Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Redesignation of the Parkersburg, WV Portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Maintenance Plan, 1474-1485 [E7-249]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
1474
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 8 / Friday, January 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare
My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI
Do not submit this information to EPA
through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI.
For CBI information in a disk or CD–
ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI
and then identify electronically within
the disk or CD–ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In
addition to one complete version of the
comment that includes information
claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment
that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
Send or deliver information identified
as CBI only to the following address:
Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document
Control Officer (C404–02), U.S. EPA,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2003–0079.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
When submitting comments,
remember to:
• Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
• Follow directions—The agency may
ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
• Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:30 Jan 11, 2007
Jkt 211001
B. Where Can I Get a Copy of This
Document and Other Related
Information?
In addition to being available in the
docket, an electronic copy of today’s
notice is also available on the World
Wide Web. A copy of today’s notice will
be posted at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/
naaqs/ozone/o3imp8hr/.
Dated: January 5, 2007.
William L. Wehrum,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air
and Radiation.
[FR Doc. E7–355 Filed 1–11–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R03–OAR–2006–0817; FRL–8267–8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; West
Virginia; Redesignation of the
Parkersburg, WV Portion of the
Parkersburg-Marietta, WV–OH 8-Hour
Ozone Nonattainment Area to
Attainment and Approval of the
Maintenance Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
a redesignation request and a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for
the Parkersburg portion of the
Parkersburg-Marietta, WV–OH interstate
area (herein referred to as the ‘‘Area’’)
from nonattainment to attainment of the
8-hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS). The West
Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection (WVDEP) is requesting that
the Wood County, West Virginia
(Parkersburg) portion of the Area be
redesignated as attainment for the 8hour ozone NAAQS. The Area is
comprised of two counties (Wood
County, West Virginia and Washington
County, Ohio). EPA is proposing to
approve the ozone redesignation request
for the Parkersburg portion of the Area.
In conjunction with its redesignation
request, the WVDEP submitted a SIP
revision consisting of a maintenance
plan for Parkersburg that provides for
continued attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for the next 12 years.
EPA is proposing to make a
determination that Parkersburg has
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based
upon three years of complete, qualityassured ambient air quality ozone
monitoring data for 2002–2004. EPA’s
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
proposed approval of the 8-hour ozone
redesignation request is based on its
determination that Parkersburg has met
the criteria for redesignation to
attainment specified in the Clean Air
Act (CAA). EPA is providing
information on the status of its
adequacy determination for the motor
vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) that
are identified in the Parkersburg
maintenance plan for purposes of
transportation conformity, and is also
proposing to approve those MVEBs.
EPA is proposing approval of the
redesignation request and of the
maintenance plan revision to the West
Virginia SIP in accordance with the
requirements of the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before February 12, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R03–OAR–2006–0817 by one of the
following methods:
A. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
B. E-mail: morris.makeba@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2006–0817,
Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality
Planning Branch,
D. Mailcode 3AP21, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
E. Hand Delivery: At the 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
Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2006–
0817. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change, and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an e-mail
comment directly to EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the
E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM
12JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 8 / Friday, January 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business
hours at the Air Protection Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
Copies of the State submittal are
available at the West Virginia
Department of Environmental
Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601
57th Street, SE., Charleston, WV 25304.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amy Caprio, (215) 814–2156, or by email at caprio.amy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’, or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Table of Contents
I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Proposing To
Take?
II. What Is the Background for These
Proposed Actions?
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation
to Attainment?
IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
V. What Would Be the Effect of These
Actions?
VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the State’s
Request?
VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets Established and Identified in the
Parkersburg Maintenance Plan Adequate
and Approvable?
VIII. Proposed Actions
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Are the Actions EPA Is
Proposing To Take?
On September 8, 2006 WVDEP
formally submitted a request to
redesignate Parkersburg from
nonattainment to attainment of the 8hour NAAQS for ozone. On September
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:30 Jan 11, 2007
Jkt 211001
8, 2006 West Virginia submitted a
maintenance plan for Parkersburg as a
SIP revision, to ensure continued
attainment over the next 12 years.
Parkersburg is comprised of Wood
County, West Virginia. Parkersburg is
currently designated as a basic 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area. EPA is
proposing to determine that Parkersburg
has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
and that it has met the requirements for
redesignation pursuant to section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is,
therefore, proposing to approve the
redesignation request to change the
designation of Parkersburg from
nonattainment to attainment for the 8hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also
proposing to approve the maintenance
plan SIP revision for Parkersburg, such
approval being one of the CAA
requirements for approval of a
redesignation request. The maintenance
plan is designed to ensure continued
attainment throughout the Area for the
next 12 years. Additionally, EPA is
announcing its action on the adequacy
process for the MVEBs identified in the
Parkersburg maintenance plan, and
proposing to approve the MVEBs
identified for volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) for transportation conformity
purposes. These MVEBs are state
MVEBs for the West Virginia portion of
the Area. In a separate submittal, the
State of Ohio is establishing MVEBs for
the remainder of this area (i.e.,
Washington County). Concurrently, the
State is requesting that EPA approve the
maintenance plan as meeting the
requirements of CAA 175A(b) with
respect to the 1-hour ozone maintenance
plan update.
II. What Is the Background for These
Proposed Actions?
A. General
Ground-level ozone is not emitted
directly by sources. Rather, emissions of
NOX and VOC react in the presence of
sunlight to form ground-level ozone.
The air pollutants NOX and VOC are
referred to as precursors of ozone. The
CAA establishes a process for air quality
management through the attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS.
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a
revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08
parts per million (ppm). This new
standard is more stringent than the
previous 1-hour ozone standard. EPA
designated, as nonattainment, any area
violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
based on the air quality data for the
three years of 2001–2003. These were
the most recent three years of data at the
time EPA designated 8-hour areas. The
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1475
Area was designated as basic 8-hour
ozone nonattainment status in a Federal
Register notice signed on April 15, 2004
and published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR
23857). On June 15, 2005, the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS was revoked in the Area
(as well as most other areas of the
country). See 40 CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR at
23996 (April 30, 2004); and see 70 FR
44470 (August 3, 2005).
The CAA, Title I, Part D, contains two
sets of provisions—subpart 1 and
subpart 2—that address planning and
control requirements for nonattainment
areas. Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as
‘‘basic’’ nonattainment) contains
general, less prescriptive requirements
for nonattainment areas for any
pollutant—including ozone—governed
by a NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which EPA
refers to as ‘‘classified’’ nonattainment)
provides more specific requirements for
ozone nonattainment areas. Some 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
Area was designated a basic 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area based upon
air quality monitoring data from 2001–
2003, and is subject to the requirements
of subpart 1.
Under 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour
ozone standard is attained when the 3year average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average
ambient air quality ozone concentration
is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e.,
0.084 ppm when rounding is
considered). See 69 FR 23857 (April 30,
2004) for further information. Ambient
air quality monitoring data for the 3year period must meet data
completeness requirements. The data
completeness requirements are met
when the average percent of days with
valid ambient monitoring data is greater
than 90 percent, and no single year has
less than 75 percent data completeness
as determined in Appendix I of 40 CFR
part 50. The ozone monitoring data
indicates that Parkersburg has a design
value of 0.082 ppm for the 3-year period
of 2002–2004 and a design value of
design value of 0.078 ppm for the 3-year
period of 2003–2005. The ozone
monitoring data indicates that Marietta
E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM
12JAP1
1476
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 8 / Friday, January 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules
has a design value of 0.084 ppm for the
3-year period of 2002–2004 and a design
value of 0.081 ppm for the 3-year period
of 2003–2005. Therefore, the ambient
ozone data for the Area indicates no
violations of the 8-hour ozone standard.
Final monitoring data for 2005 indicates
continued attainment of the 8-hour
ozone standard in the Area.
B. The Parkersburg-Marietta Area
The Area consists of Wood County,
West Virginia and Washington County,
Ohio. Prior to its designation as an 8hour ozone nonattainment area,
Parkersburg was a maintenance area for
the 1-hour ozone nonattainment
NAAQS. See rulemakings for
Parkersburg (59 FR 29977, June 10,
1994) and (59 FR 45978, September 6,
1994).
On September 8, 2006 the WVDEP
requested that Parkersburg be
redesignated to attainment for the 8hour ozone standard. The redesignation
request included 3 years of complete,
quality-assured data for the period of
2002–2004, indicating that the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS had been achieved in
Parkersburg. The data satisfies the CAA
requirements that the 3-year average of
the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration (commonly referred to as
the area’s design value) must be less
than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084
ppm when rounding is considered).
Under the CAA, a nonattainment area
may be redesignated if sufficient
complete, quality-assured data is
available to determine that the area has
attained the standard and the area meets
the other CAA redesignation
requirements set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E).
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:30 Jan 11, 2007
Jkt 211001
meeting the requirements of section
175A; and
(5) The state containing such area has
met all requirements applicable to the
area under section 110 and part D.
EPA provided guidance on
redesignation in the General Preamble
for the Implementation of Title I of the
CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16,
1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented
this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR
18070). EPA has provided further
guidance on processing redesignation
requests in the following documents:
• ‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Design Value Calculations’’,
Memorandum from Bill Laxton, June 18,
1990;
• ‘‘Maintenance Plans for
Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,’’
Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief,
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs
Branch, April 30, 1992;
• ‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,’’ Memorandum from G.
T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1,
1992;
• ‘‘Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4,
1992;
• ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Actions Submitted in Response to Clean
Air Act (Act) Deadlines,’’ Memorandum
from John Calcagni Director, Air Quality
Management Division, October 28, 1992;
• ‘‘Technical Support Documents
(TSD’s) for Redesignation Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment
Areas,’’ Memorandum from G.T. Helms,
Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide
Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;
• ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After
November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum
from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, September 17, 1993;
• Memorandum from D. Kent Berry,
Acting Director, Air Quality
Management Division, to Air Division
Directors, Regions 1–10, ‘‘Use of Actual
Emissions in Maintenance
Demonstrations for Ozone and CO
Nonattainment Areas,’’ dated November
30, 1993;
• ‘‘Part D New Source Review (Part D
NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994;
and
• ‘‘Reasonable Further Progress,
Attainment Demonstration, and Related
Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment
Areas Meeting the Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’
Memorandum from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, May 10, 1995.
IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
On September 8, 2006 the WVDEP
requested redesignation of Parkersburg
to attainment for the 8-hour ozone
standard, and submitted a maintenance
plan for Parkersburg as a SIP revision to
assure continued attainment over the
next 12 years, until 2018. Concurrently,
West Virginia is requesting that EPA
approve the maintenance plan as
meeting the requirements of CAA
175A(b) with respect to the 1-hour
ozone maintenance plan update. EPA is
proposing to approve the maintenance
plan to fulfill the requirement of section
175A(b) for submission of a
maintenance plan update eight years
after Parkersburg was redesignated to
attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
EPA believes that such an update must
ensure that the maintenance plan in the
SIP, provides maintenance of the
NAAQS for a period of 20 years after an
area is initially redesignated to
attainment. EPA can propose approval
because the maintenance plan, which
demonstrates maintenance of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS through 2018, also
demonstrates maintenance of the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS through 2018, even
though the latter standard is no longer
in effect. Parkersburg was redesignated
to attainment of the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS on September 6, 1994 (59 FR
45978), and the initial 1-hour ozone
maintenance plan provided for
maintenance through 2005. Marietta
was designated Unclassifiable/
Attainment under the 1-hour ozone
standard. See 40 CFR Part 81.336
(Revised as of July 2001). Section
51.905(e) of the ‘‘Final Rule To
Implement the 8-Hour Requirements—
Phase 1’’ April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23999),
specifies the conditions that must be
satisfied before EPA may approve a
modification to a 1-hour maintenance
plan which: (1) Removes the obligation
to submit a maintenance plan for the 1hour ozone NAAQS eight years after
approval of the initial 1-hour
maintenance plan and/or (2) removes
the obligation to implement contingency
measures upon a violation of the 1-hour
NAAQS. EPA believes that section
51.905(e) of the final rule allows a State
to make either one or both of these
E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM
12JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 8 / Friday, January 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules
modifications to a 1-hour maintenance
plan SIP after EPA approves a
maintenance plan for the 8-hour
NAAQS. The maintenance plan will not
trigger the contingency plan upon a
violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS,
but instead upon a violation of the 8hour ozone NAAQS. EPA believes that
the 8-hour standard is now the proper
standard which should trigger the
contingency plan now that the 1-hour
NAAQS has been revoked. EPA has
determined that Parkersburg has
attained the standard and has met the
requirements for redesignation set forth
in section 107(d)(3)(E).
