................................
Attainment ...............................................................................................................................................
Final ........................................................................................................................................................
Safety Margin .........................................................................................................................................
The VADEQ allocated 0.25 tpd of the
safety margin to both 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 2015 MVEBs
the VADEQ allocated 0.25 tpd NOX and
1.6 tpd VOC from the 2015 safety
margins to arrive at the 2015 MVEBs.
29.274
24.754
4.520
29.274
25.650
3.624
NOX emissions
(tpd)
26.987
20.248
6.739
26.987
14.695
12.292
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.—2009 AND 2015 FINAL MVEBS FOR THE FREDERICKSBURG AREA
VOC
emissions
(tpd)
Inventory year
2009
2009
2009
2015
2015
2015
projected on-road mobile source projected emissions ..........................................................................
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs ........................................................................................................
MVEBs ....................................................................................................................................................
projected on-road mobile source projected emissions ..........................................................................
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs ........................................................................................................
MVEBs ....................................................................................................................................................
C. Why Are the MVEBs Approvable?
The 2004, 2009 and 2015 MVEBs for
the Fredericksburg area are approvable
because the motor vehicle emissions
budgets for NOX and VOC including the
allocated safety margins continue to
maintain the total emissions at or below
the attainment year inventory levels as
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:45 Nov 01, 2005
Jkt 208001
required by the transportation
conformity regulations.
D. What Is the Adequacy and Approval
Process for the MVEBs in the
Fredericksburg Area Maintenance Plan?
The MVEBs for the Fredericksburg
maintenance plan are being posted to
EPA’s conformity Web site concurrent
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8.096
0.250
8.346
5.734
1.600
7.334
NOX emissions
(tpd)
12.812
0.250
13.062
7.326
0.250
7.576
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
E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM
02NOP1
66328
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules
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 budget adequate in a separate action
following the comment period.
If EPA receives adverse written
comments with respect to the proposed
approval of the Fredericksburg 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
Fredericksburg MVEBs will also be
announced on EPA’s conformity Web
site: https://www.epa.gov/oms/traq,
(once there, click on the ‘‘Conformity’’
button, then look for ‘‘Adequacy Review
of SIP Submissions for Conformity’’).
VIII. General Information Pertaining to
SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia
In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation
that provides, subject to certain
conditions, for an environmental
assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for
voluntary compliance evaluations
performed by a regulated entity. The
legislation further addresses the relative
burden of proof for parties either
asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the
privilege is claimed. Virginia’s
legislation also provides, subject to
certain conditions, for a penalty waiver
for violations of environmental laws
when a regulated entity discovers such
violations pursuant to a voluntary
compliance evaluation and voluntarily
discloses such violations to the
Commonwealth and takes prompt and
appropriate measures to remedy the
violations. Virginia’s Voluntary
Environmental Assessment Privilege
Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides
a privilege that protects from disclosure
documents and information about the
content of those documents that are the
product of a voluntary environmental
assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information (1)
that are generated or developed before
the commencement of a voluntary
environmental assessment; (2) that are
prepared independently of the
assessment process; (3) that demonstrate
a clear, imminent and substantial
danger to the public health or
environment; or (4) that are required by
law.
On January 12, 1998, the
Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:45 Nov 01, 2005
Jkt 208001
opinion that states that the Privilege
law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, precludes
granting a privilege to documents and
information ‘‘required by law,’’
including documents and information
‘‘required by Federal law to maintain
program delegation, authorization or
approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce
Federally authorized environmental
programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their Federal
counterparts. * * *’’ The opinion
concludes that ‘‘[r]egarding § 10.1–1198,
therefore, documents or other
information needed for civil or criminal
enforcement under one of these
programs could not be privileged
because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing
enforcement in a manner required by
Federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval.’’
Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code
Sec. 10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the
extent consistent with requirements
imposed by Federal law,’’ any person
making a voluntary disclosure of
information to a state agency regarding
a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative
order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The
Attorney General’s January 12, 1998
opinion states that the quoted language
renders this statute inapplicable to
enforcement of any Federally authorized
programs, since ‘‘no immunity could be
afforded from administrative, civil, or
criminal penalties because granting
such immunity would not be consistent
with Federal law, which is one of the
criteria for immunity.’’
Therefore, EPA has determined that
Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity
statutes will not preclude the
Commonwealth from enforcing its
program consistent with the Federal
requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state
audit privilege and immunity law can
affect only state enforcement and cannot
have any impact on Federal
enforcement authorities, EPA may at
any time invoke its authority under the
Clean Air Act, including, for example,
sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to
enforce the requirements or prohibitions
of the state plan, independently of any
state enforcement effort. In addition,
citizen enforcement under section 304
of the Clean Air Act is likewise
unaffected by this, or any, state audit
privilege or immunity law.
IX. Proposed Actions
EPA is proposing to determine that
the Frdericksburg area has attainted the
8-hour ozone NAAQS. The EPA is also
proposing to approve the
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Commonwealth of Virginia’s May 2,
2005 request for the Fredericksburg area
to attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS for
ozone because the requirements for
approval have been satisfied. EPA has
evaluated 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 the Fredericksburg area
from nonattainment to attainment for
the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is also
proposing to approve the associated
maintenance plan for this area,
submitted on May 4, 2005, as a revision
to the Virginia SIP. EPA is proposing to
approve the maintenance plan for the
area because it meets the requirements
of section 175A. EPA is also proposing
to approve the MVEBs submitted by
Virginia for the area 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.
