# UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

- 2029

SUBJECT: Technical Support Document for Approval

and Promulgation of Air Quality

Implementation Plans; District of Columbia,

Maryland and Virginia; Attainment

Demonstration for the 1997 8

- Hour Ozone

National Ambient Air Quality Standard for

the Washington, DC

- MD

- VA Moderate

Nonattainment Area (Docket ID#: EPA

- R03

-

OAR

- 2013

- 0 132). 

# February 26, 2013

FROM: Christopher Cripps /s/

Environmental Engineer (3AP30 )

TO: Docket ID#: EPA

- R03

- OAR

- 2013

- 0132

THRU: Cristina Fernandez /s/

Associate Director,

Office of Air Program Planning

This technical support document (TSD) 1 

## is EPA's evaluation of the following District of

Columbia, State of Maryland and Commonwealth of Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision submitt als for the Washington, D.C. ozone nonattainment area (“Washington, DC area”

or “Washington Area”) to determine whether these can be approved as SIP revisions:

Attainment Demonstration for the and Contingency Measures for Failure to Attain the 1997

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (hereafter “the 1997 ozone

NAAQS”)

.

I. Background & Scope

A. Scope

The District of Columbia, the State of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia (hereafter

“the 3 States” ) submitted attainment and reasonable further progress ( RFP ) plan SIP revisions to

EPA on June 12, 2007, June 4, 2007 and June 12, 2007, respectively (hereafter “the June 2007

SIP revisions”). Hereafter the term the “3 States” shall mean the District of Columbia, Maryland

and Virgi nia collectively.

These June 2007 SIP revisions included, among other things, the attainment plan and failure

- to

attain contingency measures elements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Washington Area. The

ozone attainment plan submitted on the June 2007 SIP revisions each included the attainment

1 

### This document is called the “Attainment TSD” in the notice of proposed rulemaking for which this document was

prepared.

## demonstration and contingency measures for failure to attain for the Washington Area plus the

associated 2009 and 2010 motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) used for transportation

conformity purposes in the enti re Washington Area. The June 2007 SIP revisions also included a

2002 base year emissions inventory, an analysis of the reasonably available control

measures/reasonably available control technology (RACM/RACT), the 2008 reasonable further

progress (RFP) pl an and its associated MVEBs for 2008, and contingency measures. The other

elements

– including the RFP plan with 2008 MVEBs, a RACM/RACT analysis, the 2002 base

year emissions inventory, and contingency measures for any failure to make RFP

– in the June

2 007 SIP revisions were approved by EPA on September 20, 2011 (76 FR 58116) (the

“September 20, 2011 final rule”). Therefore, in this action, EPA is only proposing to approve

the attainment demonstration for the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the Washington Area.

Specifically, this technical support document (TSD) is EPA's evaluation of only those portions of

the June 2007 SIP revisions pertaining to the attainment demonstration and contingency

measures for failure to attain the 1997 o zone NAAQS. As will be discu ssed in a subsequent

paragraph of this TSD, EPA has approved other plan elements in these June 2007 SIP revisions

and has made other determinations regarding the Washington Area and these June 2007 SIP

revisions via separate rulemaking final actions and se parate notices.

B. Background on the 1997 Ozone NAAQS and Designation of the Washington Area

O n July 18, 1997 ( 62 FR 38856 ) , EPA promulgated the 1997 ozone NAAQS which revised the

health

- based NAAQS for ozone by setting the NAAQS at 0.08 parts per million (ppm) averaged

over an 8

- hour time frame. 2 

## EPA set the 1997 ozone NAAQS based on scientific evidence

demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health effects at lower ozone concentrations and over

longer periods of time than was understood when the pre

- existing 1

- hour ozone standard was set.

EPA determined that the 1997 ozone NAAQS would be more protective of human health,

especially for children and adults who are active outdoors, and individuals with a pre

- existing

respiratory disease, such as ast hma.

On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA finalized the attainment/nonattainment designations for

areas across the country with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. These actions became

effective on June 15, 2004. Among those nonattainment areas was the Was hington Area.

The Washington Area is comprised of: the entire District of Columbia (the District), a portion of

Maryland (Calvert, Charles, Frederick, Montgomery, and Prince George’s Counties); and a

portion of Virginia (Alexandria City, Arlington County , Fairfax City, Fairfax County, Falls

Church City, Manassas and Manassas Park Cities, and Prince William County). All of the

nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS was part of the severe ozone nonattainment area

for the 1

- hour ozone NAAQS prior to J une 15, 2005 the date the 1

- hour ozone NAAQS was

revoked. Because the Washington Area was part of an area designated nonattainment for and

classified as severe under the 1

- hour ozone NAAQS, the 3 States have already satisfied certain

moderate area require ments and were required to keep in place those “applicable requirements”

defined by 40 CFR 51.900(f) to prevent “antibacksliding” under applicable portion of the

implementation rule (40 CFR 51.905(a)) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. As a result, the 3 States

al ready had implemented in their respective SIP some of the requirements for areas classified as

moderate nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

2 

### Due to rounding conventions this standard requires a value of 0.085 ppm or higher for the NAAQS to be violated.

One part per billion (ppb) is equal to one one

- thousandth (0.001) ppm. Thus the effective standard of the 1997

ozone NAAQS is 84 ppb.

## In addition, on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA promulgated its “ Phase 1 Implementation

Rule ” which provide d how areas designated nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS would

be classified using the design value for each nonattainment area. Based upon its design value for

the three

- year period 2001

- 2003, the Washington Area was classified as a moderate ozone

n onattainment area under the 1997 ozone NAAQS. See

, 40 CFR 81.309, 81.321, and 81.347.

Moderate areas are required to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS by no later than six years after

designation. Therefore, the Washington Area was to attain by no later tha n June 15, 2010. See

40 CFR 51.903 and 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004).

B. Air Quality Planning Agencies

Air quality planning for the Washington, DC ozone nonattainment area is done jointly by the

District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia and the Metropolitan Washington Air Quality

Committee (MWAQC). The MWAQC is composed of state and local elected officials, state air

quality and transportation planning directors and the chair of the National Capital Region

Transportation Planning Board. The Governors of Maryland and Virginia and the Mayor of the

District of Columbia have certified the MWAQC as the air quality planning organization for the

Washington, DC ozone nonattainment area under section 174 of the CAA . The MWAQC

ensures interstate air quality planning consultation requirements of sections 182(j) and 174 are

fulfilled and that the conformity budgets in the Washington, DC attainment demonstration meet

the consultation procedures of the transportation conformity rules.

The MWAQC with the assistance of the local municipal planning organization, the Metropolitan

Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG), Virginia, Maryland and the District,

developed a single plan for the entire nonattainment area. The MWAQC recommends air quality

planning measures and reviews attainment demonstrations (and ROP plans) which the states

adopt as SIP revisions. The MWAQC reli es upon the three air planning agencies, the Maryland

Department of the Environment (MDE), Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ),

and the District of Columbia's, Department of the Environment, and upon the MWCOG for

technical support. Each jur isdiction adopts the MWAQC

- approved plan as a revision to its SIP.

This document details EPA's evaluation of the District’s, Maryland's and Virginia’s February

2004 SIP revisions.

C. General Guidelines

To perform this evaluation, EPA has referred to th e requirements of sections 172 and 182 of the

CAA , to the “General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990” (the General Preamble) (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992), to EPA’s rules

codified at 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart X “Provisions for Implementation of 8

- Hour Ozone

National Ambient Air Quality Standard,” which translates the CAA for implementation of the

1997 ozone NAAQS, the final rule preambles associated with this implementation rule (the

“Phase 1 Rule” 69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004 and the “Phase 2 Rule” 70 FR 71612, November 29

,2005) and EPA’s guidance documents and memoranda that specifically address attainment

demonstrations.

## II . What are the CAA Requirements for a Moderate 8

- Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area?

A. Moderate Area Requirements

Pursuant to the Phase 1 Implementation Rule, an area was classified under subpart 2 of Title I of

the CAA based on its 8

- hour design value if it had a 1

- hour design value at or above 0.12 ppm.

Based on this criterion, the W ashington Area was classified under subpart 2 as a moderate

nonattainment area. The Phase 2 Implementation Rule addressed the control obligations that

apply to areas classified under subpart 2. Among other things, the Phase 1 and 2 Implementation

Rules o utline the required SIP elements and deadlines for those various requirements in areas

designated as moderate nonattainment.

On November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612) EPA promulgated the second phase (Phase 2) of the

implementation rule (Phase 2 Implementation R ule) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS

. The Phase 2

Implementation Rule set forth the submission deadlines and substantive requirements for the

attainment demonstration, contingency measures and RFP requirements of sections 172(c) as

supplemented by section 182(b) of the CAA. The requirements regarding a demonstration of

attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS are:

(1) a demonstration that the SIP contains enough reductions of volatile organic compound

(VOC) emissions and of nitrogen oxides ( NOx ) emissions to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS as

expeditiously as practicable but no later than June 15, 2010 (section 172(c)(1) as amended by

section 182(b)(1) as codified in 40 CFR 51.908) . However, because compliance with the 1997

ozone NAAQS must be determined usin g three years of complete, quality assured air quality

monitoring data, any determination of attainment by June 15, 2010 would have to be made upon

the most recent three years of air quality monitoring data available which would be 2007, 2008

and 2009. Fo r this reason, the Phase 1 rule (40 CFR 51.908) required that the emission reduction

measures need to be implemented no later than the beginning of the 2009 ozone season and that

the MVEBS for the attainment demonstration be for 2009 . As a result, the mod eling

demonstration would need to use projected 2009 emissions inventories reflecting the control

strategies and predict 2009 design values ;

(2) a demonstration that the SIP provides for the implementation of all reasonably

available control measures (RAC M) (including at a minimum reasonably available control

technology (RACT) on existing sources) (section 172(c)(1)) which includes two elements:

(a) Under section 172(c)(1) RACM/RACT, a state must “consider all potentially

available measures to determine whether they [a]re reasonably available for implementation in

the area, and whether they would advance the [area's] attainment date." See , for example, 66 FR

585 at 608, January 3, 2001; 3 

## and

(b) CAA section 182(b)(2) sets a requirement for RACT not related to expeditious

attainment but requires a f adopt rules for any category of VOC sources for which EPA has

issued a control technique guideline (CTG) and for any other major stationary source s of VOC

emissions in the area. Section 182(f) extends the requirement for RACT under section

182(b)(2)(C) to any major stationary sources of NOx emissions in the area. 4

3 

### The United States Courts of Appeals for the District of Columbia Cir cuit upheld this definition of RACM (but did

remand the SIP at issue to the EPA to determine which measures, if any, are RACM to be implemented by the States

for the area at issue in that case). See , 70 FR 6798, February 3, 2005, citing Sierra Club v. Whi tman , 294 F.3d 155,

162

- 163 (DC Cir. 2002).

4 

### A State can seek relief from, that is, seek a “waiver” of this requirement if the State can make the requisite

demonstration specified in CAA section 182(f); the “waiver” provisions in section 182(f) are not applicable for the

Washington Area.

## (3) a demonstration that the SIP demonstrates a minimum RFP towards attainment by

reducing baseline emissions of VOC and/or NOx by 15 percent before December 31, 2008

(section 172(c)(2) as amended by section 182(b)(1)(A) and by 70 FR 71612 at 71634

- 71637,

November 29, 2005, which is codified at 40 CFR 51.910) and contains adequate MV EBS for

2008 ; 5



## (4) a 2002 baseline inventory from which the 15 percent reduction in baseline emissions

is to be determined (sections 172(c)(3) and 182(b)(1)(B) as interpreted by 70 FR 71612 at

71637

- 71638, November 29, 2005 codified at 40 CFR 51.910(d)); and,

(5) specific measures to be undertaken if the area fails to: (a) attain the 1997 ozone

NAAQS by June 15, 2010, or ( b) fails to achieve RFP (section 179(c)(9)).

(6) adequate MVEBs : 6 

## In the case of moderate nonattainment areas under the 1997

NAAQS, RFP plans and attainment demonstrations must contain adequate MVEBs for 2008 and

2009, respectively, and in the June 2007 SIP revisions the 3 States also included a 2010 MVEB

for NOx as pa rt of the contingency plan to address a failure to attain.

In addition to the above section s 172(c) and 182(b) requirements, the 3 States would be required

to incorporate into each SIP regulations to implement the following :

( 7 ) a vehicle inspection an d maintenance (I/M) program (CAA section 182( b)(4);

( 8 ) a “Stage II” vehicle refueling vapor recovery program (CAA section 182(b)(3)) ; 7 

## and

( 9 ) an emissions statement program (CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)).

Items ( 7 ) through ( 9 ) above can be considered as “anti

- backsliding elements.”

B. How have the 3 States Fulfilled the Requirements Applicable in Moderate

Nonattainment Areas?

1. Certain Anti

- backsliding Elements

Regarding items ( 7 ) through ( 9 ) inclusive EPA has already approved the required SIP elements:

For each of the 3 States, EPA has fully approved a SIP revision to require emission

statements as was required for implementation of the 1

- hour ozone NAAQS in the Washington

Area:

With respect to Maryland, see 59 FR 51517, October 12, 1994.

With respect to Virginia, see 60 FR 21451, May 2, 1995.

With respect to the District, see 60 FR 27889, May 26, 1995.

For each of the 3 States, EPA has fully approved a SIP revision to fully implement Stage

II vapor recovery as was required for implemen tation of the 1

- hour ozone NAAQS in the

Washington Area :

With respect to Maryland, see 59 FR 29730, June 9, 1994.

5 

### CAA section 171 defines “reasonable further progress” as “incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air

pollutant as are required” ... “for en suring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date.”

6 

### See , 64 FR 70460 at 70465, December 16, 1999 and 70 FR 6796 at 6799, February 9, 2005, citing CAA section

176(c)(2)(A )

. 7 

### As part of a an area classified as severe nonattainment under the 1

- hour ozone NAAQS, the provisions of CAA

section 202(a)(4)(D) (rescinding the Stage II mandate of section 182(b)(3)) for areas classified as moderate) did not

remove the Stage II mandate , and therefore the Stage II requirement was required for the Washington Area when

part of a severe nonattainment area; sections 51.900(f) and 51.905(a) of the implementation rule for the 1997 ozone

NAAQS required that Stage II remain in place in the Washi ngton Area until the area can amend its SIP as allowed

after EPA issues a “widespread use” determination under section 202(a)(4)(D).

## With respect to Virginia, see 59 FR 32353, June 23, 1994.

With respect to the District, see 64 FR 57777, October 27, 1999.

For each of the 3 States, EPA has fully approved a SIP revision to implement an

Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance ( E I/M) program in the Washington Area that was

required for implementation of the 1

- hour ozone NAAQS under CAA section 182(c)(3) :

With respect to Di strict, see 64 FR 31498, June 11, 1999.

With respect to Maryland, see 64 FR 58340, October 29, 1999.

With respect to Virginia, see 64 FR 47670, September 1, 1999.

2. Other Moderate Nonattainment Elements

EPA’s September 20, 2011 final rule approved SIP revisions to fulfill the requirements for RFP,

RFP contingency measures, RACM generally under CAA section 172(c)(2)(A), and for a base

year inventory, that is, items (2)(a), (3), (4)

, (5)(b) and (6) (with respect to the 2008 MVEBs)

listed in t he preceding section III.A. of this TSD.

As for the RACT requirement (item (2)(b) of the preceding section III.A) , the Table 1 provides

the dates EPA fully approved RACT required under sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) for the 1997

Ozone NAAQS, that is, ite m (2)(b) in section III of this document:

Table 1

. RACT Submittal Dates

State Submittal date(s) Final Approval

District of

Columbia September 22, 2008

June 16, 2009 (74 FR 28447)

Maryland September 12, 2006 & October 11,

2011 July 13, 2012 (77 FR 41278)

Virginia October 23, 2006 June 16, 2009 (74 FR 28444)

3. Conclusion

EPA concludes that the 3 States have fulfilled the moderate nonattainment area requirements

except items (1) , and (5)(a) listed in the preceding section III.A of this document . Although EPA

has determined that the 2009 and 2010 MVEBs are adequate ( as discussed in a following section

of this document) but EPA must approve the attainment demonstration and contingency

measures in the event the area fails to attain by the attain by the applicable attainment date along

with the associated 2009 and 2010 MVEBs

.

C. Other Determinations Regarding the Washington Area and the June 2007 SIP

Revisions

1. Determination of Attainment of the 1997 Ozone NAAQS by the Washington Area

On February 28, 2012 (77 FR 11739), EPA published two determinations regarding the 1997

ozone NAAQS for the Washington Area. First, EPA made a clean data determination that the

Washington Area had attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

This determination was based upon complete, quality assured, and certified ambient air

monitoring data that showed the Washington Area had monitored attainment of the 1997 ozone

## NAAQS for the 2008

– 2010 monitoring period. Ambient air monitoring data for the 2009

–

2011 mo nitoring period is consistent with continued attainment. Second, pursuant to section

181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA, EPA made a determination of attainment that the Washington Area

had attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS by its attainment date of June 15, 2011 as requ ired by

section 181 of the CAA as interpreted by the implementation rule (40 CFR 51.903) for the 1997

ozone NAAQS.

Even though the attainment date for the Washington Area has passed and the area has in fact

attained the 1997 Ozone NAAQS by that date, EP A believes that approval of the attainment

demonstration and contingency measures plan in the June 2007 SIP revisions is important

because such approval strengthens the ozone SIP of each of the 3 States by reserving reductions

from various measures for the purposes of air quality purposes and by placing lower MVEBs

into the SIP than those associated with the 2008 RFP plan.