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
V. What Would Be the Effect of These
Actions?
Approval of the redesignation request
would change the designation of
Parkersburg from nonattainment to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
found at 40 CFR part 81. It would also
incorporate into the West Virginia SIP a
maintenance plan ensuring continued
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
in Parkersburg for the next 12 years,
until 2018. The maintenance plan
includes contingency measures to
remedy any future violations of the 8hour NAAQS (should they occur), and
identifies the MVEBs for NOX and VOC
for transportation conformity purposes
for 2009 and 2018. These MVEBs are
displayed in the following table:
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ozone concentrations measured
at each monitor, within the area, over
each year must not exceed the ozone
standard of 0.08 ppm. Based on the
rounding convention described in 40
CFR part 50, Appendix I, the standard
is attained if the design value is 0.084
ppm or below. The data must be
collected and quality-assured in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and
recorded in the Air Quality System
(AQS). The monitors generally should
have remained at the same location for
the duration of the monitoring period
required for demonstrating attainment.
There are two ozone monitors in the
Area, one located in Wood County, West
Virginia and one located in Washington
County, Ohio. As part of its
redesignation request, West Virginia
submitted ozone monitoring data for the
years 2000–2005 for the Area. This data
has been quality assured and was
recorded in AQS. The fourth high 8hour daily maximum concentrations,
along with the three-year averages, are
summarized in Tables 2 and 3.
1477
the standard with a design value of
0.082 ppm for Parkersburg and a design
value of 0.084 ppm for Marietta. Also,
the air quality data for 2003–2005 show
that the entire Area is still attaining the
standard with a design value of 0.078
ppm for Parkersburg and a design value
of 0.081 ppm for Marietta. The data
collected at the Area monitors satisfy
the CAA requirement that the 3-year
average of the annual fourth-highest
daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration is less than or equal to
0.08 ppm. The WVDEP’s request for
redesignation for Parkersburg indicates
that the data were quality assured in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58. The
WVDEP uses AQS as the permanent
database to maintain its data and quality
assures the data transfers and content
for accuracy. In addition, as discussed
below with respect to the maintenance
plan, WVDEP has committed to
continue monitoring in accordance with
40 CFR part 58. In summary, EPA has
determined that the data submitted by
West Virginia and data taken from AQS
indicates that the Area has attained the
8-hour ozone NAAQS.
TABLE 2.—PARKERSBURG’S FOURTH
HIGHEST 8-HOUR AVERAGE VALUES;
WOOD COUNTY MONITOR, AQS ID
54–107–1002
B. Parkersburg Has Met All Applicable
Requirements Under Section 110 and
Part D of the CAA and Has a Fully
Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of
the CAA
Annual 4th
EPA has determined that Parkersburg
Year
high reading
has met all SIP requirements applicable
(ppm)
for purposes of this redesignation under
TABLE 1.—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS
2000 ......................................
0.087 section 110 of the CAA (General SIP
BUDGETS IN TONS PER DAY (TPD)
2001 ......................................
0.084 Requirements) and that it meets all
2002 ......................................
0.095 applicable SIP requirements under Part
Year
NOX
VOC
2003 ......................................
0.083 D of Title I of the CAA, in accordance
0.069 with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition,
2009 ......................................
4.1
3.0 2004 ......................................
0.084
2018 ......................................
2.0
1.9 2005 ......................................
EPA has determined that the SIP is fully
The average for the 3-year period 2002 approved with respect to all
VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the
through 2004 is 0.082 ppm.
requirements applicable for purposes of
State’s Request?
The average for the 3-year period 2003 redesignation in accordance with
through 2005 is 0.078 ppm.
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these
EPA is proposing to determine that
proposed determinations, EPA
the Area has attained the 8-hour ozone
TABLE 3.—MARIETTA’S FOURTH HIGH- ascertained which requirements are
standard and that all other redesignation
EST 8-HOUR AVERAGE VALUES; applicable to Parkersburg and
criteria have been met. The following is
WASHINGTON COUNTY MONITOR, determined that the applicable portions
a description of how the WVDEP’s
AQS ID 39–167–0004
of the SIP meeting these requirements
September 8, 2006 submittal satisfies
are fully approved under section 110(k)
the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E)
Annual 4th
of the CAA. We note that SIPs must be
of the CAA.
Year
high reading
fully approved only with respect to
(ppm)
A. The Parkersburg-Marietta Area Has
applicable requirements.
Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
The September 4, 1992 Calcagni
2000 ......................................
0.082
EPA is proposing to determine that
2001 ......................................
0.085 memorandum (‘‘Procedures for
the Area has attained the 8-hour ozone
2002 ......................................
0.095 Processing Requests to Redesignate
2003 ......................................
0.080 Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum
NAAQS. For ozone, an area may be
2004 ......................................
0.077 from John Calcagni, Director, Air
considered to be attaining the 8-hour
0.088 Quality Management Division,
ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, 2005 ......................................
as determined in accordance with 40
The average for the 3-year period 2002 September 4, 1992) describes EPA’s
CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of part 50,
through 2004 is 0.084 ppm.
interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E)
The average for the 3-year period 2003 with respect to the timing of applicable
based on three complete, consecutive
through 2005 is 0.081 ppm.
calendar years of quality-assured air
requirements. Under this interpretation,
The air quality data for 2002–2004
quality monitoring data. To attain this
to qualify for redesignation, states
show that the entire Area has attained
standard, the 3-year average of the
requesting redesignation to attainment
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:30 Jan 11, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM
12JAP1
1478
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 8 / Friday, January 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
must meet only the relevant CAA
requirements that came due prior to the
submittal of a complete redesignation
request. See also Michael Shapiro
memorandum, September 17, 1993, and
60 FR 12459, 12465–66 (March 7, 1995)
(redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor).
Applicable requirements of the CAA
that come due subsequent to the area’s
submittal of a complete redesignation
request remain applicable until a
redesignation is approved, but are not
required as a prerequisite to
redesignation. Section 175A(c) of the
CAA. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537
(7th Cir. 2004). See also 68 FR at 25424,
25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of
St. Louis).
1. Section 110 General SIP
Requirements
Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA
delineates the general requirements for
a SIP, which include enforceable
emissions limitations and other control
measures, means, or techniques,
provisions for the establishment and
operation of appropriate devices
necessary to collect data on ambient air
quality, and programs to enforce the
limitations. The general SIP elements
and requirements set forth in section
110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to,
the following:
• Submittal of a SIP that has been
adopted by the state after reasonable
public notice and hearing;
• Provisions for establishment and
operation of appropriate procedures
needed to monitor ambient air quality;
• Implementation of a source permit
program; provisions for the
implementation of Part C requirement
(Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD));
• Provisions for the implementation
of Part D requirements for New Source
Review (NSR) permit programs;
• Provisions for air pollution
modeling; and
• Provisions for public and local
agency participation in planning and
emission control rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs
contain certain measures to prevent
sources in a state from significantly
contributing to air quality problems in
another state. To implement this
provision, EPA has required certain
states to establish programs to address
transport of air pollutants in accordance
with the NOX SIP Call, October 27, 1998
(63 FR 57356), amendments to the NOX
SIP Call, May 14, 1999 (64 FR 26298)
and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222), and
the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR),
May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). However,
the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for
a state are not linked with a particular
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:30 Jan 11, 2007
Jkt 211001
nonattainment area’s designation and
classification in that state. EPA believes
that the requirements linked with a
particular nonattainment area’s
designation and classifications are the
relevant measures to evaluate in
reviewing a redesignation request. The
transport SIP submittal requirements,
where applicable, continue to apply to
a state regardless of the designation of
any one particular area in the state.
Thus, we do not believe that these
requirements are applicable
requirements for purposes of
redesignation. In addition, EPA believes
that the other section 110 elements not
connected with nonattainment plan
submissions and not linked with an
area’s attainment status are not
applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation. West Virginia and Ohio
will still be subject to these
requirements after the Area is
redesignated. The section 110 and Part
D requirements, which are linked with
a particular area’s designation and
classification, are the relevant measures
to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation
request. This policy is consistent with
EPA’s existing policy on applicability of
conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and
oxygenated fuels requirement. See
Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and
final rulemakings 61 FR 53174–53176
(October 10, 1996), 62 FR 24826 (May 7,
1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio,
final rulemaking 61 FR 20458 (May 7,
1996); and Tampa, Florida, final
rulemaking 60 FR 62748 (December 7,
1995). See also the discussion on this
issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio
redesignation 65 FR at 37890 (June 19,
2000), and in the Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania redesignation 66 FR at
53099 (October 19, 2001). Similarly,
with respect to the NOX SIP Call rules,
EPA noted in its Phase 1 Final Rule to
Implement the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS,
that the NOX SIP Call rules are not ‘‘an
‘applicable requirement’ for purposes of
section 110(1) because the NOX rules
apply regardless of an area’s attainment
or nonattainment status for the 8-hour
(or the 1-hour) NAAQS.’’ 69 FR 23951,
23983 (April 30, 2004).
EPA believes that section 110
elements not linked to the area’s
nonattainment status are not applicable
for purposes of redesignation. Any
section 110 requirements that are linked
to the Part D requirements for 8-hour
ozone nonattainment areas are not yet
due, because, as we explain later in this
notice, no Part D requirements
applicable for purposes of redesignation
under the 8-hour standard became due
prior to submission of the redesignation
request.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Because the West Virginia SIP
satisfies all of the applicable general SIP
elements and requirements set forth in
section 110(a)(2), EPA concludes that
West Virginia has satisfied the criterion
of section 107(d)(3)(E) regarding section
110 of the Act.
2. Part D Nonattainment Area
Requirements Under the 8-Hour
Standard
The Area was designated a basic
nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone
standard. Sections 172–176 of the CAA,
found in subpart 1 of Part D, set forth
the basic nonattainment requirements
for all nonattainment areas. As
discussed previously, there are no
outstanding Part D submittals under the
1-hour standard for this Area.
Section 182 of the CAA, found in
subpart 2 of Part D, establishes
additional specific requirements
depending on the area’s nonattainment
classification. The Area was classified
as a subpart 1 nonattainment area;
therefore, no subpart 2 requirements
apply to the Area. With respect to the
8-hour standard, EPA proposes to
determine that the West Virginia SIP
meets all applicable SIP requirements
under Part D of the CAA, because no 8hour ozone standard Part D
requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation became due prior to
submission of the Area’s redesignation
request on September 8, 2006. Because
the State submitted a complete
redesignation request for Parkersburg
prior to the deadline for any
submissions required under the 8-hour
standard, we have determined that the
Part D requirements do not apply to
Parkersburg for the purposes of
redesignation.
In addition to the fact that Part D
requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation did not become due prior
to submission of the redesignation
request, EPA believes it is reasonable to
interpret the general conformity and
NSR requirements as not requiring
approval prior to redesignation.
With respect to section 176,
Conformity Requirements, section
176(c) of the CAA requires states to
establish criteria and procedures to
ensure that federally supported or
funded projects conform to the air
quality planning goals in the applicable
SIP. The requirement to determine
conformity applies to transportation
plans, programs, and projects
developed, funded or approved under
Title 23 U.S.C. and the Federal Transit
Act (‘‘transportation conformity’’) as
well as to all other Federally supported
or funded projects (‘‘general
conformity’’). State conformity revisions
E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM
12JAP1
1479
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 8 / Friday, January 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules
must be consistent with Federal
conformity regulations relating to
consultation, enforcement and
enforceability that the CAA required the
EPA to promulgate.
EPA believes it is reasonable to
interpret the conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for
purposes of evaluating the redesignation
request under section 107(d) since state
conformity rules are still required after
redesignation and federal conformity
rules apply where state rules have not
been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.
3d 426, 438 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding
this interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748
(December 7, 1995).
