Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Redesignation of the Richmond-Petersburg 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area To Attainment and Approval of the Associated Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory, 18434-18446 [E7-7018]
Download as PDF
18434
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 70 / Thursday, April 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2.—CALCULATED ALLOWABLE AVERAGE QUARTERLY OPACITY LEVELS, FOR VARIOUS STARTUP, SHUTDOWN, LOAD
CHANGE, AND RATE CHANGE DURATIONS (T1), USING ALABAMA’S CURRENT SIP-APPROVED RULE AND THE PROPOSED SIP REVISION WITH RECOMMENDED CHANGES SPECIFIED
Calculated allowable average quarterly opacity (percent) for various startup, shutdown, load change and rate change durations (T1)
T1 = 0
Current SIP Approved Rule .............................................
2003 ADEM Submittal with Recommended Changes
Specified .......................................................................
Therefore, by incorporating these
recommended changes, Alabama would
reduce uncertainties related to whether
such a change could interfere with
attainment, RFP or any other
requirement of the Act. Accordingly, we
conclude that the revision of Alabama’s
SIP rule to incorporate the 2003 ADEM
submittal with our recommended
changes specified in this action would
not interfere with requirements of the
CAA and would be approvable. Further
details of this analysis are contained in
the technical support document.
VII. What Happens Next?
EPA anticipates Alabama will submit
a revised rule revision reflecting the
changes discussed in section IV above.
If Alabama’s revised rule is submitted
and considered approvable, after
considering any comments received on
today’s proposed approval, EPA will
publish a final rule in the Federal
Register approving the State’s requested
rule revision and will also address in
that rulemaking any comments received
on this proposed approval. In addition,
we plan to develop further criteria to aid
EPA Regional Offices in evaluating
future revisions to rules such as
Alabama’s and, in this regard, we expect
to publish in the near future a request
for information that will assist us in that
effort.
VIII. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the
Visible Emissions portion of a SIP
revision submitted to EPA by Alabama
on September 11, 2003, provided it is
revised as described in section IV of this
action and submitted as a SIP revision
in accordance with the requirements of
the CAA.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:48 Apr 11, 2007
Jkt 211001
T1 = 1,000
T1 = 10,000
T1 = 17,520
T1 = 19,710
T1 = 21,900
22.00
25.65
58.53
86.00
94.00
100.00
21.60
25.18
57.40
84.32
92.16
100.00
13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This proposed action merely
proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements, and
imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, I hereby certify 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 action proposes to
approve 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
tribal implications because it will not
have a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 97249, November 9, 2000). This
proposed action also does not have
Federalism implications because it does
not 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). This action merely
proposes to approve State rule as
consistent with Federal standards, and
does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA.
This proposed rule also is not subject to
Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), because it is not
economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. 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 CAA. 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. This proposed rule 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 in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: April 4, 2007.
J.I. Palmer, Jr.,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. E7–6948 Filed 4–11–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R03–OAR–2006–0917; FRL–8298–3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;
Redesignation of the RichmondPetersburg 8-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area To Attainment and
Approval of the Associated
Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year
Inventory
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 70 / Thursday, April 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
a redesignation request and State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the Commonwealth of
Virginia. The Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (VADEQ) is
requesting that the RichmondPetersburg ozone nonattainment area
(‘‘Richmond Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’) be
redesignated as attainment for the 8hour ozone national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS). The Area is
comprised of the Cities of Petersburg,
Colonial Heights, Hopewell, and
Richmond, and the Counties of Prince
George, Chesterfield, Hanover, Henrico,
and Charles City. EPA is proposing to
approve the ozone redesignation request
for the Richmond Area. In conjunction
with its redesignation request, the
Commonwealth submitted a SIP
revision consisting of a maintenance
plan for the Richmond Area that
provides for continued attainment of the
8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10
years after redesignation. EPA is
proposing to make a determination that
the Richmond Area has attained the 8hour ozone NAAQS, based upon three
years of complete, quality-assured
ambient air quality monitoring data for
2003–2005. EPA’s proposed approval of
the 8-hour ozone redesignation request
is based on its determination that the
Richmond Area has met the criteria for
redesignation to attainment specified in
the Clean Air Act (CAA). In addition,
the Commonwealth of Virginia has also
submitted a 2002 base-year inventory
for the Richmond Area, and EPA is
proposing to approve that inventory for
the Richmond Area as a SIP revision.
EPA is also providing information on
the status of its adequacy determination
for the motor vehicle emission budgets
(MVEBs) that are identified in the
maintenance plan for the Richmond
Area 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 and 2002
base-year inventory SIP revisions in
accordance with the requirements of the
CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before May 14, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R03–OAR–2006–0917 by one of the
following methods:
A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
B. E-mail: morris.makeba@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2006–0917,
Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:48 Apr 11, 2007
Jkt 211001
Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
D. 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–
0917. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change, and may be
made available online at https://
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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18435
available at the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality, 629 East Main
Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amy Caprio, (215) 814–2156, or by email at caprio.amy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What 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
Commonwealth’s Request?
VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets Established and Identified in the
Maintenance Plan for the Richmond
Area Adequate and Approvable?
VIII. Proposed Actions
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Are the Actions EPA Is
Proposing To Take?
On September 20, 2006 the VADEQ
formally submitted a request to
redesignate the Richmond Area from
nonattainment to attainment of the 8hour NAAQS for ozone. On September
25, 2006 Virginia submitted a
maintenance plan for the Richmond
Area as a SIP revision to ensure
continued attainment in the Area over
the next 11 years. VADEQ also
submitted a 2002 base-year inventory
for the Richmond Area as a SIP revision
on September 18, 2006 and supplements
to the base-year inventory submittal on
November 17, 2006 and February 13,
2007. The Richmond Area is comprised
of the Cities of Petersburg, Colonial
Heights, Hopewell, and Richmond, and
the Counties of Prince George,
Chesterfield, Hanover, Henrico, and
Charles City. It is currently designated
a marginal 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area. EPA is proposing to determine that
the Richmond Area has attained the 8hour ozone NAAQS and that it has met
the requirements for redesignation
pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(E) of the
CAA. EPA is, therefore, proposing to
approve the redesignation request to
change the designation of the Richmond
Area from nonattainment to attainment
for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is
also proposing to approve the Richmond
maintenance plan as a SIP revision for
the Area (such approval being one of the
CAA criteria for redesignation to
attainment status). The maintenance
plan is designed to ensure continued
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
18436
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 70 / Thursday, April 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules
attainment in the Richmond Area for the
next 11 years. Concurrently, the
Commonwealth is requesting that this 8hour maintenance plan supersede the
previous 1-hour maintenance plan. EPA
is also proposing to approve the 2002
base-year inventory for the Richmond
Area as a SIP revision. Additionally,
EPA is announcing its action on the
adequacy process for the MVEBs
identified in the Richmond maintenance
plan, and proposing to approve the
MVEBs identified for volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) for the Richmond Area for
transportation conformity purposes.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
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 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
Richmond Area was designated a
marginal 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area in a Federal Register notice signed
on April 15, 2004 and published on
April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), based on
its exceedance of the 8-hour healthbased standard for ozone during the
years 2001–2003. On April 30, 2004,
EPA issued a final rule (69 FR 23951,
23996) to revoke the
1-hour ozone NAAQS in the Richmond
Area (as well as most other areas of the
country) effective June 15, 2005. See 40
CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR at 23996 (April 30,
2004); and see 70 FR 44470 (August 3,
2005).
However, on December 22, 2006, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated EPA’s Phase 1
Implementation Rule for the 8-hour
Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23951, April 30,
2004). South Coast Air Quality
Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882
(D.C. Cir. 2006) (hereafter ‘‘South
Coast.’’). The Court held that certain
provisions of EPA’s Phase I Rule were
inconsistent with the requirements of
the Clean Air Act. The Court rejected
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:48 Apr 11, 2007
Jkt 211001
EPA’s reasons for implementing the 8hour standard in nonattainment areas
under Subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2 of
Title I, part D of the Act. The Court also
held that EPA improperly failed to
retain four measures required for 1-hour
nonattainment areas under the antibacksliding provisions of the
regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New
Source Review (NSR) requirements
based on an area’s 1-hour nonattainment
classification; (2) Section 185 penalty
fees for 1-hour severe or extreme
nonattainment areas; (3) measures to be
implemented pursuant to section
172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act, on the
contingency of an area not making
reasonable further progress toward
attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for
failure to attain that NAAQS; and (4) the
certain conformity requirements for
certain types of federal. The Court
upheld EPA’s authority to revoke the
1-hour standard provided there were
adequate anti-backsliding provisions.
Elsewhere in this document, mainly in
section VI. B. ‘‘The Richmond Area 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
discusses its rationale why the decision
in South Coast is not an impediment to
redesignating the Richmond Area to
attainment of 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
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. In 2004, the
Richmond Area was classified a
marginal 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area based on air quality monitoring
data from 2001–2003. Therefore, the
Richmond Area is subject to the
requirements of subpart 2 of part D.
Under 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour
ozone standard is attained when the
3-year average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average
ambient air quality ozone
concentrations is less than or equal to
0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when
rounding is considered). See 69 FR
23857 (April 30, 2004) for further
information. Ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 3-year period
must meet data completeness
requirements. The data completeness
requirements are met when the average
percent of days with valid ambient
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 the Richmond Area has a
design value of 0.082 ppm for the 3-year
period of 2003–2005, using complete,
quality-assured data. Therefore, the
ambient ozone data for the Richmond
Area indicates no violations of the 8hour ozone standard.
B. The Richmond Area
Under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the
Richmond Area consisted of the Cities
of Colonial Heights, Hopewell, and
Richmond, and the Counties of
Chesterfield, Hanover, Henrico, and
Charles City. Under the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, the Richmond Area was
expanded to also include the City of
Petersburg and Prince George County.
Prior to its designation as an 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area, the
Richmond Area was a maintenance area
for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.1 See
November 17, 1997 (62 FR 61237).