2. Adequacy of the 2009 and 2010 MVEBs

EPA has conducted the process to determine the adequacy of the MVEBs for the entire

Washington Area which are associated with the attainment demonstration portions of the June

2007 SIP revisions for the Washington Area

. On September 27 , 2012, EPA posted a notice on

EPA’s website at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm for the purpose

of opening a 30

- day public comment period on the adequacy of the MVEBs for the Washington

Area in these June 2007 SIP revisions’ attainment demonstration for the entire Washington Area.

That notice informed the public of the availability of these June 2007 SIP revisions. Following

EPA’s public comment period that closed on October 29, 2012, before which no comments were

received, EPA published a notice of adequacy in the Federal Register on February 7, 2013 (76

FR 9044) which announced EP A had determined that the MVEBs were adequate. 8



## III. What is EPA’s Review of the 3 States’ Modeled Attainment Demonstration and

Weight of Evidence Analysis for the Washington Area?

Section 110(a)( 2)(K) of the CAA requires states to prepare air quality modeling to show how

they will meet ambient air quality standards. EPA determined that areas classified as moderate

or above must use photochemical grid modeling or any other analytical method determ ined by

the Administrator to be at least as effective to demonstrate attainment of the ozone health

- based

standard by the required attainment date (November 29, 2005, 70 FR 71612, and 40 CFR

51.908). On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951 and 40 CFR 51.903), EPA specified how areas would

be classified with regard to the 8

- hour ozone standard set by EPA in 1997. On April 30, 2004

(69 FR 23858), EPA followed these procedures and classified the Washington Area as moderate,

and the nonattainment area was required to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS by June 2010.

Because the attainment date was June 2010 for moderate areas, states had to achieve emission

reductions by the ozone season of 2009 in order for ozone concentrations to be reduced and show

attainment during the la st complete ozone season before the 2010 deadline.

A

. EPA Guidance for Using Models to Determine Attainment

EPA's photochemical modeling guidance is found at Guidance on the Use of Models and Other

Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM 2.5 

## , and Regional

8 

### EPA’s determination that the 2009 and 2010 MVEBs in the June 2007 SIP revisions has the effect of making the

2009 VOC a nd 2010 NOx MVEBs the applicable MVEBs applicable for transportation conformity purposes as of

February 22, 2013, this proposed action would if issued as a final rule would approve these budgets into the ozone

SIP of each of the 3 States.

## Haze, EPA

- 454/B

- 07

- 002, April 2007. The photochemical modeling guidance is divided into

two parts. One part describes how to use a photochemical grid model for ozone to assess

whether an area will come into attainment of the air quality standard. A second part describes

how the user should perform supplemental analyses, using various analytical methods, to

determine if the model over predicts, under predicts, or accurately predicts the air quality

improvement projecte d to occur by the attainment date. The guidance indicates that states

should review these supplemental analyses, in combination with the modeling analysis, in a

“weight of evidence” assessment to determine whether each area is likely to achieve timely

att ainment.

A description of how the attainment demonstration from these June 2007 SIP revisions

addresses this EPA modeling guidance for a modeled attainment demonstration can be found in

“ Technical Support Document for the Modeling and Weight of Evidence (WOE) Portions of the

District of Columbia’s Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP) Entitled “Plan to Improve Air

Quality in the Washington, DC

- MD

- VA Region May 23, 2007” ( the “ Modeling TSD ”) that will

be available on line at www.regulations.gov , Dock et number EPA

- R03

- OAR

- 2013

- 0132 a s an

attachment to this TSD

.

In these June 2007 SIP revisions, the photochemical grid model used projected emissions for

2009, including emission changes due to regulations the 3 States and neighboring states were

planning to implement or had already implemented and due to expected growth by the 2009

ozone season. Meteorological conditions from 2002, the same as the base year modeling, were

used in the projection modeling for 2009 . Using the base case meteorology allows the effect of

changes in states’ emissions to be determined without being influenced by yearly fluctuations in

meteorology and is consistent with EPA guidance.

B. Initial Attainment Test Results

The attainment t est used in the Washington Area modeling demonstration involved the

application of model

- based relative response factors (RRFs) to base year design values at each

monitor to produce projected future year design values (2009). The projected 2009 design

val ues represent design values that should result from emission controls the 3 States and other

states planned to have in place in 2009. As discussed in the Modeling TSD , the 2009 design

values should be less than or equal to 84 parts per billion (ppb) at al l monitoring stations to meet

the attainment test. The SIP modeling predicts that in 2009, the Washington Area will not pass

the attainment test since the design values at two monitors are projected to be 1 or 2 ppb over the

84 ppb standard.

In summary, the basic photochemical grid modeling presented in the 3 States’ SIP revisions

meets EPA’s guidelines and when used with the methods recommended in EPA’s modeling

guidance, is acceptable to EPA. However, when EPA’s attainment test is applied to the

modeli ng results, the only two of seventeen monitors had 2009 ozone design values were

predicted to exceed the 84 ppb standard in the Washington Area with 2009 projected design

values of 85 and 86 ppb. 9 

## Thus, based solely upon consideration of EPA’s modeled att ainment

test, the 3 States have not conclusively demonstrated that the Washington Area will reach

9 

### The attainm ent demonstration in the June 2007 SIP revisions considered the monitor network extent in the

Washington Area as of the time the modeling was done and predicted 2009 design values for only those monitors for

which sufficient years of complete, quality assu red ambient monitoring data was available. The monitoring network

may have been changed since submission of the June 2007 SIP revisions pursuant to the annual monitoring network

planning, periodic network assessment and modification procedures of Subpart B to 40 CFR Part 58 “ Ambient Air

Quality Surveillance.”

## attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the attainment year with the modeled emission

reduction strategies committed to by the 3 States and the neighboring stat es in the Ozone

Transport Region (OTR). Therefore, a weight of evidence (WOE) analysis was used by the 3

States and reviewed by EPA to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the

Washington Area

.

C

. Weight of Evidence Demonstration

EPA’s modeling guidance describes how to use a photochemical grid model and additional

analytical methods to complete a WOE analysis to estimate if emissions control strategies will

lead to attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. This modeling guidance recommends a WOE

analysis beyond basic supplemental analyses if any future predicted design values fall within the

range of 82 to 87 ppb (inclusive)

. The model predicted design values for only four monitors in

the Washington Area fell within this range, and for the r est of the monitors in the Washington

area model predicted design values were 81 ppb or less. A WOE analysis is a supporting

analysis that helps to determine if the results of the photochemical modeling system are correctly

(or not correctly) predicting f uture air quality.

The WOE analysis presented in the 3 States’ SIP revisions describes the analyses performed,

databases used, key assumptions and outcomes of each analysis, and why the evidence, viewed

as a whole, supports a conclusion that the Washing ton Area will attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS

despite the model prediction that some monitors’ future design values exceed the 1997 ozone

NAAQS.

EPA’s review of the 3 States’ WOE analysis in the Modeling TSD and this TSD include s the

following: ( 1) a compa rison of model

- predicted 2009 ozone design values to monitored design

values for 200 3

- 2011; ( 2) an analysis of recent ozone trends in the Washington Area; and ( 3)

alternative methods for calculating the predicted 2009 ozone design value.

Table 2 of this document compar e s the model over predicted 2009 ozone design values when

using the EPA preferred method (Table 2 of the Modeling TSD ) to the 200 9

– 2011 actual design

values from Table 3 (below) of this TSD for the four monitors which under the str aight

attainment test had model

- predicted 2009 ozone design values in the range of 82 to 87 ppb

.

Table 2

. Modeled Predicted 2009 Design Values versus Actual Monitored

Design Values

Site Information Design

Value Actual Monitored

Design Values

AIRS ID Site Name Jurisdiction State Modeled

2009 2007

-

2009 2008

-

2010 2009

-

2011

51

- 013

- 0020 Aurora

Hills Arlington

County VA 86 79 79 80

51

- 059

- 0018 Mount

Vernon Fairfax

County VA 85 80 I I

51

- 059

- 0030 Franconia Fairfax

County VA 83 80 81 82

51

- 059

- 1005 Annandale Fairfax

County VA 82 78 I I

Note: An “I” in a design value column means there was not 3 years of complete data which is

required to compute a design value according to 40 CFR Part 5010 and Appendix I thereto.

Some Virginia monitors ceased operation after 2009. All of these monitors were attaining the

ozone NAAQS at the time operations ceased.

## Further, in the Modeling TSD , EPA’s analysis concurs with the 3 States’ analysis of significant

declining trends for the ozone design values . The Modeling TSD noted that monitored ozone

design values for each of the Washington Area monitors continued to decline and to show

attainment in 2010 and 2011. EPA also agrees the 3 States’ analysis of declining trends: (1) in

number of e xceedances, (2) in the ratio of exceedance days to days with a maximum ambient

temperature over 90 degrees Fahrenheit , (3) in NOx levels as evinced by the declining trend of

nitrogen dioxide levels, and (4) in spatial extent of exceedances of the 1997 ozon e NAAQS in

the Washington Area.

T he 3 States’ attainment demonstration also asserted that two alternative methods for computing

an alternative baseline concentration as well as two alternative methods for determining ozone

response to emissions reduction s (the relative response factor (RRF) explained in the Modeling

TSD) could be used to demonstrate attainment. 10 

## (See, Tables A

- 1 and A

- 2 in Appendix A to

this TSD.) Use of these alternatives would yield a range of base line design values to which a

range of RRFs could be applied. The 3 States used these to arrive at up to nine alternative 2009

predicted design values (each of 3 baseline design values times each of 3 RRFs for a total of up

to nine 2009 predicted design value s for each monitor)

. 11 

## The 3 States stated that such a method

could be used to demonstrate attainment by calculating a minimum and maximum possible

future design values

.

Using just the alternative baseline design values and the EPA method RRF still yiel ds three

instances of a 2009 predicted design value over 84 ppb. These are for the monitors at Aurora

Hills, Mount Vernon and Franconia monitors in Virginia with predicted 2009 design values of

88, 86 and 85 ppb

. (See the columns with plain text and with dashed vertical borders in Table A

3 of Appendix A to this TSD) Using the EPA method baseline design values and the two

alternative RRFs yields just one 2009 predicted design value over 84 ppb of 86 ppb at the Aurora

Hills site in Virginia. (See the columns with both italic text and dashed vertical borders in Table

A

- 3 of Appendix A to this TSD). However, while all the minimum possible future design values

were 82 ppb or less, EPA notes that three maximum values exceed 84 ppb at the three monitors

no ted in a prior sentence of this paragraph. However EPA notes that if one examines the average

of all the possible (up to nine) 2009 predicted design values only the Aurora Hills monitor has a

2009 predicted design value over 84 ppb of 85 ppb. (See

, Table A

- 3 in Appendix A to this

TSD.)

C. Actual Ozone Design Values

The recent actual design values for the Washington Area have been below the 84 ppb (0.08 ppm)

1997 ozone NAAQS. These values are shown in T able 3 :

Table 3

. Actual Monitored Design Values 2009 to 2011.

Site Data Actual Monitored Design

Values (ppb)

AIRS ID Site Name Jurisdiction Stat

e 2007

-

2009 2008

-

2010 2009

-

2011

11

- 001

- 0025 Takoma District of Columbia

--- 77 75 I

11

- 001

- 0041 River Terrace District of Columbia

--- 78 77 76

11

- 001

- 0043 McMillan District of Columbia

--- 80 79 79

10 

### The alternatives are methods related to but differing from tho s e methods EPA provided in the applicable

guidance.

11 

### In some cases a monitor may have lacked all the years air quality monitoring data needed to compute an alternate

design value.

### 24

- 009

- 0010 Calvert Calvert MD 74 77 79

24

- 017

- 0010 Southern MD Charles MD 75 75 77

24

- 021

- 0037 Frederick Municipal

Airport Frederick MD 76 76 76

24

- 031

- 3001 Rockville Montgomery MD 78 74 76

24

- 033

- 0002 Greenbelt Prince George's MD 78 79 79

24

- 033

- 8003 PG Equestrian Center Prince George's MD 78 77 79

51

- 013

- 0020 Aurora Hills Arlington County VA 79 79 80

51

- 059

- 0005 Chantilly Fairfax County VA 73 I I

51

- 059

- 0018 Mount Vernon Fairfax County VA 80 I I

51

- 059

- 0030 Franconia Fairfax County VA 80 81 82

51

- 059

- 1005 Annandale Fairfax County VA 78 I I

51

- 059

- 5001 McLean Fairfax County VA 77 I I

51

- 107

- 1005 Ashburn Loudoun County VA 77 75 73

51

- 153

- 0009 Long Park Prince William County VA 71 70 69

51

- 510

- 0009 Alexandria Alexandria City VA 75 74 77

Notes:

An “I” in a design value column means there was not 3 years of complete data which is required to compute a

design value according to 40 CFR Part 5010 and Appendix I thereto. Some Virginia monitors ceased operation after

2009. All of these monitors were attaining the ozone NAAQS at the time operations ceased.

Sources:

The 2007 to 2009 and the 2008 to 2010 design values are from Tables 1 and 2, respectively, from the notice of

proposed rulemaking ( 76 FR 58206 at 58208

- 58209, September 20, 2011 ) for the February 28, 2012 (77 FR 11739)

final rule regarding two determinations about the status of the Washington Area under 1997 ozone NAAQS.

The 2009

- 2011 design values are from “Ozone Detailed Information (excel file

Ozone_DesignValues_20092011_FINAL_08_0 6_12 .XLSX, 558k)

- Updated on August 7, 2012 downloaded from

http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html on February 22, 2013.

All design values in the original sources have been converted from ppm to ppb by multiplying the design value in

ppm by the conversion factor 1000 ppb/ppm..



## D. Conclusions:

EPA has determined with the benefit of 2009 monitored design values that the model in the 3

States’ June 2007 SIP revisions over predicted the actual c oncentrations.

EPA believes that the 3 States’ photochemical grid modeling results predict a 2009 projected

design value at most 2 ppb well above the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the Washington Area.

However, after taking into account WOE considerations regardin g model over prediction of the

actual 2009 monitored design values and recent ozone design value trends and other trends

related to the extent and severity of the ozone problem, which show attainment of the standard

by 2010, EPA believes that the 3 States’ June 2007 SIP revisions has demonstrated attainment of

the ozone standard by the attainment date of June 15, 2010.

IV

. What Control Measures and Emission Reductions are included in the plan for

Attainment and Contingency Measures?

A. RFP Measures:

## All of the measures which were used to demonstrate RFP are part of the measures for obtaining

the reductions needed for attainment. These are described in the TSD prepared for the approval

of the RFP plan (hereafter the RFP TSD)

. 12



## The RFP plan relied sol ely upon VOC reductions from these measures. See Table 6 in the June

30, 2011 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) (73 FR 38334 at 38337) for the September 20,

2011 final rule approving the RFP plan

. Some of these measures also provide reductions in NOx

emissions as well. These include most of the federal nonroad and on

- road mobile sources

emissions standards and other on

- road mobile sources controls such as enhanced I/M or the

transportation control measures.

Most of the contingency measure reductions to address any failure to achieve RFP were NOx

reductions. See Section II.E of the June 30, 2011 NPR (73 FR 38334 at 38337

- 38338) for the

September 20, 2011 final rule approving the RFP plan

.

Likewi se, most of the RFP plan measures provide additional VOC reductions in the 2009

attainment year over and above those projected for the RFP year of 2008. These include federal

nonroad and on

- road mobile sources emissions standards, and some area source rul es such as

those covering portable fuel containers where older vehicles, engines or containers that were

required to meet less stringent emissions standards (or in some cases no standards) are replaced

by newer vehicles, engines or containers required to m eet the more stringent standards of later

federal and state rules. Because the attainment plan must provide for reductions in 2009 to

offset growth in emissions between 2008 and 2009, the expected emission reductions for most

measures are calculated rela tive to the projected 2009 activity levels (which in most cases is

greater than that in 2008) and uncontrolled emissions. As an example of how this occurs,

consider the following hypothetical case: suppose a measure requires a 30 percent reduction in

VOC emission rates before January 1, 2008; further suppose the source category emits 1 ton of

VOC or NOx per 100 units of activity (gallons of fuel or product used/produced per year) and

the 1998 projected activity level is 1,000 units and the projected activi ty level for 2009 is 1,100

units per year. The 2008 uncontrolled emissions would be 10 tons (1 ton/100 units of activity

times 1,000 units) and the reductions projected for 2008 would be 3 tons

. The 2009 uncontrolled

emissions would be 11 tons (1 ton/100 units times 1,100 units) and the reductions projected for

2008 would be 3.3 tons a gain of 0.3 tons due solely to the higher projected activity level for

2009. In addition, the plan relied upon some additional measures beyond those used to

demonstrate RF P for which the following section of this document provides a summary

.

B. Additional Measures beyond the RFP Plan

The plan relied upon additional measures and reductions beyond those used to demonstrate RFP.

1. RFP Plan Measures

– Additional reductions a fter 2008

First of some of the RFP measures also provide reductions in NOx emissions in addition to the

VOC reductions credited towards the RFP requirement. These include the various on

- road motor

vehicle an d nonroad engine emission standards regulations.