EPA has also determined that areas
being redesignated need not comply
with the requirement that a NSR
program be approved prior to
redesignation, provided that the area
demonstrates maintenance of the
standard without Part D NSR in effect,
because PSD requirements will apply
after redesignation. The rationale for
this position is described in a
memorandum from Mary Nichols,
Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, dated October 14, 1994,
entitled, ‘‘Part D NSR Requirements or
Areas Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment.’’ West Virginia has
demonstrated that the Area will be able
to maintain the standard without Part D
NSR in effect in Parkersburg, and
therefore, West Virginia need not have
a fully approved Part D NSR program
prior to approval of the redesignation
request. West Virginia’s SIP-approved
PSD program will become effective in
Parkersburg upon redesignation to
attainment. See rulemakings for Detroit,
Michigan (60 FR at 12467–68);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, Ohio (61 FR
at 20458, 20469–70); Louisville,
Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 53669 October
23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan (61
FR at 31831, 31834–37, June 21, 1996).
3. Parkersburg Has a Fully Approved
SIP for the Purposes of Redesignation
EPA has fully approved the West
Virginia SIP for the purposes of this
redesignation. EPA may rely on prior
SIP approvals in approving a
redesignation request. Calcagni Memo,
p. 3; Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth
Alliance v. Browner, 144 F. 3d 984, 989–
90 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d
426 (6th Cir. 2001), plus any additional
measures it may approve in conjunction
with a redesignation action. See 68 FR
at 25425 (May 12, 2003) and citations
therein. Parkersburg was a 1-hour
maintenance area at the time of its
designation as a basic 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area on April 30, 2004.
Because Parkersburg was a 1-hour
maintenance area, all previous Part D
SIP submittal requirements were
fulfilled at the time Parkersburg was
redesignated to attainment of the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS or have been fulfilled
with the September 8, 2006 submittal of
the 8-hour maintenance plan. See
rulemakings for Parkersburg (59 FR
29977, June 10, 1994) and (59 FR 45978,
September 6, 1994). Because there are
no outstanding SIP submission
requirements applicable for the
purposes of redesignation of
Parkersburg, the applicable
implementation plan satisfies all
pertinent SIP requirements.
C. The Air Quality Improvement in the
Area Is Due to Permanent and
Enforceable Reductions in Emissions
Resulting From Implementation of the
SIP and Applicable Federal Air
Pollution Control Regulations and Other
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions
EPA believes that the State has
demonstrated that the observed air
quality improvement in the Area is due
to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the SIP, Federal
measures, and other state-adopted
measures. Emissions reductions
attributable to these rules in the Area
are shown in Table 4.
TABLE 4.—PARKERSBURG TOTAL VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR 2002 AND 2004 (TPD)
Year
Point
Area
Nonroad
Mobile
Total*
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
Year 2002 ......................................................................................
Year 2004 ......................................................................................
Diff. (02–04) ...................................................................................
1.8
2.1
+0.3
7.6
7.8
+0.2
2.8
2.8
0
4.8
4.0
¥0.8
17.0
16.7
¥0.3
0.7
0.7
0
4.9
6.2
+1.3
6.1
5.7
¥0.4
14.3
15.2
+0.9
3.0
2.9
¥0.1
1.3
1.2
¥0.1
4.4
3.6
¥0.8
10.8
9.8
¥1.0
0.2
0.2
0
5.3
5.0
¥0.3
5.7
4.9
¥0.8
105.8
82.0
¥23.8
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX )
Year 2002 ......................................................................................
Year 2004 ......................................................................................
Diff. (02–04) ...................................................................................
2.6
2.6
0
Marietta Total VOC and NOX Emissions for 2002 and 2004 (tpd)
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
Year 2002 ......................................................................................
Year 2004 ......................................................................................
Diff. (02–04) ...................................................................................
2.1
2.1
0
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Year 2002 ......................................................................................
Year 2004 ......................................................................................
Diff. (02–04) ...................................................................................
94.6
71.9
¥22.7
* Emissions not exact due to rounding.
Between 2002 and 2004, VOC
emissions in the Area were reduced by
approximately 1.3 tpd, and NOX
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:30 Jan 11, 2007
Jkt 211001
emissions in the Area were reduced by
22.9 tpd. The reductions, and
anticipated future reductions, are due to
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the following permanent and
enforceable measures.
E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM
12JAP1
1480
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 8 / Friday, January 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Programs Currently in Effect
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
(a) National Low Emission Vehicle
(NLEV);
(b) Motor vehicle fleet turnover with
new vehicles meeting the Tier 2
standards; and,
(c) Clean Diesel Program.
West Virginia has demonstrated that
the implementation of permanent
enforceable emissions controls have
reduced local VOC and NOX emissions.
Reductions in VOC are attributable to
mobile and nonroad source emission
controls such as Federally mandated
Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline Sulfur
Program and the Clean Diesel Program.
Although there are no electric
generating units (EGUs) in Wood
County, West Virginia, the WVDEP,
Division of Air Quality (DAQ) has
identified permanent and enforceable
reductions in NOX emissions from EGUs
in the Washington County, Ohio portion
of the Area. In addition, the WVDEP has
identified permanent and enforceable
reductions in NOX emissions from the
implementation of the NOX SIP call
from EGUs and large industrial boilers
located in counties adjacent to the Area,
such as Pleasant County, West Virginia.
Additionally, WVDEP has identified,
but not quantified, additional
reductions in VOC emissions that will
be achieved as a co-benefit of the
reductions in the emission of hazardous
air pollutants (HAPs) as a result of
implementation of EPA’s Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
standards.
Other regulations, such as the nonroad diesel, 69 FR 38958 (June 29,
2004), the heavy duty engine and
vehicle standards, 66 FR 5002 (January
18, 2001) and the new Tier 2 tailpipe
standards for automobiles, 65 FR 6698
(January 10, 2000), are also expected to
greatly reduce emissions throughout the
country and thereby reduce emissions
impacting the Area monitors. The Tier
2 standards came into effect in 2004,
and by 2030, EPA expects that the new
Tier 2 standards will reduce NOX
emissions by about 74 percent
nationally. EPA believes that permanent
and enforceable emissions reductions
contributed to the long-term
improvement in ozone levels and are
the cause of the Area achieving
attainment of the 8-hour ozone
standard.
D. Parkersburg Has a Fully Approved
Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section
175A of the CAA
In conjunction with its request to
redesignate Parkersburg to attainment
status, West Virginia submitted a SIP
revision to provide for maintenance of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:30 Jan 11, 2007
Jkt 211001
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in
Parkersburg for at least 12 years after
redesignation. West Virginia is
requesting that EPA approve this SIP
revision as meeting the requirements of
CAA sections 175A(a) and 175A(b).
Section 175A(a) was met with the
September 8, 2006 submission of the
maintenance plan, because it states that
Parkersburg will maintain the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after
redesignation. Section 175A(b) was met
with the September 8, 2006 submission
of the maintenance plan, because it will
replace the 1-hour ozone maintenance
plan update requirement that was due 8
years after redesignation of Parkersburg
to attainment.
Under 40 CFR 51.905(e), the EPA may
approve a SIP revision requesting the
removal of the obligation to implement
contingency measures upon a violation
of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS when the
State submits and EPA approves an
attainment demonstration for the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for an area initially
designated nonattainment for the 8-hour
NAAQS or a maintenance SIP for the 8hour NAAQS for an area initially
designated attainment for the 8-hour
NAAQS. The rationale behind 40 CFR
51.905(e) is to ensure that Parkersburg
maintains the applicable ozone standard
(the 8-hour standard in areas where the
1-hour standard has been revoked). EPA
believes this rationale analogously
applies to areas that were not initially
designated, but are redesignated as
attainment with the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Therefore, EPA intends to treat
redesignated areas as though they had
been initially designated attainment of
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and
accordingly proposes to relieve
Parkersburg of its maintenance plan
obligations with respect to the 1-hour
standard. Once approved, the
maintenance plan for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS will ensure that the SIP for
Parkersburg meets the requirements of
the CAA regarding maintenance of the
applicable 8-hour ozone standard.
What Is Required in a Maintenance
Plan?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth
the elements of a maintenance plan for
areas seeking redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment. Under
section 175A(a), the plan must
demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10
years after approval of a redesignation of
an area to attainment. Section 175A(b)
states that eight years after redesignation
from nonattainment to attainment, the
State must submit a revised
maintenance plan demonstrating that
attainment will continue to be
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
maintained for the next 10-year period
following the initial 10-year period. To
address the possibility of future NAAQS
violations, the maintenance plan must
contain such contingency measures,
with a schedule for implementation, as
EPA deems necessary to assure prompt
correction of any future 8-hour ozone
violations. Section 175A of the CAA sets
forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation
from nonattainment to attainment. The
Calcagni memorandum dated September
4, 1992, provides additional guidance
on the content of a maintenance plan.
An ozone maintenance plan should
address the following provisions:
(a) An attainment emissions
inventory;
(b) a maintenance demonstration;
(c) a monitoring network;
(d) verification of continued
attainment; and
(e) a contingency plan.
Analysis of the Parkersburg
Maintenance Plan
(a) Attainment Inventory—An
attainment inventory includes the
emissions during the time period
associated with the monitoring data
showing attainment. An attainment year
of 2004 was used for Parkersburg since
it is a reasonable year within the 3-year
block of 2002–2004 and accounts for
reductions attributable to
implementation of the CAA
requirements to date.
The WVDEP prepared comprehensive
VOC and NOX emissions inventories for
Parkersburg, including point, area,
mobile on-road, and mobile non-road
sources for a base year of 2002.
To develop the NOX and VOC base
year emissions inventories, WVDEP
used the following approaches and
sources of data:
(i) Point source emissions—There are
no EGUs in Parkersburg so
documentation of procedures for
developing ozone season day emissions
is unnecessary. For the non-EGUs
WVDEP used data supplied by facilities
that is maintained in their i-STEPs
database (a WVDEP maintained
database that contains the states point
source emission information).
(ii) Area source emissions—In order
to calculate the area source emissions
inventory the WVDEP took the annual
values from the Visibility Improvement
State and Tribal Association of the
Southeast (VISTAS) base year inventory
and derived the typical ozone summer
weekday, using procedures outlined in
the EPA’s Emissions Modeling
Clearinghouse (EMCH) Memorandum,
‘‘Temporal Allocation of Annual
Emissions Using EMCH Temporal
E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM
12JAP1
1481
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 8 / Friday, January 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Profiles, April 29, 2002.’’ This enabled
WVDEP to arrive at the ‘‘typical’’
summer day emissions.
(iii) On-road mobile source
emissions—VISTAS developed 2002 onroad mobile (highway) emissions
inventory data based on vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) updates provided by
WVDEP. VISTAS also estimated future
emissions based upon expected growth
for the future years 2009 and 2018.
However, federal Transportation
Conformity requirements dictate that
the WVDEP consult with the
Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) responsible for transportation
planning in developing SIP revisions
which may establish MVEBs. This
applies to the maintenance plan
submitted by WVDEP on September 8,
2006. Therefore, the WVDEP has
consulted with the Parkersburg MPO,
the Wood-Washington-Wirt Interstate
Planning Commission (WWW) to
develop state MVEBs for the West
Virginia portion of the Area. The WWW
provided base year and projection
emissions data consistent with their
most recent available Travel Demand
Model (TDM) results along with EPA’s
most recent emission factor model,
MOBILE6.2. The WVDEP used these
data to estimate highway emissions and,
in consultation with the WWW, to
develop highway emissions budgets for
VOC and NOX. The WWW must
evaluate future Long Range
Transportation Plans and
Transportation Improvement Programs
to ensure that the associated emissions
are equal to or less then the final
emissions budgets. The budgets are
designed to facilitate a positive
conformity determination while
ensuring overall maintenance of the 8hour NAAQS. It should be noted that
the MVEBs and budgets only represent
the Parkersburg, West Virginia (Wood
County) portion of the Area.
(iv) Mobile non-road emissions—The
2002 mobile non-road emissions
inventory was developed by WVDEP
staff using the NONROAD2005b Model.
The 2004 attainment year VOC and
NOX emissions for the Area are
summarized along with the 2009 and
2018 projected emissions in Table 5,
which cover the demonstration of
maintenance for the Area. EPA has
concluded that West Virginia has
adequately derived and documented the
2004 attainment year VOC and NOX
emissions for Parkersburg.