X. 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. 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
E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM
02NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 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 (65
FR 67249, 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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:45 Nov 01, 2005
Jkt 208001
This rule proposing to approve the
redesignation of the Fredericksburg area
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: October 27, 2005.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 05–21835 Filed 11–1–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[DA 05–2693; MB Docket No. 05–282; RM–
11229]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Aragon,
GA; Chattanooga and Lynchburg, TN;
and Rockmart, GA
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document sets forth a
proposal to amend the FM Table of
Allotments, section 73.202(b) of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 73.202(b).
The Audio Division requests comment
on a petition filed by Woman’s World
Broadcasting, Inc., pursuant to section
1.420(i) of the Commission’s rules, 47
CFR 1.420(i). Petitioner proposes to
change the community of license for
Station WTSH–FM from Rockmart to
Aragon, Georgia, to upgrade the
authorization for Station WTSH–FM to
Class C1, and to change the FM Table
of Allotments by deleting Channel
296C2 at Rockmart, Georgia, and by
adding Channel 296C1 at Aragon,
Georgia, as the community’s first local
aural broadcast service. The proposed
coordinates for Channel 296C1 at
Aragon, Georgia, are 34–22–02 NL and
84–58–33 WL. The allotment will
require a site restriction of 36.4 km (22.6
miles) north of Aragon. In order to
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
66329
accommodate the allotment of Channel
296C1 at Aragon, the petitioner further
requests the substitution of Channel
230A for Channel 293A at Lynchburg,
Tennessee. The proposed reference
coordinates for Channel 230A at
Lynchburg, Tennessee, are 35–21–58 NL
and 86–17–18 WL, with a site restriction
of 12.1 km (7.5 miles) northeast of
Lynchburg.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or
before December 5, 2005, and reply
comments on or before December 20,
2005.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the
FCC, interested parties should serve
counsel for the petitioner as follows:
Gary S. Smithwick, Esq., Smithwick &
Belendiuk, P.C., 5028 Wisconsin
Avenue, NW., Suite 301, Washington,
DC 20016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Deborah A. Dupont, Media Bureau (202)
418–7072.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of
Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No.
05–282, adopted October 12, 2005, and
released October 14, 2005. The full text
of this Commission document is
available for inspection and copying
during normal business hours in the
FCC Reference Information Center
(Room CY–A257), 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC. The complete text of
this decision may also be purchased
from the Commission’s copy contractor,
Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th
Street, SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC, 20554, (800) 378–3160,
or via the company’s Web site, https://
www.bcpiweb.com. This document does
not contain proposed information
collection requirements subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13. In addition,
therefore, it does not contain any
proposed information collection burden
‘‘for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4).
The Provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to
this proceeding. Members of the public
should note that from the time a Notice
of Proposed Rule Making is issued until
the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court
review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings,
such as this one, which involve channel
allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for
rules governing permissible ex parte
contacts.
E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM
02NOP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66316-66329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21835]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[R03-OAR-2005-VA-0007; FRL-7993-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Redesignation of the City of Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania
County, and Stafford County Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and
Approval of the Area's 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 submitted by the Commonwealth
of Virginia. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ)
is requesting that the City of Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania County, and
Stafford County (the Fredericksburg area) be redesignated as attainment
for the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). In
conjunction with its redesignation request, the Commonwealth submitted
a State Implementation Plan revision consisting of a maintenance plan
for the Fredericksburg area that provides for continued attainment of
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 10 years. EPA is proposing to make
a determination that the Frdericksburg area has attained the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. This proposed determination is based on three years of
complete, quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data for 2002-
2004 that demonstrate the 8-hour NAAQS has been attained in the area.
EPA's proposed approval of the 8-hour ozone redesignation request is
based on its determination that the Fredericksburg area 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 8-hour maintenance plan for the Fredericksburg area
for purposes of transportation conformity, and is also proposing to
approve those MVEBs. EPA is proposing approval of the
[[Page 66317]]
redesignation request and of the maintenance plan revision to the
Virginia SIP in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 2, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Regional Material in
EDocket (RME) ID Number R03-OAR-2005-VA-0007 by one of the following
methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting comments.
Agency Web site: https://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/ RME, EPA's
electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred method
for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
E-mail: morris.makeba@epa.gov.
Mail: R03-OAR-2005-VA-0007, Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality
Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
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 RME ID No. R03-OAR-2005-VA-
0007. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change, and may be made available online at
https://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/, 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 RME, regulations.gov
or e-mail. The EPA RME and the Federal regulations.gov Web sites are 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 RME or 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 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
RME index at https://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. 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 RME
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 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629
East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
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 Actions Is EPA 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 Commonwealth's Request?
VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Established and
Identified in the Maintenance Plan for the Fredericksburg Area
Adequate and Approvable?
VIII. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia
IX. Proposed Actions
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Actions Is EPA Proposing to Take?