12 

### Refer to the “RFP TSD”

– “Technical Support Document

— District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia; 2002

Base Year Emissions Inventory, Reasonable Further Progress Plan, Contingency Measures, Reasonably Available

Control Measures, and Transportation Conformity Budgets for the Metropolitan Washington, DC 1997 8

- Hour

Ozone Moderate Nonattainment Area,” dated May 26, 2011, (originally docketed as item EPA

- R03

- OAR

- 2010

-

0475

- 0006 in Docket Number EPA

- R03

- OAR

- 2 010

- 0475) a copy of which has been included in the docket for this

proposed rule.

## 2. New measures

Additionally, the plan relies upon new SIP requirements including those amending existing state

regulations for area source categories to add emission standards for additional categories of

consumer products or to lower standards for previously regulated products such as portable fuel

containers. Also the 3 S tates agreed to adopt regulations for in dustrial adhesives and sealants.

Specifically, the attainment plan relied upon the following new measures:

(1) Regulations controlling VOC emissions from industrial adhesives and sealants in Maryland

and Virginia with such regulations conforming to the emission standards of a “model rule”

prepared by the Ozone Transport Commissions (OTC);

(2) A second “phase” of control by Virginia on VOC emissions from portable fuel containers by

imposing more stringent standards than the initial regulations with suc h standards conforming to

those of a “model rule” prepared by the OTC.

(3) A second “phase” of control by Virginia on VOC emissions from consumer products by

imposing emission standards for additional classes of consumer products with such standards

con forming to those of a “model rule” prepared by the OTC.

All of these rules have been fully approved by EPA into the applicable state SIP. S ee

, 7 6 FR

64237, October 18, 2011and 76 FR 51925, August 19, 2011 (regarding Maryland adhesives and

sealants rule ); and 77 FR 3928, January 26, 2012 and 76 FR 69214, November 8, 2011

(regarding Virginia’s adhesives and sealants rule, phase 2 portable fuel containers rule and phase

2 consumer products rule) for further details on these approvals and further descriptio n of these

rules

.

Maryland also instituted a second phase of control on consumer products and portable fuel

containers with such standards conforming to those of a “model rule” prepared by the OTC, but

Maryland’s rules required compliance before the end of calendar year 2008 and so are not rules

beyond those for the RFP plan. (The District of Columbia committed to adopting and submitting

as a SIP revision regulations conforming to those of the “model rules” prepared by the OTC for

these categories, but any emission reductions arising from these measures in the District are not

applied to the emissions reductions upon which the attainment modeling and contingency

measure demonstration relied.)

3. RFP Contingency Plan Measures

In addition, some of the reductions scheduled to occur by the end of 2009 upon which the

contingency plan for a failure to achieve adequate RFP by the end of calendar year 2008 relied,

are part of the reductions upon which the attainment demonstration relies

. The specifically

ide ntified measures supplying these reductions are the portable fuel containers rules (reductions

occurring as a result of rule phases 1 and 2) and reductions from beyond RACT

- level control of

NOx sources attributable to federal regulations and state/regional initiatives. These include: (1)

“NOx Budget” rules that required a second phase of stationary source NOx reductions as part of

a coordinated regulatory initiative by the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) states to further reduce

NOx emissions in the Northeast ; and EPA’s “NOx SIP Call” to reduce ozone transport in the

Eastern United States (refer to 40 CFR 51.121 ). 13 

## These also include: (3) EPA's Clean Air

13 

### See

, 63 FR 57491, Oct. 27, 1998, as amended at 63 FR 71225, Dec. 24, 1998; 64 FR 26305, May 14, 1999; 65 FR

11230, Mar. 2, 2000; 65 FR 56251, Sept. 18, 2000; 69 FR 21642, A pr. 21, 2004; 70 FR 25317, May 12, 2005; 70

## Interstate Rule (CAIR) codified at 40 CFR 51.123 & 51.124; and (4) Maryland's Healthy Air Act

(MD HHA). O f these, the MD HAA and the CAIR rule are applicable as these two are the main

operative rules setting allocations for large sources of NOx for the years 2009 and later although

some sources covered by earlier rules but not affected by CAIR may remain subject to those

earlier rules

.

The CAIR requires NOx and sulfur oxides emission reductions from large fossil fuel

- fired

electric generating units. The rule is set up in several phases with the first phase of NOx

reductions to come by 2009. On July 11 , 2008, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit

issued its decision to vacate and remand both CAIR and the associated CAIR FIPs ( North

Carolina v. EPA , 531 F.3d 836 (DC Cir., 2008). However, in response to EPA’s petition for

rehearing, the court iss ued an order remanding CAIR to EPA without vacating either CAIR or

the CAIR FIPs ( North Carolina v. EPA , 550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir., 2008)). The court, thereby, left

CAIR in place in order to “temporarily preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR”

unt il EPA replaces it with a rule consistent with the court’s opinion (id. at 1178). Because CAIR

has been remanded to EPA without vacatur, CAIR and CAIR FIPs are currently in effect in

Maryland, Virginia and the District.

Virginia’s NOx budget and ozone sea son trading regulations adopted in response to CAIR are

found in Title 9 of the Virginia Administrative Code, Agency 5, Chapter 140 (9 VAC 5 Chapter

140). EPA approved Virginia CAIR program into the Virginia SIP in 2007 (72 FR 73602

On November 1, 2001 ( 66 FR 55099), EPA approved the District’s Nitrogen Oxides Emissions

Budget Program (20 DCMR, Chapter 10) which addressed the NOx SIP call and regional

initiatives. ). EPA put a Federal Implementation Plan (F I P) in place for the District in 2006 (71

FR 25 328 , April 26, 2006, 72 FR 62345, November 2, 2007, as amended at 76 FR 48362,

August 8, 2011 ) which is codified at 40 CFR 52.484 with respect to NOx reductions.

EPA has approved Maryland’s rules addressing the NOx SIP call, regional initiatives, CAIR and

the MD HAA. These are found in Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) Title 26, Subtitle

11, Chapter 27 (COMAR 26.11.27) (Regulations .01 through .04 and .05 throu gh .06), COMAR

26.11.28 (Regulations .01 through .08) regarding CAIR, COMAR 26.11.29 (Regulations .01

through .15), and COMAR 26.1130 (Regulations .01 through .09).

Table 4 provides the dates of EPA’s approval final actions:

Table 4

. EPA’s Approvals of Maryland NOx Rules

COMAR Rule Cite Publication Date Federal R egister Citation

26.11.27 September 4, 2008 73 FR 51599

26.11.28 October 30, 2009 74 FR 56117

26.11.29 March 22, 2004 69 FR 13236

26.11.30 November 3, 2006 71 FR 64647

C. Summary of Emissions Reductions

The following Table 5 provide s a summary of the attainment plan’s measures and the projected

2009 emission reductions.

FR 51597, Aug. 31, 2005; 73 FR 21538, Apr. 22, 2008; 76 FR 48353, Aug. 8, 2011

.

## Table 5

. Control Measures and 2009 Emission Reductions in the Washington Area

Source Sector Reductions (tons per day)

Plan Ref.

No. Note 1 

## VOC NOx

Point Source Measures

– RFP Plan Contingency Measures

6.1.2 State NOx RACT and Regional NOx Transport

Requirement (RACT, NOx SIP Call, CAIR, HAA) 0.00 128.76

Subtotal ...Point Source Measures ... 0.00 128.76

Area Sources Measures

RFP Plan Area Source Measures

– 2009 reductions

6.2.11 Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing Rule 3.59 0.0

6.2.12 Portable Fuel Containers Rule: Phase I 9.3 0.0

6.2.13 Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings

Rule 10.82 0.0

6.2.14 Reformulated Consumer Products Rule: Phase I 6.34 0.0

6.2.15 Solvent Cleaning Operations Rule 2.99 0.0

6.2.16 Industrial Adhesives and Sealants Rule 2.42 0.0

Additional Area Source Measures Beyond the RFP Plan

– 2009 Reductions

6.2.18 Reformulated Consumer Products Rule: Phase II 0.76 0.0

6.2.17 Portable Fuel Containers Rule: Phase II 0.75 0.0

Subt otal ... Area Sources Measures ... 36.97 0.00

Nonroad Measures (NONROAD Model) Note 2



## 6.3.1 EPA Non

- Road Gasoline Engines Rule

42.44 14.76 6.3.2 EPA Non

- Road Diesel Engines Rule

6.3.3 Emissions standards for spark ignition marine

engines

6.3.4 Emissions standards for large spark ignition

engines

Other Nonroad Measures (not covered by the NONROAD Model)

6.3.6 Standards for Locomotive 0.06 2.74

Subtotal ...Nonroad Source Measures ... 42.50 17.50

Onroad Measures (MOBILE and TDM Model) Note 3



## 6.4.2 Enhanced Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance (I/M)

7.17 37.63 6.4.4 National Low Emission Vehicle Program

6.4.5 Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emission Standards

6.4.6 Heavy

- Duty Diesel Engine Rule

Other Onroad Measures Note 4



## 6.4.7 Transportation Control Measures

, Vehicle

Technology, Fuel, or Maintenance Measures 0.18 0.45

Subtotal On

- road Mobile Source Measures 7.35 38.08

Other Measures

6.5 Voluntary Bundle 0.19 0.30

Subtotal Other Measures 0.19 0.30

## Totals ...... 87.01 184.64

Notes:

1. The measure number assigned in Chapter 6 of the plan document of the June 2007 SIP Revisions

.

2. The NONRPOAD model can be run to project emissions from all classes of nonroad engines covered by this

model for an entire geographic area. This model will apply all applicable emission standards to all classes of

nonroad engines covered by this model for an entire geographic a rea... Therefore, the total emissions reductions

from all applicable EPA nonroad engine rules are presented in aggregate. Locomotive engines are not included

within the scope of the NONROAD Model.

2. On

- road mo b ile source emissions require the use of two models. The first is EPA’s MOBILE6 model which

generates emissions factors. The model can be configured to generate emissions factors that account for all EPA

emissions standards, fuel standards and state implemented measures (such as I/M)) applicable in the area for the

year being modeled. The 3 States have elected to run the MOBILE6 model in this manner. The 3 States thus

generated emissions factors that account for all the control programs simultaneously; therefore, the reductions from

each individual program are not computed, only the aggregate reductions. The second model is the transportation

demand model (TDM) which predicts future year activity levels for on

- road mobile sources

– vehicle miles

travelled and vehicle starts

– for the Washington Are a which accounts for the planned changes in the highway

network. The future year emissions factors are applied to the activity levels to generate predicted emissions level.

3. Certain measures are not easy to quantify using MOBLE6 and the TDM because their impact is below the

resolution of the TDM model. Some are transportation control measures designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled

or vehicle trips. Other of these meas ures represents retrofit of transit vehicles or purchase of cleaner fueled transit

buses.



## D. Contingency Plan Reductions

Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA require s that SIPs contain additional contingency measures that

will take effect without further action by the state or EPA if an area fails to attain an ambient air

quality standard in this case the 1997 ozone NAAQS by the applicable date, or fails to achieve

suf ficient RFP

. 14 

## The CAA does not specify how many contingency measures are needed or the

magnitude of emissions reductions that must be provided by these measures. However, EPA

provided initial guidance interpreting the contingency measure requirements of section 172(c)(9 )

in the April 16, 1992, General Preamble for Implementation of the Act ( See 57 FR 13498 at

13510, April 16, 1992). EPA’s interpretation is based upon the language in section 1872(c)(9)

and in conjunction with the control measures requirem ents of sections 172(c), 182(b) and

182(c)(2)(B), the reclassification and failure to attain provisions of section 181(b) and other

provisions. In the April 16, 1992 initial guidance EPA indicated that states with ozone

nonattainment areas classified as m oderate and above should include sufficient contingency

measures so that, upon implementation of such measures, additional emission reductions of up to

3 percent of the emissions in the adjusted base year inventory (or such lesser percentage that will

cure the identified failure) would be achieved in the year following the year in which the failure

has been identified. 15 

## The state must show that the contingency measures can be implemented

with minimal further action on their part and with no additional rule making actions.

EPA allows areas to use as contingency measures one or more federal or local measures that are

in place and provide reductions that are in excess to the attainment demonstration (or RFP plan)

and has approved numerous SIPs under this interpretation

. Refer to the discussion and citations

14 

### EPA has already approved contingency measures related to for any failure to make RFP as discussed in section

IV.B elsewhere in this document. This proposed rule therefore only applies to approval of contingency measures

needed to address the failure to attain by the applicable attainment date “prong” in section 179(c)(9).

15 

### The requirem ent for and the method for the computation of an “adjusted base year inventory” is explained in the

NPR for the September 20, 2011 final rule under the heading B. Adjusted Base Year Inventory, 2008 RFP Target

Levels. See 76 FR 38334 at 38336, June 30, 201 1.

## under “3. Comments and Responses” at 70 FR 71612 at 71651, November 29, 2005. EPA

believes that any additional reductions from measures in the attainment strategy occurring after

the applicable attainment date are clearly in excess to those needed for attainment. The modeling

demonstrati on was based upon projected emissions levels for the year 2009 and therefore

reductions occurring after the end of calendar year 2009 would be excess to attainment needs.

The applicable attainment date was June 15, 2010 based upon an effective date of d esignation

under the 1997 ozone NAAQS of June 15, 2004. See

, 69 FR 28858, April 30, 2004 and Table 1

in 40 CFR 51.903. The earliest EPA make a determination of attainment or failure to achieve

attainment for the Washington Area would be sometime in 2010; therefore, under the April 16,

1992 initial guidance discussed in the previous paragraph, the earliest the “year following the

year the failure was identified ” would be in 2011. Therefore, EPA believes that reductions

occurring after 2009 and as early a s 2010 and as late as 2011 would qualify for contingency

measures to address the failure to attain prong in section 179(c)(9) insofar as being both excess

to attainment and satisfying the timing of reductions requirements. E xcess reductions from

measures already in place, that is, being implemented, clearly meet a requirement that

contingency measures be implemented with minimal further action by the state and with no

additional rulemaking actions. For more information on contingency measures, see the Apr il 16,

1992 General Preamble (57 FR 13512) and the November 29, 2005 Phase 2 8

- hour ozone

implementation rule (70 FR 71612 at 71650).

Because the Washington area’s attainment demonstration relies upon both VOC and NOx

reductions, acceptable contingency measures can include NOx and VOC reductions

. 16 

## For the

failure to attain contingency requirement, the 3 States identified specific measures yielding 8.46

tons per day of VOC emissions reductions and 6.05 tons per day of NOx emissions reductions

. These are identified in Chapter 11 of the June 2007 SIP revision document which is reproduced

below in Table 6 :

Table 6

. Contingency Measure Reductions for the Attainment Demonstration

Plan

Ref. No. Contingency Measure Reductions (tons per

ozone season day)

VOC NOx

6.4.5 Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emission Standards 0 .0 1.77

6.3.1 Phase I and Phase II Emissions Standards for Gasoline

Powered Non

- Road Utility Engines 1.49 0.04

6.3.2 Emissions Standards for Diesel

- Powered Non

- Road

Utility Engines of 50 or More Horsepower 0.39 3.28

6.3.3 Emissions Standards for Spark Ignition Marine Engine 1.42 0 .0

6.3.4 Emissions Standards for Large Spark Ignition Engines 0.54 0.96

6.2.12 &

6.2.17 Ozone Transport Commission Portable Fuel Containers

Rule 4.62 0 .0

TOTAL REDUCTIONS 8.46 6.05

Reductions for the Tier 2 motor vehicle emission standards occur between 2009 and 2010.

(There may be reductions in VOC emissions resulting from the Tier 2 motor vehicle standards

but the 3 States have elected not to apply any of these towards the conting ency requirement.)

Reductions for the other identified measures occur between 2009 and 2011. The 3 States have

16 

### Such a result comports well with section 182(b)(1)(A) which requires a moderate area plan to provide for

“reductions in volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen as necessary to attain” the 1997 ozone NAAQS by

the applicable attainment date for moderate areas.

## implemented the contingency reductions from the on

- road mobile sources via establishment of a

2010 MVEBs. Even though additional reductions in VOC emissions from on

- road mobile

sources may occur between 2009 and 2010 the state s have elected not to count these towards the

contingency requirement

. Thus the 2010 MVEBs reflect only a reduction in NOx emissions.

EPA believes that all of these measures achieve additional reductions beyond those needed to

offset growth in activity levels as new motor vehicles, nonroad vehicle and locomotive engines,

or portable fuel containers replace older items which either were s ubject to less stringent

emissions standards or no emission standards regulations. These reduction amounts represent a

1.941 percent reduction in VOC emissions and a 1.069 percent reduction in NOx emissions as

shown in Table 7 of this document.

Table 7

. Calculation of VOC and NOx Reductions for Attainment Contingency

(Ozone Season tons per day)

Item Description VOC NOx

(a) 2002 Base

- Year Inventory 448.28 597.22

(b) Non

- creditable Emissions Reduction 12.45 31.61

(c) Adjusted Base

- Year Inventory = Item (a) minus

Item (b) 435.83 565.61

(d) 1.941% VOC Reduction Required for Attainment

Contingency = (1.941 /100) times Item (c) 8.459

(e) 1.069% NOx Reduction Required for Attainment

Contingency = (1.069/100) times Item (c) 6.046

The June 2007 SIP revision plan document (in Table 11

- 3) shows a calculation for the attainment

contingency as being 0.3 percent VOC and 2.7 percent NOx. But the remainder of the

discussion is for the measures listed in Table 6 of this TSD and the emissions reductions shown

in Table 6 . EPA concludes that Table 11

- 3 is in error. In any event, EPA believes that the state s

have identified enough reductions from specific measures to fulfill the contingency requirement.