(b) Maintenance Demonstration—On
September 8, 2006 the WVDEP
submitted a SIP revision. The SIP
submittal by WVDEP consists of the
maintenance plan as required by section
175A of the CAA. The Parkersburg plan
shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS by demonstrating that current
and future emissions of VOC and NOX
remain at or below the attainment year
2004 emissions levels throughout
Parkersburg through the year 2018. The
Parkersburg maintenance demonstration
need not be based on modeling. See
Wall v. EPA, Supra, Sierra Club v. EPA,
Supra. See also 66 FR at 53099–53100;
68 FR at 25418, 25430–32.
Table 5 shows the Area’s VOC and
NOX emissions for 2004, 2009, and
2018. The WVDEP chose 2009 as an
interim year in the 12-year maintenance
demonstration period to demonstrate
that the overall VOC and NOX emissions
are not projected to increase above the
2004 attainment level during the time of
the 12-year maintenance period.
TABLE 5.—PARKERSBURG-MARIETTA, WV–OH NONATTAINMENT AREA SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS
[All emissions in tpd for an ozone season day]
Emissions in tpd
2004
WV 1
Point:
NOX ...........................................................................
OH 2
2009
Total
WV 1
2018
OH 2
Total
WV 1
OH 2
Total
2.6
71.9
74.5
2.6
15.1
17.7
2.8
22.0
24.8
VOC ..........................................................................
Area:
NOX ...........................................................................
2.1
2.1
4.2
1.4
2.3
3.7
1.7
2.7
4.4
0.7
0.2
0.9
0.7
0.2
0.9
0.8
0.3
1.1
VOC ..........................................................................
Nonroad: 3
7.8
2.9
10.7
7.2
2.8
10.0
8.0
2.9
10.9
NOX ...........................................................................
6.2
5.0
11.2
4.4
4.2
8.6
3.8
3.6
7.4
VOC ..........................................................................
MVEBs: 4
NOX ...........................................................................
2.8
1.2
4.0
2.4
1.0
3.4
2.0
0.8
2.8
5.7
4.9
10.6
4.1
3.6
7.7
2.0
1.8
3.8
VOC ..........................................................................
4.0
3.4
7.4
3.0
2.6
5.6
1.9
1.7
3.6
NOX ...........................................................................
15.2
82.0
97.2
11.8
23.1
34.9
9.4
27.7
37.1
VOC ..........................................................................
16.7
9.6
26.3
14.0
8.7
22.7
13.6
8.1
21.7
Total: 5
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
1 WV
emissions are total emissions for Wood County in West Virginia.
2 OH emissions are total emissions for Washington County in Ohio, as provided by Ohio EPA.
3 Nonroad includes NONROAD model results plus Commercial Marine Vessels, Railroad and Airports.
4 MVEBs for 2004 are actual; budgets established for 2009 and 2018 include 15% reallocation from the safety margin.
5 Sums may not total exactly due to rounding.
Additionally, the following mobile
programs are either effective or due to
become effective and will further
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:30 Jan 11, 2007
Jkt 211001
contribute to the maintenance
demonstration of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS:
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
• Heavy duty diesel on-road (2004/
2007) and low-sulfur on-road (2006); 66
FR 5002 (January 18, 2001); and
E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM
12JAP1
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
1482
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 8 / Friday, January 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules
• Non-road emissions standards
(2008) and off-road diesel fuel (2007/
2010); 69 FR 39858 (June 29, 2004).
In addition to the permanent and
enforceable measures, CAIR,
promulgated May 12, 2005 (70 FR
25162) should have positive impacts on
West Virginia and Ohio’s air quality.
CAIR, which will be implemented in the
eastern portion of the country in two
phases (2009 and 2015), should reduce
long range transport of ozone
precursors, which will have a beneficial
effect on air quality in the Area. West
Virgina projected to achieve a 64
percent reduction and a 62 percent
reduction in NOX emissions by 2009
and 2018, respectively in the Area. The
future year NOX emissions decreases are
largely attributable to the
implementation of CAIR which West
Virginia projects to result in a decrease
of 83 percent and 74 percent for 2009
and 2018 from EGU sources located in
Washington County, Ohio.
Currently, West Virginia is in the
process of adopting rules to address
CAIR through state rules 45CSR39,
45CSR40, and 45CSR41, which require
annual and ozone season NOX
reductions from EGUs and ozone season
NOX reductions from non-EGUs. These
rules were submitted to EPA as a SIP
revision by September 11, 2006 as
required in the May 12, 2005 (70 FR
25162) Federal Register publication.
Based upon the comparison of the
projected emissions and the attainment
year emissions, along with the
additional measures, EPA concludes
that WVDEP has successfully
demonstrated that the 8-hour ozone
standard should be maintained in the
Area.
(c) Monitoring Network—The Area
currently has two ozone monitors, one
in Wood County, West Virginia and one
in Washington County, Ohio. West
Virginia will continue to operate its
current air quality monitor (located in
Wood County) in accordance with 40
CFR part 58.
(d) Verification of Continued
Attainment—The State of West Virginia
has the legal authority to implement and
enforce specified measures necessary to
attain and maintain the NAAQS.
Additionally, Federal programs such as
Tier 2/Low Sulfur Gasoline Rule, 2007
On-Road Diesel Engine Rule, and
Federal Non-road Engine/Equipment
Rules will continue to be implemented
on a national level. These programs help
provide the reductions necessary for the
Area to maintain attainment.
In addition to maintaining the key
elements of its regulatory program, the
WVDEP proposes to fully update its
point, area, and mobile emission
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:30 Jan 11, 2007
Jkt 211001
inventories at 3-year intervals as
required by the Consolidated Emissions
Reporting Rule (CERR) to ensure that its
growth projections relative to emissions
in these areas are sufficiently accurate to
assure ongoing attainment with the
NAAQS. The WVDEP will review
stationary source VOC and NOX
emissions by review of annual
emissions statements and by update of
its emissions inventories. The area
source inventory will be updated using
the same techniques as the 2002 ozone
inventory. However, some source
categories may be updated using
historic activity levels determined from
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
data or West Virginia University/
Regional Research Institute (WVU/RRI)
population estimates. The mobile source
inventory model will be updated by
obtaining county-level VMT from the
West Virginia Department of
Transportation (WVDOT) for the subject
year and calculating emissions using the
latest approved MOBILE model.
Alternatively, the motor vehicle
emissions may be obtained in
consultation with the MPO, the WWW,
using methodology similar to that used
for Transportation Conformity purposes.
The WVDEP shall also continue to
operate the existing ozone monitoring
stations in the areas pursuant to
40CFR58 throughout the maintenance
period and submit quality-assured
ozone data to EPA through AQS.
West Virginia also commits to submit
a revision of the SIP eight years after
final approval of the State’s
redesignation request to provide for
maintenance of the NAAQS for a total
of 20 years as required by the CAA.
(e) The Maintenance Plan’s
Contingency Measures—The
contingency plan provisions are
designed to promptly correct a violation
of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. Section 175A of the Act
requires that a maintenance plan
include such contingency measures as
EPA deems necessary to ensure that the
State will promptly correct a violation
of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. The maintenance plan
should identify the events that would
‘‘trigger’’ the adoption and
implementation of a contingency
measure(s), the contingency measure(s)
that would be adopted and
implemented, and the schedule
indicating the time frame by which the
State would adopt and implement the
measure(s).
The ability of Parkersburg to stay in
compliance with the 8-hour ozone
standard after redesignation depends
upon VOC and NOX emissions in
Parkersburg remaining at or below 2004
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
levels. The State’s maintenance plan
projects VOC and NOX emissions to
decrease and stay below 2004 levels
through the year 2018. The State’s
maintenance plan lays out two
situations where the need to adopt and
implement a contingency measure to
further reduce emissions would be
triggered. Those situations are as
follows:
(i) If the triennial inventories indicate
emissions growth above the 2004
maintenance base-year inventory or if a
monitored air quality exceedance
pattern indicates that an ozone NAAQS
violation may be imminent—The
maintenance plan states that an
exceedance pattern would include, but
is not limited to, the measurement of six
exceedances or more occurring at the
same monitor during a calendar year.
The plan also states that comprehensive
tracking inventories will also be
developed every 3 years using current
EPA-approved methods to ensure that
its growth projections relative to
emissions in Parkersburg are sufficiently
accurate to assure ongoing attainment
with the NAAQS. If the inventories
indicate emissions growth above the
2004 maintenance base-year inventory
or a monitored air quality exceedance
pattern occurs, the following measure
will be implemented:
• WVDEP will evaluate existing
control measures to ascertain if
additional regulatory revisions are
necessary to maintain the ozone
standard.
(ii) In the event that a violation of the
8-hour ozone standard occurs at any
monitor in the Parkersburg-Marietta
Area—The maintenance plan states that
in the event that a violation of the ozone
standard occurs at any monitor in the
Parkersburg-Marietta Area, the State of
West Virginia, will implement one or
more of the following measures to
assure continued attainment:
• Extend the applicability of 45CSR21
(VOC/RACT rule) to include source
categories previously excluded (e.g.,
waste water treatment facilities);
• Revised new source permitting
requirements requiring more stringent
emissions control technology and/or
emissions offsets;
• NOX RACT requirements;
• Regulations to establish plant-wide
emissions caps (potentially with
emissions trading provisions);
• Stage II Vapor Recovery regulations;
• Establish a Public Awareness/
Ozone Action Day Program, a two
pronged program focusing on increasing
the public’s understanding of air quality
issues in the region and increasing
support for actions to improve the air
quality, resulting in reduced emissions
E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM
12JAP1
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 8 / Friday, January 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules
on days when the ozone levels are likely
to be high.
• Initiate one or more of the following
voluntary local control measures:
(1) Bicycle and Pedestrian Measures—
A series of measures designed to
promote bicycling and walking
including both promotional activities
and enhancing the environment for
these activities;
(2) Reduce Engine Idling—Voluntary
programs to restrict heavy duty diesel
engine idling times for both trucks and
school buses;
(3) Voluntary Partnership with
Ground Freight Industry—A voluntary
program using incentives to encourage
the ground freight industry to reduce
emissions;
(4) Increase Compliance with Open
Burning Restrictions—Increase public
awareness of the existing open burning
restrictions and work with communities
to increase compliance; and
(5) School Bus Engine Retrofit
Program—Have existing school bus
engines retrofitted to lower emissions.
The following schedule for adoption,
implementation and compliance applies
to the contingency measures concerning
the option of implementing regulatory
requirements.
• Confirmation of the monitored
violation within 45 days of occurrence;
• Measure to be selected within 3
months after verification of a monitored
ozone standard violation;
• Develop rule within 6 months of
selection of measure;
• File rule with state secretary
(process takes up to 42 days);
• Applicable regulation to be fully
implemented within 6 months after
adoption.
The following schedule for adoption,
implementation and compliance applies
to the voluntary contingency measures.
• Confirmation of the monitored
violation within 45 days of occurrence;
• Measure to be selected within 3
months after verification of a monitored
ozone standard violation;
• Initiation of program development
with local governments within
Parkersburg by the start of the following
ozone season.
(f) An Additional Provision of the
Maintenance Plan—The State’s
maintenance plan for Parkersburg has
an additional provision. That provision
states that based on the 2002 inventory
data and calculation methodology, it is
expected that area and mobile source
emissions would not exhibit substantial
increases between consecutive periodic
year inventories. Therefore, if
significant unanticipated emissions
growth occurs, it is expected that new
point sources would be the cause. West
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:30 Jan 11, 2007
Jkt 211001
Virginia regulation 45CSR29 requires
significant point source emitters in
nearby counties, including Cabell,
Wayne, Kanawha, Putnam and Wood to
submit annual emission statements
which contain emission totals for VOCs
and NOX. Any significant increases that
occur can be identified from these
reports without waiting for a periodic
inventory. WVDEP believes this will
give West Virginia the capability to
identify needed regulations by source,
source category and pollutant and to
begin the rule promulgation process, if
necessary, in an expeditious manner.
The maintenance plan adequately
addresses the five basic components of
a maintenance plan: attainment
inventory, maintenance demonstration,
monitoring network, verification of
continued attainment, and a
contingency plan. EPA believes that the
maintenance plan SIP revision
submitted by West Virginia for
Parkersburg meets the requirements of
section 175A of the Act.
VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets Established and Identified in
the Parkersburg Maintenance Plan
Adequate and Approvable?