On September 20, 2006 the VADEQ
requested that the Richmond Area be
redesignated to attainment for the 8hour ozone standard. The redesignation
request included three years of
complete, quality-assured data for the
period of 2003–2005, indicating that the
8-hour NAAQS for ozone had been
achieved in the Richmond Area. The
data satisfies the CAA requirements that
the 3-year average of the annual fourthhighest 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;
1 Under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS the Richmond
Area consisted of the Cities of Colonial Heights,
Hopewell, and Richmond, the Counties of
Chesterfield, Hanover, Henrico, and Charles City.
See November 6, 1991 (58 FR 56694).
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
18437
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 70 / Thursday, April 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(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
redesignations 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
(TSDs) 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:48 Apr 11, 2007
Jkt 211001
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 20, 2006, the VADEQ
requested redesignation of the
Richmond Area to attainment for the 8hour ozone standard. On September 25,
2006, VADEQ submitted a maintenance
plan for the Richmond Area as a SIP
revision, to ensure continued attainment
of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS over the
next 11 years, until 2018. Concurrently,
Virginia is requesting that 8-hour
maintenance plan submittal supersede
the 1-hour maintenance plan
requirements already in place and that
the 8-hour maintenance plan meet the
requirement of CAA section 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 the area 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 the
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.
VADEQ also submitted a 2002 baseyear inventory as a SIP revision on
September 18, 2006 and supplements to
that submittal on November 17, 2006
and February 13, 2007, which is an
applicable requirement for the
Richmond Area for purposes of
redesignation. EPA has determined that
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the Richmond Area has attained the 8hour ozone 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 official designation of
the Richmond Area from nonattainment
to attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81. It
would also incorporate into the Virginia
SIP a 2002 base-year inventory and a
maintenance plan ensuring continued
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
in the Richmond Area for the next 11
years, until 2018. The maintenance plan
includes contingency measures to
remedy any future violations of the 8hour NAAQS (should they occur), and
identifies the NOX and VOC MVEBs for
transportation conformity purposes for
the years 2011 and 2018. These MVEBs
are displayed in the following table:
TABLE 1.—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS
BUDGETS IN TONS PER DAY (TPD)
Year
2011 ..........................
2018 ..........................
VOC
NOX
32.343
23.845
43.661
26.827
VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the
Commonwealth’s Request?
EPA is proposing to determine that
the Richmond Area has attained the 8hour ozone standard and that all other
redesignation criteria have been met.
The following is a description of how
the VADEQ’s September 20, 2006
(redesignation request), September 25,
2006 (maintenance plan and MVEBs),
September 18, 2006 (base-year
emissions inventory) and November 17,
2006 and February 13, 2007
(supplements to base-year inventory)
submittals satisfy the requirements of
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
A. The Richmond Area Has Attained the
8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
EPA is proposing to determine that
the Richmond Area has attained the 8hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area
may be considered to be attaining the 8hour ozone NAAQS if there are no
violations, as determined in accordance
with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of
part 50, based on three complete,
consecutive calendar years of qualityassured air quality monitoring data. To
attain this standard, the 3-year average
of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8hour average ozone concentrations
measured at each monitor, within the
area, over each year must not exceed the
ozone standard of 0.08 ppm. Based on
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
18438
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 70 / Thursday, April 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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 four ozone monitors in the
Richmond Area. As part of its
redesignation request, Virginia
referenced ozone monitoring data for
the years 2003–2005 for the Richmond
Area. This data has been quality assured
and is recorded in the AQS. The fourth-
high 8-hour daily maximum
concentrations, along with the threeyear averages are summarized in Table
2. The Hanover County monitoring site
had the highest 3-year average of the
fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour
average and are therefore used to make
air quality determinations.
TABLE 2.—RICHMOND AREA FOURTH HIGHEST 8-HOUR AVERAGE VALUES, RICHMOND MONITORS, PARTS PER MILLION
(PPM)
Monitor
AQS ID #
Chesterfield County ...................................................................................................
Henrico County ..........................................................................................................
Hanover County .........................................................................................................
Charles City County ...................................................................................................
2003
510410004
510870014
510850003
510360002
0.079
0.083
0.086
0.079
2004
0.075
0.074
0.078
0.077
2005
0.078
0.084
0.083
0.083
3-Year
average
0.077
0.080
0.082
0.079
The average for the 3-year period 2003–2005 is 0.082 ppm.
The air quality data for 2003–2005
indicate that the Richmond Area has
attained the standard with a design
value of 0.082 ppm. The data collected
at the Richmond 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 VADEQ’s request for
redesignation for the Richmond Area
indicates that the data is complete and
was quality assured in accordance with
40 CFR part 58. The VADEQ uses the
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,
VADEQ has committed to continue
monitoring in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58. In summary, EPA has
determined that the data submitted by
Virginia indicates that the Richmond
Area has attained the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
B. The Richmond Area 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 the
Richmond Area 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:48 Apr 11, 2007
Jkt 211001
proposed determinations, EPA
ascertained which requirements are
applicable to the Richmond Area 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
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).
This section also sets forth EPA’s
views on the potential effect of the
Court’s ruling in South Coast on this
redesignation action. For the reasons set
forth below, EPA does not believe that
the Court’s ruling alters any
requirements relevant to this
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
redesignation action so as to preclude
redesignation, and does not prevent
EPA from finalizing this redesignation.
EPA believes that the Court’s decision,
as it currently stands or as it may be
modified based upon any petition for
rehearing that has been filed, imposes
no impediment to moving forward with
redesignation of this area to attainment,
because in either circumstance
redesignation is appropriate under the
relevant redesignation provisions of the
Act and longstanding policies regarding
redesignation requests.
1. Section 110 General SIP
Requirements
Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA
delineates the general requirements for
a SIP, which includes 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 requirements
(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
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 70 / Thursday, April 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules
• 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. EPA believes that the
other section 110 elements not
connected with nonattainment plan
submissions and not linked with an
area’s attainment status are not
applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation. The Richmond Area will
still be subject to these requirements
after it 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, 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 redesignation (65 FR at
37890, June 19, 2000), and in the
Pittsburgh 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:48 Apr 11, 2007
Jkt 211001
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. As
explained later in this notice, two part
D requirements applicable for purposes
of redesignation under the 8-hour
standard became due prior to the
submission of the redesignation request.
Because the Virginia SIP satisfies all
of the applicable general SIP elements
and requirements set forth in section
110(a)(2), EPA concludes that Virginia
has satisfied the criterion of section
107(d)(3)(E) regarding section 110 of the
Act.
2. Part D Nonattainment Requirements
Under the 8-Hour Standard
The Richmond Area was classified a
Subpart 2, marginal 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 applicable
to all nonattainment areas. Section 182
of the CAA, found in subpart 2 of part
D, establishes additional specific
requirements depending on the area’s
nonattainment classification.
The Richmond Area is classified as a
Subpart 2, marginal nonattainment area.
We do not believe that any part of the
Court’s opinion would require that this
subpart 2 classification be changed
upon remand to EPA. However, even
assuming for present purposes that the
Richmond Area would become subject
to a different classification under a
classification scheme created in a future
rule in response to the court’s decision,
that would not prevent EPA from
finalizing a redesignation for this area.
For the reasons set forth below, we
believe that any additional requirements
that might apply based on that different
classification would not be applicable
for purposes of evaluating the
redesignation request.
This belief is based upon (1) EPA’s
longstanding policy of evaluating
redesignation requests in accordance
with only the requirements due at the
time the request was submitted; and (2)
consideration of the inequity of
applying retroactively any requirements
that might be applied in the future.
First, at the time the redesignation
request was submitted, the area was
classified under Subpart 2 and was
required to meet the Subpart 2
requirements. Under EPA’s
longstanding interpretation of section
107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act, to
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18439
qualify for redesignation, states
requesting redesignation to attainment
must meet only the relevant SIP
requirements that came due prior to the
submittal of a complete redesignation
request. September 4, 1992 Calcagni
memorandum (‘‘Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment’’, Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division) See also
Michael Shapiro Memorandum,
September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459,
12465–66 (March 7, 1995)
(redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor);
Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th
Cir. 2004), which upheld this
interpretation. See, e.g, also 68 FR
25418, 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003)
(redesignation of St. Louis). At the time
the redesignation request was
submitted, the Richmond Area was
classified as a marginal area under
Subpart 2 and thus only Subpart 2
marginal area requirements are
applicable for purposes of
redesignation.
Moreover, it would be inequitable to
retroactively apply any new SIP
requirements that were not applicable at
the time the request was submitted, but
which might later become applicable.
The D.C. Circuit has recognized the
inequity in such retroactive rulemaking.
See Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F.3d 63
(D.C. Cir. 2002), in which the D.C.
Circuit upheld a District Court’s ruling
refusing to make retroactive an EPA
determination of nonattainment that
was past the statutory due date. Such a
determination would have resulted in
the imposition of additional
requirements on the area. The Court
stated: ‘‘Although EPA failed to make
the nonattainment determination within
the statutory time frame, Sierra Club’s
proposed solution only makes the
situation worse. Retroactive relief would
likely impose large costs on the States,
which would face fines and suits for not
implementing air pollution prevention
plans in 1997, even though they were
not on notice at the time.’’ Id. at 68.
Similarly, here it would be unfair to
penalize the area by applying to it for
purposes of redesignation any
additional requirements that were not in
effect at the time it submitted its
redesignation request, but that might
apply in the future.