VII

. What are the Tr ansportation Conformity Budgets?

Transportation conformity is required by CAA section 176(c). EPA’s conformity rule requires

that transportation plans, programs and projects conform to state air quality implementation

plans and establishes the criteria an d procedure for determining whether or not they do.

Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality

violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of a national ambient air

quality standard suc h as the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The criteria by which EPA determines whether

a SIP’s MVEBs are adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). The

process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets is described in 40 CFR 93.118( f).

States must establish VOC and NOx MVEBs for the attainment year and submit these MVEBs to

EPA for approval. Upon adequacy determination or approval by EPA, states must conduct

transportation conformity analysis for their Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) and

long range transportation plans to ensure highway vehicle emissions will not exceed relevant

MVEBs. Failure to demonstrate such transportation conformity results in freezing of federal

highway funds and all federal highway projects in the lapsed area. The 3 States discuss

transportation conformity in Section 8.0 of the Washington Area 8

- hour ozone plan. The 3

States describe their methods and provide detailed input parameters used in modeling the

inventories in Appendices E1 and E2 of the Washington Area 8

- hour ozone plan. In the

## Washington Area, the Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Committee (MWAQC) consult s

with the Transportation Planning Board (TPB) to establish mobile source emissions budgets.

In addition to the 2009 MVEBs required for the attainment year, the 3 States have implemented

the NOx contingency reductions from the on

- road mobile sources via establishment of a 2010

MVEB for NOx.

The Washington Area MVEBs for the attainment demonstration and contingency measures are

based on the projected 2009 and 2010, respectively, mobile source emissions, accounting for all

mobile control measures. The budgets are equal to the projected 2009 and 2010, respectively,

on

- road mobile source emission inventories minus reductions from transportation control

measures.

The MVEBs for the 2009 attainment year and the 2010 contingency plan NOx MVEBs are

shown in Table 8 . These are the budgets EPA determined were adequate in the February 7, 2013

(76 FR 9044) notice of adequacy.

Table 8 . The Washington Area MVEBS for the 2009 Attainment Plan

and 2010 Contingency Plan

Budget Type Budget

Year MVEBs

VOC (tons per day) NOx (tons per day)

Attainment

Year 2009 66.5 146.1

Contingency

Plan 2010 N/A 144.3

That the plan document of the June 2007 SIP revisions shows a budget of 66.5 tons per day of

VOC for 2010 (which is numerically the same as that for 2009) is now of no real import. Under

the transportation conformity rules conformity must be determined against the budgets in the

SIP. Because all future conformity determinations will evaluated for years after 2010, the budget

of 66.5 tons of VOC per day for 2009 remains the applicable VOC budget if there were no

budget for 2010. If there was a 66.5 tons per day budget for 2010 it would place the same

constraint on future motor vehicle emissions as the 2009 budget.

VII

. Summary and Recommendations:

The EPA Region III Air Protection Division (APD) has reviewed the 3 States’ attainment

demonstration plan, contingency measures for failure to attain for the Washington Area and

found them to be approvable. In addition, in the September 20, 2011 (76 FR 58 116) final rule

EPA has determined that the 3 States used acceptable techniques and methodologies to develop

the Washington Area 2002 base year emission and milestone year projected inventories .

Furthermore, EPA has determined that the 2009 and 2010 att ainment year and contingency year,

respectively, MVEBs in the June 2007 SIP revisions for the Washington Area adequate for

transportation conformity purposes in the February 7, 2013 (76 FR 9044) notice of adequacy.

Therefore, APD recommends approval of th e following SIP elements in the June 2007 SIP

revisions for the Washington, DC

- MD

- VA moderate nonattainment area : the attainment

## demonstration and associated 2009 MVEBs and the contingency measures for failure to attain

and the associated 2010 MVEB

.

Attachments:

“ Technical Support Document for the Modeling and Weight of Evidence (WOE) Portions of the

District of Columbia’s Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP) Entitled “Plan to Improve Air

Quality in the Washington, DC

- MD

- VA Region

May 23, 2007”

“Te chnical Support Document

— District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia; 2002 Base Year

Emissions Inventory, Reasonable Further Progress Plan, Contingency Measures, Reasonably

Available Control Measures, and Transportation Conformity Budgets for the Metrop olitan

Washington, DC 1997 8

- Hour Ozone Moderate Nonattainment Area,” dated May 26, 2011,

(originally docketed as item EPA

- R03

- OAR

- 2010

- 0475

- 0006 in the docket for the September

20, 2011 final rule

– Docket Number EPA

- R03

- OAR

- 2010

- 0475) a copy of which has been

included in this docket as an attachment to this TSD.

### Appendix A to 

## Technical Support Document for Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;

District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia; Attainment Demonstration for the 1997 8

- Hour Ozone National

Ambient Air Quality Standard for the Washington, DC

- MD

- VA Moderate Nonattainment Area (Docket ID#: EPA

R03

- OAR

- 2013

- 0132)

Table A

- 1 Alternative baseline design values A B C

State Jurisdiction AIRS ID Site Name EPA

Method

DVB 2001

-

2003

DVB 2000

-

2004

Straight

Average

DVB D

Minimum

value in

Cols A

- C E

Maximum

value in

Cols A

- C

--- District of Columbia 11

- 001

- 0025 Takoma 88.7 88 87.6 87.6 88.7

--- District of Columbia 11

- 001

- 0041 River Terrace 89.0 92 85.2 85.2 92.0

--- District of Columbia 11

- 001

- 0043 McMillan 92.7 94 89.6 89.6 94.0

MD Calvert 24

- 009

- 0010 Calvert NA NA NA NA NA

MD Charles 24

- 017

- 0010 Southern MD 93.0 94 91.6 91.6 94.0

MD Frederick 24

- 021

- 0037 Frederick Municipal

Airport 87.3 88 85.8 85.8 88.0

MD Montgomery 24

- 031

- 3001 Rockville 86.7 88 85.2 85.2 88.0

MD Prince George's 24

- 033

- 0002 Greenbelt 94.0 93 92.5 92.5 94.0

MD Prince George's 24

- 033

- 8003 PG Equestrian Center 94.0 NA 94.7 94.0 94.7

VA Arlington County 51

- 013

- 0020 Aurora Hills 96.7 99 92.8 92.8 99.0

VA Fairfax County 51

- 059

- 0005 Chantilly 87.0 89 85.2 85.2 89.0

VA Fairfax County 51

- 059

- 0018 Mount Vernon 96.7 97 95.4 95.4 97.0

VA Fairfax County 51

- 059

- 0030 Franconia 95.0 97 91.8 91.8 97.0

VA Fairfax County 51

- 059

- 1005 Annandale 94.0 NA 94.0 94.0 94.0

VA Fairfax County 51

- 059

- 5001 McLean 88.0 88 86.0 86.0 88.0

VA Loudoun County 51

- 107

- 1005 Ashburn 90.0 92 87.0 87.0 92.0

VA Prince William County 51

- 153

- 0009 Long Park 85.0 87.0 83.6 83.6 87.0

VA Alexandria City 51

- 510

- 0009 Alexandria 90.0 92.0 86.8 86.8 92.0

Note: DVB means baseline design value

From Table 10

- 7. Methodologies for Calculating Baseline Design Values in the June 007 SIP

Revisions

### Appendix A to Technical Support Document for Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality

Implementation Plans; District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia; Attainment Demonstration for the

1997 8

- Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard for the Washington, DC

- MD

- VA Moderate

Nonattainment Area (Docket ID#: EPA

- R03

- OAR

- 2013

- 0132)

Table A

- 2 Alternative Relative Response Factors (RRFs)

G H J

AIRS ID Site Name EPA

Method 9

- Cell

Average

Method Grid

Cell

Only

Method K

Minimum

value in

Cols G

- J L

Maximum

value in

Cols G

- J EPA

Methods:

DVB

times

EPA

RRF

11

- 001

- 0025 Takoma 0.892 0.874 0.886 0.874 0.892 79.1

11

- 001

- 0041 River 0.883 0.872 0.909 0.872 0.909 78.6

11

- 001

- 0043 McMillan 0.883 0.872 0.909 0.872 0.909 81.9

24

- 009

- 0010 Calvert 0.836 0.815 0.81 0.81 0.836

24

- 017

- 0010 Southern MD 0.808 0.806 0.794 0.794 0.808 75.1

24

- 021

- 0037 Frederick Municipal

Airport 0.846 0.833 0.844 0.833 0.846 73.9

24

- 031

- 3001 Rockville 0.881 0.861 0.86 0.86 0.881 76.4

24

- 033

- 0002 Greenbelt 0.869 0.857 0.857 0.857 0.869 81.7

24

- 033

- 8003 PG Equestrian Center 0.865 0.838 0.837 0.837 0.865 81.3

51

- 013

- 0020 Aurora Hills 0.891 0.875 0.893 0.875 0.893 86.2

51

- 059

- 0005 Chantilly 0.867 0.858 0.888 0.858 0.888 75.4

51

- 059

- 0018 Mount Vernon 0.883 0.872 0.868 0.868 0.883 85.4

51

- 059

- 0030 Franconia 0.88 0.873 0.877 0.873 0.880 83.6

51

- 059

- 1005 Annandale 0.88 0.873 0.877 0.873 0.880 82.7

51

- 059

- 5001 McLean 0.883 0.869 0.864 0.864 0.883 77.7

51

- 107

- 1005 Ashburn 0.869 0.872 0.874 0.869 0.874 78.2

51

- 153

- 0009 Long Park 0.871 0.865 0.866 0.865 0.871 74.0

51

- 510

- 0009 Alexandria 0.883 0.872 0.868 0.868 0.883 79.5

From Table 10

- 8. Methodologies for Calculating Relative Response Factors in the June 007 SIP Revisions

Note: There is no Column "I."

### Appendix A to Technical Support Document for Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia, Maryland and

Virginia; Attainment Demonstration for the 1997 8

- Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard for the Washington, DC

- MD

- VA Moderate

Nonattainment Area (D ocket ID#: EPA

- R03

- OAR

- 2013

- 0132)

Table A

- 3 Matrix of alternative baseline design values times alternative RRFs

DVB

method 2001

-

2003

DVB 2000

-

2004

Straight

Average

DVB EPA

Method

DVB 2001

-

2003

DVB 2000

-

2004

Straight

Average

DVB EPA

Method

DVB 2001

-

2003

DVB 2000

-

2004

Straight

Average

DVB

AIRS ID Site Name RRF

Method EPA

RRF EPA

RRF 9

- cell

RRF 9

- cell

RRF 9

- cell

RRF Grid cell

RRF Grid cell

RRF Grid cell

RRF Average of

all

combinations

11

- 001

- 0025 Takoma 78.5 78.1 77.5 76.9 76.6 78.6 78.0 77.6 77.7

11

- 001

- 0041 River 81.2 75.2 77.6 80.2 74.3 80.9 83.6 77.4 78.8

11

- 001

- 0043 McMillan 83.0 79.1 80.8 82.0 78.1 84.3 85.4 81.4 81.8

24

- 009

- 0010 Calvert

24

- 017

- 0010 Southern MD 76.0 74.0 75.0 75.8 73.8 73.8 74.6 72.7 74.5

24

- 021

- 0037 Frederick Municipal Airport 74.4 72.6 72.7 73.3 71.5 73.7 74.3 72.4 73.1

24

- 031

- 3001 Rockville 77.5 75.1 74.6 75.8 73.4 74.6 75.7 73.3 75.0

24

- 033

- 0002 Greenbelt 80.8 80.4 80.6 79.7 79.3 80.6 79.7 79.3 80.0

24

- 033

- 8003 PG Equestrian

Center 81.9 78.8 79.4 78.7 79.3 79.6

51

- 013

- 0020 Aurora Hills 88.2 82.7 84.6 86.6 81.2 86.4 88.4 82.9 85.1

51

- 059

- 0005 Chantilly 77.2 73.9 74.6 76.4 73.1 77.3 79.0 75.7 75.9

51

- 059

- 0018 Mount Vernon 85.7 84.2 84.3 84.6 83.2 83.9 84.2 82.8 84.1

51

- 059

- 0030 Franconia 85.4 80.8 82.9 84.7 80.1 83.3 85.1 80.5 82.8

51

- 059

- 1005 Annandale 82.7 82.1 82.1 82.4 82.4 82.3

51

- 059

- 5001 McLean 77.7 75.9 76.5 76.5 74.7 76.0 76.0 74.3 76.0

51

- 107

- 1005 Ashburn 79.9 75.6 78.5 80.2 75.9 78.7 80.4 76.0 78.2

51

- 153

- 0009 Long Park 75.8 72.8 73.5 75.3 72.3 73.6 75.3 72.4 73.9

51

- 510

- 0009 Alexandria 81.2 76.6 78.5 80.2 75.7 78.1 79.9 75.3 78.2

### Appendix A to Technical Support Document for Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia; Attainment

Demonstra tion for the 1997 8

- Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard for

the Washington, DC

- MD

- VA Moderate Nonattainment Area (Docket ID#: EPA

- R03

-

OAR

- 2013

- 0132)

Table A

- 4 Minimum and Maximum predicted 2009 design values from Table A

- 3

AIRS ID Site Name Jurisdiction State M

Minimum N

Maximum

11

- 001

- 0025 Takoma District of

Columbia

--- 76.6 79.1

11

- 001

- 0041 River Terrace District of

Columbia

--- 74.3 83.6

11

- 001

- 0043 McMillan District of

Columbia

--- 78.1 85.4

24

- 009

- 0010 Calvert Calvert MD

24

- 017

- 0010 Southern MD Charles MD 72.7 76.0

24

- 021

- 0037 Frederick Municipal

Airport Frederick MD 71.5 74.4

24

- 031

- 3001 Rockville Montgomery MD 73.3 77.5

24

- 033

- 0002 Greenbelt Prince George's MD 79.3 81.7

24

- 033

- 8003 PG Equestrian Center Prince George's MD 78.7 81.9

51

- 013

- 0020 Aurora Hills Arlington County VA 81.2 88.4

51

- 059

- 0005 Chantilly Fairfax County VA 73.1 79.0

51

- 059

- 0018 Mount Vernon Fairfax County VA 82.8 85.7

51

- 059

- 0030 Franconia Fairfax County VA 80.1 85.4

51

- 059

- 1005 Annandale Fairfax County VA 82.1 82.7

51

- 059

- 5001 McLean Fairfax County VA 74.3 77.7

51

- 107

- 1005 Ashburn Loudoun County VA 75.6 80.4

51

- 153

- 0009 Long Park Prince William

County VA 72.3 75.8

51

- 510

- 0009 Alexandria Alexandria City VA 75.3 81.2



## See Microsoft ® 

## Excel® spreadsheet “ Appendix A to TS D for EPA

- R03

- OAR

- 2013

- 0132.xls” for formulas and calculations.

## 1

Technical Support Document for the Modeling and Weight of Evidence (WOE) Portions

of the District of Columbia’s Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP) Entitled “Plan to

Improve Air Quality in the Washington, DC

- MD

- VA Region

May 23, 2007”

TSD Prepared July, 20 12

Todd A. Ellsworth

Office of Air Monitoring and Analysis, 3AP40

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

____________________

/S/

________________________ Reviewed by Walter Wilkie, Associate Director,

Office of Air Monitoring and Analysis (3AP40)

____ 8/15/2012

_____________ Date Signed

## 2



# Technical Support Document for the Modeling and Weight o f Evidence

(WOE) Portions of the District of Columbia’s Ozone State

Implementation Plan (SIP) Entitled “ P lan t o I mprove A ir Q uality i n t he

W ashington , DC

- MD

- VA R egion

May 23, 2007 ”

Purpose of the Technical Support Document

This Technical Support Document (TSD) describes the Environmental Protection

Agency’s (EPA’s) evaluation of the modeling and WOE portions of The District of

Columbia’s S tate Implementation Plan (SIP) entitled “ Plan to Improve Air Quality in the

Washington, DC

- MD

- VA Region

, May 23, 2007 ” , hereafter referred to as the D.C. Area

SIP

. The Metropolitan Washington, DC

- MD

- VA Ozone Nonattainment Area includes

the Metropolitan Wa shington Region defined as follows: Montgomery, Prince George’s,

Frederick, Charles, Calvert Counties in Maryland; Fairfax County, Arlington County,

City of Alexandria, City of Falls Church, City of Fairfax, Prince William County,

Loudoun County, City of M anassas and City of Manassas Park in Virginia; and the

District of Columbia. Classified as a “moderate” nonattainment area, t he Metropolitan

Washington, DC

- MD

- VA Ozone Nonattainment Area is required to attain the NAAQS

by June 2010, in effect, by the ozon e season of 2009.

The purpose of this TSD is to provide more detailed information than can be contained in

the official notice published in the Federal Register . Readers who need more information

than we provide in this TSD or want to review the modeli ng in more detail should read

the above referenced ozone SIP for the Washington DC Metropolitan Area.

Introduction to the Washington D.C. A rea State Implementation Plan for Ozone

The SIP for the D.C. area includes plans to reduce ozone

- causing emission s for

Metropolitan Washington Area. The Plan also includes modeling that will predict

whether the area will meet the ozone standard by the due date. This TSD reviews

modeling and WOE portions of the D.C. Area SIP . T his TSD reviews The District’s

documen tation of modeling and WOE that attempts to show attainment of the eight

- hour

ozone standard by the 2009 ozone season. All of the states in the northeastern United

States cooperated via the Ozone Transport Commission ’s Modeling Committee to

prepare the mo deling that was performed by the New York State Department of

Environmental Protection ( NYSDEC ) and supporting organizations.