A. What Are the Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budgets?
Under the CAA, States are required to
submit, at various times, control strategy
SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone
areas. These control strategy SIPs (i.e.,
RFP SIPs and attainment demonstration
SIPs) and maintenance plans identify
and establish MVEBs for certain criteria
pollutants and/or their precursors to
address pollution from on-road mobile
sources. In the maintenance plan the
MVEBs are termed ‘‘on-road mobile
source emissions budgets.’’ Pursuant to
40 CFR part 93 and 51.112, MVEBs must
be established in an ozone maintenance
plan. An MVEB is the portion of the
total allowable emissions that is
allocated to highway and transit vehicle
use and emissions. An MVEB serves as
a ceiling on emissions from an area’s
planned transportation system. The
MVEB concept is further explained in
the preamble to the November 24, 1993,
transportation conformity rule (58 FR
62188). The preamble also describes
how to establish and revise the MVEBs
in control strategy SIPs and
maintenance plans.
Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new
transportation projects, such as the
construction of new highways, must
‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., be consistent with)
the part of the State’s air quality plan
that addresses pollution from cars and
trucks. ‘‘Conformity’’ to the SIP means
that transportation activities will not
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1483
cause new air quality violations, worsen
existing violations, or delay timely
attainment of or reasonable progress
towards the NAAQS. If a transportation
plan does not ‘‘conform,’’ most new
projects that would expand the capacity
of roadways cannot go forward.
Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth
EPA policy, criteria, and procedures for
demonstrating and ensuring conformity
of such transportation activities to a SIP.
When reviewing submitted ‘‘control
strategy’’ SIPs or maintenance plans
containing MVEBs, EPA must
affirmatively find the MVEB budget
contained therein ‘‘adequate’’ for use in
determining transportation conformity.
After EPA affirmatively finds the
submitted MVEB is adequate for
transportation conformity purposes, that
MVEB can be used by State and Federal
agencies in determining whether
proposed transportation projects
‘‘conform’’ to the state implementation
plan as required by section 176(c) of the
CAA. EPA’s substantive criteria for
determining ‘‘adequacy’’ of a MVEB are
set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
EPA’s process for determining
‘‘adequacy’’ consists of three basic steps:
public notification of a SIP submission,
a public comment period, and EPA’s
adequacy finding. This process for
determining the adequacy of submitted
SIP MVEBs was initially outlined in
EPA’s May 14, 1999 guidance,
‘‘Conformity Guidance on
Implementation of March 2, 1999,
Conformity Court Decision.’’ This
guidance was finalized in the
Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments for the ‘‘New 8-Hour
Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards and Miscellaneous
Revisions for Existing Areas;
Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments—Response to Court
Decision and Additional Rule Change’’
on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA
consults this guidance and follows this
rulemaking in making its adequacy
determinations.
The MVEBs for Parkersburg are listed
in Table 1 of this document for 2009
and 2018. These are the projected
emissions for the on-road mobile
sources plus any portion of the safety
margin allocated to the MVEBs. These
emission budgets, when approved by
EPA, must be used for transportation
conformity determinations.
B. What Is a Safety Margin?
A ‘‘safety margin’’ is the difference
between the attainment level of
emissions (from all sources) and the
projected level of emissions (from all
sources) in the maintenance plan. The
attainment level of emissions is the
E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM
12JAP1
1484
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 8 / Friday, January 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules
level of emissions during one of the
years in which the area met the NAAQS.
The following example is for the 2018
safety margin: Parkersburg first attained
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS during the
2002 to 2004 time period. The State
used 2004 as the year to determine
attainment levels of emissions for
Parkersburg. The total emissions from
point, area, mobile on-road, and mobile
non-road sources in 2004 equaled 16.7
tpd of VOC and 15.2 tpd of NOX. The
WVDEP projected emissions out to the
year 2018 and projected a total of 13.6
tpd of VOC and 9.4 tpd of NOX from all
sources in Parkersburg. The safety
margin for 2018 would be the difference
between these amounts, or 3.1 tpd of
VOC and 5.8 tpd of NOX. The emissions
up to the level of the attainment year
including the safety margins are
projected to maintain the Area’s air
quality consistent with the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. The safety margin is the extra
emissions reduction below the
attainment levels that can be allocated
for emissions by various sources as long
as the total emission levels are
maintained at or below the attainment
levels.
Table 6 shows the safety margins for
the 2009 and 2018 years.
TABLE 6.—2009 AND 2018 SAFETY
MARGINS FOR PARKERSBURG
Inventory Year
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
2004 Attainment
2009 Interim ......
2009 Safety
Margin ...........
2004 Attainment
2018 Final .........
2018 Safety
Margin ...........
VOC
emissions
(tpd)
NOX
emissions
(tpd)
16.7
14.0
15.2
11.8
2.7
16.7
13.6
3.4
15.2
9.4
3.1
5.8
The WVDEP allocated 0.39 tpd VOC
and 0.54 tpd NOX to the 2009 interim
VOC projected on-road mobile source
emissions projection and the 2009
interim NOX projected on-road mobile
source emissions projection to arrive at
the 2009 MVEBs. For the 2018 MVEBs
the WVDEP allocated 0.25 tpd VOC and
0.27 tpd NOX from the 2018 safety
margins to arrive at the 2018 MVEBs.
Once allocated to the mobile source
budgets these portions of the safety
margins are no longer available, and
may no longer be allocated to any other
source category. Table 7 shows the final
2009 and 2018 MVEBS for Parkersburg.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:30 Jan 11, 2007
Jkt 211001
TABLE 7.—2009 AND 2018 FINAL
MVEBS FOR PARKERSBURG*
Inventory year
VOC
emissions
(tpd)
NOX
emissions
(tpd)
2.6
3.6
0.4
3.0
0.5
4.1
1.7
1.8
0.3
2.0
0.3
2.1
2009 projected onroad mobile
source projected
emissions ..........
2009 Safety Margin Allocated to
MVEBs ..............
2009 MVEBs .........
2018 projected onroad mobile
source projected
emissions ..........
2018 Safety Margin Allocated to
MVEBs ..............
2018 MVEBs .........
* Numbers not exact due to rounding.
C. Why Are the MVEBs Approvable?
The 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for
Parkersburg are approvable because the
MVEBs for NOX and VOC, including the
allocated safety margins, continue to
maintain the total emissions at or below
the attainment year inventory levels as
required by the transportation
conformity regulations.
D. What Is the Adequacy and Approval
Process for the MVEBs in the
Parkersburg Maintenance Plan?
The MVEBs for the Parkersburg
maintenance plan are being posted to
EPA’s conformity Web site concurrent
with this proposal. The public comment
period will end at the same time as the
public comment period for this
proposed rule. In this case, EPA is
concurrently processing the action on
the maintenance plan and the adequacy
process for the MVEBs contained
therein. In this proposed rule, EPA is
proposing to find the MVEBs adequate
and also proposing to approve the
MVEBs as part of the maintenance plan.
The MVEBs cannot be used for
transportation conformity until the
maintenance plan update and associated
MVEBs are approved in a final Federal
Register notice, or EPA otherwise finds
the budgets adequate in a separate
action following the comment period.
If EPA receives adverse written
comments with respect to the proposed
approval of the Parkersburg MVEBs, or
any other aspect of our proposed
approval of this updated maintenance
plan, we will respond to the comments
on the MVEBs in our final action or
proceed with the adequacy process as a
separate action. Our action on the
Parkersburg MVEBs will also be
announced on EPA’s conformity Web
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
site: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
stateresources/transconf/index.htm,
(once there, click on the ‘‘Conformity’’
button, then look for ‘‘Adequacy Review
of SIP Submissions’’).
VIII. Proposed Actions
EPA is proposing to determine that
Parkersburg has attained the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to
approve the redesignation of the
Parkersburg portion of the Area from
nonattainment to attainment for the 8hour ozone NAAQS. EPA has evaluated
West Virginia’s redesignation request
and determined that it meets the
redesignation criteria set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA believes
that the redesignation request and
monitoring data demonstrate that the
Area has attained the 8-hour ozone
standard. The final approval of this
redesignation request would change the
designation of Parkersburg from
nonattainment to attainment for the 8hour ozone standard. EPA is also
proposing to approve the associated
maintenance plan for Parkersburg,
submitted on September 8, 2006, as a
revision to the West Virginia SIP. EPA
is proposing to approve the
maintenance plan for Parkersburg
because it meets the requirements of
section 175A as described previously in
this notice. EPA is also proposing to
approve the MVEBs submitted by West
Virginia for Parkersburg in conjunction
with its redesignation request. EPA is
soliciting public comments on the
issues discussed in this document.
These comments will be considered
before taking final action.
IX. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed
action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ and therefore is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is
also not subject to Executive Order
13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001)). This action merely proposes
to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Redesignation of an area to
attainment under section 107(d)(3)(e) of
the Clean Air Act does not impose any
new requirements on small entities.
Redesignation is an action that affects
the status of a geographical area and
does not impose any new regulatory
requirements on sources. Redesignation
of an area to attainment under section
107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act does
E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM
12JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 8 / Friday, January 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
not impose any new requirements on
small entities. Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a
geographical area and does not impose
any new regulatory requirements on
sources. Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this proposed rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule
proposes to approve pre-existing
requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable
duty beyond that required by state law,
it does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Public Law 104–4). This
proposed rule also does not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000), nor
will it have substantial direct effects on
the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999), because it merely
proposes to affect the status of a
geographical area, does not impose any
new requirements on sources, or allow
the state to avoid adopting or
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:30 Jan 11, 2007
Jkt 211001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1485
Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk
and Avoidance of Unanticipated
Takings’’ issued under the executive
order. This rule proposing to approve
the redesignation of Parkersburg to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, the associated maintenance
plan, and the MVEBs identified in the
maintenance plan, does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
This rule proposing to approve the
redesignation of Parkersburg to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, the associated maintenance
plan, and the MVEBs identified in the
maintenance plan, does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Nitrogen oxides,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control, National Parks,
Wilderness Areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: January 4, 2007.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. E7–249 Filed 1–11–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM
12JAP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 8 (Friday, January 12, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1474-1485]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-249]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0817; FRL-8267-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
West Virginia; Redesignation of the Parkersburg, WV Portion of the
Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to
Attainment and Approval of the Maintenance Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a redesignation request and a
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for the Parkersburg portion of
the Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH interstate area (herein referred to as
the ``Area'') from nonattainment to attainment of the 8-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) is requesting that the
Wood County, West Virginia (Parkersburg) portion of the Area be
redesignated as attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Area is
comprised of two counties (Wood County, West Virginia and Washington
County, Ohio). EPA is proposing to approve the ozone redesignation
request for the Parkersburg portion of the Area. In conjunction with
its redesignation request, the WVDEP submitted a SIP revision
consisting of a maintenance plan for Parkersburg that provides for
continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 12 years.
EPA is proposing to make a determination that Parkersburg has attained
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based upon three years of complete, quality-
assured ambient air quality ozone monitoring data for 2002-2004. EPA's
proposed approval of the 8-hour ozone redesignation request is based on
its determination that Parkersburg has met the criteria for
redesignation to attainment specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA
is providing information on the status of its adequacy determination
for the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) that are identified in
the Parkersburg maintenance plan for purposes of transportation
conformity, and is also proposing to approve those MVEBs. EPA is
proposing approval of the redesignation request and of the maintenance
plan revision to the West Virginia SIP in accordance with the
requirements of the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 12,
2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2006-0817 by one of the following methods:
A. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions for submitting comments.
B. E-mail: morris.makeba@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0817, Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality
Planning Branch,
D. Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
E. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2006-0817. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the
[[Page 1475]]
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street, SE., Charleston,
WV 25304.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Caprio, (215) 814-2156, or by e-
mail at caprio.amy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we'',
``us'', or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Proposing To Take?
II. What Is the Background for These Proposed Actions?
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?
IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions?
VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State's Request?
VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Established and
Identified in the Parkersburg Maintenance Plan Adequate and
Approvable?
VIII. Proposed Actions
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Proposing To Take?
On September 8, 2006 WVDEP formally submitted a request to
redesignate Parkersburg from nonattainment to attainment of the 8-hour
NAAQS for ozone. On September 8, 2006 West Virginia submitted a
maintenance plan for Parkersburg as a SIP revision, to ensure continued
attainment over the next 12 years. Parkersburg is comprised of Wood
County, West Virginia. Parkersburg is currently designated as a basic
8-hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA is proposing to determine that
Parkersburg has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and that it has met the
requirements for redesignation pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(E) of the
CAA. EPA is, therefore, proposing to approve the redesignation request
to change the designation of Parkersburg from nonattainment to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve
the maintenance plan SIP revision for Parkersburg, such approval being
one of the CAA requirements for approval of a redesignation request.