Two Subpart 2 requirements became
due for the Richmond Area under
section 182(a) of the CAA prior to
redesignation—a 2002 base-year
inventory, and the emissions statement
requirement pursuant to section
182(a)(3)(B). The Virginia SIP has an
approved emissions statement rule for
the 1-hour standard covering those
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
18440
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 70 / Thursday, April 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules
portions of the 8-hour nonattainment
area that was part of the previous 1-hour
attainment area, which satisfies the
emissions statement requirement for the
8-hour standard. See 65 FR 21315 (April
21, 2000). Virginia recently submitted a
rulemaking to expand the VOC and NOX
Richmond Emissions Control Area to
include the City of Petersburg and
Prince George County. EPA approved
this rulemaking on March 2, 2007 (72
FR 9441) and will be effective on April
2, 2007. Today, EPA is proposing to
approve the 2002 base-year inventory
for the Richmond Area, which was
submitted on September 18, 2006, and
supplemented on November 17, 2006
and February 13, 2007, concurrently
with its maintenance plan, into the
Virginia SIP. A detailed evaluation of
Virginia’s 2002 base-year inventory for
the Richmond Area can be found in a
Technical Support Document (TSD)
prepared by EPA for this rulemaking.
EPA has determined that the emission
inventory and emissions statement
requirements for the Richmond Area
have been satisfied. EPA believes it is
reasonable to interpret the general
conformity and NSR requirements of
part D 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
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:48 Apr 11, 2007
Jkt 211001
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.’’ Virginia has demonstrated
that the Richmond Area will be able to
maintain the standard without Part D
NSR in effect in the Richmond Area,
and therefore, Virginia need not have a
fully approved Part D NSR program
prior to approval of the redesignation
request. Virginia’s SIP-approved PSD
program will become effective in
Richmond upon redesignation to
attainment. See rulemakings for Detroit,
Michigan (60 FR at 12467–68);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, 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. Requirements Under the 1-Hour
Standard
With respect to the 1-hour standard
requirements, the City of Petersburg and
the Prince George County portions of
the Richmond Area were designated
Unclassifiable/Attainment under the 1hour standard and were never
designated nonattainment for the 1-hour
standard. Therefore, there are no
outstanding 1-hour nonattainment area
requirements these portions of the
Richmond Area would be required to
meet. Thus, we find that the Court’s
ruling does not result in any additional
1-hour requirements for purposes of
redesignation.
The portion of the Richmond Area
consisting of the Cities Colonial Heights,
Hopewell, and Richmond, and the
Counties of Chesterfield, Hanover,
Henrico, and Charles City was an
Attainment area subject to a Clean Air
Act section 175A maintenance plan
under the 1-hour standard. The Court’s
ruling does not impact redesignation
requests for these types of areas.
First, there are no conformity
requirements that are relevant for
redesignation requests for any standard,
including the requirement to submit a
transportation conformity SIP.2 Under
longstanding EPA policy, EPA believes
2 Clean Air Act section 176(c)(4)(E) currently
requires States to submit revisions to their SIPs to
reflect certain federal criteria and procedures for
determining transportation conformity.
Transportation conformity SIPs are different from
the motor vehicle emissions budgets that are
established in control strategy SIPs and
maintenance plans.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
that it is reasonable to interpret the
conformity SIP requirement as not
applying for purposes of evaluating a
redesignation request under section
107(d) because state conformity rules
are still required after redesignation and
federal conformity rules apply where
state rules have not been approved. 40
CFR 51.390. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d
426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this
interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748
(Dec. 7, 1995) (Tampa, FL
redesignation).
Second, with respect to the three
other anti-backsliding provisions for the
1-hour standard that the Court found
were not properly retained, this portion
of the Richmond Area is an attainment
area subject to a maintenance plan for
the 1-hour standard, and the NSR,
contingency measure (pursuant to
section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9)) and fee
provision requirements no longer apply
to an area that has been redesignated to
attainment of the 1-hour standard.
Thus the decision in South Coast
should not alter requirements that
would preclude EPA from finalizing the
redesignation of this area.
4. Richmond Has a Fully Approved SIP
for Purposes of Redesignation
EPA has fully approved the 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. The Richmond Area
was a 1-hour ozone maintenance area at
the time of its designation as a marginal
8-hour ozone nonattainment area on
April 30, 2004. As stated previously,
two subpart 2 part D requirements
became due for the Richmond Area
prior to redesignation a 2002 base-year
inventory, and the emissions statement
requirement. VADEQ has submitted
concurrently with its maintenance plan,
a 2002 base-year inventory as a SIP
revision. In this action, EPA is
proposing approval of this inventory.
The emissions statement requirement
for the entire Richmond Area was
recently fulfilled on March 2, 2007 (72
FR 9441). Because there are no
outstanding SIP submission
requirements applicable for the
purposes of the redesignation of the
Richmond Area, the applicable
implementation plan satisfies all
pertinent SIP requirements.
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
18441
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 70 / Thursday, April 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules
C. The Air Quality Improvement in the
Richmond 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
quality improvement in the Richmond
Area is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from implementation of the
SIP, Federal measures, and other Stateadopted measures. Emissions reductions
attributable to these rules are shown in
Table 3.
EPA believes that the Commonwealth
has demonstrated that the observed air
TABLE 3.—TOTAL VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR 2002 AND 2005 IN TONS PER DAY (TPD)
Year
Point
Area *
Nonroad
Mobile
Total
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
2002 ...................................................................................................................
2005 ...................................................................................................................
Diff (02–05) ........................................................................................................
31.228
32.705
+1.477
51.364
54.760
+3.396
23.278
20.438
¥2.840
50.200
43.518
¥6.682
156.070
151.421
¥4.649
27.067
26.501
¥0.566
17.792
16.862
¥0.930
74.130
67.155
¥6.975
238.739
187.799
¥50.940
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
2002 ...................................................................................................................
2005 ...................................................................................................................
Diff (02–05) ........................................................................................................
119.750
77.281
¥42.469
* Area source category includes emissions from motor vehicle refueling.
Between 2002 and 2005, VOC
emissions decreased by 4.649 tpd and
NOX emissions decreased by 50.940 tpd
because of permanent and enforceable
measures implemented by the
Commonwealth and the federal
government. These reductions, and
anticipated future reductions, are due to
the following permanent and
enforceable measures.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Programs Currently in Effect
(a) Tier 1;
(b) National Low Emission Vehicle
(NLEV) Program; and
(c) NOX SIP Call
EPA believes that permanent and
enforceable emissions reductions are the
cause of the long-term improvement in
ozone levels and are the cause of the
Area achieving attainment of the 8-hour
ozone standard.
D. The Richmond Area Has a Fully
Approvable Maintenance Plan Pursuant
to Section 175A of the CAA
In conjunction with its request to
redesignate the Richmond Area to
attainment status, Virginia submitted a
SIP revision to provide for maintenance
of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Area
for at least 11 years after redesignation.
The Commonwealth is requesting that
EPA approve this SIP revision as
meeting the requirement of CAA 175A
and 175A(b). Section 175A(a) was met
with the September 25, 2006 submission
of the maintenance plan, because it
states that Richmond will maintain the
8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10
years after redesignation. Section
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:48 Apr 11, 2007
Jkt 211001
175A(b) was met with the September 25,
2006 submission of the maintenance
plan, because it will replace the 1-hour
maintenance plan update requirement
that was due 8 years after redesingation
of the Richmond Area to attainment.
Once approved, the maintenance plan
for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS will
ensure that the SIP for the Richmond
Area 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
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 Richmond Area
Maintenance Plan
(a) Attainment inventory—An
attainment inventory includes the
emissions during the time period
associated with the monitoring data
showing attainment. VADEQ
determined that the appropriate
attainment inventory year is 2005. That
year establishes a reasonable year
within the three-year block of 2003–
2005 as a baseline and accounts for
reductions attributable to
implementation of the CAA
requirements to date. The 2005
inventory is consistent with EPA
guidance and is based on actual ‘‘typical
summer day’’ emissions of VOC and
NOX during 2005 and consists of a list
of sources and their associated
emissions.
To develop the NOX and VOC base
year emissions inventories, VADEQ
used the following approaches:
(i) Point source emissions were
developed using the latest version of
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
18442
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 70 / Thursday, April 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules
EPA’s Economic Growth Analysis
System (EGAS 5.0).
(ii) Area source emissions were also
developed using growth factors from
EGAS 5.0 and then applied to the 2002
Area source inventory.
(iii) Mobile nonroad emissions were
developed using EPA’s NONROAD 2005
model. The NONROAD 2005 model
estimates fuel consumption and
emissions of total hydrocarbons, carbon
monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur
oxides, and particulate matter for all
nonroad mobile source categories except
for aircraft, locomotives, and
commercial marine vessels (CMV).
(iv) Mobile on-road source emissions
were calculated using EPA’s MOBILE6.2
mobile source inventory model. The
Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT) provided daily vehicle miles
traveled (DVMT), average speed data for
each road type by jurisdiction, and
annual growth rates that were used to
forecast DVMT into the future. Also, the
Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles
provided registration data that was
specific to each jurisdiction. Mobile
source emission projections include the
National Low Emission Vehicle Program
(NLEV), the 2004 Tier 2 and Low Sulfur
Gasoline Rule, the 2004 and 2007
Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Rules, and
the 2006 Low Sulfur Diesel Rule. In
addition, Richmond, Hopewell, Colonial
Heights, Chesterfield, Hanover, Henrico,
and Charles City were modeled with
Phase II Reformulated Gasoline (RFG)
while Prince George and Petersburg
were modeled with conventional
gasoline fuel.
More detailed information on the
compilation of the 2002, 2005, 2011,
and 2018 inventories can found in the
Technical Appendices, which are part
of VADEQ’s September 25, 2006
submittal.
(b) Maintenance Demonstration—On
September 25, 2006, the VADEQ
submitted a maintenance plan as
required by section 175A of the CAA.
The Richmond maintenance plan shows
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS by demonstrating that future
emissions of VOC and NOX will not
exceed the attainment year 2005
emissions levels throughout the
Richmond Area through the year 2018.
A 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
25430–32.
Tables 4 and 5 specify the VOC and
NOX emissions for the Richmond Area
for 2005, 2011, and 2018. The VADEQ
chose 2011 as an interim year in the
maintenance demonstration period to
demonstrate that the VOC and NOX
emissions are not projected to increase
above the 2005 attainment level during
the time of the maintenance period.