On May 2, 2005, VADEQ formally submitted a request to redesignate
the Fredericksburg area to attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone. On
May 4, 2005, Virginia submitted a maintenance plan for the
Fredericksburg area as a SIP revision, to ensure continued attainment
over the next 10 years. The Fredericksburg area is composed of the City
of Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania County, and Stafford County. It is
currently designated as a moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA
is proposing to determine that the Fredericksburg area 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 the Fredericksburg area from nonattainment to attainment
for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the
maintenance plan SIP revision for the area (such approval being one of
the CAA requirements for approval of a redesignation request). The
maintenance plan is designed to ensure continued attainment in the
Fredericksburg area for the next 10 years. Additionally, EPA is
announcing its action on the adequacy process for the MVEBs identified
in the maintenance plan, and proposing to approve the MVEBs identified
for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) for the Fredericksburg area for transportation
conformity purposes.
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
Fredericksburg area was designated as moderate 8-hour ozone
nonattainment status in a notice signed on April 25, 2004 and published
on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), based on its exceedance of the 8-hour
health-based standard for ozone during the years of 2001-2003.
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
[[Page 66318]]
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 Fredericksburg area was designated a moderate 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area based on air quality monitoring data from 2001-2003,
and is subject to the requirements of both subparts 1 and 2.
Under EPA regulations at 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 concentrations 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. In
2004, the ambient ozone data for the Fredericksburg area indicated no
further violations of the 8-hour ozone standard, using data from the 3-
year period of 2002-2004 with a design value of 0.084 ppm. Available
preliminary monitoring data through September 30, 2005 indicates
continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard.
B. The Fredericksburg Area
The Fredericksburg 8-hour ozone nonattainment area consists of the
City of Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania County, and Stafford County. Prior
to designation as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the City of
Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County were designated attainment for
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, as part of the North Eastern Virginia
Intrastate (Air Quality Control Region 224) area. Stafford County, on
the other hand, was part of the Metropolitan Washington, DC 1-hour
ozone nonattainment area (the Washington area), and therefore was
subject to requirements for both serious and severe 1-hour ozone
nonattainment areas pursuant to sections 182(c) and 182(d) of the Clean
Air Act.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA reclassified the Washington area from serious
nonattainment to severe nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS on
January 24, 2003. See 68 FR 3410 (January 24, 2003) for the
reclassification and 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991) for the original
classification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 2, 2005, the Commonwealth of Virginia requested
redesignation to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard for the
Fredericksburg area. The redesignation request included three years of
complete, quality-assured data for the period of 2002-2004, indicating
that the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone had been achieved for the
Fredericksburg area. The data satisfies the CAA requirements when 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. 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).
C. Prior Proposed Rulemaking Actions
On September 12, 2005 (70 FR 53746), EPA proposed approval of a
redesignation request and maintenance plan submitted by the
Commonwealth of Virginia for the Fredericksburg area. On September 30,
2005 (70 FR 57238), EPA withdrew the September 12, 2005 proposed rule
and stated that EPA would re-propose approval of the redesignation of
the Fredericksburg area and the associated maintenance plan, and
provide an expanded discussion as to why the redesignation request for
this area is approvable under the CAA. In this notice of proposed
rulemaking, EPA is re-proposing approval of the redesignation of the
Fredericksburg area and the associated maintenance plan as announced in
the September 30, 2005 withdrawal notice.
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
[[Page 66319]]
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.
Relevant rulemakings also include EPA's Final Rule to Implement the
8-Hour Ozone NAAQS--Phase 1 and the Notice of Reconsideration thereof.
See 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004) and 70 FR 30592, 30604 (May 26, 2005).
IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
On May 2, 2005, the VADEQ requested redesignation of the
Fredericksburg area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. On May
4, 2005, the VADEQ submitted a maintenance plan for the Fredericksburg
area as a SIP revision, to assure continued attainment over the next 10
years. EPA has determined that the Fredericksburg area 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 the Fredericksburg area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81. It would also incorporate
into the Virginia SIP a maintenance plan ensuring continued attainment
of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Fredericksburg area for the next 10
years. The maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy any
future violations of the 8-hour NAAQS (should they occur), and
identifies the NOX and VOC MVEBs for transportation
conformity purposes for the years 2004, 2009 and 2015. These MVEBs are
displayed in the following table:
Table 1.--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Tons per Day (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year NOX VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004................................................ 19.742 11.298
2009................................................ 13.062 8.346
2015................................................ 7.576 7.334
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Commonwealth's Request?
EPA is proposing to determine that the Fredericksburg 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
VADEQ's May 2, 2005 and May 4, 2005 submittals satisfy the requirements
of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
A. The Fredericksburg Area Has Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
EPA is proposing to determine that the Fredericksburg 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 Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS). The
monitors generally should have remained at the same location for the
duration of the monitoring period required for demonstrating
attainment.
In the Fredericksburg area, there is one ozone monitor, located in
Stafford County, that measures air quality with respect to ozone. As
part of its redesignation request, Virginia submitted ozone monitoring
data for the years 2002-2004 (the most recent three years of data
available as of the time of the redesignation request). This data has
been quality assured and is recorded in AIRS. The fourth high 8-hour
daily maximum concentrations, along with the three-year average, are
summarized in Table 2.