The maintenance plan is designed to ensure continued attainment
throughout the Area for the next 12 years. Additionally, EPA is
announcing its action on the adequacy process for the MVEBs identified
in the Parkersburg maintenance plan, and proposing to approve the MVEBs
identified for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) for transportation conformity purposes. These MVEBs
are state MVEBs for the West Virginia portion of the Area. In a
separate submittal, the State of Ohio is establishing MVEBs for the
remainder of this area (i.e., Washington County). Concurrently, the
State is requesting that EPA approve the maintenance plan as meeting
the requirements of CAA 175A(b) with respect to the 1-hour ozone
maintenance plan update.
II. What Is the Background for These Proposed Actions?
A. General
Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather,
emissions of NOX and VOC react in the presence of sunlight
to form ground-level ozone. The air pollutants NOX and VOC
are referred to as precursors of ozone. The CAA establishes a process
for air quality management through the attainment and maintenance of
the NAAQS.
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard
of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). This new standard is more stringent
than the previous 1-hour ozone standard. EPA designated, as
nonattainment, any area violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the
air quality data for the three years of 2001-2003. These were the most
recent three years of data at the time EPA designated 8-hour areas. The
Area was designated as basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment status in a
Federal Register notice signed on April 15, 2004 and published on April
30, 2004 (69 FR 23857). On June 15, 2005, the 1-hour ozone NAAQS was
revoked in the Area (as well as most other areas of the country). See
40 CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR at 23996 (April 30, 2004); and see 70 FR 44470
(August 3, 2005).
The CAA, Title I, Part D, contains two sets of provisions--subpart
1 and subpart 2--that address planning and control requirements for
nonattainment areas. Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as ``basic''
nonattainment) contains general, less prescriptive requirements for
nonattainment areas for any pollutant--including ozone--governed by a
NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which EPA refers to as ``classified'' nonattainment)
provides more specific requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. Some
8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are subject only to the provisions of
subpart 1. Other areas are also subject to the provisions of subpart 2.
Under EPA's 8-hour ozone implementation rule, signed on April 15, 2004,
an area was classified under subpart 2 based on its 8-hour ozone design
value (i.e., the 3-year average annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-
hour average ozone concentration), if it had a 1-hour design value at
or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in the CAA for
subpart 2 requirements). All other areas are covered under subpart 1,
based upon their 8-hour design values. In 2004, the Area was designated
a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area based upon air quality
monitoring data from 2001-2003, and is subject to the requirements of
subpart 1.
Under 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when
the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ambient air quality ozone concentration is less than or equal
to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). See 69 FR
23857 (April 30, 2004) for further information. Ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet data completeness
requirements. The data completeness requirements are met when the
average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater
than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data
completeness as determined in Appendix I of 40 CFR part 50. The ozone
monitoring data indicates that Parkersburg has a design value of 0.082
ppm for the 3-year period of 2002-2004 and a design value of design
value of 0.078 ppm for the 3-year period of 2003-2005. The ozone
monitoring data indicates that Marietta
[[Page 1476]]
has a design value of 0.084 ppm for the 3-year period of 2002-2004 and
a design value of 0.081 ppm for the 3-year period of 2003-2005.
Therefore, the ambient ozone data for the Area indicates no violations
of the 8-hour ozone standard. Final monitoring data for 2005 indicates
continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard in the Area.
B. The Parkersburg-Marietta Area
The Area consists of Wood County, West Virginia and Washington
County, Ohio. Prior to its designation as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area, Parkersburg was a maintenance area for the 1-hour ozone
nonattainment NAAQS. See rulemakings for Parkersburg (59 FR 29977, June
10, 1994) and (59 FR 45978, September 6, 1994).
On September 8, 2006 the WVDEP requested that Parkersburg be
redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The
redesignation request included 3 years of complete, quality-assured
data for the period of 2002-2004, indicating that the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS had been achieved in Parkersburg. The data satisfies the CAA
requirements that the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration (commonly referred to as the
area's design value) must be less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e.,
0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). Under the CAA, a nonattainment
area may be redesignated if sufficient complete, quality-assured data
is available to determine that the area has attained the standard and
the area meets the other CAA redesignation requirements set forth in
section 107(d)(3)(E).
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?
The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA,
allows for redesignation, providing that:
(1) EPA determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS;
(2) EPA has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for
the area under section 110(k);
(3) EPA determines that the improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air
pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable
reductions;
(4) EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as
meeting the requirements of section 175A; and
(5) The state containing such area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D.
EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April
16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28,
1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing
redesignation requests in the following documents:
``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations'',
Memorandum from Bill Laxton, June 18, 1990;
``Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief,
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,'' Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas
to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992;
``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in
Response to Clean Air Act (Act) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John
Calcagni Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
``Technical Support Documents (TSD's) for Redesignation
Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from
G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17,
1993;
``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas
Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On
or After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17,
1993;
Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air
Quality Management Division, to Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10,
``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and
CO Nonattainment Areas,'' dated November 30, 1993;
``Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for
Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14,
1994; and
``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration,
and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' Memorandum from John S.
Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10,
1995.
IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
On September 8, 2006 the WVDEP requested redesignation of
Parkersburg to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard, and submitted
a maintenance plan for Parkersburg as a SIP revision to assure
continued attainment over the next 12 years, until 2018. Concurrently,
West Virginia is requesting that EPA approve the maintenance plan as
meeting the requirements of CAA 175A(b) with respect to the 1-hour
ozone maintenance plan update. EPA is proposing to approve the
maintenance plan to fulfill the requirement of section 175A(b) for
submission of a maintenance plan update eight years after Parkersburg
was redesignated to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA believes
that such an update must ensure that the maintenance plan in the SIP,
provides maintenance of the NAAQS for a period of 20 years after an
area is initially redesignated to attainment. EPA can propose approval
because the maintenance plan, which demonstrates maintenance of the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS through 2018, also demonstrates maintenance of the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS through 2018, even though the latter standard is no
longer in effect. Parkersburg was redesignated to attainment of the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS on September 6, 1994 (59 FR 45978), and the initial 1-
hour ozone maintenance plan provided for maintenance through 2005.
Marietta was designated Unclassifiable/Attainment under the 1-hour
ozone standard. See 40 CFR Part 81.336 (Revised as of July 2001).
Section 51.905(e) of the ``Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour
Requirements--Phase 1'' April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23999), specifies the
conditions that must be satisfied before EPA may approve a modification
to a 1-hour maintenance plan which: (1) Removes the obligation to
submit a maintenance plan for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS eight years after
approval of the initial 1-hour maintenance plan and/or (2) removes the
obligation to implement contingency measures upon a violation of the 1-
hour NAAQS. EPA believes that section 51.905(e) of the final rule
allows a State to make either one or both of these
[[Page 1477]]
modifications to a 1-hour maintenance plan SIP after EPA approves a
maintenance plan for the 8-hour NAAQS. The maintenance plan will not
trigger the contingency plan upon a violation of the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS, but instead upon a violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA
believes that the 8-hour standard is now the proper standard which
should trigger the contingency plan now that the 1-hour NAAQS has been
revoked. EPA has determined that Parkersburg has attained the standard
and has met the requirements for redesignation set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E).
V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions?
Approval of the redesignation request would change the designation
of Parkersburg from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81. It would also incorporate into the West
Virginia SIP a maintenance plan ensuring continued attainment of the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS in Parkersburg for the next 12 years, until 2018. The
maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy any future
violations of the 8-hour NAAQS (should they occur), and identifies the
MVEBs for NOX and VOC for transportation conformity purposes
for 2009 and 2018. These MVEBs are displayed in the following table:
Table 1.--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Tons per Day (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year NOX VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009.................................................... 4.1 3.0
2018.................................................... 2.0 1.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State's Request?
EPA is proposing to determine that the Area has attained the 8-hour
ozone standard and that all other redesignation criteria have been met.
The following is a description of how the WVDEP's September 8, 2006
submittal satisfies the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the
CAA.
A. The Parkersburg-Marietta Area Has Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
EPA is proposing to determine that the Area has attained the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining the
8-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as determined in
accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of part 50, based on three
complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality
monitoring data. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations
measured at each monitor, within the area, over each year must not
exceed the ozone standard of 0.08 ppm. Based on the rounding convention
described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the standard is attained if
the design value is 0.084 ppm or below. The data must be collected and
quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the
Air Quality System (AQS). The monitors generally should have remained
at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period required
for demonstrating attainment.
There are two ozone monitors in the Area, one located in Wood
County, West Virginia and one located in Washington County, Ohio. As
part of its redesignation request, West Virginia submitted ozone
monitoring data for the years 2000-2005 for the Area. This data has
been quality assured and was recorded in AQS. The fourth high 8-hour
daily maximum concentrations, along with the three-year averages, are
summarized in Tables 2 and 3.
Table 2.--Parkersburg's Fourth Highest 8-hour Average Values; Wood
County Monitor, AQS ID 54-107-1002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual 4th
Year high reading
(ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000.................................................... 0.087
2001.................................................... 0.084
2002.................................................... 0.095
2003.................................................... 0.083
2004.................................................... 0.069
2005.................................................... 0.084
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average for the 3-year period 2002 through 2004 is 0.082 ppm.
The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.078 ppm.
Table 3.--Marietta's Fourth Highest 8-hour Average Values; Washington
County Monitor, AQS ID 39-167-0004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual 4th
Year high reading
(ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000.................................................... 0.082
2001.................................................... 0.085
2002.................................................... 0.095
2003.................................................... 0.080
2004.................................................... 0.077
2005.................................................... 0.088
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average for the 3-year period 2002 through 2004 is 0.084 ppm.
The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.081 ppm.
The air quality data for 2002-2004 show that the entire Area has
attained the standard with a design value of 0.082 ppm for Parkersburg
and a design value of 0.084 ppm for Marietta. Also, the air quality
data for 2003-2005 show that the entire Area is still attaining the
standard with a design value of 0.078 ppm for Parkersburg and a design
value of 0.081 ppm for Marietta. The data collected at the Area
monitors satisfy the CAA requirement that the 3-year average of the
annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration
is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. The WVDEP's request for
redesignation for Parkersburg indicates that the data were quality
assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. The WVDEP uses AQS as the
permanent database to maintain its data and quality assures the data
transfers and content for accuracy. In addition, as discussed below
with respect to the maintenance plan, WVDEP has committed to continue
monitoring in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In summary, EPA has
determined that the data submitted by West Virginia and data taken from
AQS indicates that the Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
B. Parkersburg Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110
and Part D of the CAA and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k)
of the CAA
EPA has determined that Parkersburg has met all SIP requirements
applicable for purposes of this redesignation under section 110 of the
CAA (General SIP Requirements) and that it meets all applicable SIP
requirements under Part D of Title I of the CAA, in accordance with
section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA has determined that the SIP
is fully approved with respect to all requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii).
In making these proposed determinations, EPA ascertained which
requirements are applicable to Parkersburg and determined that the
applicable portions of the SIP meeting these requirements are fully
approved under section 110(k) of the CAA. We note that SIPs must be
fully approved only with respect to applicable requirements.
The September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum (``Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section
107(d)(3)(E) with respect to the timing of applicable requirements.
Under this interpretation, to qualify for redesignation, states
requesting redesignation to attainment
[[Page 1478]]
must meet only the relevant CAA requirements that came due prior to the
submittal of a complete redesignation request. See also Michael Shapiro
memorandum, September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7,
1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor). Applicable requirements of
the CAA that come due subsequent to the area's submittal of a complete
redesignation request remain applicable until a redesignation is
approved, but are not required as a prerequisite to redesignation.
Section 175A(c) of the CAA. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir.
2004). See also 68 FR at 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of
St. Louis).
1. Section 110 General SIP Requirements
Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA delineates the general
requirements for a SIP, which include enforceable emissions limitations
and other control measures, means, or techniques, provisions for the
establishment and operation of appropriate devices necessary to collect
data on ambient air quality, and programs to enforce the limitations.