TABLE 4.—TOTAL VOC EMISSIONS FOR 2005–2018 (TPD)
2005 VOC
emissions
Source category
Point ...................................................................................................................................................
Area 1 .................................................................................................................................................
Mobile 2 ..............................................................................................................................................
Nonroad .............................................................................................................................................
Total ............................................................................................................................................
32.705
54.760
43.518
20.438
151.421
2011 VOC
emissions
36.074
60.315
32.343
15.898
144.630
2018 VOC
emissions
39.900
68.331
23.845
15.515
147.591
1 Includes vehicle refueling emissions and the benefits of selected local controls (Stage I, CTG RACT, and open burning). Also includes site/
project specific emissions estimates and projections.
2 Includes transportation provisions.
TABLE 5.—TOTAL NOX EMISSIONS FOR 2005–2018 (TPD)
2005 NOX
emissions
Source category
2011 NOX
emissions
2018 NOX
emissions
Point ...................................................................................................................................................
Area 1 .................................................................................................................................................
Mobile 2 ..............................................................................................................................................
Non-road ............................................................................................................................................
62.536
55.207
78.169
30.208
69.333
56.974
50.387
29.116
75.241
60.105
31.890
23.093
Total ............................................................................................................................................
226.120
205.810
190.329
1 Includes
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
selected local controls (open burning).
2 Includes transportation provisions.
Additionally, the following programs
are either effective or due to become
effective and will further contribute to
the maintenance demonstration of the 8hour ozone NAAQS:
Currently in Effect:
• The National Low Emission Vehicle
(NLEV) program;
• Open burning restrictions for
Richmond, Hopewell, Colonial Heights,
Hanover, Henrico, Chesterfield, and
western Charles City;
• Control Technology Guideline
(CTG) Reasonable Available Control
Technology (RACT) requirements for
Richmond, Hopewell, Colonial Heights,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:48 Apr 11, 2007
Jkt 211001
Hanover, Henrico, Chesterfield, and
western Charles City;
• Non-CTG VOC RACT requirements
for Richmond, Hopewell, Colonial
Heights, Hanover, Henrico, Chesterfield,
and western Charles City;
• Reformulated gasoline requirements
for Richmond, Hopewell, Colonial
Heights, Hanover, Henrico, Chesterfield,
and western Charles City;
• Motor vehicle fleet turnover with
new vehicles meeting the Tier 2
standards; and
• Low sulfur gasoline.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Additionally, the following programs
are in place and either effective or are
due to become effective.
• Heavy duty diesel on-road (2004/
2007) and low sulfur on-road (2006); 66
FR 5002, (January 18, 2001).
• Non-road emission standards (2008)
and off-road diesel fuel 2007/2010); 69
FR 38958 (June 29, 2004).
Lastly, to further improve air quality
and to provide room for industrial and
population growth while maintaining
emissions in the area to less than 2005
levels, the Commonwealth of Virginia
has initiated rulemaking to implement
the following programs:
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 70 / Thursday, April 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules
• Implement the Stage I requirements
of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article 37 in
Prince George, Petersburg, and eastern
Charles City;
• Implement open burning restriction
requirements of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40,
Article 40 in Prince George, Petersburg,
and eastern Charles City; and
• Implement existing source CTG
RACT requirements of 9 VAC 5 Chapter
40, Articles 5–6, 24–36, and 39 in Prince
George, Petersburg, and eastern Charles
City.
Based on the comparison of the
projected emissions and the attainment
year emissions along with the additional
measures, EPA concludes that VADEQ
has successfully demonstrated that the
8-hour ozone standard should be
maintained in the Richmond Area.
(c) Monitoring Network—There are
three monitors measuring ozone in the
Richmond Area. VADEQ will continue
to operate its current air quality
monitors (located in the Richmond
Area), in accordance with 40 CFR part
58.
(d) Verification of Continued
Attainment—In addition to maintaining
the key elements of its regulatory
program, the Commonwealth will
acquire ambient and source emission
data to track attainment and
maintenance. The Commonwealth will
track the progress of the maintenance
demonstration by periodically updating
the emissions inventory. This tracking
will consist of annual and periodic
evaluations. The annual evaluation will
consist of checks on key emissions trend
indicators such as the annual emission
update of stationary sources, the
Highway Performance Monitoring
System (HPMS) vehicle miles traveled
data reported to the Federal Highway
Administration, and other growth
indicators. These indicators will be
compared to the growth assumptions
used in the plan to determine if the
predicted versus the observed growth
remains relatively constant. The
Commonwealth will also develop and
submit periodic (every three years)
emission inventories prepared under
EPA’s Consolidated Emission Reporting
Regulation (40 CFR 51, subpart A),
beginning in 2005.
(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 CAA
requires that a maintenance plan
include such contingency measures as
EPA deems necessary to ensure that the
Commonwealth will promptly correct a
violation of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. The maintenance plan
should identify the events that would
‘‘trigger’’ the adoption and
implementation of a contingency
measure(s), the contingency measure(s)
that would be adopted and
implemented, and the schedule
indicating the timeframe by which the
state would adopt and implement the
measure(s).
The ability of the Richmond Area to
stay in compliance with the 8-hour
ozone standard after redesignation
depends upon VOC and NOX emissions
in the Area remaining at or below 2005
levels. The Commonwealth’s
maintenance plan projects VOC and
NOX emissions to decrease and stay
18443
below 2005 levels through the year
2018. The Commonwealth’s
maintenance plan outlines the
procedures for the adoption and
implementation of contingency
measures to further reduce emissions
should a violation occur.
The Commonwealth’s maintenance
plan lays out situations where the need
to adopt and implement a contingency
measure to further reduce emissions
would be triggered. Those situations are
as follows:
(i) An actual increase of the VOC or
NOX emissions exceed the regional
emissions budgets, which would be
identified or predicted through the
development of the comprehensive
periodic tracking inventories—The
maintenance plan states that the
VADEQ will monitor the observed
growth rates for VMT, population, and
point source VOC and NOX emissions
on a yearly basis which will serve as an
early warning indicator of the potential
for a violation. The plan also states that
comprehensive tracking inventories will
also be developed every 3 years using
current EPA-approved methods to
estimate emissions, concentrating on
areas identified in the less rigorous
yearly evaluations as being potential
problems. If the regional emissions
budget for VOC or NOX is exceeded, the
following control strategies will be
implemented as follows:
• Preparation of a complete VOC and
NOX emission inventory; and
• The expanded implementation of
one or more of the control strategies,
listed in Table 6, that have not already
been implemented in the Richmond
Area.
TABLE 6.—MAINTENANCE PLAN CONTINGENCY MEASURE OPTIONS
Control strategy
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
9
9
9
9
9
9
Description
VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article 42 ..........................
VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article 47 ..........................
VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article 48 ..........................
VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article 49 ..........................
VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article 50 ..........................
VAC 5–40–310 of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article 4.
(ii) A violation (any 3-year average of
each annual fourth highest 8-hour
average) of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS of
0.08 ppm occurs—The maintenance
plan states that if a violation (any 3-year
average of each annual fourth highest 8hour average) of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS of 0.08 ppm occurs at a monitor
located in the Richmond monitoring
network, the VADEQ will implement
two of the following control strategies as
follows:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:48 Apr 11, 2007
Jkt 211001
Emissions Standards for Portable Fuel Container Spillage.
Emissions Standards for Solvent Metal Cleaning Operations.
Emissions Standards for Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing Operations.
Emissions Standards for Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings.
Emissions Standards for Consumer Products.
General Process Operations—Standard for Nitrogen Oxides (non-CTG RACT for major
sources).
• The expanded implementation of
one or more of the following control
strategies, listed in Table 6, that have
not already been implemented in the
Richmond Area.
(iii) A violation (any 3-year average of
each annual fourth highest 8-hour
average) of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS of
0.08 ppm in any subsequent ozone
season—The maintenance plan states
that if a violation (any 3-year average of
each annual fourth highest 8-hour
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
average) of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS of
0.08 ppm occurs in the Richmond
monitoring network following the
implementation of the requirements
listed in the previous section (section
e(ii)) and in any subsequent ozone
season, two additional control strategies
from Table 6 will be implemented.
The following schedule for adoption,
implementation and compliance applies
to the contingency measures concerning
non-CTG RACT requirements. It would
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
18444
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 70 / Thursday, April 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules
also apply to the imposition of the area
source VOC regulations if those
regulations had not already been
implemented due to other triggers or
provisions of the maintenance plan.
• Notification received from EPA that
a contingency measure must be
implemented, or three months after a
recorded violation;
• Applicable regulation to be adopted
6 months after this date;
• Applicable regulation to be
implemented 6 months after adoption; 3
• Compliance with regulation to be
achieved within 12 months of adoption.
The maintenance plan adequately
addresses the five basic components of
a maintenance plan: Attainment
inventory, maintenance demonstration,
monitoring network, verification of
continued attainment, and a
contingency plan. EPA believes that the
maintenance plan SIP revision
submitted by Virginia for the Richmond
area meets the requirements of section
175A of the Act.
VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets Established and Identified in
the Richmond 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 emission budgets.’’ Pursuant to
40 CFR part 93 and 51.112, MVEBs must
be established in an ozone maintenance
plan. An MVEB is the portion of the
total allowable emissions that is
allocated to highway and transit vehicle
use and emissions. An MVEB serves as
a ceiling on emissions from an area’s
planned transportation system. The
MVEB concept is further explained in
the preamble to the November 24, 1993,
transportation conformity rule (58 FR
62188). The preamble also describes
how to establish and revise the MVEBs
in control strategy SIPs and
maintenance plans.
Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new
transportation projects, such as the
construction of new highways, must
‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., be consistent with)
the part of the State’s air quality plan
that addresses pollution from cars and
trucks. ‘‘Conformity’’ to the SIP means
that transportation activities will not
cause new air quality violations, worsen
existing violations, or delay timely
attainment of or reasonable progress
towards the NAAQS. If a transportation
plan does not ‘‘conform,’’ most new
projects that would expand the capacity
of roadways cannot go forward.
Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth
EPA policy, criteria, and procedures for
demonstrating and ensuring conformity
of such transportation activities to a SIP.
When reviewing submitted ‘‘control
strategy’’ SIPs or maintenance plans
containing MVEBs, EPA must
affirmatively find the MVEB 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 SIP 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 the Richmond Area
are listed in Table 1 of this document
for 2011 and 2018, and are the projected
emissions for the on-road mobile
sources plus any portion of the safety
margin allocated to the MVEBs (safety
margin allocation for 2011 and 2018
only). These emission budgets, when
approved by EPA, must be used for
transportation conformity
determinations.
B. What Is a Safety Margin?
A ‘‘safety margin’’ is the difference
between the attainment level of
emissions (from all sources) and the
projected level of emissions (from all
sources) in the maintenance plan. The
attainment level of emissions is the
level of emissions during one of the
years in which the area met the NAAQS.
The following example is for the 2018
safety margin: Richmond first attained
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS during the
2003 to 2005 time period. The
Commonwealth used 2005 as the year to
determine attainment levels of
emissions for Richmond. The total
emissions from point, area, mobile onroad, and mobile non-road sources in
2005 equaled 151.421 tpd of VOC and
187.799 tpd of NOX. The VADEQ
projected emissions out to the year 2018
and projected a total of 147.591 tpd of
VOC and 154.158 tpd of NOX from all
sources in Richmond. The safety margin
for 2018 would be the difference
between these amounts, or 3.830 tpd of
VOC and 33.641 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 8hour 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 7 shows the
safety margins for the 2011 and 2018
years.
TABLE 7.—2011 AND 2018 SAFETY MARGINS FOR RICHMOND
VOC emissions
(tpd)
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Inventory year
2005 Attainment ...........................................................................................................................................
3 In the event of implementation of the RACT
contingency measure, Virginia would amend its
current RACT regulations to apply them to nonCTG sources in the Richmond Area within 6
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:48 Apr 11, 2007
Jkt 211001
months after (a) notification received from EPA that
the contingency measure must be implemented, or
(b) three months after a recorded violation. The
newly subject non-CTG RACT sources would need
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
151.421
NOX emissions
(tpd)
187.799
to develop source-specific RACT plans and comply
with their plans no later than 12 months from the
date of Virginia’s adoption of the amended
regulations.
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 70 / Thursday, April 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules
18445
TABLE 7.—2011 AND 2018 SAFETY MARGINS FOR RICHMOND—Continued
VOC emissions
(tpd)
Inventory year
2011
2011
2005
2018
2018
Interim .................................................................................................................................................
Safety Margin .....................................................................................................................................
Attainment ...........................................................................................................................................
Final ....................................................................................................................................................
Safety Margin .....................................................................................................................................
The VADEQ allocated 1.000 tpd VOC
and 3.000 tpd NOX to the 2011 interim
VOC projected on-road mobile source
emissions projection and the 2011
interim NOX projected on-road mobile
source emissions projection to arrive at
the 2011 MVEBs. For the 2018 MVEBs
the VADEQ allocated 1.000 tpd VOC
and 3.000 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
144.630
6.791
151.421
147.591
3.830
NOX emissions
(tpd)
168.492
19.307
187.799
154.158
33.641
margins are no longer available, and
may no longer be allocated to any other
source category. Table 8 shows the final
2009 and 2018 MVEBS for the
Richmond Area.
TABLE 8.—2011 AND 2018 FINAL MVEBS FOR RICHMOND
VOC emissions
(tpd)
Inventory year
2011
2011
2011
2018
2018
2018
projected on-road mobile source projected emissions ......................................................................
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs ....................................................................................................
MVEBs ................................................................................................................................................
projected on-road mobile source projected emissions ......................................................................
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs ....................................................................................................
MVEBs ................................................................................................................................................
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
C. Why Are the MVEBs Approvable?
The 2011 and 2018 MVEBs for the
Richmond Area are approvable because
the MVEBs for NOX and VOCs 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 Richmond
Maintenance Plan?
The MVEBs for the Richmond Area
maintenance plan are being posted to
EPA’s conformity Web site concurrently
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 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 Richmond MVEBs, or
any other aspect of our proposed
approval of this updated maintenance
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:48 Apr 11, 2007
Jkt 211001
31.343
1.000
32.343
22.845
1.000
23.845
NOX emissions
(tpd)
40.661
3.000
43.661
23.827
3.000
26.827
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
Richmond Area MVEBs will also be
announced on EPA’s conformity Web
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
the Richmond Area has attained the 8hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also
proposing to approve the redesignation
of the Richmond Area from
nonattainment to attainment for the 8hour ozone NAAQS. EPA has evaluated
Virginia’s redesignation request and
determined that it meets the
redesignation criteria set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA believes
that the redesignation request and
monitoring data demonstrate that the
Richmond Area has attained the 8-hour
ozone standard. The final approval of
this redesignation request would change
the designation of the Richmond Area
from nonattainment to attainment for
the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is also
proposing to approve the associated
maintenance plan for the Richmond
Area, submitted on September 25, 2006,
as a revision to the Virginia SIP. EPA is
proposing to approve the maintenance
plan for the Richmond Area because it
meets the requirements of section 175A
as described previously in this notice.
EPA is also proposing to approve the
2002 base-year inventory for the
Richmond Area, and the MVEBs
submitted by Virginia for the Richmond
Area in conjunction with its
redesignation request. EPA is soliciting
public comments on the issues
discussed in this document. These
comments will be considered before
taking final action.
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. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
18446
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 70 / Thursday, April 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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
(Pub. L. 104–4). This proposed rule also
does not have a substantial direct effect
on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will
it have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999), because it merely
proposes to approve a state rule
implementing a Federal requirement,
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
approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the
absence of a prior existing requirement
for the State to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,
to use VCS in place of a SIP submission
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a
geographical area and does not impose
any new requirements on sources. Thus,
the requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. As required by
section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61
FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing
this proposed rule, EPA has taken the
necessary steps to eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity, minimize
potential litigation, and provide a clear
legal standard for affected conduct. EPA
has complied with Executive Order
12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by
examining the takings implications of
the rule in accordance with the
‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental
Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:48 Apr 11, 2007
Jkt 211001
and Avoidance of Unanticipated
Takings’’ issued under the executive
order.
This rule, proposing to approve the
redesignation of the Richmond Area to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, the associated maintenance
plan, the 2002 base-year inventory, 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 dioxide,
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: April 5, 2007.
Judith Katz,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. E7–7018 Filed 4–11–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 107, 171, 172, 173, 176,
178, and 180
[Docket No. PHMSA–2006–25910 (HM–
218E)]
RIN: 2137–AE23
Hazardous Materials: Miscellaneous
Cargo Tank Motor Vehicle and Cylinder
Issues; Petitions for Rulemaking
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: PHMSA proposes to amend
the Hazardous Materials Regulations
(HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171–180) to revise
certain requirements applicable to the
manufacture, maintenance, and use of
DOT and MC specification cargo tank
motor vehicles, DOT specification
cylinders and UN pressure receptacles.
The proposed revisions are based on
petitions for rulemaking submitted by
the regulated community and are
intended to enhance the safe
transportation of hazardous materials in
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
commerce, clarify regulatory
requirements, and reduce operating
burdens on cargo tank and cylinder
manufacturers, requalifiers, carriers,
shippers, and users.
DATES: Comments must be received by
June 11, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by the docket number
PHMSA–2006–25910 (HM–218E) by any
of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Web Site: https://dms.dot.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments on the DOT electronic docket
site.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management System;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building,
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–
001.
• Hand Delivery: To the Docket
Management System; Room PL–401 on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
Instructions: You must include the
agency name and docket number
PHMSA–2006–25910 (Docket No. HM–
218E) or the Regulatory Identification
Number (RIN) for this notice of
proposed rulemaking at the beginning of
your comment. Please note that all
comments received will be posted
without change to https://dms.dot.gov
including any personal information
provided. See the Privacy Act section of
this document.
Docket: You may view the public
docket through the Internet at https://
dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket
Management System office at the above
address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cameron Satterthwaite or T. Glenn
Foster, Office of Hazardous Materials
Standards, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590–0001, telephone (202) 366–8553.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) requires Federal agencies to give
interested persons the right to petition
for the issuance, amendment, or repeal
of a rule (5 U.S.C. 553(e)). PHMSA’s
rulemaking procedure regulations, at 49
CFR 106.95, provide for persons to ask
PHMSA to add, amend or delete a
regulation by filing a petition for
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 70 (Thursday, April 12, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18434-18446]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7018]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0917; FRL-8298-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Redesignation of the Richmond-Petersburg 8-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area To Attainment and Approval of the Associated
Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
[[Page 18435]]
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a redesignation request and State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of
Virginia. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) is
requesting that the Richmond-Petersburg ozone nonattainment area
(``Richmond Area'' or ``Area'') be redesignated as attainment for the
8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The Area is
comprised of the Cities of Petersburg, Colonial Heights, Hopewell, and
Richmond, and the Counties of Prince George, Chesterfield, Hanover,
Henrico, and Charles City. EPA is proposing to approve the ozone
redesignation request for the Richmond Area. In conjunction with its
redesignation request, the Commonwealth submitted a SIP revision
consisting of a maintenance plan for the Richmond Area that provides
for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10
years after redesignation. EPA is proposing to make a determination
that the Richmond Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based upon
three years of complete, quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring
data for 2003-2005. EPA's proposed approval of the 8-hour ozone
redesignation request is based on its determination that the Richmond
Area has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in
the Clean Air Act (CAA). In addition, the Commonwealth of Virginia has
also submitted a 2002 base-year inventory for the Richmond Area, and
EPA is proposing to approve that inventory for the Richmond Area as a
SIP revision. EPA is also providing information on the status of its
adequacy determination for the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs)
that are identified in the maintenance plan for the Richmond Area 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 and 2002 base-year inventory SIP revisions in
accordance with the requirements of the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 14, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2006-0917 by one of the following methods:
A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
B. E-mail: morris.makeba@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0917, Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality
Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
D. 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-
2006-0917. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at https://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 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 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629
East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Caprio, (215) 814-2156, or by e-
mail at caprio.amy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What 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 Commonwealth's Request?
VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Established and
Identified in the Maintenance Plan for the Richmond Area Adequate
and Approvable?
VIII. Proposed Actions
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Proposing To Take?
On September 20, 2006 the VADEQ formally submitted a request to
redesignate the Richmond Area from nonattainment to attainment of the
8-hour NAAQS for ozone. On September 25, 2006 Virginia submitted a
maintenance plan for the Richmond Area as a SIP revision to ensure
continued attainment in the Area over the next 11 years. VADEQ also
submitted a 2002 base-year inventory for the Richmond Area as a SIP
revision on September 18, 2006 and supplements to the base-year
inventory submittal on November 17, 2006 and February 13, 2007. The
Richmond Area is comprised of the Cities of Petersburg, Colonial
Heights, Hopewell, and Richmond, and the Counties of Prince George,
Chesterfield, Hanover, Henrico, and Charles City. It is currently
designated a marginal 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA is proposing
to determine that the Richmond Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
and that it has met the requirements for redesignation pursuant to
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is, therefore, proposing to
approve the redesignation request to change the designation of the
Richmond Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the Richmond maintenance plan
as a SIP revision for the Area (such approval being one of the CAA
criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plan
is designed to ensure continued
[[Page 18436]]
attainment in the Richmond Area for the next 11 years. Concurrently,
the Commonwealth is requesting that this 8-hour maintenance plan
supersede the previous 1-hour maintenance plan. EPA is also proposing
to approve the 2002 base-year inventory for the Richmond Area as a SIP
revision. Additionally, EPA is announcing its action on the adequacy
process for the MVEBs identified in the Richmond maintenance plan, and
proposing to approve the MVEBs identified for volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) for the Richmond
Area for transportation conformity purposes.
II. What Is the Background for These Proposed Actions?
A. General
Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather,
emissions of NOX and VOC react in the presence of sunlight
to form ground-level ozone. The air pollutants NOX and VOC
are referred to as precursors of ozone. The CAA establishes a process
for air quality management through the attainment and maintenance of
the NAAQS.
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard
of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). This new standard is more stringent
than the previous 1-hour 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 Richmond
Area was designated a marginal 8-hour ozone nonattainment area in a
Federal Register notice signed on April 15, 2004 and published on April
30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), based on its exceedance of the 8-hour health-
based standard for ozone during the years 2001-2003. On April 30, 2004,
EPA issued a final rule (69 FR 23951, 23996) to revoke the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS in the Richmond Area (as well as most other areas of the country)
effective June 15, 2005. See 40 CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR at 23996 (April 30,
2004); and see 70 FR 44470 (August 3, 2005).
However, on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule
for the 8-hour Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). South
Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir.
2006) (hereafter ``South Coast.''). The Court held that certain
provisions of EPA's Phase I Rule were inconsistent with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act. The Court rejected EPA's reasons for
implementing the 8-hour standard in nonattainment areas under Subpart 1
in lieu of subpart 2 of Title I, part D of the Act. The Court also held
that EPA improperly failed to retain four measures required for 1-hour
nonattainment areas under the anti-backsliding provisions of the
regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New Source Review (NSR)
requirements based on an area's 1-hour nonattainment classification;
(2) Section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment
areas; (3) measures to be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or
182(c)(9) of the Act, on the contingency of an area not making
reasonable further progress toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or
for failure to attain that NAAQS; and (4) the certain conformity
requirements for certain types of federal. The Court upheld EPA's
authority to revoke the 1-hour standard provided there were adequate
anti-backsliding provisions. Elsewhere in this document, mainly in
section VI. B. ``The Richmond Area 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 discusses its rationale why the
decision in South Coast is not an impediment to redesignating the
Richmond Area to attainment of 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
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. In
2004, the Richmond Area was classified a marginal 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area based on air quality monitoring data from 2001-2003.
Therefore, the Richmond Area is subject to the requirements of subpart
2 of part D.
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 concentrations is less than or equal
to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). See 69 FR
23857 (April 30, 2004) for further information. Ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet data completeness
requirements. The data completeness requirements are met when the
average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater
than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data
completeness as determined in Appendix I of 40 CFR part 50. The ozone
monitoring data indicates that the Richmond Area has a design value of
0.082 ppm for the 3-year period of 2003-2005, using complete, quality-
assured data. Therefore, the ambient ozone data for the Richmond Area
indicates no violations of the 8-hour ozone standard.
B. The Richmond Area
Under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the Richmond Area consisted of the
Cities of Colonial Heights, Hopewell, and Richmond, and the Counties of
Chesterfield, Hanover, Henrico, and Charles City. Under the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, the Richmond Area was expanded to also include the City of
Petersburg and Prince George County. Prior to its designation as an 8-
hour ozone nonattainment area, the Richmond Area was a maintenance area
for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.\1\ See November 17, 1997 (62 FR 61237).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS the Richmond Area consisted of
the Cities of Colonial Heights, Hopewell, and Richmond, the Counties
of Chesterfield, Hanover, Henrico, and Charles City. See November 6,
1991 (58 FR 56694).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 20, 2006 the VADEQ requested that the Richmond Area be
redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The
redesignation request included three years of complete, quality-assured
data for the period of 2003-2005, indicating that the 8-hour NAAQS for
ozone had been achieved in the Richmond Area. 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;
[[Page 18437]]
(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 redesignations 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 (TSDs) 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 20, 2006, the VADEQ requested redesignation of the
Richmond Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. On September
25, 2006, VADEQ submitted a maintenance plan for the Richmond Area as a
SIP revision, to ensure continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
over the next 11 years, until 2018. Concurrently, Virginia is
requesting that 8-hour maintenance plan submittal supersede the 1-hour
maintenance plan requirements already in place and that the 8-hour
maintenance plan meet the requirement of CAA section 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
the area 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 the 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.
VADEQ also submitted a 2002 base-year inventory as a SIP revision
on September 18, 2006 and supplements to that submittal on November 17,
2006 and February 13, 2007, which is an applicable requirement for the
Richmond Area for purposes of redesignation. EPA has determined that
the Richmond Area has attained the 8-hour ozone 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 official
designation of the Richmond Area from nonattainment to attainment for
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81. It would also
incorporate into the Virginia SIP a 2002 base-year inventory and a
maintenance plan ensuring continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in the Richmond Area for the next 11 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
NOX and VOC MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes for
the years 2011 and 2018. These MVEBs are displayed in the following
table:
Table 1.--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Tons per Day (TPD)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year VOC NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011.............................................. 32.343 43.661
2018.............................................. 23.845 26.827
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Commonwealth's Request?
EPA is proposing to determine that the Richmond Area has attained
the 8-hour ozone standard and that all other redesignation criteria
have been met. The following is a description of how the VADEQ's
September 20, 2006 (redesignation request), September 25, 2006
(maintenance plan and MVEBs), September 18, 2006 (base-year emissions
inventory) and November 17, 2006 and February 13, 2007 (supplements to
base-year inventory) submittals satisfy the requirements of section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
A. The Richmond Area Has Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
EPA is proposing to determine that the Richmond 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
[[Page 18438]]
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 four ozone monitors in the Richmond Area. As part of its
redesignation request, Virginia referenced ozone monitoring data for
the years 2003-2005 for the Richmond Area. This data has been quality
assured and is recorded in the AQS. The fourth-high 8-hour daily
maximum concentrations, along with the three-year averages are
summarized in Table 2. The Hanover County monitoring site had the
highest 3-year average of the fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour
average and are therefore used to make air quality determinations.
Table 2.--Richmond Area Fourth Highest 8-Hour Average Values, Richmond Monitors, Parts per Million (PPM)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AQS ID 3-Year
Monitor 2003 2004 2005 average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chesterfield County..................................... 510410004 0.079 0.075 0.078 0.077
Henrico County.......................................... 510870014 0.083 0.074 0.084 0.080
Hanover County.......................................... 510850003 0.086 0.078 0.083 0.082
Charles City County..................................... 510360002 0.079 0.077 0.083 0.079
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average for the 3-year period 2003-2005 is 0.082 ppm.
The air quality data for 2003-2005 indicate that the Richmond Area
has attained the standard with a design value of 0.082 ppm. The data
collected at the Richmond 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
VADEQ's request for redesignation for the Richmond Area indicates that
the data is complete and was quality assured in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58. The VADEQ uses the 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, VADEQ has committed to continue monitoring in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In summary, EPA has determined that the
data submitted by Virginia indicates that the Richmond Area has
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
B. The Richmond Area 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 the Richmond Area 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 the Richmond Area
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 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).
This section also sets forth EPA's views on the potential effect of
the Court's ruling in South Coast on this redesignation action. For the
reasons set forth below, EPA does not believe that the Court's ruling
alters any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to
preclude redesignation, and does not prevent EPA from finalizing this
redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's decision, as it currently
stands or as it may be modified based upon any petition for rehearing
that has been filed, imposes no impediment to moving forward with
redesignation of this area to attainment, because in either
circumstance redesignation is appropriate under the relevant
redesignation provisions of the Act and longstanding policies regarding
redesignation requests.
1. Section 110 General SIP Requirements
Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA delineates the general
requirements for a SIP, which includes 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 requirements (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
[[Page 18439]]
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. EPA believes that the other
section 110 elements not connected with nonattainment plan submissions
and not linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation. The Richmond Area will
still be subject to these requirements after it 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,
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 redesignation (65 FR at
37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh 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.