Table 2.--Fredericksburg Area Fourth Highest 8-Hour Average Values
Stafford County Station No. 44-1, AIRS ID 511790001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual 4th
Year high reading
(ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002.................................................... 0.094
2003.................................................... 0.085
2004.................................................... 0.073
---------------------------------------------------------
The average for the 3-year period 2002 through 2004 is 0.084 ppm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The data for 2002-2004 show that the area has attained the
standard, and preliminary data for the 2005 ozone season show that the
area continues to attain the standard. The data collected at the
Stafford County monitor satisfies the CAA requirement that the three-
year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 parts per million
(ppm). The VADEQ's request for redesignation for the Fredericksburg
area indicates that the data was quality assured in accordance with 40
CFR part 58. The VADEQ uses AIRS as the 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,
Virginia has committed to continue monitoring in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58. In summary, EPA has determined that the data submitted by
Virginia indicates that the area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
B. The Fredericksburg Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under
Section 110 and Part D of the CAA and the Area Has a Fully Approved SIP
Under Section 110(k) of the CAA
EPA has determined that Virginia has met all SIP requirements for
the Fredericksburg area applicable for purposes of redesignation under
Section 110 of the CAA (General SIP Requirements) and that it meets all
applicable SIP requirements under Part D of Title 1 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 what requirements are applicable to the area, and
determined that the applicable portions of the SIP meeting these
requirements are fully approved under section 110(k) of the
[[Page 66320]]
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 must meet only the
relevant CAA requirements that come 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 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 25161). 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 classification 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 should be construed
to be 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. The Commonwealth will still be subject to these
requirements after the Fredericksburg 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 requirements, as well as with the
policy on the applicability of section 184 ozone transport
requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings
61 FR 53174-53176 (October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24816, May 7, 1997);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7,
1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking at 60 FR 62748, (December
7, 1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati
redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh
redesignation (66 FR 50399, 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(l) 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
explained below, no Part D requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation under the 8-hour standard became due prior to submission
of the redesignation request. Therefore EPA concludes that 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 1-Hour Standard and
EPA's Anti-Backsliding Rules
Stafford County is the only locality in the Fredericksburg area
that was subject to ozone requirements for 1-hour ozone nonattainment
areas. As noted previously, prior to its designation as an 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area, Stafford County was a part of the Metropolitan
Washington, DC 1-hour ozone nonattainment area, and therefore, subject
to SIP requirements for serious and severe ozone nonattainment areas
pursuant to sections 182 (c) and (d) of the CAA. While, on June 15,
2005, the 1-hour standard was revoked, 40 CFR 50.9(b), under EPA's
anti-backsliding rules, areas designated nonattainment for the 1-hour
standard at the time of the 8-hour ozone designations remained subject
to certain control measures that applied by virtue of the area's
classification for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. (40 CFR 51.900 et seq., see
also 70 FR 30592, 30604, May 26, 2005). The applicable Part D 1-hour
ozone standard requirements for purposes of redesignation are those
that continue to apply under EPA's anti-backsliding rules, which were
promulgated in conjunction with the implementation of the 8-hour NAAQS.
(40 CFR 51.900 et seq., as amended 70 FR 30592, 30604 (May 26, 2005)).
EPA's 8-hour NAAQS implementation rule in 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1)
prescribes the 1-hour NAAQS requirements that continue to apply after
revocation of the 1-hour NAAQS to former 1-hour ozone nonattainment
areas, such as Stafford County. Section 51.905(a)(1)(i) provides that:
The area remains subject to the obligation to adopt and
implement the applicable
[[Page 66321]]
requirements as defined in section 51.900(f), except as provided in
paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section, and except as provided in
paragraph (b) of this section. * * *
Section 51.900(f), as amended by 70 FR 30592, 30604 (May 26, 2005),
states that:
Applicable requirements means for an area the following
requirements to the extent such requirements apply or applied to the
area for the area's classification under section 181(a)(1) of the
CAA for the 1-hour NAAQS at designation for the 8-hour NAAQS:
(1) Reasonably available control technology (RACT).
(2) Inspetion and maintenance programs (I/M).
(3) Major source applicability cut-offs for purposes of RACT.
(4) Rate of Progress (ROP) reductions.
(5) Stage II vapor recovery.
(6) Clean fuels fleet program under section 183(c)(4) of the
CAA.
(7) Clean fuels for boilers under section 182(e)(3) of the CAA.
(8) Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) during heavy traffic
hours as provided under section 182(e)(4) of the CAA.
(9) Enhanced (ambient) monitoring under section 182(c)(1) of the
CAA.
(10) Transportation control measures (TCMs) under section
182(c)(5) of the CAA.
(11) Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) provisions of section
182(d)(1) of the CAA.
(12) NOX requirements under section 182(f) of the
CAA.
(13) Attainment demonstration or an alternative as provided
under section 51.905(a)(1)(ii).
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.905(c), only the Stafford County portion of
the Fredericksburg area is subject to the obligations set forth in
51.905(a) and 51.900(f). At the time Stafford County was designated
nonattainment for the 8-hour standard, it was part of a 1-hour
nonattainment area classified as severe. Therefore, two of the
elements--clean fuels for boilers under section 182(e)(3) and TCMs
during heavy traffic hours as provided under section 182(e) are not
applicable requirements for the Stafford County portion of the
Fredericksburg area. The following paragraphs discuss how the
applicable requirements have been met.