The D.C. Area SIP makes a case that the modeling when combined with additional

supporting analyses (Weight o f Evidence ) ( WOE) ind icates “that it is reasonable to

assume that all the D.C area monitors will attain the current eight

- hour ozone standard by

the designated attainment date (June 2010). ”

## 3

W hat Are The Components Of A Modeled Attainment Demonstration ?

M odeling P rocess O verview

The OTC Modeling Committee used the Community Multi

- scale Air Quality model

(CMAQ) version 4.4 as its photoc hemical grid model . The model use s simulations of

chemical reactions, emission of ozone precursors and a sophisticated meteorological

model to produce ozone concentrations over the eastern United States. The

meteorological data used in the meteorological model was for the base year ozone season

of 2002. The photochemical grid model was run with the base year meteorology and

base year emissions to determin e if the model performance was satisfactory . Once the

model performance was determined to be adequat e, 2009 ozone concentrations were

modeled by running the model with projected emissions for 2009 and the original 2002

meteorology. The meteorolog y was held constant so that t he results of changing the

emissions would not be influenced by changing meteo rology. T he EPA modeling

guidance 1 

## recommends that states use the modeled ozone concentrations in a relative

sense and not rely solely on the concentrations the model predicts for the attainment year

(2009). The relative response factor (RRF) used in the modeled attainment test is

computed by taking the ratio of the mean of the 8

- hour daily maximum predictions in the

future to the mean of the 8

- hour daily maximum predictions with baseline emissions,

over all relevant days. The base year ozone design value s at each monitor are then

multiplied by the monitor

- specific RRF to produce an attainment year design value. If

the result is less than or equal to 84 ppb, at a ll area ozone monitoring locations, the

modeling system will have predicted attainment of the ozone air quality standard.

The Regulatory Framework

Section 110 (a) (2) (k) of the Clean Air Act requires states to prepare air quality modeling

to show how they will meet ambient air quality standards. EPA determined that areas

classified as ‘moderat e’ or above must use photochemical grid modeling or any other

analytical method determined by the Administrator to be at least as effective to

demonstrate attainment of the ozone health

- based standard by the required attainment

date (40 CFR 51.908, publish ed at 70 FR 71612 on November 29, 2005). In 40 CFR

51.903, published at 69 FR 23951 on April 30, 2004, EPA specified how areas would be

classified with regard to the eight

- hour ozone standard set by EPA in 1997. At 69 FR

23858, on April 30, 2004, EPA fol lowed these procedures and classified the Metropolitan

Washington, DC

- MD

- VA Ozone Nonattainment Area as moderate, so they must attain

the 1997 eight

- hour ozone standard by June 2010. Since the attainment date is June 2010

for moderate areas, states must a chieve emission reductions by the ozone season of 2009

in order for ozone concentrations to be reduced, and show attainment

, during the last

complete ozone season before the 2010 deadline.

The modeling guidance lists nine steps for preparing modeling to demonstrate attainment

of the ozone standard.

1. Develop a conceptual description of the problem to be addressed.

1 Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals

for Ozone, PM 2.5 , and Regional Haze, EPA

- 454 /B

- 07

- 002

, April 2007

## 4

2. Develop a modeling/analysis protocol.

3. Select an appropriate model to support the demonstration.

4. Select appropriate meteorological time periods to model.

5. Choose an appropriate area to model with appropriate horizontal/vertical resolution

and establish the initial and boundary conditions that are suitable for the application.

6. Generate meteorological inputs to the air quality model.

7. Generate emissions inputs to the air quality model.

8. Run the air quality model with base case emissions and evaluate the performance.

Perform diagnostic tests to improve the model, as necessary.

9. P erform future year modeling (including additional control strategies, if necessary) and

a pply the attainment test.

H ow Did The District Address All Of The Components Of A Modeled Attainment

Demonstration?

The D.C. A rea SIP addresses each of the ele ments of a model ed attainment

demonstration as follows:

Conceptual description of the problem

A conceptual model describes how weather patterns affect the formation and transport of

ozone, accounting for emissions and photochemistry. The D.C. Area SIP de scribes the

climatology that produces high ozone concentrations in the D.C. metropolitan area

. On

warm sunny days, winds from the southwest and west blow emissions from sources of

ozone

- forming chemicals both at the surface and aloft toward the D.C. area. In addition,

emissions from large combustion sources in the Ohio Valley and other areas are brought

eastward by upper level winds to the east coast, augmenting the ozone formed locally.

The conceptual model for this study was prepared by the Northeast States for

Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) for use by the OTC member States. The

conceptual model document, “ The Nature of the Ozone Air Quality Problem in the Ozone

Transport Region: A Conceptual Description (NESCAUM, October 2006) ” , is provided

in Appendix G of the D.C. Area SIP . This document provides the conceptual description

of the ozone problem in the OTR states, consistent with the EPA’s guidance.

Modeling/analysis protocol

The Ozone Transport Commission’s (OTC’s) Modeling Committee devel oped a protocol

for modeling the ozone problem in the northeastern United States. The D.C. Area SIP

includes the modeling protocol in Appendix G

. The modeling protocol adequately

describes the plan to perform the photochemical grid modeling for use in th e ozone

attainment plans.

The M odel Used in the Attainment D emonstration

The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality ( VADEQ ) , in consultation with The

Maryland Department of the Environment ( MDE )

, The District of Columbia Department

of the Environme nt ( DCDOE ) , and The Metropolitan Washington Council of

## 5

Governments ( MWCOG ) , was responsible for conducting the Community Multi

- scale

Air Quality Model version 4.4 (CMAQ) runs for the Washington, D.C. domain. CMAQ

is an acceptable model, listed in the pho tochemical modeling guidance as a currently used

photochemical grid model. EPA agrees CMAQ is appropriate for this modeling

demonstration. VADEQ’s modeling runs were done in coordination with the Ozone

Transport Commission’s (OTC) modeling for the 12

- sta te Ozone Transport Region

(OTR) and with the Association for Southeastern Integrated Planning ( ASIP ) modeling,

done for the southeastern states. Modeling centers for OTC included the New York State

Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), the Un iversity of Maryland,

NESCAUM and VADEQ. Technical support documents for the OTC modeling

performed for the OTR are included in Appendix G. The inputs to the model are

described in Section 10 and Appendix G of the D.C. Area SIP

.

Meteorological T ime P erio ds U sed in the M odeling

Section 10 of the D.C. Area SIP notes that t he OTC Modeling Committee agreed to

model the entire ozone season of 2002 (May 15 through September 30). Using the entire

ozone season of 2002 covers many different kinds of ozone episode s and exceeds EPA’s

recommendations for episode selection. 2002 was a good year to model because it was

the base year for the attainment plans and as a whole is representative of meteorological

conditions conducive to elevated concentrations of ozone.

Me teorological D ata U sed in the A ir Q uality M odel

The OTC Modeling Committee decided to use a prognostic meteorological model that

provid es life

- like meteorological inputs to the photochemical grid model

. The

P ennsylvania State University/National Center fo r Atmospheric Research Mesoscale

Meteorological Model (MM5) version 3.6 was chosen for the modeling analysis

. MM5

provide s a reasonable representation of weather conditions at the surface and aloft. A

summary of the MM5 application is contained in Append ix G of the D.C. Area SIP

.

Domain of the M odel, H orizontal/ V ertical R esolution and the I nitial and B oundary

C onditions

The model ing domain extends from Maine to Florida and out in the Atlantic Ocean on

the east and west to the Mississippi River . The si ze of the modeling domain was made

large enough to include all emission sources t hat affect ozone formation in the

northeastern United States

. Even this boundary is defined by a larger photochemical

model ing domain th at cover s much of North America

. Over the northeastern United

States, the model used 12 kilometer grid cells . The D.C. area is included in the 12

kilometer grid cell area. T he OTC Modeling Committee used a 12

- kilometer grid size for

the areas in and near its states to provide a fine enough g rid resolution to adequately

capture the ozone patterns experienced in the ozone transport region (OTR). The OTC

Modeling Committee chose to use a 12 kilometer grid resolution b ased on its states’

experiences with the one

- hour ozone attainment modeling th at indicated that m odeling at

finer resolutions than 12 kilometers would not result in increased model accuracy.

Outside the local area s the grid resolution used in the modeling is 36 kilometers

. The

selection of model domains and horizontal grid resolut ion was deemed acceptable to

## 6

EPA. The grid resolution

, modeling domain and boundary conditions are described in

Appendix G of the D.C. Area SIP

.

Vertical resolution is the number of layers and the size of each layer in the model. The

layers in the photo chemical grid model were set up to be compatible with the model that

produced weather conditions for the photochemical grid model. T he vertical resolution

used in the modeling exercise followed EPA’s modeling guidance and represent s t he

atmosphere where o zone forms and is transported.

Emissions U sed in the A ir Q uality M odel

The emissions data for 2002 were generated by individual states within the OTR and

assembled and processed through the Mid

- Atlantic Northeast Visibility Union (MANE

VU), a Regional P lanning Organization (RPO). These emissions were then processed by

NYSDEC using the SMOKE emissions processor to provide CMAQ compatible inputs.

The 2002 emissions for the non

- OTR areas within the modeling domain were obtained

from the corresponding RPOs and were processed using SMOKE, in a manner similar to

that of the OTR emissions.

The OTR states

, through MANE

- VU

, contracted MACTEC Federal Programs (called

Contractor) to develop 2009, 2012 and 2018 inventories based upon 2002 inventories that

the stat es had previously developed for use in the base

- year model work. The Contractor

, in consultation with the states

, developed the necessary growth and control factors and

applied to the 2002 inventory. E missions for mobile sources and the electric energy

gen erating units (EGUs) was not part of the Contractor’s effort. . To generate on

- road

mobile emissions, t he states provided the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

( VADEQ ) and the Northeast States for C oordinated Air Use Management ( NESCAUM )

with a ppropriate MOBILE 6 input files along with the projected vehicle miles traveled

( VMT ) , which was coupled with hourly “gridded temperature” information

. As for the

emissions from the EGU sector, the inter

- RPO work group utilized the Integrated

Planning Mode l (IPM) to develop the state and unit

- level emissions. These inventories

are identified as 2009 on the way (2009OTW), since they reflect all emission control

measures that were promulgated or would become effective on or before 2009.

The base year emissi ons can be found in Chapter 3 and Appendix B of the D.C. Area SIP

, while 2009 emissions are described in Chapter 4.

B ase C ase R un Model P erformance E valuation

The New York State DEC, Division of Air Resources, conducted a performance

evaluation of the 200 2 base case CMAQ simulation (May 15

- September 30) on behalf of

the OTC member States

. Model evaluation followed performance statistics outlined in

EPA modeling guidance. Highlights of this evaluation are provided in Chapter 10 of the

D.C. Area SIP

The model performance evaluation indicate s the modeling system does an adequate job

of estimating the eight

- hour surface ozone concentrations throughout the Metropolitan

Washington Area.

## 7

2009 C ontrol C ase M odeling and the Modeled A ttainment T est

The photochem ical grid model used with projected emissions for 2009, including

emission changes due to regulations the states are planning to implement and expected

growth by the 2009 ozone season.

Chapter 6 of the D.C. Area SIP list s t he emission controls included in the modeling for

the D.C. area

.

Meteorological conditions from 2002, the same as the base case modeling

, were used in

the 2009 modeling. Using the base case meteorology allows the effect of changes in

states’ emissions to be determined without being influence d by yearly fluctuations in

meteorology and is consistent with EPA guidance

.

As described earlier in this T S D, the attainment test used in the D.C. area modeling

demonstration involved the application of model

- based RRFs to base year design values

at each monitor to produce projected future year design values (2009). The projected

2009 design values represent design values that should result from emission controls the

District and surrounding states planned to have in place in 2009. The 200 9 design values

should be less than or equal to 84 ppb at all monitoring stations to meet the attainment

test 2



## . The modeling predicts t hat in 2009

, D.C. area will not pass the attainment test since

design values are projected to be over the 84 ppb standar d at two monitors (see Table 1

below)

.

Table 1 Modeling Attainment Test Using EPA Preferred Methodology

AIRS ID Site Name Jurisdiction State DVB RRF DVF

11

- 001

- 0025 Takoma District of Columbia 88.7 0.892 79

11

- 001

- 0041 River Terrace District of Colum bia 89.0 0.883 78

11

- 001

- 0043 McMillan District of Columbia 92.7 0.883 81

24

- 009

- 0010 Calvert Calvert MD NA 0.836 NA

24

- 017

- 0010 Southern MD Charles MD 93.0 0.808 75

24

- 021

- 0037 Frederick Municipal

Airport Frederick MD 87.3 0.846 73

24

- 031

- 3001 Ro ckville Montgomery MD 86.7 0.881 76

24

- 033

- 0002 Greenbelt Prince George's MD 94.0 0.869 81

24

- 033

- 8003 PG Equestrian

Center Prince George's MD 94.0 0.865 81

51

- 013

- 0020 Aurora Hills Arlington County VA 96.7 0.891 86

51

- 059

- 0005 Chantilly Fairfax Coun ty VA 87.0 0.867 75

51

- 059

- 0018 Mount Vernon Fairfax County VA 96.7 0.883 85

51

- 059

- 0030 Franconia Fairfax County VA 95.0 0.88 83

51

- 059

- 1005 Annandale Fairfax County VA 94.0 0.88 82

51

- 059

- 5001 McLean Fairfax County VA 88.0 0.883 77

51

- 107

- 1005 A shburn Loudoun County VA 90.0 0.869 78

51

- 153

- 0009 Long Park Prince William

County VA 85.0 0.871 74

51

- 510

- 0009 Alexandria Alexandria City VA 90.0 0.883 79



### 2 The guidanc e also states that additional analyses are recommended to determine if attainment will be

likely, even if the modeled attainment test is “passed”. The guidance recommends supplementary analyses

in all cases, and specifically recommends a WOE analysis if m odeled ozone is greater than or equal to 82

ppb.

## 8

S ummary of Photochemical Grid Modeling Results

In summary, the basic photochemical grid modeli ng contained in D.C. Area SIP meets

EPA’s guidelines and when used with the methods recommended in EPA’s modeling

guidance, is acceptable to EPA. Applying EPA’s preferred methodology to CMAQ

model results, the future design values for 2009 shown in Table 10

- 5 indicate only two

monitors will be at or slightly above 84 parts per billion (ppb). All other monitors

(sixteen) will be below 85 ppb. These results place the Washington, DC

- MD

- VA region

well within EPA’s range, 82

- 87 ppb, where WOE will contribute si gnificantly to the

region’s attainment demonstration 3



## .

Weight of Evidence Demonstration

EPA ’ s modeling guidance d escribes how to use a photochemical grid model and

additional analytical methods to complete a WOE analysis to estimate if emissions

control s trategies will lead to attainment of the eight

- hour NAAQS for ozone. A WOE

analysis is a supporting analysis that helps to determine if the results of the

photochemical modeling system are correctly (or not correctly) predicting future air

quality.

The WOE portion of the D.C. Area S IP describe s the analyses performed, databases used,

key assumptions and outcomes of each analysis, and why the evidence, viewed as a

whole, supports a conclusion that the Washington, DC

- MD

- VA ozone non attainment

area will att ain the NAAQS despite the model predict ion th at some monitors’ future

design values exceed the current eight

- hour ozone standard.

Table 2 outlines under what circumstances a WOE demonstration is needed. Model

predicted design values are summarized above i n Table 1 . Of the twenty

- two ( 18 ) ozone

monitors in the Washington, DC

- MD

- VA region only four ( 4 ) exceed the threshold (82

ppb) where the EPA modeling guidance recommends a WOE demonstration. All four of

the monitors fall within the 82

- 87 ppb threshold o utlined in Table 1

.

The WOE analysis for the remaining seven monitors include s the following:

 A comparison of predicted 2009 ozone design values and current projected design

values for 2006,

 An analysis of recent ozone trends in the Philadelphia nonattai nment area,

 Alternative methods for calculating the 2009 ozone design value,

 An analysis of model

- predicted regional transport,

 University of Maryland’s analysis of model sensitivity to emission changes.

3 Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses in Attainment Demonstrations for the 8

- hour Ozone

NAAQS, EPA

- 454/R

- 05

- 002, October 2005, “Table 2

- 1: Guidance for Weight of Evidence

Determinations,” p. 9.

## 9

Table 2. EPA Guidelines for Supplemental Analyse s and Weight of Evidence

Determinations

Results of Modeled Attainment Test Supplemental Analyses

Future Design Value < 82 ppb, all

monitor sites Basic supplemental analyses should be

completed to confirm the outcome of the

modeled attainment test

Future Design Value 82

- 87 ppb, at

one or more sites/grid cells A weight of evidence demonstration

should be conducted to determine if

aggregate supplemental analyses support

the modeled attainment test

Future Design Value > 88 ppb, at one

or more sites/grid c ells More qualitative results are unlikely to

support a conclusion differing from the

outcome of the modeled attainment test.

Design Value Trends

T he D.C. Area SIP states that there have been significant declines in the Washington

D.C. nonattainment are a’s eight

- hour ozone design values over the last several decades.

