1

ENCLOSURE 3

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RECORD

As required by 40 CFR 51.102(e), the complete record of the public comment period, 

along with the text of the written comments, is located at the Air Division of the 

Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The department contact to access this 

information is the Director, Air Division.

As required by Section 2.1(h) of Appendix V of 40 CFR Part 51, below is a summary of 

the comments received and responses thereto. Included is a brief statement of the 

subject, the identification of the commenter, the summary of the comment and the 

response (analysis and action taken). Each issue is discussed in light of all of the 

comments received that affect that issue. All comments have been reviewed and 

responses developed based on an evaluation of the issues raised in consideration of 

the overall goals and objectives of the air quality program and the intended purpose of 

the document under review.

1. SUBJECT: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance.

COMMENTER: EPA Region III

TEXT: The first sentence of the last paragraph of the preamble states: "Virginia has 

based this submittal on direction received from EPA Region III." As previously 

communicated to DEQ, although the region provided comments on the draft SIP 

revision as requested by DEQ, we prefaced those comments with the fact that official 

agency guidance is not yet final.

RESPONSE: We appreciate Region III's assistance in reviewing the draft submittal, 

particularly in the absence of any formal EPA guidance. Given the absence of formal 

EPA guidance, we characterized the assistance received from the regional office as 

"direction." This term is accurate and has no effect on the substance of the proposal. 

No change has been made to the proposal as a result of this comment.

2. SUBJECT: Regional haze submittal status.

COMMENTER: EPA Region III

TEXT: In discussion of § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) related to the visibility prong, Virginia cites 

to its regional haze state implementation plan (SIP) submittal date. This is fine, 

however, EPA has recently taken action on Virginia's regional haze SIP submittal, and a 
2

reference to EPA's rulemaking action should also be included. the suggested language 

is: "Virginia submitted its regional haze SIP to EPA Region III on October 4, 2010, and 

on June 13, 2012 (77 FR 35287), EPA finalized a limited approval/limited disapproval of 

the submittal."

RESPONSE: This comment is acceptable, and the proposal has been revised 

accordingly.

3. SUBJECT: Public notice process.

COMMENTER: EPA Region III

TEXT: In discussion of § 111(a)(2)(M) related to the public notice process for SIP 

revisions, the third paragraph states: "All SIP revisions undergo public notice and 

hearing, providing for comment by the public that includes local political subdivisions." 

Virginia's administrative process for SIP revisions requires that a public hearing be held 

if requested, otherwise a public hearing need not be held. Therefore this sentence 

should instead read, "All SIP revisions undergo public notice and, if requested by the 

public, a hearing is held, providing for comment by the public that includes local political 

subdivisions."

RESPONSE: Although the department routinely provides notification that the public 

may request a hearing if one is not scheduled, the department also directly conducts 

hearings as the situation warrants. Therefore, the proposal has been revised to state: 

"All SIP revisions undergo public participation in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102, 

providing for comment by the public that includes local political subdivisions."

4. SUBJECT: Interstate transport.

COMMENTER: Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE)

TEXT: Maryland was designated as the only state east of the Mississippi with a 

moderate nonattainment classification for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Maryland will have 

a difficult time meeting the 2013-2015 timeframe for compliance with marginal 

requirements and the 2016-2018 timeframe for compliance with moderate 

requirements. Virginia’s proposal does not address § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I); states need to 

develop and commit to implementation of regulations in their SIPs to achieve volatile 

organic compound (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) reductions. Based on MDE’s 

preliminary modeling, a NOX budget from all source sectors in Virginia should be set at 

a level of 172,600 tons per year. Lastly, EPA’s efforts to adopt federal rules to reduce 

pollution transport have not been sufficient to address transport for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS.
3

RESPONSE: We empathize with MDE’s concerns over transported pollution and agree 

that EPA has been remiss in addressing transport requirements for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS at the federal level. In fact, it was due to EPA Region III’s verbal guidance that 

DEQ did not include § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in this submittal. However, DEQ does not 

agree that MDE’s preliminary modeling should be used to set a statewide budget of 

172,600 tons per year of NOX. This modeling, as MDE notes, is preliminary in nature. 

The effort was a sensitivity study only, not a SIP-quality modeling effort. Therefore, to 

DEQ’s knowledge, the latest transportation estimation model outputs (MOVES2010b) 

were not incorporated into this model. Additionally, DEQ does not believe that this 

model made any differentiation between reductions in ground level NOX emissions and 

reductions in point level NOX emissions, which has been shown in other studies to be a 

very important distinction in ozone formation. Setting any budget level in a federally 

enforceable instrument simply cannot be accomplished using data that is preliminary in 

nature; doing so would be extremely premature, and policy would be well ahead of 

science.

We also appreciate MDE’s concerns about the Baltimore 2008 ozone NAAQS 

moderate nonattainment area. The classification of this area to moderate appears to 

be based on the data from a single (Edgewood) monitor. The data from this monitor is 

significantly higher than any nearby monitor and is certainly influenced by unique 

meteorological phenomena due to its location close to the Chesapeake Bay and wind 

patterns in that area. DEQ is doubtful that the data from this monitor represents the 

overall ambient air quality in the Baltimore area. Certainly, an ozone source 

apportionment study may yield interesting results from this monitor, especially given its 

proximity to the Philadelphia area. However, the results of another recent sensitivity 

study are quite encouraging in regard to this monitor. The sensitivity study, called 

Scenario 6 and generated by the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC), shows that the 

Baltimore area, including the Edgewood monitor, will be in attainment of the 2008 

ozone NAAQS by 2018. This scenario is also a preliminary sensitivity study, and it 

assumes the application of federal on-the-books, on-the-way measures. With the use 

of the extensions granted under § 172(a)(2)(C) of the federal Clean Air Act, compliance 

in 2018 with the 2008 ozone NAAQS will allow the Baltimore area to meet its moderate 

nonattainment area obligations. Again, further work needs to be done to corroborate 

the results of Scenario 6, as it too is merely a sensitivity analysis and not a SIP-quality 

effort.

Lastly, we are puzzled by MDE’s assertion that VOC reductions are needed. The OTC 

has provided sensitivity studies that show large VOC reductions generate little in the 

way of ozone benefit using current models, with the exception of a very few "urban 

core" areas. Even the benefits seen in the urban core areas are quite modest, 

especially when considering the immense VOC reductions assumed in those studies. 

This work is further supported by SEMAP studies performed by Georgia DEP and 

Georgia Tech, which demonstrate that output from the current modeling platforms show 
4

little to no ozone benefit from substantial VOC emission reductions in the southeast and 

mid-Atlantic states. 

No changes were made to the submittal based on these comments.

TEMPLATES\SIP-PLAN\PLN03

SIP\ASSESSMENT\HS-SIP-3.DOC