With respect to RACT and the major source applicability cut-offs
for purposes of RACT, EPA has fully approved Virginia's SIP for the
Washington 1-hour ozone nonattainment area as meeting the requirements
of sections 182(b)(2), 182(c) and 182(f) of the CAA. On March 12, 1997
(62 FR 11332), EPA fully approved Virginia's VOC RACT regulation SIP
revision for control technique guideline (CTG) sources and for non-CTG
sources which have an applicability threshold of 25 tons per year (tpy)
or more. On January 2, 2001 (66 FR 8), EPA fully approved Virginia's
NOX RACT regulation SIP revision which had a major source
applicability threshold of 50 tpy or more. On August 9, 2004 (69 FR
48150), EPA fully approved Virginia's SIP revision that lowered the
major source applicability threshold for its NOX RACT (and
Part D NSR) regulations to 25 tpy. EPA has fully approved Virginia's
SIP revisions consisting of source category and individual source RACT
determinations.\2\ See 62 FR 11332 (March 12, 1997); 62 FR 11334 (March
12, 1997); 64 FR 3425 (January 22, 1999); 66 FR 8 (January 2, 2001); 69
FR 48150 (August 9, 2004); 69 FR 54578 (September 9, 2004); 69 FR 54600
(September 9, 2004); 69 FR 59812 (October 6, 2004); and, 69 FR 72115
(December 13, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Certain sources located in Stafford County applied for and
received Federally Enforceable State Operating Permits (FESOPs) from
VADEQ which limited their emissions of VOC and NOX below
the RACT applicability thresholds. After redesignation, those FESOPs
will remain applicable requirements of the Virginia SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 1, 1999 (64 FR 47670), EPA fully approved Virginia's
I/M program to meet the enhanced program required in the Washington 1-
hour ozone nonattainment area under section 182(c)(3) of the CAA.
EPA has fully approved Virginia's SIP revisions that demonstrate
ROP reductions required in the Washington 1-hour ozone nonattainment
area. On October 6, 2000 (65 FR 59727), EPA approved Virginia's plan to
achieve the 15 percent reduction in VOC emissions in the Washington
area that was required under section 182(b) of the CAA. On May 13, 2005
(70 FR 25688), EPA fully approved Virginia's ROP plan to achieve
further ROP reductions in the Washington, area by 1999, 2002 and 2005
that were required of serious and severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment
areas under section 182(c)(2) of the CAA.
On June 23, 1994 (59 FR 32353), EPA approved Virginia's Stage II
vapor recovery program required in the Washington 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area under section 182(b)(2) of the CAA.
On December 28, 1999 (64 FR 72564), EPA fully approved Virginia's
SIP revision which substituted a national low emission vehicle (NLEV)
program for the clean fuel fleet program required in the Washington 1-
hour ozone nonattainment area under section 182(c)(4) of the CAA.
On September 11, 1995, (60 FR 47081), EPA fully approved Virginia's
SIP revision consisting of an enhanced ambient monitoring program
required in the Washington 1-hour ozone nonattainment area under
section 182(c)(1) of the CAA.
Within six years of November 15, 1990, and every three years
thereafter, section 182(c)(5) requires States to submit a demonstration
of whether current aggregate vehicle mileage, aggregate vehicle
emissions, congestion levels, and other relevant parameters
(collectively ``relevant parameters'') are consistent with those used
for the area's demonstration of attainment for serious and above 1-hour
ozone nonattainment areas. If the levels of relevant parameters that
are projected in the attainment demonstration are exceeded, a State has
18 months to develop and submit a revision of the applicable
implementation plan to include TCMs to reduce emissions to a level
consistent with emissions levels in the attainment demonstration for
the area.
Alternatively, EPA has determined that nonattainment areas are not
permanently locked into the estimates of future emissions given in the
initial SIP submittal, nor locked into those in any subsequently
approved amendment thereto. As we stated in the General Preamble, once
approved, the amended SIP revision would have the effect of increasing
the allowable motor vehicle emissions (including those due to changes
in the relevant parameters). See 57 FR 13498 at 13520 (April 16, 1992).
Thus if actual emissions exceed those projected in an area's attainment
demonstration, a State may at any time before the area reaches
attainment, amend the area's SIP to demonstrate attainment while
altering the mix of emissions reductions in its SIP from various kinds
of sources (motor vehicle versus non-motor vehicle), rather than
include TCMs in the SIP.
On August 19, 2003, Virginia submitted a SIP revision consisting of
a demonstration that the Washington 1-hour ozone nonattainment area
would attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by November 15, 2005. See 70 FR
25688 (May 13, 2005). This SIP revision contained information on the
relevant parameters current as of June 2003. On February 25, 2004,
Virginia submitted as a SIP revision a revised attainment demonstration
and plan for the Washington 1-hour ozone nonattainment area which also
showed that the Washington 1-hour ozone nonattainment area would attain
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by November 15, 2005. See 70 FR 25688 (May 13,
2005). That February 25, 2004 SIP revision contained information on the
relevant parameters current as of November 23, 2003. On May 13, 2005
(70 FR 25688), EPA fully approved Virginia's February
[[Page 66322]]
25, 2004 attainment demonstration and plan SIP revision for the
Washington 1-hour ozone nonattainment. In the February 25, 2004 SIP
revision, the relevant parameters remained consistent with the
demonstration of attainment by relying on a mix of emissions reductions
from motor vehicle and non-motor vehicle emission reduction without
need to resort to TCMs.