Significant declines did occur after enactment of the NO

x 

## SIP Call in the 2003/2004

period

. The data in Table 4 show that ozone design values have decreased sharply after

2003. EPA’s stud y of the effect of the NOx SIP Call has documented the beneficial

effects of the NOx SIP Call emission reductions that were in place by the 2004 ozone

season across the eastern United States

Since 2004, design values have continued to decrease and the a rea began monitoring

attainment in 2009 as shown in Table 3 below. Ozone design values have generally

continued to decrease since the 2009 ozone season and the area continues to be in

attainment of the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard

.

Table 3

. Recent Ozone Design Value Trends (PPM)

Site

Name AIRS

ID 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Takoma 11

- 001

- 0025 0.088 0.085 0.078 0.080 0.081 0.080 0.077 0.075 0.075

River

Terrace 11

- 001

- 0041 0.092 0.084 0.077 0.079 0.085 0.086 0.078 0.077 0.076

McMillan 11

- 001

- 0043 0.094 0.089 0.082 0.085 0.087 0.087 0.080 0.079 0.079

Southern

MD 24

- 017

- 0010 0.094 0.091 0.088 0.085 0.085 0.082 0.075 0.075 0.077

Frederick

Municipal

Airport 24

- 021

- 0037 0.088 0.083 0.078 0.080 0.083 0.082 0.076 0.075 0.076

Rockville 24

- 031

- 3001 0.088 0.083 0.080 0.083 0.086 0.084 0.078 0.074 0.076

PG

Equestrian

Center 24

- 033

- 8003 0.099 0.094 0.091 0.091 0.091 0.087 0.078 0.077 0.079

Aurora

Hills 51

- 013

- 0020 0.099 0.095 0.087 0.086 0.087 0.085 0.079 0.079 0.080

Chantilly 51

- 059

- 0005 0. 089 0.084 0.079 0.078 0.078 0.079 0.073 0.067 0.061

Mount

Vernon 51

- 059

- 0018 0.097 0.096 0.091 0.090 0.089 0.087 0.080 0.074 0.068

Franconia 51

- 059

- 0030 0.097 0.096 0.089 0.089 0.086 0.085 0.080 0.081 0.082

Annandale 51

- 059

- 1005 0.095 0.094 0.086 0.08 7 0.084 0.083 0.078 0.068 0.061

McLean 51

- 059

- 5001 0.088 0.086 0.079 0.084 0.083 0.083 0.077 0.066 0.059

Ashburn 51

- 107

- 1005 0.092 0.088 0.080 0.080 0.082 0.083 0.077 0.075 0.073

Long Park 51

- 153

- 0009 0.087 0.083 0.079 0.079 0.078 0.078 0.071 0.070 0. 069

Alexandria 51

- 510

- 0009 0.092 0.088 0.081 0.081 0.083 0.081 0.075 0.074 0.077

## 10

Summary of EPA’s Evaluation D.C. Area SIP’s WOE Analysis

Th e reduction in ozone precursor emissions, coupled with current ozone design values

that show attainment of the 1 997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS, confirms the D.C. Area SIP’s

assertion that t he Metropolitan Washington, DC

- MD

- VA Ozone Nonattainment Area was

in compliance with the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS by the attainment date.

S ummary of EPA’s Technical Findings

T he result of the photochemical grid modeling analysis using EPA’s recommended

methods predicts that t he Metropolitan Washington, DC

- MD

- VA Ozone Nonattainment

Area the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard by the attainment date. This result is confirmed by

the monitored air qu ality data presented in Table 3.

Recommendation of A pproval of Attainment Demonstration

EPA has carefully evaluated the information provided by D.C. Area Ozone SIP and

conclude s that the attainment demonstration satisf ies all of EPA’s r equirement s . EPA