As explained later in this notice, two part D requirements applicable
for purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour standard became due
prior to the submission of the redesignation request.
Because the Virginia SIP satisfies all of the applicable general
SIP elements and requirements set forth in section 110(a)(2), EPA
concludes that Virginia has satisfied the criterion of section
107(d)(3)(E) regarding section 110 of the Act.
2. Part D Nonattainment Requirements Under the 8-Hour Standard
The Richmond Area was classified a Subpart 2, marginal
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 applicable to all nonattainment areas.
Section 182 of the CAA, found in subpart 2 of part D, establishes
additional specific requirements depending on the area's nonattainment
classification.
The Richmond Area is classified as a Subpart 2, marginal
nonattainment area. We do not believe that any part of the Court's
opinion would require that this subpart 2 classification be changed
upon remand to EPA. However, even assuming for present purposes that
the Richmond Area would become subject to a different classification
under a classification scheme created in a future rule in response to
the court's decision, that would not prevent EPA from finalizing a
redesignation for this area. For the reasons set forth below, we
believe that any additional requirements that might apply based on that
different classification would not be applicable for purposes of
evaluating the redesignation request.
This belief is based upon (1) EPA's longstanding policy of
evaluating redesignation requests in accordance with only the
requirements due at the time the request was submitted; and (2)
consideration of the inequity of applying retroactively any
requirements that might be applied in the future.
First, at the time the redesignation request was submitted, the
area was classified under Subpart 2 and was required to meet the
Subpart 2 requirements. Under EPA's longstanding interpretation of
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act, to qualify for
redesignation, states requesting redesignation to attainment must meet
only the relevant SIP requirements that came due prior to the submittal
of a complete redesignation request. September 4, 1992 Calcagni
memorandum (``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas
to Attainment'', Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division) See also Michael Shapiro Memorandum, September 17,
1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of
Detroit-Ann Arbor); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004),
which upheld this interpretation. See, e.g, also 68 FR 25418, 25424,
25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis). At the time the
redesignation request was submitted, the Richmond Area was classified
as a marginal area under Subpart 2 and thus only Subpart 2 marginal
area requirements are applicable for purposes of redesignation.
Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any new
SIP requirements that were not applicable at the time the request was
submitted, but which might later become applicable. The D.C. Circuit
has recognized the inequity in such retroactive rulemaking. See Sierra
Club v. Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002), in which the D.C.
Circuit upheld a District Court's ruling refusing to make retroactive
an EPA determination of nonattainment that was past the statutory due
date. Such a determination would have resulted in the imposition of
additional requirements on the area. The Court stated: ``Although EPA
failed to make the nonattainment determination within the statutory
time frame, Sierra Club's proposed solution only makes the situation
worse. Retroactive relief would likely impose large costs on the
States, which would face fines and suits for not implementing air
pollution prevention plans in 1997, even though they were not on notice
at the time.'' Id. at 68. Similarly, here it would be unfair to
penalize the area by applying to it for purposes of redesignation any
additional requirements that were not in effect at the time it
submitted its redesignation request, but that might apply in the
future.
Two Subpart 2 requirements became due for the Richmond Area under
section 182(a) of the CAA prior to redesignation--a 2002 base-year
inventory, and the emissions statement requirement pursuant to section
182(a)(3)(B). The Virginia SIP has an approved emissions statement rule
for the 1-hour standard covering those
[[Page 18440]]
portions of the 8-hour nonattainment area that was part of the previous
1-hour attainment area, which satisfies the emissions statement
requirement for the 8-hour standard. See 65 FR 21315 (April 21, 2000).
Virginia recently submitted a rulemaking to expand the VOC and
NOX Richmond Emissions Control Area to include the City of
Petersburg and Prince George County. EPA approved this rulemaking on
March 2, 2007 (72 FR 9441) and will be effective on April 2, 2007.
Today, EPA is proposing to approve the 2002 base-year inventory for the
Richmond Area, which was submitted on September 18, 2006, and
supplemented on November 17, 2006 and February 13, 2007, concurrently
with its maintenance plan, into the Virginia SIP. A detailed evaluation
of Virginia's 2002 base-year inventory for the Richmond Area can be
found in a Technical Support Document (TSD) prepared by EPA for this
rulemaking. EPA has determined that the emission inventory and
emissions statement requirements for the Richmond Area have been
satisfied. EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the general
conformity and NSR requirements of part D 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 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.'' Virginia has
demonstrated that the Richmond Area will be able to maintain the
standard without Part D NSR in effect in the Richmond Area, and
therefore, Virginia need not have a fully approved Part D NSR program
prior to approval of the redesignation request. Virginia's SIP-approved
PSD program will become effective in Richmond upon redesignation to
attainment. See rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR at 12467-68);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, 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. Requirements Under the 1-Hour Standard
With respect to the 1-hour standard requirements, the City of
Petersburg and the Prince George County portions of the Richmond Area
were designated Unclassifiable/Attainment under the 1-hour standard and
were never designated nonattainment for the 1-hour standard. Therefore,
there are no outstanding 1-hour nonattainment area requirements these
portions of the Richmond Area would be required to meet. Thus, we find
that the Court's ruling does not result in any additional 1-hour
requirements for purposes of redesignation.
The portion of the Richmond Area consisting of the Cities Colonial
Heights, Hopewell, and Richmond, and the Counties of Chesterfield,
Hanover, Henrico, and Charles City was an Attainment area subject to a
Clean Air Act section 175A maintenance plan under the 1-hour standard.
The Court's ruling does not impact redesignation requests for these
types of areas.
First, there are no conformity requirements that are relevant for
redesignation requests for any standard, including the requirement to
submit a transportation conformity SIP.\2\ Under longstanding EPA
policy, EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity
SIP requirement as not applying for purposes of evaluating a
redesignation request under section 107(d) because state conformity
rules are still required after redesignation and federal conformity
rules apply where state rules have not been approved. 40 CFR 51.390.
See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this
interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748 (Dec. 7, 1995) (Tampa, FL
redesignation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Clean Air Act section 176(c)(4)(E) currently requires States
to submit revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain federal
criteria and procedures for determining transportation conformity.
Transportation conformity SIPs are different from the motor vehicle
emissions budgets that are established in control strategy SIPs and
maintenance plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, with respect to the three other anti-backsliding provisions
for the 1-hour standard that the Court found were not properly
retained, this portion of the Richmond Area is an attainment area
subject to a maintenance plan for the 1-hour standard, and the NSR,
contingency measure (pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9)) and
fee provision requirements no longer apply to an area that has been
redesignated to attainment of the 1-hour standard.
Thus the decision in South Coast should not alter requirements that
would preclude EPA from finalizing the redesignation of this area.
4. Richmond Has a Fully Approved SIP for Purposes of Redesignation
EPA has fully approved the 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. The Richmond Area was a 1-
hour ozone maintenance area at the time of its designation as a
marginal 8-hour ozone nonattainment area on April 30, 2004. As stated
previously, two subpart 2 part D requirements became due for the
Richmond Area prior to redesignation a 2002 base-year inventory, and
the emissions statement requirement. VADEQ has submitted concurrently
with its maintenance plan, a 2002 base-year inventory as a SIP
revision. In this action, EPA is proposing approval of this inventory.
The emissions statement requirement for the entire Richmond Area was
recently fulfilled on March 2, 2007 (72 FR 9441). Because there are no
outstanding SIP submission requirements applicable for the purposes of
the redesignation of the Richmond Area, the applicable implementation
plan satisfies all pertinent SIP requirements.
[[Page 18441]]
C. The Air Quality Improvement in the Richmond Area Is Due to Permanent
and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting From Implementation
of the SIP and Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations and
Other Permanent and Enforceable Reductions
EPA believes that the Commonwealth has demonstrated that the
observed air quality improvement in the Richmond 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 are shown in
Table 3.
Table 3.--Total VOC and NOX Emissions for 2002 and 2005 in Tons per Day (TPD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Point Area * Nonroad Mobile Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002................................................ 31.228 51.364 23.278 50.200 156.070
2005................................................ 32.705 54.760 20.438 43.518 151.421
Diff (02-05)........................................ +1.477 +3.396 -2.840 -6.682 -4.649
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002................................................ 119.750 27.067 17.792 74.130 238.739
2005................................................ 77.281 26.501 16.862 67.155 187.799
Diff (02-05)........................................ -42.469 -0.566 -0.930 -6.975 -50.940
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Area source category includes emissions from motor vehicle refueling.
Between 2002 and 2005, VOC emissions decreased by 4.649 tpd and
NOX emissions decreased by 50.940 tpd because of permanent
and enforceable measures implemented by the Commonwealth and the
federal government. These reductions, and anticipated future
reductions, are due to the following permanent and enforceable
measures.
Programs Currently in Effect
(a) Tier 1;
(b) National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) Program; and
(c) NOX SIP Call
EPA believes that permanent and enforceable emissions reductions
are the cause of the long-term improvement in ozone levels and are the
cause of the Area achieving attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard.
D. The Richmond Area Has a Fully Approvable Maintenance Plan Pursuant
to Section 175A of the CAA
In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Richmond Area to
attainment status, Virginia submitted a SIP revision to provide for
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Area for at least 11 years
after redesignation. The Commonwealth is requesting that EPA approve
this SIP revision as meeting the requirement of CAA 175A and 175A(b).
Section 175A(a) was met with the September 25, 2006 submission of the
maintenance plan, because it states that Richmond will maintain the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation. Section
175A(b) was met with the September 25, 2006 submission of the
maintenance plan, because it will replace the 1-hour maintenance plan
update requirement that was due 8 years after redesingation of the
Richmond Area to attainment. Once approved, the maintenance plan for
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS will ensure that the SIP for the Richmond Area
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 Richmond Area Maintenance Plan
(a) Attainment inventory--An attainment inventory includes the
emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data
showing attainment. VADEQ determined that the appropriate attainment
inventory year is 2005. That year establishes a reasonable year within
the three-year block of 2003-2005 as a baseline and accounts for
reductions attributable to implementation of the CAA requirements to
date. The 2005 inventory is consistent with EPA guidance and is based
on actual ``typical summer day'' emissions of VOC and NOX
during 2005 and consists of a list of sources and their associated
emissions.