EPA therefore concludes that Virginia has complied with the
substance of section 182(c)(5), has no currently due 182(c)(5)
obligations, and by virtue of EPA's approval of the February 25, 2004
attainment demonstration and plan SIP revision, has never triggered an
obligation under 182(c)(5) to include TCMs in its SIP for the
Washington 1-hour ozone area. Additionally, in line with EPA's guidance
and policy regarding what is an applicable Part D requirement under
section 107 of the CAA that was discussed previously in this document,
EPA believes that any future activities, which may be required under
section 182(c)(5), e.g., the next or subsequent triennial demonstration
of the relevant parameters, for the former Washington 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area did not come due before Virginia submitted its
redesignation request and therefore are not applicable Part D
requirements with respect to the approval of Virginia's request to
redesignate the Fredericksburg area to attainment of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
On May 13, 2005 (70 FR 25688), EPA fully approved Virginia's SIP
revision for the Washington 1-hour ozone nonattainment area that
implemented the VMT provisions of section 182(d)(1) of the CAA.
With respect to NOX requirements under section 182(f) of
the CAA, as discussed above, EPA has fully approved Virginia's SIP
revision implementing the NOX RACT requirements in the
Washington 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. For the Stafford County
portion of the Fredericksburg area, EPA has fully approved, pursuant to
section 110(k), Virginia's Part D NSR program that meets the
requirements for a severe ozone nonattainment area set under Part D of
Title I of the CAA. The Virginia Part D NSR program covers major
sources of NOX as well as VOC. See 64 FR 51047 (September
21, 1999); 65 FR 21315 (April 21, 2000); and, 69 FR 48150 (August 9,
2004).
On August 9, 2004 (69 FR 48150), EPA fully approved Virginia's SIP
revision that lowered the major source applicability threshold for its
NOX RACT (and Part D NSR) regulations to 25 tpy.
On May 13, 2005 (70 FR 25688), EPA fully approved Virginia's 1-hour
ozone attainment demonstration SIP revision for the Washington 1-hour
ozone nonattainment area.
In its May 2, 2005 redesignation request, Virginia identified
certain SIP revisions as pending before EPA. As explained previously,
EPA has since approved all those SIP revisions which are applicable
Part D requirements. The remainder of these SIP revisions are not
needed to fulfill an applicable Part D requirement for the
Fredericksburg area. These other non-Part D SIP revisions propose to
amend the Virginia SIP. EPA will approve these SIP revisions only if
they meet the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations,
including but not limited to EPA's rules for the transition from the 1-
hour to the 8-hour NAAQS under 40 CFR part 51, subpart X.
Thus EPA believes that Virginia has met all applicable Part D
requirements under the 1-hour standard for purposes of redesignation
under the 8-hour standard.
3. Part D Nonattainment Area Requirements Under the 8-Hour Standard
The Fredericksburg area was designated a moderate 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. Section 182 of the CAA, found in subpart 2
of Part D, establishes additional specific requirements depending on
the area's nonattainment classification. For a moderate nonattainment
area for the 8-hour ozone standard, such as the Fredericksburg area,
section 182(b) sets forth requirements. Section 184 also sets forth
additional requirements for Stafford County, due to its location within
the Ozone Transport Region (OTR). With respect to the 8-hour standard,
EPA proposes to determine that the 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.
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
conformity, NSR, and OTR requirements as not requiring approval prior
to redesignation.
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 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) because 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, 438-440 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation.
See also 60 FR 62748 (Dec. 7, 1995, Tampa FL).
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, since PSD requirements will
apply after redesignation. The rationale for this view 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.'' Virginia has
demonstrated that the area will be able to maintain the standard
without Part D NSR in effect in the City of Fredericksburg and
Spotsylvania County, and therefore, Virginia need not have a fully
approved Part D NSR program prior to approval of the redesignation
request. Virginia's PSD program will become effective in the area upon
redesignation to attainment in the City of Fredericksburg and
Spotsylvania County. See rulemakings for Detroit, MI (60 FR 12467-
12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, OH (61 FR 20458, 20469-
70, May 7, 1996); Louisville, KY (66 FR 53665, October 23, 2001); Grand
Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837, June 21, 1996).
As to Stafford County, which is located in the OTR, nonattainment
NSR requirements will continue to be applicable. EPA has also
interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements,
[[Page 66323]]
including NSR, as not being applicable for purposes of redesignation.
The rationale for this is based on two factors. First, the requirement
to submit SIP revisions for the section 184 requirements continues to
apply to areas in the OTR after redesignation to attainment. Therefore
the Commonwealth remains obligated to have NSR, as well as RACT, and
Vehicle I/M programs in Stafford County even after redesignation.
Second, the section 184 control measures are region-wide requirements
and do not apply to the area by virtue of its designation and
classification. See 61 FR 53174, 53175-53176 (October 10, 1996) and 62
FR 24826, 24830-32 (May 7, 1997).
