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 d epartment 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.

COMMENTE R: 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 draf t 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 g uidance. 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 re sult of this comment.

2. SUBJECT: Regional haze submittal status.

COMMENTER: EPA Region III

TEXT: I n discussion of § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) related to the visibility prong, Virginia cites to its regional haze state implementation plan (SIP) submittal da te. This is fine, however, EPA has recently taken action on Virginia's regional haze SIP submittal, and a2 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.

C O MMENTER: 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 loc al 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 publ ic 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 i f one is not scheduled, the department also directly conducts hearings a s 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 p ublic 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 classif ication 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 ( NO X ) reductions. Based on MDE’s preliminary modeling, a NO X 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 tran sport 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 th is 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 NO X . 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 NO X emissions and reductions in point level NO X 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 accomp lished 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 t his 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 t he 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 mon itor, 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 Commiss ion (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 meas ures. 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 b e 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 V OC 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 as sumed 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 show4 little to no ozone benefit from substantial VOC emission reductions i n the southeast and

mid

- Atlantic states.

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

TEMPLATES \ SIP

- PLAN \ PLN03

SIP \ ASSESSMENT \ H S

- SIP

- 3.DOC