The general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section
110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to, the following:
Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state
after reasonable public notice and hearing;
Provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate
procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality;
Implementation of a source permit program; provisions for
the implementation of Part C requirement (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD));
Provisions for the implementation of Part D requirements
for New Source Review (NSR) permit programs;
Provisions for air pollution modeling; and
Provisions for public and local agency participation in
planning and emission control rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to
prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has
required certain states to establish programs to address transport of
air pollutants in accordance with the NOX SIP Call, October
27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), amendments to the NOX SIP Call, May
14, 1999 (64 FR 26298) and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222), and the Clean
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). However, the
section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are not linked with a
particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that
state. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular
nonattainment area's designation and classifications are the relevant
measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The
transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to
apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular
area in the state.
Thus, we do not believe that these requirements are applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation. In addition, EPA believes
that the other section 110 elements not connected with nonattainment
plan submissions and not linked with an area's attainment status are
not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. West
Virginia and Ohio will still be subject to these requirements after the
Area is redesignated. The section 110 and Part D requirements, which
are linked with a particular area's designation and classification, are
the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request.
This policy is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability
of conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and oxygenated fuels
requirement. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings
61 FR 53174-53176 (October 10, 1996), 62 FR 24826 (May 7, 1997);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking 61 FR 20458 (May 7,
1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking 60 FR 62748 (December 7,
1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio
redesignation 65 FR at 37890 (June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania redesignation 66 FR at 53099 (October 19, 2001).
Similarly, with respect to the NOX SIP Call rules, EPA noted
in its Phase 1 Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, that the
NOX SIP Call rules are not ``an `applicable requirement' for
purposes of section 110(1) because the NOX rules apply
regardless of an area's attainment or nonattainment status for the 8-
hour (or the 1-hour) NAAQS.'' 69 FR 23951, 23983 (April 30, 2004).
EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area's
nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation.
Any section 110 requirements that are linked to the Part D requirements
for 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are not yet due, because, as we
explain later in this notice, no Part D requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour standard became due prior to
submission of the redesignation request.
Because the West Virginia SIP satisfies all of the applicable
general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section 110(a)(2),
EPA concludes that West Virginia has satisfied the criterion of section
107(d)(3)(E) regarding section 110 of the Act.
2. Part D Nonattainment Area Requirements Under the 8-Hour Standard
The Area was designated a basic nonattainment area for the 8-hour
ozone standard. Sections 172-176 of the CAA, found in subpart 1 of Part
D, set forth the basic nonattainment requirements for all nonattainment
areas. As discussed previously, there are no outstanding Part D
submittals under the 1-hour standard for this Area.
Section 182 of the CAA, found in subpart 2 of Part D, establishes
additional specific requirements depending on the area's nonattainment
classification. The Area was classified as a subpart 1 nonattainment
area; therefore, no subpart 2 requirements apply to the Area. With
respect to the 8-hour standard, EPA proposes to determine that the West
Virginia SIP meets all applicable SIP requirements under Part D of the
CAA, because no 8-hour ozone standard Part D requirements applicable
for purposes of redesignation became due prior to submission of the
Area's redesignation request on September 8, 2006. Because the State
submitted a complete redesignation request for Parkersburg prior to the
deadline for any submissions required under the 8-hour standard, we
have determined that the Part D requirements do not apply to
Parkersburg for the purposes of redesignation.
In addition to the fact that Part D requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation did not become due prior to submission of the
redesignation request, EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the
general conformity and NSR requirements as not requiring approval prior
to redesignation.
With respect to section 176, Conformity Requirements, section
176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures
to ensure that federally supported or funded projects conform to the
air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to
determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and
projects developed, funded or approved under Title 23 U.S.C. and the
Federal Transit Act (``transportation conformity'') as well as to all
other Federally supported or funded projects (``general conformity'').
State conformity revisions
[[Page 1479]]
must be consistent with Federal conformity regulations relating to
consultation, enforcement and enforceability that the CAA required the
EPA to promulgate.
EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the
redesignation request under section 107(d) since state conformity rules
are still required after redesignation and federal conformity rules
apply where state rules have not been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.
3d 426, 438 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation. See also 60
FR 62748 (December 7, 1995).
EPA has also determined that areas being redesignated need not
comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to
redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the
standard without Part D NSR in effect, because PSD requirements will
apply after redesignation. The rationale for this position is described
in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, ``Part D NSR Requirements
or Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.'' West Virginia has
demonstrated that the Area will be able to maintain the standard
without Part D NSR in effect in Parkersburg, and therefore, West
Virginia need not have a fully approved Part D NSR program prior to
approval of the redesignation request. West Virginia's SIP-approved PSD
program will become effective in Parkersburg upon redesignation to
attainment. See rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR at 12467-68);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, Ohio (61 FR at 20458, 20469-70); Louisville,
Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 53669 October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan
(61 FR at 31831, 31834-37, June 21, 1996).
3. Parkersburg Has a Fully Approved SIP for the Purposes of
Redesignation
EPA has fully approved the West Virginia SIP for the purposes of
this redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a
redesignation request. Calcagni Memo, p. 3; Southwestern Pennsylvania
Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F. 3d 984, 989-90 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall
v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), plus any additional measures it
may approve in conjunction with a redesignation action. See 68 FR at
25425 (May 12, 2003) and citations therein. Parkersburg was a 1-hour
maintenance area at the time of its designation as a basic 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area on April 30, 2004. Because Parkersburg was a 1-hour
maintenance area, all previous Part D SIP submittal requirements were
fulfilled at the time Parkersburg was redesignated to attainment of the
1-hour ozone NAAQS or have been fulfilled with the September 8, 2006
submittal of the 8-hour maintenance plan. See rulemakings for
Parkersburg (59 FR 29977, June 10, 1994) and (59 FR 45978, September 6,
1994). Because there are no outstanding SIP submission requirements
applicable for the purposes of redesignation of Parkersburg, the
applicable implementation plan satisfies all pertinent SIP
requirements.
C. The Air Quality Improvement in the Area Is Due to Permanent and
Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting From Implementation of
the SIP and Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations and
Other Permanent and Enforceable Reductions
EPA believes that the State has demonstrated that the observed air
quality improvement in the Area is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP,
Federal measures, and other state-adopted measures. Emissions
reductions attributable to these rules in the Area are shown in Table
4.
Table 4.--Parkersburg Total VOC and NOX Emissions for 2002 and 2004 (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Point Area Nonroad Mobile Total*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2002................................. 1.8 7.6 2.8 4.8 17.0
Year 2004................................. 2.1 7.8 2.8 4.0 16.7
Diff. (02-04)............................. +0.3 +0.2 0 -0.8 -0.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2002................................. 2.6 0.7 4.9 6.1 14.3
Year 2004................................. 2.6 0.7 6.2 5.7 15.2
Diff. (02-04)............................. 0 0 +1.3 -0.4 +0.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marietta Total VOC and NOX Emissions for 2002 and 2004 (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2002................................. 2.1 3.0 1.3 4.4 10.8
Year 2004................................. 2.1 2.9 1.2 3.6 9.8
Diff. (02-04)............................. 0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.8 -1.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2002................................. 94.6 0.2 5.3 5.7 105.8
Year 2004................................. 71.9 0.2 5.0 4.9 82.0
Diff. (02-04)............................. -22.7 0 -0.3 -0.8 -23.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Emissions not exact due to rounding.
Between 2002 and 2004, VOC emissions in the Area were reduced by
approximately 1.3 tpd, and NOX emissions in the Area were
reduced by 22.9 tpd. The reductions, and anticipated future reductions,
are due to the following permanent and enforceable measures.
[[Page 1480]]
Programs Currently in Effect
(a) National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV);
(b) Motor vehicle fleet turnover with new vehicles meeting the Tier
2 standards; and,
(c) Clean Diesel Program.
West Virginia has demonstrated that the implementation of permanent
enforceable emissions controls have reduced local VOC and
NOX emissions. Reductions in VOC are attributable to mobile
and nonroad source emission controls such as Federally mandated Tier 2
Vehicle and Gasoline Sulfur Program and the Clean Diesel Program.
Although there are no electric generating units (EGUs) in Wood
County, West Virginia, the WVDEP, Division of Air Quality (DAQ) has
identified permanent and enforceable reductions in NOX
emissions from EGUs in the Washington County, Ohio portion of the Area.
In addition, the WVDEP has identified permanent and enforceable
reductions in NOX emissions from the implementation of the
NOX SIP call from EGUs and large industrial boilers located
in counties adjacent to the Area, such as Pleasant County, West
Virginia.
Additionally, WVDEP has identified, but not quantified, additional
reductions in VOC emissions that will be achieved as a co-benefit of
the reductions in the emission of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) as a
result of implementation of EPA's Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT) standards.
Other regulations, such as the non-road diesel, 69 FR 38958 (June
29, 2004), the heavy duty engine and vehicle standards, 66 FR 5002
(January 18, 2001) and the new Tier 2 tailpipe standards for
automobiles, 65 FR 6698 (January 10, 2000), are also expected to
greatly reduce emissions throughout the country and thereby reduce
emissions impacting the Area monitors. The Tier 2 standards came into
effect in 2004, and by 2030, EPA expects that the new Tier 2 standards
will reduce NOX emissions by about 74 percent nationally.
EPA believes that permanent and enforceable emissions reductions
contributed to the long-term improvement in ozone levels and are the
cause of the Area achieving attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard.
D. Parkersburg Has a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to
Section 175A of the CAA
In conjunction with its request to redesignate Parkersburg to
attainment status, West Virginia submitted a SIP revision to provide
for maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Parkersburg for at least
12 years after redesignation. West Virginia is requesting that EPA
approve this SIP revision as meeting the requirements of CAA sections
175A(a) and 175A(b). Section 175A(a) was met with the September 8, 2006
submission of the maintenance plan, because it states that Parkersburg
will maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after
redesignation. Section 175A(b) was met with the September 8, 2006
submission of the maintenance plan, because it will replace the 1-hour
ozone maintenance plan update requirement that was due 8 years after
redesignation of Parkersburg to attainment.
Under 40 CFR 51.905(e), the EPA may approve a SIP revision
requesting the removal of the obligation to implement contingency
measures upon a violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS when the State
submits and EPA approves an attainment demonstration for the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for an area initially designated nonattainment for the 8-
hour NAAQS or a maintenance SIP for the 8-hour NAAQS for an area
initially designated attainment for the 8-hour NAAQS. The rationale
behind 40 CFR 51.905(e) is to ensure that Parkersburg maintains the
applicable ozone standard (the 8-hour standard in areas where the 1-
hour standard has been revoked). EPA believes this rationale
analogously applies to areas that were not initially designated, but
are redesignated as attainment with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Therefore,
EPA intends to treat redesignated areas as though they had been
initially designated attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and
accordingly proposes to relieve Parkersburg of its maintenance plan
obligations with respect to the 1-hour standard. Once approved, the
maintenance plan for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS will ensure that the SIP
for Parkersburg meets the requirements of the CAA regarding maintenance
of the applicable 8-hour ozone standard.
What Is Required in a Maintenance Plan?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
Under section 175A(a), the plan must demonstrate continued attainment
of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after approval of a
redesignation of an area to attainment. Section 175A(b) states that
eight years after redesignation from nonattainment to attainment, the
State must submit a revised maintenance plan demonstrating that
attainment will continue to be maintained for the next 10-year period
following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility of
future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such
contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation, as EPA deems
necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 8-hour ozone
violations. Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a
maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment. The Calcagni memorandum dated September 4, 1992, provides
additional guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. An ozone
maintenance plan should address the following provisions:
(a) An attainment emissions inventory;
(b) a maintenance demonstration;
(c) a monitoring network;
(d) verification of continued attainment; and
(e) a contingency plan.
Analysis of the Parkersburg Maintenance Plan
(a) Attainment Inventory--An attainment inventory includes the
emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data
showing attainment. An attainment year of 2004 was used for Parkersburg
since it is a reasonable year within the 3-year block of 2002-2004 and
accounts for reductions attributable to implementation of the CAA
requirements to date.
The WVDEP prepared comprehensive VOC and NOX emissions
inventories for Parkersburg, including point, area, mobile on-road, and
mobile non-road sources for a base year of 2002.
To develop the NOX and VOC base year emissions
inventories, WVDEP used the following approaches and sources of data:
(i) Point source emissions--There are no EGUs in Parkersburg so
documentation of procedures for developing ozone season day emissions
is unnecessary. For the non-EGUs WVDEP used data supplied by facilities
that is maintained in their i-STEPs database (a WVDEP maintained
database that contains the states point source emission information).