In any event, as discussed previously, EPA has fully approved
Virginia's RACT, I/M and Part D nonattainment NSR SIP revisions for the
Stafford County, the only part of the Fredericksburg area inside the
OTR. Also, as noted previously, Virginia's approved RACT SIP sets the
major source applicability thresholds for both VOC and NOX
at 25 tpy which are well below the 50 and 100 tpy applicability
thresholds required in the OTR for VOC sources and NOX
sources, respectively.
EPA also notes that for the Stafford County portion of the
Fredericksburg area EPA has fully approved under section 110(k)
Virginia's nonattainment NSR program that met the requirements for a
severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. See 65 FR 21315 (April 21,
2000) as amended by 64 FR 51047 (September 21, 1999) (recodification)
and by 69 FR 32928, June 14, 2004. Consequently Stafford County's
approved NSR program satisfies the NSR requirements applicable in the
OTR. Thus, EPA proposes to find that the Fredericksburg area has
satisfied all 8-hour ozone standard requirements applicable for
purposes of section 107(d)(3)(E) under Part D of the CAA.
4. The Area Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of
the CAA
EPA has fully approved the applicable Virginia SIP for the area
under section 110(k) of the Clean Air Act. 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 25425 (May 12, 2003) and citations
therein. Virginia has adopted and submitted and EPA has fully approved
at various times provisions addressing the various 1-hour ozone
standard SIP elements applicable for purposes of redesignation, in the
Stafford portion of the Fredericksburg area. As indicated above, EPA
believes that the section 110 elements not connected with nonattainment
plan submissions and not linked to the area's nonattainment status are
not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. EPA also
believes that no 8-hour Part D requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation have yet become due, and therefore they need not be
approved into the SIP prior to redesignation.
C. The Air Quality Improvement in the Fredericksburg 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 Commonwealth 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. EPA
approved Virginia's SIP control strategy for the Fredericksburg area,
including enforceable rules and the emissions reductions achieved as a
result of those rules. Emissions reductions attributable to these rules
are shown in Table 3.
Table 3.--Total VOC and NOX Emissions for 2002 and 2004 (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Point Area* Nonroad Mobile Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2002...................................... 0.563 13.487 3.545 13.054 30.649
Year 2004...................................... 0.602 14.070 3.304 11.298 29.274
Diff. (02-04).................................. 0.039 0.583 -0.241 -1.756 -1.375
------------------------------------------------
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2002...................................... 0.178 3.258 3.717 22.498 29.651
Year 2004...................................... 0.179 3.465 3.601 19.742 26.987
Diff. (02-04).................................. 0.001 0.207 -0.116 -2.756 -2.664
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Area source category includes emissions from motor vehicle refueling.
Between 2002 and 2004, VOC emissions were reduced by 1.4 tpd, and
NOX emissions were reduced by 2.7 tpd, due to the following
permanent and enforceable measures implemented or in the process of
being implemented in the Fredericksburg area:
Programs Currently in Effect
(a) National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV);
(b) Open burning restrictions for Stafford County only;
(c) CTG RACT requirements for Stafford County only;
(d) Non-CTG RACT requirements for Stafford County only;
(e) Stage I and Stage II vapor recovery requirements for Stafford
County only;
(f) Reformulated gasoline (RFG) requirements for Stafford County
only;
(g) Area source VOC regulations concerning portable fuel
containers; mobile vehicle refinishing; architectural and industrial
maintenance coatings; solvent cleaning; and, consumer products for
Stafford County only;
(h) Motor vehicle fleet turnover with new vehicles meeting the Tier
2 standards; and,
(i) Low-sulfur gasoline.
Virginia has demonstrated that the implementation of permanent
enforceable emissions controls have reduced local VOC and
NOX emissions. Nearly all of these reductions are
attributable to mobile source emission controls such as NLEV and Tier I
programs. Additionally, Virginia has indicated in its submittal that
the NOX SIP Call took effect in 2004. While there are no
subject sources currently located in the City of Fredericksburg,
Stafford County or Spotsylvania County, Virginia expects to indirectly
benefit in terms of
[[Page 66324]]
improved air quality due to this program. EPA believes that permanent
and enforceable emissions reductions are the cause of the long-term
improvement in ozone levels and are the cause of the area achieving
attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard.
D. The Fredericksburg Area Has a Fully Approvable Maintenance Plan
Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA
In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Fredericksburg
area to attainment status, Virginia submitted a SIP revision to provide
for maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the area for at least 10
years after redesignation.
1. 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, 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. Eight years after the
redesignation, the Commonwealth must submit a revised maintenance plan
demonstrating that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10
years 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.
2. Analysis of the Fredericksburg Area Maintenance Plan
(a) Attainment Inventory--An attainment inventory includes the
emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data
showing attainment. The VADEQ determined that the appropriate
attainment inventory year is 2004. That year establishes a reasonable
year within the 3-year block of 2002-2004 as a baseline and accounts
for reductions attributable to implementation of the CAA requirements
to date.
The VADEQ prepared comprehensive VOC and NOX emissions
inventories for the City of Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania County, and
Stafford County, including point (sources with emissions over 10 tons
per year or greater), area, mobile on-road, and mobile non-road sources
for a base year of 2002. All inventories are based on actual emissions
for a ``typical summer day'' and consist of a list of sources and their
associated emissions. An attainment year of 2004 was used for the
Fredericksburg area 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. Because an actual
emissions inventory for point sources has not yet been completed for
2004, the actual 2002 emissions inventory was used as a starting point
and then projected to 2004 using Economic Growth Analysis System (EGAS
5.0).