t herefore, recommends approval of the attainment demonstration.UNITEDSTATESENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCYREGIONIII1650ArchStreetPhiladelphia,Pennsylvania19103DATE:26May2011SUBJECT:TechnicalSupportDocument—DistrictofColumbia,Maryland,andVirginia;2002BaseYearEmissionsInventory,ReasonableFurtherProgressPlan,ContingencyMeasures,ReasonablyAvailableControlMeasures,andTransportationConformityBudgetsfortheMetropolitanWashington,DC19978-HourOzoneModerateNonattainmentAreaFROM:MariaA.’Pino,SeniorAirQualityPlanningSpecialistOfficeofAirProgramPlanningTO:File(2J2sJ//ITHRU:CristinaFernandez,AssociateDirectofOfficeofAirProgramPlanningThisdocumentprovidesatechnicalreviewofrevisionstotheDistrictofColumbia,Maryland,andVirginiaStateImplementationPlans(SIPs)fortheWashington,DC-MD-VAmoderate19978-hourozonenonattainmentarea(theWashingtonArea).TheDistrictofColumbiaDepartmentoftheEnvironment(DDOE),theMarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironment(MDE),andtheVirginiaDepartmentofEnvironmentalQuality(VADEQ)workedtogethertodevelopajointplanfortheWashingtonAreatoaddressemissionsinventory,reasonablefurtherprogress(RFP),reasonablyavailablecontrolmeasures(RACM)analysis,andRFPcontingencymeasurerequirementsforthe19978-hourozonenationalambientairqualitystandard(NAAQS).Thisplan,entitled“PlantoImproveAirQualityintheWashington,DCMD-VARegion,StateImplementationPlan(SIP)for8-HourOzoneStandard,ModerateAreaSIP,”willbereferredtoas“theWashingtonArea8-hourozoneplan”throughoutthisdocument.TheWashingtonArea8-hourozoneplanwassubmittedtotheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)asaSIPrevisionbyDDOEonJune12,2007,byMDEonJune4,2007,andbyVADEQonJune12,2007.TheseSIPrevisionsalsoestablishamotorvehicleemissionsbudget(MVEB)for2008fortheWashingtonArea.I.BACKGROUNDA.GeneralRequirementsSection182oftheCleanAirAct(CAA)ands19978-hourozoneregulations(40CFR51.910)requireeachmoderateandabove8-hourozonenonattainmentareatosubmitanemissionsinventoryandRFPSIPrevisionthatdescribeshowtheareawillachieveactualemissionsreductionsofvolatileorganiccompounds(VOC)andnitrogenoxides(NOx)fromabaselineemissionsinventory.Anemissionsinventoryisanestimationofactualemissionsofairpollutantsinanarea.TheemissionsinventoryforanozonenonattainmentareacontainsVOCandNOxemissions,whichareprecursorstoozoneformation.Inthiscase,a“baseline”emissionsinventoryisrequiredfortheyear2002.Pursuanttosection172(c)(1)oftheCAA,statesarerequiredtosubmitplansfornonattainmentareasthatprovidefortheimplementofallRACMasexpeditiouslyaspracticable.Specifically,section172(c)(1)statesthefollowing:“Suchplanprovisionsshallprovidefortheimplementationofallreasonablyavailablecontrolmeasuresasexpeditiouslyaspracticable(includingsuchreductionsinemissionsfromexistingsourcesintheareaasmaybeobtainedthroughtheadoption,ataminimum,ofreasonablyavailablecontroltechnology)andshallprovideforattainmentofthenationalprimaryambientairqualitystandards.”ControlmeasuresthatwouldadvancetheattainmentdateareconsideredRACMandmustbeincludedintheSIP.RACMarenecessarytoensurethattheattainmentdateisachieved“asexpeditiousaspracticable.”Phase1ofthe8-hourozoneimplementationrule,publishedonApril30,2004(69FR23951),setoutcriteriaforclassifyingnonattainmentareasunderthe19978-hourozonestandard.ThePhase1rulealsoaddressedrevocationofthe1-hourNAAQS;howanti-backslidingprincipleswillensurecontinuedprogresstowardattainmentofthe8-hourozoneNAAQS;attainmentdates;andthetimingofemissionsreductionsneededforattainment.OnNovember29,2005,EPApublishedthePhase2finalruleforimplementationofthe8-hourstandard.ThePhase2ruleaddressedtheRFPcontrolandplanningobligationsastheyapplytoareasdesignatednonattainmentforthe19978-hourozoneNAAQS(70FR71612).ThePhase2finalrulewasrevisedonJune8,2007(72FR31727).Amongotherthings,thePhase1and2rulesoutlinetheSIPrequirementsanddeadlinesforvariousrequirementsinareasdesignatedasmoderatenonattainment.TherulessetaduedateofJune15,2007fortherequiredbaseyearemissioninventory,RFPplan,modelingandattainmentdemonstration,RACM,MVEB,andcontingencymeasures(40CFR51.908(a)).Section182(b)(1)oftheCAAandEPA’s19978-hourozoneimplementationrule(40CFR51.910)requireeach8-hourozonenonattainmentareadesignatedmoderateandabovetosubmitforreviewandapprovalintoitsSIPanemissionsinventoryandRFPplanthatdescribeshowtheareawillachieveactualemissionsreductionsofVOCandNOxfromabaselineemissionsinventory.Foramoderate8-hourozonenonattainmentareawithanattainmentdatemorethan5yearsafterdesignation,a15percentRFPreductioninozoneprecursoremissionsisrequiredwithin6years(2002-2008).Foramoderateareawithanapproved15percentrate-ofprogress(ROP)planunderthe1-hourstandard,statescanusereductionsfromVOCorNOxoracombinationofeither.ForamoderateareawithoutandapprovedROPplan,a15%reductioninVOCisrequired.Thereductionsmaycomefromanywherewithinthe8-hournonattainmentarea.Table1outlinestheserequirements.2Table1.RFPRequirementsforModerate8-HourOzoneNonattainmentAreaswithAttainmentDatesMorethan5YearsafterDesignationAreaRequirement40CFRReferenceWithapproved15%VOC15%VOCandlorNOxreductions51.910(a)(1)(iii)(B)(2)&ROPplan(2002—2008)51.910(b)(2)(b)(ii)Withoutapproved15%15%VOCreductions(2002-2008).51.910(a)(1)(iii)(B)(1)VOCROPplanThereductionsmaycomefromanywherewithinthe8-hournonattainmentarea.Inaddition,RFPplansmustincludecontingencymeasures,whichareadditionalcontrolsthatwouldbeimplementediftheareafailstomakereasonablefurtherprogress.$CAAsection172(c)(9).Implementationofthesemeasureswouldprovideadditionalemissionsreductionsofupto3percentoftheadjustedbaseyearinventory(orlesserpercentagethatwillmakeuptheidentifiedshortfall).RFPplansmustalsoincludeaMVEB,whichistheallowableon-roadmobileemissionanareacanproduceandcontinuetodemonstrateRFP.40CFR93.B.TheWashingtonAreaIn1997,EPArevisedthehealth-basedNAAQSforozone,settingitat0.08partspermillion(ppm)averagedoveran8-hourtimeframe.EPAsetthe8-hourozonestandardbasedonscientificevidencedemonstratingthatozonecausesadversehealtheffectsatlowerozoneconcentrationsandoverlongerperiodsoftime,thanwasunderstoodwhenthepre-existing1-hourozonestandardwasset.EPAdeterminedthatthe8-hourstandardwouldbemoreprotectiveofhumanhealth,especiallychildrenandadultswhoareactiveoutdoors,andindividualswithapre-existingrespiratorydisease,suchasasthma.OnApril30,2004(69FR23951),EPAfinalizeditsattainment/nonattainmentdesignationsforareasacrossthecountrywithrespecttothe8-hourozonestandard.TheseactionsbecameeffectiveonJune15,2004.AmongthosenonattainmentareasistheWashingtonArea.ThisWashingtonAreaincludestheDistrictofColumbia(theDistrict);Arlington,Fairfax,Loudoun,andPrinceWilliamCountiesandthecitiesofAlexandria,Fairfax,FallsChurch,Manassas,andManassasParkinVirginia(theNorthernVirginiaarea)andCalvert,Charles,Frederick,Montgomery,andPrinceGeorge’sCountiesinMaryland.PursuanttoPhase1ofthe8-hourozoneimplementationrule,anareawasclassifiedunderSubpart2oftheCAAbasedonits8-hourdesignvalueifthatareahada1-hourdesignvalueatorabove0.121ppm(thelowest1-hourdesignvalueinTable1ofSubpart2).Basedonthiscriterion,theWashingtonAreawasclassifiedunderSubpart2asamoderatenonattainmentarea.See40CFR81.309,81.321and81.347.II.EVALUATIONOFSTATESUBMITTALA.BaseYearEmissionsInventoryAnemissionsinventory,requiredbysection172(c)(3)oftheCAA,isacomprehensive,3accurate,andcurrentinventoryofactualemissions.Forozonenonattainmentareas,theemissionsinventoryneedstocontainVOCandNOxemissionsbecausethesepollutantsareprecursorsofozone.EPArecommended2002asthebaseyearemissionsinventory,andisthereforethestartingpointforcalculatingRFP.This2002baseyearemissionsinventoryincludesallpoint,area,nonroadmobile,andonroadmobilesourceemissionsintheWashingtonArea.The2002baseyearemissionsinventorymustcoveremissionsonanannualbasisandalsoforonatypicalozoneseasondaybasis.TheinventoriesforRFPandattainmentdemonstrationplanningarecomputedbasedona“typical”ozoneseasonday.DDOE,MDEandVADEQ(theStates)alongwiththeMetropolitanWashingtonCouncilofGovernments(MWCOG)workedtogethertodevelopa2002baseyearinventoryfortheWashingtonArea.ThisinventoryisfoundinChapter3andAppendixBoftheWashingtonArea8-hourozoneplan.AsummaryoftheWashingtonArea2002baseyearVOCandNOxemissionsinventoryisincludedinTables2aand2b,below.Table2a.WashingtonArea2002BaseYearVOCEmissionsinTonsperDay(tad)SourceCategoryDistrictofMarylandVirginiaSourceCategoryColumbiaTotalsPoint0.244.68.0712.91Area16.8192.4983.35192.64NonroadMobile8.9163.8253.06125.79On-roadMobile13.0956.1347.71116.94Total(excludingbiogenics)39.05217.04192.19448.28BiogenicEmissions13.63166.7134.41314.74Total52.68383.74326.6763.02Table2b.WashingtonArea2002BaseYearNOxEmissionsinTonsperDay(tpd)Districtof...SourceCategorySourceSector.MarylandVirginiaColumbiaTotalPoint4.89155.7859.93220.6Area2.166.7715.3224.25NonroadMobile10.5434.2140.9785.72On-roadMobile23.7132.27110.68266.65Total(excludingbiogenics)41.29329.03226.9597.22BiogenicEmissions0.11.751.223.07Total41.39330.78228.12600.29EPARegionIII’sAirQualityAnalysisBranch(AQAB)reviewedthe2002baseyearinventoryfortheWashingtonAreausingtheappropriateEPApolicyandguidance.Pleaseseetheattached“TechnicalSupportDocument(TSD)fortheEmissionInventoriesfortheWashingtonDC-MD-VA8HourOzoneStateImplementationPlan(SIP)BaseYearInventory,”preparedbyJanetC.KremerandsignedbyWalterWilkie,AirQualityAnalysisBranchChief,onFebruary4,2009(WashingtonAreaEmissionInventoryTSD).Asdiscussedindetailinthe4WashingtonAreaEmissionInventoryTSD,theprocedures,methodologies,andresultusedtodeveloptheWashingtonArea2002baseyearinventoryareapprovable.B.AdjustedBaseYearInventory,2008RFPTargetLevelsTheprocessfordeterminingtheemissionsbaselinefromwhichtheRFPreductionsarecalculatedisdescribedinsection182(b)(l)oftheCAAand40CFR51.910.Thisbaselinevaluehasbeendeterminedtobethe2002adjustedbaseyearinventory.Sections182(b)(1)(B)and(D)requiretheexclusionfromthebaseyearinventoryofemissionsbenefitsresultingfromtheFederalMotorVehicleControlProgram(FMVCP)regulationspromulgatedbyJanuary1,1990andtheReidVaporPressure(RVP)regulationspromulgatedJune11,1990(55FR23666).TheFMVCPandRVPemissionsreductionsaredeterminedbythestateusingEPA’son-roadmobilesourceemissionsmodelingsoftware,MOBILE6.TheFMVCPandRVPemissionreduétionsarethenremovedfromthebaseyearinventorybythestate,resultinginanadjustedbaseyearinventory.TheemissionreductionsneededtosatisfytheRFPrequirementarethencalculatedfromtheadjustedbaseyearinventory.ThesereductionsarethensubtractedfromtheadjustedbaseyearinventorytoestablishtheemissionstargetfortheRFPmilestoneyear(2008).FormoderateareasliketheWashingtonArea,theCAAspecifiesa15percentreductioninozoneprecursoremissionsoveraninitial6-yearperiod.InthePhase2Rule(70FR71612),EPAinterpretedthisrequirementforareasthatwerealsodesignatednonattainmentandclassifiedasmoderateorhigherforthe1-hourozonestandard.InthePhase2Rule,EPAprovidedthatanareaclassifiedasmoderateorhigherthathasthesameboundariesasanarea,orisentirelycomposedofseveralareasorportionsofareas,forwhichEPAfullyapproveda15percentplanforthe1-hourNAAQS,isconsideredtohavemettherequirementsofsection182(b)(1)oftheCAAforthe8-hourNAAQS.Inthissituation,amoderatenonattainmentareaissubjecttoRFPundersection172(c)(2)oftheCAAandshallsubmit,nolaterthan3yearsafterdesignationforthe8-hourNAAQS,aSIPrevisionthatmeetstherequirementsof40CFR51.910(b)(2).TheRFPSIPrevisionmustprovidefora15percentemissionreduction(eitherNOxandlorVOC)accountingforanygrowththatoccursduringthe6-yearperiodfollowingthebaselineemissionsinventoryyear,thatis,2002-2008.TheWashingtonnonattainmentareaunderthe1-hourozonestandardwasclassifiedassevere.Forthe1-hourozoneNAAQS,EPAfullyapprovedthe15%ROPplansfortheWashington,DC1-hoursevereozonenonattainmentareaonAugust5,1999(64FR42600),July19,2000(65FR44686),andOctober6,2000(65FR59727).Therefore,accordingtothePhase2Rule,theRFPplanfortheWashingtonAreamayuseeitherNOxorVOCemissionsreductions(orboth)toachievethe15percentemissionreductionrequirement.Accordingtosection182(b)(1)(D)oftheCAA,emissionreductionsthatresultedfromtheFMVCPandRVPrulespromulgatedpriorto1990arenotcreditableforachievingRFPemissionreductions.Therefore,the2002baseyearinventorymustbeadjustedbysubtractingtheVOCandNOxemissionreductionsthatareexpectedtooccurbetween2002andthefuturemilestoneyearsduetotheFMVCPandRVPrules.5Theadjustmentsarecalculatedusingthefollowingsteps:A)EstimatetheactualanthropogenicbaseyearinventoryforbothVOCandNOxin2002withall2002controlprogramsinplace.B)Usingthesamehighwayvehicleactivityinputsusedtocalculatetheactual2002inventory,runtheappropriatemotorvehicleemissionsmodelfor2002andfor2008withallpost-1990CAAmeasuresturnedoff.Anyotherlocalinputsforvehicleinspectionandmaintenance(JIM)programsshouldbesetaccordingtotheprogramthatwasrequiredtobeinplacein1990.FuelRVPshouldbesetat9.0or7.8dependingontheRVPrequiredinthelocalareaasaresultoffuelRVPregulationspromulgatedinJune1990.C)Calculatethedifferencebetween2002and2008VOCemissionsfactorscalculatedinStepBandmultiplyby2002vehiclemilestraveled(VMT).TheresultistheVOCemissionsreductionsthatwilloccurbetween2002and2008withoutthebenefitsofanypost-1990CAAmeasures.Thesearethenon-creditableVOCreductionsthatoccuroverthisperiod.Calculatethedifferencebetween2002and2008NOxemissionsfactorscalculatedinStepBandmultiplyby2002VMT.ThisresultistheNOxemissionsreductionsthatwilloccurbetween2002and2008withoutthebenefitsofanypost-1990CAAmeasures.Thesearethenon-creditableNOxreductionsthatoccuroverthisperiod.D)Subtractthenon-creditableVOCreductionscalculatedinStepCfromtheactualanthropogenic2002VOCinventoryestimatedinStepA.Subtractthenon-creditableNOxreductionscalculatedinStepCfromtheactualanthropogenic2002NOxinventoryestimatedinStepA.TheseadjustedVOCandNOxinventoriesarethebasisforcalculatingthetargetlevelofemissionsin2008.E)ThetargetlevelofVOCandNOxemissionsin2008neededtomeetthe2008ROPrequirementisanycombinationofVOCandNOxreductionsfromtheadjustedinventoriescalculatedinStepDthattotal18percent.Forexample,thetargetlevelofVOCemissionsin2008couldbea10percentreductionfromtheadjusted.TheStatessetsoutthecalculationsfortheadjustedbaseyearinventoryand2008RFPtargetlevelsinSection5oftheWashingtonArea8-hourozoneplan.A)TheWashingtonArea2002anthropogenicbaseyearinventoryisfoundinTable5-1oftheWashingtonArea8-hourozoneplan,andissummarizedinTable3,below.Table3.WashingtonArea2002AnthronoenicBaseYearInventory(OzoneSeasontnd)SourceCategoryVOCNOxPoint12.91220.6Area192.6424.25Nonroad125.7985.72On-Road116.94266.65Total448.28597.226B&C)TheStatescalculatedthenon-creditableemissionreductionsbetween2002and2008bymodelingits2002and2008motorvehicleemissionswithallpost-1990CAAmeasuresturnedoff,andcalculatingthedifference.SeeTables5-2,5-3,and5-4oftheWashingtonArea8-hourozoneplan.Thenon-creditablereductionsarecalculatedinTable4,below.Table4.WashingtonAreaNon-CreditableEmissionReductions(OzoneSeasontpd)SourceCategoryVOCNOx(i)2002On-Road166.55308.24(ii)2008On-Road154.10276.63Non-creditableReductions(i)—(ii)12.4531.61D&E)TheState’scalculationsoftheWashingtonArea2002VOCinventoryadjustedto2008andtheVOCtargetlevelfor2008arefoundinTable5-5oftheWashingtonArea8-hourozoneplan,andaresummarizedinTable5,below.Table5.WashingtonArea2008RFPTargetLevelCalculations(OzoneSeasontpd)DescriptionFormulaVOCA2002Rate-OfProgressBaseYearInventory448.28BFMVCP/RVPReductionsBetween2002And200812.45C2002AdjustedBaseYearInventoryRelativeTo2008A-B435.83DFPRatio15%EmissionsReductionsRequiredBetween2002&2008C*D65.37FrargetLevelfor2008C-E370.45PleasenotethattheStateselectedtoRFPintheWashingtonAreausingonlyVOCreductions.AsexplainedinSectionA.Iofthisdocument,thisisallowable.Amoderate8-hourozonenonattainmentareawithandapproved15percentROPplanunderthe1-hourstandardcanusereductionsfromVOCorNOxoracombinationofeither.C.ProjectedInventoriesandDeterminationofRFPTheStatesdescribestheirmethodsusedfordevelopingits2008projectedVOCandNOxinventoriesinSection4.0oftheWashingtonArea8-hourozoneplan.Projecteduncontrolledandcontrolled2008VOCandNOxemissionsarefoundTables4-5and4-6oftheWashingtonArea8-hourozoneplan.EPARegionIII’sAQABreviewedtheproceduresusedtodevelopitsprojectedinventoriesandfoundthemtobereasonable.PleaseseetheattachedWashingtonAreaEmissionInventoryTSD.Projectedcontrolled2008emissionsfortheWashingtonAreaaresummarizedinTable4-9and4-10oftheWashingtonArea8-hourozoneplan.ThedatafromTables4-9and4-10ispresentedinTable6,below.7Table6.WashingtonArea2008ProjectedControlledVOC&NOxEmissions(tpd)EmissionSourceVOCEmissionsNOxEmissionsCategory(tpd)(tpd)Point13.98229.36Area181.5926.93Nonroad92.4876.91Mobile70.98160.30Total358.84493.22Todetermineif2008RFPismetintheWashingtonArea,thetotalprojectedcontrolledemissionsmustbecomparedtothetargetlevelscalculatedintheprevioussectionofthisdocument.AsshownbelowinTable7,thetotalVOCemissionprojectionsmeetthe2008RFPemissiontarget.Therefore,the2008RFPintheWashingtonAreaisdemonstrated.Table7.DeterminationofwhetherRFPismetin2008intheWashingtonArea..VOCEmissionsDescription(tpd)ATotal2008ProjectedControlledEmissions358.84BTargetLevelfor2008370.45R1?PmetifA<BYesD.ControlMeasuresandEmissionReductionsforRFPThecontrolmeasurestheStatestookcreditforinordertomeettheRFPrequirementintheWashingtonAreaaredescribedinSection6.0oftheWashingtonArea8-hourozoneplan.TomeettheRFPrequirementfortheWashingtonArea,theStatesusedacombinationofareasourcecontrol,nonroadmobile,andon-roadmobilemeasures.1.AreaSourceMeasures.MobileRepairandRefinishingThisruleestablishesVOClimitsforpaintsusinginmobilerepairandrefinishing.TheVOClimitsareconsistentwithfederallimitsformobileequipmentrefinishingmaterials.Therulealsorequiresimprovedtransferefficiencyapplicationequipment,enclosedsprayguncleaning,andminimaltraining.Thisruleappliestoallmanufacturersofpaintsusedinmobilerepairandrefinishingandoperatorsofmobilerepairandrefinishingfacilities.•PortableFuelContainersRule,PhaseIThismeasureintroducesperformancestandardsforportablefuelcontainersandspouts,andisintendedtoreduceemissionsfromstorage,transportandrefuelingactivities.Therulealsoincludedadministrativeandlabelingrequirements.8•ArchitecturalandIndustrialMaintenance(AIM)CoatingsAfederalmeasurerequiresreformulationofAIMcoatings,whicharefield-appliedcoatingsusedbyindustry,contractors,andhomeownerstocoathouses,buildings,highwaysurfaces,andindustrialequipmentfordecorativeorprotectivepurposes.VOCemissionsresultfromtheevaporationofsolventsfromthecoatingsduringapplicationanddrying.•ReformulatedConsumerProductsRule(ConsumerandCommercialProducts),PhaseIConsumerandcommercialproductsareitemssoldtoretailcustomersforhousehold,personalorautomotiveuse,alongwiththeproductsmarketedbywholesaledistributorsforuseininstitutionalorcommercialsettingssuchasbeautyshops,schools,andhospitals.VOCemissionsresultfromtheevaporationofsolventcontentsintheproductsorsolventsusedaspropellants.ThismeasurerequiresthereformulationofcertainconsumerproductstoreducetheirVOCcontent.•SolventCleaningOperationsRuleThisruleestablisheshardwareandoperatingrequirementsandalternativecomplianceoptionsforvaporcleaningmachinesusedtocleanmetalparts.Thesemachinesareusedinmanufacturingoperationstocleangrease,wax,oilandothercontaminantsfrompartswhenahighlevelorcleanlinessisnecessary.Therulealsoaffectscoldcleaners,whichareusedinautomobileandmaintenancefacilitiesandindustrialmaintenanceshops.Theruleappliestoallcountiesinthenonattainmentarea.•ReformulatedConsumerProductsRule(ConsumerandCommercialProducts),PhaseIIPhaseIIoftheConsumerandCommercialProductsRulecontainsmorestringentVOCcontentlimitsthantheexistingfederalconsumerproductsnile.Therulealsocontainsrequirementsforlabelingandreporting.Manufacturersofvariousspecialtychemicalsnamedintherule,suchasaerosoladhesives,floorwaxstrippers,drycleaningfluidsandgeneralpurposecleanersareaffectedbythisrule.AreaSource2008EmissionReductions:30.98tpdVOCand0tpdNOx.2.NonroadMeasures—NONROADModelTheStatescalculatedtheemissionreductionsfor2008RFPusingtheEPANONROADmodelforthefollowingmeasures:•Non-RoadGasolineEnginesRule-PhaseIandIIEmissionsStandardsforGasoline-PoweredNonroadUtilityEnginesThisfederalmeasureestablishedemissionsforsmallnonroad,spark-ignition(i.e.,gasolinepowered)utilityengines.Themeasureaffectsgasoline-powered(orotherspark-ignition)lawnandgardenequipment,constructionequipment,andotherutilityequipmentratedatorbelow19kilowatts(anequivalentof25orfewerhorsepower).Phase2oftheruleappliedfurthercontrolsonhandheldandnon-handheldoutdoorequipment.(See60FR34581,65FR24267,and64FR15207.)9•EPANon-RoadDieselEnginesRule-EmissionsStandardsforDiesel-PoweredNon-RoadUtilityEnginesof50orMoreHorsepowerThisfederalmeasuresetsemissionsstandardsfornonroad,compression-ignitionutilityenginesratedat37kilowattsorabove.Thismeasureappliestoallcompression-ignitionenginesexceptenginesusedinaircraft,marinevessels,locomotivesandundergroundminingactivity.NOxemissionsresultfromcombustionofdieselfuelusedtopowerthisequipment.(See63FR56967and69FR38957.)•EmissionsStandardsforSparkIgnitionMarineEnginesThisfederalmeasurecontrolsexhaustemissionsfromnewspark-ignitiongasolinemarineengines,includingoutboardengines,personalwatercraftengines,andjetboatengines.Oncetheprogramisfullyimplemented,manufacturersoftheseenginesmustdemonstratetoEPAthathydrocarbonemissionsarereduced,by75%frompresentlevels,bytestingenginesrepresentativeoftheproductlinebeforesaleandafteruse.(See61FR52087.)•EmissionsStandardsforLargeSparkIgnitionEnginesThisfederalmeasurecontrolsVOCandNOxemissionsfromseveralgroupsofpreviouslyunregulatednonroadengines,includinglargeindustrialspark-ignitionengines,recreationalvehicles,anddieselmarineengines.TheemissionstandardsapplytoallnewenginessoldintheUnitedStatesandanyimportedenginesmanufacturedafterthesestandardsbegin.Controlsonthecategoryoflargeindustrialspark-ignitionenginesarefirstrequiredin2004.Controlsontheotherenginecategoriesarerequiredbeginninginyearsafter2005.(See67FR68241.)•ReformulatedGasolineUseinNonroadMotorVehiclesandEquipmentThisfederallymandatedmeasurerequirestheuseoflowerpolluting“reformulated”gasolineintheWashingtonArea.See“ReformulatedGasolineinOn-roadVehicles,”above.Thismeasureaffectsthevariousnonroadmobilesourcesthatbumgasoline,suchaslawnmowers,trimmers,generators,andcompressors.TheprogramhasbeeninplaceintheWashingtonAreasince1995.NonroadMobile2008EmissionReductions(NONROADModel):36.91tpdVOCand11.68tpdNOx.AsdiscussedintheWashingtonAreaEmissionInventoryTSD,EPARegionIII’sAQABreviewedtheproceduresthattheState’susedtodevelopitsprojectedinventories,includingtheuseoftheNONROADmodel,andfoundthemtobereasonable.3.OtherNonroadMeasures•StandardsforLocomotivesThisnationalmeasureestablishesemissionstandardsfornewlymanufacturedandremanufactureddiesel-poweredlocomotivesandlocomotiveengines.Thisregulationtookeffectin2000.(See63FR18998.)10LocomotiveStandards2008EmissionReductions:0.05tpdVOCand2.54tpdNOx.4.On-RoadMobileMeasuresTheStatescalculatedtheemissionreductionsfor2008RFPusingtheMOBILEmodelforthefollowingmeasures.High-TechVehicleInspectionandMaintenance(EnhancedI/M)TheCAArequiresenhancedJ/Mprogramsinserious,severe,andextremeozonenonattainmentareas,metropolitanstatisticalareas(MSA),andconsolidatedMSA(CMSA)portionsoftheOzoneTransportRegion(OTR)withurbanizedpopulationsover200,000.EnhancedJIMwasrequiredintheWashington1-hourozonenonattainmentarea.Thatrequirementisstillinplaceduetotheanti-backslidingprovisionsofCAAsection110(1).InMarylandandtheDistrictofColumbia,emissionstestsareperformedattest-onlystations.Virginiatestsvehiclesinstationsthatmayalsoperformrepairsusingadecentralizedprogram.•FederalTierIVehicleEmissionStandardsandNewFederalEvaporativeTestProceduresTheCAArequiredcleanerfederalmotorvehicleemissionsstandards(TierIstandards)beginningwithmodelyear1994.TheCAAalsorequiresauniformlevelofevaporativeemissioncontrols,whicharemorestringentthanmostevaporativecontrolsusedinoldervehicles.Thesefederallyimplementedprogramsaffectlightdutyvehiclesandtrucks.See40CFRPart86.•NationalLowEmissionVehicle(NLEV)ProgramTheNLEVprogramisavehicletechnologyprogramthatprovideslightdutyvehiclesandtrucksthataresignificantlycleanerthanpre-1998models.TheNationalLEVprogramwasdevelopedthroughanunprecedented,cooperativeeffortbythenortheasternstates,automanufacturers,environmentalists,fuelproviders,EPA,andotherinterestedparties.NationalLEVvehiclesare70%cleanerthan1998models.TheNationalLEVprogramwillresultinsubstantialreductionsinVOCsandNOx.TheStateshaveadoptedtheNLEVprogramandEPAapprovedtheStates’programsintotheirSIPs.(See64FR72564and65FR44981.)•Tier2VehicleStandardsThisfederalmeasuresetemissionsstandardsforallpassengervehicles,includingsportutilityvehicles(SUVs),minivans,vansandpick-uptrucks.Theseregulationsalsorequirelowerlevelsofsulfuringasoline.Thenewtailpipestandardsaresetatanaveragestandardof0.07gramspermileforNOxforallclassesofpassengervehiclesbeginningin2004.(See65FR6697.)•HeavyDutyDieselEngine(HDDE’)RuleThisfederalprogramaffectsheavy-dutydieselenginesintrucks.UndertheHDDErule,truckmanufacturersmustcomplywithmorestringenttailpipestandardsforNOxandhydrocarbonsstartingin2004.(See62FR54694.)11On-roadMobile2008EmissionReductions(MOBILEModel):6.19tpdVOCand29.67tpdNOx.AsdiscussedintheWashingtonAreaEmissionInventoryTSD,EPARegionIII’sAQABreviewedtheproceduresthattheStatesusedtodeveloptheprojectedinventories,includingtheuseoftheMOBILEmodel,andfoundthemtobereasonable.5.TransportationControlMeasures(TCMs)andVehicleTechnology,Fuel,orMaintenanceMeasuresSection108(f)oftheCAAprovidesexamplesofTCMsthatcanbeimplementedtoreduceemissionsfrommobilesources.MostTCMsaredesignedtoreducevehiclemilestraveledorvehicletripsorimprovetheflowoftraffic.Inconjunctionwithstatedepartmentsoftransportationandlocaltransitauthorities,theStatesidentifiedanumberofprojectsdesignedtoreducevehicletravelandmitigatetrafficcongestionintheWashingtonArea.Thesemeasuresincludepurchaseofalternative-fueledvehicles,improvementstobicycleandpedestrianfacilities,andimprovementstotransitservicesandaccesstotransitfacilities.AdditionalinformationonTCMsiscontainedinAppendixFoftheWashingtonArea8-hourozoneplan.TCMandVehicleTechnology,FuelandMaintenanceMeasures2008EmissionReductions:0.19tpdVOCand0.49tpdNOx.6.VoluntaryBundleStatescantakecreditforemissionreductionsfromvoluntarymeasurespursuanttoEPA’sSeptember2004andAugust2005policymemoranda,“IncorporatingEmergingandVoluntaryMeasuresinaStateImplementationPlan(SIP)”and“GuidanceonIncorporatingBundledMeasuresinaStateImplementationPlan.”TheStatesdevelopedasetofmeasuresforthevoluntarybundlethatincludesnewmeasuresaswellassomevoluntarymeasuresfromtheWashingtonArea1-hourozoneSIP.TheStatesincludedanestimateoftheemissionreductionsfromthevoluntarymeasuresinAppendixHoftheWashingtonArea8-hourozoneplan.VoluntaryBundle2008EmissionReductions:0.19tpdVOCand0.28tpdNOx.7.RFPEmissionReductionSummaryWhilemanyoftheemissioncontrolmeasuresusedtomeetRFPalsoresultedinNOxemissionreductions,theStateselectedtomeetRFPintheWashingtonAreausingonlyVOCreductions.Table8summarizestheVOCemissionreductionsthattheStatesclaimedintheWashingtonArea8-hourozoneplantomeetRFPintheWashingtonArea.12Table8.VOCControlMeasuresand2008EmissionReductionsintheWashingtonAreaControlMeasureVOC(tpd)AreaSourcesMeasures30.98NonroadMeasures(NONROADModel)36.91NonroadMeasure(LocomotiveStandards)0.05OnroadMeasures(MOBILEModel)6.19OnroadMeasures(TCMs)0.19VoluntaryBundle0.19Total74.32E.ContingencyMeasuresforFailuretoMeetRFPSection172(c)(9)oftheCAArequiresastatewithamoderateoraboveozonenonattainmentareatoincludesufficientadditionalcontingencymeasuresinitsRFPplanincasetheareafailstomeetRFP.ThesameprovisionoftheCAAalsorequiresthatthecontingencymeasuresmustbefullyadoptedcontrolmeasuresorrules.UponfailuretomeetanRFPmilestonerequirement,thestatemustbeabletoimplementthecontingencymeasureswithoutanyfurtherrulemakingactivities.Uponimplementationofsuchmeasures,additionalemissionreductionsofatleast3percentoftheadjusted2002baselineemissionsmustbeachieved.Formoreinformationoncontingencymeasures,seetheApril16,1992GeneralPreamble(57FR13512)andtheNovember29,2005Phase28-hourozoneimplementationrule(70FR71612).1.RequirementsandTargetCalculationsTomeettherequirementsforcontingencyemissionreductions,EPAallowsstatestouseNOxemissionreductionstosubstituteforVOCemissionreductionsintheircontingencyplans.However,theStateschosetouseonlyVOCreductionstomeetthecontingencymeasurerequirementintheWashingtonArea.TheStatesdiscusstheWashingtonAreacontingencymeasuresforfailuretomeetRFPinSection11oftheWashington8-hourozoneplan.TheStatescalculatedthecontingencyVOCreductionfortheWashingtonAreaasshowninTable9,below.TheRFPcontingencyrequirementmaybemetbyincludingintheRFPplanademonstrationof18percentVOC&NOxRFP.Theadditional3percentreductionabovethe15percentrequirementmustbeattributedtospecificmeasures.13Table9.WashingtonArea2008RFPContingencyMeasureTargetLevelCalculationsDescriptionFormulaVOCNOxAW02Rate-OfProgressBaseYearInventory448.28597.22BMVCP/RVPReductionsBetween2002And200812.4531.61C2002AdjustedBaseYearInventoryRelativeTo2008A-B435.83565.61DFPRatio15%0.FPEmissionsReductionsRequiredBetween2002&6537E2008C*D0FContingencyPercentage0.3%2.7%1.3115.270ContingencyEmissionReductionRequirementsC*FHContingencyMeasureTargetLevelfor2008C-E-G369.15550.342.VOCContingencyMeasures•PortableFuelContainersRule,PhaseIandPhaseIIThismeasureintroducesperformancestandardsforportablefuelcontainersandspouts,andisintendedtoreduceemissionsfromstorage,transportandrefuelingactivities.Therulealsoincludedadministrativeandlabelingrequirements.2008VOCEmissionReductions:1.31tpd3.NOxContingencyMeasures•CleanAirInterstateRule(CAIR)CAIRrequiresNOxandS02emissionreductionsfromlargefossilfuel-firedelectricgeneratingunits.TheruleissetupinseveralphaseswiththefirstphaseofNOxreductionstocomeby2009.EPAapprovedVirginiaCAIRprogramintotheVirginiaSIPin2007(72FR73602).EPAputaFederalImplementationPlan(FTP)inplacefortheDistrictin2006(71FR25328).OnJuly11,2008,theDCCircuitCourtissueditsdecisiontovacateandremandbothCAIRandtheassociatedCAIRFIPs(NorthCarolinav.EPA,531F.3d836(DCCir.,2008).However,inresponsetoEPA’spetitionforrehearing,thecourtissuedanorderremandingCAIRtoEPAwithoutvacatingeitherCAIRortheCAIRFIPs(NorthCarolinav.EPA,550F.3d1176(DCCir.,2008)).Thecourt,thereby,leftCAIRinplaceinorderto“temporarilypreservetheenvironmentalvaluescoveredbyCAIR”untilEPAreplacesitwitharuleconsistentwiththecourt’sopinion(id.at1178).BecauseCAIRhasbeenremandedtoEPAwithoutvacatur,CAIRandCAIRFIPsarecurrentlyineffectinVirginiaandtheDistrict.•Maryland’sHealthyAirAct(HAA)TheHAArequiresreductionsinNOx,SO2,andmercuryemissionsfromMaryland’slargestandoldestcoalfiredpowerplants.EPAapprovedtheHAAintoMaryland’sSIPin2008.(See73FR51599.)2008NOxEmissionReductions:15.3tpd(total)(DC:0.66tpd;MD:12.19tpd;VA:2.45tpd)144.ContingencyMeasureEvaluationTodetermineiftheStatesmeetthethreepercentcontingencymeasurerequirementfortheWashingtonArea,thetotalprojectedcontrolledemissionsmustbecomparedtothecontingencymeasuretargetlevelscalculatedabove.2008ProjectedControlledVOCandNOxEmissionsarefoundinTables4-9and4-10oftheWashingtonArea8-hourozoneplan.AsshownbelowinTable10,thetotalVOCandNOxemissionprojectionsmeetthe2008contingencymeasuretargets.Therefore,theStateshavemetthecontingencymeasurerequirementfortheWashingtonArea.Table10.EvaluationoftheWashingtonArea2008RFPContingencyMeasureRequirementDescriptionVOCNOx(tpd)(tpd)ATotal2008ProjectedControlledEmissions358.84493.22BContingencyMeasureTargetLevelfor2008369.15550.34ContingencymeasurerequirementmetifA<BYesYesF.RACMAnalysisandDetermination1.RACMRequirementPursuanttosection172(c)(1)oftheCAA,statesarerequiredtoimplementallRACMasexpeditiouslyaspracticableforeachnonattainmentarea.Specifically,section172(c)(1)statesthefollowing:“Ingeneral—Suchplanprovisionsshallprovidefortheimplementationofallreasonablyavailablecontrolmeasuresasexpeditiouslyaspracticable(includingsuchreductionsinemissionsfromexistingsourcesintheareaasmaybeobtainedthroughtheadoption,ataminimum,ofreasonablyavailablecontroltechnology)andshallprovideforattainmentofthenationalprimaryambientairqualitystandards.”Furthermore,inEPA’sPhase2Rule,EPAdescribeshowstatesmustincludeaRACManalysiswiththeirattainmentdemonstration(70FR71659).ThepurposeoftheRACManalysisistodeterminewhetherornotreasonablyavailablecontrolmeasuresexistthatwouldadvancetheattainmentdatefornonattainmentareas.ControlmeasuresthatwouldadvancetheattainmentdateareconsideredRACMandmustbeincludedintheSIP.RACMarenecessarytoensurethattheattainmentdateisachieved“asexpeditiousaspracticable.”RACMisdefinedbytheEPAasanypotentialcontrolmeasureforapplicationtopoint,area,on-roadandnonroademissionsourcecategoriesthatmeetsthefollowingcriteria:•Thecontrolmeasureistechnologicallyfeasible;•Thecontrolmeasureiseconomicallyfeasible;•Thecontrolmeasuredoesnotcause“substantialwidespreadandlong-termadverseimpacts;’’•Thecontrolmeasureisnot“absurd,unenforceable,orimpracticable;”and•Thecontrolmeasurecanadvancetheattainmentdatebyatleastoneyear.152.StateSubmittalTheStatesaddresstheRACMrequirementinSection7.0andAppendixIoftheWashingtonArea8-hourozoneplan.TheStatesusedthefollowingcriteriatoevaluatepotentialRACMmeasures.Individualmeasuresmust:•reduceemissionsbythebeginningoftheWashingtonregion’s2008ozoneseason(May1,2008);•beenforceable;•betechnicallyfeasible;•beeconomicallyfeasible(proposedasacostof$3,500-$5,000pertonorless);•notcreatesubstantialorwidespreadadverseimpactswithintheregion;and•reduceemissionsfromthesourcebeingcontrolledmorethanthedeminimisthreshold,proposedas0.1tonsperday.Asstatedinsection7.1.8oftheWashingtonArea8-hourozoneplan,preliminarymodelingresultsindicatethatanyRACMwouldneedtocollectivelyreduceNOxand/orVOCemissionbymorethan20to40tpdbythe2008ozoneseasoninordertoadvancetheattainmentdatebyoneyear.TheStatesevaluated322potentialstationary,area,nonroad,andmobilesourcecontrolmeasuresagainsttheRACMcriteria.Severalmeasureswouldhaveprovidedsomeemissionreductions.However,theStatesdeterminedthatnoneofthemandatorymeasureswouldachievereductionsinthe2008ozoneseason.Inaddition,theStatesdeterminedthatthetotalreductionsfromthesemeasureswouldbelessthan20to40tpd.Therefore,theStatesconcludedthattherearenoRACMappropriatetoadvancetheWashingtonArea’sattainmentdate.3.EPAEvaluationEPAhasreviewedtheStates’analysis.TomeettheRACMrequirement,theStatesmustdemonstratethatithasadoptedallRACMnecessarytomovetheWashingtonAreatowardattainmentasexpeditiouslyaspracticableandtomeetallRFPrequirements.AsdemonstratedaboveinsectionIVofthisdocument,theStateshavemettheRFPrequirementsfortheWashingtonArea.TheStatesevaluatedallsourcecategoriesthatcouldcontributemeaningfulemissionreductions,andcompiledanextensivelistofpotentialcontrolmeasures.Furthermore,theStatesconsideredthetimeneededtodevelopandadoptregulationsandthetimeitwouldtaketoseethebenefitfromthesemeasures.WhiletheStatesfoundthatthemeasurescouldnotbeusedtoadvancetheWashingtonArea’sattainmentdate,theState’sdeterminedthatmanyofthemeasureswereusefulandwouldbeconsideredforfutureSIPsfortheWashingtonArea.Therefore,EPAconcurswiththeStates’conclusionthattherearenoRACMthatwouldhaveadvancedthe2010attainmentdatefortheWashingtonArea.16G.TransportationConformityBudgetsTransportationconformityisrequiredbyCAAsection176(c).EPA’sconformityrulerequiresthattransportationplans,programsandprojectsconformtostateairqualityimplementationplansandestablishesthecriteriaandprocedurefordeterminingwhetherornottheydo.ConformitytoaSIPmeansthattransportationactivitieswillnotproducenewairqualityviolations,worsenexistingviolations,ordelaytimelyattainmentofthenationalambientairqualitystandards.ThecriteriabywhichEPAdetermineswhetheraSIP’sMVEBsareadequateforconformitypurposesareoutlinedin40CFR93.118(e)(4).TheprocessfordeterminingtheadequacyofsubmittedSIPbudgetsisdescribedin40CFR93.118(f).StatesmustestablishVOCandNOxMVEBsforeachofthemilestoneyearsuptotheattainmentyearandsubmitthemobilebudgetstoEPAforapproval.UponadequacydeterminationorapprovalbyEPA,statesmustconducttransportationconformityanalysisfortheirTransportationImprovementPrograms(TIPs)andlongrangetransportationplanstoensurehighwayvehicleemissionswillnotexceedrelevantMVEBs.Failureofdemonstratingsuchtransportationconformitylapsesresultinginfreezingoffederalhighwayfundsandallfederalhighwayprojectsinthelapsedarea.TheStatesdiscusstransportationconformityinSection8.0oftheWashingtonArea8-hourozoneplan.TheStatesdescribetheirmethodsandprovidedetailedinputparametersusedinmodelingtheinventoriesinAppendicesElandE2oftheWashingtonArea8-hourozoneplan.IntheWashingtonArea,theMetropolitanWashingtonAirQualityCommittee(MWAQC)consultswiththeTransportationPlanningBoard(TPB)toestablishmobilesourceemissionsbudgets.TheMWCOGTransportationPlanningDepartmentcalculatedthe2008mobileemissionsinventoryusingEPA’sMOBILE6.2andtheTravelDemandModelVersion2.ld#50with2005vehicleregistrationdata.TheWashingtonAreaMVEBforthe2008RFPisbasedontheprojected2008mobilesourceemissionsaccountingforallmobilecontrolmeasures.(SeeTable6,“WashingtonArea2008ProjectedControlledVOC&NOxEmissions(tpd).”)Thebudgetsareequaltotheprojected2008on-roadmobilesourceemissioninventoriesminusreductionsfromtransportationcontrolmeasures.TheStatesalsoestablishedMVEBsfor2009,butEPAisnotevaluatingthatbudgetinthisdocument.TheMVEBsforthe2008RFPareshowninTable11,below.Table11.WashingtonArea2008RFPMVEBsVOC(tpd)NOx(tpd)(A)ProjectedControlledMobileEmissions70.98160.30(B)TransportationControlMeasures0.190.49(A)-(B)70.79159.81MVEB(roundedtonearest0.1tpd)70.8159.8Forbudgetstobeapprovable,theymustmeet,ataminimum,sadequacycriteria(40CFR93.118(e)(4)).InaSeptember4,2009FederalRegisternotice,EPAnotifiedthepublicthat17EPA found