(ii) Area source emissions--In order to calculate the area source
emissions inventory the WVDEP took the annual values from the
Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast
(VISTAS) base year inventory and derived the typical ozone summer
weekday, using procedures outlined in the EPA's Emissions Modeling
Clearinghouse (EMCH) Memorandum, ``Temporal Allocation of Annual
Emissions Using EMCH Temporal
[[Page 1481]]
Profiles, April 29, 2002.'' This enabled WVDEP to arrive at the
``typical'' summer day emissions.
(iii) On-road mobile source emissions--VISTAS developed 2002 on-
road mobile (highway) emissions inventory data based on vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) updates provided by WVDEP. VISTAS also estimated future
emissions based upon expected growth for the future years 2009 and
2018. However, federal Transportation Conformity requirements dictate
that the WVDEP consult with the Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) responsible for transportation planning in developing SIP
revisions which may establish MVEBs. This applies to the maintenance
plan submitted by WVDEP on September 8, 2006. Therefore, the WVDEP has
consulted with the Parkersburg MPO, the Wood-Washington-Wirt Interstate
Planning Commission (WWW) to develop state MVEBs for the West Virginia
portion of the Area. The WWW provided base year and projection
emissions data consistent with their most recent available Travel
Demand Model (TDM) results along with EPA's most recent emission factor
model, MOBILE6.2. The WVDEP used these data to estimate highway
emissions and, in consultation with the WWW, to develop highway
emissions budgets for VOC and NOX. The WWW must evaluate
future Long Range Transportation Plans and Transportation Improvement
Programs to ensure that the associated emissions are equal to or less
then the final emissions budgets. The budgets are designed to
facilitate a positive conformity determination while ensuring overall
maintenance of the 8-hour NAAQS. It should be noted that the MVEBs and
budgets only represent the Parkersburg, West Virginia (Wood County)
portion of the Area.
(iv) Mobile non-road emissions--The 2002 mobile non-road emissions
inventory was developed by WVDEP staff using the NONROAD2005b Model.
The 2004 attainment year VOC and NOX emissions for the
Area are summarized along with the 2009 and 2018 projected emissions in
Table 5, which cover the demonstration of maintenance for the Area. EPA
has concluded that West Virginia has adequately derived and documented
the 2004 attainment year VOC and NOX emissions for
Parkersburg.
(b) Maintenance Demonstration--On September 8, 2006 the WVDEP
submitted a SIP revision. The SIP submittal by WVDEP consists of the
maintenance plan as required by section 175A of the CAA. The
Parkersburg plan shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by
demonstrating that current and future emissions of VOC and
NOX remain at or below the attainment year 2004 emissions
levels throughout Parkersburg through the year 2018. The Parkersburg
maintenance demonstration need not be based on modeling. See Wall v.
EPA, Supra, Sierra Club v. EPA, Supra. See also 66 FR at 53099-53100;
68 FR at 25418, 25430-32.
Table 5 shows the Area's VOC and NOX emissions for 2004,
2009, and 2018. The WVDEP chose 2009 as an interim year in the 12-year
maintenance demonstration period to demonstrate that the overall VOC
and NOX emissions are not projected to increase above the
2004 attainment level during the time of the 12-year maintenance
period.
Table 5.--Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH Nonattainment Area Summary of Emissions
[All emissions in tpd for an ozone season day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions in tpd
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 2009 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WV \1\ OH \2\ Total WV \1\ OH \2\ Total WV \1\ OH \2\ Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point:
NOX........................ 2.6 71.9 74.5 2.6 15.1 17.7 2.8 22.0 24.8
VOC........................ 2.1 2.1 4.2 1.4 2.3 3.7 1.7 2.7 4.4
Area:
NOX........................ 0.7 0.2 0.9 0.7 0.2 0.9 0.8 0.3 1.1
VOC........................ 7.8 2.9 10.7 7.2 2.8 10.0 8.0 2.9 10.9
Nonroad: \3\
NOX........................ 6.2 5.0 11.2 4.4 4.2 8.6 3.8 3.6 7.4
VOC........................ 2.8 1.2 4.0 2.4 1.0 3.4 2.0 0.8 2.8
MVEBs: \4\
NOX........................ 5.7 4.9 10.6 4.1 3.6 7.7 2.0 1.8 3.8
VOC........................ 4.0 3.4 7.4 3.0 2.6 5.6 1.9 1.7 3.6
��������������������������������
Total: \5\
NOX........................ 15.2 82.0 97.2 11.8 23.1 34.9 9.4 27.7 37.1
VOC........................ 16.7 9.6 26.3 14.0 8.7 22.7 13.6 8.1 21.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ WV emissions are total emissions for Wood County in West Virginia.
\2\ OH emissions are total emissions for Washington County in Ohio, as provided by Ohio EPA.
\3\ Nonroad includes NONROAD model results plus Commercial Marine Vessels, Railroad and Airports.
\4\ MVEBs for 2004 are actual; budgets established for 2009 and 2018 include 15% reallocation from the safety
margin.
\5\ Sums may not total exactly due to rounding.
Additionally, the following mobile programs are either effective or
due to become effective and will further contribute to the maintenance
demonstration of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS:
Heavy duty diesel on-road (2004/2007) and low-sulfur on-
road (2006); 66 FR 5002 (January 18, 2001); and
[[Page 1482]]
Non-road emissions standards (2008) and off-road diesel
fuel (2007/2010); 69 FR 39858 (June 29, 2004).
In addition to the permanent and enforceable measures, CAIR,
promulgated May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162) should have positive impacts on
West Virginia and Ohio's air quality. CAIR, which will be implemented
in the eastern portion of the country in two phases (2009 and 2015),
should reduce long range transport of ozone precursors, which will have
a beneficial effect on air quality in the Area. West Virgina projected
to achieve a 64 percent reduction and a 62 percent reduction in
NOX emissions by 2009 and 2018, respectively in the Area.
The future year NOX emissions decreases are largely
attributable to the implementation of CAIR which West Virginia projects
to result in a decrease of 83 percent and 74 percent for 2009 and 2018
from EGU sources located in Washington County, Ohio.
Currently, West Virginia is in the process of adopting rules to
address CAIR through state rules 45CSR39, 45CSR40, and 45CSR41, which
require annual and ozone season NOX reductions from EGUs and
ozone season NOX reductions from non-EGUs. These rules were
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision by September 11, 2006 as required in
the May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162) Federal Register publication.
Based upon the comparison of the projected emissions and the
attainment year emissions, along with the additional measures, EPA
concludes that WVDEP has successfully demonstrated that the 8-hour
ozone standard should be maintained in the Area.
(c) Monitoring Network--The Area currently has two ozone monitors,
one in Wood County, West Virginia and one in Washington County, Ohio.
West Virginia will continue to operate its current air quality monitor
(located in Wood County) in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
(d) Verification of Continued Attainment--The State of West
Virginia has the legal authority to implement and enforce specified
measures necessary to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Additionally,
Federal programs such as Tier 2/Low Sulfur Gasoline Rule, 2007 On-Road
Diesel Engine Rule, and Federal Non-road Engine/Equipment Rules will
continue to be implemented on a national level. These programs help
provide the reductions necessary for the Area to maintain attainment.
In addition to maintaining the key elements of its regulatory
program, the WVDEP proposes to fully update its point, area, and mobile
emission inventories at 3-year intervals as required by the
Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR) to ensure that its growth
projections relative to emissions in these areas are sufficiently
accurate to assure ongoing attainment with the NAAQS. The WVDEP will
review stationary source VOC and NOX emissions by review of
annual emissions statements and by update of its emissions inventories.
The area source inventory will be updated using the same techniques as
the 2002 ozone inventory. However, some source categories may be
updated using historic activity levels determined from Bureau of
Economic Analysis (BEA) data or West Virginia University/Regional
Research Institute (WVU/RRI) population estimates. The mobile source
inventory model will be updated by obtaining county-level VMT from the
West Virginia Department of Transportation (WVDOT) for the subject year
and calculating emissions using the latest approved MOBILE model.
Alternatively, the motor vehicle emissions may be obtained in
consultation with the MPO, the WWW, using methodology similar to that
used for Transportation Conformity purposes.
The WVDEP shall also continue to operate the existing ozone
monitoring stations in the areas pursuant to 40CFR58 throughout the
maintenance period and submit quality-assured ozone data to EPA through
AQS.
West Virginia also commits to submit a revision of the SIP eight
years after final approval of the State's redesignation request to
provide for maintenance of the NAAQS for a total of 20 years as
required by the CAA.
(e) The Maintenance Plan's Contingency Measures--The contingency
plan provisions are designed to promptly correct a violation of the
NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. Section 175A of the Act requires
that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to ensure that the State will promptly correct a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should
identify the events that would ``trigger'' the adoption and
implementation of a contingency measure(s), the contingency measure(s)
that would be adopted and implemented, and the schedule indicating the
time frame by which the State would adopt and implement the measure(s).
The ability of Parkersburg to stay in compliance with the 8-hour
ozone standard after redesignation depends upon VOC and NOX
emissions in Parkersburg remaining at or below 2004 levels. The State's
maintenance plan projects VOC and NOX emissions to decrease
and stay below 2004 levels through the year 2018. The State's
maintenance plan lays out two situations where the need to adopt and
implement a contingency measure to further reduce emissions would be
triggered. Those situations are as follows:
(i) If the triennial inventories indicate emissions growth above
the 2004 maintenance base-year inventory or if a monitored air quality
exceedance pattern indicates that an ozone NAAQS violation may be
imminent--The maintenance plan states that an exceedance pattern would
include, but is not limited to, the measurement of six exceedances or
more occurring at the same monitor during a calendar year. The plan
also states that comprehensive tracking inventories will also be
developed every 3 years using current EPA-approved methods to ensure
that its growth projections relative to emissions in Parkersburg are
sufficiently accurate to assure ongoing attainment with the NAAQS. If
the inventories indicate emissions growth above the 2004 maintenance
base-year inventory or a monitored air quality exceedance pattern
occurs, the following measure will be implemented:
WVDEP will evaluate existing control measures to ascertain
if additional regulatory revisions are necessary to maintain the ozone
standard.
(ii) In the event that a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard
occurs at any monitor in the Parkersburg-Marietta Area--The maintenance
plan states that in the event that a violation of the ozone standard
occurs at any monitor in the Parkersburg-Marietta Area, the State of
West Virginia, will implement one or more of the following measures to
assure continued attainment:
Extend the applicability of 45CSR21 (VOC/RACT rule) to
include source categories previously excluded (e.g., waste water
treatment facilities);
Revised new source permitting requirements requiring more
stringent emissions control technology and/or emissions offsets;
NOX RACT requirements;
Regulations to establish plant-wide emissions caps
(potentially with emissions trading provisions);
Stage II Vapor Recovery regulations;
Establish a Public Awareness/Ozone Action Day Program, a
two pronged program focusing on increasing the public's understanding
of air quality issues in the region and increasing support for actions
to improve the air quality, resulting in reduced emissions
[[Page 1483]]
on days when the ozone levels are likely to be high.
Initiate one or more of the following voluntary local
control measures:
(1) Bicycle and Pedestrian Measures--A series of measures designed
to promote bicycling and walking including both promotional activities
and enhancing the environment for these activities;
(2) Reduce Engine Idling--Voluntary programs to restrict heavy duty
diesel engine idling times for both trucks and school buses;
(3) Voluntary Partnership with Ground Freight Industry--A voluntary
program using incentives to encourage the ground freight industry to
reduce emissions;
(4) Increase Compliance with Open Burning Restrictions--Increase
public awareness of the existing open burning restrictions and work
with communities to increase compliance; and
(5) School Bus Engine Retrofit Program--Have existing school bus
engines retrofitted to lower emissions.
The following schedule for adoption, implementation and compliance
applies to the contingency measures concerning the option of
implementing regulatory requirements.
Confirmation of the monitored violation within 45 days of
occurrence;
Measure to be selected within 3 months after verification
of a monitored ozone standard violation;
Develop rule within 6 months of selection of measure;
File rule with state secretary (process takes up to 42
days);
Applicable regulation to be fully implemented within 6
months after adoption.
The following schedule for adoption, implementation and compliance
applies to the voluntary contingency measures.
Confirmation of the monitored violation within 45 days of
occurrence;
Measure to be selected within 3 months after verification
of a monitored ozone standard violation;
Initiation of program deve