To develop the NOX and VOC base year emissions
inventories, VADEQ used the following approaches and sources of data:
(i) Point source emissions are recorded and maintained
electronically in the VADEQ's Comprehensive Environmental Data System
(CEDS). The emissions for these sources are updated annually by
collecting year-specific emissions and/or activity level information.
While developing the emissions inventory, a cutoff emissions level of
10 tpy of ozone precursor pollutants was used to determine whether a
source was included in these inventories. Smaller emissions sources
were assumed to be included in the area source emissions inventories.
(ii) Area source emissions were developed using the 2002 periodic
year stationary area source emissions inventories along with growth
factors. Before attempting to calculate the growth factors, VADEQ
determined the appropriate annual growth rate representative of each
industry or indicator. ``Growth Rate'' refers to the annual percentage
of growth that occurs in a category per year. The area source growth
rate estimates also involve the use of current local source data,
including area populations and employment data by source type.
(iii) The process of estimating on-road mobile source emissions
consists of two components: Vehicular-related activity (i.e., VMT) and
an average rate of pollutant produced as a result of a particular level
of activity. A pollutant emission rate associated with a particular
level of activity emissions were estimated using MOBILE6.2 emissions
factors. The VADEQ has provided detailed data summaries to document the
calculations of mobile on-road VOC and NOX emissions for
2002, as well as for the projection years of 2004, 2009, and 2015
(shown in tables 4 and 5 below).
(iv) Mobile non-road emissions were calculated using the NONROAD
model that incorporates EPA's recent regulations affecting these engine
types (recreational vehicles, lawn and garden equipment, and outdoor
power equipment) well into the future. The VADEQ used the NONROAD model
to calculate emissions for all nonroad engine types except for
aircraft, locomotives, and commercial marine vessels which were
inventoried separately. The VADEQ's nonroad inputs are based on the
required RFG and the Stage II vapor recovery systems in Stafford
County, while the City of Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County's non-
road inputs are based on southern-grade conventional gasoline.
The 2004 attainment year VOC and NOX emissions for the
Fredericksburg area are summarized along with the 2009 and 2015
projected emissions for this area in Tables 4 and 5 below, which covers
the demonstration of maintenance for this area. EPA has concluded that
the Commonwealth has adequately derived and documented the 2004
attainment year VOC and NOX emissions for this area.
(b) Maintenance Demonstration--On May 4, 2005, the VADEQ submitted
a SIP revision to supplement its May 2, 2005 redesignation request. The
submittal by VADEQ consists of the maintenance plan as required by
section 175A of the CAA. This 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 the Fredericksburg area through the year
2015. A maintenance demonstration need not be based on modeling. See
Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d
537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 66 FR 53094, 53099-53100 (October 19,
2001), 68 FR 25430-32 (May 12, 2003).
Tables 4 and 5 specify the VOC and NOX emissions for the
Fredericksburg area for 2004, 2009, and 2015. The VADEQ chose 2009 as
an interim year in the 10-year maintenance demonstration period to
demonstrate that the VOC and NOX emissions are not projected
to increase above the 2004 attainment level during the time of the 10-
year maintenance period.
[[Page 66325]]
Table 4.--Total VOC Emissions for 2004-2015 (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 VOC 2009 VOC 2015 VOC
Source category emissions emissions emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile \1\............................. 11.298 8.346 7.334
Nonroad................................ 3.304 2.555 2.231
Area \2\............................... 14.070 13.161 15.303
Point.................................. 0.602 0.692 0.782
------------
Total................................ 29.274 24.754 25.650
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes transportation conformity provisions.
\2\ Includes vehicle refueling emissions and the benefits of selected
local controls (Stage I, CTG RACT, and open burning).
Table 5.--Total NOX Emissions 2004-2015 (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 NOX 2009 NOX 2015 NOX
Source category emissions emissions emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile \1\............................. 19.742 12.062 7.576
Nonroad................................ 3.601 3.080 2.195
Area \2\............................... 3.465 3.926 4.742
Point.................................. 0.179 0.180 0.182
------------
Total................................ 26.987 20.248 14.695
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes transportation conformity provisions.
\2\ Includes selected local controls (open burning).
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); (January 18, 2001, 66 FR 5002); and
Non-road emissions standards (2008) and off-road diesel
fuel (2007/2010); (June 29, 2004, 69 FR 39858).
Lastly, to further improve air quality and to ensure continued
attainment by maintaining emissions in the area at or below 2004
levels, the Commonwealth of Virginia has initiated rulemaking to
implement the following programs:
Stage I Vapor Recovery requirements in Fredericksburg and
Spotsylvania;
Open burning restriction requirements in Fredericksburg
and Spotsylvania; and
VOC RACT requirements for CTG--subject sources in
Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania.
In addition to the above permanent and enforceable measures, CAIR
should have positive impacts on the Commonwealth's air quality by the
years 2009 and 2015.
Based on the comparison of the projected emissions and the
attainment year emissions along with the additional mea