that

the 2008

RFP MVEBs

in the Washington

Area 8-hour

ozone

plan

are adequate for transportation

conformity

purposes

(74

FR 45853).

As

a result

of EPA’s

finding,

the States must

use

the MVEBs

from

the Washington

Area 8-hour

ozone

plan

for future conformity determinations

for

the

1997 8-hour

ozone standard. In addition

to the budgets

being adequate

for transportation

conformity

purposes,

as stated

above,

EPA Region

III’s AQAB

found

the procedures

the States

used

to develop

the MVEBs

to

be reasonable.

Because

the 2008

RFP MVEBs

are adequate

for transportation conformity

purposes

and

the methods

the States

used

to develop

them

are correct,

the 2008

RFP budgets

are approvable. III. SUMMARY

AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The EPA Region

III

Air Protection

Division

(APD)

has reviewed

the States’

2008

RFP plan, contingency

measures

for failure

to meet

RFP,

and RACM

analysis

for

the Washington

Area and found

them

to

be approvable.

In addition,

EPA Region

III’s AQAB determined

that

the States

used acceptable

techniques

and methodologies

to develop

the Washington

Area

2002

base year emission

and 2008 milestone

year projected inventories. Furthermore,

APD

has found

the Washington

Area’s

2008

REP MVEBs

adequate

for transportation

conformity

purposes. Therefore,

APD recommends

approval

of the following

SIP elements

in the Washington

Area

8- hour ozone

plan:

the 2002

base

year emissions

inventory,

the RFP

plan

and associated

2008 projected

emission inventories,

the RACM

analysis,

the contingency

measures

for failure

to meet 2008

RFP,

and

the 2008 MVEBs

for

the Washington,

DC-MD-VA

moderate nonattainment

area. Attachments:- “Technical

Support Document

(TSD)

for

the Washington,

DC-MD-VA Nonattainment

Area: 8 Hour Ozone

State Implementation

Plan

(SIP) Attainment Demonstration

and Base

Year Inventory,”

prepared

by Janet

C. Kremer

and signed

by Walter

Wilkie,

Air Quality Analysis Branch

Chief,

on February

4, 2009 (Washington

Area Emission

Inventory

TSD).- “Adequacy

Status

of the Metropolitan

Washington

DC Area (DC—MD—VA)

Area 8-Hour Ozone Non-Attainment

Area’s Reasonable

Further Progress

Plan Vehicle Emission

Budgets for Transportation

Conformity

Purposes”

(74

FR 45853).-_.____.

18