To develop the NOX and VOC base year emissions
inventories, VADEQ used the following approaches:
(i) Point source emissions were developed using the latest version
of
[[Page 18442]]
EPA's Economic Growth Analysis System (EGAS 5.0).
(ii) Area source emissions were also developed using growth factors
from EGAS 5.0 and then applied to the 2002 Area source inventory.
(iii) Mobile nonroad emissions were developed using EPA's NONROAD
2005 model. The NONROAD 2005 model estimates fuel consumption and
emissions of total hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides,
sulfur oxides, and particulate matter for all nonroad mobile source
categories except for aircraft, locomotives, and commercial marine
vessels (CMV).
(iv) Mobile on-road source emissions were calculated using EPA's
MOBILE6.2 mobile source inventory model. The Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) provided daily vehicle miles traveled (DVMT),
average speed data for each road type by jurisdiction, and annual
growth rates that were used to forecast DVMT into the future. Also, the
Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles provided registration data that
was specific to each jurisdiction. Mobile source emission projections
include the National Low Emission Vehicle Program (NLEV), the 2004 Tier
2 and Low Sulfur Gasoline Rule, the 2004 and 2007 Heavy-Duty Diesel
Vehicle Rules, and the 2006 Low Sulfur Diesel Rule. In addition,
Richmond, Hopewell, Colonial Heights, Chesterfield, Hanover, Henrico,
and Charles City were modeled with Phase II Reformulated Gasoline (RFG)
while Prince George and Petersburg were modeled with conventional
gasoline fuel.
More detailed information on the compilation of the 2002, 2005,
2011, and 2018 inventories can found in the Technical Appendices, which
are part of VADEQ's September 25, 2006 submittal.
(b) Maintenance Demonstration--On September 25, 2006, the VADEQ
submitted a maintenance plan as required by section 175A of the CAA.
The Richmond maintenance plan shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS by demonstrating that future emissions of VOC and NOX
will not exceed the attainment year 2005 emissions levels throughout
the Richmond Area through the year 2018. A 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 25430-32.
Tables 4 and 5 specify the VOC and NOX emissions for the
Richmond Area for 2005, 2011, and 2018. The VADEQ chose 2011 as an
interim year in the maintenance demonstration period to demonstrate
that the VOC and NOX emissions are not projected to increase
above the 2005 attainment level during the time of the maintenance
period.
Table 4.--Total VOC Emissions for 2005-2018 (TPD)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 VOC 2011 VOC 2018 VOC
Source category emissions emissions emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point......................... 32.705 36.074 39.900
Area \1\...................... 54.760 60.315 68.331
Mobile \2\.................... 43.518 32.343 23.845
Nonroad....................... 20.438 15.898 15.515
Total..................... 151.421 144.630 147.591
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes vehicle refueling emissions and the benefits of selected
local controls (Stage I, CTG RACT, and open burning). Also includes
site/project specific emissions estimates and projections.
\2\ Includes transportation provisions.
Table 5.--Total NOX Emissions for 2005-2018 (TPD)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 NOX 2011 NOX 2018 NOX
Source category emissions emissions emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point......................... 62.536 69.333 75.241
Area \1\...................... 55.207 56.974 60.105
Mobile \2\.................... 78.169 50.387 31.890
Non-road...................... 30.208 29.116 23.093
-----------------------------------------
Total..................... 226.120 205.810 190.329
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes selected local controls (open burning).
\2\ Includes transportation provisions.
Additionally, the following programs are either effective or due to
become effective and will further contribute to the maintenance
demonstration of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS:
Currently in Effect:
The National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program;
Open burning restrictions for Richmond, Hopewell, Colonial
Heights, Hanover, Henrico, Chesterfield, and western Charles City;
Control Technology Guideline (CTG) Reasonable Available
Control Technology (RACT) requirements for Richmond, Hopewell, Colonial
Heights, Hanover, Henrico, Chesterfield, and western Charles City;
Non-CTG VOC RACT requirements for Richmond, Hopewell,
Colonial Heights, Hanover, Henrico, Chesterfield, and western Charles
City;
Reformulated gasoline requirements for Richmond, Hopewell,
Colonial Heights, Hanover, Henrico, Chesterfield, and western Charles
City;
Motor vehicle fleet turnover with new vehicles meeting the
Tier 2 standards; and
Low sulfur gasoline.
Additionally, the following programs are in place and either
effective or are due to become effective.
Heavy duty diesel on-road (2004/2007) and low sulfur on-
road (2006); 66 FR 5002, (January 18, 2001).
Non-road emission standards (2008) and off-road diesel
fuel 2007/2010); 69 FR 38958 (June 29, 2004).
Lastly, to further improve air quality and to provide room for
industrial and population growth while maintaining emissions in the
area to less than 2005 levels, the Commonwealth of Virginia has
initiated rulemaking to implement the following programs:
[[Page 18443]]
Implement the Stage I requirements of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40,
Article 37 in Prince George, Petersburg, and eastern Charles City;
Implement open burning restriction requirements of 9 VAC 5
Chapter 40, Article 40 in Prince George, Petersburg, and eastern
Charles City; and
Implement existing source CTG RACT requirements of 9 VAC 5
Chapter 40, Articles 5-6, 24-36, and 39 in Prince George, Petersburg,
and eastern Charles City.
Based on the comparison of the projected emissions and the
attainment year emissions along with the additional measures, EPA
concludes that VADEQ has successfully demonstrated that the 8-hour
ozone standard should be maintained in the Richmond Area.
(c) Monitoring Network--There are three monitors measuring ozone in
the Richmond Area. VADEQ will continue to operate its current air
quality monitors (located in the Richmond Area), in accordance with 40
CFR part 58.
(d) Verification of Continued Attainment--In addition to
maintaining the key elements of its regulatory program, the
Commonwealth will acquire ambient and source emission data to track
attainment and maintenance. The Commonwealth will track the progress of
the maintenance demonstration by periodically updating the emissions
inventory. This tracking will consist of annual and periodic
evaluations. The annual evaluation will consist of checks on key
emissions trend indicators such as the annual emission update of
stationary sources, the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS)
vehicle miles traveled data reported to the Federal Highway
Administration, and other growth indicators. These indicators will be
compared to the growth assumptions used in the plan to determine if the
predicted versus the observed growth remains relatively constant. The
Commonwealth will also develop and submit periodic (every three years)
emission inventories prepared under EPA's Consolidated Emission
Reporting Regulation (40 CFR 51, subpart A), beginning in 2005.
(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 CAA requires
that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to ensure that the Commonwealth will promptly correct a
violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance
plan should identify the events that would ``trigger'' the adoption and
implementation of a contingency measure(s), the contingency measure(s)
that would be adopted and implemented, and the schedule indicating the
timeframe by which the state would adopt and implement the measure(s).
The ability of the Richmond Area to stay in compliance with the 8-
hour ozone standard after redesignation depends upon VOC and
NOX emissions in the Area remaining at or below 2005 levels.
The Commonwealth's maintenance plan projects VOC and NOX
emissions to decrease and stay below 2005 levels through the year 2018.
The Commonwealth's maintenance plan outlines the procedures for the
adoption and implementation of contingency measures to further reduce
emissions should a violation occur.
The Commonwealth's maintenance plan lays out situations where the
need to adopt and implement a contingency measure to further reduce
emissions would be triggered. Those situations are as follows:
(i) An actual increase of the VOC or NOX emissions
exceed the regional emissions budgets, which would be identified or
predicted through the development of the comprehensive periodic
tracking inventories--The maintenance plan states that the VADEQ will
monitor the observed growth rates for VMT, population, and point source
VOC and NOX emissions on a yearly basis which will serve as
an early warning indicator of the potential for a violation. The plan
also states that comprehensive tracking inventories will also be
developed every 3 years using current EPA-approved methods to estimate
emissions, concentrating on areas identified in the less rigorous
yearly evaluations as being potential problems. If the regional
emissions budget for VOC or NOX is exceeded, the following
control strategies will be implemented as follows:
Preparation of a complete VOC and NOX emission
inventory; and
The expanded implementation of one or more of the control
strategies, listed in Table 6, that have not already been implemented
in the Richmond Area.
Table 6.--Maintenance Plan Contingency Measure Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control strategy Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article Emissions Standards for Portable Fuel
42. Container Spillage.
9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article Emissions Standards for Solvent Metal
47. Cleaning Operations.
9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article Emissions Standards for Mobile Equipment
48. Repair and Refinishing Operations.
9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article Emissions Standards for Architectural and
49. Industrial Maintenance Coatings.
9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article Emissions Standards for Consumer
50. Products.
9 VAC 5-40-310 of 9 VAC 5 General Process Operations--Standard for
Chapter 40, Article 4. Nitrogen Oxides (non-CTG RACT for major
sources).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) A violation (any 3-year average of each annual fourth highest
8-hour average) of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 ppm occurs--The
maintenance plan states that if a violation (any 3-year average of each
annual fourth highest 8-hour average) of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08
ppm occurs at a monitor located in the Richmond monitoring network, the
VADEQ will implement two of the following control strategies as
follows:
The expanded implementation of one or more of the
following control strategies, listed in Table 6, that have not already
been implemented in the Richmond Area.
(iii) A violation (any 3-year average of each annual fourth highest
8-hour average) of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 ppm in any subsequent
ozone season--The maintenance plan states that if a violation (any 3-
year average of each annual fourth highest 8-hour average) of the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 ppm occurs in the Richmond monitoring network
following the implementation of the requirements listed in the previous
section (section e(ii)) and in any subsequent ozone season, two
additional control strategies from Table 6 will be implemented.
The following schedule for adoption, implementati